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
the training program. Number of sets, repetitions, and
volume-load are the most used measures of calculating
training volume.
Training volume has received particular interest in the
resistance training field since it is posited to be one of the
most effective variables to improve muscle hypertrophy
and health-related outcomes [1–4]. The resistance-training
volume is defined as the measure of the total amount of
work carried out in a single training session or summed over
weeks or months of training [5]. Work is the result of the
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 muscle 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,
even in laboratories [6]. Therefore, probably for this reason,
in the resistance-training literature, the volume is mostly
expressed using parameters that directly affect training work
[5–7], such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volumeload (sets*repetitions*load [kg]) [7–9]. With that, it is easier
to calculate the training volume and then to organize the
prescription of training programs [7–9].
The main uses of these forms of volume quantification
are in studies where the aim is to establish a relationship
The use of each measure to express the training volume,
then to equate it between training groups, depends on the
design of the studies.
* João Pedro Nunes
joaonunes.jpn@hotmail.com
1
Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory. Physical
Education and Sport Center, Londrina State University,
Londrina, Brazil
2
Exercise Science Program, Truman State University,
Kirksville, USA
3
Center for Research in Health Sciences, University
of Northern Paraná, Londrina, Brazil
Vol.:(0123456789)
J. P. Nunes et al.
between the dose of training and the hypertrophy response,
as well as to compare the effects of different training protocols in a volume-equated format. However, the literature
indicates that there is no single metric for estimating the
training volume [8–11] or, thus, for equating stimuli among
different protocols. Consequently, some studies may indicate
that the volume offered to different groups was the same,
when it was not, and may confer incorrect practical applications of the results. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate when to
use each measure of volume to equate the training stimulus
between different resistance-training schemes. That is to
say, among the common measures to quantify training volume, which is the most recommended for each study design
or practical application? This review aimed to raise some
concerns about measures of volume and to present possible
potentials and shortcomings of each measure when trying to
equate training stimuli between different training protocols.
2 Equating Resistance‑Training Volume
Although controversies exist concerning the ability to isolate the effects of one training variable, since changing one
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
the other variables constant (i.e., investigating the effects of
independent variables while matching the training volume
between conditions). The variables that may affect training
volume and comprise the training programs are: training
frequency, number of sets, repetitions per set, intensity of
load, rest intervals, execution velocity/tempo, type of muscle
action, exercise selection, exercise order, range of motion,
and the presence or not of concentric failure. Next, it is presented which volume measure to consider to equate different
protocols in which these variables are manipulated.
2.1 The Use of Number of Sets and Total Repetitions
A simple way to calculate training volume is through the
number of sets. In a recent review, Schoenfeld et al. [4] suggested that equating the number of sets per exercise per week
is necessary to determine causality when verifying the actual
influence of weekly training frequency on muscle hypertrophy. If this is not done, the differences in weekly set-volume
may confound the ability to draw proper inferences [4, 19].
Indeed, the number of sets may be used to equate training
volume in most frequency studies [19], particularly when
the difference in the number of sessions per week compared
is ≤ 2 (e.g., 1–2 vs. 3 x/week). However, more recent studies
have indicated that when comparing high (> 4x/week) vs.
low muscle frequencies (≤ 2x/week) with the same weekly
sets (e.g., 1x/week with 5 sets per session vs. 5x/week with
1 set per session), the number of repetitions performed per
week tends to be different between groups, favoring the
high-frequency condition [20–22]. As noted in the work of
Zaroni et al. [20], this occurs because participants in the lowfrequency groups probably experience fatigue accumulation
during multiple sets, which reduces the total number of repetitions over the sessions. Thus, while a common measure
of volume (i.e., weekly sets) is equated between groups, others are not (e.g., repetitions or volume-load). In such cases,
in order to consider that the training volume was equated
at least the total number of repetitions (sets*repetitions)
should not be statistically different between groups. While
also considering the load (sets*repetitions*load) may be an
additional option, volume of sets only seems to be insufficient. Thus, if only sets were equated between the groups, it
is correct to say that the weekly sets were equated [23], and
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 influence of the greater volume of repetitions should be taken
into consideration. Use of adequate operational definitions
is needed to clarify the understanding of the design of the
studies and their practical applications.
2.2 The Use of Volume‑Load
The number of sets or total repetitions no longer fulfill the
function of representing training volume when manipulating variables that also can affect the training load, the
weight used in the exercises. Therefore, the volume-load
(sets*repetitions*load) is a necessary proxy to represent the
training volume to verify if it was equated between groups
because the variables that compose it (set, repetitions, and
load) may be influenced ultimately. This is the case when
exploring some advanced training systems and techniques
such as the pyramidal system, drop-set, rest-pause, combined-sets (bi-set, tri-set, super-set, and giant-set), exercise
order (including pre-exhaustion and circuit training), and
periodized protocols (with variations in sets, repetitions,
or load). For example, to equate the volume of a drop-set
training with a traditional protocol, volume-load should be
considered as a measure of training volume, and not only
the number of sets and drop-sets. On these occasions, no
other variable is abruptly changed besides the number of
sets, repetitions, and training loads, and thus, volume-load
is sufficient for the equalization of training volume between
groups. Also, volume-load may serve as a measure to represent training volume when investigating the influence of
movement velocity and rest interval between sets, as recently
reported by Pearson et al. [24] and Longo et al. [25], respectively. Of note, muscle hypertrophy tends to be very similar
Equating Resistance-Training Volume
when volume-load is similar between protocols in which
these variables are manipulated [24–33].
The same logic may be valid when comparing the effects
of concentric vs. eccentric muscle actions [34–36]. Studies
that compare these separately [34, 35] are conducted almost
exclusively in the laboratory environment where it may be
easier to equate the volume by the total work (in joules), as
with an isokinetic dynamometer [34, 35], and their findings
have limited applicability to weight rooms (of note, the total
work has to be considered in these cases, instead of matching
by torque and repetitions only, because of the differences in
the mechanical efficiency of eccentric and concentric muscle
actions [37, 38]). In these cases, given that maximal strength
in eccentric training is approximately 20–50% greater than
that of concentric training, it has been speculated that the
greater amount of load lifted during eccentric muscle actions
(when matched by sets or repetitions as opposed to total
work) may be responsible for differences in muscle hypertrophy [35]. Moreover, some practitioners use advanced
training techniques to focus on the eccentric muscle actions
[36, 39]. For example, the use of the assisted-sets technique
refers to when an experienced spotter helps the practitioner
to perform the concentric muscle actions (with minor taps
on the bar or platform; usually to break the sticking point
in final repetitions of a set) when exercises are performed
with a load greater than that which can be completed without assistance. The greater eccentric overload can also be
obtained from a greater load placed on the implement only
during the eccentric phase or through the performance of
the cheating-sets technique. The latter refers to when the
strict exercise form is abandoned to achieve concentric muscle actions, but movement control is maintained during the
eccentric phase. Equating the training volume in these cases
may be by volume-load as well, which considers the extra
load or repetitions.
Comparing different intensities of load and/or ranges of
repetitions maximum (RM) per set also influence variables
that compose the volume-load. In most studies comparing different intensities of load, when the volume-load was
equated between groups, muscle hypertrophy tended to be
very similar [40–42]. This indicates that volume-load is a
recommended proxy to calculate training volume, but it may
be most accurate when there are small differences in the
RM-zone prescribed [19] and when other variables, with
exception of load and RM, are held constant. Sometimes,
the number of sets has to be increased in one condition to
match the volume-load of the other one [40–43], since the
relationship between load and RM is not always linear [12,
44, 45]. It is worth noting that training with RM is subtly
different from training with a relative %1RM with a predetermined repetition-zone. When performing sets with a
relative %1RM and a fixed number of repetitions, the effort
employed may differ between subjects depending on the
individual level of maximum and endurance strength [9,
12]. For the same %1RM, a wide range of repetitions can
be performed for different individuals [12, 44, 45]; thus,
if a predetermined repetition-zone is used, some practitioners may be employing a maximal effort, while others
may be using a very submaximal one [12]. Also, attention
is required when a group uses very-low loads (e.g., when
comparing protocols with ≤ 40%1RM vs. ≥ 85%1RM), since,
in the low-load group, sets might not actually be performed
to failure. This happens because the ability to reach the real
momentary muscular failure is not entirely accurate among
most individuals, especially in high-repetition sets [46–48].
Thus, even in a volume-load-equated format, results should
be analyzed with caution because “failing” is another variable that may be different between protocols (and not load
only), influencing the responses [49]. In these cases, as well
as when comparing groups that perform sets to failure or
not, or different distances to failure (e.g., cluster-sets [28],
repetitions in reserve [50]), since sets, repetitions, and load
are affected, volume-load has to be used as a proxy to match
training volumes [51, 52]. In addition, it has been shown that
the implementation of other training types (i.e., aerobic or
stretching) to resistance-training programs, and the use of
blood-flow restriction cuffs, may influence training volume
[53, 54]. Volume-load may also be a valid proxy to calculate
training volume herein due to the same line of reasoning,
i.e. these training alternatives may affect the repetitions performed or the load to be used [53, 54].
At this point, it is important to note that it is not because
the volume-load (as well as other measures of volume) is
equated between different conditions that the hypertrophic
gains will be equal. Also, higher volumes do not guarantee greater physiological demand [10, 55] or hypertrophy
[56–58]. Muscle hypertrophy is the result of a multi-factorial
process that involves much more than the external workvolume carried out [13, 59, 60]. The main point here is
to indicate that for affirming that the volumes are equated
between groups in these situations, the volume-load has to
be considered the measure to estimate it, and not only the
number of sets or total repetitions.
2.2.1 The Use of Relative Volume‑Load
A caveat should be mentioned regarding studies comparing any of the training variables mentioned so far but in
samples of significantly different average levels of baseline
strength (e.g., trained vs. untrained, men vs. women [61]). In
these cases, the “load” in the volume-load formula should be
individually adjusted [9]; otherwise, the weaker counterpart
will present a lower volume-load which may erroneously
insinuate that they performed a very submaximal training,
even if both groups work at the same training characteristics
(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 baseline performance on a maximum strength test (e.g., 1RM),
i.e., sets*repetitions*%1RM (volume-%load; arbitrary units)
[7, 9]. This also is an appropriate approach to consider the
training volume when trying to equate it between groups in
studies that compare the same training program but in these
different samples.
regarding the effects of each exercise, improving the applicability of the findings [17]. Of note, this approach is what has
been done most [62, 65–78], and is valid for studies comparing exercises of different numbers of joints involved (single
vs. multi-joint), ranges of motion (full vs. partial), apparatus
(machine vs. free-weight), angles (inclined vs. declined), and
initial joint positions (stretched vs. shortened).
2.3 What to Do When Comparing Different
Exercises?
2.3.1 Recent Considerations and Unresolved Issues
Concerning Training Volume per Muscle
When comparing the effects of the execution of different
exercises, it is important to appreciate that there are substantial differences in the muscles or muscle portions that
are trained. Therefore, considering training volume as the
amount of work carried out that ultimately represents the
strain imposed on the muscles, and given that different
exercises stimulate different muscles, there is no rationale
to equate training volume between exercises that place effort
on different body regions. For example, for the same targeted
muscle (e.g., quadriceps femoris), performing a multi-joint
exercise (e.g., squat or leg press) results in greater volumeload than a single-joint exercise (e.g., leg extension) because
of the greater load that can be placed on the multi-joint exercises; however, this does not mean that greater hypertrophy
will be seen for quadriceps [62]. A greater volume-load is
seen in multi-joint exercises only because more joints and
muscles are trained at once. Thus, in studies comparing different exercises, increasing the number of sets or repetitions
in the single-joint exercise to try to match the volume-load
as the multi-joint exercise is not recommended (albeit this
has already been done; e.g., [63]), because—considering
the previous example; leg extension vs. squat—the greater
volume-load for the leg-extension exercise will be designated to knee extensors only, while for the squat, it will be
dissipated between the other hip, knee, and ankle muscles.
In the same way, for example, in a full-depth squat, lower
loads can be placed on the bar in comparison to a half-squat
(resulting in a lower volume-load for the same RM-zone),
and this does not mean that the hypertrophy will be blunted
for the trained muscles [64–66]. Also, by varying the range
of motion, different muscle portions are stimulated during
an exercise [64–66]. Therefore, volume-load (or any other
measure of external work) is not a valid measure to estimate
training volume when comparing different exercises because
it is not sufficient to estimate the percentage of stimulus
that is placed into each muscle or portion due to exercise
variation [13].
In this sense, when aiming to compare the isolated effects
of different exercises, it is recommended to keep constant
all other possible variables (number of sets, RM-zone,
etc.) between the groups, so the only difference will be the
selected exercises. With this, conclusions will be driven only
Volume counting in the resistance-training literature has
changed over the years and has become more specific. Previously, meta-analytic reviews used to consider volume as
the number of sets performed per whole body [79], then as
the number of sets per exercise per session [80, 81], number of sets per exercise per week [82], and, more recently,
sets per muscle group per week [2]. Traditionally, 1 set of
squat, 1 set of leg press, and 1 set of leg extension are all
counted as 1 set for the quadriceps femoris [2, 4, 83], and,
more controversially, 1 set of bench press is counted as 1 set
for the pectoralis major, 1 set for the anterior deltoid, and 1
set for the triceps brachii [84]. Currently, discussions have
been raised concerning how much volume of an exercise can
be considered for each exercised muscle [83]; that is, can
different exercises be counted equally for a common target
muscle? and, can different muscles worked in an exercise
be counted as if they were trained equally? Although these
issues appear to be more related to the research field [83,
85, 86], elucidating such points is also important for the
organization of recreational fitness schedules once the muscles experience demands of distinct magnitudes during an
exercise [83]—which seems to be the case, as demonstrated
by Chiu [13].
The literature is controversial on this topic and does need
more studies before trying to answer such questions or propose
new metrics [83]. As an example, some studies showed that
the triceps brachii hypertrophied 50% in comparison with the
pectoralis major following a barbell chest-press training [68,
87], which would indicate that the volume performed on the
chest press for the triceps has to be counted as a half volume
compared to the pectoralis major, that is, in a 0.5:1.0 ratio.
Also, the triceps increased 50% in the chest press compared
to the triceps extension exercise [68], which would indicate
that 1 set of chest press has to be counted as a 0.5 set for the
triceps. However, these results represent the outcomes on a
group-mean basis, and some individuals might have presented
different hypertrophy ratios between the muscles besides the
0.5:1.0. Moreover, these results relate to specific training characteristics, and different findings could be seen if the chest
press was performed in different ways (e.g., with different grip
widths, bench inclinations, machines, intensities), as observed
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
Comparing weekly frequencies
Measure of training volume to be used for equating volume between conditions
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. Repetitionsvolume is easily counted by multiplicating the number of repetitions performed during the
sets; 3 sets × 10 reps = 30 reps
The use of volume-load is necessary to estimate training volume, then to equate it between
Comparing training loads, repetition-zones;
groups since it covers the variables that can be influenced (sets, repetitions, load) by the
failure vs. not to failure; exercise order;
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
groups, when there are differences between groups on baseline strength levels
affect load and repetitions, e.g., drop-set, restpause, cluster-sets, pre-exhaustion, pyramid, E.g., in a unilateral dumbbell curl, where the dumbbell weight is 10 kg and this represents 80%
of the 1RM:
compound-sets
Volume-load: 3 sets × 10 reps x 10 kg = 300 kg
Volume-%load: 3 sets × 10 reps × 80% = 24 a.u.
No common proxy (like volume-load) is valid to equate the volume between different exerComparing exercises with different number
cises. When trying to compare the isolated effects of different exercises, it is recommended
of joints involved (single vs. multi-joint),
to hold constant all other possible variables (number sets, RM-zone, etc.), so that the unique
ranges of motion (full vs. partial), apparatus
(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 average ~ 50% compared to the quadriceps; however, this proportion was ~ 140% when squat was performed in a full-depth
way [65]. In both conditions, the hamstrings did not present
any increase [65], which would indicate that the volume of
squat should not be counted for this muscle group. Similarly,
Mannarino et al. [78] observed that the biceps brachii hypertrophied ~ 50% in a compound exercise (lat-row) compared to
an isolation exercise (biceps curl); conversely, in another study
involving elbow flexion [70], similar changes were observed
between compound (lat-pulldown) and isolation exercises
(biceps curl) on biceps brachii hypertrophy. Also, Nunes et al.
[73] showed that gastrocnemii hypertrophy may be dictated
by feet positioning during a calf-raise training, and Maeo et al.
[71] observed that trunk position may influence hamstring
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 different muscles involved in an exercise can hypertrophy varies
considerably, as shown in the literature [65, 67–78, 87–91].
These responses depend on the exercises selected [92], the
biomechanical properties of each muscle [13], and on several
factors such as the intensity of load used, individual training
status, ability to place internal focus on muscle contraction,
among others [83]. Some authors suggest that this ratio of
hypertrophy demand may be associated with the degree of
activation of each muscle or muscle portion during the exercises [13, 73, 88, 90, 91, 93]. Nevertheless, again, the degree of
activation of a muscle in relation to another can vary between
exercises, training variables, individual characteristics, as well
as the training background, as recently noted by Stronska et al.
[94].
Therefore, trying to equate training volume placed on different muscles through the performance of different exercises, as well as trying to define any other hypertrophy ratio
(rather than 1:1) between different muscles, does not seem
to be feasible at present [83]. As discussed in previous paragraphs, when comparing different exercises, the most suitable method is to organize the study design with all other
training variables prescribed in the same way so that the
unique difference between groups is the exercise selected.
Future studies should further test whether different muscles present different hypertrophic responses for the same
exercise, and whether different exercises present different
hypertrophic responses for the same muscle.
3 Conclusions
Volume represents a measure of total work performed during resistance training, and it can be expressed through the
number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load. When trying
to equate volume between groups, the variables that should
enter into the volume calculation are those that may differ
between the training approaches and that can be monitored
(e.g., in studies in which groups perform training programs
at different repetitions-zone and training loads, the volumeload has to be considered as a measure to equate training volume because this method takes into account these variables).
J. P. Nunes et al.
In Table 1summarizes the measures of training volume
which should be used in various study design. The points
presented herein may help to interpret the volume measures and hypertrophic outcomes of previous studies and to
prepare designs of future volume-equated investigations.
We believe that by correctly equating the volume between
training groups, the effects of the analyzed independent variables (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, failure vs.
non-failure) can be better explored [17, 18].
Author contributions JPN wrote the first draft. WK, BDVC, JLM,
ASR, and ESC revised and made substantial contributions to the original work. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Declarations
Funding No external sources of funding were used in the preparation
of this article.
Conflict of interest João Pedro Nunes, Witalo Kassiano, Bruna Costa,
Jerry Mayhew, Alex Ribeiro and Edilson Cyrino declare that they have
no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.
References
1. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle
hypertrophy and health outcomes: the most effective variable in
resistance training. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):499–505.
2. 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.
2017;35(11):1073–82.
3. Morton RW, Colenso-Semple L, Phillips SM. Training for strength
and hypertrophy: an evidence-based approach. Curr Opin Physiol.
2019;10:90–5.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger JW. How many times per week
should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency. J Sports Sci.
2019;37(11):1286–95.
5. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs.
4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2014.
6. Frost DM, Cronin J, Newton RU. A biomechanical evaluation of
resistance: fundamental concepts for training and sports performance. Sports Med. 2010;40(4):303–26.
7. Haff GG. Quantifying workloads in resistance training: a brief
review. UK Strength Cond J. 2010;19:31–40.
8. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Evidence-based guidelines for resistance
training volume to maximize muscle hypertrophy. Strength Cond
J. 2018;40(4):107–12.
9. Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Dascombe BJ. Training
monitoring for resistance exercise: theory and applications.
Sports Med. 2016;46(5):687–98.
10. Marston KJ, Peiffer JJ, Newton MJ, Scott BR. A comparison of
traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training. Sci
Rep. 2017;7(1):5606.
11. McBride JM, McCaulley GO, Cormie P, Nuzzo JL, Cavill MJ,
Triplett NT. Comparison of methods to quantify volume during
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):106–10.
12. Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, Counts BR,
Buckner SL, et al. Training to fatigue: the answer for standardization when assessing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med.
2017;47(6):1021–7.
13. Chiu LZF. Biomechanical methods to quantify muscle
effort during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
2018;32(2):502–13.
14. de Sá EC, Medeiros AR, Ferreira AS, Ramos AG, Janicijevic D,
Boullosa D. Validity of the iLOAD® app for resistance training
monitoring. PeerJ. 2019;7:e7372.
15. Castilla AP, Boullosa DA, García-Ramos A. Reliability and validity of the iLOAD® application for monitoring the mean set velocity during the back squat and bench press exercises performed
against different loads. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(Suppl
1):S57–65.
16. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Geiser G, Krzykowski J, Kipp K. Validity and reliability of a computer-vision-based smartphone app
for measuring barbell trajectory during the snatch. J Sports Sci.
2020;38(6):710–6.
17. Polito MD. Improving muscular strength and hypertrophy: are
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,
Ribeiro AS. Are we exploring the potential role of specialized
training techniques in muscle hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med. 2021
(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.
20. Zaroni RS, Brigatto FA, Schoenfeld BJ, Braz TV, Benvenutti JC,
Germano MD, et al. High resistance-training frequency enhances
muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
2019;33(Suppl 1):140–51.
21. Gomes GK, Franco CM, Nunes PRP, Orsatti FL. High-frequency
resistance training is not more effective than low-frequency resistance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in welltrained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(Suppl 1):130–9.
22. Saric J, Lisica D, Orlic I, Grgic J, Krieger JW, Vuk S, et al. Resistance training frequencies of 3 and 6 times per week produce similar muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men. J Strength
Cond Res. 2019;33(Suppl 1):122–9.
23. Pina FLC, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Nascimento MA, Gerage AM, Januário RSB, et al. Effects of different weekly setsequated resistance training frequencies on muscular strength,
muscle mass, and body fat in older women. J Strength Cond Res.
2020;34(10):2990–5.
24. Pearson J, Wadhi T, Barakat C, Aube D, Schoenfeld BJ, Andersen
JC, et al. Does varying repetition tempo in a single-joint lower
body exercise augment muscle size and strength in resistancetrained men? J Strength Cond Res. 2021 (ahead of print).
25. Longo AR, Silva-Batista C, Pedroso K, de Salles Painelli V,
Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Volume load rather than resting interval influences muscle hypertrophy during high-intensity
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
26. Wilk M, Tufano JJ, Zajac A. The influence of movement tempo
on acute neuromuscular, hormonal, and mechanical responses
to resistance exercise—a mini review. J Strength Cond Res.
2020;34(8):2369–83.
27. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Krieger JW, Schoenfeld BJ. The
effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance
training on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(8):983–93.
28. Totó ECC, Conceição M, Vieira A, Pareja-Blanco F, Bottaro
M, Boullosa D. Are cluster sets an effective method to induce
Equating Resistance-Training Volume
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
muscular hypertrophy in response to resistance training? Braz
J Sport Med. 2020;42:1–6.
Krzysztofik M, Wilk M, Wojdała G, Gołas A. Maximizing
muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review of advanced resistance training techniques and methods. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2019;16(24):E4897.
Nunes JP, Grgic J, Cunha PM, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, de
Salles BF, et al. What influence does resistance exercise order
have on muscular strength gains and muscle hypertrophy? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci. 2020
(ahead of print).
Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):577–85.
Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Cunha PM, Aguiar AF, Schoenfeld BJ.
The potential role of pre-exhaustion training in maximizing
muscle hypertrophy: a review of the literature. Strength Cond
J. 2019;41(1):75–80.
Angleri V, Ugrinowitsch C, Augusto C. Crescent pyramid and
drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle
hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with
traditional resistance training in well- trained men. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2017;117(2):359–69.
Franchi MV, Reeves ND, Narici MV. Skeletal muscle remodeling in response to eccentric vs. concentric loading: morphological, molecular, and metabolic adaptations. Front Physiol.
2017;8:447.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Vigotsky AD, Franchi MV, Krieger
JW. Hypertrophic effects of concentric vs. eccentric muscle
actions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond
Res. 2017;31(9):2599–608.
Hackett DA, Amirthalingam T. A brief review of forced repetitions for the promotion of muscular hypertrophy. Strength Cond
J. 2015;37(5):14–20.
De Looze MP, Toussaint HM, Commissaris DACM, Jans MP,
Sargeant AJ. Relationships between energy expenditure and positive and negative mechanical work in repetitive lifting and lowering. J Appl Physiol. 1994;77(1):420–6.
Abbott BC, Bigland B, Ritchie JM. The physiological cost of
negative work. J Physiol. 1952;117(3):380–90.
Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Chow CM. Training practices and
ergogenic aids used by male bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res.
2013;27(6):1609–17.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance
training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained
men. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2909–18.
Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and
hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resistance
training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond
Res. 2017;31(12):3508–23.
Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Tavares
LD, et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with
equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J
Sport Sci. 2018;18(6):772–80.
Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC,
Murray TF, et al. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88(1–2):50–60.
Hoeger WWK, Hopkins DR, Barrete SL, Hale DF. Relationship
between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition
maximum: a comparison between untrained and trained males
and females. J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4(2):47–54.
Shimano T, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL,
Silvestre R, et al. Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
weight exercises in trained and untrained men. J Strength Cond
Res. 2006;20(4):819–23.
Steele J, Endres A, Fisher J, Gentil P, Giessing J. Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate,
though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ.
2017;5:e4105.
Emanuel A, Smukas IIR, Halperin I. An analysis of the perceived
causes leading to task-failure in resistance-exercises. PeerJ.
2020;8:e9611.
Mansfield S, Peiffer J, Hughes L, Scott B. Estimating repetitions
in reserve for resistance exercise: an analysis of factors which
impact on prediction accuracy. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead
of print).
Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Orazem J, Sabol F. Effects of resistance
training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular
strength and hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Sport Health Sci. 2021 (ahead of print).
Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the
repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for
resistance training. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(4):42–9.
Martorelli S, Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Celes R, Martorelli A,
Cleto VA, et al. Strength training with repetitions to failure does
not provide additional strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in
young women. Eur J Transl Myol. 2017;27(2):113–20.
Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva-Batista C, Barros T de S,
Aihara AY, Brendon H, et al. Muscle failure promotes greater
muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance
training. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 (ahead of print).
Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Nakamura M, Ribeiro AS, Cunha PM,
Cyrino ES. Does stretch training induce muscle hypertrophy in
humans? A review of the literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging.
2020;40(3):148–56.
Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, Dankel SJ,
Abe T, et al. Muscle adaptations to high-load training and very
low-load training with and without blood flow restriction. Front
Physiol. 2018;9:1448.
Martorelli AS, de Lima FD, Vieira A, Tufano JJ, Ernesto C, Boullosa D, et al. The interplay between internal and external load
parameters during different strength training sessions in resistance-trained men. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021;21(1):16–25.
Nunes JP, Pina FLC, Ribeiro AS, Cunha PM, Kassiano W, Costa
BDV, et al. Responsiveness to muscle mass gain following 12 and
24 weeks of resistance training in older women. Aging Clin Exp
Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Anand A, Barakat C, Pearson J, et al.
Progressive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
Scarpelli MC, Nóbrega SR, Santanielo N, Alvarez IF, Otoboni
GB, Ugrinowitsch C, et al. Muscle hypertrophy response is
affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 (ahead of print).
Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and
their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(10):2857–72.
Jorgenson KW, Phillips SM, Hornberger TA. Identifying the structural adaptations that drive the mechanical load-induced growth
of skeletal muscle: a scoping review. Cells. 2020;9(7):1658.
Latella C, Teo WP, Spathis J, van den Hoek D. Long-term strength
adaptation: a 15-year analysis of powerlifting athletes. J Strength
Cond Res. 2020;34(9):2412–8.
Angelico D. A comparison of open and closed chain knee extension exercises on patterns of quadriceps hypertrophy [Internet].
2020. https://​digit​alcom​mons.​uri.​edu/​theses/​1845. Accessed 19
Jan 2021
J. P. Nunes et al.
63. Paoli A, Gentil P, Moro T, Marcolin G, Bianco A. Resistance
training with single vs. multi-joint exercises at equal total load
volume: effects on body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness,
and muscle strength. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1105.
64. Newmire DE, Willoughby DS. Partial compared with full range of
motion resistance training for muscle hypertrophy: a brief review
and an identification of potential mechanisms. J Strength Cond
Res. 2018;32(9):2652–64.
65. Kubo K, Ikebukuro T, Yata H. Effects of squat training with different depths on lower limb muscle volumes. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2019;119(9):1933–42.
66. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, Madsgaard S, Boesen
M, Raastad T. Effect of range of motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2013;113(8):2133–42.
67. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, de Souza EO, Wilson JM,
Laurentino GC, et al. Changes in exercises are more effective than
in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond
Res. 2014;28(11):3085–92.
68. Brandão L, de Salles PV, Lasevicius T, Silva-Batista C, Brendon
H, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Varying the order of combinations of
single- and multi-joint exercises differentially affects resistance
training adaptations. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(5):1254–63.
69. Pinto RS, Gomes N, Radaelli R, Botton CE, Brown LE, Bottaro
M. Effect of range of motion on muscle strength and thickness. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(8):2140–5.
70. Gentil P, Soares S, Bottaro M. Single vs multi-joint resistance
exercises: effects on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Asian J
Sports Med. 2015;6(2):e24057.
71. Maeo S, Meng H, Yuhang W, Sakurai H, Kusagawa Y, Sugiyama
T, et al. Greater hamstrings muscle hypertrophy but similar damage protection after training at long versus short muscle lengths.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53(4):825–837.
72. Chaves SFN, Rocha-Júnior VA, Encarnação IGA, Martins-Costa
HC, Freitas EDS, Coelho DB, et al. Effects of horizontal and
incline bench press on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained
young men. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13(6):859–72.
73. Nunes JP, Costa BDV, Kassiano W, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza
P, Rodacki ALF, et al. Different foot positioning during calf training to induce portion-specific gastrocnemius muscle hypertrophy.
J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(8):2347–51.
74. Nunes JP, Jacinto JL, Ribeiro AS, Mayhew JL, Nakamura M,
Capel DMG, et al. Placing greater torque at shorter or longer
muscle lengths? Effects of cable vs. barbell preacher curl training on muscular strength and hypertrophy in young adults. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(16):5859.
75. Costa BD V, Kassiano W, Nunes JP, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza
P, Rodacki ALF, et al. Does performing different resistance exercises induce non-homogeneous hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med.
2020 (ahead of print).
76. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, Alvarez MR, Brummert
DL, Aube DW, et al. Auto-regulated exercise selection training
regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal
strength adaptations in highly trained individuals. J Strength Cond
Res. 2020;34(4):1133–40.
77. Baz-Valle E, Schoenfeld BJ, Torres-Unda J, Santos-Concejero
J, Balsalobre-Fernández C. The effects of exercise variation in
muscle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in resistance
trained men. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0226989.
78. Mannarino P, Matta T, Lima J, Simão R, de Salles BF. Singlejoint exercise results in higher hypertrophy of elbow flexors than
multijoint exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 (ahead of print).
79. Peterson MD, Sen A, Gordon PM. Influence of resistance exercise on lean body mass in aging adults: a meta-analysis. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2011;43(2):249–58.
80. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for
muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res.
2010;24(4):1150–9.
81. Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose-response relationships
of resistance training in healthy old adults: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(12):1693–720.
82. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of
weekly set volume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2017;47(12):2585–601.
83. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Haun C, Itagaki T, Helms ER. Calculating
set-volume for the limb muscles with the performance of multijoint exercises: implications for resistance training prescription.
Sport. 2019;7:177.
84. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a
meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1890–901.
85. Arruda A, Souza D, Steele J, Fisher J, Giessing J, Gentil P.
Reliability of meta-analyses to evaluate resistance training programmes. J Sports Sci. 2016;35(20):1982–4.
86. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. The dose–response
relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts? J Sports Sci.
2017;35(20):1985–7.
87. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time
course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following
bench press training. Interv Med Appl Sci. 2012;4(4):217–20.
88. Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform
muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training
session. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(11):2158–65.
89. Ema R, Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Kanehisa H, Kawakami
Y. Inhomogeneous architectural changes of the quadriceps
femoris induced by resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2013;113(11):2691–703.
90. Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, Murata K, Kanehisa H,
Kawakami Y, et al. Association between regional differences in
muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in
muscle hypertrophy after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2012;112(4):1569–76.
91. Wakahara T, Ema R, Miyamoto N, Kawakami Y. Inter- and
intramuscular differences in training-induced hypertrophy of
the quadriceps femoris: association with muscle activation
during the first training session. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging.
2017;37(4):405–12.
92. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ. Selection of resistance exercises for older individuals: the forgotten variable. Sports Med.
2020;50(6):1051–7.
93. Wakahara T. Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy along the length
induced by resistance training. In: Kanosue K, Nagami T,
Tshuchiya J, editors. Sports performance. Tokyo: Springer Japan;
2015. p. 157–74.
94. Stronska K, Golas A, Wilk M, Zajac A, Maszczyk A, Stastny
P. The effect of targeted resistance training on bench press performance and the alternation of prime mover muscle activation
patterns. Sport Biomech. 2020 (ahead of print).