In the resistance training community, there is much debate on the topic of volume and muscle growth. That is, some lifters argue higher volumes are best if the goal is to gain size fast. Whereas others would say lower training volumes are better if you want to max out growth. For instance, on a recent podcast, Tim Ferriss (author of The 4-Hour Body) said: 

“…building muscle mass… for me, that means compound movements once or twice a week. You really don’t need to over-do it, or do it 5 days a week… if you are reasonably novice, even intermediate for training… if you do a single set to concentric failure per exercise… you will see excellent results, and there may be some incremental gains from doing multiple sets, but it’s going to dig into your recovery ability” (26:43-31:07).

Meanwhile, Greg Nuckols (author of The Art and Science of Lifting) and Dr. Milo Wolf would point to studies that suggest much higher training volumes are, in fact, superior for building muscle (i.e. 30+ sets per muscle, per week). So, there is certainly an avid debate about how many sets to do, if you want to build muscle fast. With some promoting just a few sets per week, and others calling for several dozens of sets per muscle. Hence why I’d like to settle this debate: to find out whether high-, or low-volume programs are best to maximize muscle growth in resistance trainees.

So, what is the optimal training volume for muscle growth? Historically, there have been 2 sides to this issue. Those like Ferriss, who promote very low-volume, but high-intensity training to failure. And those like Wolf, who’d argue that studies tend to show a benefit to higher-volume training, with more growth as you do more sets (1). Now, in years past, we simply didn’t have much data to help resolve this debate. There were only a handful of experiments that had ever been done on the topic. Thus, all we had to go on was a small pool of studies, and mere anecdote/gym lore. Which left people on both sides talking past each other, and not much in the way of progress. But fortunately, there’s just been an influx of new research on volume and muscle growth. Indeed, the previously limited body of evidence has grown in a meaningful way, with a new meta-analysis from Pelland et al. (2024). And its findings may help shed definitive light on this age-old question: how much volume should you do to maximize muscle growth? The answer might transform the way you train…

The Research

Before we go into detail on Pelland et al.’s groundbreaking paper and its findings, we should talk about the foundational research that led up to it. The first meta-analysis published on low- versus high-volume resistance training came from James Krieger in 2010. Importantly, the discussion about training volume was very much still in its infancy back then. So much so, that the Krieger analysis only even assessed a total of 8 studies – the full body of research at that time. And further, unlike the reviews that came later, this meta-analysis only looked at training volume in per-workout terms. That is, Krieger found a benefit to doing multiple sets per muscle per workout, as compared to just a single set per session. Of course, this meta-analysis by Krieger is now outdated, as this research area has since come a long way. But, it was the first review to find advantages to higher set volumes, and thus it paved the way for all future studies on the topic. 

Schoenfeld Meta-Analysis

The next big meta-analysis on volume and hypertrophy was Schoenfeld et al. (2017). Note, this paper came out a full 7 years later, and still only included 15 studies. So, the research on training volume and muscle growth was advancing rather slowly, even then. But importantly, this Schoenfeld analysis measured volume in terms of sets per muscle per week, as would become the industry standard for future meta-analyses on this topic. Plus, the Schoenfeld analysis added to Krieger’s findings, and went further to show a graded dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy. Indeed, Schoenfeld found that at least up to 10+ sets per muscle per week, you get more muscle growth as you do more sets. Where performing over 10 sets per muscle per week caused more growth than 5-9 sets per week, and 5-9 sets per week was better than just 1-5 sets per week. Thus, the Schoenfeld analysis built upon Krieger’s review nicely; by both confirming the benefits of higher-volume training, and setting the new standard for assessing training volume (in terms of weekly sets per muscle). However, the Schoenfeld analysis too is rather outdated now. As two newer reviews on the topic have since been published…

Baz-Valle Meta-Analysis

Another noteworthy meta-analysis came from Baz-Valle et al. (2022), which also investigated the relationship between volume and muscle growth. But despite being a more-recent paper, due to strict inclusion criteria, the Baz-Valle review analyzed just 7 studies in total. Albeit perhaps for good reason; this review only included studies that directly assessed muscle hypertrophy – via either muscle thickness or muscle cross-sectional area measurements. Yet, this review remains somewhat under-powered because it only included 7 studies, even though those studies were of a higher average quality than those included by Schoenfeld and colleagues. Importantly, this Baz-Valle meta-analysis highlights an important progression in the volume and hypertrophy literature, because unlike the prior reviews on this topic, it began to explore the impacts of even higher volumes on muscle growth. Whereas Schoenfeld’s analysis considered 10+ sets per muscle per week to be “high-volume,” this Baz-Valle paper was able to assess the impact of volumes of up to 20+ sets per muscle per week. In fact, Baz-Valle even found a benefit to these higher-volumes; with 12-20 sets per week and 20+ sets per week proving more effective than sub-12 sets per week, for hypertrophy. And at least for the triceps brachii, this review found an advantage to performing 20+ sets per week, versus just 12-20 sets (albeit not for the biceps brachii or the quadriceps). So, this Baz-Valle paper helped move the literature forward by looking at volumes of 20+ sets per week, when no prior meta-analysis had done so. Plus, it built upon the Schoenfeld review by showing a benefit to these higher weekly training volumes, as compared to doing sub-12 sets per muscle per week. Although, some would argue that this study also began to muddy the waters a bit. That this paper hinted at the notion of “diminishing returns” in the volume-hypertrophy relationship, with the group that did 20+ sets per muscle per week faring hardly any better than the 12-20 sets per week group. In fact, faring no better, for the biceps and quadriceps. So while Baz-Valle et al.’s analysis told us more about the relationship between volume and muscle growth, due to its small sample size and mixed results across muscles, it still left a gap in our understanding of volume and hypertrophy. But this “gap” in the literature set the stage nicely for the most-recent analysis on this topic…

Pelland Meta-Analysis

The latest meta-analysis on volume and muscle growth comes from Pelland et al. (2024), and given its findings, it was worth the wait. Of note, this review included more studies than any of its predecessors. Which is significant not only because it speaks to the rate at which this body of literature has grown, but also given that this paper included several important new studies that pushed the limits on training volume even further (and that didn’t exist at the time of the Baz-Valle analysis). For instance, Enes and colleagues (2024) looked at training volumes far exceeding 20 sets per week, with the highest-volume group in this study performing an average of 37 sets per muscle per week (and a peak of 52(!) sets per muscle in the final week of training). Thus, the Pelland review serves not only to fill a gap in the literature regarding the potential for diminishing returns in hypertrophy at higher volumes, but also to account for the latest studies that provide data on the extreme right-end of this volume curve (i.e. 30+ sets per week). 

To be clear, Pelland et al. pooled together a total of 67 studies that directly measured hypertrophy, then ran a meta-regression to determine the relationship between weekly set volume and muscle growth. Building on the Schoenfeld et al. (2017) analysis, Pelland too found a dose-response relationship between training volume and muscle hypertrophy. And now, with a larger sample of studies like Enes et al. (2024), that tested very high training volumes, Pelland and colleagues were able to confirm that this relationship still exists even past 30+ sets per muscle per week. That is, based on the existing literature, higher volumes lead to greater hypertrophy even at extremes of up to 40 sets per week. Here’s a visual to help show this relationship between volume and hypertrophy, as determined by Pelland et al.:

% Change in Muscle Size vs Weekly Set Volume per Muscle; Source: Pelland et al. (Figure 5)

However, expanding upon the Schoenfeld and Baz-Valle meta-analyses even further, Pelland et al., documented a diminishing returns effect in the relationship between volume and muscle growth. So, doing more sets will get you more growth, in general. But every additional set helps slightly less than the one that came before it. With a “minimum effective dose” of just 4 sets per muscle per week being enough to cause meaningful growth, and then diminishing returns thereafter. The full extent of this diminishing returns relationship is shown here:

Volume Efficiency Tiers for Hypertrophy; Source: Pelland et al. (Table 2A)

Thus, we see that the greatest return on investment comes from the first 4-10 sets per muscle, per week. Then, if you do more sets, you will probably see more growth, but at the cost of efficiency – where you find yourself having to do many more sets, to get the same amount of growth. But nonetheless, we do see more growth with higher training volumes, on average. And even up to 42 sets per muscle per week, we haven’t yet found the point of negative returns, either. That is, more volume seems to be better for muscle growth, and it’s not entirely clear at what point this relationship changes (based on the existing literature). So in short, you don’t need to do a ton of volume to elicit muscle growth; just 4 sets per week is enough to see hypertrophy. But, even rather extreme volumes of 35+ sets per muscle per week, seem to help with muscle growth. Thus, we can say with reasonable confidence that for hypertrophy, high-volume training is superior to low-volume training. And frankly, looking at figure 5 from Pelland et al., it’s hardly a debate. Yet, this fact alone doesn’t necessarily imply how much you should train… right?

How Much Should You Train for Hypertrophy?

To summarize, all of the relevant meta-analyses have found a benefit to training at higher volumes, at least up to 20+ sets per week (1, 2, 3). And the most recent meta-analysis by Pelland et al. showed that this relationship extends past 20 sets per week, up to over 40 sets per muscle per week. That is, even with extreme volumes like 35+ sets per week, more still seems to be better, at least for muscle growth. However, Pelland et al. also found an effect of diminishing returns between volume and hypertrophy. So, the first few sets you do will yield the most-efficient growth, while the gains thereafter become less and less efficient as you approach 40+ sets per muscle per week. Thus, if all you care about is muscle growth, then it seems like very high-volume training is the way to go. And while some like Ferriss might see it differently, the research here makes it rather clear that more sets per week is generally better for your gains. At this stage, it really isn’t much of a debate anymore; there’s almost nothing you can find in favor of lower-volumes for muscle growth. As the point of negative returns for volume and hypertrophy, is yet to be seen, even at the extremes (on average).

With the above in mind, there are a few claims we can make with some confidence. First, if you’re already making good gains, very nice. Being conservative, there’s no need to overhaul your program while it’s still working well; why fix what isn’t broken? I mean, unless you really feel like you could be doing more, and want to experiment with higher volumes now, then keep it up. 

That said, if you’re not seeing much in the way of muscle growth, then odds are you’re not training enough. Or rather, if you aren’t already doing 30+ sets per week for the lagging muscle in question, then you’d most likely benefit from doing more (at least, on average). And in this case, the approach Ferriss promotes where you perform just a few sets to failure per week, probably isn’t going to help. Further, if you’re already doing very high volumes, but not seeing results, there’s still a chance that you could benefit from doing more (assuming you can recover from it). Since even approaching 45 sets per week, we haven’t found the point at which it hurts to do more, for any given muscle. So, even if you’re making good progress right now, there’s a chance you could try higher volumes and see better gains still. Heck, there’s also a case that you should really be pushing the envelope – doing up to 40+ sets per muscle per week, if you truly want the most growth possible…

But in the real world, we can’t all afford to optimize our lives around muscle growth, or spend hours in the gym each day. Which is where Ferriss and the research on this topic can find some common ground. While it would be lovely to maximize muscle growth at all times, the fact is that most people aren’t in a position where that’s reasonable, or a viable approach. I mean, some people simply wouldn’t have time for this. Others might lack interest. A few might even dread the thought of spending hours in the gym each week, eeking out every last marginal bit of growth they can muster. And honestly, I feel for these people. Even for the best of us, it can be hard just to make it to the gym some days, let alone live there. Hence why Ferriss does have a strong point: that your training program should be manageable. For in a world of limited resources, efficiency is key…

How to Train Like a Minimalist

Based on the Pelland review, training like a maximalist is relatively straightforward. Just do 35+ sets per week for your highest-priority muscles, as outlined in this video by Wolf Coaching. Plus, it’s relatively easy to do a bit more volume; simply add a couple of sets to your existing routine. Or do a few supplementary exercises for your target muscle of choice. However, in a world where set volume is a main driver of muscle growth, the question of how to train like a minimalist becomes much more interesting. The truth is, only the most die-hard lifters among us would truly strive to train like a maximalist. For the rest of us, there must be an easier way. And that’s why minimalism is such an appealing idea for some, in contrast to maximization. With the key to the minimalist’s approach being efficiency.

As a minimalist lifter, it’s important to consider both efficiency of time, and efficiency of energy. If you’re concerned with energy efficiency, there’s good news: the research here suggests that you can get meaningful growth with just 4-10 sets per muscle per week (1, 2). Thus, if you only want to put in the bare minimum of effort to still see gains, then simply employ a low-volume training program of 4+ sets per week. This will get you the most-efficient possible gains, for the least total effort. However, doing more sets would still probably work better. 

That said, if you’re not short on energy but rather, short on time, then there’s a different set of considerations. When pressed for time, the main concern is getting your training done quickly. That is, doing as much volume as you can, in the most time-efficient manner. Fortunately, there are 2 training methods you can employ to help achieve this goal, and without hurting your progress. The first time-saving technique is antagonistic-supersets. This involves super-setting 2 exercises that have minimal overlap, or that oppose each other, in quick succession. For instance, doing a set of biceps curls, and then a set of triceps extensions, with little rest between those sets. Or, maybe doing a set of lateral raises, immediately followed by a set of leg extensions. In these cases, you can complete a set for each muscle group, without having to rest in-between or sacrifice performance. And multiple studies have shown this method to work just as well as traditional training, while getting you through the workout faster (1, 2, 3). 

The second time-saving strategy is drop-sets. Where you complete one set of an exercise, then immediately drop the weight by ~20-50%, and complete another set. As an example, doing a set of biceps curls with 25 lbs on the first set, then without rest, completing another set with 20lbs, then again with 15lbs, before ending on a set of curls with 10lbs. Dropping the weight a bit every time, and repeating the set anew. Of note, this method has been shown to yield similar hypertrophy to standard resistance training, but with the potential to shave some time off of your workouts too (Coleman et al.). A decent rule of thumb is to count “one set, and 3 drops in weight” as roughly equivalent to ~3 traditional “straight sets” (1, 2). 

So, to employ both of the above time-saving strategies, you could do antagonistic-supersets for the majority of your training, and then use a drop-set for the final set of your workout to cram in some extra volume (on each muscle). That way you can get the same benefits of traditional training, but without long rests between sets. And then you can finish off your workout with drop-sets, as to add more volume, but in less time. With these 2 methods combined, you can maximize the time-efficiency of any training that you do. Which is a pretty useful tool, whether or not you’re doing a ton of volume. Shorter workout; same gains – maximum efficiency.

Practical Takeaways and Conclusions

All told, the high- versus low-volume debate really isn’t much of a debate. Or at least, it shouldn’t be. Since every major meta-analysis on this topic has found benefits to higher-volume training, all the way up to 35+ sets per week. So, there really isn’t much of a scientific case that low volumes are best, for those who want to maximize muscle growth. Yet, not all of us will want to build as much muscle as possible, or have the time to do so. Thus, in a world of limited resources, and diminishing returns, it’s important to consider different approaches to training. As well as the trade-offs that each approach concedes. 

Maximalism

This approach is best for those who want the most muscle growth possible. For the lifters among us who choose to go all out. Or for those who plan to be competitive in a bodybuilding competition. This lifter is willing to do whatever it takes; to go the extra mile and leave no stone unturned, when it comes to training. Diminishing returns be damned. If that’s you, then try working up to volumes of 40+ sets per week for a few muscles, ideally with a training frequency of 5x/week or more (to make that volume more manageable). It may take spending hours in the gym, but it should pay off. Note, doing 40+ sets per week for several muscles at once may be too much to recover from, so you’ll only want to maximize growth on ~2-3 muscles at a time; with your other body parts kept at more-manageable volumes, like 10-20 sets per week, for instance. Further, you may prefer to gradually increase volume to 40 sets per week, as jumping right into so much training could be too much. But after all, if you’re in this camp, then sometimes it’s worth the risk, for a chance at more gains. 

Minimalism (Effort-Efficiency)

If you’re in this camp, then odds are you just want the low-hanging fruit. As much benefit as you can get, for as little effort on your part as possible. Leave living in the gym to the maximalists; for you, it’s about making the most of your time outside of the gym. Well, you’re in luck. Fortunately, it only takes ~4-10 sets per muscle per week to see meaningful hypertrophy. That is, you can grow rather well, without having to do too much. Just go to the gym 2-4 times per week, and perform 2-4 sets for each muscle/exercise you want to focus on. Easy gains; just put a lot of effort into the few sets per week that you do, and enjoy the basic benefits of lifting. Which is much better than not training at all, but also doesn’t come with the same trade-offs as maximalism. No long hours in the gym; just a few good sets there, instead. In and out. As efficient as can be.

The Hybrid Approach

As with most things, there’s also room for a middle ground between the extremes. For instance, maybe you could care less about leg growth, but you’d love to have bigger arms. In this case you may want to train legs like a minimalist, but train arms like a maximalist. Similarly, perhaps you’re a student, and it makes sense to train like a minimalist during the semester. But given some extra free time during winter break, you might switch to training like a maximalist instead. Or finally, maybe you don’t care for extreme volumes like 40 sets per week, but you would be happy to do something more manageable, like 20 sets per week. There’s room for exploration, and for personal preference here, to be sure. 

Time-Efficiency

No matter where you fall along the minimalist-maximalist spectrum, it’s also worth considering the time-efficiency of any volume you perform. So, if you want to get your training done faster, it’s helpful to use time-saving techniques. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Antagonistic supersets: This is where you super-set 2 exercises that primarily target either different, or opposing muscles. For instance, do a set for the chest, then right after, do a set for your back. This can help you get through workouts faster, as rather than resting between sets, you’re hitting another muscle group instead. The net effect is a shorter workout, but with no loss in performance (1, 2, 3). So who wouldn’t want that? The same gains in considerably less time.
2. Drop-sets: These are probably best if performed only as the last set of your workout, for each muscle group. Although, if you’re only doing one set, then it may as well be a drop-set. To perform a drop-set, simply begin with a normal set. But then, rather than resting or moving on to the next exercise, drop the weight by ~20%-50%, and immediately do another set. Repeat this process a few times, for a total of 4 sets (with 3 drops in weight). These may take some getting used to, but drop-sets have been shown to yield the same results as typical training, in less time (1, 2, 3). So, if you want a faster way to get some extra volume in, drop-sets can really help.
3. “Exercise Snacks”: Exercise snacks are short bouts of physical activity, spread throughout the day, rather than performed all at once (1). Plus, they provide a useful tool to help you get more volume in. What if every few hours, you did a set of push-ups? Well, that would be an “exercise snack.” And if you do that a few times each day, it can add up to a good deal of volume by the end of the week. For example, if you do 3 sets of push-ups every day, that’s (3×7=) 21 total sets for the chest. Which goes a long way towards maximizing muscle growth; especially if you continue working out normally too. So, if you’re able to get an extra set done at various times throughout the day, then you may find it adds up quite nicely in the long run. But ideally, without taxing you in the same way that a full workout would.

With these time-saving tactics now firmly in your toolkit, you can probably get through your workouts a bit faster than usual. For the maximalist, this could mean getting in more training volume than would have otherwise been possible. Or, for the minimalist, it means a quick workout that leaves even more free time for life outside the gym. And really for anyone, it just provides a way for you to cut time off of your workouts, if ever in a pinch. So whatever your hypertrophy ambitions, these time-efficient tools can be of use.

Volume and Hypertrophy: Debate Over?

At this point, no matter what style of training you favor, it’s important to think in terms of volume. And the literature is clear in this regard: up to ~40 sets per week, the more sets you do per muscle, the more you grow (on average). Now sure, there are diminishing returns, with the most efficient volume being the first ~4-10 sets per week. But even so, doing more volume is generally better for muscle growth. So if you’re not making progress like you want to, odds are you’d do well to train more – by adding a few sets per muscle per week, up to ~35 sets per week in total, to enhance your gains.

Of course, not everyone will want to train with high volumes consistently – there are many viable approaches to training. But if you think low-volume training is best for muscle growth, you’re just wrong. And if you want to see faster muscle growth, then adding sets to your workout might actually be your best bet; volume is just that big of a factor, for hypertrophy.

So, let’s put this low- versus high-volume scientific debate to rest for now. The much more interesting debate is the practical one: the matter of minimalism versus maximalism in the gym… Where do you fall, dear reader?

Works Cited

Baz-Valle, Eneko, et al. “A Systematic Review of the Effects of Different Resistance Training Volumes on Muscle Hypertrophy.” Journal of Human Kinetics, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 10 Feb. 2022, doi:10.2478/hukin-2022-0017. 

Behenck, Cristiano et al. “The Effect of Different Rest Intervals Between Agonist-Antagonist Paired Sets on Training Performance and Efficiency.” Journal of strength and conditioning research vol. 36,3 (2022): 781-786. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003648

Coleman, Max, et al. “Muscular Adaptations in Drop Set vs. Traditional Training: A Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 28 Nov. 2022, doi:10.47206/ijsc.v2i1.135. 

“Colorado Experiment.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 May 2024, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Experiment. 

Enes, Alysson, et al. “Effects of Different Weekly Set Progressions on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Males: Is There a Dose-Response Effect?” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Mar. 2024,        doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003317. 

Ferriss, Tim, host. “The Random Show — 2025 Predictions (AI, Aliens, BTC, and More), New Year’s Resolutions and Strategies, Smart Fitness, The Spinal Engine, New Apps, and Much More (#785).” The Tim Ferriss Show, episode 785, Ramp, 03 Jan. 2025, tim.blog/2025/01/03/the-random-show-2025-predictions/. Accessed 09 Jan. 2025.

Fink, Julius et al. “Effects of drop set resistance training on acute stress indicators and long-term muscle hypertrophy and strength.” The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness vol. 58,5 (2018): 597-605. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06838-4

Jenkins, E. Madison, et al. “Do stair climbing exercise ‘snacks’ improve cardiorespiratory fitness?” Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, vol. 44, no. 6, June 2019, pp. 681+. Gale Academic OneFile, doi:10.1139/apnm-2018-0675. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.

Jones, Nathan. “The New Approach to Training Volume.” Stronger by Science, 5 July 2023, www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/.

Ozaki, Hayao et al. “Effects of drop sets with resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study.” Journal of sports sciences vol. 36,6 (2018): 691-696. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1331042

Paz, Gabriel A et al. “Volume Load and Neuromuscular Fatigue During an Acute Bout of Agonist-Antagonist Paired-Set vs. Traditional-Set Training.” Journal of strength and conditioning research vol. 31,10 (2017): 2777-2784. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001059

Pelland, Joshua, et al. “The resistance training dose-response: Meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain.” SportRxiv, 4 Oct. 2024, doi:10.51224/srxiv.460. 

Krieger, James. “Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.” LWW, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24 Apr. 2010, doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181d4d436. 

Nuckols, Greg. “Art and Science Books.” Stronger by Science, 18 Sept. 2020, www.strongerbyscience.com/art-and-science/. Accessed 9 Jan. 2025.

Nuckols, Greg, et al. “Extreme Volumes, Extreme Gains? (Part 1) (Episode 127).” Stronger by Science, Stronger by Science, 21 Feb. 2024, www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-127/. Accessed 09 Jan. 2025.

Robbins, Daniel W et al. “The effect of an upper-body agonist-antagonist resistance training protocol on volume load and efficiency.” Journal of strength and conditioning research vol. 24,10 (2010): 2632-40. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e3826e

Schoenfeld, Brad. “Dose-Response Relationship between Weekly Resistance Training Volume and Increases in Muscle Mass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Sports Sciences, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 11 June 2017, doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197.

Steele, James. “Meta-Analysis of Variation in Sport and Exercise Science: Examples of Application within Resistance Training Research: Journal of Sports Sciences: Vol 41, No 17.” Taylor and Francis Online, Journal of Sports Sciences, 1 Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2286748. 

Wolf, Milo. “How to Train like a Minimalist.” Stronger by Science, 7 Jan. 2025, www.strongerbyscience.com/minimalist-training/. Wolf, Milo, “The ULTIMATE Volume for Muscle Growth (New Groundbreaking Study).” YouTube, uploaded by Wolf Coaching, 08 Oct. 2024, youtu.be/tK7-fhASqFc?si=my913HKVBgphNnRc. Accessed 09 Jan. 2025.