High Volume or Intensity: What Builds More Muscle?

by Cody McBroom

It Depends on Your Experience Level

Training forces you to evolve as a lifter. What works best for you should evolve as well. Here’s why.


One of the big debates in strength training is whether or not maximal gains are made with low or high volume. It’s an insanely common debate. It’s also an insanely pointless debate! Neither one is better or worse, generally speaking.

See, program design isn’t one-size-fits-all. So, nobody can really win this battle. The argument leads to a million different context-specific scenarios where either one can be better than the other. There’s even research to support each one being better than the other. That’s why we have camps on both sides, filled with lifters, coaches, and even researchers.

However, by the end of this article, you’ll understand everything you need to know about volume and intensity so you can ignore those who don’t know what they’re talking about and actually train with the proper doses needed for optimal gains.

Let’s Define Volume and Intensity

If you’re like most lifters, you probably thought (or still think) that intensity means how hard you’re going. But we’re referring to how the literature defines it.

Intensity, defined by the evidence-based strength training community, refers to the load you use. So, a high-intensity program is one that uses higher loads with lower reps. This is your classic Wendler 5/3/1 type of program.

Volume, defined by the same evidence-based crowd, refers to the total amount of work you’re doing. This can be a bit more confusing because there are two different ways to look at it. Here, we’ll only focus on one (which is more commonly used when referring to maximizing hypertrophy).

Originally, volume meant your total tonnage, and it’s often still used this way in powerlifting circles. Here’s a simple math equation to break it down:

Load x Reps x Sets = Total Volume

The newer and more common definition for volume, which we’ll focus on here, is by your total sets. Specifically, when counting volume this way, we’re talking about the total amount of weekly sets performed per muscle group:

Total Sets Per Muscle, Per Week

What Does Research Say?

The truth is that most research points to higher amounts of volume being more favorable for muscle growth. This has been such a hot topic over the last several years that there’s an outstanding amount of research pointing in the direction of higher volumes being better for growth.

We have a couple studies showing better muscle growth with lower volumes, too, and the common explanation there is that with higher volumes being performed, cortisol (the catabolic stress hormone) is elevated more often. That could potentially limit the amount of growth seen.

This is a sound argument because cortisol is a catabolic (breakdown) hormone that causes muscle loss in some scenarios. Also, cortisol can be the catalyst to other downstream negative effects, hormonally speaking – chronically elevated cortisol causing T3-T4 (thyroid) conversion, causing issues with your metabolism, or even causing lower testosterone levels.

However, that on-paper-theory doesn’t always hold its weight.

For example, there’s research showing a correlation between elevated cortisol levels and higher testosterone levels in men. Why is that? It’s simple: training hard elevates cortisol! That’s a sympathetic nervous system response that kicks you into a higher state of performance, causing you to lift heavier and with more reps. That, you guessed it, builds more muscle and later on produces even more testosterone.

So we can’t rely on anything short-lived here, and unless you’re in a state of chronically elevated cortisol, you won’t be seeing any negative effects from cortisol coming up every once in a while.

Now, back to the research on high-volume training…

Countless studies prove that higher-volume training programs build more muscle than lower-volume training programs. We even have some newer research showing specific percentage increases boosting hypertrophy. (One cool study increased a lifter’s current volume to see how many more sets were needed to build more muscle.)

What Do Seasoned Strength Coaches Say?

What about the old meatheads in those grimy gyms that have been lifting for decades and getting themselves and their clients absolutely jacked? These are your classic powerlifting guys who love lifting heavy, using chains, smelling salts, and lifting in gyms with rats in the corners.

And before you assume I’m a lab coat guy who just does curls at the local Planet Fitness, I spent the first decade of my career in one of those gyms. In fact, I now own a private gym with weight releasers, platforms, chains, and every specialty bar you can think of. But what I’m not is a dogmatic coach who believes that what works best for me will work best for you – and that’s exactly why you can’t always listen to the old guys.

See, they believe low volume works well because they love to lift heavy weights with compound lifts. Their argument is that compound lifts hit more muscle groups, which is true, and that lifting heavier creates a higher amount of total tension, which is also true. There are problems here, though.

First, by hitting more muscle groups with one lift, you’re also isolating less and providing less volume to each muscle. It’s also extremely taxing, neurologically, which doesn’t always allow you to make that volume up.

Second, you might not be strong enough to create enough total tension… yet! If you’re still only benching 185 pounds for 8 and the guy giving you this advice is benching 315 pounds for 8, well, do the math. His total tonnage is far greater than yours. That makes his total volume, and therefore his muscle mass, greater than yours as well.

Some more arguments here, though, hold their weight: the aspects of strength being easier to track progressive overload with, motor-unit recruitment being greater with heavier loads, and, last but not least, heavier loads stimulate more fast-twitch fibers.

All of this is true, too, although we know that fast-twitch fibers are also stimulated by reaching a high level of fatigue or proximity to failure. So it’s not the load that stimulates the fibers; it’s that it’s easier to stimulate them with heavier loads due to reaching failure sooner within a set, compared to lighter loads with higher reps.

Experience Level: What It All Comes Down To

Now we know why the two camps each claim that they have the best path to maximizing muscle growth. And this is where I nail you with the truth of the matter: the amount of volume you need, and intensity you should be training with, is primarily based on your experience level in the gym. Check out this graph:

On the left y-axis (vertical), we have volume. On the x-axis (horizontal), we have experience level. The red inverted-u curve represents volume needs as you gain more lifting experience.

Newbies

First, we all know the saying, “Anything works when you’re a newbie.” That’s true. It’s why you should always start with less volume, because you’ll experience more muscle damage, and with less volume, you can prioritize getting stronger and more skilled at lifting. Your skill acquisition and neuromuscular capabilities are pretty crappy at this point, and you need to spend time there. So you start on the lower end of the evidence-based volume range, which is 10 sets per muscle per week.

Intermediates

Next we have the intermediate lifters who can now handle a lot of volume. These people are the primary participants in the research studies mentioned above and get a lot of growth from pushing the volume ceiling as high as possible while still recovering. Based on the evidence-based recommendations for muscle growth, this will be at about 20 sets per muscle per week.

Advanced Lifters

And finally, we have the advanced and seasoned lifter who has spent years and years in the gym. This person has a great skill level with lifting and can fire muscles maximally. Their nervous system is primed for heavy lifting, and they likely have taken a beating over the years from lifting so much. They should start to taper their volume back down to 10 sets, like the newbie.

Now, as hard as that is for some to believe, it’s the damn truth. The truly advanced lifter creates more mechanical tension in every rep, which means he or she gets more out of each rep! But also, it makes every rep more fatiguing because they can produce more force, and their level of strength – being so much greater than a newbie – causes far more neurological fatigue and stress on their joints.

But that’s not all. These advanced lifters have gotten far closer to their own genetic ceiling than the newbie or intermediate lifter. This means they not only need less volume (via sets) to produce as much total volume (via tonnage) as the younger lifters, but they also have less reward to gain from the risk.

Putting This Into Practice

Here’s what you need to take away to get the most out of your program:

The amount of volume you need is more tied to your experience level in the gym than anything else.

So, if you’re in year one or two of lifting, don’t listen to the guy who’s in year 10 unless he’s telling you what he did back when he was at the same stage as you.

As you spend more time in the gym, you can reach higher amounts of volume and get a lot of muscle growth out of it. Research supports this by using participants who are experienced lifters rather than newbies, but very rarely do they have seasoned strength coaches or bodybuilders as study participants.

Once you get so strong and proficient at lifting weights that your higher volume sessions begin to really tax your body and entire system, it’s time to pump down the volume. This usually happens beyond year 5, but often more so around year 10.

Over your lifting career, it’s best to stay within the range of 10 to 20 sets per muscle per week. If you’re already decades into it, you may be able to look back and notice that you, too, went from around 10 to 20 to 10 sets per muscle per week. You did it naturally without thinking about it.

Finally, there are outliers here as well. A pro-bodybuilder may still use high volume with lighter loads when he’s in year 20 of his career. But this is because his sport requires far more isolation exercises, and it’s just plain stupid to do curls for sets of 3-5. Likewise, a competitive powerlifter is on the opposite spectrum because he also follows the principles of specificity.

So, at the end of the day, be aware of what your training is like, how extreme your goal is, what the demands are, and how you feel when doing either route. That way, you can figure out what works best for you.

MD-Buy-on-Amazon

9 Likes

I like it! I think I was coining on here with @T3hPwnisher that you “earn” the ability to get results with less volume by putting in your time under the bar. This is a little deeper explanation into the flippant remark.

5 Likes

You hit the nail on the head! That’s exactly right.

2 Likes

I wonder what the definition of ‘experience’ is. After my first 5 years in the gym, I was still really weak and had barely out any muscle on but I had 5 year’s ‘experience’ in the gym.

Is it how I effective your body is at using the muscle or the amount of muscle you have put on.

2 Likes

Honestly, this stuff gets so overthought. Even as this article points out, people even get mixed up with what intensity means.

A high-“intensity” low-volume program could mean something full of 1-2 sets of 8-20, maybe even less than 10 total sets per muscle group a week. It doesn’t fit the literature definition of “intensity”, but that doesn’t mean it now fits in the volume pocket instead in comparison to a 15-20 set program. I have seen plenty of intermediates switch to this style of training and get the best results they’ve seen in years (the inverse of this also happens).

Many John Meadows programs used to be called high-volume, but it was usually the one set taken close to or to failure. Volume is a means of accumulating effective reps. Whether you do 3 sets to get 10 effective reps, or 2 sets to get 10 effective reps ultimately doesn’t matter, except with higher volume you’re more likely to incur recovery issues. With low volume, injuries may be at a higher risk due to more frequent dances in a closer proximity to failure. What is best or builds more muscle is far too nuanced to each individual for there to ever be an answer for this so all we’ve got is people on one side of the fence, and people on the other arguing with eachother and citing studies that mean little in the real world.

The fitness industry’s focus on volume seems silly to me now. It is not the main driver of hypertrophy and never was, it’s just one of the variables we can manipulate once exercise selection, technique, and proximity to failure are maximized for our goals. How can it be the main driver if other prerequisites have to be met? (A podcast or video was talking about this the other day but I can’t remember the source). Mechanical tension is the main driver of hypertrophy and all the science would point to that. Volume is just the dosage. Too little or too much depends on your frequency and intensity. And as the end of the article says, this will evolve over time.

2 Likes

Hey Cody, Been following you for a while. Nice to see you on T-Nation!! Keep it coming!

1 Like

Honestly, the volume VS intensity debate has always been around because people LIKE BOTH.
Some people loving doing sets and sets and other just wanna go “balls to the wall” and go home.
Whichever you prefer AND do consistently, that is the one that works for you.
One caveat though: High volume works when you keep 2-3 reps in reserve and low volume/high intensity works when you go to failure (or beyond). Things like myo-reps, rest-pause and so forth, these are ideal for low-volume/high intensity.

5 Likes

I think this just goes back to CT’s neurotype system. Some people can get results using more intense methods, lifting heavy and more explosively and on the other side, some people get results using more volume. If using a method that supports your neurotype gets you more motivated to train. It would then probably yield better results. Just a thought.

2 Likes

MAN! Appreciate you following already and I’m happy to have you reading my stuff here, too!

2 Likes

I would agree. The only thing I’d add is that you can do high volume and go to failure at times and definitely do so with keeping 1-2 reps in reserve, too – but the exercises need to be specific to that style of training.

Exercise selection determines a lot of what’s smart and what’s not smart, regarding training to failure. It’s why a lot of bodybuilders do promote high volumes AND going to failure, all the time… Looking at their training, though, you’ll find a lot of cables, machines, and higher rep isolation work.

I’d say a combination of the two, tbh. Most people just say it’s “___ years in the gym” that determines a beginner, intermediate, or advanced status. But it’s more about what you said, with regards to how much muscle has been built AND your ability to utilize it. There’s a skill to lifting, essentially, and as you improve your skill you’ll improve your technique, absolute strength, ability to recruit motor-units (and therefore muscle fibers), create more tension in the muscle, etc… All of this, is what determines one’s level of experience.

1 Like

Good points here! I would say that the reason volume is the biggest influence (not driver, because you’re right by saying mechanical tension is the main driver) is because research shows that a higher volume program is more effective at accumulating more mechanical tension in a given period of time.

In other words, a higher volume program works better in research because they create more tension to the muscle per set, per session, per week, and per month. So by the end of a study (or training period), there’s been more overall exposure to a higher amount of mechanical tension and THAT is what leads to the most growth.

5 Likes

I’ve been involved in training for 45 years. This involved my own training plus as a personal trainer in New York City in the late 80’s and some personal training in the 2010-2011. I think the est way to figure all of this nonsense out is to use a training log. See which program gives you the most improvement with the available time that you have to train. Monitor and adjust until you find your sweet spot. For me, I lean more toward the intensity approach. It has been successful for me and fits my schedule more so than the high volume approach. So get the log book. Write down the exercises, sets, reps and how you feel at the end of the workout. It’s an indispensable tool.

1 Like

How is that possible when low volume is about creating as much tension as possible within the fewer amount of sets that you do? By function of higher volume training, it means we can not go as hard on each set because we will not accumulate the volume otherwise. If we look at the effective reps model, then 2 sets on an exercise taken close to failure will create far more mechanical tension relative to “effective reps” than for example 4 sets across in which you sandbag the first couple of sets to get deep into the effective reps on the last two sets - whilst also using a lighter weight than what you could use if doing just 2 sets.

I’m not disagreeing with you, not in the slightest. I am humbly convinced by both styles of training. I just think it’s cool to have an open conversation about it, because as I said, for every “high volume builds more muscle” study, there is usually another study that perceives things differently. That doesn’t make either of these sides of the coin studies wrong, or people’s perceptions wrong. It just means to me that there are too many things involved for a study to give us anything close to a legitimate answer, and it seems that they just serve to breed dogmatism in coaches that find things that support whatever it is they preach. I see this from both sides. There is a well-known coach who used to be big around here who will pretty much speak down to anyone who thinks differently from him and has fast become one of the most toxic people in the industry as he calls people idiots whilst he cites study after study on low volume which has helped create an arrogance in that crowd.

Elite physiques have been built on high volume and low volume, natural and enhanced. Being married to one idealogy will probably only be a hindrance. In the long-term, the best answer is very likely to be both. I’ve lost count of the people I read about who talk about switching to DC training was the best thing they ever did, or that accumulating volume over a training block blew them up in ways they didn’t think imaginable.

In terms of the literature definition of intensity. Disregard all that I’ve just typed because you are 100% spot on with all that you’ve typed. If this is read by someone who takes it as low-volume bodybuilding vs high-volume bodybuilding though, it is different from what is being discussed in the article.

Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it. It’s always nice to discover somebody I haven’t been made aware of before, and I will for sure be checking out more of your content to learn more from you.

1 Like

One problem in defining “experience” is that you need a certain amount of time of “good training,” and just “gym attendance” doesn’t count.

1 Like

Well, he cites a study over and over

1 Like

Great article Cody! Agree wholeheartedly! Another reason why it needs to be clear what the goals of a program are and WHO is the ideal client!

1 Like

For sure. I actually lean towards low volume right now but it won’t be forever. My point is that the high-volume crowd wants to shun the low-volume crowd and the low-volume crowd wants to shun the high-volume crowd. (I am not implying that is what Cody is doing at all, as all he has said is 100% accurate). Both of them have a ton of studies to back up their own opinions but all that really says is there’s more than one way to cook an egg - and long-term I think if anything, that being married to one side of the argument is likely to to be a little limiting. We should be married to progress, not a methodology.

1 Like

I totally agree, I’ll just (maturely) take any opportunity to pile on the guy in question

1 Like

I think you may need to re-phrase that. You can’t go to failure AND keep reps in reserve…

I think the studies that show high-volume working better than low-volume show that because for the vast majority of people, working high-volume is simply more effective because they don’t know/can’t push the envelope needed to make low-volume work. Most people’s failure tends to be 1-2 reps shy of it. It is easier for most people to “compensate” with higher volume. They like it better, prefer it and do it more consistently.

1 Like