Content uploaded by Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis on Dec 06, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Sports Medicine (2020) 50:751–765
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01236-0
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
The Minimum Eective Training Dose Required toIncrease
1RM Strength inResistance‑Trained Men: ASystematic Review
andMeta‑Analysis
PatroklosAndroulakis‑Korakakis1 · JamesP.Fisher1· JamesSteele1,2
Published online: 3 December 2019
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract
Background Increases in muscular strength may increase sports performance, reduce injury risk, are associated with a
plethora of health markers, as well as exerting positive psychological effects. Due to their efficiency and effectiveness in
increasing total body muscular strength, multi-joint exercises like the powerlifts, i.e.: the squat (SQ), bench-press (BP) and
deadlift (DL), are widely used by active individuals as well as athletes in the pursuit of increasing strength. To date, the
concept of a minimum dose, i.e. “what is the minimum one needs to do to increase 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength?”
has not been directly examined in the literature, especially in the context of the powerlifts. This review aims to explore the
current available evidence around the minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in trained individu-
als in an attempt to enhance the practical guidelines around resistance-training as well as provide active individuals, athletes
and coaches with more flexibility when designing a training protocol.
Methods One reviewer independently conducted the search in a PRISMA systematic approach using PubMed, SportDiscus
and Google Scholar databases. The databases were searched with the following search terms/phrases and Boolean operators:
“training volume” AND “powerlifting” OR “1RM strength” OR “powerlifters”, “low volume” AND “powerlifting” OR
“powerlifting” OR “1RM strength”, “high vs low volume” AND “powerlifting” OR “1RM strength”, “minimum effective
training dose 1RM”. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the change in 1RM strength for the lowest dose group in
the included studies.
Results From the initial 2629 studies, 6 studies met our inclusion criteria. All identified studies showed that a single set
performed minimum 1 time and maximum 3 times per week was sufficient to induce significant 1RM strength gains. Meta-
analysis of 5 studies showed an estimated increase for overall 1RM of 12.09kg [95% CIs 8.16kg–16.03kg], an increase of
17.48kg [95% CIs 8.51kg–26.46kg] for the SQ, and 8.25kg [95% CIs 0.68kg–15.83kg] for the BP. All of the included
studies contained details on most of the variables comprising “training dose”, such as: weekly and per session sets and rep-
etitions as well as intensity of effort. Specific information regarding load (%1RM) was not provided by all studies.
Conclusions The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads
ranging from approximately 70–85% 1RM 2–3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary
failure) for 8–12weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained
men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear as to whether these improvements may also be achievable in
DL 1RM strength or in trained women and highly trained strength athletes.
Registration This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018108911).
* Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis
pak.androulakis@solent.ac.uk
1 School ofSport, Health, andSocial Sciences, Solent
University, Southampton, UK
2 ukactive Research Institute, London, UK
752 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
For trained men, the minimum effective training dose
required to increase 1-repetition maximum (1RM)
strength in the squat (SQ) and bench-press (BP) appears
to be a single set of 6–12 repetitions performed with
high intensity of effort at a training frequency of 2–3
times per week.
The minimum effective training dose can produce
suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM
strength.
It is currently less clear as to whether the minimum
effective training dose can lead to similar strength
improvements in deadlift (DL) 1RM strength or in
trained women and highly trained strength athletes.
Key Points
1 Introduction
Muscular strength is considered to be an important physical
attribute for athletes as well as non-athletes. Increased mus-
cular strength has been argued to have a number of benefits,
ranging from increased athletic performance to a decreased
mortality risk [1, 2]. Recent studies have argued that pub-
lic health guidelines should place greater emphasis upon
resistance training (RT) as it can help significantly increase
muscular strength as well as improve cardiovascular fitness
as a result of the typically high effort involved within resist-
ance exercise [3].
Muscular strength can be measured in several ways,
though is most commonly measured as the 1-repetition max-
imum (1RM) strength of an individual in a certain exercise,
depending on the muscle group(s) being tested, e.g.: squat
(SQ) 1RM as a means of assessing lower body strength.
Different exercise modalities can be employed when look-
ing to increase muscular strength such as 1RM strength,
with resistance training being the most efficient and effec-
tive approach, especially in trained individuals [4]. Within
the context of resistance training, increases in 1RM strength
may or may not be optimal depending on the training
approach utilised. For example, current literature shows that
training to momentary failure with both lighter- and heavier
loads (typically thought of as < 60% 1RM, and > 65% 1RM,
respectively) can be effective in eliciting strength gains, but
training with heavier loads without reaching momentary fail-
ure may lead to optimal strength increases due to the prin-
ciple of specificity in this outcome [5]. This, however, high-
lights that, though magnitudes of improvement may differ, a
variety of manipulations of resistance training variables can
result in significant improvements in 1RM strength.
The concept of a “minimum–maximum effective dose”,
and the potential existence of an inverted “U”-shaped curve
in the dose relationship between training volume and hyper-
trophy, has been explored in the literature when looking at
ways of optimising muscular hypertrophy adaptations [6,
7]. The concept of dose–response in resistance training has
mostly been examined and debated from a “set volume”
standpoint, looking at the number of sets per exercise or
muscle group to induce specific physiological adaptations.
It is important to note that RT dose needs to consider the
number of sets as well as; repetitions per set, the load used,
and the intensity of effort used—which is often consid-
ered as the proximity to momentary failure [8]. Previous
reviews have attempted to further investigate the concept
of “dose–response” in relation to 1RM strength by arguing
for the use of absolute volume loads, relative volume loads
as well as the integration of the RT-modified rating of per-
ceived exertion (RPE) scale [9]. However, this has always
happened in an attempt to find an “optimal” dose. At the
moment, a consideration of the literature with respect to
a critical synthesis of studies specifically looking at 1RM
strength has not been conducted to determine what is the
minimum effective dose required to increase 1RM strength
in trained individuals. It is important to note that untrained
individuals experience great increases in 1RM strength dur-
ing the first months of training, thought to be mainly due
to neural adaptations that occur as a result of being pre-
sented to a new training stimulus. In trained individuals, the
concept of “what is the least amount of work necessary to
increase 1RM strength?” is not clear as it has not yet been
adequately examined. Studies and reviews comparing single-
and multiple-set approaches to RT have indirectly addressed
the concept but have not attempted to directly explore a pos-
sible minimum effective dose for strength in trained par-
ticipants. The minimum effective training dose required to
increase 1RM strength in trained individuals may provide
useful knowledge to translate and improve current exercises
guidelines for health, as well as for athletes and coaches
across a plethora of sports, especially where strength might
be a valued attribute.
A sport that defines performance solely by 1RM strength
is powerlifting (PL). A powerlifter in competition has three
1RM attempts in the three powerlifts: the SQ, the bench-
press (BP) and the deadlift (DL) with the goal being to
achieve the highest PL total [10]. The powerlifts are also
widely used as exercises to increase and assess strength and
performance by many athletes as well as in research with
recreational lifters (e.g. Rugby and American Football play-
ers) [11–14]. Aside from athletes, active individuals who
seek to increase their overall body strength often utilise the
three powerlifts as they are multi-joint exercises that are
effective and efficient at increasing whole-body strength due
to utilising multiple muscle groups at once [15–17]. The
753
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
of resistance training experience, at least one of the pow-
erlifts being included in the training intervention (i.e. SQ,
BP, DL) and a 1RM test used to assess strength changes on
the powerlift(s) pre and post training intervention. Despite
our initial inclusion criteria including study populations
consisting of healthy men and women, we could not locate
any studies involving trained women as participants while
meeting the rest of our inclusion criteria.
2.2 Search Strategy
The literature search was performed between 10/09/2018
and 12/11/2018 by searching the following databases: Pub-
Med, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar. The databases
were searched with the following search terms/phrases
and Boolean operators: “training volume” AND “power-
lifting” OR “1RM strength” OR “powerlifters”, “low vol-
ume” AND “powerlifting” OR “powerlifting” OR “1RM
strength”, “high vs low volume” AND “powerlifting”
OR “1RM strength”, “minimum effective training dose.
Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened individually
by 1 of the 3 authors (PAK). Studies with irrelevant titles
were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened twice to
ensure that no relevant studies were missed. After the title
and abstract screening was completed, PAK reviewed 38
articles for a final inclusion. The reference list of any articles
identified as relevant was screened for any possible articles
suiting the inclusion criteria. During the review of full text
articles, co-author JS was consulted to discuss any possible
disagreements regarding inclusion/exclusion of any articles.
PAK assessed the studies individually and thereafter com-
pared their results.
2.3 Quality Assessment
Study quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evi-
dence Database (PEDro) scale, an 11-item scale that
includes both the 3-item Jadad scale and the 9-item Delphi
list. The PEDro scale assesses methodological quality in
randomised trials by rating them from 0 to 10 with 6 repre-
senting the threshold score for studies of high quality. The
PEDro scale has been shown to be a valid tool when assess-
ing methodological quality in randomised control trials [19].
2.4 Coding ofStudies
Studies were read and individually coded by one of the
investigators (PAK) for the following variables: study
design, training intervention duration, descriptive informa-
tion of subjects by grouping including, sex, body mass, age,
resistance training experience and powerlifting experience
if applicable, the powerlifts tested in each study, frequency
of training each powerlift (days per week), weekly sets and
increase in popularity of PL training and competition, as
well as the utilisation of the powerlifts by individuals per-
forming general strength training, has led to an increased
need for scientific data around training methods that can
increase 1RM strength in the powerlifts.
Considering the common usage of the three powerlifts,
in particular by trained populations and athletes, previous
reviews have focused on understanding what manipulation
of resistance training variables might provide the optimal
dose to increase 1RM strength. However, reviewing the cur-
rent available evidence in an attempt to address the question
of “what is the minimum a resistance-trained person can
do and still increase 1RM strength?” may also be of great
benefit to athletes and coaches looking to increase, or at least
maintain, strength during deloading periods or periods with
limited training time available. Understanding the impor-
tance of different training variables (e.g. load [%1RM] and
volume) and their manipulation in ways to increase 1RM
strength with the minimal dose might also help to increase
flexibility of programming for athletes and coaches. Addi-
tionally, athletes competing in team sports often have to train
a multitude of athletic qualities simultaneously depending on
their position. For strength and conditioning coaches work-
ing with team sport athletes, understanding the minimum
effective training dose required to increase muscle strength
may be of great practical importance when designing train-
ing programmes. Thus, the present article aims to systemati-
cally review the available evidence regarding the minimum
effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in
resistance-trained men.
2 Methods
The methodology of this systematic review was planned
according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [18].
The review was registered on PROSPERO before begin-
ning the search process in 2018 (Registration number:
CRD42018108911). The study protocol is available at: https
://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prosp ero/displ ay_recor d.php?Recor
dID=10891 1.
2.1 Inclusion Criteria
Peer-reviewed studies, published in English and available
in full text, were included. There were no limitations for
publishing year. The following criteria had to be met for
inclusion: randomised trial, resistance training interven-
tions lasting a minimum of 4-week manipulating dose (i.e.
repetitions, sets, load, intensity of effort, etc.), a maximum
of 1 working set per exercise per training session, study
population consisting of healthy men with at least 1year
754 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
repetitions, session sets and repetitions, load, RPE rating
or proximity to momentary failure using ‘repetitions in
reserve’, whether participants were instructed to perform
sets to momentary or volitional failure, whether there was
a group or groups with higher total training volume (i.e. to
be compared with the lowest dose group in the study), and
whether other exercises were included in addition to any of
the powerlifts.
2.5 Meta‑Analysis
A meta-analysis was included retrospectively (i.e. was not
part of the pre-registered systematic review protocol) to
generate estimates for the change (Δ i.e. post- minus pre-
intervention) in 1RM strength in the raw units (kgs) for the
lowest dose groups in each of the included studies where suf-
ficient data were reported to permit this. Meta-analysis was
performed using the ‘metafor’ package in R (version 3.6.0;
R Core Development Team, https ://www.r-proje ct.org/).
Where the Δ scores for 1RMs in the lowest dose groups
were reported in the original studies, these were used. Oth-
erwise, they were calculated from the pre- and post-interven-
tion 1RM scores reported. Similarly, the σ for the Δ scores
was used as reported in the original studies or otherwise
calculated assuming a within-participant pre-post correla-
tion coefficient as none of the original studies reported this
statistic. The calculation was performed as:
Sensitivity analysis was used to examine the effect of
range of assumed within-participant pre-post correlation
coefficients (r = 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9). The variance was taken
as the square of the
𝜎Δ
. A multilevel random effects meta-
analysis with cluster robust variance estimation was used
for estimation of Δ scores for 1RM across all of the studies
and each powerlift reported in addition to separate random
effects meta-analyses for each of the individual powerlifts.
The meta-analyses were conducted with estimation of effect
magnitude and precision in mind and so were not interpreted
in the context of hypothesis testing against a point null. Het-
erogeneity was examined through the Q statistic and the I2
statistic. The Q statistic assesses the statistical significance
of the variability of effects within and between study groups;
a significant Q statistic suggests that studies are likely not
drawn from a common population. The I2 statistic provides
an estimate of the degree of heterogeneity in effects among a
set of studies between 0 and 100%. I2 values of 0–40% were
not important, 30–60% moderate heterogeneity, 50–90%
substantial heterogeneity, and 75–100% considerable het-
erogeneity [20].
𝜎
Δ=
√
𝜎2
pre +𝜎2
post −
(
2xrx𝜎pre ∗𝜎post
)
3 Results
The search strategy resulted in 2629 potentially relevant
articles, while 10 additional articles were identified through
other sources. 2368 articles remained after any duplicates
were removed. Of the 2368 articles, a total of 38 full text
articles were assessed for eligibility and determined to be
potentially relevant based on the information contained in
the abstracts. The full text of these articles was screened and
8 studies were identified for possible inclusion in the paper.
After consensus amongst the investigators, one study was
excluded because it failed to meet the study design criteria.
The studies by Marshall etal. [21] and Robbins etal. [22]
were both based on the same participant data, something
confirmed after corresponding with the primary author of
the Marshall etal. [21] study, and thus only the Marshall
etal. [21] study was included. Therefore, 6 studies were
included for analysis (Fig.1). Table1 presents a summary of
all the identified studies that were considered for this review.
Additional study characteristics can be found in Table2.
3.1 Powerlift(s) Included
Ostrowski etal. [23] and Schoenfeld etal. [24] included
and tested the SQ and BP. Kramer etal. [25] included both
the SQ and BP but only tested 1RM changes in the SQ.
Similarly, Marshall etal. [20] included training and testing
for the SQ only, while Rhea etal. [26] and Baker etal. [27]
included training and testing for the BP only.
3.2 Strength changes
All of the identified studies reported significant increases in
strength for the lowest volume group for any of the power-
lifts tested. Ostrowski etal. [23] reported a SQ 1RM increase
from 134 ± 28.4 to 144 ± 27.8kg and a BP 1RM increase
from 89.7 ± 11.4 to 93.3 ± 10.9kg for the group perform-
ing a single set per week for each powerlift. Ostrowski
etal. [23] did not report p values for within-group changes
in SQ and BP 1RM but had defined significant effects at
p ≤ 0.05. Schoenfeld etal. [24], who also tested both the
BP and SQ, reported SQ 1RM increases from 104.5 ± 14.2
to 123.4 ± 12.9kg and BP 1RM increases from 93.6 ± 16.1
to 102.9 ± 15.2kg for the group performing a single set per
session for 3weeks for each powerlift. Schoenfeld etal. [24]
reported p values for between-group differences but did not
report p values for within-group changes in SQ and BP
1RM but had defined significant effects at p ≤ 0.05. Kramer
etal. [25] reported a SQ 1RM increase from 101.9 ± 20.6 to
114.1 ± 18.7kg for the group performing a single SQ set 2
times per week. Similarly, Marshall etal. [21] also reported
a SQ 1RM increase from 149.0 ± 7.8 to 165.5 ± 9.2kg for the
755
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
group performing a single SQ set 2 times per week. Kramer
etal. [25] and Marshall etal. [21] did not report p values for
within group changes in SQ 1RM but had defined significant
effects at p ≤ 0.05. Rhea etal. [26] and Baker etal. [27] only
tested the BP and reported a 1RM increase from 64.2 ± 8.9
to 76.7 ± 28.0kg and +11.91kg, respectively, both for the
group that performed a single BP set 3 times per week. Rhea
etal. [26] and Baker etal. [27] did not report p values for
within group changes in BP 1RM strength but had defined
significant effects at p ≤ 0.05.
3.2.1 Meta‑Analysis ofChange in1RM Strength forLowest
Dose Groups
Of the studies included in this review, 5 were able to be
included in the meta-analysis which included a total of 55
participants form the lowest dose groups in each of the
included studies. Baker etal. [27] was not included due to
the sum across the powerlifts of participants 1RMs being
reported as opposed to individual powerlift results. Effects
(k) were only available for the SQ (k = 4) and BP (k = 3).
Sensitivity analysis of the assumptions for within-partici-
pant pre-post correlation had little impact upon the overall
estimates and so results are presented for r = 0.7. Overall,
the multilevel random effects meta-analysis revealed with a
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 2368)
Records screened
(n = 2368)
Records excluded
(n = 2330)
Records identified through database
searching
(n = 2629)
Screening
Included
EligibilityIdentification
Additional records identified through
other sources
(n = 10)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 2368)
Records screened
(n = 2368)
Records excluded
(n = 2330)
Full-text articles assessed for
eligibility
(n = 38)
Full-text articles excluded, with
reasons
(n = 32)
•Did not include any of the
powerlifts (n=24)
•Untrained participants (n=4)
•More than 1 working set per
training session (n=4)
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 6)
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram detailing the study inclusion process
756 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
Table 1 Studies meeting inclusion criteria
a Performed by the lower training volume group
Study nDesign Study dura-
tion (weeks)
Powerlift(s) tested SetsaRepetitionsaWeekly work-
ing repetitionsa
Findings PEDro
score (/10)
Kramer etal. [25] 53 Random assignment to 1 of 3 training groups
Single set group (SS) trained using 1 set to
failure Multiple sets of 10 group (MS)
trained using 3 sets of 10 reps. Multiple sets
varied group (MSV) trained using multiple
sets in which load and training volume
varied over the training intervention
14 SQ 1 8–12 16–24 All groups experienced significant increases
in SQ 1RM
MS and MSV experienced approximately
50% greater 1RM strength increases than
the SS group
7
Rhea etal. [26] 16 Random assignment to either a 1 set (S-1) or
a 2 3 set (S-3) group. Both groups followed
a training protocol based on daily undulat-
ing periodization (DUP) where training
volume and training load variated. Subjects
in both groups trained
12 BP 1 D1: 8–10
D2: 6–8
D3: 4-6
18–24 Both groups experienced significant strength
increases in the BP. The S-3 group
experienced significantly greater strength
increases than the S-1 group
7
Ostrowski etal. [23] 35 Random assignment to 1 of 3 groups. 1
low-volume group (3 sets per muscle group
per week), 1 moderate-volume (6 sets per
muscle group per week) or 1 high-volume
group (12 sets per muscle group per week)
10 SQ, BP 1 W1-4: ~ 12
W5-7: ~ 7
W7-10: ~ 9
~ 9 All groups experienced significant strength
increases in both the SQ and BP. There
were no significant differences between
groups
7
Marshall etal. [21] 32 Random assignment to 6weeks of the SQ,
trained at 80%1RM for either 1, 4 or 8 sets
performed to volitional exhaustion, 2 times
per week
After the 6-week training period all partici-
pants followed a 4-week peaking training
period
6 SQ 1 ~ 10 ~ 20 All groups experienced significant strength
increases. The 8-set group experienced sig-
nificantly more strength gains than the 1-set
group. There were no significant differences
between the 1-set and 4-set groups
8
Baker etal. [27] 16 Random assignment to one of two training
groups. 1 group performed 1 set of upper-
body exercises 3 times per week while the
other group performed 3 sets of upper-body
exercises 3 times per week
8 BP 1 6 18 Both training groups experienced significant
strength increases. There were no signifi-
cant differences between groups
7
Schoenfeld etal. [24] 34 Random assignment to 1 of 3 groups. A
low-volume group (1SET) performing 1
set per exercise per session, a moderate-
volume group (3SET) performing 3 sets per
exercise per session or a high-volume group
(5SET) performing 5 sets per exercises per
session. All groups trained 3 times per week
8 SQ and BP 1 8–12 24–36 All groups experienced significant strength
increases. There were no significant
between-group differences
7
757
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
robust estimate, an increase in 1RM of 12.04kg [95% CIs
8.16kg–16.03kg]. The effect estimates from the random
effects meta-analyses for individual lifts showed an increase
of 17.48kg [95% CIs 8.51kg–26.46kg] for the SQ, and
8.25kg [95% CIs 0.68kg–15.83kg] for the BP. Q statistics
were not significant for any of the analyses and heterogeneity
was not evident from inspection of I2 statistics (all 0.0%).
Figure2 shows a subgroup forest plot for the meta-analyses.
3.3 Strength Changes Compared
toaHigher‑Volume Group
All the identified studies included some form of comparison
to a higher-volume group with some of the studies includ-
ing a “moderate” volume group to assess the dose–response
effect of different training volumes on strength and other
measures.
Kramer etal. [25] compared 3 groups, a group perform-
ing a single set (SS) to failure, a multiple set group (MS)
performing 3 sets of 10 repetitions and a multiple set varied
(MSV) group performing multiple sets with varying loads
and training volume. Despite all groups experiencing sig-
nificant increases in SQ 1RM strength, the higher-volume
groups (MS and MSV) experienced approximately 50%
greater 1RM strength increases than the single-set group
(SS: 101.9 ± 20.6 kg–114.1 ± 18.7 kg compared to MS:
98.5 ± 27.7kg–123.7 ± 43.2kg and MSV: 111.2 ± 25.6kg
to 135.7 ± 20.6kg). Similarly, to Kramer etal. [25], when
comparing a single-set group to group performing 3 sets,
Rhea etal. [26] found that despite both groups experiencing
significant strength increases in the BP, the group perform-
ing 3 sets experienced significantly greater increases when
compared to the single-set group (64.21 ± 8.9kg to 76.7 ± 28
and 66.76 ± 7.3 to 85.5 ± 20.8, respectively).
Marshall etal. [21] compared a single-set group to a
group performing 4 sets and a group performing 8 sets.
Marshall etal. [21] found that all groups experienced sig-
nificant strength increases and that the 8-set group experi-
enced significantly greater strength increases than the groups
performing 1 and 4 sets (1-set: 149 ± 7.8 to 162 ± 11.8, 4-set:
157.3 ± 12.2 to 179.1 ± 11.8, 8-set: 162 ± 11.8 to 199 ± 13.7).
Interestingly, there were no significant differences between
the 1-set and 4-set groups. In contrast to Marshall etal. [21],
Schoenfeld etal. [24] found no significant between-group
differences for 1RM strength when comparing a group per-
forming 1 set per exercise per session to a group perform-
ing 3 sets per exercise per session or a group performing 5
sets per exercise per session (104.5 ± 14.2 to 123.4 ± 12.9,
114.9 ± 26 to 128.5 ± 24.7 and 106.6 ± 24 to 126.2 ± 25).
Ostrowski etal. [23] compared 3 groups, a low-volume
group performing 3 sets per muscle group per week, a mod-
erate-volume group performing 5 sets per muscle group
per week and a high-volume group performing 12 sets per
muscle group per week. All groups experienced significant
strength increases for the SQ and there were no signifi-
cant strength differences between groups (SQ: 134 ± 28.4
to 144 ± 27.8, 146 ± 23.1 to 154 ± 20.7 and 121 ± 20.7 to
135 ± 16.3 respectively). Similarly to Ostrowski etal. [23],
no significant between-group differences were observed for
BP 1RM strength by Baker etal. [27] when comparing a
group performing 1 set 3 times per week to a group perform-
ing 3 sets 3 times per week.
3.4 Training Intervention Length
Out of the 7 identified studies, Kramer etal. [25] was the
only study that exceeded 10weeks in terms of total train-
ing intervention length. The participants in the study by
Kramer etal. [25] followed a training intervention lasting
14weeks. Participants in the studies by Marshall etal. [21]
and Ostrowski etal. [23] followed a 10-week training pro-
tocol. Despite the overall length of the training interven-
tion being 10weeks, participants in the study by Marshall
etal. [21] were divided into 1-set, 4-set and 8-set groups for
6weeks and then followed a different training programme
for the remaining 4weeks. Marshall etal. [21] assessed
1RM strength changes at both the 6- and 10-week mark and
found that participants had experienced significant strength
increases at both points when compared to the baseline
measurement but there were no significant differences
between the 6- and 10-week mark. Participants in the studies
by Baker etal. [27] and Schoenfeld etal. [24] all followed a
training protocol lasting 8weeks.
3.5 Number ofWorking Sets andRepetitions Per
Training Session
As specified in the inclusion criteria, the low-volume group
in all included studies performed a single working set [21,
23–27]. Participants in the studies by Kramer etal. [25] and
Schoenfeld etal. [24] performed 8–12 repetitions per train-
ing session. Participants in the study by Ostrowski etal.
[23] performed approximately 12 repetitions per training in
weeks 1–4, 7 repetitions per training session in weeks 5–7
and 9 repetitions per training session in weeks 7–10. Par-
ticipants in the study of Marshall etal. [21] performed an
average of 10.9 ± 0.7 repetitions per training session as they
were instructed to perform as many repetitions as possible
until they reached momentary failure. Participants in the
study by Rhea etal. [26] performed 3 training sessions per
week following different repetition schemes for each session.
For session 1, they performed 8–10 repetitions; for session
2, they performed 6–8 repetitions; and for session 3, they
performed 4–6 repetitions.
758 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
3.6 Number ofWorking Sets andRepetitions Per
Week
Participants in the study by Kramer etal. [25] performed 2
sets and between 16 and 24 repetitions per week for the SQ.
Participants in the study by Schoenfeld etal. [24] performed
3 sets and between 24 and 36 repetitions per week for the
SQ and BP. Participants in the study by Rhea etal. [26] per-
formed 3 sets and between 18 and 24 repetitions per week for
the BP. Similarly to Rhea etal. [26], participants in the study
Table 2 Additional study characteristics
a Corresponding load based on the NSCA loading chart [28]
Study Age (years) Weight (kg) Resistance-training
experience (years)
Load (%1RM) Other exercises performed
Kramer etal. [25]20 ± 2 80 ± 10 > 1 70–85%aYes
Push-press, bench-press, crunch, pull from mid-thigh,
leg curl, bent-over row
Rhea etal. [26]21 ± 2 90 ± 12 > 2 75–90%aYes
Both groups: leg press
S-3: biceps curl, lat pull-down, abdominal crunches,
back extensions and seated rows
Ostrowski etal. [23]23 ± 4 77 ± 8.5 > 1 W1–4: 70%a
W5–7: 80–85%a
W7–10: 85–90%a
Yes
Leg press, leg extension, stiff-leg deadlift, leg curl,
single-leg curl, incline bench press, decline bench
press, shoulder press, upright row, lateral raise, lat
pulldown, T-bar pulldown, seated row, calf raise,
calf press, seated calf raise, barbell curl, preacher
curl, dumbbell curl, close grip bench, triceps push-
down and triceps extension
Marshall etal. [21]28 ± 1.2 84 ± 2.3 > 3 80% Yes
Upper-body exercises and the following during the
4-week peaking period: jump squat, bench press
throw, dumbbell snatch and barbell push-press
Baker etal. [27]20 ± 0.8 80 ± 11 > 1 85% Ye s
Biceps curl and shoulder press
Schoenfeld etal. [24]23.8 ± 3.8 82.5 ± 13.8 > 3 70–80%aYe s
Military press, wide grip lateral pulldown, seated
cable row, machine leg press and unilateral machine
leg extension
Fig. 2 Forest plot of changes in 1RM (kg)
759
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
by Baker etal. [27] performed 3 sets and approximately 18
repetitions per week for the BP. Participants in the study by
Marshall etal. [21] performed 2 sets and approximately 20
repetitions per week. Finally, participants in the study by
Ostrowski etal. [23] performed an average of approximately
9 repetitions per week for the SQ and BP.
3.7 Weekly Training Frequency
The weekly training frequency at which the powerlift(s) of
each study were trained ranged from a minimum of 1 train-
ing session per week up to 3 training sessions per week.
Participants in the studies of Kramer etal. [25] and Marshall
etal. [21] trained the SQ with a training frequency of 2
times per week. One of the 3 studies that incorporated a high
frequency of training for both the SQ and BP was the study
by Schoenfeld etal. [24] where participants trained both
powerlifts 3 times per week. Similarly, participants in the
studies by Rhea etal. [26] and Baker etal. [27] trained the
BP with a training frequency of 3-times per week. The low-
est training frequency was seen on the study by Ostrowski
etal. [23] where participants performed both the SQ and BP
once per week.
3.8 Load (%1RM)
In terms of load (%1RM) used for the working sets of the
studies that met the inclusion criteria, 4 out of the 6 identi-
fied studies did not report the exact load (%1RM) that was
used during the training intervention [23–26]. Thus the
corresponding load (%1RM) was calculated based on the
2012 National Strength and Conditioning Association load-
ing chart [28]. Participants in the study by Ostrowski etal.
[23] performed different repetitions depending the phase
of the intervention they were in. The corresponding load
%1RM based on the repetitions to failure that participants
performed are the following: Weeks 1–4: ~ 70%1RM, Weeks
5–7: ~ 80–85%1RM and Weeks 7–10: ~ 85–90%1RM. Par-
ticipants in the study by Schoenfeld etal. [24] performed
sets of 8–12 repetitions to momentary concentric failure,
implying that loads at approximately 70–80%1RM were
used. Kramer etal. [25] did not specify the exact loads
that were used but reported the relative intensity (%1RM)
for all groups of the study showing that participants in the
single-set group were trained with loads ranging from 70 to
85%1RM. Similarly to Kramer etal. [25], Rhea etal. [26]
did not report the exact load(s) that were used but stated
that participants used loads appropriate to their 8–10RM,
6–8RM and 4–6RM, repetition ranges that correspond to
loads ranging from approximately 75–90%1RM [28]. The
participants in the study by Baker etal. [27] trained with
loads set at 85%1RM and similarly participants in the study
by Marshall etal. [21] trained with loads set at 80%1RM.
3.9 Eort
Despite none of the studies directly measuring perceived
effort (i.e. proximity to momentary failure) through the use
of the modified rating of perceived effort (RPE) scale for
resistance training (based on repetitions in reserve), 5 of the
included studies required participants to reach momentary
failure [22–25, 27] while 1 study instructed participants to
reach what they termed as volitional failure [21]. Even though
a specific RPE rating was not prescribed and thus there is not
a direct quantifiable measure of perceived effort, the fact that
participants reached either momentary or volitional failure is
enough to assess the level of effort in the above training inter-
ventions. Based on the fact that either momentary or volitional
failure was reached, one could argue that irrespective of not
having a specific measure, most participants likely trained to
a relatively high, if not maximal, perceived effort.
3.9.1 Other Exercises Performed
Participants in the studies by Marshall etal. [21], Rhea etal.
[26], Baker etal. [27] and Kramer etal. [25] performed
additional exercises that did not engage the musculature of
the main powerlift(s) that were tested. Ostrowski etal. [23]
and Schoenfeld etal. [24] both included additional exercises
that engaged the musculature used in the SQ and the BP.
3.9.2 Progression
Aside from 1 study that used a specific load (80%1RM) and
did not include any details on weekly or session-to-session
progression [21], all other studies included some form of
progression strategy depending on the training approach
employed. Ostrowski etal. [23], Rhea etal. [26] and Kramer
etal. [25] instructed participants to use a load appropriate to
reach failure in the repetition range that was prescribed for
each training session. Baker etal. [27] increased the loads
used linearly as participants became stronger. Both studies
did not clarify at what increments the load was increased.
Finally, the load used in the study by Schoenfeld etal. [24]
was increased based on the supervising researcher’s assess-
ment of what would be required to reach momentary failure
after a participant had completed more than 12 repetitions
prior to reaching momentary failure.
4 Quality Assessment
4.1 Overall Completeness andApplicability
ofEvidence
The current review included 6 randomised trials consist-
ing of a total of 186 resistance-trained men with an average
760 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
minimum resistance training experience of 2years. All stud-
ies included only participants that were classified as trained
as well as tested and included one of the 3 powerlifts in
the training intervention. The low amount of included stud-
ies does not allow for a complete examination of the con-
cept of a “minimum effective dose for 1RM strength” but
the included studies were the only available evidence that
matched our inclusion criteria. To further detract from the
completeness of the available evidence, there were no stud-
ies that tested and included the DL in their training interven-
tion. The only study to date that has looked at a single set for
DL 1RM strength but did not examine the DL directly and
instead looked at a derivative of the DL, the Romanian DL,
found significant 1RM increases after 10weeks [29]. Out of
the 6 included studies, only 2 tested and included more than
1 powerlift [23, 24]; while the remaining 4 studies tested and
included either the SQ or the BP. In terms of applicability,
despite all studies including participants that were classi-
fied as “trained”, their strength level would classify them
as “beginners–early intermediates” based on powerlfting
strength standards [10], limiting the results’ applicability to
strength athletes or highly trained individuals.
4.2 Quality oftheEvidence
Study quality was assessed through the use of the Physi-
otherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. All included
studies had a PEDro score higher than 6 out of 10, indicating
that they were of high quality. All included studies satis-
fied the following criteria: eligibility criteria were specified,
subjects were randomly allocated to groups, allocation was
concealed and the groups were similar at baseline regarding
the most important prognostic indicators. Additionally, all
studies also satisfied the following criteria: measures of at
least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85%
of the subjects initially allocated to groups, all subjects for
whom outcome measures were available received the treat-
ment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not
the case, data for at least one key outcome were analysed by
“intention to treat”, the results of between-group statistical
comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome, the
study provides both point measures and measures of vari-
ability for at least one key outcome. The 3 criteria that were
not satisfied by any of the included studies were the follow-
ing: there was blinding of all subjects, there was blinding
of all therapists who administered the therapy, and there
was blinding for all assessors who measured at least one
key outcome.
4.3 Potential Biases intheReview Process
Strengths of this review include the comprehensive search
strategy of 3 databases, review of reference lists of relevant
reviews and reference lists of all included trials, systematic
appraisal of study quality through the PEDro scale and risk
of bias through the Cochrane ‘Risk of bias’ tool (Fig.3). A
noteworthy weakness of this review is that we included only
randomised trials, excluding studies that offer more evidence
addressing the review’s question [10], something that poten-
tially limits the reviews’ conclusions given the very limited
available data on the topic.
5 Discussion
The question that this review aimed to address is “what is
the minimum a trained individual can do and still experience
significant 1RM strength increases?” As mentioned above,
previous studies and reviews/meta-analyses have looked at
the dose–response relationship between training volume and
hypertrophy as well as strength [7]. Reviews in the past have
attempted to look at the dose–response relationship between
training volume and strength to further understand how to
Fig. 3 Risk of bias summary
761
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
optimise training to maximize strength adaptations [30]. At
present, no review has attempted to examine the current lit-
erature in an attempt to identify a possible minimum effec-
tive training dose for eliciting significant strength increases
in resistance-trained individuals regardless of whether that
minimum effective dose is optimal or not.
As the training dose refers to the training volume com-
pleted, it is important that training volume is operationalised
at this point as its definition varies in the literature. Sev-
eral studies define training volume as the absolute volume
load, meaning the total tonnage completed in a specific time
frame, either that being per session, week, year, etc. [25].
The main issue with absolute volume load is that all training
volume is not created equally as two training protocols with
equal absolute volume load may induce completely differ-
ent physiological adaptations due to providing a completely
different training stimulus [31]. The limitations of absolute
volume load are often addressed by using relative volume
load calculated by sets × repetitions × %1RM to account for
the effect of different loads on possible adaptations. Both
relative volume load and absolute volume load have the
limitation of not accounting for intensity of effort per set,
i.e.: 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 70%1RM versus 10 sets of 3
repetitions at 70%1RM [31], something that is not an issue
in this review as all studies required participants to reach
volitional or momentary failure. The issue present with the
identified studies of this review is that load (%1RM) was not
clearly specified or varied from week to week in 4 out of the
6 identified studies, therefore not allowing for relative vol-
ume load to be calculated. Thus, since intensity of effort was
high, and therefore similar among all the studies examined,
this review looked at the sets, repetitions and %1RM range
as well as the total repetitions completed per session and
per week in an attempt to quantify the minimum effective
training dose required to increase 1RM strength in trained
individuals based on the current available evidence.
Previous reviews have compared single- and multiple sets
within sessions and their effects on strength and hypertro-
phy, with some reviews finding single sets equally effective to
multiple sets [32, 33], while other reviews favouring multiple
sets [34]. Despite the disagreement regarding whether mul-
tiple sets produce optimal increases in strength compared to
single sets, most authors have concluded that single sets can
be utilised when time is a restricting factor as they will pro-
duce strength increases. Within the present review, all studies
that met the inclusion criteria utilised a single set per train-
ing session in the lower-volume group and showed significant
strength increases. A single set per session seems to be enough
to elicit significant strength increases in trained participants
as long as certain training criteria, like intensity of effort and
using relatively heavy loads (as discussed below), are met.
Prior debate regarding set volume has often placed more
emphasis on discussing sets per session (either as per muscle
group or per exercise), while less emphasis has been placed
on sets per week, a detail that is critical to the topic of
minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM
strength. The minimum effective dose needs to be explored
both from a per-session as well as a per-week standpoint,
to be of practical use to individuals engaging in resistance
training as well as athletes and coaches. Indeed, recent meta-
analysis examining the dose–response nature of weekly
volume upon 1RM strength gains has suggested that higher
volumes (≥ 10 sets per week) optimise strength gains [35].
However, it should be noted that the meta-analysis of Ralston
etal. still noted ‘large’ (based upon standardised effect
sizes) strength gains for multi-joint exercise-specific 1RMs
in the lowest weekly volume examined (≤ 5 sets per week)
and only a ‘trivial’ difference between this and the highest
weekly volumes. It is common among PL athletes as well
as Olympic weightlifters to often look at the total amount
of working repetitions that were performed at specific load
zones per week per lift. A study by Gonzalez-Badillo etal.
[36] investigated the effect of lower, moderate and higher
volumes of training at different %1RM on experienced jun-
ior weightlifters in 10weeks. The study found that a moder-
ate amount of training volume per week produced superior
1RM increases in the SQ, Clean and Jerk (CJ) and Snatch
(SN) exercises when compared to the lower- and higher-
volume groups. Similarly, to some of the studies included in
this review in adult trainees, despite being less optimal, the
low-volume group still managed to experience significant
1RM increases in the SQ and CJ. The authors reported the
exact training programmes followed by the participants as
well as the total amount of repetitions and sets performed at
each load range. When excluding the repetitions performed
in the 60–70%1RM zone, which were not included in the
training protocol presented in the study, the lower-volume
group performed an average of 48.5 repetitions per week for
the SQ. The results of their study demonstrated that it is pos-
sible to elicit significant 1RM strength increases with lower
training volumes in a population that specifically trains for
1RM strength. Despite participants in the Gonzalez-Badillo
etal. [36] study using a higher amount of average load when
compared to the studies included in this review, they did
not reach volitional or momentary failure as they performed
multiple sets ranging from 1 to 6 repetitions per set. The
results of the above study further support the possibility of
higher effort being a potential potent variable in the context
of “minimum effective training dose” since participants in
the studies of this review performed less total working rep-
etitions per week. From the studies included in this review,
the highest working repetition ranges were 16–24 and
24–36 repetitions per week with loads ranging from 70 to
85%1RM [25, 27]. As briefly discussed above, recent data
in PL athletes [10] showed increases in SQ and DL 1RM
strength with as few as 2 and 1 repetitions (plus all warm-up
762 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
repetitions) per week performed with loads ranging from 90
to 97.5%1RM at an RPE rating of 9–9.5, hinting towards the
possibility of an even lower minimum effective training dose
for 1RM strength than previously thought.
As noted above, the most consistent variable that was
present in all studies that were included was high effort. Par-
ticipants in the included studies [21, 23–27] either reached
momentary failure or what they termed volitional failure.
Effort has previously been argued to be an important deter-
minant of adaptations when investigating the effect of light
loads on strength and hypertrophy [37]. Previous meta-anal-
ysis has shown that training with high amounts of effort can
result in increases in both muscle hypertrophy and strength
irrespective of load, as long as momentary failure is reached
[38]. Similarly, the results of this review suggest that effort
may be important in eliciting strength increases when train-
ing with volumes as low as 1 set per exercise per week [23,
25, 27].
The notion that low-dose training may require high efforts
to produce 1RM gains is to some extent supported by a
recent pilot study that was not included the review due to
not having a randomised trial study design. Androulakis-
Korakakis etal. [10], compared a traditional higher-volume
periodized PL protocol to an autoregulated “daily max”
single-set, single-repetition protocol in powerlifters prepar-
ing for competition. Powerlifters in the “daily max” group
performed a single set of a single repetition at a prescribed
RPE rating of 9–9.5, meaning with a load that would not
allow them to perform another repetition but was shy off
the absolute maximum load that the athletes could perform
on that day for a total of 10weeks. 4 out of 5 participants
experienced strength increases peri-training (i.e. during the
training intervention period), while the traditional perio-
dized PL protocol group appeared slightly better prepared
for competition. The participants of the “daily max” group
performed less than 10% of the total training volume than
the higher-volume group but still managed to increase their
peri-training PL total during the 5–7-week mark by perform-
ing 1–3 sets of a single repetition per week. Despite not
reaching momentary failure, the effort of the participants
was determined by the RPE rating that they were instructed
to reach, resulting in a high-effort, high-load single-repeti-
tion set. Effort may be a critical variable when looking at
the minimum effective training dose for 1RM strength in
resistance-trained individuals. The results of the Androula-
kis-Korakakis etal. [10] study also indicate that perhaps if
a heavier load, more specific to 1RM strength, is used then
the threshold for the minimum effective training dose may
be even lower than the current available data suggest.
Despite training with a high amount of effort being a pos-
sible important determinant for strength increases within
the context of the review’s topic, a more important deter-
minant for strength development is the load (%1RM) used.
Previous studies and reviews have shown that training load
and not training volume may be the main determinant of
1RM strength [38] and that training loads at the 1–6RM
range, which corresponds to approximately 100–85%1RM,
are optimal for strength development [39]. When investigat-
ing the minimum effective training dose required to increase
1RM strength, load is one of the important variables that
need to be examined. Although 4 out of the 6 included stud-
ies did not specify the exact %1RM used, the corresponding
values for %1RM, based on the repetition ranges to failure
reported, along with the reported load values in the remain-
ing 2 studies, were all between the 70 and 90%1RM mark.
Despite strength increases clearly being possible with light
loads as long as sufficient effort is present [37], the studies
included in the current review suggest that loads above the
70%1RM mark may be favourable for single sets to momen-
tary or volitional failure for trained participants looking to
increase strength by performing the minimum amount of
work required. A study by Schoenfeld etal. [5] found that
when comparing high-load and low-load sets to failure,
both conditions resulted in significant increases in 1RM
strength but heavier loads were superior as well as less time
consuming. The use of heavy loads rather than light loads
may also be more beneficial to strength athletes looking to
train as little as possible while still addressing the element
of specificity using loads that are considerably heavy or at
least heavy-enough to be considered “productive repetitions”
when it comes to the needs of their sport [10, 40].
Participants in 5 out of the 6 studies that met the inclusion
criteria trained the powerlift(s) more than once per week
resulting in a training frequency of 2–3 training sessions
per lift per week [21, 24–27]. The literature on the effect of
weekly training frequency, per muscle group, and its effect
on 1RM strength, currently shows that a higher training fre-
quency may potentially lead to greater 1RM gains in cer-
tain cases but not when training volume is equated [41–43].
Indeed, recent meta-analysis suggesting that low frequency
training likely has similar effects to higher frequencies
[44]. Despite the possibility of one single working set per
week being enough to increase 1RM strength, as shown in
the studies by Ostrowski etal. [23] and by Androulakis-
Korakakis etal. [10] for the DL, the lack of further studies
employing one single working set per week as well as the
limitations of the 2 studies mentioned show that performing
a single set 2–3 times a week may be required to increase
1RM strength in a particular lift. Aside from the number of
weekly sets required to increase 1RM strength, managing
progression from week to week can be critical to the success
of any resistance training protocol and needs to be taken in
consideration when looking at the minimum effective train-
ing dose. Participants in 5 out of the 6 studies reviewed,
performed repetitions to muscular or volitional failure within
a specified repetition range [23–27]. They progressed by
763
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
increasing repetitions until they were strong enough to sur-
pass that prescribed repetition range, after which load was
increased for the next session accounting for progressive
overload. In studies where progression was not specified
[21] the element of high effort allowed for progression to be
“automated” by requiring participants to reach momentary
or volitional failure as their strength increased throughout
the training intervention. The progression method seen in
the studies included in this review is of linear nature, as
load or repetitions were linearly increased across each train-
ing intervention, something that is supported by the current
evidence around the effectiveness of linear periodization on
1RM strength [45, 46].
Developing an understanding of how long the minimum
effective training dose can be effective for is also impor-
tant. All included studies were over 8weeks long in terms
of total intervention length. The recent study by Androu-
lakis-Korakakis etal. [10], where the lower-volume group
participants performed only 1–3 working repetitions per
week depending on the powerlift, found that peri-training
performance increased around the 5–7-week mark. Since
the studies included in this review utilised sets of multiple
repetitions as well as training close or to momentary failure,
it is possible that the lower the weekly working repetitions
are, the less time such a training approach will be effective
for increasing 1RM strength. At the moment, aside from the
Androulakis-Korakakis etal. [10] study, there are no data
on the effect of training volume as low as a 1–3 heavy-load
repetitions per week, and how long such training volume
would be effective for. Interestingly, the results of this review
showed that both the SQ and BP responded equally positive
to similar training protocols which contrast current evidence
on the lower body being more training volume dependent
than the upper body [47].
An important limitation of the all the studies reviewed
was the inclusion of additional exercises along the power-
lifts throughout the training interventions. The additional
exercises in 3 of the studies included [23, 24] engaged some
of the musculature involved in the main powerlift(s) tested,
e.g.: leg press and shoulder press, something that could
have possibly affected the strength increases experienced
by the participants in the SQ and BP. It is important to note
that a corresponding load calculated based on RM may not
be fully accurate as different populations may be able to
perform a different amount of repetitions at a given %1RM
[48, 49]. Thus, the corresponding load assigned to the stud-
ies that did not report load in the form of %1RM must be
interpreted with caution. An interesting limitation is that
since lower repetition sets were largely not included, it is
currently unknown whether training with heavier loads but
fewer repetitions could be equally or even more effective
than single sets of 8–12 repetitions. Another limitation was
that none of the studies reviewed included the DL as part of
the powerlifts tested pre/post training intervention. Despite
the minimum effective training dose possibly also being
effective for DL 1RM strength, more data are required to
solidify such a stance. Although participants in the studies
included were resistance trained, their strength level would
not be classified higher than intermediate when looked at
from a PL perspective. This limits the applicability of the
results of this review to highly trained strength athletes as
they may not be able to increase 1RM strength with such
low volumes of training. Future research should look to per-
form studies on strength athletes, as well as trained women,
performing the 3 powerlifts and other multi-joint exercises
to properly evaluate the concept of the minimum effective
training dose required to increase 1RM strength. Lastly, it is
unclear the extent to which the 1RM strength changes pos-
sible with low-dose resistance training, albeit significant,
are practically meaningful for coaches and athletes. Our
estimates suggested increases in overall 1RM of 12.04kg
[95% CIs 8.16kg–16.03kg], and increases of 17.48 kg
[95% CIs 8.51kg–26.46kg] for the SQ, and 8.25kg [95%
CIs 0.68kg–15.83kg] for the BP. Future work should look
to determine the smallest effect size that coaches and ath-
letes would deem to be of importance (for example, using
surveys) to enhance the practical applications of findings
regarding strength changes from resistance training.
6 Conclusion
The results of the present systematic review suggest that
performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads
ranging from 70–85%1RM 2–3 times per week with high
intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary fail-
ure) for 8–12weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant
increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained
men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear
as to whether these improvements may also be achievable
in DL 1RM strength or in trained women or highly trained
strength athletes.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation
of this article.
Conflict of interest Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis, James P. Fisher
and James Steele declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant
to the content of this review.
References
1. Artero E, Lee D, Ruiz J, Sui X, Ortega F, Church T, Lavie C,
Castillo M, Blair S. A prospective study of muscular strength and
764 P.Androulakis-Korakakis et al.
all-cause mortality in men with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2011;57:1831–7.
2. Suchomel T, Nimphius S, Stone M. The Importance of muscular
strength in athletic performance. Sports Med. 2016;46:1419–49.
3. Steele J, Fisher J, Skivington M, Dunn C, Arnold J, Tew G, Bat-
terham A, Nunan D, O’Driscoll J, Mann S, Beedie C, Jobson S,
Smith D, Vigotsky A, Phillips S, Estabrooks P, Winett R. A higher
effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public
health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance train-
ing. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:300.
4. Mangine G, Hoffman J, Gonzalez A, Townsend J, Wells A, Jajt-
ner A, Beyer K, Boone C, Miramonti A, Wang R, LaMonica M,
Fukuda D, Ratamess N, Stout J. The effect of training volume
and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in
resistance-trained men. Physiol Rep. 2015;3:e12472.
5. Schoenfeld B, Peterson M, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez
G. Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle
strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015;29:2954–63.
6. Barbalho M, Coswig V, Steele J, Fisher J, Paoli A, Gentil P. Evi-
dence for an upper threshold for resistance training volume in
trained women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:515–22.
7. Schoenfeld B, Ogborn D, Krieger J. Dose-response relation-
ship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in
muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Sci.
2016;35:1073–83.
8. Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously
within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether?
Br J Sports Med. 2013;48:1586–8.
9. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo
E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, Blanco R.
Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion
scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res.
2016;30:267–75.
10. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher J, Kolokotronis P, Gentil P,
Steele J. Reduced volume ‘daily max’ training compared to
higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for
competition—a pilot study. Sports. 2018;6:86.
11. Coutts A, Reaburn P, Piva T, Murphy A. Changes in selected
biochemical, muscular strength, power, and endurance measures
during deliberate overreaching and tapering in rugby league play-
ers. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28:116–24.
12. Pritchard H, Tod D, Barnes M, Keogh J, McGuigan M. Tapering
practices of new zealandʼs elite raw powerlifters. J Strength Cond
Res. 2016;30:1796–804.
13. Raeder C, Wiewelhove T, Westphal-Martinez M, Fernandez-Fer-
nandez J, de Paula Simola R, Kellmann M, Meyer T, Pfeiffer M,
Ferrauti A. Neuromuscular fatigue and physiological responses
after five dynamic squat exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res.
2016;30:953–65.
14. Ferreira D, Gentil P, Ferreira-Junior J, Soares S, Brown L, Bottaro
M. Dissociated time course between peak torque and total work
recovery following bench press training in resistance trained men.
Physiol Behav. 2017;179:143–7.
15. Baechle T. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 4th
ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2016.
16. Paoli A, Gentil P, Moro T, Marcolin G, Bianco A. Resistance
training with single vs. multi-joint exercises at equal total load
volume: effects on body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness,
and muscle strength. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1105.
17. Fleck S, Kraemer W. Designing resistance training programs. 4th
ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2014.
18. Moher D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med.
2009;151:264.
19. Maher C, Sherrington C, Herbert R, Moseley A, Elkins M. Reli-
ability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized con-
trolled Trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83:713–21.
20. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic
reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration;
2011.
21. Marshall P, McEwen M, Robbins D. Strength and neuromuscu-
lar adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high inten-
sity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2011;11:3007–16.
22. Robbins D, Marshall P, McEwen M. The effect of training volume
on lower-body strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:34–9.
23. Ostrowski K, Wilson G, Weatherby R, Murphy P, Lyttle A. The
effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular
size and function. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:148–54.
24. Schoenfeld B, Contreras B, Krieger J, Grgic J, Delcastillo K,
Belliard R, Alto A. Resistance training volume enhances muscle
hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:94–103.
25. Kramer J, Stone M, O’Bryant H, Conley M, Johnson R, Nie-
man D, Honeycutt D, Hoke T. Effects of single vs. multiple sets
of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J
Strength Cond Res. 1997;11:143.
26. Rhea M, Alvar B, Ball S, Burkett L. Three sets of weight train-
ing superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J
Strength Cond Res. 2002;16:525–9.
27. Baker J, Davies B, Cooper S, Wong D, Buchan D, Kilgore L.
Strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-
trained individuals: comparison of one versus three sets resist-
ance-training programmes. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:1–6.
28. Lander J. Maximum based on reps. Strength Cond J. 1984;6:60.
29. Fisher J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. A randomized trial to consider
the effect of Romanian deadlift exercise on the development of
lumbar extension strength. Phys Ther Sport. 2013;14:139–45.
30. Peterson M, Rhea M, Alvar B. Maximizing strength development
in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response rela-
tionship. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;20018:377.
31. Scott B, Duthie G, Thornton H, Dascombe B. Training monitor-
ing for resistance exercise: theory and applications. Sports Med.
2016;46:697–8.
32. Carpinelli R, Otto R. Strength training: single versus multiple sets.
Sports Med. 1998;27:409–16.
33. Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. Evidence-based resist-
ance training recommendations. Med Sportiva. 2011;15:147–62.
34. Krieger J. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a
meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:1890–901.
35. Ralston GW, Kigore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly
set volume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2017;12:2585–601.
36. Gonzalez-Badillo J, Izquierdo M, Gorostiaga E. Moderate volume
of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains
compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20:73–81.
37. Fisher J, Steele J, Smith D. High- and low-load resistance train-
ing: interpretation and practical application of current research
findings. Sports Med. 2017;47:393–400.
38. Schoenfeld B, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger J. Strength and hyper-
trophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31:3508–23.
39. Benedict T. Manipulating resistance training program variables
to optimize maximum strength in men: a review. J Strength Cond
Res. 1999;13:289.
40. Mattocks K, Buckner S, Jessee M, Dankel S, Mouser J, Loen-
neke J. Practicing the test produces strength equivalent to higher
volume training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1945–54.
41. Brigatto F, Branz T, Zanini T, Germano M, Aoki M, Schoenfeld
B, Marchetti P, Lopes C. Effect of resistance training frequency on
765
The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength
neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology after eight
weeks in trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;8:2104–16.
42. Gomes G, Franco C, Nunes P, Orsatti F. High-frequency resist-
ance training is not more effective than low-frequency resistance
training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-trained
men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33:130–9.
43. Grgic J, Schoenfeld B, Davies T, Lazinica B, Krieger J, Pedisiz
Z. Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular
strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2018;48:1207–20.
44. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Buchan D, Baker JS. Weekly
training frequency effects on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports
Med Open. 2018;1:36.
45. Prestes J, Lima C, Frollini A, Donatto F, Conte M. Comparison of
linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength
and body composition. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23:266–74.
46. Harries S, Lubans D, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-
analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance train-
ing programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res.
2015;29:1113–25.
47. Ronnestad B, Egeland W, Kvamme N, Refsnes P, Kadi F, Raastad
T. Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength training on
strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in
untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:157–63.
48. Richens B, Cleather D. The relationship between the number of
repetitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance
and strength trained athletes. Biol Sport. 2014;31:157–61.
49. Hoeger W, Hopkins D, Barette S, Hale D. Relationship between
repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum:
a comparison between untrained and trained males and females.
J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4:47.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sports Medicine
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
