Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41343037›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026

The Resistance Training Dose Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gains.

Joshua C Pelland, Jacob F Remmert, Zac P Robinson, Seth R Hinson, Michael C Zourdos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joshua C PellandMuscle Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-5962-9603
Jacob F RemmertMuscle Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5227-6541
Zac P RobinsonMuscle Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-1672-2903
Seth R HinsonMuscle Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA.
Michael C ZourdosMuscle Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA. mzourdos@fau.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3265-7683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeekly set volume and frequency are used to manipulate resistance training dosage. Previous research has identified higher weekly set volume as enhancing muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, but the nature of the dose-response relationship still needs to be investigated. Mixed evidence exists regarding the effects of higher weekly frequency.

objectiveWe aimed to explore the dose-response relationships between key resistance training dosage variables (weekly set volume and frequency) and strength and hypertrophy.

methodsBefore meta-analyzing the volume and frequency research, all contributing resistance training sets were classified as direct or indirect, depending on their specificity to the hypertrophy/strength measurement. Then, weekly set volume/frequency for indirect sets was quantified as 1 for 'total,' 0.5 for 'fractional,' and 0 for 'direct.' A series of multi-level meta-regressions were performed for muscle hypertrophy and strength, utilizing 67 total studies of 2058 participants (79.1% male, 20.9% female; average age 25.16 ± 5.22 years). All models were adjusted for the duration of the intervention and training status.

resultsThe relative evidence for the 'fractional' quantification method was strongest; therefore, this quantification method was used for the primary meta-regression models. The posterior probability of the marginal slope exceeding zero for the effect of volume on both hypertrophy and strength was 100%, indicating that gains in muscle size and strength increase as volume increases. However, both best-fit models suggest diminishing returns, with the diminishing returns for strength being considerably more pronounced. The posterior probability of the marginal slope exceeding zero for frequency's effect on hypertrophy was less than 100%, indicating compatibility with negligible effects. In contrast, the posterior probability for strength was 100%, suggesting strength gains increase with increasing frequency, albeit with diminishing returns.

conclusionsDistinguishing between direct and indirect sets appears essential for predicting adaptations to a given resistance training protocol, such as using the 'fractional' quantification method. This method's dose-response models revealed that volume and frequency have unique dose-response relationships with each hypertrophy and strength gains. The dose-response relationship between volume and hypertrophy appears to differ from that with strength, with the latter exhibiting more pronounced diminishing returns. The dose-response relationship between frequency and hypertrophy appears to differ from that with strength, as only the latter exhibits consistently identifiable effects.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingAdultFemaleHumansHypertrophyMaleRegression Analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.