What is the maximum number of

stimulating reps that we can do in a

workout for a muscle group?
Chris Beardsley
Aug 4 · 11 min read
Get one more story in your member
preview when you sign up. It’s free.
Currently, the maximum volume that strength-trained lifters should use for
optimal gains
Signis
upunclear. As a result, there is vigorous debate ongoing between
with Google
proponents of very high volumes and those who advocate moderate volumes.
Sign up with Facebook
Nevertheless, we can make sense of the literature quite easily if we are prepared
Already
to dig intohave an account?
the details Sign
of each in and look at what was done in each case.
study,
These details shed a lot of light on the volume debate, and reveal that it may not
be that contentious after all.

. . .

What data are available? (Part one)

Few studies have assessed the eBects of training volume in strength-trained
subjects (when comparing the number of sets to failure), although there are lots
in untrained people. A recent meta-analysis included only 3 studies in strength-
trained lifters (the Grst two on the list below, in addition to another one that did
not measure muscle-speciGc changes in size). Since then, another 4 studies have

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 1 z 12
 been published, which gives 6 in total.

Before we begin, a couple of key points.

Firstly, we need to compare groups that trained with the same proximity to failure
(and not just the same number of reps with the same percentage of 1RM),
because the proximity to failure is what determines the mechanical tension that is
experienced by each working muscle Gber, due to the force-velocity relationship.
This equalizes the dose of training for each set between groups, at least when
ignoring central nervous system (CNS) fatigue. Thus, we need to exclude two
studies that have assessed the eBects of training volume without controlling for
proximity to failure, even though they were carried out in strength-trained lifters.

Secondly, we need to be aware that the researchers who conducted these studies
did not always accurately identify the exercises that stimulate muscle growth in a
body part. Consequently, their counts for the number of sets to failure for each
muscle may need to be modiGed to calculate the correct number. After all, no
student of biomechanics believes that the overhead press (which involves
shoulder abduction) is a particularly eBective exercise for the pectoralis major
(which is a shoulder adductor), and it is now clear that the squat is not an
eBective exercise for the rectus femoris. Sometimes, these adjustments make no
diBerence to the overall results. Other times, they make a big diBerence (as we
will see in the very Grst study on the list below).

. . .

What data are available? (Part two)

The following six studies have assessed the eBects of training volume in strength-
trained lifters. Here they are in order of appearance.

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 2 z 12
 Ostrowski (1997) — assessed the eBects of body part split training on changes in
rectus femoris and triceps brachii muscle size. The intent of the researchers was
to use 1, 2, and 4 sets per exercise, and 3 exercises per muscle group, to compare
the eBects of 3, 6, and 12 sets per workout (and per week). Yet, the use of only
one exercise for the rectus femoris in the leg workout (squats and leg presses
probably don’t work this muscle) resulted in that comparison being between 1, 2,
and 4 sets per workout (and per week). The use of 3 triceps exercises in the arm
workout and 4 in the chest/shoulders workout resulted in that comparison being
between 7, 14, and 28 sets per week, albeit across 2 workouts. While there were
no signiGcant eBects of training volume, rectus femoris size seemed to increase
more after 4 sets per week than after 1 or 2 sets per week. Triceps muscle size
increases were similar after 14 and 28 sets per week, indicating that a plateau was
reached somewhere between those volumes.

Radaelli (2015) — assessed the eBects of full body training, 3 times a week, on
changes in biceps brachii and triceps brachii muscle size. Either 1, 3, or 5 sets
were done for each exercise. Two exercises were done in each workout for the
biceps, and three for the triceps. Thus, the number of sets per muscle group was
2, 6, or 10 per workout (6, 18, or 30 per week) for the biceps, and 3, 9, or 15 per
workout (9, 27, or 45 per week) for the triceps. Increases in biceps and triceps
muscle sizes were progressively greater with increasing volumes, with no obvious
plateau.

Schoenfeld (2018) — assessed the eBects of full body training, 3 times a week,
on changes in biceps brachii, triceps brachii and leg muscle size. Either 1, 3, or 5
sets were done for each exercise. Two exercises were done in each workout for
each arm muscle, and 3 for the leg muscles. Thus, the number of sets per muscle
group was 2, 6, or 10 per workout (6, 18, or 30 per week) for each arm muscle,
and 3, 9, or 15 per workout (9, 27, or 45 per week) for the legs. Increases in
biceps and leg muscle sizes were progressively greater with increasing volumes,

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 3 z 12
 with no obvious plateau. Although not signiGcant, the increases in triceps size
showed the same pattern.

Heaselgrave (2018) — assessed the eBects of training with either one or two
workouts per week on increases in biceps brachii muscle size. One group did 1
workout per week with 3 sets of 3 exercises (9 sets per workout and per week).
Another group did 2 of the same workout (9 sets per workout and 18 sets per
week). A third group did 2 workouts with 4–5 sets per exercise, for a (13–14 sets
per workout and 27 sets per week). While not taken to failure, each set was done
with 2 repetitions in reserve (RIR). While not signiGcant, the increases in biceps
muscle size were greatest after 18 sets a week.

Barbalho (2019, March) — assessed the eBects of training using a body part
split routine on changes in biceps brachii, triceps brachii, pectoralis major,
quadriceps, and gluteus maximus muscle size. Each body part was trained once
per week. Depending on their group, subjects did either 5, 10, 15, or 20 total sets
per workout (either 2, 4, 5, or 7 sets each on the Grst 2 exercises, and either 1, 2, 5
or 6 sets for the third exercise in the workout). Exercise selection was such that
some of the muscles were indeed trained with 5, 10, 15, or 20 sets per workout
(and per week), but others were only trained with 4, 8, 10, or 14 sets per workout
(and per week). Even so, there was a clear plateau in the gains achieved above 4–
5 sets per workout (and per week), and in fact the gains in size were greater after
training using 5 or 10 total sets per workout than after training with 15 or 20 total
sets per workout.

Barbalho (2019, June) — this study was the same in design as the one above,
and there was again a clear plateau in the gains in muscle size that were achieved
above 4–5 sets per workout (and per week). In this study, muscle size was
measured at two time points. The two higher volume groups (15 and 20 sets per
workout and per week) tended to display reductions in muscle size in the latter

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 4 z 12
 half of the study period. In contrast, the lower volume groups (5 and 10 sets per
workout and per week) did not.

These results all seem very contradictory, so what does this all mean?

. . .

What does this mean in terms of stimulating reps?

These studies divide quite clearly into two categories (this observation was
pointed out to me by my friend Boz, who also noted the implications of the
diBerences in training variables between the categories).

One category suggests that increasing volume can cause increasing amounts of
muscle growth even at very high numbers of stimulating reps, and the studies in
this group do not identify any plateau in hypertrophy with increases in volume.
The other category suggests that muscle growth is maximized with far more
moderate numbers, and these studies identify obvious plateaus. Even so, looking
at the characteristics of these studies makes it clearer what is going on beneath
the surface.

The very high volume category — Radaelli (2015) and Schoenfeld (2018)
indicate that volume continues to increase muscle growth even up to 45 sets per
week (225 stimulating reps). In both studies, subjects trained the tested muscles
3 times a week, while the rest periods between sets/exercises were fairly short, at
just 90–120 seconds.

The moderate volume category — Barbalho (2019, March) and Barbalho

(2019, June) both found that there was a clear plateau above 5 sets per workout
and per week (25 stimulating reps), and a trend towards reduced muscle growth

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 5 z 12
 when using 15 or more sets per workout and per week (75 stimulating reps). Rest
periods ranged from 30 seconds to 4 minutes in both studies. Heaselgrave (2018)
found muscle growth was maximum with 18 sets per week, albeit when using 2
reps in reserve on each set (54 stimulating reps), 3 minutes of rest, and training
the tested muscle 2 times a week. Ostrowski (1997) also found a plateau above 14
sets per week (70 stimulating reps), with 3 minutes of rest, and training the tested
muscle 2 times a week.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 6 z 12
 Why are the categories so di<erent?
The main diBerence between the categories is the training frequency used. The
very high volume category trained 3 times per week, while the moderate category
trained each muscle just once or twice a week. Also, the two studies at the higher
end of the moderate category both involved training the muscle twice a week,
while the two studies at the lower end involved training the muscle once a week.
This suggests that a slightly higher frequency may allow lifters to beneGt from a
higher weekly volume.

Critics of this observation will note that (1)training frequency has routinely been
found to have little eBect on muscle growth when volumes are matched, and (2)
training frequency seems to be quite individual, with some people beneGtting
from a higher training frequency and others beneGtting from a lower frequency.
Yet, the observation made in this analysis is diBerent. Here, we Gnd that greater
eBective weekly volumes can be attained by using higher frequencies, most likely
due to the reduced damage that is experienced in each workout when workout
volumes are lower.

To be clear, in this analysis, we are not assessing the eBect of frequency in

isolation from weekly volume. Rather, we are assessing how frequency aBects the
maximum eBective volume that can be achieved in a week. The results indicate
that we can attain higher eBective volumes when we use a higher frequency. As
an aside, this means that the idea of a maximum weekly volume is not a valid
construct, since it will vary substantially depending on what training frequency
we choose.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 7 z 12
 What is the maximum number of stimulating reps per
workout and per week?
Those studies that have assessed the eBects of training muscle groups once a
week have identiGed that 4–5 sets to failure (20–25 stimulating reps) maximizes
the growth of a muscle group after a single workout each week (Barbalho [2019,
March], Barbalho [2019, June], and Ostrowski [1997]). Studies that have
assessed the eBects of training a muscle twice a week have found that doing the
equivalent of 11–14 sets to failure (55–70 stimulating reps) per week is sudcient
to maximize muscle growth (Heaselgrave [2018] and Ostrowski [1997]).

There seems to be a fairly obvious relationship there!

In both groups of studies, the maximum eBective volume per workout is between
5–7 sets to failure (25–35 stimulating reps), although the likelihood is that the
number is closer to the lower end of that range (5 sets to failure or 25 stimulating
reps). Yet, doing two workouts per week allows twice the maximum eBective
volume per week than only one workout per week.

Assuming that we can recover from similar volumes when training 3 times a
week, the maximum eBective volume per week would be approximately 15 sets to
failure (75 stimulating reps) per muscle group.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 8 z 12
 Why is the very high volume category so di<erent?
The very high volume category of studies indicates that volume continues to
increase muscle growth even up to 45 sets per week (225 stimulating reps). Even
so, these studies both used quite short rest periods (90–120 seconds).

Short rests lead to less muscle growth when training with the same number of
sets to failure, caused by smaller increases in post-workout muscle protein
synthesis rates, likely due to central nervous system (CNS) fatigue. Moreover,
CNS fatigue builds up over a workout, making each incremental set produce a
smaller and smaller eBect.

It seems likely that the large number of sets that was necessary to maximize
hypertrophy in the very high volume category of studies was due to the
prevalence of CNS fatigue (both from short rest periods and from the large
volumes), which necessitated additional sets to achieve the required stimulus. It
is probable that the same eBects would be achieved using fewer sets to failure
with lower volumes and longer rest periods.

Even so, there was still a dose-response eBect across the volumes used in these
studies, which suggests that CNS recovery was occurring from one workout to the
next. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that training three times a week with
relatively high volumes is feasible.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 9 z 12
 What does this mean in practice?
When training a muscle 3 times a week, the maximum eBective volume for the
average strength-trained lifter is most likely to be approximately 5 sets per
workout and 15 sets per week (25 stimulating reps per workout and therefore 75
stimulating reps per week). When training a muscle 2 times a week, the
maximum volume is likely to be 10 sets per week (50 stimulating reps). When
training a muscle once a week, the maximum volume is likely to be 5 sets per
week (or 25 stimulating reps). In all cases, this assumes that rest periods are
sudciently long between sets.

Ultimately, the maximum limit for volume each week is probably partly
determined by the stimulus achieved in a single workout, and partly by the
number of workouts done in a week. This is because the maximum limit for
volume in a workout seems to be only 5 sets, but it is possible to recover from such
a workout with a few days, thereby allowing multiple such workouts to be done
over the course of a week.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 10 z 12
 What else is important?
One key point that may not be immediately obvious is that in the three studies
that identiGed some evidence for a plateau above 5 sets in a single workout
(Barbalho [2019, March], Barbalho [2019, June], and Ostrowski [1997]), doing
additional volume in the same workout for the tested muscle group did not have
any negative eBects until 10 sets per workout were exceeded (Barbalho [2019,
March] and Barbalho [2019, June]).

This is important, because it means that we can program exercises that work
diBerent torso muscles in the same workout. For example, in a workout
comprising 5 sets each of the bench press and overhead press, the triceps receives
10 sets worth of stimulus, while the pectoralis major receives only 5 sets. The
amount of stimulus experienced by the deltoids is arguable, depending on how
you divide up its regions, but is probably 10 sets for the anterior deltoids and 5
sets for the middle deltoids. Even so, the eBective stimulus from that workout is
similar for the triceps, pectoralis major, anterior deltoids, and middle deltoids,
since the plateau occurs above 5 sets, but none of the muscles experiences more
than 10 sets.

. . .

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 11 z 12
 What is the takeaway?
The workout volume that will cause the most hypertrophy seems to be
approximately 5 sets per muscle group per workout, so long as rest periods are
sudciently long between sets. Doing up to 10 sets for a muscle group per workout
seems to have no further beneGcial eBects under such conditions, but equally has
no negative eBects. Doing more than 10 sets for a single muscle group in one
workout may have negative eBects, likely due to the excessive amount of muscle
damage that is caused.

It seems to be possible to do multiple such workouts in a week (at least three).

Therefore, the weekly volume that will cause the most hypertrophy is likely to be
approximately 15 sets per muscle group per week, but only if that volume is
allocated evenly over 3 similar workouts. Indeed, there is no such thing as a
maximum eBective weekly volume when stated independently of the number of
workouts being done per week, since the maximum eBective weekly volume will
vary substantially according to training frequency.

Fitness Hypertrophy Bodybuilding Muscle Building Exercise

About Help Legal

https://medium.com/@SandCResearch/what-is-the-maximum-n…that-we-can-do-in-a-workout-for-a-muscle-group-9379d91bf2c 22.10.2019, 10:31

Strona 12 z 12