Low-volume and intensity-focused coaching has skyrocketed in curiosity over the previous few years. It guarantees to be the superior technique of coaching, and with figures equivalent to Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates, many lifters turned to this type of coaching.
Nevertheless, it appears to contradict the thought of utilizing quantity for hypertrophy; so, which is it? Additional, it is at all times been right here; it is not new.
So why the sudden curiosity?
Is low-volume coaching efficient?
We’ll reply this and present that the argument is not actually that massive of a contradiction; in actual fact, it is seemingly orchestrated beef for clicks.
Key Factors To Know!
|
Is Low-Quantity Coaching Efficient?
Low-volume coaching is totally efficient for hypertrophy. Actually, the minimal efficient quantity (MEV) is way decrease than we beforehand thought, at round 4 weekly working units per muscle group (Pelland et al. 2025)
Analysis persistently exhibits that muscle can develop with surprisingly small quantities of weekly quantity, supplied the units are carried out with enough effort (Schoenfeld et al, 2017; Figueiredoet et al, 2018)
The actual query is: Is low-volume coaching superior to larger volumes?
A big meta-regression by Pelland et al. (2025) demonstrates this problem superbly;
- Minimal Efficient Dose (to detect hypertrophy): 4 working units per week
- Highest Effectivity 5-10 working units per week
- Intermediate Effectivity: 11-18 working units per week
- Lowest Effectivity: 42 working units per week
Which means:
- You do not want excessive quantity to develop muscle.
- You do want ample effort and progressive overload.
- Low quantity might be each efficient and extremely environment friendly.
- Whereas 5-10 units is most effective, a dose-response might be seen with extra.
Time-efficient coaching literature helps this as nicely. Iversen et al. (2021) concluded {that a} minimal of ~4 weekly units per muscle with reasonable loading (6–15 RM) can drive significant hypertrophy when time is restricted.
| Key Level! Literature doesn’t assist the declare that low quantity will maximize absolute muscle progress potential for everybody. Nevertheless, it clearly meets the minimal threshold wanted to develop and will be the superior possibility for some lifters. |
How Many Units Ought to You Use With Low-Quantity Coaching?
Defining “low quantity” is the place a lot of the confusion begins. Traditionally, what bodybuilders thought-about “low” can be labeled reasonable at present.
Based mostly on each analysis and real-world observe, a sensible breakdown for contemporary occasions seems to be like this:
- Minimal Efficient Dose (MED): ~4 units/week
- Excessive-Effectivity Zone: ~5–10 units/week
- Reasonable Quantity: ~10–20 units/week
- Excessive Quantity: 20+ units/week
True low-volume systems typically operate within the 4–8 set vary, typically pushing into the decrease finish of the effectivity zone.
This aligns cleanly with how traditional low-volume bodybuilders truly educated:
- Mike Mentzer: ~1–4 units per muscle per week
- Dorian Yates: ~4–8 units per muscle per week
- Casey Viator: ~3–6 units per muscle per week
In observe, most fashionable low-volume lifters land between 6–10 weekly units.
The Significance of Depth With Low-Quantity Coaching
Low-volume coaching solely works when depth is excessive (Hermann et al, 2025). When quantity is diminished, the standard of every set should improve to compensate. This is why low-volume programs emphasize:
- Coaching to failure
- Relaxation-pause units
- Pressured reps
- Gradual eccentrics and prolonged units
Nevertheless, there’s an essential scientific nuance right here. Analysis exhibits that true repetition failure will not be strictly required for hypertrophy, so long as units are taken shut sufficient to failure.
- Sampson & Groeller (2016) discovered that comparable hypertrophy and power positive aspects occurred throughout coaching fashions utilizing completely different proximity-to-failure methods.
- Refalo et al. (2024) confirmed that stopping units at 1–2 reps in reserve (RIR) produced comparable hypertrophy as full failure.
- Martikainen et al (2025) – Suggests using 1-4 RIR produces similar hypertrophy.
That mentioned, when weekly quantity is extraordinarily low, failure turns into extra essential as a compensatory mechanism.
This is supported by the current preprint from Hermann et al. (2025), the place a number of hypertrophy measures tended to favor coaching to failure when quantity was minimal. Nevertheless, absolute variations remained modest.
Briefly:
- Excessive quantity can tolerate barely decrease per-set effort.
- Low quantity requires excessive depth to maximise work
Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates: The Icons of Low-Quantity Coaching
The trendy dialog round low-volume coaching exists largely due to two names: Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates.
Mike Mentzer
Mentzer’s Heavy Responsibility system diminished coaching to its excessive:
- One working set per train
- Units taken past failure
- Lengthy relaxation durations between periods
- Complete weekly quantity is usually under 5 units per muscle
His philosophy was constructed on the concept intensity alone could replace volume. Whereas this method clearly labored for him and different adherents, science now not helps the concept single-set coaching is perfect for maximal hypertrophy throughout a inhabitants.
Dorian Yates
Yates used a modified Heavy Responsibility method:
- Fewer workouts
- One all-out prime set per motion
- Weekly quantity round 4–8 units per muscle
- Progressive overload as the first purpose
Yates proved that you don’t want Golden-Period volumes to construct world-class muscle. Nevertheless, he nonetheless used extra complete quantity than Mentzer and accrued working units throughout a number of workouts.
Importantly, each athletes educated with:
- Excessive effort
- Steroid-enhanced restoration
- Distinctive genetics
Two different components to contemplate which might be hardly ever mentioned when talking about Yates and Mentzer;
1. They used heavier hundreds than conventional bodybuilding (6-8RM); why is that this by no means introduced up?
Conventional bodybuilding makes use of lighter hundreds (60-75% 1RM). Lighter hundreds imply extra reps and fatigue to succeed in enough mechanical rigidity to stimulate progress.
When utilizing 80% 1RM or extra, maximal mechanical rigidity is positioned on the muscle from the primary rep.
2. Their “Single Set” is Undercalculated
Yates and Mintzer often educated within the 6-8 rep vary, which often required 1–2 progressive warm-up units per train. Even when we do not depend this as quantity, it nonetheless provides to:
- Length of exercise
- Improve work carried out (Staying so far as 4RIR has been proven to contribute to hypertrophy, Martikainen et al (2025))
Additional, rest-pause training played a major role. “1 Set” with 2-3 mini rest-pause units may very well complete 12-15 reps, i.e., 2 units price of reps. If this occurred with each train, that doubles the full quantity.
Excessive Quantity vs. Low Quantity: Which Is Higher?
From a purely scientific standpoint, larger volumes persistently produce higher hypertrophy (till an higher threshold (Baz-Valle et al. 2022; Figueiredo et al. 2018)).
All these opinions assist a clear dose–response relationship between muscle progress and hypertrophy; extra quantity = extra progress.
Nevertheless, “extra” will not be at all times “higher” in actual life.
Excessive-volume coaching:
- Requires extra time
- Produces extra fatigue
- Calls for higher restoration assets
- Could improve harm danger for some lifters
Low-volume coaching:
- Is very time-efficient
- Reduces cumulative fatigue
- Permits higher restoration per set
- Is less complicated to maintain long-term for some people
The Pelland et al. (2025) effectivity mannequin highlights this completely, which might be summed up as:
“5–10 weekly units present the best return per unit of labor, regardless that larger volumes should still yield higher complete progress if restoration permits.”
So the actual query will not be “Which is healthier?”
It is: Which one matches your restoration capability, way of life, and psychology?
Why Low-Quantity Coaching Appeals to So Many Lifters
Lifters who gravitate towards low quantity usually worth:
- Time effectivity
- Psychological focus
- Clear development
- Minimal junk quantity
- Decrease systemic fatigue
Each set should matter, and no time is wasted as coaching is constructed for maximal effectivity; get in and get out.
What Are Conventional Tips For Constructing Muscle?
Schoenfeld et al. (2017) offers the final tips to maximise hypertrophy;
- Lowest threshold for maximal hypertrophy: 10 working units
- Most threshold: 20 working units
This says rather a lot. Schoenfeld is a large proponent of “quantity.”
10 working units is not actually “excessive quantity” and never far off from low-volume proponents, particularly in the event that they’re utilizing rest-pauses for each train.
As you see, all the argument actually hinges on whether or not it is best to do a couple of extra units throughout the week; it is hardly definitely worth the stress of arguing about.
Ultimate Verdict: Is Low-Quantity Coaching Efficient?
Sure, Low-volume coaching works.
You may construct muscle with as few as 4–8 weekly units per muscle, supplied:
- Units are taken near failure
- Progressive overload is utilized
- Restoration is enough
However effectiveness doesn’t equal superiority.
Excessive-volume coaching typically produces higher absolute hypertrophy, whereas low-volume coaching offers higher effectivity, sustainability, and restoration for sure lifters.
Every has proponents who declare their technique works nicely, and we consider them.
The 2 camps will not be opposites; they merely emphasize completely different priorities inside the similar physiological framework.
On the finish of the day, muscle doesn’t grow by inconsistently counting sets. Hypertrophy comes from;
- Mechanical rigidity
- Ample effort
- Progressive overload
Whether or not you arrive at that stimulus by way of 5 units or twenty is finally a matter of particular person response, restoration capability, and private choice.
The one option to know what’s greatest for you is to strive each.
References
- Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). A scientific evaluation of the consequences of various resistance coaching volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017Figueiredo,
- Behringer, M., Heinrich, C., & Franz, A. (2025). Anabolic indicators and muscle hypertrophy: Significance for power coaching in sports activities drugs. Sports activities Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 41(Suppl 1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949328X2500002X
- 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). With out fail: Muscular variations in single-set resistance coaching carried out to failure or with repetitions-in-reserve (Model 1) [Preprint]. SportRxiv. https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.484
- Iversen, V. M., Norum, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2021). No time to elevate? Designing time-efficient coaching applications for power and hypertrophy: A story evaluation. Sports activities Medication, 51(10), 2079–2095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01490-1
- Figueiredoet, V. C., de Salles, B. F., & Trajano, G. S. (2018). Quantity for muscle hypertrophy and well being outcomes: The best variable in resistance coaching. Sports activities Medication, 48(2), 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0793-0
- 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 consequences of weekly quantity and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and power positive aspects. Sports activities Medication (Auckland, N.Z.). Advance on-line publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02344-w
- Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Robinson, Z. P., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2024). Related muscle hypertrophy following eight weeks of resistance coaching to momentary muscular failure or with repetitions-in-reserve in resistance-trained people. Journal of Sports activities Sciences, 42(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2321021
- Sampson, J. A., & Groeller, H. (2016). Is repetition failure important for the event of muscle hypertrophy and power? Scandinavian Journal of Medication & Science in Sports activities, 26(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12445
- Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). The dose–response relationship between resistance coaching quantity and muscle hypertrophy: are there actually nonetheless any doubts? Journal of Sports activities Sciences, 35(20), 1985–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1243800
- Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance coaching quantity and will increase in muscle mass: A scientific evaluation and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports activities Sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
- Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014). Results of various volume-equated resistance coaching loading methods on muscular variations in well-trained males. Journal of Power and Conditioning Analysis, 28(10), 2909–2918. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000480
