Have we overestimated training volume?

One of the big ideas thats been upsetting the training paradigm recently is muscle growth measurements, and the realization that A LOT of the high volume studies that supposedly showed superior muscle gains may have simply been…more swelling than muscle.

Higher volume training is known for producing more of a “pump”, which is the bro description of blood getting trapped within the muscle and an overall increase in intracellular and extracellular fluid.

This swelling is not muscle though. Actual muscle fiber growth is not so easy to measure, and simple circumference measurements and Cross-Sectional-Muscle-Area measurements dont tell you whether there was actual fiber growth.

We know this because anyone can hydrate with water and salt and sugar, go perform some sets of biceps curls, or leg extensions, or lateral raises (any isolation exercise really), and that muscle will grow over the course of the sets from the pump.

If we accept this possibility that, to some extent, muscle swelling has been mistaken for muscle growth, it might explain how studies have repeatedly shown that higher volume training boosts muscle size, but not strength

There have been various studies and and more than one meta analysis showing this, like this one

Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men

In this study, 3 different groups of men did a total body workout, consisting of either 1 set per exercise, 3 sets per exercise, or 5 sets per exercise.

The study became famous for showing that more sets led to more muscle.

But strength gains were relatively the SAME between all 3 groups.

The men that did THREE sets a week of bench press got equally as strong as the men doing 15 sets a week.

How was it possible that strength gains were the same, but muscle growth was greater?

When muscle fibers grow, they increase their capacity for force production. The premise that your muscle fibers could be getting larger, but their force production is not increasing…it doesnt make sense. A muscle fiber by 1st principle is a force production cellular unit. How can it be larger, but not stronger.

Maybe we’ve been wrong this whole time, and have been mistaking cellular swelling for muscle growth.

It would explain the recurrent findings in the research of higher volume leading to muscle gain, but not strength.

The counter argument is that strength gains are neurological, and that its misleading to use strength gains as a proxy for muscle gain, especially when comparing research.

This can be a valid argument. Strength gains can be entirely neurological with minimal gains in muscle mass, at least in the short term

But in the long term, strength increases ARE a reliable indicator of muscle growth

Bigger muscle are stronger muscles. Stronger muscles are bigger muscles.

What does this mean for training though?

The recommended set range for hypertrophy is 10-20 sets per week, per major muscle group, with a high level of effort.

What about for Strength?

For strength, the effective range is…1-10 sets a week.

However, training experience matters

1 set a week works in beginners, not in trained lifters.

3-6 sets per week is the minimum for TRAINED lifters to maintain and build strength.

lets assume 10 is the upper limit

Thats a hell of a lot less than 20 sets.

TLDR:

You can build muscle doing 4-10 hard sets a week. Splitting this into 2 (or 3 workouts), can work even better.