A Systematic Review of The Effects of Different Resistance Training Volumes on Muscle Hypertrophy

Baz-Valle, Balsalobre-Fernández, Alix-Fages, Santos-Concejero · 2022 · Journal of Human Kinetics 81:199–210

Systematic review · Rang 2 von 9

doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017 PubMed 35291645

What this work gives Aellic

Six studies in trained men aged 18–35, binned a priori into “low” (<12 weekly sets), “moderate” (12–20) and “high” (>20). Moderate and high volumes did not differ for the quadriceps (p = 0.19) or the biceps brachii (p = 0.59); for the triceps brachii the HIGHER volume was significantly better (p = 0.01). The authors' recommendation is “a range of 12–20 weekly sets per muscle group may be an optimum standard recommendation”, offered as pragmatic advice for that population.

Correction of 26 July 2026

This work was cited in Aellic for “diminishing returns at very high volume”, and it reached users as the sentence “beyond ~20 sets the additional benefit flattens out”. It shows nothing of the kind. The 20 is a **pre-specified binning boundary**, not a measured inflection point — the review contains no dose-response model, no meta-regression and no breakpoint analysis, so it cannot locate a plateau anywhere. Worse, its only statistically significant volume result runs the opposite way: above 20 weekly sets the triceps grew MORE. The two null findings are absence of evidence from six studies, not evidence of a ceiling. The paper was also cited without ever being entered in this registry, so no guard could see it.

The entry on the register was wrong. It was not replaced but kept — with what holds instead standing next to it.

Where this sits in the engine

1 declared site — constants and thresholds in the code that point at this entry.

Training Muscle growth — sets per muscle 1 site

To the full register Sites without a source Report an error