Is Low-Volume Training Effective for Muscle Growth and Strength? | Science Explained

Low-volume and intensity-focused training has skyrocketed in interest over the past few years. It promises to be the superior method of training, and with figures such as Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates, many lifters turned to this style of training.

However, it seems to contradict the idea of using volume for hypertrophy; so, which is it?  Further, it's always been here; it's not new.

So why the sudden interest? 

Is low-volume training effective?

We'll answer this and show that the argument isn't really that big of a contradiction; in fact, it's likely orchestrated beef for clicks.

Is Low-Volume Training Effective?

Low-volume training is absolutely effective for hypertrophy. In fact, the minimum effective volume (MEV) is much lower than we previously thought, at around four weekly working sets per muscle group (Pelland et al. 2025)

Research consistently shows that muscle can grow with surprisingly small amounts of weekly volume, provided the sets are performed with sufficient effort (Schoenfeld et al, 2017; Figueiredoet et al, 2018)

The real question is: Is low-volume training superior to higher volumes?

A large meta-regression by Pelland et al. (2025) demonstrates this issue beautifully;

• Minimum Effective Dose (to detect hypertrophy): 4 working sets per week 
• Highest Efficiency 5-10 working sets per week
• Intermediate Efficiency: 11-18 working sets per week
• Lowest Efficiency: 42 working sets per week

That means:

• You don't need extreme volume to grow muscle.
• You do need adequate effort and progressive overload.
• Low volume can be both effective and highly efficient.
• While 5-10 sets is most efficient, a dose-response can be seen with more.

Time-efficient training literature supports this as well. Iversen et al. (2021) concluded that a minimum of ~4 weekly sets per muscle with moderate loading (6–15 RM) can drive meaningful hypertrophy when time is limited.

How Many Sets Should You Use With Low-Volume Training?

Defining "low volume" is where much of the confusion begins. Historically, what bodybuilders considered "low" would be labeled moderate today.

Based on both research and real-world practice, a practical breakdown for modern times looks like this:

• Minimum Effective Dose (MED): ~4 sets/week
• High-Efficiency Zone: ~5–10 sets/week
• Moderate Volume: ~10–20 sets/week
• High Volume: 20+ sets/week

True low-volume systems typically operate in the 4–8 set range, sometimes pushing into the lower end of the efficiency zone.

This aligns cleanly with how classic low-volume bodybuilders actually trained:

• Mike Mentzer: ~1–4 sets per muscle per week
• Dorian Yates: ~4–8 sets per muscle per week
• Casey Viator: ~3–6 sets per muscle per week

In practice, most modern low-volume lifters land between 6–10 weekly sets.

The Importance of Intensity With Low-Volume Training

Low-volume training only works when intensity is high (Hermann et al, 2025). When volume is reduced, the quality of each set must increase to compensate. This is why low-volume systems emphasize:

• Training to failure
• Rest-pause sets
• Forced reps
• Slow eccentrics and extended sets

However, there's an important scientific nuance here. Research shows that true repetition failure is not strictly required for hypertrophy, as long as sets are taken close enough to failure.

• Sampson & Groeller (2016) found that similar hypertrophy and strength gains occurred across training models using different proximity-to-failure strategies.
• Refalo et al. (2024) showed that stopping sets at 1–2 reps in reserve (RIR) produced similar hypertrophy as full failure.
• Martikainen et al (2025) - Suggests using 1-4 RIR produces similar hypertrophy.

That said, when weekly volume is extremely low, failure becomes more important as a compensatory mechanism. 

This is supported by the recent preprint from Hermann et al. (2025), where several hypertrophy measures tended to favor training to failure when volume was minimal. However, absolute differences remained modest.

In short:

• High volume can tolerate slightly lower per-set effort.
• Low volume requires high intensity to maximize work

Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates: The Icons of Low-Volume Training

The modern conversation around low-volume training exists largely because of two names: Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates.

Mike Mentzer

Mentzer's Heavy Duty system reduced training to its extreme:

• One working set per exercise
• Sets taken beyond failure
• Long rest periods between sessions
• Total weekly volume is often below five sets per muscle

His philosophy was built on the idea that intensity alone could replace volume. While this approach clearly worked for him and other adherents, science no longer supports the idea that single-set training is optimal for maximal hypertrophy across a population.

Dorian Yates

Yates used a modified Heavy Duty approach:

• Fewer exercises
• One all-out top set per movement
• Weekly volume around 4–8 sets per muscle
• Progressive overload as the primary goal

Yates proved that you do not need Golden-Era volumes to build world-class muscle. However, he still used more total volume than Mentzer and accumulated working sets across multiple exercises.

Importantly, both athletes trained with:

• Extreme effort
• Steroid-enhanced recovery
• Exceptional genetics

Two other factors to consider that are rarely discussed when speaking about Yates and Mentzer;

1. They used heavier loads than traditional bodybuilding (6-8RM); why is this never brought up? 

Traditional bodybuilding uses lighter loads (60-75% 1RM). Lighter loads mean more reps and fatigue to reach sufficient mechanical tension to stimulate growth. 

When using 80% 1RM or more, maximal mechanical tension is placed on the muscle from the first rep.

2. Their "Single Set" is Undercalculated

Yates and Mintzer usually trained in the 6-8 rep range, which usually required 1–2 progressive warm-up sets per exercise. Even if we don't count this as volume, it still adds to:

• Duration of workout
• Increase work performed (Staying as far as 4RIR has been shown to contribute to hypertrophy, Martikainen et al (2025))

Further, rest-pause training played a major role. "1 Set" with 2-3 mini rest-pause sets may actually total 12-15 reps, i.e., 2 sets worth of reps. If this occurred with every exercise, that doubles the total volume.

High Volume vs. Low Volume: Which Is Better?

From a purely scientific standpoint, higher volumes consistently produce greater hypertrophy (until an upper threshold (Baz-Valle et al. 2022; Figueiredo et al. 2018)).

All these reviews support a clear dose–response relationship between muscle growth and hypertrophy; more volume = more growth.

However, "more" is not always "better" in real life.

High-volume training:

• Requires more time
• Produces more fatigue
• Demands greater recovery resources
• May increase injury risk for some lifters

Low-volume training:

• Is highly time-efficient
• Reduces cumulative fatigue
• Allows better recovery per set
• Is easier to sustain long-term for some individuals

The Pelland et al. (2025) efficiency model highlights this perfectly, which can be summed up as: 

"5–10 weekly sets provide the highest return per unit of work, even though higher volumes may still yield greater total growth if recovery allows."

So the real question is not "Which is better?"

It's: Which one fits your recovery capacity, lifestyle, and psychology?

Why Low-Volume Training Appeals to So Many Lifters

Lifters who gravitate toward low volume typically value:

• Time efficiency
• Mental focus
• Clear progression
• Minimal junk volume
• Lower systemic fatigue

Every set must matter, and no time is wasted as training is built for maximal efficiency; get in and get out. 

What Are Traditional Guidelines For Building Muscle?

Schoenfeld et al. (2017) provides the general guidelines to maximize hypertrophy; 

• Lowest threshold for maximal hypertrophy: 10 working sets
• Maximum threshold: 20 working sets

This says a lot. Schoenfeld is a huge proponent of "volume."

10 working sets isn't really "high volume" and not far off from low-volume proponents, especially if they're using rest-pauses for every exercise.

As you see, the entire argument really hinges on whether you should do a few more sets during the week; it's hardly worth the stress of arguing about.

Final Verdict: Is Low-Volume Training Effective?

Yes, Low-volume training works.

You can build muscle with as few as 4–8 weekly sets per muscle, provided:

• Sets are taken close to failure
• Progressive overload is applied
• Recovery is sufficient

But effectiveness does not equal superiority.

High-volume training generally produces greater absolute hypertrophy, while low-volume training provides greater efficiency, sustainability, and recovery for certain lifters. 

Each has proponents who claim their method works well, and we believe them.

The two camps are not opposites; they simply emphasize different priorities within the same physiological framework.

At the end of the day, muscle doesn't grow by inconsistently counting sets. Hypertrophy comes from;

• Mechanical tension
• Sufficient effort
• Progressive overload

Whether you arrive at that stimulus through five sets or twenty is ultimately a matter of individual response, recovery capacity, and personal preference.

The only way to know what's best for you is to try both.

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. 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 
8. 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
9. 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 
10. 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
11. 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