A new study was published last month in the Journal of Applied Physiology looking at how increases in training volume correlated to strength, hypertrophy, and strength endurance. While this has been looked at a number of times, the plot twist for this study design was that the increase in volume was relative to their previous programming and not some arbitrary number.
Due to COVID when this data was collected, only 20 of the 55 young, trained dudes finished the study. The 20 guys were split between three groups:
- Continue current training volume (~ 14 sets/wk on average)
- Increase training volume by 30% (~19 sets/wk)
- Increase training volume by 60% (~24 sets/wk)
After 8-weeks, the subjects in each group had their 1RM squat, quadriceps muscle thickness, and strength endurance (70% 1RM to failure) tested. The control group who continued their current training volume increased strength and size the most compared to those who increased training volume, while the group who increased the training volume x 30% increased their strength endurance the most.
Unfortunately, the low sample size was underpowered and in a very specialized population (young, trained dudes) this application, so it’s not really clear that these results are terribly meaningful. On the other hand, only a couple of studies have tried individualized volume increases before, as most studies used a preset volume level that does not consider a person’s previous training. I do prefer this study design when looking at the effect(s) of volume, volume load, etc., though I do wish the researchers would include individual level data on previous training and the intervention-associated volume increase.
My interpretation of this study is mostly to raise additional questions, e.g. were the individuals really training 14 sets/wk prior to the increase? Were they making progress on that program? If there was such a substantial increase in volume in the + 30 and 60% groups, why was the volume load the same (on average) between all the groups? Is 8-weeks long enough to pick up a signal in training outcomes in this group, or are we catching mostly acclimatization?
Overall, I still lean towards more training = mo’ better over time provided people can tolerate the load. Individualized volume prescriptions seem like they would be more useful than standardized ones, though more robust research is necessary.