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

net/publication/339271428

Progressive Resistance Training Volume: Effects on Muscle Thickness, Mass, and

Strength Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Individuals

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · February 2020

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003524

CITATIONS READS

20 4,165

9 authors, including:

Daniel Aube Tanuj Wadhi

University of Kentucky Auckland University of Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jacob T Rauch Christopher Barakat

University of São Paulo Physical Education and Sport The University of Tampa
26 PUBLICATIONS 218 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 139 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Acute effects of different strength training techniques on neuromuscular responses in resistance trained males View project

Evaluation of team sports players' decisions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Barakat on 23 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original Research

Progressive Resistance Training Volume: Effects on

Muscle Thickness, Mass, and Strength Adaptations
in Resistance-Trained Individuals
Daniel Aube,1 Tanuj Wadhi,1 Jacob Rauch,1 Ashmeet Anand,1 Christopher Barakat,1 Jeremy Pearson,1
Joshua Bradshaw,1 Spencer Zazzo,1 Carlos Ugrinowitsch,2 and Eduardo O. De Souza1
1
Department of Health Sciences and Human Performance, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida; and 2Laboratory of Adaptations to
Strength Training, School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3wxNooCNzZvjlgm/FEaBHtuzFeupGqbg9bsTRoVQtTo0= on 02/14/2020

Abstract
Aube, D, Wadhi, T, Rauch, J, Anand, A, Barakat, C, Pearson, J, Bradshaw, J, Zazzo, S, Ugrinowitsch, C, and De Souza, EO.
Progressive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained indi-
viduals. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2020—This study investigated the effects of 12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET lower-
body weekly sets on muscle strength and mass accretion. Thirty-five resistance-trained individuals (one repetition maximum [1RM]
squat: body mass ratio [1RM: BM] 5 2.09) were randomly divided into 12-SET: n 5 13, 18-SET: n 5 12, and 24-SET: n 5 10.
Subjects underwent an 8-week resistance-training (RT) program consisting of 2 weekly sessions. Muscle strength (1RM), repeti-
tions to failure (RTF) at 70% of 1RM, anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), at the medial MT (MMT) and distal MT (DMT) points, as
well as the sum of both sites (SMT), along with region of interest for fat-free mass (ROI-FFM) were measured at baseline and post-
testing. For the 1RM, there was a main time effect (p # 0.0001). However, there was a strong trend toward significance (p 5 0.052)
for group-by-time interaction, suggesting that 18-SET increased 1RM back squat to a greater extent compared with 24-SET, (24-
SET: 9.5 kg, 5.4%; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, 16.2%; 12-SET: 18.3 kg, 11.3%). For RTF, only a main time-effect (p # 0.0003) was observed
(24-set: 5.7 reps, 33.1%; 18-SET: 2.4 reps, 14.5%; 12-SET: 5.0 reps, 34.8%). For the MMT, DMT, SMT, and ROI-FFM, there was
only main time-effect (p # 0.0001), (MMT: 24-SET: 0.15 cm, 2.7%; 18-SET: 0.32 cm, 5.7%; 12-SET: 0.38 cm, 6.4%—DMT: 24-set:
0.39 cm, 13.1%; 18-SET: 0.28 cm, 8.9%; 12-SET: 0.34 cm, 9.7%—SMT: 24-set: 0.54 cm, 6.1%; 18-SET: 0.60 cm, 6.7%; 12-SET:
0.72 cm, 7.7%, and ROI-FFM: 24-set: 0.70 kg, 2.6%; 18-SET: 1.09 kg, 4.2%; 12-SET: 1.20 kg, 4.6%, respectively). Although all of
the groups increased maximum strength, our results suggest that the middle dose range may optimize the gains in back squat 1RM.
Our findings also support that differences in weekly set number did not impact in MT and ROI-FFM adaptations in subjects who can
squat more than twice their body mass.
Key Words: volume load, muscle hypertrophy, maximum strength, strength endurance, perceptual assessments

Introduction for strength endurance as well; however, there is paucity of data

It is well established that resistance training (RT) is an effective
modality to increase muscle mass (i.e., hypertrophy), decrease fat
mass, and improve overall health in a large spectrum of pop-
ulations (4,6,11). In an effort to maximize such training out-
comes, researchers have investigated the effects of the
manipulation of several training variables (e.g., intensity, repeti-
tion tempo, exercise selection, rest interval, etc.) on RT-induced
adaptations (5,8,15,19,25). Among these variables, training
volume has received considerable attention from the scientific
community (2,7,10,12,18,21–24). Recent studies have referred to
training volume as the number of sets performed per muscle
group per week (2,10,22,23).
Although a dose-response relationship between training vol-
ume and maximum strength adaptations has been reported in
untrained individuals (17), such a relationship has not been
clearly established for trained ones (2,14,22). A corollary hy-
pothesis would be that a similar dose-response relationship exists
Address correspondence to Dr. Eduardo O. de Souza, edesouza@ut.edu.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–8
ª 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association
on this topic for resistance-trained individuals.
In regards to muscle hypertrophy, some meta-analyses have
suggested a dose-response relationship between weekly sets and
muscle mass accrual, mostly for untrained and physically active
individuals (12,23). Regarding resistance-trained cohorts, em-
pirical tests of this dose-response relationship have also produced
equivocal results. Although a couple of studies reported that
performing a high number of sets per muscle group per week was
not more beneficial for increasing the muscle hypertrophic re-
sponse compared with low weekly sets (range: 3–20 sets) (2,16),
Schoenfeld et al. (22) showed otherwise. Performing 45 weekly
sets produced greater increases in mid-thigh muscle thickness
(MT) compared with 9 weekly sets, but there were no differences
between 27 and 45 weekly sets. Thus, further scrutiny is required
to address this issue.
One should also consider that increasing training volumes
would impose relatively proportional physical and emotional
stress on individuals. Evidence suggests positive linear relation-
ship between training load and physical and emotional stress
(26,27). Thus, the lack of agreement between the results of
training volume studies may have been due to the fact that the
high training volume groups were in the descending phase of the

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00
inverted “U” relationship because of greater accumulation of bodily
and emotional stress. Therefore, monitoring the rate of perceived
exertion and pleasure, while training with high volume, might help to
elucidate whether the aforementioned equivocal results could be
partially explained by individuals abilities to tolerate load.
Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, previous studies
have not controlled for the effect that the number of sets being
performed before the commencement of the experimental period
has on trained subjects (i.e., completely randomized designs), an
important confounding factor. Thus, training-induced adapta-
tion may have occurred because of sudden and random changes in
training volume, instead of an actual dose-response relationship
between training volume and the dependent variables. To account
for this, we considered the number of weekly sets highly
resistance-trained males was performing before the beginning of
experimental period. Therefore, this study investigated the effects
of 3 different training volumes regimens (12 [12-SET], 18 [18-
SET], and 24 [24-SET] weekly sets) on lower-body muscular
strength and hypertrophy, local fat-free mass adaptations, rate of
perceived exertion, and training-associated pleasure. We hy-
pothesized that increases in training volume would affect local
fat-free mass accretion and muscle size in a similar fashion among
volume groups. In addition, we hypothesized no differences be-
tween groups for muscular strength adaptations. Our primary
dependent variable was muscle size; in case of not confirming our
hypothesis, an exploratory analysis would be implemented to
identify potential confounding factors affecting the association
between training volume and changes in muscle size, taking into
consideration the magnitude of the training-induced adaptations.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This was a balanced (using previous RT volume) and randomized,
parallel-group repeated-measures design, which investigated the
effects of 3 different weekly RT volumes (12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-
SET) on maximum strength (one repetition maximum [1RM]),
strength endurance via repetitions to failure (RTF) at 70% of 1RM,
region of interest fat-free mass (ROI-FFM), and MT in resistance-
trained individuals. In addition, subjective assessments associated
with training-related perceived exertion and pleasure were per-
formed. All experimental groups trained 2 times per week for 8
weeks. Volume load (VL) (i.e., sets 3 repetitions 3 load [kg]) was
calculated to assure that not only sets per week but also total work
performed would be different between groups. One repetition
maximum, RTF, lean-ROI, and MT at 2 different sites were
assessed at baseline (pre) and at least 48 hours after the last training
session. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and feeling scale (FS)
were collected at the end of every training session, and data from
weeks 1–4 and 5–8 were used for further analysis.
Subjects
Forty-four resistance-trained subjects (age range: 18 to 30 years)
were recruited for the study. The inclusion criteria were as fol-
lows: being a man aged between of 18 and 35 years; at least 3
years of previous RT experience with the back squat and 1RM
testing; and relative squat strength of at least 1.5 times their body
mass. Exclusion criteria were as follows: current/past history of
joint pain (e.g., tendinitis); history of drug or alcohol abuse; daily
usage of NSAIDs, any anticoagulants, or antiplatelet drugs, high
blood pressure; heart arrhythmias; or reported sensitivity to
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
caffeine. Subjects were classified into terciles based on the total
number of sets performed per week for quadriceps before the
study commencement. Next, subjects from each tercile were
randomly assigned to one of the 3 experimental groups. After
baseline testing, 6 subjects (12-SET: 1; 18-SET: 1; 24-SET: 4)
withdrew because of personal reasons not related to the current
study, and 3 withdrew because of joint pain (lower back and/or
knee) during the training intervention (12-SET: 2; 18-SET: 1; 24-
SET: 0). Therefore, data from 35 subjects were included in the
statistical analysis (Table 1). All subjects were informed of the
inherent risks and benefits before signing a written informed
consent form. The University of Tampa institutional review
board approved the current study. A CONSORT flow diagram of
the study is presented in Figure 1.
Procedures
Muscular Strength Assessments. All subjects completed one fa-
miliarization session followed by the 1RM and strength endur-
ance testing session interspersed by a minimum of 48 hours before
the commencement of the study. During the familiarization ses-
sion, subjects performed a general warm-up consisting of 3
minutes at ;5.0 km·h21 on a treadmill (Tuff Tread; White
Phoenix, LLC., Willis, TX). After warming up, subjects were
given a thorough explanation of the testing procedures including
the 1RM squat and repetitions-to-failure at 70% 1RM (RTF).
Subjects performed maximum strength testing on the back squat
at a depth of 100° of knee flexion. Knee flexion was measured
with a goniometer measuring the angle between the femur and the
fibula. Briefly, the stationary arm of the goniometer was placed
parallel to the long axis of the femur along a line extending from
the greater trochanter to the lateral condyle, and the moveable
arm was placed parallel to the long axis of the fibula in line with
the head of the fibula and the lateral malleolus. Squat depth was
constrained up to 100° knee flexion using an adjustable seat.
Subjects were asked to “tap and go” to validate each repetition.
After a general warm-up, the subjects performed 2 warm-up sets
on the back squat using loads of 50% for 8 repetitions and 70%
for 3 repetitions of the estimated 1RM load. Subjects then had up
to 5 attempts to achieve their 1RM, of which the first attempt was
standardized to 90% of their estimated 1RM. A linear position
transducer (GymAware; Kinetic Performance Technology, Can-
berra, Australia) was used to monitor the intensity of each at-
tempt based on the bar velocity (9). One repetition maximum load
was determined when the subject reached volitional failure or if
Table 1
Subjects’ characteristics (mean 6 SD).*
Variable 12-SET 18-SET 24-SET
N 13 12 10
Age (yrs) 21.5 6 2.3 20.7 6 2.4 23.5 6 5.7
Body mass (kg) 79.3 6 14.8 77.0 6 9.4 79.8 6 10.0
BF% 13.4 6 4.6 12.4 6 3.8 13.7 6 4.5
ROI-FFM (kg) 26.2 6 4.7 25.7 6 2.2 26.0 6 3.3
SMT (cm) 9.3 6 1.9 8.8 6 1.8 8.9 6 1.4
PSN (sets·wk21) 13.5 6 9.0 13.8 6 7.0 12.1 6 8.5
SETDIFF (sets·wk21) 21.5 6 8.7 4.1 6 6.7 11.9 6 8.0
1RM squat: BM (a.u) 2.03 6 0.22 2.04 6 0.23 2.21 6 0.29
*BF% 5 body fat percentage; ROI-FFM 5 region of interest fat-free mass; SMT 5 sum of mid-thigh
and distal muscle thickness; PSN 5 previous set number performed per week for lower body; SETDIFF
5 PSN—number sets assigned to experimental group; 1RM:BM 5 squat one repetition maximum:
body mass ratio.
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.
the barbell speed dropped below 0.28 m·s21. If the subject hits
volitional failure, the load from the previous set was considered
their 1RM load. Testing took place on 2 separate days during pre-
testing to ensure the subjects were familiarized with the squat
depth and the highest value was used for the statistical analysis.
Subjects were considered acquainted to 1RM testing if the co-
efficient variation (CV) between the familiarization session and
1RM testing was lower than 5%.
Strength Endurance. Upon completion of maximum strength
testing, subjects were given 5 minutes of rest, after which they
were asked to perform repetitions-to-failure at 70% of their 1RM
load, where they had to “tap and go” the adjustable seat for the
repetition to be valid.
Failure was reached when subjects could not perform the concen-
tric phase of the lifting, if the speed fell drastically below 0.28 m·s21
or if the subjects took more than 2 seconds between repetitions.
Muscle Mass and Thickness Assessments: Muscle Mass. A Lunar
Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) apparatus
(Hologic, Bedford, MA) was used to measure body composition.
Furthermore, the lower body was subdivided to measure the fat-free
mass of a region of interest (ROI-FFM) marked from the iliac crest to
the lateral condyle for each scan at pre-testing and post-testing
(Figure 2C). To measure lower-body composition more accurately,
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
subjects were asked to cross their arms across their chest to avoid
interference with the lower body. On the day of the scan, subjects
were weighed on a mechanical scale and placed on the DEXA ma-
chine laying in a supine position with knees extended and were
instructed not to move for the entire duration of the scan. To increase
test-retest consistency, subjects’ positions on the machine bed were
recorded. In addition, subjects were strictly instructed to come to the
laboratory after refraining from food and water for at least 10 hours
before the scan. Region of interest for fat-free mass measures were
acquired at pre-testing and post-testing at the same time of the day.
The CV was determined before the study using 5 different subjects
with similar characteristics to the current subjects (CV 5 #1.5%).
Muscle Thickness. Anterior thigh MT was measured using
a mode B ultrasound (LOGIQ e; GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL)
using a linear probe (12L-RS, GE Healthcare) with frequencies
between 8.0 and 12.0 Mhz. The femur length was measured in the
sagittal plane from the greater trochanter to the lateral condyle.
Marks were made at 50 and 75% of the femur length, both in the
lateral and frontal aspects of the thigh. The overall thickness of
the vastus intermedius and rectus femoris muscles was measured
at the medial MT (MMT—50% of the femur length) and distal
MT (DMT—75% of the femur length) points (Figures 2A, B). The
sum of both sites (SMT) was also used for further statistical
analysis. A water-soluble transmission gel (Aquasonic 100;
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00

Figure 2. Overview of medial muscle thickness (A), distal muscle thickness (B), and region of
interest fat-free (C) assessments.

Parker Laboratories, Inc, Fairfield, NJ) was applied to the probe, allowed between sets and exercises, respectively. Subjects were asked
which was then placed on the skin with minimal pressure to avoid to report their RPE for the average of all sets for each exercise, as
indentation of the skin. Zoom and frequency were adjusted until soon as they completed the last set on each exercise. At the end of the
a clear picture of the femur and muscle fascia could be seen. The training session, the subjects were asked to report a cumulative RPE
thickness was measured from the highest point on the femur to the for the entire session, along with FS, which measures the enjoyment
bottom edge of the muscle fascia of the rectus femoris. Three (i.e., pleasure and displeasure) of the workout. All subjects were
measurements were taken at each point, and the median value was strictly instructed to refrain from performing any additional lower-
used for further analyses. All images were obtained on the right body exercises outside of the prescribed training intervention. To
thigh. The MT assessments were performed at the same time of the help ensuring proper nutrition throughout the experimental period,
day at pre-testing and post-testing. To increase test-retest reliability, subjects received a supplement on training days containing 24 g of
each site was marked with henna ink and weekly remarked. In an protein and 1 g of carbohydrate (Iso-100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein
attempt to minimize training-induced muscle swelling, images were Isolate; Dymatize Nutrition, Dallas, TX) under the supervision of the
obtained 48–72 hours after their last lower-body training session research staff.
before the commencement of the study and 48–72 hours after the last
training session at the end of the study. The same 2 researchers
(i.e., probe handling and screen measurement) performed all of the Statistical Analyses
pre-training and post-training measurements and were blinded to the
experimental groups. The CV of the MT assessments was ,2.0%. After normality (i.e., Shapiro-Wilk) and variance assurance
(i.e., Levene), one-way analysis of variances were implemented to test
Perceptual Assessments. The RPE and pleasure-displeasure rate for between-group differences for all the dependent variables at
were assessed immediately after each training session. Rate of baseline. Because there were no significant differences between groups
perceived exertion was measured based on the CR-10 RPE scale. for all variables (p . 0.05), a mixed-model analysis was performed for
Pleasure and displeasure were acquired utilizing the FS that uses each dependent variable (1RM, RTF, MT, and perceptual assess-
a bipolar sorting from 11 points, varying by 15 to 25, with an ments) assuming group (12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET) and time (pre
anchor of zero (neutral) and all the odd whole numbers corre- and post) as fixed factors and subjects as a random factor. For the
sponding to description of “very good” (15) to “very bad” (25). perceptual assessments, levels for time were training blocks one and 2
Instructions and procedures for using the RPE and FS scales were (i.e., average of first and second 4-week period). In addition, VL was
given to all individuals during the familiarization sessions. In
addition, all assessments were performed in isolation from other
Table 2
subjects to ensure accuracy. The perceptual assessments of the 2
different training blocks (i.e., first and second half) were averaged Training regimens throughout 8 weeks.
for further analysis. Exercise 12-SET 18-SET 24-SET
Weeks 1–4: First mesocycle
Training Intervention. Subjects underwent an 8-week hypertrophy- Day 1
oriented lower-limb RT program twice a week, totaling 16 sessions Back squat 3 3 6-8 4 3 6-8 6 3 6-8
per subject. A minimum adherence of 90% was required. Experi- Leg press 3 3 6-8 5 3 6-8 6 3 6-8
Glute-ham raise 234 234 234
mental groups performed the same exercises at the same intensities.
Day 2
The only difference between groups was the total number of sets
Back squat 3 3 12-15 5 3 12-15 6 3 12-15
performed for the quadriceps muscle per week (12-SET, 18-SET, and Leg press 3 3 12-15 4 3 12-15 6 3 12-15
24-SET groups). Sets were equally divided between the back squat Glute-ham raise 234 234 234
and leg-press exercises. In addition, all subjects performed the same Weeks 5–8: Second mesocycle
set and repetition schemes for glute-ham–raise exercise (Table 2). Day 1
The intensity of the lifts was set at 2 reps in reserve until the last set for Back squat 3 3 6-8 5 3 6-8 6 3 6-8
each exercise. The last set was always performed up to concentric Leg press 3 3 6-8 4 3 6-8 6 3 6-8
failure. If the subjects were unable to complete the required repeti- Glute-ham raise 236 236 236
tions, the load was decreased for the next set. On the contrary, if the Day 2
Back squat 3 3 12-15 4 3 12-15 6 3 12-15
subjects were able to complete the prescribed repetitions with ease,
Leg press 3 3 12-15 5 3 12-15 6 3 12-15
the set was stopped at the higher end of the range and the load was
Glute-ham raise 236 236 236
increased for the next set. A 2-minute and 3-minute rest interval was

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00
Table 3
Rate of perceived exertion and feeling scale assessments (mean
6 SD).*
Variable Group Pre Post ES
RPE (a.u) 12-SET 7.16 6 1.56 7.37 6 1.07 0.19
18-SET 7.55 6 0.50 7.50 6 0.78 20.04
24-SET 7.64 6 0.63 7.90 6 0.62 0.24
FS (a.u) 12-SET 3.17 6 0.47 2.57 6 1.31 20.53
18-SET 2.89 6 1.35 2.83 6 0.87 20.05
24-SET 3.83 6 1.38 3.66 6 1.55 20.15
*RPE 5 rate of perceived exertion; FS 5 feeling scale; ES 5 effect sizes; 95%-CI 5 95% confidence
intervals.
analyzed assuming only groups (i.e., 12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET) as
the fixed factor and subjects the as random factor, (SAS 9.4; SAS
Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Whenever a significant F-value was
obtained, a post hoc test with a Tukey adjustment was performed for
multiple comparison purposes. In addition, 95% confidence intervals
of the within-group absolute difference (95% CI) are presented.
Within-group effect sizes (ES) were calculated as follows: mean post-
minus mean pre-divided by the pooled SD of pretest values. After-
ward, an exploratory analysis of the individual responses was per-
formed. The subjects were divided into terciles based on their absolute
changes in SMT. Subsequently, the 3 clusters were labeled as high
responders (third-Tercile), moderate responders (second-Tercile), and
low responders (first-Tercile). Multiple analyses of covariance
(ANCOVAs) were performed on the absolute pre-to-post changes
with SMT (i.e., D-SMT) as the dependent variable and terciles
(i.e., first, second and third) as a fixed factor. Different covariates
(i.e., SETDIFF, previous weekly sets number [PSN], VL, and delta
volume between weeks 1 and 8 [D-VL]) were tested to identify likely
variables that may have affected D-SMT responses across different
terciles. In case of significant F values, a Tukey adjustment was
implemented for multiple comparison purposes. The significance level
was previously set at p # 0.05. Results are expressed as mean 6 SD.
Results
Volume Load and Perceptual Assessments
The 24-SET produced the greatest VL (95% CI: 333,438–430,888 kg)
compared with 18-SET (95% CI: 238,718–329,255 kg) and 12-SET
(157,853–203,939 kg). For RPE and FS, there were no significant
differences between groups and time (p $ 0.05). Mean data are pre-
sented in Table 3.
Muscular Strength Assessments
There was a main time effect (p , 0.0001) for the back squat
1RM load, indicating that all groups increased maximum
strength similarly across time. However, there was a strong trend
toward a significant (p 5 0.052) group by time interaction, sug-
gesting that 12-SET and 18-SET increased 1RM back squat to
greater extent compared with 24-SET (estimated differences: 24-
SET: 9.5 kg, 5.4%; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, 16.2%; 12-SET: 18.3 kg,
11.3%). For RTF, there was a main time effect (p 5 0.0003)
indicating that all groups increased strength endurance similarly
across time (estimated differences: 24-set: 5.7 reps, 33.1%; 18-
SET: 2.4 reps, 14.5%; 12-SET: 5.0 reps, 34.8%). Although we
had just a time effect for RTF, 95% CI of the 18-SET suggests no
changes from pre- to post-training (i.e., 95% CI crosses zero: 2
1.27 to 6.11). Mean data are presented in Table 4, and individual
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
responses for pre-to-post changes in 1RM back squat are pre-
sented in Figure 3A.
95%-CI
20.22 to 0.64
Muscle Mass and Thickness
20.51 to 0.39 For the ROI-FFM, there was a main time effect (p , 0.0001)
20.23 to 0.39 indicating that all groups increased local FFM similarly across
21.14 to 20.05 time (estimated differences: 24-set: 0.70 kg, 2.6%; 18-SET: 1.09
20.62 to 0.50
kg, 4.2%; 12-SET: 1.20 kg, 4.6%), (Table 5). Similarly, in regard
20.79 to 0.45
to MT, there was a significant main time effect (p , 0.0001) for
MMT, DMT, and SMT indicating that all groups increases MT
similarly across time on both sites (estimated differences: MMT:
24-SET: 0.15 cm, 2.7%; 18-SET: 0.32 cm, 5.7%; 12-SET: 0.38
cm, 6.4%—DMT: 24-set: 0.39 cm, 13.1%; 18-SET: 0.28 cm,
8.9%; 12-SET: 0.34 cm, 9.7%—SMT: 24-set: 0.54 cm, 6.1%;
18-SET: 0.60 cm, 6.7%; 12-SET: 0.72 cm, 7.7%, respectively),
(Table 5). Individual responses from pre–to-post changes in ROI-
FFM and MT are presented on Figure 3B, C, respectively.
Exploratory Analysis
The summary of the exploratory analysis is presented on Table 6.
Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences (p ,
0.0001) between the terciles for the D-SMT in which the third
tercile had the greatest improvement in MT compared with the
second and first ones. In addition, the third tercile had greater
increases than the first tercile in ROI-FFM, (p 5 0.01); however,
there were no significant differences (p 5 0.36) between the third
and second terciles. In addition, ANCOVA analyses did not re-
veal any significant covariate effect (p . 0.05) for PSN, SETDIFF,
VL, and/or D-VL (p . 0.05).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 3 different
RT volumes (12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET) on lower-body
muscle accretion and strength in highly resistance-trained males.
We have not confirmed our initial hypothesis as our main findings
demonstrated similar increases in muscle mass and thickness
across the experimental groups. There was also a strong trend
toward the 18-SET group being more effective to increase maxi-
mum strength than the 24-SET group.
Recently, the effects of training volume on RT-induced adap-
tations have been a topic of a heated debate. In regard to maxi-
mum strength adaptations, the average strength gain across
groups in our study was ;10.9% (;17.8 kg). Interestingly, de-
spite of important differences on training statuses across studies,
we have observed almost identical findings compared with
Schoenfeld et al. (22) and Marshall et al. (14). However, contrary
to our hypothesis, 95%-CI and ES suggest that 18-SET had higher
strength gains compared with 12-SET and 24-SET (i.e., 24-SET:
9.5 kg, ES: 0.30; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, ES: 0.81, and 12-SET: 18.3 kg,
ES: 0.58). Nonetheless, our findings suggest that training-volume
and RT-induced adaption relationship seems to follow an inver-
ted “U” pattern, as 12-SET and 24-SET likely produced sub-
optimal adaptations. Finally, an important limitation on the
understanding of training volume–induced maximum strength
adaptations is the fact that most of studies had muscle growth as
the primary dependent variable, and therefore, the current study
and former ones have used training repetitions ranges above 5RM
(1,14,16,20,22), as opposed to heavier intensities traditionally
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00
Table 4
Maximum strength and strength endurance assessments (mean 6
SD).*
Variable Group Pre Post ES
1RM squat (kg) 12-SET 161.9 6 37.4 180.2 6 35.5 0.58 10.03 to 26.59
18-SET 157.4 6 28.2 182.9 6 23.1 0.81 16.89 to 34.13
24-SET 175.7 6 25.7 185.2 6 24.2 0.30 0.07 to 18.96
RTF 12-SET 14.6 6 5.7 19.6 6 4.0 0.80 1.45 to 8.54
18-SET 16.4 6 7.9 18.8 6 3.4 0.39 21.27 to 6.11
24-SET 17.2 6 4.2 22.9 6 5.9 0.91 1.65 to 9.7
*ES 5 effect sizes; 95%-CI 5 95% confidence intervals, 1RM 5 one repetition maximum; RTF 5
repetitions to failure at 70% of 1RM.
used when resistance-trained individuals are training to improve
maximum strength performance.
In regard to muscle endurance, although the time effect might
suggest that all experimental groups increased repetitions-to-failure
at 70% of 1RM in a similar fashion, our ES and 95%-CI suggested
otherwise. Interestingly, the 18-SET group demonstrated the
greatest gains in 1RM adaptations, but it exhibited the lowest de-
velopment in muscle endurance, or even a lack of increase in RTF as
the 95%-CI of the pre-to-post difference crossed zero (24-SET: ES:
0.91, 95%-CI: 1.65–9.7 reps; 18-SET: ES: 0.39, 95%-CI: 21.27 to
6.11 reps, 12-SET: ES: 0.80, 95%-CI: 1.45–8.54). This specific
finding is very intriguing, and we do not have a plausible expla-
nation for these strength endurance adaptations as they seem to
follow a regular “U” pattern instead of an inverted “U,” as ob-
served for maximum strength. To date, only Schoenfeld et al. (22)
have investigated the dose-response effects of training volume on
muscular endurance in resistance-trained individuals. They found
similar improvements in strength endurance on bench-press exer-
cise across groups that performed 6, 18, and 30 weekly sets. In
addition, they reported a similar magnitude of improvement
compared with the current study (i.e., ;4.0 repetitions vs. ;4.2
repetitions, respectively). Despite similarities observed in the
training outcomes, Schoenfeld et al. (22) had different exercise/
muscle group assessments, training intensity, and training back-
ground of the subjects. Yet, Schoenfeld et al. (22) and the current
study suggest that the repetitions zone (i.e., specificity) might be
more important than the utilized training volume to optimize the
gains in strength endurance. Nevertheless, this warrants further
investigation in resistance-trained individuals.
Regarding muscle hypertrophy, we did not find a dose-
response relationship between weekly training volume, VL,
and muscle mass accretion as assessed by 2 distinct methods
(i.e., MT and region of interest fat-free mass). In spite of the
Figure 3. Individual responses for pre–to-post changes in 1RM squat (A), sum of muscle thickness (B), and region of interest
for fat-free mass (C). 1RM 5 one repetition maximum.
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
important differences in weekly sets and VL, the average
increases across our experimental groups were similar for
MMT, DMT, and ROI-FFM (i.e., ;4.9, ;10.5 and ;3.8%,
95%-CI respectively). Recently, other studies have also investigated the
effects of distinct RT volumes on muscle mass accretion in
resistance-trained individuals, and results are equivocal. For
example, Barbalho et al. (2) found no differences between
groups on mid-thigh MT in individuals performing 5, 10, 15,
or 20 weekly sets for 24 weeks, which corroborates with pre-
vious shorter-duration studies that investigated the effects of
different training volumes on muscle hypertrophic adaptations
(10,16). However, it is important to note that Barbalho et al.
(2) had their subjects performing all the sets in 1 weekly session
compared with 2 or 3 weekly sessions in the current study and
other former studies (10,14,16,22). On the other hand,
Schoenfeld et al. (22) reported that 45 weekly sets increased
mid-thigh thickness to a greater extent compared with 9
weekly sets, with no differences between 45 and 27 weekly sets
after an 8-week training regimen. The average gains in MT
between Schoenfeld et al. (22) and our study for the mid-thigh
assessment were 0.42 and 0.26 cm, respectively. In addition,
the high-volume group in the Schoenfeld et al. study demon-
strated an increase in MT of approximately 0.66 cm, which is
;60% more than we observed in our highest response group
(i.e., 12-SET: 0.41 cm). Therefore, the findings from Schoen-
feld et al. (22) suggest that resistance-trained individuals need
to perform high training volumes (e.g., $27 weekly sets) to
enhance muscle hypertrophic adaptations. This discrepancy
may be due to the differences in training status between
Schoenfeld et al. and this current study (i.e., 1RM:BM about
1.31 vs. 2.09). However, the precise impact that training status
has on RT-induced adaptations in response to volume pro-
gressions remains to be investigated.
It is difficult to reconcile the results on the effects of training
volume on muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained individ-
uals for a few reasons. Although studies on the topic have
important differences, majority of them did not provide in-
formation pertaining to the VL (1–3,10,16,22). Consequently,
it is difficult to determine whether differences in weekly sets
performed actually produced differences in work performed
(i.e., tonnage). For example, in our study, a ;194,000-kg
difference in VL was not sufficient to enhance muscle hyper-
trophy adaptations when comparing the 24-SET and 12-SET
groups, after 8 weeks of training. Another important con-
founding factor that has been disregarded by researchers is the
weekly sets performed by subjects before commencement of
the actual study (1–3,10,16,22). A completely randomized
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Table 5 responders demonstrated significant differences compared with

Region of Interest for fat-free mass and muscle thickness moderate and lower responders (third tercile: 1.3 cm; second
assessments (mean 6 SD).* tercile: 0.5 cm; first tercile: 0.0 cm). Individual response analyses
Variable Group Pre Post ES 95%-CI revealed that an important proportion of the subjects (34.2%, 12
subjects) did not responded to variations in training volume. In-
ROI-FFM (kg) 12-SET 26.2 6 4.7 27.4 6 4.7 0.33 0.63 to 1.79
18-SET 25.7 6 2.2 26.8 6 2.2 0.31 0.48 to 1.69
terestingly, this was similarly distributed across the groups (24-
24-SET 26.0 6 3.3 26.7 6 3.1 0.19 0.03 to 1.36 SET 5 4 subjects; 18-SET 5 4 subjects and 12-SET: 4 subjects). In
MMT (cm) 12-SET 5.8 6 1.0 6.2 6 1.0 0.41 0.16 to 0.60 spite of impressive and significant differences between terciles,
18-SET 5.7 6 0.9 6.0 6 0.7 0.34 0.09 to 0.55 none of the tested covariates (i.e., SETDIFF, PSN, VL [VL, change
24-SET 5.9 6 0.7 6.0 6 0.7 0.16 20.09 to 0.40 in VL] influenced MT responses. It is noteworthy to mention that
DMT (cm) 12-SET 3.4 6 0.9 3.8 6 1.0 0.38 0.12 to 0.55 there were no differences between third and second quartiles for
18-SET 3.1 6 0.9 3.4 6 0.9 0.31 0.05 to 0.50 ROI-FFM. Intriguingly, the moderate- and high-responder clus-
24-SET 3.0 6 0.7 3.4 6 0.4 0.44 0.14 to 0.64 ters added more sets to their previous weekly set number than the
SMT (cm) 12-SET 9.3 6 1.9 10.0 6 2.0 0.43 0.33 to 1.0 lower responders (third tercile: 6.6 sets; second tercile: 4.4 sets;
18-SET 8.8 6 1.8 9.4 6 1.6 0.34 0.21 to 0.99
first tercile: 1.8 sets), although the ANCOVAs failed to demon-
24-SET 8.9 6 1.4 9.5 6 1.1 0.31 0.12 to 0.97
strate a statistically significant covariate effect.
*ES 5 effect sizes; 95%-CI 5 95% confidence intervals, 1RM 5 one repetition maximum; ROI-FFM Regarding perceived effort and pleasure assessments, our
5 region of interest fat-free mass; MMT 5 middle muscle thickness, DMT 5 distal muscle findings do not corroborate with previous acute research that
thickness; SMT 5 sum of muscle thickness.
demonstrated a relationship between training volume and in-
ternal load parameters (13). However, our data are in agree-
design is unlikely to balance training groups regarding training ment with the previous literature that demonstrated trained
volume history, which may introduce an important bias to the individuals responded similarly in measures of internal load
results. Taking this information in consideration, one may despite of important differences in work performed after 9
suggest that observed outcomes might be associated with weeks of training (19). Therefore, our results from the rate of
sudden changes in training volume rather than with a dose- perceived exertion and pleasure analyses did not suggest
response relationship between volume and the muscle mass a psychological/emotional inability to deal with the distinct
accretion. In the current study, previous training history training volumes and consequently to an overreaching condi-
(i.e., weekly sets per muscle group) was balanced between tion throughout the experimental period. It seems logical to
experimental groups; on average, subjects were performing conclude that difference in RT-adaptations might be more
;13.2 sets per muscle group per week before the intervention associated with limitations in muscle activation capacity
period. As a consequence, our experimental groups started the (maximum strength) and protein synthesis machinery (muscle
protocol with very similar baseline volume (Table 1). Although hypertrophy) than overreaching due to high training volumes.
our randomization procedure assured similar baseline volumes Even when using high training volumes, RT-induced adapta-
between groups, another important confounding variable was tions seem to be individualistic. However, our perceived effort
overlooked; some subjects reduced their volume when they and pleasure findings should be interpreted with a degree of
were assigned to the lower volume training groups. For ex- caution because of our short-term study design.
ample, 8 of 13 subjects (i.e., 61.5%) in the 12-SET group re- Certainly, our study has limitations that need to be addressed;
duced their weekly volume compared with what they were first, we tried to track the macronutrients and calories intake.
previously performing, 3 of 12 subjects reduced their weekly However, poor adherence by our subjects did not provide a good
sets in the 18-SET group, and only 1 of 10 reduced his weekly picture of their nutritional status during the experimental period.
sets in the 24-SET group. In fact, the 24-SET group almost Although the subjects were strictly instructed to maintain their
doubled their weekly sets (111.9 sets) (Table 1). Interestingly, normal diet and they received postworkout protein, the lack of
doubling the weekly volume for the 24-SET group did not diet control might be a confounding factor modulating muscle
translate in augmented muscle growth. mass accretion. Second, it would be interesting to have longer
As results across our groups were very similar in regard to training periods in such trained cohort to verify the effects of
muscle hypertrophy, we performed an exploratory analysis to different RT volumes on muscular adaptations. Finally, and most
identify possible factors that could explain differences between important, although this study was the first to assure groups
subjects (Table 6). For the criterion variable D-SMT, the higher started with a very similar weekly sets background,

Table 6
Exploratory analysis of the subjects’ responses having D-SMT as the criterion variable.*
Variable First-tercile Second-tercile Third-tercile
Group/n 12-SET/5; 18-SET/4; 24-SET/3 12-SET/4; 18-SET/4; 24-SET/3 12-SET/4; 18-SET/4; 24-SET/4
D-SMT (cm) 0.0 6 0.2† 0.5 6 0.1† 1.3 6 0.5
ROI-FFM (kg) 0.3 6 0.9† 1.1 6 0.6 1.6 6 1.0
PSN (sets·wk21) 15.1 6 7.0 13.0 6 8.1 11.4 6 9.0
SETDIFF (sets·wk21) 1.8 6 6.7 4.3 6 9.3 6.6 6 12.4
Volume load (kg) 294,784 6 102,774 260,824 6 86,454 265,502 6 87,611
D-Volume load (8 wk21 wk) (kg) 11,426.7 6 9,407.3 12,626.9 6 6,780.4 12,521.9 6 5,892.1
*SMT 5 sum of mid-thigh and distal muscle thickness; ROI-FFM 5 region of interest fat-free mass; PSN 5 previous set number performed per week for lower body; SETDIFF 5 PSN—number sets assigned to
experimental group.
†Indicates p # 0.05 when compared with third tercile.

Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load and Muscular Adaptations (2020) 00:00
approximately one third of our sample (i.e., 34.2%) reduced their
weekly sets during the experimental groups. Therefore, we need
to certify that experimental units increase work performed com-
pared with their PSN to gain a better insight on the effect of RT
volume on muscle hypertrophy.
In conclusion, although all of the groups increased maximum
strength, our results suggest that approximately 18 weekly sets
targeting the quadriceps muscle may optimize the gains in back
squat 1RM in resistance-trained individuals. Our result also
support that differences in work performed, measured by weekly
number of sets per muscle group and VL, did not impact the gains
in MT and region of interest fat-free mass in subjects who can
squat more than twice their body mass. Although, our findings
suggest the presence of a ceiling effect for such population that
performing 12–24 weekly sets per muscle and VL ranging from
191,648 to 386,374 kg will produce similar muscle mass accre-
tion outcomes in lower-body muscles. The effects of increasing
weekly sets proportionally to what the subjects were previously
performing would provide a better insight on the effects of
varying training volumes on muscle hypertrophy.
Practical Applications
Although maximum strength significantly increased in all
experimental groups, strength and conditioning professionals,
as well as practitioners aiming at improving 1RM squat,
should consider performing the middle dose range (e.g., 18
weekly sets) as we observed the largest effects. Concerning
hypertrophic adaptations, when training lower-body muscles
twice a week over an 8-week training block (i.e., 16 training
sessions), they should be aware that more sets per muscle
group per week might not translate in enhanced muscle
growth for highly trained individuals (i.e., 1RM:BM . 2.0).
Therefore, the prescription of RT volume needs to be in-
dividualized as the responses to a given volume may vary
considerably across resistance-trained individuals. However,
when more work is necessary to achieve a specific goal, indi-
viduals who squat twice their body mass can handle more
weekly sets as well as more VL without increasing RPE and FS
or performance and morphological adaptations during
a short-term training regimen (i.e., 8 weeks).
Acknowledgments
The researchers thank Dymatize Nutrition for supplying both the
preworkout and protein powder. In addition, there are no
conflicts of interests involved in this manuscript. Finally, the
results of this study do not constitute endorsement by the authors
or the NSCA.
References
1. Baker JS, Davies B, Cooper SM, et al. Strength and body composition
changes in recreationally strength-trained individuals: Comparison of one
versus three sets resistance-training programmes. Biomed Res Int 2013:
615901, 2013.
2. Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, et al. Evidence of a ceiling effect for
training volume in muscle hypertrophy and strength in trained men—Less
is more? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 12: 1–23, 2019.
3. Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, et al. Evidence for an upper threshold for
resistance training volume in trained women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51:
515–522, 2019.
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
4. Cadore EL, Menger E, Teodoro JL, et al. Functional and physiological
adaptations following concurrent training using sets with and without
concentric failure in elderly men: A randomized clinical trial. Exp Ger-
ontol 110: 182–190, 2018.
5. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in
response to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of
repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 50–60, 2002.
6. De Souza EO, Tricoli V, Rauch J, et al. Different patterns in muscular
strength and hypertrophy adaptations in untrained individuals un-
dergoing nonperiodized and periodized strength regimens. J Strength
Cond Res 32: 1238–1244, 2018.
7. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle hypertrophy
and health outcomes: The most effective variable in resistance training.
Sports Med 48: 499–505, 2018.
8. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, et al. Changes in exercises are more
effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 3085–3092, 2014.
9. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Sanchez-Medina L. Movement velocity as a measure of
loading intensity in resistance training. Int J Sports Med 31: 347–352, 2010.
10. Heaselgrave SR, Blacker J, Smeuninx B, McKendry J, Breen L. Dose-
response relationship of weekly resistance-training volume and frequency
on muscular adaptations in trained men. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14:
360–368, 2019.
11. Kennis E, Verschueren SM, Bogaerts A, et al. Long-term impact of
strength training on muscle strength characteristics in older adults. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 94: 2054–2060, 2013.
12. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hyper-
trophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150–1159, 2010.
13. Lodo L, Moreira A, Zavanela PM, et al. Is there a relationship between the
total volume of load lifted in bench press exercise and the rating of per-
ceived exertion? J Sports Med Phys Fitness 52: 483–488, 2012.
14. Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW. Strength and neuromuscular
adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance
exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 3007–3016, 2011.
15. Nicholson G, Ispoglou T, Bissas A. The impact of repetition mechanics on
the adaptations resulting from strength-, hypertrophy- and cluster-type
resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 1875–1888, 2016.
16. Ostrowski KW GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Lyttle AD. The effect of
weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and
function. J Strength Cond Res 11: 148–154, 1997.
17. Peterson MD, Pistilli E, Haff GG, Hoffman EP, Gordon PM. Progression
of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise. Eur J
Appl Physiol 111: 1063–1071, 2011.
18. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set volume
on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2585–2601, 2017.
19. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, et al. Auto-regulated exercise
selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and
maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. J Strength
Cond Res 2017. Epub ahead of print.
20. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett LN. Three sets of weight training
superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond
Res 16: 525–529, 2002.
21. Schoenfeld B, Grgic J. Evidence-based guidelines for resistance training
volume to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond J 40: 107–112,
2018.
22. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J, et al. Resistance training volume
enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 51: 94–103, 2019.
23. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship
between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle
mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35:
1073–1082, 2017.
24. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition duration
during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Sports Med 45: 577–585, 2015.
25. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Effects of different volume-
equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-
trained men. J Strength Cond Res 28:2909–2918, 2014.
26. Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Dascombe BJ. Training monitoring
for resistance exercise: Theory and applications. Sports Med 46: 687–698,
2016.
27. Starkey DB, Pollock ML, Ishida Y, et al. Effect of resistance training
volume on strength and muscle thickness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28:
1311–1320, 1996.