Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume-matched loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared muscle hypertrophy and strength gains between resistance training protocols employing very low (VLL < 30% of 1-repetition maximum (RM) or >35RM), low (LL30%–59% of 1RM, or 16–35RM), moderate (ML60%–79% of 1RM, or 8–15RM), and high (HL ≥ 80% of 1RM, or ≤7RM) loads with matched volume loads (sets × repetitions × weight). A pooled analysis of the standardized mean difference for 1RM strength outcomes across the studies showed a benefit favoring HL vs. LL and vs. ML and favoring ML vs. LL. The LL and VLL results showed little difference. A pooled analysis of the standardized mean difference for hypertrophy outcomes across all studies showed no differences between training loads. Our findings indicate that when the volume load is equal between conditions, the highest loads induce superior dynamic strength gains. Alternatively, hypertrophic adaptations were similar irrespective of the load magnitude. Novelty: Training with higher loads elicits greater gains in 1RM muscle strength when compared to lower loads, even when the volume load is equal between conditions. Muscle hypertrophy is similar irrespective of the magnitude of the load, even when the volume load is equal between conditions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Voluntary strength is enhanced by training ≥2 sessions per week.
“However, voluntary strength was enhanced by lifting heavier loads (≥80% one-repetition maximum), through a complete range of motion, for 2–3 sets, at the beginning of training sessions, and ≥2 sessions/wk.”
From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
The study summary in the Concluding Remarks describes strength gains in a protocol conducted twice weekly, and the Intervention characteristics section says more than half of the included studies trained three times weekly. But the review compares training loads, not session frequency; its Concluding Remarks say the frequency needed for maximal strength gains remains unclear. It therefore does not establish ≥2 sessions per week as a frequency threshold for enhancing strength. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResistance training frequency impacts strength, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude a dose-response relationship, and the impact is diminished when volume is equated.
“RT frequency was found to impact strength; however, there was insufficient evidence to conclude a dose-response relationship, and the impact is diminished when volume is equated (73,76,90).”
From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [76]
The Intervention characteristics section reports how often included studies trained, but does not compare the effects of training frequency on strength. The discussion of volume equating concerns different training loads, not frequency; searches for frequency and a frequency–strength dose-response relationship found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 116
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- CHESTNUT, J. L. & DOCHERTY, D. 1999. The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13, 353-359. DOI: 10.1519/1533- 287(1999)013<0353:TEOARM>2.0.CO;2. · DOI
- 578SCHOENFELD, B. J., CONTRERAS, B., VIGOTSKY, A. D. & PETERSON, M. 2016. 579Differential effects of heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy in 580resistance-trained men. Journal of sports science & medicine, 15, 715. PMID: 27928218.
- Authors
- Carvalho, L., Junior, R. M., Barreira, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Orazem, J., & Barroso, R.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
- Department of Sport Sciences, School of Physical Education, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
- Lehman College (US)
- Venue
- Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 357-368
- ISSN
- 1715-5312 (ISSN-L)
- 1715-5320
- OpenAlex
- W4206612410
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 5.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TSpace (University of Toronto) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (2018/23-p4748)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Keywords
- resistance training, muscle hypertrophy, training load, high-load training, low-load training, strength gain
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Humans, Hypertrophy, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
