ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Is there a volume saturation point for muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained individuals? A narrative review.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resistance training (RT) volume is recognized as a key variable driving skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Meta-analyses have supported a positive dose-response relationship, with greater volumes resulting in more pronounced hypertrophic adaptations. However, more recent studies conducted in trained individuals have reported conflicting findings, raising the question of whether a saturation point, defined here as a theoretical threshold beyond which additional training volume no longer yields benefits, might exist, or whether the inconsistencies are better explained by methodological limitations and individual variability. In this narrative review, we explore physiological and methodological factors that may explain such discrepancies. Mechanistically, higher RT volumes are associated with greater anabolic signaling, myofibrillar protein synthesis, ribosomal biogenesis, and satellite cell activation, although these results are not universal. Moreover, excessive training volumes may elevate muscle protein breakdown via activation of catabolic pathways. Methodological factors such as the muscle group and exercises selected, lack of control for prior training volume, overestimation of effect sizes in power calculations, and between-subject variability challenge the interpretation of dose-response relationships. Collectively, these physiological mechanisms and methodological challenges highlight the complexity of establishing a clear and consistent relationship between RT volume and muscle hypertrophy. Expanding our knowledge of the RT dose-response relationship will require rigorous experimental designs, integration of molecular and morphological outcomes, and a greater focus on inter-individual variability. These elements may help clarify whether a true saturation point in RT volume exists for anabolic signaling and muscle hypertrophy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40883636What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.