Setting the Bar Low (BUT still making gains...)

Covering research on the minimum effective dose of training volume and frequency to increase strength

I recently posted a podcast with Patroklos Androulakis Korakakis (a.k.a. Dr. Pak), a P.h.D. in Sports Science and a world expert on the topic of the minimum effective dose (M.E.D.) of resistance training for strength.  

In other words, Dr. Pak’s expertise focuses on the question, “How much do I actually need to do in the gym to meaningfully increase my strength?”

Not only is this different from the concept of maximizing strength gains, but, in my opinion, it’s probably more relevant for many if not most people in the gym. 

Here, I’ll break down some research on a particularly important piece of this topic: how much (or little) you need to do in terms of sets and training sessions per week in order to meaningfully build strength.

B.L.U.F.

Whether you have no resistance training experience or you’ve been training for several years, research generally suggests that, though less so than with higher volumes, you can significantly increase your strength by completing just 2-3 sets per muscle group or movement pattern in a single training session per week. (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XXII, XXIII, XXVIII) 

“The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads ranging from 70–85%1RM 2–3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8–12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in [squat] and [bench press 1-repetition max] strength in resistance-trained men.” (I)

Who Cares?

Before we get into the data, I figure it’s important to identify why you might care about the M.E.D. for strength. 

Though much of what I see on social and mainstream media is directed towards training for optimal outcomes, I think the concept of the M.E.D. is equally if not more valuable because the majority of people aren’t looking to maximize their gains.

For example, some people don’t enjoy lifting but are still  interested in the benefits of resistance training–whether that be living better and longer, performing better physically, or looking better. If this is you, then you’re probably interested in identifying just how much resistance training it takes to increase strength and muscle mass, so you can do that much and no more. 

And, even for those of us who love to lift, there are times in life when we want to prioritize other things. For lay people, this might be a shorter period, like vacation or finals week, or it could be a longer period, like during graduate school or a few intense years of their career. 

On the other hand, for athletes, this might be during the competitive season when practice takes priority over maximizing strength and conditioning. Or, for military members, this might be during deployment where it’s necessary to reduce the time and energy spent on lifting. 

In these cases, it’s useful to know how little we can afford to do while still making progress or even how much we can cut back without sacrificing the gains we’ve already made. 

So, what does research say about how much we actually have to do to make strength gains?

How Many Sets Do You Really Need To Do?

When it comes to the M.E.D. and resistance training programming in general, there are several training variables to consider. In this post, we’re going to zero in on two that largely influence how much time you spend in the gym per week: training volume (i.e. how many hard sets you complete per muscle group or movement pattern per week) and training frequency (i.e. how many times you train a given muscle group or movement pattern per week). 

Research on training volume largely suggests that, although not as great as higher volume protocols in many cases, low volume training (i.e. 2-9 sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week) consistently leads to significant increases in strength. (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV, XXVIII) 

This is not only the case for relatively untrained subjects (XII, X, XIV, XXVIII) but for individuals with previous resistance training experience as well. (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX) 

For example, in their 2011 trial, Marshall and Colleagues found that male subjects (average age 28) in the lowest volume group added ~36 lbs to their back squat 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) after 6 weeks of just 2 sets per week (1 set of ~11 reps of back squats at 80% of their 1RM performed twice per week). (IX) This is particularly notable considering that subjects in this low volume group had an average 1RM back squat of ~327 lbs at baseline. (IX)

Figure 1. Depiction of back squat 1-repetition-max (1RM) in trained subjects across 6 weeks of completing 2, 8, and 16 sets of back squats per week from “Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males”. (IX)

Figure 2. Depiction of the relative increases in strength for trained subjects completing 2, 8, and 16 sets of back squats per week for 6 weeks in “Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males”. (IX)

In addition, limited research suggests that lower volume training can even increase strength in some competitive powerlifters. (II, III) For example, in Korakakis and Colleagues’ 2021 multi-experiment paper, one group of 8 competitive powerlifters completing 2 sets of back squats and 3 sets of bench press per week increased their back squat and bench press 1RMs by 11.7 lbs and 5.1 lbs, respectively. (II)

Interestingly, since those subjects only completed near maximal, single-repetition sets, not only did they achieve those gains completing 2-3 sets per week, but they did so completing 2-3 total repetitions each of back squat and bench press per week.(II)

In the same paper, another group of 4 competitive powerlifters added 15.8 lbs to their back squat 1RM and 11.7 lbs to their bench press 1RM after also completing 2 sets of back squats and 3 sets of bench press per week, though this group completed their sets with weights corresponding to 70% of their 1RM and took those sets  ~1 rep away from failure. (II)

Importantly, from a more zoomed out perspective, several meta-analyses support the idea that lower volume training can significantly increase strength. (I, XIV) Specifically, Ralston and Colleagues’ 2017 meta-analysis of 9 studies not only found that low weekly volume (5 or less sets per week) produced a large effect size for strength outcomes, but that moderate (5-9) and high (10+) weekly volumes only produced trivially greater increases in strength in comparison. (XIV) 

“When a random effects analysis was applied, a trivial effect was observed for multi-joint and isolation weekly set outcomes (ES 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.30; p = 0.003). Pre- to post-intervention strength gain was greater with [high and moderate weekly set training combined] compared with [low weekly set training] (ES difference 0.19). The mean ES for [low weekly set training] was 0.82 (95% CI 0.47–1.17). The mean ES for [high and moderate  weekly set training combined]  was 1.01 (95% CI 0.70–1.32)...The data would thus suggest that [moderate] and [high weekly set] strength training produce marginally superior results compared with [low weekly set strength training].” (XIV)

Figure 3. Effect sizes for low (5 sets or less per week) and moderate to high (5+ sets per week) training volumes and strength taken from “The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis”. Notably, both effect sizes depicted qualify as large (defined as effect sizes greater than 0.8), and the 0.19 difference between the two effect sizes qualifies as a trivial difference (defined as effect sizes less than 0.2). (XIV)  

And, Korakakis et al’s meta-analysis, “The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength in Resistance-Trained Men,” from 2020 found that completing 1 set per exercise per session (which works out to 2-9 sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week depending on which individual study you look at) was sufficient to increase 1RM across 6 studies of males with prior resistance training experience. (I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX)

“The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads ranging from 70–85% 1RM 2–3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8–12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in [squat] and [bench press] 1RM strength in resistance-trained men.” (I)

It’s important to note that strength gains likely won’t be optimal with these lower volumes, in that you can likely make greater gains by doing more sets per week. (I, XIV) However, it is also notable that you can achieve a disproportionate amount of your maximal gains with a fraction of the volume. (I, XIV) 

For example, in a study by Rhea and Colleagues, subjects completing 3 sets each of bench press and leg press per week (1 set per session spread out across 3 sessions per week) achieved ~45-60% of the 1RM gains achieved by subjects completing 9 sets of each exercise per week. (VI)

Figure 4. Relative leg press and bench press 1RM outcomes following 12 weeks of lower (3 sets) and higher (9 sets) weekly leg press and bench press training volume from “Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength.” (VI) Notably, the lower volume group (grey) made disproportionate strength gains relative to their training volume considering that they were completing ⅓ as many sets as the higher volume group (green). (VI)

And, the gap is even wider when looking at some other studies, such as Marshall and Colleagues’ trial where the lowest volume group achieved ~56% of the back squat 1RM gains achieved by the highest volume group that was completing 8X as many sets of back squats per week. (IX) 

Figure 5. Relative back squat 1RM outcomes following 6 weeks of lower (2 sets) and higher (16 sets) weekly back squat training volume from “Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males”. (IX)

Considering they were completing 1/8 as many sets as the higher volume group (red), the lower volume group (blue) made disproportionate strength gains relative to their training volume. (IX)

So, if we zoom out once more, there is a decently large body of evidence suggesting that lower volumes (i.e. 9 sets or less per muscle group or movement pattern per week) still lead to significant strength gains, though likely less than higher volumes. (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV, XXVIII) 

In terms of a minimum effective dose, based on several individual studies and multiple meta-analyses, it appears that as low as 2-3 hard sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week is sufficient to significantly increase strength. (I, II, III, VI, IX, XII, XIV, XXVIII) 

How Many Times Do You Need to Train Per Week?

Now that we’ve covered volume from the M.E.D. perspective, it’s time to address frequency, or how many days you train per week. 

In general, research suggests that there is no difference in terms of increasing strength between high and low frequency training if volume is equated. (XIII, XXII) In other words, provided that you are doing the same amount of sets per muscle group or movement per week, it doesn’t matter how many times you are training a given muscle group or movement per week. (XIII, XXII) 

“The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gain, with higher RT frequencies resulting in more strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains.” (XXII) 

One caveat is that there is likely a limit to how many productive sets you can complete in a single session, so you probably want to increase your training frequency when using higher training volumes. (XXIII, XXVIII) However, this is not an issue for somebody training with the M.E.D., as their training volume will be lower. (XXVIII)

“...from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies might be used as a means of increasing total training volume, which may impact muscular strength accrual.”(XXII)

In terms of studies looking at lower volumes in particular (i.e. 2-9 sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week), several trials in males with prior resistance training experience show that you can make significant gains training only 2-3 days per week. (I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX). 

And, in one study by Bickel and Colleagues, following an initial 16-week period of training with higher volume, young subjects were able to continue making leg extension 1RM gains while completing 1 training session per week consisting of 1 set each of leg extension, leg press, and back squat for 8 months. (XII)

Figure 6. Knee extension 1-repetition-max (1RM) in young subjects completing 3 sets of quadriceps exercises once per week from “Exercise Dosing to Retain Resistance Training Adaptations in Young and Older Adults”. (XII)

So, if we zoom out and take a look at these data together, in general, provided you’re completing the same total number of sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week, it appears you can divide your weekly volume across however many days you want and achieve similar results. (I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIII, XXII, XXIII, XXVIII)

In terms of how frequency specifically impacts strength gains when completing as few sets per week as the M.E.D. volume there is more limited data. (XII) But, combining that data with meta-analyses and reviews suggests that the M.E.D. from a frequency perspective could be as low as a single day per week, provided volume is equated. (XIII, XXII, XXVIII)

“These findings indicate that although a high training volume appears superior to maximize muscular adaptations, it is possible to improve both strength and hypertrophy when training with a relatively low number of weekly sets (< 5 sets)...These sets can be distributed throughout the week as desired. This has important implications for those who are time-pressed as lower volume routines represent a viable option to balance efficiency with results.” (XXVIII)

To be fair, if you want to take a more cautious perspective in the context of an M.E.D. volume, there is more data suggesting that training at least 2 days per week will be sufficient for achieving significant strength gains. (I, III, IX, XIII, XXII)

Conclusion

Reflecting on everything above, I have a few takeaways.

First, the minimum effective dose of resistance training to increase strength in terms of volume and frequency is likely 2-3 sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week all completed in a single session per week. (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XXII, XXIII, XXVIII) 

Second, unless you’re looking to maximize your strength gains, it appears that you can get away with completing a handful of sets per muscle group or movement pattern per week and still achieve much of the gains you would otherwise while using higher volumes. (I, VI, IX, XIV)

Third, you can make significant, though suboptimal, gains with lower volumes even if you already have several years of training under your belt. (I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX)

And, lastly, even if you are orienting your training towards more optimal outcomes, cutting back on volume for a week or two because of vacation or finals week won’t be the downfall of your progress–based on the studies cited above, you’ll likely even continue making some gains with those lower volumes. (I, III, XII)

---

---

Looking for some research-based lifting programs with everything you need to make gains in the gym? Check out the links below.

FREE Spring Break Training Program

FREE Beginner Lifter Training Program