As soon as only a choice, the argument between excessive quantity vs. low quantity has gotten uncontrolled. Two camps have emerged that appear decided to show they’re proper and the opposite aspect is fallacious.
The fact is that they’re each proper, and what’s greatest actually depends upon the particular person, their circumstances, and targets.
We wish to break down this non-controversial controversy to clarify why it isn’t that massive of a problem, and the one option to know what’s greatest for you is to strive each.
Key Factors To Know!
|
Excessive Quantity Vs. Low Quantity: Which Is Higher?
Over the previous couple of many years, the significance of quantity in constructing muscle has gained growing recognition. Research after examine has constantly proven the significance of quantity in hypertrophy, together with a dose-response (Figueiredoet et al, 2018; Schoendfeld et al, 2017).
Nonetheless, over the previous few years, there was a large resurgence in figures like Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates. These people went in opposition to the grain and preached;
- Low quantity
- Give attention to depth
- Maximize relaxation
Much more hanging, this was in the course of the Golden Age of Bodybuilders, the place figures like Arnold had been doing 30-50+ working units per week.
So who’s proper? Nicely, in the end, it comes right down to a pissing contest as each teams appear to overlook the mark (And are we imagined to consider both camp is arguing for one thing that does not work?)
Earlier than we get into the nuance, let’s outline some phrases and ideas; that is the primary space that causes confusion.
What Does “Quantity” Imply?
Quantity in the end means the quantity of labor you place on a muscle. This may be checked out in two methods;
- Complete Quantity by Load: Units X Reps X Load = Quantity i.e. 3 X 10 X 100lbs = 3,000lbs
- Complete Working Units: 3 X Bench + 3 X Incline Bench + 2 X Flys = 8 Working Units for Chest
When individuals debate Excessive Quantity Vs. Low Quantity normally refers back to the whole variety of working units.
However right here lies the primary downside. Totally different camps throw across the phrases with no actual goal measuring software. In different phrases, what some individuals contemplate excessive quantity is low quantity to others.
In reality, some individuals use the time period within the context of progressive overload, i.e., “you should enhance quantity over time.”
What Is Excessive Quantity Coaching?
Excessive quantity coaching might be outlined as 20+ units per muscle group or 10+. It depends upon who you ask and what time interval.
In The Golden Age of Bodybuilding (1960-1680), professional bodybuilders routinely used 30-50 working units per muscle group.
Extra lately (2000s-2010s), previous Reddit threads have leisure and aggressive bodybuilders discussing utilizing 20-30+ working units.
Presently, this quantity appears to have come down as an entire, with even 20 working units thought-about excessive quantity.
Nonetheless, you can too view this as a coaching philosophy that prioritizes growing whole quantity.
What Is Thought of Low Quantity?
Just like defining “excessive quantity”, low quantity can also be tough to outline, as individuals have completely different meanings.
- Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Responsibility Type of coaching, you may see 4-6 working units every week, form of.
- Dorian Yates would use round 8-12 working units, typically even much less, towards the end of his career.
Regardless, we will safely say that low quantity refers to eight or fewer whole working units per week.
Or you may consider it as a coaching philosophy that emphasizes depth over quantity.
What Is Depth?
On this context, depth refers to coaching to failure, and even previous it. As talked about, low-volume proponents are actually stressing depth as the first issue of muscle progress fairly than quantity.
For instance, Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates stress the usage of varied strategies to push previous failure.
Whereas depth is certainly obligatory, there are some points to level out; primarily, it isn’t distinctive to low-volume.
- Low-volume proponents appear to recommend that high-volume lifters do not use depth
- Excessive-volume proponents nonetheless stress coaching to failure and use comparable strategies, similar to drop units
Additional, analysis means that absolute depth just isn’t as giant an element so long as every set is dropped at the proximity of failure, i.e.
- Sampson and Groeller (2016) – “Related variations throughout the three resistance coaching regimens recommend repetition failure just isn’t essential to elicit vital neural and structural modifications to skeletal muscle.”
- Refalo et al (2024) – “Terminating RT units with an in depth proximity-to-failure (e.g., 1- to 2-RIR) might be enough to advertise comparable hypertrophy of the quadriceps as reaching momentary muscular failure in resistance-trained people over eight weeks.“
- Martikainen et al (2025) – Suggests using 1-4 RIR produces similar hypertrophy.
Nonetheless, when utilizing minimal quantity, depth might be extra essential as you make each rep rely.
- Hermann et al (2025)– “A number of measures of hypertrophy tended to favor FAIL, though absolute variations between situations had been typically modest.”
Why Is Excessive Quantity Coaching Higher?
For the reason that Golden Age of bodybuilding, quantity has been seen as the first driver of muscle progress. Growing the quantity of working units in the end will increase the primary drivers of muscle hypertrophy: mechanical rigidity and metabolic stress (Behringer et al, 2025).
You can too argue that it is simpler to use progressive overload, as you may simply do one other set or add an adjunct train.
From a sensible standpoint, it permits lifters to construct maximal muscle with no need to hit true failure. That is essential as high-intense coaching is not appropriate for each lifter, similar to newbies or the aged. Plus, it might probably merely be disagreeable for a lot of lifters.
Analysis That Helps Utilizing Excessive Quantity Coaching
Virtually each examine and meta-analysis over the previous few years has come to comparable conclusions: extra quantity = extra muscle progress.
1. Figueiredoet et al, (2018). Quantity for muscle hypertrophy and well being outcomes: The best variable in resistance coaching.
| “The overarching precept argued herein is that quantity is essentially the most simply modifiable variable that has essentially the most evidence-based response with essential repercussions, be these muscle hypertrophy or health-related outcomes.” |
2. Schoenfeld et al (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance coaching quantity and will increase in muscle mass: A scientific assessment and meta-analysis
| “The findings point out a graded dose-response relationship whereby will increase in RT quantity produce better positive factors in muscle hypertrophy.” |
3. Schoenfeld et al (2017) The dose–response relationship between resistance coaching quantity and muscle hypertrophy: are there actually nonetheless any doubts?
| “…we really feel that our meta-analysis supplied compelling proof for a dose–response relationship between resistance coaching quantity and muscle hypertrophy….we contend {that a} minimal of 10+ units per muscle per week is critical to maximise the hypertrophic response to resistance coaching.” |
4. Baz-Valle et al, (2022). A scientific assessment of the results of various resistance coaching volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics
| “In accordance with the outcomes of this assessment, a variety of 12-20 weekly units per muscle group could also be an optimum customary advice for growing muscle hypertrophy in younger, educated males.” |
What Physique Builders Use Excessive Quantity Coaching?
Here’s a listing of bodybuilders identified for utilizing excessive quantity or prioritizing quantity as the first consider muscle progress.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger: ~45–70+ units / muscle / week
- Franco Columbu: ~45–70+ units / muscle / week
- Frank Zane: ~30–40 units / muscle / week
- Serge Nubret: ~30-50 units / muscle / week
- Ronnie Coleman: ~20–30+ units / muscle / week
- Jay Cutler: ~25–35 units / muscle / week
- Markus Rühl: ~30–40 units / muscle / week
- Kevin Levrone: ~20–30 units / muscle / week
- Phil Heath: ~20–30 units / muscle / week
- Kai Greene: ~30–45 units / muscle / week
- Hadi Choopan: ~20–28 units / muscle / week
- Nick Walker: ~20–30 units / muscle / week
- Samson Dauda: ~20–30 units / muscle / week
Why Is Low Quantity Coaching Higher?
Proponents of low-volume coaching have quite a lot of causes they like it.
- It minimizes the time they’re within the health club and maximizes their time.
- Prevents overtraining or continual fatigue.
- Some lifters declare it is truly superior for them by way of progress.
Lifters who observe low-volume coaching are inclined to undertake a extra methodical, environment friendly method. They need zero junk quantity and make each rep reap maximal advantages.
Analysis That Helps Utilizing Low Quantity Coaching
Relating to scientific proof supporting low quantity as superior, there actually is none. Some research present low-volume is efficient, however none present that it’s superior to greater volumes.
Iversen et al,(2021). No time to carry? Designing time-efficient coaching applications for energy and hypertrophy: A story assessment.
| “Weekly coaching quantity is extra essential than coaching frequency, and we advocate performing a minimal of 4 weekly units per muscle group utilizing a 6–15 RM loading vary.” |
Pelland et al, (2025). The resistance-training dose response: Meta-regressions exploring the results of weekly quantity and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and energy positive factors
They found:
- Minimal Efficient Dose to detect hypertrophy was 4 working units per week
- Highest Effectivity was 5-10 working units per week
- Intermediate Effectivity was 11-18 working units per week
- Dose Response as much as 42 working units per week
- Diminished Returns after 18 working units per week
This implies 5-10 working units gave the best return for the work. Nonetheless, in the event you had time, doing extra would nonetheless seemingly produce higher outcomes.
Physique Builders Who Use Low Quantity Coaching?
Here’s a listing of bodybuilders who used low-volume or high-intensity coaching as the first consider constructing muscle.
- Mike Mentzer: ~1–4 units / muscle / week
- Dorian Yates: ~4–8 units / muscle / week
- Casey Viator: ~3–6 units / muscle / week
- Ray Mentzer: ~1–5 units / muscle / week
- Jordan Peters: ~6–10 units / muscle / week
- Dante Trudel (DC Coaching): ~6–9 units / muscle / week
- Department Warren (intensity-dominant regardless of reasonable quantity): ~8–12 units / muscle / week
- Chris Bumstead: ~16–22 units / muscle / week (This is not “low-volume“ in trendy phrases, however in comparison with the extremely high-volume.)
Why “Quantity“ And “Depth“ Are Each Key
In the course of the debate, the truth is that quantity and depth matter, and each camps use them. It isn’t a alternative, as each are required.
The distinction is, which one is the primary focus?
Low-Quantity Camp
- Prioritize depth
- Will nonetheless enhance quantity over time
Excessive-Quantity Camp
- Prioritize quantity
- Will nonetheless use depth to achieve proximal failure and progress
Each Camps
Ought to I Use Excessive-Quantity Or Low-Quantity? Last Conclusion
As you may see above, the 2 teams are in the end arguing over preferences and what matches their life. Any degree of quantity can work, so long as you utilize sufficient depth and apply progressive overload. The one “dangerous“ methodology is to proceed utilizing one which hasn’t been working.
References
- Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). A scientific assessment of the results 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 energy coaching in sports activities medication. 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 carry? Designing time-efficient coaching applications for energy and hypertrophy: A story assessment. Sports activities Drugs, 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 Drugs, 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 results of weekly quantity and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and energy positive factors. Sports activities Drugs (Auckland, N.Z.). Advance on-line publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02344-w
- Martikainen, O., Niiranen, H., Rytkönen, T., et al. (2025). Affect of various proximity-to-failure on muscular variations and repetitions-in-reserve estimation accuracy in resistance-trained people. Journal of Science in Sport and Train. Advance on-line publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42978-025-00338-8
- 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 essential for the event of muscle hypertrophy and energy? Scandinavian Journal of Drugs & 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 assessment 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 Energy and Conditioning Analysis, 28(10), 2909–2918. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000480
