Enes · Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2024 · randomized controlled trial · n=31

Effects of Different Weekly Set Progressions on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Males: Is There a Dose-Response Effect?

Cited 21 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Individual randomized controlled trial

PubMed 37796222 · doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000003317 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Thirty-one resistance-trained men (mean age 24.4 years, squat-to-body-mass ratio 1.7) completed a 2-week washout and 2-week familiarization before being randomized into three groups for a 12-week, twice-weekly lower-limb resistance training program: constant volume (CG, n = 10), 4-set progression every 2 weeks (4SG, n = 10), or 6-set progression every 2 weeks (6SG, n = 11). Measured outcomes at baseline and 12 weeks were barbell back squat 1-repetition maximum (1RM), vastus lateralis cross-sectional area, and sum of lateral thigh muscle thickness at 30%, 50%, and 70% of femur length.

What was found

For 1RM squat strength, 6SG gained significantly more strength than 4SG (P = 0.002) and CG (P < 0.0001), and 4SG gained significantly more than CG (P = 0.023). Cross-sectional area (P = 0.067) and sum of lateral thigh muscle thickness (P = 0.076) did not differ significantly between groups, though confidence intervals suggested a potential dose-response plateau. The abstract provided P-values but omitted raw baseline and post-intervention numerical values for strength and muscle thickness.

Why it matters

This study provides randomized evidence that systematically adding weekly sets over a mesocycle can optimize lower-body strength adaptations in trained lifters compared to holding volume constant, while hypertrophy benefits may reach a plateau at higher volume additions.

Limits

The sample size was small (31 participants across three arms) and exclusively comprised young, resistance-trained males, limiting generalizability to females, older adults, or untrained populations. The abstract does not report absolute numbers, effect sizes, or upper-body adaptations, and between-group hypertrophy differences did not reach statistical significance.

Cited by