Article published online: 2023-05-09

Training & Testing Thieme

Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to Changes in Training Volume:

A Retrospective Analysis

Authors
Júlio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo, Paulo Henrique Barbosa, Felipe Alves Brigatto , Tiago Volpi Braz ,
Charles Ricardo Lopes

Affiliations Abs tract

Department of Human Movement Science, Methodist This study assessed associations between changes in the week-
University of Piracicaba – Taquaral Campus, Piracicaba, ly number of sets performed and the percentage change in
Brazil muscle thickness of the biceps (MTBB) and triceps (MTTB) brachii
muscles. Through a retrospective analysis, sixty-eight resist-
Key words ance-trained subjects that participated in previous studies had
strength training, number of sets, morphology, muscle their previous training volumes analyzed and compared to the
thickness volume imposed during each individual study. The relationship
accepted 28.02.2023 between variables was determined through Spearman correla-
published online 09.05.2023 tion and a k-cluster analysis was performed to subdivide the
participants into three groups and classified as: < 0 %; 0–50 %,

Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.

Bibliography and > 50 % increase in the number of sets for both muscle
Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 groups. Moderate and weak correlations were observed be-
DOI 10.1055/a-2053-8426 tween the alterations in training volume and changes in MTBB
ISSN 0172-4622 (r s = 0.44, p = 0.001) and MT TB (r s = 0.35, p = 0.002), respec-
© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. tively. A significant difference was noted between < 0 % to > 50 %
Georg Thieme Verlag, Rüdigerstraße 14, for MTBB and MT TB (p = 0.017; p = 0.042, respectively), while no
70469 Stuttgart, Germany significant difference was observed between < 0 % to 0–50 %
and 0–50 % to > 50 % (both p > 0.05) for both muscle groups.
Correspondence In conclusion, muscle hypertrophy of the upper limbs is only
Júlio Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo weakly to moderately associated with changes in training vol-
Methodist University of Piracicaba – Taquaral Campus ume of trained subjects.
Department of Human Movement Science
Rodovia do Açúcar, km 156
13400–911 Piracicaba
Brazil
Tel.: + 55 19 993857094, Fax: + 55 19 993857094
julio.bbc@gmail.com

Introduction
In addition to the increases in muscle strength, the regular practice
of resistance training (RT) programs also induces relevant adapta-
tions in muscle size (i. e. muscle hypertrophy) [1]. However, with
the continuous advance of the training level, the magnitude of
these responses is significantly attenuated [2, 3]. In this sense, even
though recent data have pointed to the key role of intrinsic factors
(e. g. ribosome biogenesis, micro RNAs, satellite cell activity, myo-
nuclei number, muscle capillarization) strongly influencing skeletal
muscle hypertrophy following RT interventions [4–6], advanced
lifters may need to periodically manipulate training variables in
order to experience further morphological adaptations [7].
One of the most important training variables that has been
shown to strongly influence muscular hypertrophy outcomes is
training volume [8], usually defined as the measure of the total
amount of work performed within a specific session or throughout
a given training period (weeks, months) [9]. Volume is mainly ex-
pressed through parameters that directly affect total work, as vol-
ume load (VL) and repetitions performed. Furthermore, the num-
ber of weekly sets performed by a specific muscle group has also
been considered an adequate and reliable method to quantify the
training volume prescribed within RT programs that aim to pro-
mote muscle hypertrophy [10].
Although the relevance of manipulating RT-volume has been
widely reported, the exact dose required to maximize muscle hy-
pertrophy is far from being elucidated, since divergent results have
been reported by studies that assessed chronic responses of trained
subjects exposed to different RT-weekly sets [11–14]. Moreover,

de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. 599
 Training & Testing Thieme

some of the studies that observed an enhanced hypertrophic re- ▶Table 1 Anthropometric, training practice, and muscle thickness data
regarding the subjects analyzed (presented as mean ± standard deviation
sponse following an increased volume (number of sets) approach
and median (interquartile range).
did not consider the previous volume performed by each partici-
pant in their usual training routine before the commencement of Variables Mean ± SD Median (IQR)
the experimental period [11, 13]. Therefore, it is not completely Age (years) 24.2 ± 5.0 23.0 (20.0–27.0)
clear whether the results observed were due to the higher volume Total Body Mass (kg) 79.7 ± 9.9 80.5 (73.1–85.5)
protocol itself or to changes in the weekly number of sets imple- Height (cm) 176.3 ± 7.4 177.0 (171.0–
mented during the proposed training protocols in each of these in- 181.0)
vestigations. Training experience (years) 4.3 ± 3.1 3.0 (2.0–5.0)
To the authors of the current study´s knowledge, the first inves- BICSETpre (sets/week) 26.9 ± 14.1 24.0 (20.0–32.0)
tigation that prescribed the RT-protocol considering the previous BICSETduring (sets/week) 34.4 ± 9.0 36.0 (32.0–38.5)
training volume performed by each participant was a recent study DIFF. BICSETS 19.5 ± 39.6 16.0 (-4.0–30.0)
from Scarpelli et al. [15]. Interestingly, a larger increase was noted TRICSETpre (sets/week) 30.7 ± 13.8 30.5 (24.0–38.1)
in the muscle cross-sectional area of the vastus lateralis in the con- TRICSETduring (sets/week) 33.1 ± 11.2 32.0 (22.0–46.0)
dition where the participants were submitted to a training prescrip- DIFF. TRISETS 0.1 ± 23.4 -4.0 (-15.4–20.5)
tion based on the previous volume (number of sets/week) com-
MTBBpre (mm) 33.9 ± 9.2 34.4 (26.4–40.1)
pared to a non-individualized approach. In this sense, it can be sug-
MTBBpost (mm) 34.3 ± 9.7 34.7 (22.9–40.9)
gested that individualizing volume progression based on the
DIFF. MTBB 11.7 ± 18.2 1.3 (0.4–20.7)
training experience of each subject may induce larger morpholog-
MT TBpre (mm) 29.8 ± 10.8 32.9 (17.7–38.8)
ical responses. However, the optimal range of percentage increase
MT TBpost (mm) 31.9 ± 10.5 33.7 (20.4–40.6)
on the number of sets/muscle/week that should be implemented
DIFF. MT TB 2.0 ± 3.1 1.4 (0.4–2.9)
requires further investigation as to whether the subjects exposed

Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.

to the higher volume progressions over the time necessarily pre-
sent the higher-magnitude responses on muscle hypertrophy out-
comes.
Therefore, the present study was a retrospective analysis that
aimed to describe the associations between percentage changes
in training volume (weekly sets/muscle group during the experi-
mental protocol in comparison to the number of weekly sets com-
monly performed for each subject before the commencement of
the experimental protocol) and percentage changes in muscle
thickness of the upper-limbs muscles in previously trained subjects.
The initial hypothesis was that moderate and significant associa-
tions would be observed between the assessed variables.
BICSETpre = number of sets performed for the biceps brachii before
initiating the study; BICSETduring = number of sets performed for the
biceps brachii during each study; DIFF. BICSETS = difference between
the number of sets for biceps brachii post- and pre-intervention;
TRICSETpre = number of sets performed for the triceps brachii before
initiating the study; TRICSETduring = number of sets performed for the
triceps brachii during each study; DIFF. TRISETS = difference between
the number of sets for triceps brachii post- and pre-intervention;
MTBBpre = pre-intervention value of the biceps brachii muscle
thickness; MTBBpost = post-intervention values of the biceps brachii
muscle thickness; DIFF. MTBB = difference between biceps muscle
thickness post vs. pre-intervention; MTTBpre = pre-intervention value
of the triceps brachii muscle thickness; MTTBpost = post-intervention
value of the triceps brachii muscle thickness; DIFF. MTTB = difference
between triceps muscle thickness post vs. pre-intervention.

Materials and Methods

Subjects
Sixty-eight resistance-trained subjects (61 men and 7 women; see
▶ Table 1 for anthropometric data) were analyzed for training vol-
ume and muscle thickness before and after each individual study.
All subjects had a minimum of one year of training experience, per-
formed at least three weekly training sessions, and reported to be
free of any musculoskeletal disorders. In addition, all subjects stat-
ed that they had not taken anabolic steroids or any other illegal
agents known to increase muscle size at the time or during the pre-
vious year. During each study, subjects were informed of the risks
and benefits of the experiment prior to any data collection. All sub-
jects read and signed an informed consent document. All proce-
dures were conformed to the ethical requirements stipulated by
the International Journal of Sports Medicine [16].
Experimental design
The present study was a retrospective analysis that aimed to asso-
ciate changes in training volume (expressed as the number of week-
ly sets performed) and the percentage changes in muscle thickness
(MT) of the biceps (MTBB) and triceps (MT TB) brachii muscles from
previous publications. Resistance-trained subjects that participat-
ed in previous published studies (n = 19 in De Camargo et al. [17],
n = 27 in Brigatto et al. [13], and n = 22 in Businari et al. [18]) (all
8-week duration protocols) had their previous training volumes
(number of weekly sets/muscle) analyzed and compared to the vol-
ume imposed by each individual study. Individual percentage
changes on training volume were calculated as follows:
% volume change = (imposed training volume – previous train-
ing volume)/previous training volume) x 100.
For the calculation of the weekly sets performed for each mus-
cle group (biceps and triceps brachii), multi- and single-joint exer-
cises were included [19]. All subjects of each individual study de-
scribed their RT-routines (verbal individual reporting) performed
before being exposed to each training intervention. Information
regarding weekly frequency, the exercises performed, range num-
ber of repetitions/set, and number of sets/exercise were all collect-
ed from each subject in order to calculate the weekly training vol-
ume accomplished for both biceps and triceps brachii muscles. The
weekly training volume for each muscle was calculated as follows:

600 de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
number of exercises/muscle group in each training session x num-
ber of sets/exercise in each training session x weekly training fre-
quency for each muscle group. All assessments of MT within the
studies were performed according to procedures described else-
where [20] and obtained through ultrasound imaging by a trained
technician. Briefly, a linear array ultrasound probe was placed per-
pendicular to the tissue interface without depressing of the humer-
us and the acromion process of the scapula. To ensure that MT val-
ues were not overestimated from muscle swelling, images were
obtained at least 48 h after training sessions, for both pre- and post-
intervention assessments. The coefficient of variation for biceps
and triceps muscle thickness was 0.4 % and 0.6 %, respectively. The
typical error of measurement (TEM) was 0.29 mm and 0.41 mm,
respectively [20].
During the included studies, participants performed three sets
of a range of 8–12 repetition maximum (RM) for all the prescribed
exercises, being afforded with rest intervals of 1 and 2 min between
sets and exercises, respectively. Load adjustments (5–10 %) were
implemented, if more than 12 repetitions or less than 8 repetitions
were completed with proper technique within a given set.
Statistical analysis
The descriptive analysis was presented in median (Med) and inter-
quartile ranges (IQR). The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed the data were
not normally distributed. The relationship between variables (per-
centage change on weekly sets and percentage change of the bi-
ceps and triceps brachialis muscle thickness) was determined
through Spearman correlation (rs). The 95 % confidence interval (CI)
of the association between variables was calculated. Spearman cor-
relations were performed and classified as: weak (r s = 0.20 and
0.39); moderate (rs = 0.40 to 0.59); moderate to strong (rs = 0.60
to 0.79); and strong (rs > 0.80) [21]. A Spearman’s correlation be-
tween percentage change on weekly sets and percentage change
of the MTBB and MT TB within each k-cluster was also adopted. A k-
cluster analysis was performed to subdivide the participants into
three groups and classified as: < 0 % (reduction in training volume);
0–50 % and > 50 % increase in the volume of sets for biceps and tri-
ceps brachialis (previous training volume to imposed training vol-
ume). The Kruskal-Wallis test was also performed in order to assess
the differences between the groups of clusters. The Dunn’s test was
used for post hoc analysis with pairwise comparison. The effect size
(ES) was calculated between the clusters, supported in Cohen’s d
units by means (d value) [22]. The result d was interpreted as fol-
lows: < 0.2, trivial; 0.2 to 0.6, small; 0.6 to 1.2, moderate; 1.2 to 2.0,
large; 2.0 to 4.0, very large; > 4.0, extremely large. A chi-square
test was performed to compare the proportion of individuals who
presented increases in both MTBB and MT TB above the TEM in one
cluster compared with the other. In case of significant p values,
standard residuals were analyzed to determine which proportions
were significantly different in the contingency table. The adopted
significance was p ≤ 0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS-
22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
▶Table 2 Comparison between the percentage change in biceps and
triceps brachii muscle thickness (respectively) between < 0 %, 0–50 %
and > 50 % clusters. Data are presented as median (interquartile range).
Variables Clusters
<0% 0–50 % > 50 %
MTBB 1.3 (0.5–2.5) 1.5 (0.9–5.9) 8.3 (1.1–17.4)*
n = 24 n = 13 n = 31
MTTB 3.3 (0.9–6.5) 5.5 (1.6–16.5) 12.1 (1.5–38.5)*
n = 37 n = 10 n = 21
Legend: MTBB = biceps brachii muscle thickness; MT TB = triceps
brachii muscle thickness. * significantly different from the < 0 % group
(p < 0.05).
Results
▶ Table 1 presents baseline anthropometric and training practice
data of the subjects analyzed. It was noted that 35.2 % of the sub-
jects (range of reduction: –85.5 % to –3.0 %) had their training vol-
ume for the biceps brachii muscle reduced during the intervention,
while 54.4 % (range of reduction: –85.5 % to –3.0 %) of the subjects
had their training volume for the triceps brachii muscle reduced
Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.
during the intervention.
The Spearman’s correlation showed a positive, moderate and
significant correlation between the alterations on training volume
and changes in MTBB (rs = 0.44, CI 95 % = 0.22 to 0.62, p = 0.001). A
positive, weak and significant correlation was observed between
the alterations on training volume and changes in MT TB (rs = 0.35,
CI 95 % = 0.12 to 0.55, p = 0.002).
▶ Table 2 presents the comparison between the percentage
change in MTBB and MT TB (respectively) between clusters < 0 %,
0–50 % and > 50 %. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was
an effect of clusters on the MTBB and MT TB (X2 (2) = 7.515; p = 0.023;
X2 (2) = 6.053; p = 0.048, respectively). Dunn’s post hoc showed a
significant difference and moderate ES between < 0 % and > 50 %
for MTBB and MT TB (mean rank diff. = –14.80; p = 0.017; d = 0.65;
mean rank diff. = –13.24; p = 0.042; d = 0.67, respectively). No sig-
nificant difference and a moderate ES were observed between < 0 %
and the 0–50 % clusters for MTBB and MT TB (mean rank diff. = –8.72;
p = 0.599; d = 0.65; mean rank diff. = –7.19; p = 0.921; d = 0.66, re-
spectively). Additionally, no significant difference and trivial or
small ES was observed between the 0–50 % and > 50 % clusters for
MTBB and MT TB (mean rank diff. = –6.07; p > 0.999; d = 0.12; mean
rank diff. = –6.04; p > 0.999; d = 0.47, respectively).
The proportion of subjects that responded above the TEM for
MTBB did not differ between clusters (70.8 %, 90.0 % and 79.9 % of
the subjects within the < 0 %, 0–50 % and > 50 % clusters, respec-
tively), (chi square = 1.593; p = 0.450). Similarly, no difference was
observed in the proportion of subjects that responded above the
TEM for MT TB between clusters (62.1 %, 80.0 % and 71.4 % of the
subjects within the < 0 %, 0–50 % and > 50 % clusters, respectively).
For Spearman’s correlation between percentage change on
weekly sets and percentage change of the MTBB within k-clus-
ter < 0 %, a positive, moderate and significant correlation (rs = 0.56,
CI 95 % = 0.20 to 0.79, p = 0.003) was observed. For 0–50 %, a posi-
tive, weak and non-significant correlation (rs = 0.03, CI 95 % = –0.53
to 0.58, p = 0.908), and for > 50 %, a positive, weak and significant
601
 Training & Testing
correlation (r s = 0.36, CI 95 % = 0.00 to 0.64, p = 0.042) was ob-
served.
For Spearman’s correlation between percentage change on
weekly sets and percentage change of the MT TB within k-clus-
ter < 0 %, a positive, weak and significant correlation (rs = 0.38, CI
95 % = 0.06 to 0.63, p = 0.017) was noted. For 0–50 %, a positive,
weak and non-significant correlation (r s = 0.06, p = 0.868) was
noted, and for > 50 %, a negative, weak and non-significant corre-
lation (rs = –0.02, CI 95 % = –0.46 to 0.42, p = 0.914) was observed.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the association be-
tween the percentage changes on training volume (number of
weekly sets performed by each muscle group during the experi-
mental protocol in comparison to the number of weekly sets com-
monly performed for each subject before the commencement of
the experimental protocol) and the change on muscle thickness of
the upper-limbs muscles. Data from previous studies were analyzed
in order to verify the number of sets that each subject performed
before and during the intervention-training period. The main find-
ing is that changes in training volume are only weakly to moder-
ately associated with muscle hypertrophy of the upper limbs. The
absence of studies that adopted a similar analysis limits eventual
comparisons with the current investigation.
The relevance of manipulating RT-volume in order to enhance
morphological adaptations has been described previously [8, 23].
In this sense, the proper manipulation and control of this variable
is warranted especially for trained lifters, who present reduced both
acute and chronic responses to an RT-intervention [2, 3]. Divergent
results have been recently reported when adopting a different
number of weekly sets. Brigatto et al. [13], for example, observed
that higher training volumes (32 weekly sets) induced more pro-
nounced hypertrophic responses than moderate (24 sets) and low
(16 sets) volumes in trained subjects. Schoenfeld et al. [11] ob-
served that trained individuals performing 30 sets/week presented
larger increases on MTBB (6.9 %) compared to 18 (4.7 %) and 6 sets/
week (1.6 %), while no between-group differences were observed
for MT TB. More recently, Aube et al. [14] reported no additional ef-
fects of performing 24 vs. 18 and 12 weekly sets on muscle thick-
ness increases of the vastus lateralis of highly-trained men. Simi-
larly, accumulating more volume load through systematically
changing RT-variables (load, number of sets per muscle group, type
of muscle contraction, inter-set rest interval) did not enhance mor-
phological adaptations when compared to a fixed model with a tra-
ditional load progression over the time [4]. In addition, hypertroph-
ic adaptations to increasing volumes may be highly individual, since
some subjects have been shown to respond better to low compared
to high training volumes [24].
One important limitation usually noted in some studies that
aimed to investigate the effects of different training volumes on
muscle hypertrophy is the lacking control of the previous volume
performed by each subject, which are usually exposed to a stand-
ard number of sets/muscle/week during the studies. Considering
this information, it can be suggested that the results observed in
those studies might be associated with sudden changes in training
volume rather than with a dose-response relationship between vol-
602 de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme
ume and muscle mass increases. Brigatto et al. [13], for example,
observed higher MT TB increases for the group performing 32 than
24 and 16 sets/muscle/week (7.0 %, 4.0 % and 0.8 %, respectively).
However, it is noteworthy that the subjects performing 16 sets for
the triceps brachialis muscle reported performing 42 ± 27 weekly
sets before commencing the study, which represents a 162.5 % re-
duction on the sets performed, while the subjects performing 32
sets were submitted to a milder reduction (–18.7 %). Therefore, it
is not clear whether these results for the MT TB are due to the high
volume performed itself or the lower magnitude reduction on the
previous volume performed.
Recent studies, however, have taken into account the usual
training volume performed by the subjects when designing their
intervention protocols. The aforementioned study of Aube et al.
[14], for example, was able to balance the previous volume per-
formed between experimental groups. Interestingly, even with 34 %
of the subjects having their training volume reduced during the in-
tervention, no difference was noted on MT between the three ex-
perimental conditions. This was also observed even with a 100 %
mean increase on the volume performed by participants that were
allocated on the high-volume condition (24 sets/week), suggest-
ing that intrinsic individual factors rather than changes in volume
Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.
might determine muscle hypertrophic responses induced by RT-
programs. In a within-subject design, Scarpelli et al. [15] aimed to
compare the effects of protocols with standardized (N-IND) and in-
dividualized (IND) RT-volume on muscle hypertrophy in trained in-
dividuals. For the N-IND, subjects performed 22 sets/week for the
quadriceps muscles, based on an average number of sets pre-
scribed for trained individuals in studies randomly selected. For
IND, a 20 % increase on the weekly sets was imposed based on each
participant’s previous training volume reported before commenc-
ing the study. A significant difference in muscle cross-sectional area
of the vastus lateralis was observed favoring the IND condition
(mean difference = 1.08 cm2; p = 0.042). This difference was also
confirmed when looking at the ES and confidence interval (CI)
(ES = 0.75; CI = 0.03 to 1.47). Interestingly, when comparing the in-
dividual responses to both training conditions, 62.5 % of the sam-
ple presented larger increases following the IND protocol, confirm-
ing the relevance of individual prescription through information
regarding the previous volume performed by each individual.
Although the aforementioned studies implemented increases
in training volume mainly by manipulating the number of weekly
sets/muscle group, the relevance of volume progression was also
confirmed by other investigations that achieved VL increases by
keeping the same number of sets and repetition range but by reg-
ulating only the load lifted in each exercise throughout the inter-
vention period [4, 25]. Damas et al. [4], for example, noted similar
increases on muscle cross-sectional area of the vastus lateralis of
resistance-trained men submitted to training protocols (8 weeks)
differing for total VL but with an equal VL progression. Additional-
ly, a recent study also reported that, despite the larger VL accumu-
lated over the training period, no significant differences for the in-
creases in muscle thickness of both lower and upper limbs muscles
emerged between experimental groups that presented similar VL
progression over the weeks [25]. Therefore, based on these find-
ings, it can be suggested that VL progression, rather than accumu-
lated VL, might be a more suitable variable to be controlled by pro-
grams that aim to potentiate muscle hypertrophy outcomes. Fur-
ther experimental studies comparing morphological adaptations
between training groups differing from VL accumulation/progres-
sion over the time must be carried out to better understand this
topic.
Although it seems reasonable to assume the aforementioned
relevance of VL progression over the training period, it is not clear
whether this should be emphasized by increasing the load lifted
(while keeping the repetition range constant) or the total number
of repetitions performed (while keeping load constant) in a given
exercise. A recent study showed that adjusting load resulted in sig-
nificantly larger increases in muscle cross sectional area of the vas-
tus lateralis compared to the group that adjusted exclusively the
repetitions performed (16.0 % and 4.0 %, respectively) [26]. Con-
versely, Plotkin et al. [27] observed similar hypertrophic outcomes
between these two progression models. The distinct results be-
tween these two investigations may be first explained by the dif-
ferent study design adopted by each one. While a retrospective
analysis of previously published data was performed by Nobrega
et al. [26], a randomized experimental approach was implemented
in Plotkin et al. [27]. Additionally, the training status of the partic-
ipants in each study (untrained in Nobrega et al. [26] and previous-
ly trained in Plotkin et al. [27]) should also be considered in order
to understand these controversial findings. Future studies must be
carried out to provide additional insight into whether different pro-
gression models may influence the magnitude of the adaptive mor-
phological outcomes.
Another interesting finding from the present study was that, de-
spite the significant association noted between the increase in the
number of weekly sets performed and muscle hypertrophy, this re-
sponse does not seem to be enhanced by implementing increases
in training volume higher than 50 %. This result confirms findings
from a previous investigation in which doubling the weekly num-
ber of sets did not further potentiate RT-induced morphological
adaptations in trained subjects [14]. In our study, the magnitude
of the ES between 0–50 % and > 50 % clusters was only trivial (bi-
ceps brachii) and small (triceps brachii). Also, it is relevant to high-
light that a large inter-individual variability was noted for the > 50 %
cluster, with 96.8 % and 90.4 % of the subjects presenting both in-
creases or decreases in MTBB and MT TB (respectively) above the
TEM, which strongly reinforces that volume increases and its phys-
iological effects should be individually prescribed and assessed
throughout a given training intervention. Furthermore, one can
suggest that implementing increases on weekly sets above 50 %
may impair physiological adaptations in some subjects by eliciting
an excessive muscle damage response that preferentially oriented
protein synthesis toward tissue repair rather than promoting hy-
pertrophy [28, 29]. Therefore, the results of the current study sug-
gest that sudden volume increases of such magnitude are not
strictly necessary (and may be even detrimental for some practi-
tioners), with slower progressions being sufficient to induce signif-
icant morphological responses in trained subjects. Additionally, fu-
ture studies must be carried out to better understand at which
de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
range of volume progression the hypertrophy responses tend to
reach a plateau or even decline.
It is also interesting to note that, for those subjects that had their
previous training volume reduced, none presented decreases in
muscle thickness. This result confirms previous findings where mus-
cle size was able to be maintained when the participants were sub-
mitted to a reduced volume phase (-66.6 % number of weekly sets)
[30]. Then, training phases (i. e. mesocycle) with reduced volume
might be periodically and strategically adopted by practitioners
that require to experience lower levels of fatigue without compro-
mising morphological RT-induced responses.
The major limitation of the current investigation is the appar-
ent heterogenous response observed across the subjects analyzed,
especially for those submitted to the higher volume increases
( > 50 %) within the studies. It is also important to point that future
studies must be addressed in order to investigate eventual associ-
ations between percentage change on weekly number of sets and
muscle hypertrophy in other populations (e. g. untrained, high-lev-
el athletes, older individuals). Second, these results must not be
extrapolated to the lower-limbs muscles. Finally, causal inferences
should not be made from the findings of the current study. Addi-
tional longitudinal investigations randomizing trained subjects to
Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.
different percentage increases/decreases in training volume must
be addressed in order to better understand our findings.
In conclusion, the findings of the present study suggest that per-
centage changes in training volume (number of sets/muscle/week)
are only weakly to moderately associated with muscle hypertrophy
of the upper-limbs muscles. Moreover, strategically implementing
reduced training volume phases may allow an appropriate physi-
ological recovery without compromising previous adaptations. Fi-
nally, slight volume progressions in the number of weekly sets
( < 50 %) may be more suitable for enhancing muscle size increases
in previously trained individuals.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to all the volunteers that took part in the
study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of Interest.
References
[1] Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their
application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24:
2857–2872
[2] Phillips SM, Tipton KD, Ferrando AA et al. Resistance training reduces
the acute exercise-induced increase in muscle protein turnover. Am
J Physiol 1999; 276: E118–E124
[3] Brook MS, Wilkinson DJ, Mitchell WK et al. Skeletal muscle
hypertrophy adaptations predominate in the early stages of resistance
exercise training, matching deuterium oxide-derived measures of
muscle protein synthesis and mechanistic target of rapamycin
complex 1 signaling. FASEB J 2015; 29: 4485–4496
603
 Training & Testing
[4] Damas F, Angleri V, Phillips SM et al. Myofibrillar protein synthesis and
muscle hypertrophy individualized responses to systematically
changing resistance training variables in trained young men. J Appl
Physiol (1985) 2019; 127: 806–815
[5] Angleri V, Damas F, Phillips SM et al. Resistance training variable
manipulations are less relevant than intrinsic biology in affecting
muscle fiber hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2022; 32: 821–832
[6] Mobley CB, Haun CT, Roberson PA et al. Biomarkers associated with
low, moderate, and high vastus lateralis muscle hypertrophy following
12 weeks of resistance training. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0195203
[7] ACMS. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687–708
[8] Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle
hypertrophy and health outcomes: the most effective variable in
resistance training. Sports Med 2018; 48: 499–505
[9] Nunes JP, Kassiano W, Costa BDV et al. Equating resistance-training
volume between programs focused on muscle hypertrophy. Sports
Med 2021; 51: 1171–1178
[10] Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total number of sets
as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy:
A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 870–878
[11] Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J et al. Resistance training volume
enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2019; 51: 94–103
[12] Barcelos C, Damas F, Nóbrega SR et al. High-frequency resistance
training does not promote greater muscular adaptations compared to
low frequencies in young untrained men. Eur J Sport Sci 2018; 18:
1077–1082
[13] Brigatto FA, Lima LE, de M, Germano MD et al. High resistance-training
volume enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. J
Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 22–30
[14] Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J et al. Progressive resistance training volume:
effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in
resistance-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 600–607
[15] Scarpelli MC, Nóbrega SR, Santanielo N et al. Muscle hypertrophy
response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained
individuals. J Strength Cond Res 2022; 36: 1153–1157
[16] Harriss DJ, Jones C, MacSween A. Ethical standards in sport and
exercise science research: 2022 update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 43:
1065–1070
[17] Benvenutti Bueno de Camargo J, Brigatto F, Zaroni R et al. Does
beta-alanine supplementation enhance adaptations to resistance
training? A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Biol
Sport 2023; 40: 217–222
604 de Camargo JBB et al. Muscle Hypertrophy Responses to … Int J Sports Med 2023; 44: 599–604 | © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme
[18] Businari GB, Brigatto FA, de Camargo JBB et al. Chronic effects of
inter-set static stretching on morphofunctional outcomes in
recreationally resistance-trained male and female. Res Q Exerc Sport
2023. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2022.2134547
[19] Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Haun C et al. Calculating set-volume for the
limb muscles with the performance of multi-joint exercises:
Implications for resistance training prescription. Sports (Basel) 2019;
7: 177
[20] Brigatto FA, Braz TV, Zanini TCC et al. Effect of resistance training
frequency on neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology
after 8 weeks in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33:
2104–2116
[21] Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM et al. Progressive statistics
for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13
[22] Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT et al. The widespread misuse of
effect sizes. J Sci Med Sport 2017; 20: 446–450
[23] Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship
between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle
mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 2017; 35:
1073–1082
[24] Damas F, Barcelos C, Nóbrega SR et al. Individual muscle hypertrophy
and strength responses to high vs. low resistance training frequencies.
J Strength Cond Res 2019; 33: 897–901
[25] Correa DA, Brigatto FA, Braz TV, de Camargo JBB, Aoki MS, Marchetti
Downloaded by: null. Copyrighted material.
PHLCR. Twice-daily sessions result in a greater muscle strength and a
similar muscle hypertrophy compared to once-daily session in
resistance-trained men. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2022; 62: 324–336
[26] Nóbrega SR, Scarpelli MC, Barcelos C et al. Muscle hypertrophy is
affected by volume load progression models. J Strength Cond Res
2023; 37: 62–67
[27] Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Every D et al. Progressive overload without
progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on
muscular adaptations. PeerJ 2022; 10: e14142
[28] Keefe G, Wright C. An intricate balance of muscle damage and protein
synthesis: the key players in skeletal muscle hypertrophy following
resistance training. J Physiol 2016; 594: 7157–7158
[29] Damas F, Phillips SM, Libardi CA et al. Resistance training-induced
changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to
hypertrophy only after attenuation of muscle damage. J Physiol 2016;
594: 5209–5222
[30] de Camargo JBB, Brigatto F, Volpi Braz T et al. Order of resistance
training cycles to develop strength and muscle thickness in resistance-
trained men: A pilot study. Int J Exerc Sci 2021; 14: 644–656