High Volume vs. Low Volume Training: Which Is Better for Muscle Growth?

Once just a preference, the argument between high volume vs. low volume has gotten out of control. Two camps have emerged that seem determined to prove they're right and the other side is wrong.

The reality is they're both right, and what's best really depends on the person, their circumstances, and goals.

We want to break down this non-controversial controversy to explain why it's not that big of an issue, and the only way to know what's best for you is to try both.

High Volume Vs. Low Volume: Which Is Better?

Over the past couple of decades, the importance of volume in building muscle has gained increasing recognition. Study after study has consistently shown the importance of volume in hypertrophy, including a dose-response (Figueiredoet et al, 2018; Schoendfeld et al, 2017).

However, over the past few years, there has been a massive resurgence in figures like Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates. These individuals went against the grain and preached;

• Low volume
• Focus on intensity
• Maximize rest

Even more striking, this was during the Golden Age of Bodybuilders, where figures like Arnold were doing 30-50+ working sets per week.

So who's right? Well, ultimately, it comes down to a pissing contest as both groups seem to miss the mark (And are we supposed to believe either camp is arguing for something that doesn't work?)

Before we get into the nuance, let's define some terms and concepts; this is the first area that causes confusion.

What Does "Volume" Mean?

Volume ultimately means the amount of work you place on a muscle. This can be looked at in two ways;

• Total Volume by Load: Sets X Reps X Load = Volume i.e. 3 X 10 X 100lbs = 3,000lbs
• Total Working Sets: 3 X Bench + 3 X Incline Bench + 2 X Flys = 8 Working Sets for Chest

When people debate High Volume Vs. Low Volume usually refers to the total number of working sets.

But here lies the first problem. Different camps throw around the terms with no real objective measuring tool. In other words, what some people consider high volume is low volume to others.

In fact, some people use the term in the context of progressive overload, i.e., "you need to increase volume over time."

What Is High Volume Training?

High volume training can be defined as 20+ sets per muscle group or 10+. It depends on who you ask and what time period.

In The Golden Age of Bodybuilding (1960-1680), professional bodybuilders routinely used 30-50 working sets per muscle group.

More recently (2000s-2010s), old Reddit threads have recreational and competitive bodybuilders discussing using 20-30+ working sets.

Presently, this number seems to have come down as a whole, with even 20 working sets considered high volume.

Still, you can also view this as a training philosophy that prioritizes increasing total volume. 

What Is Considered Low Volume?  

Similar to defining "high volume", low volume is also difficult to define, as people have different meanings. 

• Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty Style of training, you'll see 4-6 working sets each week, kind of. 
• Dorian Yates would use around 8-12 working sets, sometimes even less, towards the end of his career.

Regardless, we can safely say that low volume refers to 8 or fewer total working sets per week.

Or you can think of it as a training philosophy that emphasizes intensity over volume.

What Is Intensity? 

In this context, intensity refers to training to failure, or even past it. As mentioned, low-volume proponents are really stressing intensity as the primary factor of muscle growth rather than volume.

For example, Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates stress the use of various methods to push past failure.

• Assisted reps
• Rest-Pause
• Eccentrics

While intensity is definitely necessary, there are some issues to point out; mainly, it's not unique to low-volume.

• Low-volume proponents seem to suggest that high-volume lifters don't use intensity
• High-volume proponents still stress training to failure and use similar methods, such as drop sets

Further, research suggests that absolute intensity is not as large a factor as long as each set is brought to the proximity of failure, i.e.

• Sampson and Groeller (2016) - "Similar adaptations across the three resistance training regimens suggest repetition failure is not critical to elicit significant neural and structural changes to skeletal muscle."
• Refalo et al (2024) - "Terminating RT sets with a close proximity-to-failure (e.g., 1- to 2-RIR) can be sufficient to promote similar hypertrophy of the quadriceps as reaching momentary muscular failure in resistance-trained individuals over eight weeks."
• Martikainen et al (2025) - Suggests using 1-4 RIR produces similar hypertrophy. 

However, when using minimal volume, intensity is probably more important as you're making every rep count.

• Hermann et al (2025)- "Several measures of hypertrophy tended to favor FAIL, although absolute differences between conditions were generally modest."

Why Is High Volume Training Better?

Since the Golden Age of bodybuilding, volume has been viewed as the primary driver of muscle growth. Increasing the amount of working sets ultimately increases the main drivers of muscle hypertrophy: mechanical tension and metabolic stress (Behringer et al, 2025).

You can also argue that it's easier to apply progressive overload, as you can just do another set or add an accessory exercise.

From a practical standpoint, it allows lifters to build maximal muscle without needing to hit true failure. This is crucial as high-intense training isn't suitable for every lifter, such as beginners or the elderly. Plus, it can simply be unpleasant for many lifters.

Research That Supports Using High Volume Training

Almost every study and meta-analysis over the past few years has come to similar conclusions: more volume = more muscle growth.

1. Figueiredoet et al, (2018). Volume for muscle hypertrophy and health outcomes: The most effective variable in resistance training. 

2. Schoenfeld et al (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis

3. Schoenfeld et al (2017) The dose–response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts?

4. Baz-Valle et al, (2022). A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics

What Body Builders Use High Volume Training?

Here is a list of bodybuilders known for using high volume or prioritizing volume as the primary factor in muscle growth.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger: ~45–70+ sets / muscle / week
• Franco Columbu: ~45–70+ sets / muscle / week
• Frank Zane: ~30–40 sets / muscle / week
• Serge Nubret: ~30-50 sets / muscle / week
• Ronnie Coleman: ~20–30+ sets / muscle / week
• Jay Cutler: ~25–35 sets / muscle / week
• Markus Rühl: ~30–40 sets / muscle / week
• Kevin Levrone: ~20–30 sets / muscle / week
• Phil Heath: ~20–30 sets / muscle / week
• Kai Greene: ~30–45 sets / muscle / week
• Hadi Choopan: ~20–28 sets / muscle / week
• Nick Walker: ~20–30 sets / muscle / week
• Samson Dauda: ~20–30 sets / muscle / week

Why Is Low Volume Training Better?

Proponents of low-volume training have a variety of reasons they prefer it.

• It minimizes the time they're in the gym and maximizes their time.
• Prevents overtraining or chronic fatigue. 
• Some lifters claim it's actually superior for them in terms of growth.

Lifters who follow low-volume training tend to adopt a more methodical, efficient approach. They want zero junk volume and make every rep reap maximal benefits.

Research That Supports Using Low Volume Training

When it comes to scientific evidence supporting low volume as superior, there really is none. Some studies show low-volume is effective, but none show that it is superior to higher volumes.

Iversen et al,(2021). No time to lift? Designing time-efficient training programs for strength and hypertrophy: A narrative review.

Pelland et al, (2025). The resistance-training dose response: Meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains

They discovered:

• Minimum Effective Dose to detect hypertrophy was 4 working sets per week 
• Highest Efficiency was 5-10 working sets per week
• Intermediate Efficiency was 11-18 working sets per week
• Dose Response up to 42 working sets per week
• Diminished Returns after 18 working sets per week

This means 5-10 working sets gave the greatest return for the work. However, if you had time, doing more would still likely produce better results.

Body Builders Who Use Low Volume Training?

Here is a list of bodybuilders who used low-volume or high-intensity training as the primary factor in building muscle.

• Mike Mentzer: ~1–4 sets / muscle / week
• Dorian Yates: ~4–8 sets / muscle / week
• Casey Viator: ~3–6 sets / muscle / week
• Ray Mentzer: ~1–5 sets / muscle / week
• Jordan Peters: ~6–10 sets / muscle / week
• Dante Trudel (DC Training): ~6–9 sets / muscle / week
• Branch Warren (intensity-dominant despite moderate volume): ~8–12 sets / muscle / week
• Chris Bumstead: ~16–22 sets / muscle / week (This isn't "low-volume" in modern terms, but compared to the ultra high-volume.)

Why "Volume" And "Intensity" Are Both Key

During the debate, the reality is that volume and intensity matter, and both camps use them. It's not a choice, as both are required.

The difference is, which one is the main focus?

Low-Volume Camp

• Prioritize intensity
• Will still increase volume over time

High-Volume Camp

• Prioritize volume
• Will still use intensity to reach proximal failure and progress

Both Camps

• Use progressive overload to increase volume and load

Should I Use High-Volume Or Low-Volume? Final Conclusion

As you can see above, the two groups are ultimately arguing over preferences and what fits their lifestyles. Any level of volume can work, as long as you use adequate intensity and apply progressive overload. The only "bad" method is to continue using one that hasn't been working.

References

1. Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017Figueiredo, 
2. Behringer, M., Heinrich, C., & Franz, A. (2025). Anabolic signals and muscle hypertrophy: Significance for strength training in sports medicine. Sports Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 41(Suppl 1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949328X2500002X
3. Hermann, T., Mohan, A., Enes, A., Sapuppo, M., Pinero, A., Zamanzadeh, A., Roberts, M., Coleman, M., Androulakis-Korakakis, P., Wolf, M., Refalo, M., Swinton, P., & Schoenfeld, B. (2025). Without fail: Muscular adaptations in single-set resistance training performed to failure or with repetitions-in-reserve (Version 1) [Preprint]. SportRxiv. https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.484
4. Iversen, V. M., Norum, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2021). No time to lift? Designing time-efficient training programs for strength and hypertrophy: A narrative review. Sports Medicine, 51(10), 2079–2095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01490-1
5. Figueiredoet, V. C., de Salles, B. F., & Trajano, G. S. (2018). Volume for muscle hypertrophy and health outcomes: The most effective variable in resistance training. Sports Medicine, 48(2), 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0793-0
6. Pelland, J. C., Remmert, J. F., Robinson, Z. P., Hinson, S. R., & Zourdos, M. C. (2025). The resistance-training dose response: Meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02344-w
7. Martikainen, O., Niiranen, H., Rytkönen, T., et al. (2025). Influence of varying proximity-to-failure on muscular adaptations and repetitions-in-reserve estimation accuracy in resistance-trained individuals. Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-025-00338-8
8. Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Robinson, Z. P., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2024). Similar muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance training to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained individuals. Journal of Sports Sciences, 42(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2321021
9. Sampson, J. A., & Groeller, H. (2016). Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and strength? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12445
10. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). The dose–response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts? Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(20), 1985–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1243800
11. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
12. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014). Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(10), 2909–2918. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000480