Meta-analysisLoad intensity
A meta-analysis found that low-load and high-load resistance training produce similar muscle hypertrophy when sets are taken close to failure, whereas maximal strength gains favor heavier loads. Growth is relatively load-tolerant across roughly 30-85% of one-repetition maximum.
Rule: For hypertrophy, train anywhere in about the 6-20 rep range near failure; for maximal strength, bias toward heavier loads (roughly 80%+ 1RM, ~1-6 reps).
- Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW (2017). Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- Versus High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200
Meta-analysisLoad intensity
A large network meta-analysis of resistance-training prescriptions in healthy adults concluded that higher training loads are most effective for maximizing muscular strength, while hypertrophy is driven more by total volume, and that performing multiple weekly sets outperforms single-set training. Load and volume act on strength and size somewhat differently.
Rule: Prescribe heavier loads when the goal is strength and prioritize accumulating volume across multiple sets when the goal is size.
- Currier BS, Mcleod JC, Banfield L, et al. (2023). Resistance training prescription for muscle strength and hypertrophy in healthy adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106807
Meta-analysisLoad intensity
A systematic review found that the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test is a highly reliable measure of maximal strength when the protocol is standardized, showing very high test-retest reliability across both upper- and lower-body exercises and trained and untrained participants. Standardized 1RM assessment is therefore a dependable basis for prescribing and tracking load.
Rule: Prescribe loads as a percentage of a standardized 1RM (or a validated estimate) and re-test periodically to track strength and progress loads.
- Grgic J, Lazinica B, Schoenfeld BJ, Pedisic Z (2020). Test-Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review doi:10.1186/s40798-020-00260-z