Schoenfeld et al. 2017: Dose-Response of Weekly Resistance Training Volume
Key takeaways
- A graded dose-response was observed between weekly hard sets per muscle group and hypertrophy, with effect size increasing with volume.
- The 10+ sets per muscle per week threshold produced substantially larger gains than fewer sets, in the pooled data.
- Sets were defined as those taken to within a few repetitions of failure; the analysis does not support equating low-effort sets with hard sets.
- The dose-response was characterized over a range of approximately 5 to 20+ sets per muscle per week; the upper bound of the productive range was not definitively established.
- Subsequent work (notably Schoenfeld et al. 2019) extended this to volumes of 20+ sets per week, with continued though smaller marginal gains and rising recovery cost.
Purpose
The number of weekly sets per muscle group required to maximize hypertrophy has been a defining question in evidence-based programming since the early 2000s. Schoenfeld and colleagues set out to characterize the dose-response shape — does adding more weekly volume continue to produce gains, and at what point does the curve flatten?
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA. The investigators searched for randomized trials in healthy adults that compared resistance training programs differing in weekly set volume per muscle group, with hypertrophy measured by direct site-specific methods (muscle thickness via ultrasound, MRI, or DXA-derived limb composition). Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were stratified into low (<5 sets/week), medium (5 to <10), and high (10+) volume categories.
Key Findings
A graded dose-response was observed: higher-volume conditions produced larger hypertrophy effect sizes than lower-volume conditions. The largest jump in effect size occurred at the threshold of approximately 10 sets per muscle group per week. The pooled data did not support a plateau within the volume range tested; subsequent work by the same research group (Schoenfeld et al. 2019) examined volumes up to 30+ sets per week and reported continued — though smaller and likely cost-bearing — marginal gains.
A definition note is essential: the included studies operationalized a “set” as a working set taken to within a few repetitions of momentary muscular failure. Warm-up sets and easy sets are not equivalent currency in this analysis. This caveat is widely misapplied in practice, where higher set counts are sometimes claimed without the per-set effort necessary to count.
Limitations
Hypertrophy measurements and study durations varied. Most trials ran 8 to 12 weeks, which truncates the dose-response question for long-term trainees. The upper bound of the productive volume range was not established by this paper; later work suggests that returns continue to diminish past 20 sets per week and may eventually become net negative if recovery is exceeded. Trained-subject data were sparser than novice data. The site-specific muscle thickness measurements, while preferred over whole-body DXA, vary in methodology between trials.
Takeaway
Schoenfeld et al. (2017) is the most-cited reference for the practical recommendation that hypertrophy-oriented programming should target a minimum of approximately 10 hard sets per muscle group per week, with productive returns continuing into the 15 to 20-set range for trained lifters. Volumes substantially below 10 sets per week appear to produce sub-maximal hypertrophy in healthy adults pursuing muscle gain. Volumes substantially above 20 sets per week are individually defensible but trade off against recovery, joint stress, and adherence in ways the existing meta-analytic data do not fully capture.
References
- Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2017;35(11):1073-1082. · DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
- Schoenfeld BJ et al. Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. MSSE. 2019;51(1):94-103.
- Baz-Valle E et al. The effects of exercise variation in muscle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in resistance trained men. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0226989.
Editorial standards. Evidence summaries are written from the primary source and reviewed against our editorial process. Methodology details for our app evaluations live in our published methodology.