See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349822658

Equating Resistance-Training Volume Between Programs Focused on Muscle

Hypertrophy

Article in Sports Medicine · April 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01449-2

CITATIONS READS

10 4,054

6 authors, including:

João Pedro Nunes Witalo Kassiano

Edith Cowan University Universidade Estadual de Londrina
83 PUBLICATIONS 899 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 178 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniella Costa Jerry Mayhew

Universidade Estadual de Londrina Truman State University
44 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS 288 PUBLICATIONS 5,090 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Active Aging View project

Efeito de estratégias avançadas no treinamento de força sobre adaptações neuromusculares, cardiovasculares e cognitivas em adultos treinados View project

All content following this page was uploaded by João Pedro Nunes on 08 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sports Medicine
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01449-2

REVIEW ARTICLE

Equating Resistance‑Training Volume Between Programs Focused

on Muscle Hypertrophy
João Pedro Nunes1 · Witalo Kassiano1 · Bruna D. V. Costa1 · Jerry L. Mayhew2 · Alex S. Ribeiro1,3 · Edilson S. Cyrino1

Accepted: 8 March 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
Calculating resistance-training volume in programs focused on muscle hypertrophy is an attempt to quantify the external
workload carried out, then to estimate the dose of stimulus imposed on targeted muscles. The volume is usually expressed
in some variables that directly affected the total training work, such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load.
These variables are used to try to quantify the training work easily, for the subsequent organization and prescription of
training programs. One of the main uses of measures of volume quantification is seen in studies in which the purpose is to
compare the effects of different training protocols on muscle growth in a volume-equated format. However, it seems that
not all measures of volume are always appropriate for equating training protocols. In the current paper, it is discussed what
training volume is and the potentials and shortcomings of each one of the most common ways to equate it between groups
depending on the independent variable to be compared (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, and advanced techniques).

Key Points 1 Introduction

Volume represents the external work carried out during Training volume has received particular interest in the
the training program. Number of sets, repetitions, and resistance training field since it is posited to be one of the
volume-load are the most used measures of calculating most effective variables to improve muscle hypertrophy
training volume. and health-related outcomes [1–4]. The resistance-training
volume is defined as the measure of the total amount of
The use of each measure to express the training volume,
work carried out in a single training session or summed over
then to equate it between training groups, depends on the
weeks or months of training [5]. Work is the result of the
design of the studies.
multiplication of the total bouts of force exerted to displace
a mass or exercise bar/platform to a certain distance [6, 7]. In
general, calculating the volume in programs focused on mus-
cle hypertrophy is an attempt to quantify the external work
carried out to then estimate the dose of stimulus imposed
on targeted muscles [7–13]. With the advantage of portable
technologies, the biomechanical outcomes to assess training
work can be reliably estimated [14–16]; however, to assess
them in a real-world setting is recognized to be difficult,
* João Pedro Nunes even in laboratories [6]. Therefore, probably for this reason,
[email protected] in the resistance-training literature, the volume is mostly
1 expressed using parameters that directly affect training work
Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory. Physical
Education and Sport Center, Londrina State University, [5–7], such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volume-
Londrina, Brazil load (sets*repetitions*load [kg]) [7–9]. With that, it is easier
2
Exercise Science Program, Truman State University, to calculate the training volume and then to organize the
Kirksville, USA prescription of training programs [7–9].
3
Center for Research in Health Sciences, University The main uses of these forms of volume quantification
of Northern Paraná, Londrina, Brazil are in studies where the aim is to establish a relationship

Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. P. Nunes et al.

between the dose of training and the hypertrophy response, 1 set per session), the number of repetitions performed per
as well as to compare the effects of different training pro- week tends to be different between groups, favoring the
tocols in a volume-equated format. However, the literature high-frequency condition [20–22]. As noted in the work of
indicates that there is no single metric for estimating the Zaroni et al. [20], this occurs because participants in the low-
training volume [8–11] or, thus, for equating stimuli among frequency groups probably experience fatigue accumulation
different protocols. Consequently, some studies may indicate during multiple sets, which reduces the total number of rep-
that the volume offered to different groups was the same, etitions over the sessions. Thus, while a common measure
when it was not, and may confer incorrect practical applica- of volume (i.e., weekly sets) is equated between groups, oth-
tions of the results. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate when to ers are not (e.g., repetitions or volume-load). In such cases,
use each measure of volume to equate the training stimulus in order to consider that the training volume was equated
between different resistance-training schemes. That is to at least the total number of repetitions (sets*repetitions)
say, among the common measures to quantify training vol- should not be statistically different between groups. While
ume, which is the most recommended for each study design also considering the load (sets*repetitions*load) may be an
or practical application? This review aimed to raise some additional option, volume of sets only seems to be insuffi-
concerns about measures of volume and to present possible cient. Thus, if only sets were equated between the groups, it
potentials and shortcomings of each measure when trying to is correct to say that the weekly sets were equated [23], and
equate training stimuli between different training protocols. not that the study was "volume-equated". This does not mean
that sets-equated frequency studies are not valid, but only
that if an effect is observed for higher frequencies, the influ-
2 Equating Resistance‑Training Volume ence of the greater volume of repetitions should be taken
into consideration. Use of adequate operational definitions
Although controversies exist concerning the ability to iso- is needed to clarify the understanding of the design of the
late the effects of one training variable, since changing one studies and their practical applications.
variable consequently changes another [17], when exploring
different training protocols, studies often seek to equate the
training volume between the groups [18], aiming to maintain 2.2 The Use of Volume‑Load
the other variables constant (i.e., investigating the effects of
independent variables while matching the training volume The number of sets or total repetitions no longer fulfill the
between conditions). The variables that may affect training function of representing training volume when manipu-
volume and comprise the training programs are: training lating variables that also can affect the training load, the
frequency, number of sets, repetitions per set, intensity of weight used in the exercises. Therefore, the volume-load
load, rest intervals, execution velocity/tempo, type of muscle (sets*repetitions*load) is a necessary proxy to represent the
action, exercise selection, exercise order, range of motion, training volume to verify if it was equated between groups
and the presence or not of concentric failure. Next, it is pre- because the variables that compose it (set, repetitions, and
sented which volume measure to consider to equate different load) may be influenced ultimately. This is the case when
protocols in which these variables are manipulated. exploring some advanced training systems and techniques
such as the pyramidal system, drop-set, rest-pause, com-
2.1 The Use of Number of Sets and Total Repetitions bined-sets (bi-set, tri-set, super-set, and giant-set), exercise
order (including pre-exhaustion and circuit training), and
A simple way to calculate training volume is through the periodized protocols (with variations in sets, repetitions,
number of sets. In a recent review, Schoenfeld et al. [4] sug- or load). For example, to equate the volume of a drop-set
gested that equating the number of sets per exercise per week training with a traditional protocol, volume-load should be
is necessary to determine causality when verifying the actual considered as a measure of training volume, and not only
influence of weekly training frequency on muscle hypertro- the number of sets and drop-sets. On these occasions, no
phy. If this is not done, the differences in weekly set-volume other variable is abruptly changed besides the number of
may confound the ability to draw proper inferences [4, 19]. sets, repetitions, and training loads, and thus, volume-load
Indeed, the number of sets may be used to equate training is sufficient for the equalization of training volume between
volume in most frequency studies [19], particularly when groups. Also, volume-load may serve as a measure to rep-
the difference in the number of sessions per week compared resent training volume when investigating the influence of
is ≤ 2 (e.g., 1–2 vs. 3 x/week). However, more recent studies movement velocity and rest interval between sets, as recently
have indicated that when comparing high (> 4x/week) vs. reported by Pearson et al. [24] and Longo et al. [25], respec-
low muscle frequencies (≤ 2x/week) with the same weekly tively. Of note, muscle hypertrophy tends to be very similar
sets (e.g., 1x/week with 5 sets per session vs. 5x/week with
Equating Resistance-Training Volume

when volume-load is similar between protocols in which individual level of maximum and endurance strength [9,
these variables are manipulated [24–33]. 12]. For the same %1RM, a wide range of repetitions can
The same logic may be valid when comparing the effects be performed for different individuals [12, 44, 45]; thus,
of concentric vs. eccentric muscle actions [34–36]. Studies if a predetermined repetition-zone is used, some practi-
that compare these separately [34, 35] are conducted almost tioners may be employing a maximal effort, while others
exclusively in the laboratory environment where it may be may be using a very submaximal one [12]. Also, attention
easier to equate the volume by the total work (in joules), as is required when a group uses very-low loads (e.g., when
with an isokinetic dynamometer [34, 35], and their findings comparing protocols with ≤ 40%1RM vs. ≥ 85%1RM), since,
have limited applicability to weight rooms (of note, the total in the low-load group, sets might not actually be performed
work has to be considered in these cases, instead of matching to failure. This happens because the ability to reach the real
by torque and repetitions only, because of the differences in momentary muscular failure is not entirely accurate among
the mechanical efficiency of eccentric and concentric muscle most individuals, especially in high-repetition sets [46–48].
actions [37, 38]). In these cases, given that maximal strength Thus, even in a volume-load-equated format, results should
in eccentric training is approximately 20–50% greater than be analyzed with caution because “failing” is another vari-
that of concentric training, it has been speculated that the able that may be different between protocols (and not load
greater amount of load lifted during eccentric muscle actions only), influencing the responses [49]. In these cases, as well
(when matched by sets or repetitions as opposed to total as when comparing groups that perform sets to failure or
work) may be responsible for differences in muscle hyper- not, or different distances to failure (e.g., cluster-sets [28],
trophy [35]. Moreover, some practitioners use advanced repetitions in reserve [50]), since sets, repetitions, and load
training techniques to focus on the eccentric muscle actions are affected, volume-load has to be used as a proxy to match
[36, 39]. For example, the use of the assisted-sets technique training volumes [51, 52]. In addition, it has been shown that
refers to when an experienced spotter helps the practitioner the implementation of other training types (i.e., aerobic or
to perform the concentric muscle actions (with minor taps stretching) to resistance-training programs, and the use of
on the bar or platform; usually to break the sticking point blood-flow restriction cuffs, may influence training volume
in final repetitions of a set) when exercises are performed [53, 54]. Volume-load may also be a valid proxy to calculate
with a load greater than that which can be completed with- training volume herein due to the same line of reasoning,
out assistance. The greater eccentric overload can also be i.e. these training alternatives may affect the repetitions per-
obtained from a greater load placed on the implement only formed or the load to be used [53, 54].
during the eccentric phase or through the performance of At this point, it is important to note that it is not because
the cheating-sets technique. The latter refers to when the the volume-load (as well as other measures of volume) is
strict exercise form is abandoned to achieve concentric mus- equated between different conditions that the hypertrophic
cle actions, but movement control is maintained during the gains will be equal. Also, higher volumes do not guaran-
eccentric phase. Equating the training volume in these cases tee greater physiological demand [10, 55] or hypertrophy
may be by volume-load as well, which considers the extra [56–58]. Muscle hypertrophy is the result of a multi-factorial
load or repetitions. process that involves much more than the external work-
Comparing different intensities of load and/or ranges of volume carried out [13, 59, 60]. The main point here is
repetitions maximum (RM) per set also influence variables to indicate that for affirming that the volumes are equated
that compose the volume-load. In most studies compar- between groups in these situations, the volume-load has to
ing different intensities of load, when the volume-load was be considered the measure to estimate it, and not only the
equated between groups, muscle hypertrophy tended to be number of sets or total repetitions.
very similar [40–42]. This indicates that volume-load is a
recommended proxy to calculate training volume, but it may 2.2.1 The Use of Relative Volume‑Load
be most accurate when there are small differences in the
RM-zone prescribed [19] and when other variables, with A caveat should be mentioned regarding studies compar-
exception of load and RM, are held constant. Sometimes, ing any of the training variables mentioned so far but in
the number of sets has to be increased in one condition to samples of significantly different average levels of baseline
match the volume-load of the other one [40–43], since the strength (e.g., trained vs. untrained, men vs. women [61]). In
relationship between load and RM is not always linear [12, these cases, the “load” in the volume-load formula should be
44, 45]. It is worth noting that training with RM is subtly individually adjusted [9]; otherwise, the weaker counterpart
different from training with a relative %1RM with a pre- will present a lower volume-load which may erroneously
determined repetition-zone. When performing sets with a insinuate that they performed a very submaximal training,
relative %1RM and a fixed number of repetitions, the effort even if both groups work at the same training characteristics
employed may differ between subjects depending on the (RM-zone, %1RM, sets, repetitions, etc.). To correct such a
 J. P. Nunes et al.

bias, the load has to be presented as a percentage of the base- regarding the effects of each exercise, improving the applica-
line performance on a maximum strength test (e.g., 1RM), bility of the findings [17]. Of note, this approach is what has
i.e., sets*repetitions*%1RM (volume-%load; arbitrary units) been done most [62, 65–78], and is valid for studies compar-
[7, 9]. This also is an appropriate approach to consider the ing exercises of different numbers of joints involved (single
training volume when trying to equate it between groups in vs. multi-joint), ranges of motion (full vs. partial), apparatus
studies that compare the same training program but in these (machine vs. free-weight), angles (inclined vs. declined), and
different samples. initial joint positions (stretched vs. shortened).

2.3 What to Do When Comparing Different 2.3.1 Recent Considerations and Unresolved Issues

Exercises? Concerning Training Volume per Muscle

When comparing the effects of the execution of different Volume counting in the resistance-training literature has
exercises, it is important to appreciate that there are sub- changed over the years and has become more specific. Pre-
stantial differences in the muscles or muscle portions that viously, meta-analytic reviews used to consider volume as
are trained. Therefore, considering training volume as the the number of sets performed per whole body [79], then as
amount of work carried out that ultimately represents the the number of sets per exercise per session [80, 81], num-
strain imposed on the muscles, and given that different ber of sets per exercise per week [82], and, more recently,
exercises stimulate different muscles, there is no rationale sets per muscle group per week [2]. Traditionally, 1 set of
to equate training volume between exercises that place effort squat, 1 set of leg press, and 1 set of leg extension are all
on different body regions. For example, for the same targeted counted as 1 set for the quadriceps femoris [2, 4, 83], and,
muscle (e.g., quadriceps femoris), performing a multi-joint more controversially, 1 set of bench press is counted as 1 set
exercise (e.g., squat or leg press) results in greater volume- for the pectoralis major, 1 set for the anterior deltoid, and 1
load than a single-joint exercise (e.g., leg extension) because set for the triceps brachii [84]. Currently, discussions have
of the greater load that can be placed on the multi-joint exer- been raised concerning how much volume of an exercise can
cises; however, this does not mean that greater hypertrophy be considered for each exercised muscle [83]; that is, can
will be seen for quadriceps [62]. A greater volume-load is different exercises be counted equally for a common target
seen in multi-joint exercises only because more joints and muscle? and, can different muscles worked in an exercise
muscles are trained at once. Thus, in studies comparing dif- be counted as if they were trained equally? Although these
ferent exercises, increasing the number of sets or repetitions issues appear to be more related to the research field [83,
in the single-joint exercise to try to match the volume-load 85, 86], elucidating such points is also important for the
as the multi-joint exercise is not recommended (albeit this organization of recreational fitness schedules once the mus-
has already been done; e.g., [63]), because—considering cles experience demands of distinct magnitudes during an
the previous example; leg extension vs. squat—the greater exercise [83]—which seems to be the case, as demonstrated
volume-load for the leg-extension exercise will be desig- by Chiu [13].
nated to knee extensors only, while for the squat, it will be The literature is controversial on this topic and does need
dissipated between the other hip, knee, and ankle muscles. more studies before trying to answer such questions or propose
In the same way, for example, in a full-depth squat, lower new metrics [83]. As an example, some studies showed that
loads can be placed on the bar in comparison to a half-squat the triceps brachii hypertrophied 50% in comparison with the
(resulting in a lower volume-load for the same RM-zone), pectoralis major following a barbell chest-press training [68,
and this does not mean that the hypertrophy will be blunted 87], which would indicate that the volume performed on the
for the trained muscles [64–66]. Also, by varying the range chest press for the triceps has to be counted as a half volume
of motion, different muscle portions are stimulated during compared to the pectoralis major, that is, in a 0.5:1.0 ratio.
an exercise [64–66]. Therefore, volume-load (or any other Also, the triceps increased 50% in the chest press compared
measure of external work) is not a valid measure to estimate to the triceps extension exercise [68], which would indicate
training volume when comparing different exercises because that 1 set of chest press has to be counted as a 0.5 set for the
it is not sufficient to estimate the percentage of stimulus triceps. However, these results represent the outcomes on a
that is placed into each muscle or portion due to exercise group-mean basis, and some individuals might have presented
variation [13]. different hypertrophy ratios between the muscles besides the
In this sense, when aiming to compare the isolated effects 0.5:1.0. Moreover, these results relate to specific training char-
of different exercises, it is recommended to keep constant acteristics, and different findings could be seen if the chest
all other possible variables (number of sets, RM-zone, press was performed in different ways (e.g., with different grip
etc.) between the groups, so the only difference will be the widths, bench inclinations, machines, intensities), as observed
selected exercises. With this, conclusions will be driven only in a recent study on barbell back squat training [65]. Following
Equating Resistance-Training Volume

Table 1  Which proxy of resistance-training volume to use in different contexts

Study design Measure of training volume to be used for equating volume between conditions
Comparing weekly frequencies When the difference between the number of sessions per week is small, such as 1–2 vs. 3,
weekly sets are sufficient to estimate, then to equate training volume between groups. If
the difference in sessions per week is ≥ 3, repetition per set may be influenced; therefore,
sets*repetitions should be used to certify whether training volume was equated
Volume of sets can be calculated per exercise, or per muscle group, per week. Repetitions-
volume is easily counted by multiplicating the number of repetitions performed during the
sets; 3 sets × 10 reps = 30 reps
Comparing training loads, repetition-zones; The use of volume-load is necessary to estimate training volume, then to equate it between
failure vs. not to failure; exercise order; groups since it covers the variables that can be influenced (sets, repetitions, load) by the
execution velocity; inter-set rest intervals; and manipulation of training load and such training methods
advanced training systems or methods which The use of volume-%load is necessary to estimate training volume, then to equate it between
affect load and repetitions, e.g., drop-set, rest- groups, when there are differences between groups on baseline strength levels
pause, cluster-sets, pre-exhaustion, pyramid, E.g., in a unilateral dumbbell curl, where the dumbbell weight is 10 kg and this represents 80%
compound-sets of the 1RM:
Volume-load: 3 sets × 10 reps x 10 kg = 300 kg
Volume-%load: 3 sets × 10 reps × 80% = 24 a.u.
Comparing exercises with different number No common proxy (like volume-load) is valid to equate the volume between different exer-
of joints involved (single vs. multi-joint), cises. When trying to compare the isolated effects of different exercises, it is recommended
ranges of motion (full vs. partial), apparatus to hold constant all other possible variables (number sets, RM-zone, etc.), so that the unique
(machine vs. free-weight), angles (inclined vs. difference between groups is the exercise selected
declined), and initial joint positions (stretched
vs. shortened)

a half-squat training, the gluteus maximus increased on aver- as the training background, as recently noted by Stronska et al.
age ~ 50% compared to the quadriceps; however, this propor- [94].
tion was ~ 140% when squat was performed in a full-depth Therefore, trying to equate training volume placed on dif-
way [65]. In both conditions, the hamstrings did not present ferent muscles through the performance of different exer-
any increase [65], which would indicate that the volume of cises, as well as trying to define any other hypertrophy ratio
squat should not be counted for this muscle group. Similarly, (rather than 1:1) between different muscles, does not seem
Mannarino et al. [78] observed that the biceps brachii hyper- to be feasible at present [83]. As discussed in previous para-
trophied ~ 50% in a compound exercise (lat-row) compared to graphs, when comparing different exercises, the most suit-
an isolation exercise (biceps curl); conversely, in another study able method is to organize the study design with all other
involving elbow flexion [70], similar changes were observed training variables prescribed in the same way so that the
between compound (lat-pulldown) and isolation exercises unique difference between groups is the exercise selected.
(biceps curl) on biceps brachii hypertrophy. Also, Nunes et al. Future studies should further test whether different mus-
[73] showed that gastrocnemii hypertrophy may be dictated cles present different hypertrophic responses for the same
by feet positioning during a calf-raise training, and Maeo et al. exercise, and whether different exercises present different
[71] observed that trunk position may influence hamstring hypertrophic responses for the same muscle.
hypertrophy following a leg-curl training. These findings [71,
73] further indicate that variations on the “same” exercise may
impact volume counting. Indeed, the degree to which the dif- 3 Conclusions
ferent muscles involved in an exercise can hypertrophy varies
considerably, as shown in the literature [65, 67–78, 87–91]. Volume represents a measure of total work performed dur-
These responses depend on the exercises selected [92], the ing resistance training, and it can be expressed through the
biomechanical properties of each muscle [13], and on several number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load. When trying
factors such as the intensity of load used, individual training to equate volume between groups, the variables that should
status, ability to place internal focus on muscle contraction, enter into the volume calculation are those that may differ
among others [83]. Some authors suggest that this ratio of between the training approaches and that can be monitored
hypertrophy demand may be associated with the degree of (e.g., in studies in which groups perform training programs
activation of each muscle or muscle portion during the exer- at different repetitions-zone and training loads, the volume-
cises [13, 73, 88, 90, 91, 93]. Nevertheless, again, the degree of load has to be considered as a measure to equate training vol-
activation of a muscle in relation to another can vary between ume because this method takes into account these variables).
exercises, training variables, individual characteristics, as well
 J. P. Nunes et al.

In Table 1summarizes the measures of training volume 12. Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, Counts BR,
which should be used in various study design. The points Buckner SL, et al. Training to fatigue: the answer for stand-
ardization when assessing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med.
presented herein may help to interpret the volume meas- 2017;47(6):1021–7.
ures and hypertrophic outcomes of previous studies and to 13. Chiu LZF. Biomechanical methods to quantify muscle
prepare designs of future volume-equated investigations. effort during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
We believe that by correctly equating the volume between 2018;32(2):502–13.
14. de Sá EC, Medeiros AR, Ferreira AS, Ramos AG, Janicijevic D,
training groups, the effects of the analyzed independent vari- Boullosa D. Validity of the iLOAD® app for resistance training
ables (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, failure vs. monitoring. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7372.
non-failure) can be better explored [17, 18]. 15. Castilla AP, Boullosa DA, García-Ramos A. Reliability and valid-
ity of the iLOAD® application for monitoring the mean set veloc-
Author contributions JPN wrote the first draft. WK, BDVC, JLM, ity during the back squat and bench press exercises performed
ASR, and ESC revised and made substantial contributions to the origi- against different loads. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(Suppl
nal work. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. 1):S57–65.
16. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Geiser G, Krzykowski J, Kipp K. Valid-
ity and reliability of a computer-vision-based smartphone app
Declarations for measuring barbell trajectory during the snatch. J Sports Sci.
2020;38(6):710–6.
Funding No external sources of funding were used in the preparation 17. Polito MD. Improving muscular strength and hypertrophy: are
of this article. we following the right scientific way? J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
2019;59(2):342–3.
18. Kassiano W, Costa BDV, Nunes JP, Aguiar A., de Salles BF,
Conflict of interest João Pedro Nunes, Witalo Kassiano, Bruna Costa, Ribeiro AS. Are we exploring the potential role of specialized
Jerry Mayhew, Alex Ribeiro and Edilson Cyrino declare that they have training techniques in muscle hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med. 2021
no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article. (ahead of print).
19. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total
number of sets as a training volume quantification method for
muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review. J Strength Cond Res.
2021;35(3):870–878.
References 20. Zaroni RS, Brigatto FA, Schoenfeld BJ, Braz TV, Benvenutti JC,
Germano MD, et al. High resistance-training frequency enhances
1. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
hypertrophy and health outcomes: the most effective variable in 2019;33(Suppl 1):140–51.
resistance training. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):499–505. 21. Gomes GK, Franco CM, Nunes PRP, Orsatti FL. High-frequency
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relation- resistance training is not more effective than low-frequency resist-
ship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in ance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-
muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(Suppl 1):130–9.
2017;35(11):1073–82. 22. Saric J, Lisica D, Orlic I, Grgic J, Krieger JW, Vuk S, et al. Resist-
3. Morton RW, Colenso-Semple L, Phillips SM. Training for strength ance training frequencies of 3 and 6 times per week produce sim-
and hypertrophy: an evidence-based approach. Curr Opin Physiol. ilar muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men. J Strength
2019;10:90–5. Cond Res. 2019;33(Suppl 1):122–9.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger JW. How many times per week 23. Pina FLC, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Nascimento MA, Ger-
should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? age AM, Januário RSB, et al. Effects of different weekly sets-
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examin- equated resistance training frequencies on muscular strength,
ing the effects of resistance training frequency. J Sports Sci. muscle mass, and body fat in older women. J Strength Cond Res.
2019;37(11):1286–95. 2020;34(10):2990–5.
5. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs. 24. Pearson J, Wadhi T, Barakat C, Aube D, Schoenfeld BJ, Andersen
4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2014. JC, et al. Does varying repetition tempo in a single-joint lower
6. Frost DM, Cronin J, Newton RU. A biomechanical evaluation of body exercise augment muscle size and strength in resistance-
resistance: fundamental concepts for training and sports perfor- trained men? J Strength Cond Res. 2021 (ahead of print).
mance. Sports Med. 2010;40(4):303–26. 25. Longo AR, Silva-Batista C, Pedroso K, de Salles Painelli V,
7. Haff GG. Quantifying workloads in resistance training: a brief Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Volume load rather than rest-
review. UK Strength Cond J. 2010;19:31–40. ing interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity
8. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Evidence-based guidelines for resistance resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
training volume to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond 26. Wilk M, Tufano JJ, Zajac A. The influence of movement tempo
J. 2018;40(4):107–12. on acute neuromuscular, hormonal, and mechanical responses
9. Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Dascombe BJ. Training to resistance exercise—a mini review. J Strength Cond Res.
monitoring for resistance exercise: theory and applications. 2020;34(8):2369–83.
Sports Med. 2016;46(5):687–98. 27. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Krieger JW, Schoenfeld BJ. The
10. Marston KJ, Peiffer JJ, Newton MJ, Scott BR. A comparison of effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance
traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training. Sci training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review.
Rep. 2017;7(1):5606. Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(8):983–93.
11. McBride JM, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Nuzzo JL, Cavill MJ, 28. Totó ECC, Conceição M, Vieira A, Pareja-Blanco F, Bottaro
Triplett NT. Comparison of methods to quantify volume during M, Boullosa D. Are cluster sets an effective method to induce
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):106–10.
Equating Resistance-Training Volume

muscular hypertrophy in response to resistance training? Braz weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond
J Sport Med. 2020;42:1–6. Res. 2006;20(4):819–23.
29. Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Wojdała G, Gołas A. Maximizing 46. Steele J, Endres A, Fisher J, Gentil P, Giessing J. Ability to pre-
muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review of advanced resist- dict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate,
ance training techniques and methods. Int J Environ Res Public though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ.
Health. 2019;16(24):E4897. 2017;5:e4105.
30. Nunes JP, Grgic J, Cunha PM, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, de 47. Emanuel A, Smukas IIR, Halperin I. An analysis of the perceived
Salles BF, et al. What influence does resistance exercise order causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises. PeerJ.
have on muscular strength gains and muscle hypertrophy? A 2020;8:e9611.
systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020 48. Mansfield S, Peiffer J, Hughes L, Scott B. Estimating repetitions
(ahead of print). in reserve for resistance exercise: an analysis of factors which
31. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition dura- impact on prediction accuracy. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead
tion during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a system- of print).
atic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):577–85. 49. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Orazem J, Sabol F. Effects of resistance
32. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Cunha PM, Aguiar AF, Schoenfeld BJ. training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular
The potential role of pre-exhaustion training in maximizing strength and hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
muscle hypertrophy: a review of the literature. Strength Cond J Sport Health Sci. 2021 (ahead of print).
J. 2019;41(1):75–80. 50. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the
33. Angleri V, Ugrinowitsch C, Augusto C. Crescent pyramid and repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for
drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle resistance training. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(4):42–9.
hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with 51. Martorelli S, Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Celes R, Martorelli A,
traditional resistance training in well- trained men. Eur J Appl Cleto VA, et al. Strength training with repetitions to failure does
Physiol. 2017;117(2):359–69. not provide additional strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in
34. Franchi MV, Reeves ND, Narici MV. Skeletal muscle remod- young women. Eur J Transl Myol. 2017;27(2):113–20.
eling in response to eccentric vs. concentric loading: morpho- 52. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva-Batista C, Barros T de S,
logical, molecular, and metabolic adaptations. Front Physiol. Aihara AY, Brendon H, et al. Muscle failure promotes greater
2017;8:447. muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance
35. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Vigotsky AD, Franchi MV, Krieger training. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 (ahead of print).
JW. Hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric muscle 53. Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Nakamura M, Ribeiro AS, Cunha PM,
actions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Cyrino ES. Does stretch training induce muscle hypertrophy in
Res. 2017;31(9):2599–608. humans? A review of the literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging.
36. Hackett DA, Amirthalingam T. A brief review of forced repeti- 2020;40(3):148–56.
tions for the promotion of muscular hypertrophy. Strength Cond 54. Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ,
J. 2015;37(5):14–20. Abe T, et al. Muscle adaptations to high-load training and very
37. De Looze MP, Toussaint HM, Commissaris DACM, Jans MP, low-load training with and without blood flow restriction. Front
Sargeant AJ. Relationships between energy expenditure and posi- Physiol. 2018;9:1448.
tive and negative mechanical work in repetitive lifting and lower- 55. Martorelli AS, de Lima FD, Vieira A, Tufano JJ, Ernesto C, Boul-
ing. J Appl Physiol. 1994;77(1):420–6. losa D, et al. The interplay between internal and external load
38. Abbott BC, Bigland B, Ritchie JM. The physiological cost of parameters during different strength training sessions in resist-
negative work. J Physiol. 1952;117(3):380–90. ance-trained men. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021;21(1):16–25.
39. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Chow CM. Training practices and 56. Nunes JP, Pina FLC, Ribeiro AS, Cunha PM, Kassiano W, Costa
ergogenic aids used by male bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res. BDV, et al. Responsiveness to muscle mass gain following 12 and
2013;27(6):1609–17. 24 weeks of resistance training in older women. Aging Clin Exp
40. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Son- Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
mez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance 57. Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Anand A, Barakat C, Pearson J, et al.
training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained Progressive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thick-
men. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2909–18. ness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained indi-
41. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and viduals. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resistance 58. Scarpelli MC, Nóbrega SR, Santanielo N, Alvarez IF, Otoboni
training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond GB, Ugrinowitsch C, et al. Muscle hypertrophy response is
Res. 2017;31(12):3508–23. affected by previous resistance training volume in trained indi-
42. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Tavares viduals. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
LD, et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with 59. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and
equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res.
Sport Sci. 2018;18(6):772–80. 2010;24(10):2857–72.
43. Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, 60. Jorgenson KW, Phillips SM, Hornberger TA. Identifying the struc-
Murray TF, et al. Muscular adaptations in response to three dif- tural adaptations that drive the mechanical load-induced growth
ferent resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maxi- of skeletal muscle: a scoping review. Cells. 2020;9(7):1658.
mum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88(1–2):50–60. 61. Latella C, Teo WP, Spathis J, van den Hoek D. Long-term strength
44. Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barrete SL, Hale DF. Relationship adaptation: a 15-year analysis of powerlifting athletes. J Strength
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition Cond Res. 2020;34(9):2412–8.
maximum: a comparison between untrained and trained males 62. Angelico D. A comparison of open and closed chain knee exten-
and females. J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4(2):47–54. sion exercises on patterns of quadriceps hypertrophy [Internet].
45. Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, 2020. https://​digit​alcom​mons.​uri.​edu/​theses/​1845. Accessed 19
Silvestre R, et al. Relationship between the number of repeti- Jan 2021
tions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free
 J. P. Nunes et al.

63. Paoli A, Gentil P, Moro T, Marcolin G, Bianco A. Resistance 78. Mannarino P, Matta T, Lima J, Simão R, de Salles BF. Single-
training with single vs. multi-joint exercises at equal total load joint exercise results in higher hypertrophy of elbow flexors than
volume: effects on body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, multijoint exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 (ahead of print).
and muscle strength. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1105. 79. Peterson MD, Sen A, Gordon PM. Influence of resistance exer-
64. Newmire DE, Willoughby DS. Partial compared with full range of cise on lean body mass in aging adults: a meta-analysis. Med Sci
motion resistance training for muscle hypertrophy: a brief review Sports Exerc. 2011;43(2):249–58.
and an identification of potential mechanisms. J Strength Cond 80. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for
Res. 2018;32(9):2652–64. muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res.
65. Kubo K, Ikebukuro T, Yata H. Effects of squat training with dif- 2010;24(4):1150–9.
ferent depths on lower limb muscle volumes. Eur J Appl Physiol. 81. Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose-response relationships
2019;119(9):1933–42. of resistance training in healthy old adults: a systematic review
66. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, Madsgaard S, Boesen and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(12):1693–720.
M, Raastad T. Effect of range of motion in heavy load squat- 82. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of
ting on muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol. weekly set volume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2013;113(8):2133–42. 2017;47(12):2585–601.
67. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, de Souza EO, Wilson JM, 83. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Haun C, Itagaki T, Helms ER. Calculating
Laurentino GC, et al. Changes in exercises are more effective than set-volume for the limb muscles with the performance of multi-
in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond joint exercises: implications for resistance training prescription.
Res. 2014;28(11):3085–92. Sport. 2019;7:177.
68. Brandão L, de Salles PV, Lasevicius T, Silva-Batista C, Brendon 84. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a
H, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Varying the order of combinations of meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1890–901.
single- and multi-joint exercises differentially affects resistance 85. Arruda A, Souza D, Steele J, Fisher J, Giessing J, Gentil P.
training adaptations. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(5):1254–63. Reliability of meta-analyses to evaluate resistance training pro-
69. Pinto RS, Gomes N, Radaelli R, Botton CE, Brown LE, Bottaro grammes. J Sports Sci. 2016;35(20):1982–4.
M. Effect of range of motion on muscle strength and thickness. J 86. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. The dose–response
Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(8):2140–5. relationship between resistance training volume and mus-
70. Gentil P, Soares S, Bottaro M. Single vs multi-joint resistance cle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts? J Sports Sci.
exercises: effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Asian J 2017;35(20):1985–7.
Sports Med. 2015;6(2):e24057. 87. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time
71. Maeo S, Meng H, Yuhang W, Sakurai H, Kusagawa Y, Sugiyama course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following
T, et al. Greater hamstrings muscle hypertrophy but similar dam- bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2012;4(4):217–20.
age protection after training at long versus short muscle lengths. 88. Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53(4):825–837. muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training
72. Chaves SFN, Rocha-Júnior VA, Encarnação IGA, Martins-Costa session. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(11):2158–65.
HC, Freitas EDS, Coelho DB, et al. Effects of horizontal and 89. Ema R, Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Kanehisa H, Kawakami
incline bench press on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained Y. Inhomogeneous architectural changes of the quadriceps
young men. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(6):859–72. femoris induced by resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol.
73. Nunes JP, Costa BDV, Kassiano W, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza 2013;113(11):2691–703.
P, Rodacki ALF, et al. Different foot positioning during calf train- 90. Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, Murata K, Kanehisa H,
ing to induce portion-specific gastrocnemius muscle hypertrophy. Kawakami Y, et al. Association between regional differences in
J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(8):2347–51. muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in
74. Nunes JP, Jacinto JL, Ribeiro AS, Mayhew JL, Nakamura M, muscle hypertrophy after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol.
Capel DMG, et al. Placing greater torque at shorter or longer 2012;112(4):1569–76.
muscle lengths? Effects of cable vs. barbell preacher curl train- 91. Wakahara T, Ema R, Miyamoto N, Kawakami Y. Inter- and
ing on muscular strength and hypertrophy in young adults. Int J intramuscular differences in training-induced hypertrophy of
Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(16):5859. the quadriceps femoris: association with muscle activation
75. Costa BD V, Kassiano W, Nunes JP, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza during the first training session. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging.
P, Rodacki ALF, et al. Does performing different resistance exer- 2017;37(4):405–12.
cises induce non-homogeneous hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med. 92. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ. Selection of resistance exer-
2020 (ahead of print). cises for older individuals: the forgotten variable. Sports Med.
76. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, Alvarez MR, Brummert 2020;50(6):1051–7.
DL, Aube DW, et al. Auto-regulated exercise selection training 93. Wakahara T. Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy along the length
regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal induced by resistance training. In: Kanosue K, Nagami T,
strength adaptations in highly trained individuals. J Strength Cond Tshuchiya J, editors. Sports performance. Tokyo: Springer Japan;
Res. 2020;34(4):1133–40. 2015. p. 157–74.
77. Baz-Valle E, Schoenfeld BJ, Torres-Unda J, Santos-Concejero 94. Stronska K, Golas A, Wilk M, Zajac A, Maszczyk A, Stastny
J, Balsalobre-Fernández C. The effects of exercise variation in P. The effect of targeted resistance training on bench press per-
muscle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in resistance formance and the alternation of prime mover muscle activation
trained men. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0226989. patterns. Sport Biomech. 2020 (ahead of print).

View publication stats