J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 1 of 7
Journal of Medical Research and Clinical Reviews
Review Article
A Systematic Review about Results of Low Load on Resistance Training for
Muscle Hypertrophy.
Haniel Fernandes*
Estacio de Sa College, Nutrition Department, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
*Correspondence: Haniel Fernandes, Estacio de Sa College, Nutrition Department, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.
Citation: Haniel Fernandes. A Systematic Review about Results of Low Load on Resistance Training for Muscle
Hypertrophy. J Med Res Clin Rev. 2025; 1(1): 1-7.
Received Date: 04 February 2025;
Accepted Date: 18 February, 2025;
Published Date: 24 February, 2025.
ABSTRACT
Background & Aims: This review investigated systematically if high loads are superior to low loads in muscle hypertrophy,
considering the volume load applied. The bibliographic review used on this work was based on existing clinical trials about
volume load and muscle hypertrophy, where compared low-load and high-load in individuals with or not resistance training
experience.
Methods: PubMed database up to the 31th of December 2024. The search was performed using a Boolean search strategy
(operators “AND” and “OR”) and a combination of the following keywords: (“high load” OR “low load” OR “load” OR
“volume load” OR “muscle hypertrophy” OR “hypertrophy” OR “muscle”) AND (“hypertrophy load” OR “muscle archi-
tecture” OR “cross sectional area” OR “muscle volume” OR “muscle circumference” OR “fascicle length” OR “muscle
power” OR “explosive strength” OR “power” OR “muscle strength” OR “strength”) AND (“adolescent” OR “adult” OR
“young adult” OR “older Adults” OR “aged” OR “seniors” OR “elderly”) AND (“controlled trial” OR “randomized con-
trolled trial”). These keywords were identified using literature searches, expert opinion, and a controlled vocabulary (e.g.,
Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]).
Results: After all searches, 104 records were found. Of this total, 10 humans’ clinical trials with or not resistance training
experience that investigated hypertrophy levels by comparing high and low loads, were selected for the following analyses.
Conclusions: In summary, it seems that the volume load can become an interesting point for muscle hypertrophy, because the
studies demonstrate that low loads (20, 30% or 40% 1RM) were able to induce similar muscle hypertrophy when compared
to high loads (80% 1RM) in equivalent volumes.
Key Words: Resistance Training, Volume Load, Low Load, Muscle Hypertrophy.
Introduction
The main goals of individuals engaged in resistance training (RT)
programs are to improve strength and muscle hypertrophy. Thus,
the neuromuscular adaptations are maximized by the appropriate
manipulation of RT (resistance training) variables, such as vol-
ume, intensity, frequency of training, rest interval, selection and
order of exercises, velocity of execution, muscular actions, and
range of motion [1], where the volume load is one of the most crit-
ical variables in this regard [2]. An adequate method to quantify
training volume if all the other variables are kept constant would
be the total number of sets to failure or the volume load, i.e, the
total worked load in the training sessions [3]. Therefore, has been
previously demonstrated that a moderate (5–9 sets per muscle
group) to high (10 sets per muscle group) weekly training volume
is indicated to induce muscle growth as compared to lower training
volume (5 sets per muscle group) [4]. Which makes it seem like
volume loading is an important point in muscle hypertrophy. This
was explained by a systematic reviews with meta-analyses have
consistently shown a clear dose-response relationship between the
total weekly number of sets per muscle group and neuromuscular
adaptations, muscle strength [5, 6], and muscle hypertrophy [7].
This could be related to the fact that the total weekly number of
sets per muscle group would be directly linked to the increase in
load volume. Therefore, it remains unclear as to whether RT, when
performed with a higher volume, can enhance the hypertrophic re-
sponse and at what point these results reach the plateau. This is due
to there are few systematic review studies that exclusively evalu-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 2 of 7
ated if the volume load of clinical trials would conclude whether
high loads are always superior to low loads in muscle hypertrophy.
Thus, given the existing gaps in current literature and the growing
interest in this topic, the purpose of this study was to investigate
systematically if high loads are superior to low loads in muscle
hypertrophy, considering the amount of volume load applied.
Methods
The present systematic bibliographic review is based on existing
evidence on the volume load and muscle hypertrophy. The liter-
ature search was conducted independently and separately by the
author in the electronic databases PubMed database up to the 31th
of December 2024. The search was performed using a Boolean
search strategy (operators “AND” and “OR”) and a combina-
tion of the following keywords: (“high load” OR “low load” OR
“load” OR “volume load” OR “muscle hypertrophy” OR “hyper-
trophy” OR “muscle”) AND (“hypertrophy load” OR “muscle ar-
chitecture” OR “cross sectional area” OR “muscle volume” OR
“muscle circumference” OR “fascicle length” OR “muscle pow-
er” OR “explosive strength” OR “power” OR “muscle strength”
OR “strength”) AND (“adolescent” OR “adult” OR “young adult”
OR “older Adults” OR “aged” OR “seniors” OR “elderly”) AND
(“controlled trial” OR “randomized controlled trial”). These key-
words were identified using literature searches, expert opinion,
and a controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings
[MeSH]).
Inclusion criteria for eligible studies were defined according to
the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome,
Study Design) approach [8]. The following criteria were defined:
(1) Population: healthy participants without restriction regarding
age, sex, or training status, (2) Intervention: SS interventions with
a minimum duration of two weeks (36), (3) Comparison: active/
passive control group/leg, (4) Outcome: at least one measure of
muscle hypertrophy (i.e., muscle thickness, muscle cross-section-
al area) in a stretched muscle group, and (5) study design: (ran-
domized) control trials with measurements at baseline and after
completion of the intervention (within and/or between subjects).
Studies were excluded if they included participants with existing
medical conditions (e.g., musculoskeletal disorder, cardiovascular
diseases), if there was no active/passive control group, if muscle
hypertrophy/architecture was not assessed in the stretched muscle
group, and/or if baseline or follow-up data were not available. Ar-
ticles that evaluated strength levels but without evaluating hyper-
trophy results were also not included in the post-hoc analyses. All
retrieved articles were screened in duplicate. The first screening,
based on the title and abstract, was independently conducted in
all the studies. After, it was determined whether the documents
that led to discrepancies between authors had to be included or
excluded.
Results
After all searches, 104 records were found. Of this total, 10 hu-
mans’ clinical trials with or not resistance training experience that
investigated hypertrophy levels by comparing high and low loads,
were selected for the following analyses. An article that select-
ed twenty-seven participants in 3 experimental groups applied 16
weekly sets per muscle group for a group (G16, n=9), 24 weekly
sets for others (G24, n=9), or 32 weekly sets per muscle group for
another (G32, n=9). Their results provides evidence that a higher
RT volume (32 weekly sets per muscle group) augments muscular
strength and establishing a dose-response relationship for the in-
crease in muscle hypertrophy in to relationship with volume load.
[9]. Thirty health young men were selected within-subject design,
in which one leg and arm trained at 20% 1RM (G20; n=30) and
the contralateral limb was randomly assigned to one of the three
conditions: 40% (G40; n=10); 60% (G60; n=10), and 80% 1RM
(G80; n=10), respectively. In the final, the article findings demon-
strated that intensities ranging from 20% to 80% 1RM are effective
for increasing muscle strength and hypertrophy in men with no
experience in RT. However, the lowest RT intensity (20% 1RM)
was suboptimal for maximizing muscular adaptations. [10].
Twenty-three untrained women were selected for a RT to failure
intervention at either 30% 1RM (n=11) “low load” or 80% 1RM
(n=12) “high load”. During weeks 2–7, the subjects completed 2
sets to failure for each exercise and 3 sets during weeks 8–11. The
results of this study demonstrated RT failure at low (30% 1RM) and
high (80% 1RM) loads are effective for increasing 1RM strength
in untrained women [11]. Thirty-two male individuals were al-
located in a randomized fashion to: HL-RT leading to repetition
failure (High-load repetitions to failure, n=13) or LL-RF leading
to repetition failure (low-load repetitions to failure, n=12). The
contralateral leg was allocated to the same loading protocol of the
opposing leg but without achieving failure: HL-RNF not leading
to repetition failure (High-load repetitions not to failure) and LL-
RNF not leading to repetition failure (Low-load repetitions not to
failure). Based on these findings, a high level of effort is required
to elicit hypertrophic adaptations in low-load resistance training in
beginners, even with total training volume matched [12].
Fifteen healthy young men were selected for a study that used
loads was set to 30 % and 80 % for the LLHR and HLLR groups,
respectively. LLHR group performed a resistance-training pro-
gram with a load of 30% 1RM, consisting of 12 sets with 8 repe-
titions, and the HLLR group performed resistance training with a
load of 80% 1RM, consisting of 3 sets with 8 repetitions. At the fi-
nal, no statistically significant differences were found between the
LLHR and HLLR groups, respectively for 1RM (40.9% vs 36.2%
improve), maximum isometric strength (24.0% vs 25.5% improve)
and muscle thickness (11.3% vs. 20.4% improve) [13]. Forty-nine
resistance-trained men were randomly allocated into a higher-rep-
etition (HR) group who lifted loads of 30-50% of their maximal
strength (1RM) for 20–25 repetitions/set (n=24) or a lower-repeti-
tion (LR) group (75–90% 1RM, 8–12 repetitions/set, n=25), with
all sets being performed to volitional failure. In conclusion, the
researchers described that a high- and low-repetition (low and high
load, respectively) training paradigms elicit a comparable stimulus
for the accretion of skeletal muscle mass when resistance exercise
is performed until volitional failure, i.e. when the volume load is
the same [14].
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 3 of 7
Eighteen men had each leg was randomly assigned in counter-
balanced fashion to one of three possible unilateral training con-
ditions: one set of knee extension performed to voluntary failure
at 80% of 1RM (80%-1); three sets of knee extension performed
to the point of fatigue at 80% of 1RM (80%-3); or three sets per-
formed to the point of fatigue with 30% of 1RM (30%-3). After
the analysis, the researchers report that similar resistance training
induced muscle hypertrophy can result from lifting loads to failure
with higher (80% of 1RM) and lower (30% of 1RM) loads than
are currently recommended for novice lifters [15]. 24 male volun-
teers were selected to a low-load RT routine (LL; N=12) in which
25–35 repetitions (approximately 30–50% 1RM) were performed
to failure per exercise or a high-load RT routine (HL; N=12)
where 8–12 repetitions (approximately 70–80% 1RM) were per-
formed per exercise. On this study each group performed 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session. In summary, the researchers concluded
that low-load training can be an effective method to increase mus-
cle hypertrophy of the extremities in well-trained men. The gains
in muscle size from low-load training were equal to that achieved
with training in a repetition range normally recommended for
maximizing muscle hypertrophy [16].
Twenty-seven cadets were allocated to either a high-load group
(HL; men: 12, women: 2, 10RM) or a low-load group (LL; men:
10, women: 3, 30RM). The training protocol consisted of 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session, performed 2 days a week during the
first 10 weeks and 3 days a week during the last 9 weeks. The
training volume was 13,687 (12,324 - 15,049) kg to HL group and
25,119 (23,720 - 26,518) kg LL group. No significant differences
were found between groups for CSA of the vastus lateralis. The
mean total lean mass among men increased from 60.2 kg to 62.8
kg (difference of 2.6 kg) in the LL group, while in the HL group
it was from 57.7 to 59.7 (difference of 2 kg) [17]. 30 male col-
legiate students recreationally active (twice/week of running and
other recreational activities) were allocated in 3 groups: low-load
to volitional failure (LVoF, n=9), low-load velocity fatigue (LVeF,
n=8), and high-load (n=10). LVeF and LVoF performed 40% 1RM
and HL 80% 1RM. Each session involved the performance of 3
sets of the bench press exercise, with 2.5 minutes of rest between
sets. The volume load was on average 1762.6, 1697.9, and 999.6,
performed to LVoF, LVeF, and HL, respectively. The muscle thick-
ness (mm) had an average difference of 5, 3.1, and 2.6, to LVoF,
LVeF, and HL, respectively [18]. The author of this work system-
atically gathered the main data from the analyzed articles in a table
(Table 1), including methodological data and conclusions from the
authors themselves.
Table 1. Study descriptive characteristics from the documents included in this systematic review.
Study
Participants
Time
RT Experience
Experimental Design
Findings
[9]
Twenty-seven
healthy men:
27.2 (±7.1) years.
Height: 176 (±6.1)
cm. Body mass:
80.6 (±6.5) kg.
8 weeks
4.9 (±0.9) sessions per
week.
3 experimental groups: 16
weekly sets per muscle
group (G16, n=9), 24 weekly
sets per muscle group (G24,
n=9), or 32 weekly sets per
muscle group (G32, n=9).
This study provides
evidence that a higher RT
volume (32 weekly sets per
muscle group) augments
muscular strength and a
dose-response relation-
ship was observed for the
increase in muscle hyper-
trophy.
[10]
Thirty healthy
young men: 24.5
(±2.4) years.
Height: 180 (±0.7)
cm. Body mass: 77
(±16.5) kg.
12 weeks
Recreationally active
with no experience in
RT.
Within-subject design, in
which one leg and arm
trained at 20% 1RM (G20;
n=30) and the contralateral
limb was randomly assigned
to one of the three condi-
tions: 40% (G40; n=10);
60% (G60; n=10), and 80%
1RM (G80; n=10).
These findings demon-
strated that intensities
ranging from 20% to 80%
1RM are effective for
increasing muscle strength
and hypertrophy in men
with no experience in RT.
However, the lowest RT
intensity (20% 1RM) was
suboptimal for maximizing
muscular adaptations.
[11]
Twenty-three
untrained women:
21.2 (±2.2) years.
Height: 167.1
(±5.7) cm. Body
mass: 62.3 (±6.2)
kg.
12 weeks
Untrained was defined
as not having partic-
ipated in a structured
(>2 days per week for
at least 4 weeks) RT
program for the past 2
years.
RT to failure intervention at
either 30% 1RM (n=11) “low
load” or 80% 1RM (n=12)
“high load”. During weeks
2–7, the subjects completed
2 sets to failure for each
exercise and 3 sets during
weeks 8–11.
The results of this study
demonstrated RT failure
at low (30% 1RM) and
high (80% 1RM) loads are
effective for increasing
1RM strength in untrained
women.
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 4 of 7
[12]
Thirty-two male
individuals volun-
teered to participate
in this study (age
range 19 to 34
years old).
8 weeks
Subjects were phys-
ically active, but no
one had engaged in
any kind of regular
resistance training or
regular participation
in any strength-based
sporting activity for
the lower limbs in the
past 6 months before
study.
Each subject was allocated
in a randomized fashion to:
HL-RF leading to repetition
failure (HL-RF, n=13) or LL-
RF leading to repetition fail-
ure (LL-RF, n=12). The con-
tralateral leg was allocated to
the same loading protocol of
the opposing leg but without
achieving failure: HL-RF not
leading to repetition failure
and LL-RF not leading to
repetition failure.
A high level of effort is
required to elicit hypertro-
phic adaptations in low-
load resistance training in
beginners, even with total
training volume matched.
[13]
Fifteen healthy
young men who
were non-athletes:
LLHR: 22.9 (±2.0)
years Height:
175.0 (±4.9) cm
Body mass: 68.6
(±8.2) kg, HLLR:
23.4 (±3.2) years
Height: 169.6
(±5.5) cm Body
mass: 62.1 (±6.6)
kg,
8 weeks
The study only ex-
plains that the partic-
ipants were non-ath-
letes.
The load was set to 30%
and 80% for the LLHR and
HLLR groups, respectively.
LLHR group performed a
resistance-training program
with a load of 30% 1RM,
consisting of 12 sets with 8
repetitions, and the HLLR
group performed resistance
training with a load of 80%
1RM, consisting of 3 sets
with 8 repetitions.
No statistically significant
differences were found
between the LLHR and
HLLR groups, respec-
tively for 1RM (40.9% vs
36.2% improve), maximum
isometric strength (24.0%
vs 25.5% improve) and
muscle thickness (11.3%
vs. 20.4% improve).
[14]
Forty-nine re-
sistance-trained
men: 23 (±1) years
Height: 181 (±1)
cm Body mass: 86
(±2) kg.
12 weeks
The participants
should have been
engaged in at least 2
years of exercise. [4
(±2) yr, training >2
sessions per week
(range 3–6 days/
week), including
at least one weekly
dedicated lower body
session].
The subjects were randomly
allocated into a higher-repe-
tition (HR) group who lifted
loads of 30-50% of their
maximal strength (1RM) for
20–25 repetitions/set (n=24)
or a lower-repetition (LR)
group (75–90% 1RM, 8–12
repetitions/set, n=25), with
all sets being performed to
volitional failure.
In conclusion, high- and
low-repetition (low and
high load, respectively)
training paradigms elicit
a comparable stimulus for
the accretion of skeletal
muscle mass when resis-
tance exercise is performed
until volitional failure.
[15]
Eighteen men: 21
(±1) years Height:
176 (±0.04) cm
Body mass: 73.3
(±1.4) kg.
10 weeks
Subjects were recre-
ationally active with
no formal weight-
lifting experience or
regular weightlifting
activity over the last
year.
Each leg was randomly
assigned in counterbalanced
fashion to one of three
possible unilateral training
conditions: one set of knee
extension performed to
voluntary failure at 80% of
1RM (80%-1); three sets of
knee extension performed to
the point of fatigue at 80%
of 1RM (80%-3); or three
sets performed to the point
of fatigue with 30% of 1RM
(30%-3).
Researchers report that
similar resistance training
induced muscle hypertro-
phy can result from lifting
loads to failure with higher
(80% of 1RM) and lower
(30% of 1RM) loads than
are currently recommended
for novice lifters.
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 5 of 7
[16]
24 male volunteers
(age = 23.3 years;
age range: 18–33
years, body mass
= 82.5 kg; height =
175 cm.
8 weeks
3.5 years.
A low-load RT routine (LL;
N=12) in which 25–35
repetitions (approximately
30–50% 1RM) were per-
formed to failure per exercise
or a high-load RT routine
(HL; N=12) where 8–12
repetitions (approximately
70–80% 1RM) were per-
formed per exercise. Where
each group performed 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session.
In conclusion, our re-
sults provide compelling
evidence that low-load
training can be an effec-
tive method to increase
muscle hypertrophy of the
extremities in well-trained
men. The gains in muscle
size from low-load training
were equal to that achieved
with training in a repetition
range normally recom-
mended for maximizing
muscle hypertrophy.
[17]
Twenty-seven
cadets: 20 (±1) year
Height: 182 (±9)
cm Weight: 75.5
(±12.9) kg, from
the second year
of the Norwegian
Defense Cyber
Academy.
22 weeks
Before enrollment, the
cadets conducted 2
weekly exercise train-
ing sessions through-
out the last year.
Subjects were allocated to ei-
ther a high-load group (HL;
men: 12, women: 2, 10RM)
or a low-load group (LL;
men: 10, women: 3, 30RM).
The training protocol con-
sisted of 3 sets of 7 exercises
per session, performed 2
days a week during the first
10 weeks and 3 days a week
during the last 9 weeks.
The training volume was
13,687 (12,324 - 15,049)
kg to HL group and 25,119
(23,720 - 26,518) kg LL
group. No significant
differences were found
between groups for CSA
of the vastus lateralis.
The mean total lean mass
among men increased from
60.2 kg to 62.8 kg (differ-
ence of 2.6 kg) in the LL
group, while in the HL
group it was from 57.7 to
59.7 (difference of 2 kg).
[18]
30 male colle-
giate students:
20.0 (±0.8) years
Height: 170.7
(±7.1) cm Body
mass: 63.6 (±8.0)
kg.
8 weeks
Subjects were recre-
ationally active (twice/
week of running and
other recreational
activities).
Abbreviations: CSA: cross-sectional area; 1RM: one maximum repetition; RT: resistance training.
Discussion
This study investigated if high loads are superior to low loads in
muscle hypertrophy, considering the amount of volume load ap-
plied. The main findings were as follows: (a) a volume load using
20% 1RM appears to influence muscle hypertrophy to the same
extent as 80% 1RM and (b) high-load (80% 1RM) may be superi-
or in strength generation when compared to low-load (20% 1RM).
Based on these ideas, the studies bring results that corroborate
the idea of the central conclusion brought by the author. Because,
when compared to 20% 1RM com 40%, 60%, and 80% 1RM, the
results demonstrated that the intensities ranging from 20% to 80%
1RM are effective for increasing muscle strength and hypertrophy.
It is worth noting that this occurred due to the volume load that
was adjusted. The 20%1RM group did on average 67 repetitions
compared to 28 repetitions, 14 repetitions and 10 repetitions for
the 40%1RM, 60%1RM and 80%1RM groups, respectively. The
volume load foi de aproximadamente 20,000 kg para o treino apli-
cado de flexor de cotovelo e de aproximadamente 160,000 kg para
unilateral leg press 45º [10]. A study with 30 male collegiate stu-
dents recreationally active (twice/week of running and other rec-
reational activities) randomized the subjects in 3 groups: low-load
to volitional failure (LVoF, n=9), low-load velocity fatigue (LVeF,
n=8), and high-load (n=10). LVeF and LVoF performed 40% 1RM
and HL 80% 1RM. The work was performed in eight weeks, and
each session involved the performance of 3 sets of the bench press
exercise, with 2.5 minutes of rest between sets. The researchers
measured the volume load (sets x weight x reps) and result on av-
erage 1762.6, 1697.9, and 999.6, performed to LVoF, LVeF, and
HL, respectively. At the final, the results showed muscle thickness
(mm) had an average difference of 5, 3.1, and 2.6, to LVoF, LVeF,
and HL, respectively. I.e., the group with greater volume load per-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 6 of 7
formed better improve in muscle thickness (mm) [18]. The studies
demonstrated here are categorical and corroborate each other in
this idea, although with different research methodologies. It seems
to me that the existing gaps regarding which are the best resis-
tance training methodologies to induce greater hypertrophy rates
revolve around the idea of volume load.
However, another study that selected cadets (men and wom-
en) to high-load group (10RM) or a low-load group (30RM). In
this case, the training volume was ~13,687 kg to HL group and
~25,119 kg LL group and although no significant differences were
found between groups for CSA of the vastus lateralis, the mean to-
tal lean mass among men increased from 60.2 kg to 62.8 kg (+2.6
kg) in the LL group, while in the HL group it was from 57.7 to
59.7 (+2 kg), being better for the LL group because apparently to
the greater volume load applied [17]. So far, the discussion about
the amount of load, whether the low load is worse or better than
the high load in muscle hypertrophy, seems interesting. But what
about when the studies will also involve repetitions of failure?
So, one study applied a methodological design that had a group
with high-load and another group with low-load, but both going
to failure. Finally, repetitions to failure may induce hypertrophy
with no differences between high or low loads. It appears that vol-
ume loading when the individual goes to muscular failure may
be the main “causative agent” of muscular hypertrophy without
differences into the low or high loads on this study [12]. Another
study divided participants between low load (30% 1RM) and high
load (80% 1RM) and finding that the resistance training to failure
at low (30% 1RM) and high (80% 1RM) loads are effective for
increasing 1RM strength [11]. This corroborates what was said
previously.
Conclusion
In summary, it seems that the volume load can become an interest-
ing point for muscle hypertrophy, because the studies demonstrate
that low loads (20, 30% or 40% 1RM) were able to induce similar
muscle hypertrophy when compared to high loads (80% 1RM) in
equivalent volumes. However, further research, including larger
systematic reviews with meta-analyses, besides that, another ran-
domized clinical trials that evaluate low-loads and high-load with
volume load analysis in muscle hypertrophy is needed to elucidate
these ideas.
Conflicts of Interest Statement
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding/Support Statement
The author declares that there is no funding for the article.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks his parents and friends who believe in his re-
search.
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Pro-
gression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41: 687-708.
2. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle
hypertrophy and health outcomes: The most effective variable
in resistance training. Sports Med. 2018; 48: 499-505.
3. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total
number of sets as a training volume quantification method for
muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J Strength Cond
Res. 2021; 35: 870-878.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response rela-
tionship between weekly resistance training volume and in-
creases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analy-
sis. J Sports Sci. 2017; 35: 1073–1082.
5. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of
weekly set volume on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports
Med. 2017; 47: 2585–2601.
6. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose-response for strength development. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 456–464.
7. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for
muscle hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res.
2010; 24: 1150-1159.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred re-
porting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336-341.
9. Brigatto FA, Lima LE de M, Germano MD, Aoki MS, Braz
TV, et al. High resistance-training volume enhances muscle
thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
2019; 36: 22–30.
10. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Ta-
vares LD, et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance
training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hy-
pertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018; 18: 772–780.
11. Dinyer TK, Byrd MT, Garver MJ, Rickard AJ, Miller WM,
et al. Low-load vs. high-load resistance training to failure on
one repetition maximum strength and body composition in
untrained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33: 1737–1744.
12. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva-Batista C, Barros TS, Ai-
hara AY, et al. Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hyper-
trophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. J
Strength Cond Res. 2022; 36: 346–351.
13. Ikezoe T, Kobayashi T, Nakamura M, Ichihashi N. Effects of
low-load, higher-repetition vs. high-load, lower-repetition re-
sistance training not performed to failure on muscle strength,
mass, and echo intensity in healthy young men: A time-course
study. J Strength Cond Res. 2020; 34: 3439-3445.
14. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory
C, et al. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine re-
sistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in
resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol. 2016; 121:
129–138.
15. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA,
Breen L, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine
training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl
Physiol. 2012; 113: 71–77.
16. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Son-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 7 of 7
mez GT. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training
on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J
Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29: 2954-2963.
17. Øfsteng SF, Hammarström D, Knox S, Jøsok Ø, Helkala K,
et al. Superiority of high-load vs. low-load resistance training
in military cadets. J Strength Cond Res. 2024; 38: 1584–1595.
18. Terada K, Kikuchi N, Burt D, Voisin S, Nakazato K. Low-
load resistance training to volitional failure induces muscle
hypertrophy similar to volume-matched, velocity fatigue. J
Strength Cond Res. 2022; 36: 1576–1581.
© 2025 Haniel Fernandes. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 1 of 7
Journal of Medical Research and Clinical Reviews
Review Article
A Systematic Review about Results of Low Load on Resistance Training for
Muscle Hypertrophy.
Haniel Fernandes*
Estacio de Sa College, Nutrition Department, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil
*Correspondence: Haniel Fernandes, Estacio de Sa College, Nutrition Department, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil.
Citation: Haniel Fernandes. A Systematic Review about Results of Low Load on Resistance Training for Muscle
Hypertrophy. J Med Res Clin Rev. 2025; 1(1): 1-7.
Received Date: 04 February 2025;
Accepted Date: 18 February, 2025;
Published Date: 24 February, 2025.
ABSTRACT
Background & Aims: This review investigated systematically if high loads are superior to low loads in muscle hypertrophy,
considering the volume load applied. The bibliographic review used on this work was based on existing clinical trials about
volume load and muscle hypertrophy, where compared low-load and high-load in individuals with or not resistance training
experience.
Methods: PubMed database up to the 31th of December 2024. The search was performed using a Boolean search strategy
(operators “AND” and “OR”) and a combination of the following keywords: (“high load” OR “low load” OR “load” OR
“volume load” OR “muscle hypertrophy” OR “hypertrophy” OR “muscle”) AND (“hypertrophy load” OR “muscle archi-
tecture” OR “cross sectional area” OR “muscle volume” OR “muscle circumference” OR “fascicle length” OR “muscle
power” OR “explosive strength” OR “power” OR “muscle strength” OR “strength”) AND (“adolescent” OR “adult” OR
“young adult” OR “older Adults” OR “aged” OR “seniors” OR “elderly”) AND (“controlled trial” OR “randomized con-
trolled trial”). These keywords were identified using literature searches, expert opinion, and a controlled vocabulary (e.g.,
Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]).
Results: After all searches, 104 records were found. Of this total, 10 humans’ clinical trials with or not resistance training
experience that investigated hypertrophy levels by comparing high and low loads, were selected for the following analyses.
Conclusions: In summary, it seems that the volume load can become an interesting point for muscle hypertrophy, because the
studies demonstrate that low loads (20, 30% or 40% 1RM) were able to induce similar muscle hypertrophy when compared
to high loads (80% 1RM) in equivalent volumes.
Key Words: Resistance Training, Volume Load, Low Load, Muscle Hypertrophy.
Introduction
The main goals of individuals engaged in resistance training (RT)
programs are to improve strength and muscle hypertrophy. Thus,
the neuromuscular adaptations are maximized by the appropriate
manipulation of RT (resistance training) variables, such as vol-
ume, intensity, frequency of training, rest interval, selection and
order of exercises, velocity of execution, muscular actions, and
range of motion [1], where the volume load is one of the most crit-
ical variables in this regard [2]. An adequate method to quantify
training volume if all the other variables are kept constant would
be the total number of sets to failure or the volume load, i.e, the
total worked load in the training sessions [3]. Therefore, has been
previously demonstrated that a moderate (5–9 sets per muscle
group) to high (10 sets per muscle group) weekly training volume
is indicated to induce muscle growth as compared to lower training
volume (5 sets per muscle group) [4]. Which makes it seem like
volume loading is an important point in muscle hypertrophy. This
was explained by a systematic reviews with meta-analyses have
consistently shown a clear dose-response relationship between the
total weekly number of sets per muscle group and neuromuscular
adaptations, muscle strength [5, 6], and muscle hypertrophy [7].
This could be related to the fact that the total weekly number of
sets per muscle group would be directly linked to the increase in
load volume. Therefore, it remains unclear as to whether RT, when
performed with a higher volume, can enhance the hypertrophic re-
sponse and at what point these results reach the plateau. This is due
to there are few systematic review studies that exclusively evalu-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 2 of 7
ated if the volume load of clinical trials would conclude whether
high loads are always superior to low loads in muscle hypertrophy.
Thus, given the existing gaps in current literature and the growing
interest in this topic, the purpose of this study was to investigate
systematically if high loads are superior to low loads in muscle
hypertrophy, considering the amount of volume load applied.
Methods
The present systematic bibliographic review is based on existing
evidence on the volume load and muscle hypertrophy. The liter-
ature search was conducted independently and separately by the
author in the electronic databases PubMed database up to the 31th
of December 2024. The search was performed using a Boolean
search strategy (operators “AND” and “OR”) and a combina-
tion of the following keywords: (“high load” OR “low load” OR
“load” OR “volume load” OR “muscle hypertrophy” OR “hyper-
trophy” OR “muscle”) AND (“hypertrophy load” OR “muscle ar-
chitecture” OR “cross sectional area” OR “muscle volume” OR
“muscle circumference” OR “fascicle length” OR “muscle pow-
er” OR “explosive strength” OR “power” OR “muscle strength”
OR “strength”) AND (“adolescent” OR “adult” OR “young adult”
OR “older Adults” OR “aged” OR “seniors” OR “elderly”) AND
(“controlled trial” OR “randomized controlled trial”). These key-
words were identified using literature searches, expert opinion,
and a controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings
[MeSH]).
Inclusion criteria for eligible studies were defined according to
the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome,
Study Design) approach [8]. The following criteria were defined:
(1) Population: healthy participants without restriction regarding
age, sex, or training status, (2) Intervention: SS interventions with
a minimum duration of two weeks (36), (3) Comparison: active/
passive control group/leg, (4) Outcome: at least one measure of
muscle hypertrophy (i.e., muscle thickness, muscle cross-section-
al area) in a stretched muscle group, and (5) study design: (ran-
domized) control trials with measurements at baseline and after
completion of the intervention (within and/or between subjects).
Studies were excluded if they included participants with existing
medical conditions (e.g., musculoskeletal disorder, cardiovascular
diseases), if there was no active/passive control group, if muscle
hypertrophy/architecture was not assessed in the stretched muscle
group, and/or if baseline or follow-up data were not available. Ar-
ticles that evaluated strength levels but without evaluating hyper-
trophy results were also not included in the post-hoc analyses. All
retrieved articles were screened in duplicate. The first screening,
based on the title and abstract, was independently conducted in
all the studies. After, it was determined whether the documents
that led to discrepancies between authors had to be included or
excluded.
Results
After all searches, 104 records were found. Of this total, 10 hu-
mans’ clinical trials with or not resistance training experience that
investigated hypertrophy levels by comparing high and low loads,
were selected for the following analyses. An article that select-
ed twenty-seven participants in 3 experimental groups applied 16
weekly sets per muscle group for a group (G16, n=9), 24 weekly
sets for others (G24, n=9), or 32 weekly sets per muscle group for
another (G32, n=9). Their results provides evidence that a higher
RT volume (32 weekly sets per muscle group) augments muscular
strength and establishing a dose-response relationship for the in-
crease in muscle hypertrophy in to relationship with volume load.
[9]. Thirty health young men were selected within-subject design,
in which one leg and arm trained at 20% 1RM (G20; n=30) and
the contralateral limb was randomly assigned to one of the three
conditions: 40% (G40; n=10); 60% (G60; n=10), and 80% 1RM
(G80; n=10), respectively. In the final, the article findings demon-
strated that intensities ranging from 20% to 80% 1RM are effective
for increasing muscle strength and hypertrophy in men with no
experience in RT. However, the lowest RT intensity (20% 1RM)
was suboptimal for maximizing muscular adaptations. [10].
Twenty-three untrained women were selected for a RT to failure
intervention at either 30% 1RM (n=11) “low load” or 80% 1RM
(n=12) “high load”. During weeks 2–7, the subjects completed 2
sets to failure for each exercise and 3 sets during weeks 8–11. The
results of this study demonstrated RT failure at low (30% 1RM) and
high (80% 1RM) loads are effective for increasing 1RM strength
in untrained women [11]. Thirty-two male individuals were al-
located in a randomized fashion to: HL-RT leading to repetition
failure (High-load repetitions to failure, n=13) or LL-RF leading
to repetition failure (low-load repetitions to failure, n=12). The
contralateral leg was allocated to the same loading protocol of the
opposing leg but without achieving failure: HL-RNF not leading
to repetition failure (High-load repetitions not to failure) and LL-
RNF not leading to repetition failure (Low-load repetitions not to
failure). Based on these findings, a high level of effort is required
to elicit hypertrophic adaptations in low-load resistance training in
beginners, even with total training volume matched [12].
Fifteen healthy young men were selected for a study that used
loads was set to 30 % and 80 % for the LLHR and HLLR groups,
respectively. LLHR group performed a resistance-training pro-
gram with a load of 30% 1RM, consisting of 12 sets with 8 repe-
titions, and the HLLR group performed resistance training with a
load of 80% 1RM, consisting of 3 sets with 8 repetitions. At the fi-
nal, no statistically significant differences were found between the
LLHR and HLLR groups, respectively for 1RM (40.9% vs 36.2%
improve), maximum isometric strength (24.0% vs 25.5% improve)
and muscle thickness (11.3% vs. 20.4% improve) [13]. Forty-nine
resistance-trained men were randomly allocated into a higher-rep-
etition (HR) group who lifted loads of 30-50% of their maximal
strength (1RM) for 20–25 repetitions/set (n=24) or a lower-repeti-
tion (LR) group (75–90% 1RM, 8–12 repetitions/set, n=25), with
all sets being performed to volitional failure. In conclusion, the
researchers described that a high- and low-repetition (low and high
load, respectively) training paradigms elicit a comparable stimulus
for the accretion of skeletal muscle mass when resistance exercise
is performed until volitional failure, i.e. when the volume load is
the same [14].
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 3 of 7
Eighteen men had each leg was randomly assigned in counter-
balanced fashion to one of three possible unilateral training con-
ditions: one set of knee extension performed to voluntary failure
at 80% of 1RM (80%-1); three sets of knee extension performed
to the point of fatigue at 80% of 1RM (80%-3); or three sets per-
formed to the point of fatigue with 30% of 1RM (30%-3). After
the analysis, the researchers report that similar resistance training
induced muscle hypertrophy can result from lifting loads to failure
with higher (80% of 1RM) and lower (30% of 1RM) loads than
are currently recommended for novice lifters [15]. 24 male volun-
teers were selected to a low-load RT routine (LL; N=12) in which
25–35 repetitions (approximately 30–50% 1RM) were performed
to failure per exercise or a high-load RT routine (HL; N=12)
where 8–12 repetitions (approximately 70–80% 1RM) were per-
formed per exercise. On this study each group performed 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session. In summary, the researchers concluded
that low-load training can be an effective method to increase mus-
cle hypertrophy of the extremities in well-trained men. The gains
in muscle size from low-load training were equal to that achieved
with training in a repetition range normally recommended for
maximizing muscle hypertrophy [16].
Twenty-seven cadets were allocated to either a high-load group
(HL; men: 12, women: 2, 10RM) or a low-load group (LL; men:
10, women: 3, 30RM). The training protocol consisted of 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session, performed 2 days a week during the
first 10 weeks and 3 days a week during the last 9 weeks. The
training volume was 13,687 (12,324 - 15,049) kg to HL group and
25,119 (23,720 - 26,518) kg LL group. No significant differences
were found between groups for CSA of the vastus lateralis. The
mean total lean mass among men increased from 60.2 kg to 62.8
kg (difference of 2.6 kg) in the LL group, while in the HL group
it was from 57.7 to 59.7 (difference of 2 kg) [17]. 30 male col-
legiate students recreationally active (twice/week of running and
other recreational activities) were allocated in 3 groups: low-load
to volitional failure (LVoF, n=9), low-load velocity fatigue (LVeF,
n=8), and high-load (n=10). LVeF and LVoF performed 40% 1RM
and HL 80% 1RM. Each session involved the performance of 3
sets of the bench press exercise, with 2.5 minutes of rest between
sets. The volume load was on average 1762.6, 1697.9, and 999.6,
performed to LVoF, LVeF, and HL, respectively. The muscle thick-
ness (mm) had an average difference of 5, 3.1, and 2.6, to LVoF,
LVeF, and HL, respectively [18]. The author of this work system-
atically gathered the main data from the analyzed articles in a table
(Table 1), including methodological data and conclusions from the
authors themselves.
Table 1. Study descriptive characteristics from the documents included in this systematic review.
Study
Participants
Time
RT Experience
Experimental Design
Findings
[9]
Twenty-seven
healthy men:
27.2 (±7.1) years.
Height: 176 (±6.1)
cm. Body mass:
80.6 (±6.5) kg.
8 weeks
4.9 (±0.9) sessions per
week.
3 experimental groups: 16
weekly sets per muscle
group (G16, n=9), 24 weekly
sets per muscle group (G24,
n=9), or 32 weekly sets per
muscle group (G32, n=9).
This study provides
evidence that a higher RT
volume (32 weekly sets per
muscle group) augments
muscular strength and a
dose-response relation-
ship was observed for the
increase in muscle hyper-
trophy.
[10]
Thirty healthy
young men: 24.5
(±2.4) years.
Height: 180 (±0.7)
cm. Body mass: 77
(±16.5) kg.
12 weeks
Recreationally active
with no experience in
RT.
Within-subject design, in
which one leg and arm
trained at 20% 1RM (G20;
n=30) and the contralateral
limb was randomly assigned
to one of the three condi-
tions: 40% (G40; n=10);
60% (G60; n=10), and 80%
1RM (G80; n=10).
These findings demon-
strated that intensities
ranging from 20% to 80%
1RM are effective for
increasing muscle strength
and hypertrophy in men
with no experience in RT.
However, the lowest RT
intensity (20% 1RM) was
suboptimal for maximizing
muscular adaptations.
[11]
Twenty-three
untrained women:
21.2 (±2.2) years.
Height: 167.1
(±5.7) cm. Body
mass: 62.3 (±6.2)
kg.
12 weeks
Untrained was defined
as not having partic-
ipated in a structured
(>2 days per week for
at least 4 weeks) RT
program for the past 2
years.
RT to failure intervention at
either 30% 1RM (n=11) “low
load” or 80% 1RM (n=12)
“high load”. During weeks
2–7, the subjects completed
2 sets to failure for each
exercise and 3 sets during
weeks 8–11.
The results of this study
demonstrated RT failure
at low (30% 1RM) and
high (80% 1RM) loads are
effective for increasing
1RM strength in untrained
women.
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 4 of 7
[12]
Thirty-two male
individuals volun-
teered to participate
in this study (age
range 19 to 34
years old).
8 weeks
Subjects were phys-
ically active, but no
one had engaged in
any kind of regular
resistance training or
regular participation
in any strength-based
sporting activity for
the lower limbs in the
past 6 months before
study.
Each subject was allocated
in a randomized fashion to:
HL-RF leading to repetition
failure (HL-RF, n=13) or LL-
RF leading to repetition fail-
ure (LL-RF, n=12). The con-
tralateral leg was allocated to
the same loading protocol of
the opposing leg but without
achieving failure: HL-RF not
leading to repetition failure
and LL-RF not leading to
repetition failure.
A high level of effort is
required to elicit hypertro-
phic adaptations in low-
load resistance training in
beginners, even with total
training volume matched.
[13]
Fifteen healthy
young men who
were non-athletes:
LLHR: 22.9 (±2.0)
years Height:
175.0 (±4.9) cm
Body mass: 68.6
(±8.2) kg, HLLR:
23.4 (±3.2) years
Height: 169.6
(±5.5) cm Body
mass: 62.1 (±6.6)
kg,
8 weeks
The study only ex-
plains that the partic-
ipants were non-ath-
letes.
The load was set to 30%
and 80% for the LLHR and
HLLR groups, respectively.
LLHR group performed a
resistance-training program
with a load of 30% 1RM,
consisting of 12 sets with 8
repetitions, and the HLLR
group performed resistance
training with a load of 80%
1RM, consisting of 3 sets
with 8 repetitions.
No statistically significant
differences were found
between the LLHR and
HLLR groups, respec-
tively for 1RM (40.9% vs
36.2% improve), maximum
isometric strength (24.0%
vs 25.5% improve) and
muscle thickness (11.3%
vs. 20.4% improve).
[14]
Forty-nine re-
sistance-trained
men: 23 (±1) years
Height: 181 (±1)
cm Body mass: 86
(±2) kg.
12 weeks
The participants
should have been
engaged in at least 2
years of exercise. [4
(±2) yr, training >2
sessions per week
(range 3–6 days/
week), including
at least one weekly
dedicated lower body
session].
The subjects were randomly
allocated into a higher-repe-
tition (HR) group who lifted
loads of 30-50% of their
maximal strength (1RM) for
20–25 repetitions/set (n=24)
or a lower-repetition (LR)
group (75–90% 1RM, 8–12
repetitions/set, n=25), with
all sets being performed to
volitional failure.
In conclusion, high- and
low-repetition (low and
high load, respectively)
training paradigms elicit
a comparable stimulus for
the accretion of skeletal
muscle mass when resis-
tance exercise is performed
until volitional failure.
[15]
Eighteen men: 21
(±1) years Height:
176 (±0.04) cm
Body mass: 73.3
(±1.4) kg.
10 weeks
Subjects were recre-
ationally active with
no formal weight-
lifting experience or
regular weightlifting
activity over the last
year.
Each leg was randomly
assigned in counterbalanced
fashion to one of three
possible unilateral training
conditions: one set of knee
extension performed to
voluntary failure at 80% of
1RM (80%-1); three sets of
knee extension performed to
the point of fatigue at 80%
of 1RM (80%-3); or three
sets performed to the point
of fatigue with 30% of 1RM
(30%-3).
Researchers report that
similar resistance training
induced muscle hypertro-
phy can result from lifting
loads to failure with higher
(80% of 1RM) and lower
(30% of 1RM) loads than
are currently recommended
for novice lifters.
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 5 of 7
[16]
24 male volunteers
(age = 23.3 years;
age range: 18–33
years, body mass
= 82.5 kg; height =
175 cm.
8 weeks
3.5 years.
A low-load RT routine (LL;
N=12) in which 25–35
repetitions (approximately
30–50% 1RM) were per-
formed to failure per exercise
or a high-load RT routine
(HL; N=12) where 8–12
repetitions (approximately
70–80% 1RM) were per-
formed per exercise. Where
each group performed 3 sets
of 7 exercises per session.
In conclusion, our re-
sults provide compelling
evidence that low-load
training can be an effec-
tive method to increase
muscle hypertrophy of the
extremities in well-trained
men. The gains in muscle
size from low-load training
were equal to that achieved
with training in a repetition
range normally recom-
mended for maximizing
muscle hypertrophy.
[17]
Twenty-seven
cadets: 20 (±1) year
Height: 182 (±9)
cm Weight: 75.5
(±12.9) kg, from
the second year
of the Norwegian
Defense Cyber
Academy.
22 weeks
Before enrollment, the
cadets conducted 2
weekly exercise train-
ing sessions through-
out the last year.
Subjects were allocated to ei-
ther a high-load group (HL;
men: 12, women: 2, 10RM)
or a low-load group (LL;
men: 10, women: 3, 30RM).
The training protocol con-
sisted of 3 sets of 7 exercises
per session, performed 2
days a week during the first
10 weeks and 3 days a week
during the last 9 weeks.
The training volume was
13,687 (12,324 - 15,049)
kg to HL group and 25,119
(23,720 - 26,518) kg LL
group. No significant
differences were found
between groups for CSA
of the vastus lateralis.
The mean total lean mass
among men increased from
60.2 kg to 62.8 kg (differ-
ence of 2.6 kg) in the LL
group, while in the HL
group it was from 57.7 to
59.7 (difference of 2 kg).
[18]
30 male colle-
giate students:
20.0 (±0.8) years
Height: 170.7
(±7.1) cm Body
mass: 63.6 (±8.0)
kg.
8 weeks
Subjects were recre-
ationally active (twice/
week of running and
other recreational
activities).
Abbreviations: CSA: cross-sectional area; 1RM: one maximum repetition; RT: resistance training.
Discussion
This study investigated if high loads are superior to low loads in
muscle hypertrophy, considering the amount of volume load ap-
plied. The main findings were as follows: (a) a volume load using
20% 1RM appears to influence muscle hypertrophy to the same
extent as 80% 1RM and (b) high-load (80% 1RM) may be superi-
or in strength generation when compared to low-load (20% 1RM).
Based on these ideas, the studies bring results that corroborate
the idea of the central conclusion brought by the author. Because,
when compared to 20% 1RM com 40%, 60%, and 80% 1RM, the
results demonstrated that the intensities ranging from 20% to 80%
1RM are effective for increasing muscle strength and hypertrophy.
It is worth noting that this occurred due to the volume load that
was adjusted. The 20%1RM group did on average 67 repetitions
compared to 28 repetitions, 14 repetitions and 10 repetitions for
the 40%1RM, 60%1RM and 80%1RM groups, respectively. The
volume load foi de aproximadamente 20,000 kg para o treino apli-
cado de flexor de cotovelo e de aproximadamente 160,000 kg para
unilateral leg press 45º [10]. A study with 30 male collegiate stu-
dents recreationally active (twice/week of running and other rec-
reational activities) randomized the subjects in 3 groups: low-load
to volitional failure (LVoF, n=9), low-load velocity fatigue (LVeF,
n=8), and high-load (n=10). LVeF and LVoF performed 40% 1RM
and HL 80% 1RM. The work was performed in eight weeks, and
each session involved the performance of 3 sets of the bench press
exercise, with 2.5 minutes of rest between sets. The researchers
measured the volume load (sets x weight x reps) and result on av-
erage 1762.6, 1697.9, and 999.6, performed to LVoF, LVeF, and
HL, respectively. At the final, the results showed muscle thickness
(mm) had an average difference of 5, 3.1, and 2.6, to LVoF, LVeF,
and HL, respectively. I.e., the group with greater volume load per-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 6 of 7
formed better improve in muscle thickness (mm) [18]. The studies
demonstrated here are categorical and corroborate each other in
this idea, although with different research methodologies. It seems
to me that the existing gaps regarding which are the best resis-
tance training methodologies to induce greater hypertrophy rates
revolve around the idea of volume load.
However, another study that selected cadets (men and wom-
en) to high-load group (10RM) or a low-load group (30RM). In
this case, the training volume was ~13,687 kg to HL group and
~25,119 kg LL group and although no significant differences were
found between groups for CSA of the vastus lateralis, the mean to-
tal lean mass among men increased from 60.2 kg to 62.8 kg (+2.6
kg) in the LL group, while in the HL group it was from 57.7 to
59.7 (+2 kg), being better for the LL group because apparently to
the greater volume load applied [17]. So far, the discussion about
the amount of load, whether the low load is worse or better than
the high load in muscle hypertrophy, seems interesting. But what
about when the studies will also involve repetitions of failure?
So, one study applied a methodological design that had a group
with high-load and another group with low-load, but both going
to failure. Finally, repetitions to failure may induce hypertrophy
with no differences between high or low loads. It appears that vol-
ume loading when the individual goes to muscular failure may
be the main “causative agent” of muscular hypertrophy without
differences into the low or high loads on this study [12]. Another
study divided participants between low load (30% 1RM) and high
load (80% 1RM) and finding that the resistance training to failure
at low (30% 1RM) and high (80% 1RM) loads are effective for
increasing 1RM strength [11]. This corroborates what was said
previously.
Conclusion
In summary, it seems that the volume load can become an interest-
ing point for muscle hypertrophy, because the studies demonstrate
that low loads (20, 30% or 40% 1RM) were able to induce similar
muscle hypertrophy when compared to high loads (80% 1RM) in
equivalent volumes. However, further research, including larger
systematic reviews with meta-analyses, besides that, another ran-
domized clinical trials that evaluate low-loads and high-load with
volume load analysis in muscle hypertrophy is needed to elucidate
these ideas.
Conflicts of Interest Statement
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding/Support Statement
The author declares that there is no funding for the article.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks his parents and friends who believe in his re-
search.
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Pro-
gression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41: 687-708.
2. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle
hypertrophy and health outcomes: The most effective variable
in resistance training. Sports Med. 2018; 48: 499-505.
3. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total
number of sets as a training volume quantification method for
muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J Strength Cond
Res. 2021; 35: 870-878.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response rela-
tionship between weekly resistance training volume and in-
creases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analy-
sis. J Sports Sci. 2017; 35: 1073–1082.
5. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of
weekly set volume on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports
Med. 2017; 47: 2585–2601.
6. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose-response for strength development. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 456–464.
7. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for
muscle hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res.
2010; 24: 1150-1159.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred re-
porting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336-341.
9. Brigatto FA, Lima LE de M, Germano MD, Aoki MS, Braz
TV, et al. High resistance-training volume enhances muscle
thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
2019; 36: 22–30.
10. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Ta-
vares LD, et al. Effects of different intensities of resistance
training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hy-
pertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018; 18: 772–780.
11. Dinyer TK, Byrd MT, Garver MJ, Rickard AJ, Miller WM,
et al. Low-load vs. high-load resistance training to failure on
one repetition maximum strength and body composition in
untrained women. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33: 1737–1744.
12. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Silva-Batista C, Barros TS, Ai-
hara AY, et al. Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hyper-
trophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. J
Strength Cond Res. 2022; 36: 346–351.
13. Ikezoe T, Kobayashi T, Nakamura M, Ichihashi N. Effects of
low-load, higher-repetition vs. high-load, lower-repetition re-
sistance training not performed to failure on muscle strength,
mass, and echo intensity in healthy young men: A time-course
study. J Strength Cond Res. 2020; 34: 3439-3445.
14. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory
C, et al. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine re-
sistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in
resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol. 2016; 121:
129–138.
15. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA,
Breen L, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine
training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl
Physiol. 2012; 113: 71–77.
16. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Son-
J Med Res Clin Rev; 2025
Volume 1| Issue 1 | 7 of 7
mez GT. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training
on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J
Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29: 2954-2963.
17. Øfsteng SF, Hammarström D, Knox S, Jøsok Ø, Helkala K,
et al. Superiority of high-load vs. low-load resistance training
in military cadets. J Strength Cond Res. 2024; 38: 1584–1595.
18. Terada K, Kikuchi N, Burt D, Voisin S, Nakazato K. Low-
load resistance training to volitional failure induces muscle
hypertrophy similar to volume-matched, velocity fatigue. J
Strength Cond Res. 2022; 36: 1576–1581.
© 2025 Haniel Fernandes. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.