High volume vs high intensity: which builds more muscle? • Stronger by Science

Few topics in the fitness industry divide the community like this one. On the one end, you’ve got the higher-volume camp, the “more sets = more growth” crowd. In more recent years, this has also often meant keeping sets a bit more submaximal, using the RIR-scale to guide this.

On the other end, high-intensity lifters swear by a “one all-out set to failure” approach. The argument often rests on the thrust that higher volumes can’t be recovered from and/or aren’t actually beneficial for hypertrophy.

But what does the research actually say is best for hypertrophy?

For years now, the scientific consensus has leaned toward higher training volumes being better for muscle growth. Meta-analyses – including the most recent one by Pelland et al – consistently show that more weekly sets per muscle group generally produced more hypertrophy (1, 2).

Zooming into the results of this most recent meta-analysis by Pelland et al, this relationship has proven remarkably robust. It holds true across different rest periods, study durations, proximity to failure, and even training experience (see their supplementary materials). 

However, the benefit isn’t linear. The returns are diminishing. So, while it appears that doing up to 30-40 weekly fractional sets is optimal for hypertrophy, the best bang-for-buck may be obtained a bit lower. 

The limitations of a high-volume approach are practical, not theoretical: it’s time-consuming, fatiguing, and can be hard to sustain alongside life’s other demands. Most studies also focus on one or two muscle groups, meaning what’s “recoverable” locally might not necessarily be globally sustainable across a full-body program.

Meanwhile, the “low-volume, high-intensity” philosophy has gained traction, particularly online.