How many sets per muscle group per week to build muscle

For most lifters, 10 to 20 working sets per muscle group per week is a sensible target. Fewer sets still build muscle, only more slowly. More sets can add a bit more, but each extra set adds less than the one before.

The 10 comes from Schoenfeld et al. (2017), where groups doing 10 or more weekly sets grew the most. The 20 comes from Baz-Valle et al. (2022), who suggested 12 to 20 sets for trained lifters. The newest and largest review, Pelland et al. (2025), gives no range at all. It models a curve.

What the three reviews found

Schoenfeld et al. (2017): 10 or more sets grew the most

Schoenfeld, Ogborn and Krieger pooled 15 studies (34 training groups) in the Journal of Sports Sciences (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Treated as a continuous number, each extra weekly set per muscle went with about 0.37% more muscle growth over the study (P = 0.002).

They also sorted the groups into fewer than 5, 5 to 9, and 10 or more weekly sets. Average growth was 5.4%, 6.6% and 9.8%. That three-way comparison was only a trend (P = 0.074), so read “10 or more” as a direction, not a proven cutoff. It also shows that groups doing fewer than 5 sets still grew.

Baz-Valle et al. (2022): 12 to 20 sets for trained lifters

Baz-Valle and colleagues looked only at randomized trials of at least six weeks in lifters aged 18 to 35 with a year or more of training (Baz-Valle et al., 2022). Seven studies qualified. They grouped volume as low (under 12 weekly sets), moderate (12–20) and high (over 20).

Moderate and high volume gave similar growth in the quads and biceps. High volume did better for the triceps. Their conclusion was that 12 to 20 weekly sets per muscle “may be an optimum standard recommendation” for young, trained men. Seven studies is a small base, and the conclusion is limited to that group.

Pelland et al. (2025): a curve with diminishing returns

In December 2025, Pelland, Zourdos and colleagues published a series of meta-regressions in Sports Medicine (Pelland et al., 2025). They pooled 67 studies and 2,058 participants (average age 25, about 79% men) to see how weekly sets and training frequency relate to gains in muscle and strength. What they found:

• More weekly sets meant more muscle growth and more strength gain.
• Returns diminish: each added set brings a bit less than the last. For strength, the curve flattens much sooner than for muscle size.
• With weekly sets held equal, training a muscle more often made a negligible difference to growth. It did help strength.
• Sets that work a muscle only indirectly fit the data best when counted as half a set.

The paper doesn't name a set target or a cutoff.

Frequency matters more for strength than for size

Because frequency barely changed growth in Pelland's data, it is mostly a scheduling choice when size is the goal. Sixteen weekly sets of chest can be two sessions of 8 or four of 4. Strength is different: if a bigger squat or bench is the goal, practicing the lift two or more times a week has evidence behind it.

Do indirect sets count?

Partly. Pelland's team labeled every set in the studies as direct or indirect for the muscle being measured. For the biceps, a curl is direct and a row is indirect. They then tried three ways of counting indirect sets: as a full set, as half a set, and not at all. Half a set fit the data best.

Applied to a normal week, 10 sets of rows and pulldowns give your biceps about 5 sets, and 12 sets of bench and overhead press give your triceps about 6. Add a few sets of curls on top of a lot of pulling and your biceps may already be in the 10–20 range.

By default, PRGRES counts each set toward the exercise's main muscle only, so rows add to back and nothing to biceps. Turn on Count Secondary Muscles in Settings and each set also adds half a set to the exercise's secondary muscles, the same weighting that fit the data best above.

What counts as a set

The studies count working sets, so warm-ups don't count. How close a set ends to failure matters too. A 2024 meta-regression by Robinson, Pelland, Zourdos and colleagues found that muscle growth increased the closer sets were taken to failure, while strength gains were similar across a wide range (Robinson et al., 2024). The authors call it exploratory, because reps in reserve had to be estimated from how each study described its training.

A practical cutoff is a set that ends within about 3 reps of failure (RPE 7 or higher). The paper doesn't set a cutoff; that one is mine. If you plan sets by RPE, the RPE calculator gives the load for the reps and RPE you want.

In PRGRES, sets marked W (warm-up) stay out of the weekly count. Every other completed set counts, whatever its RPE.

How long to rest between sets

A separate 2024 review by Singer, Schoenfeld and colleagues pooled 9 studies (19 measurements) on rest intervals and muscle growth (Singer et al., 2024). It found a small benefit from resting longer than 60 seconds, possibly because very short rest lowers the weight and reps you manage on later sets. Beyond 90 seconds it found no appreciable difference. The effects were small and uncertain: the credible intervals cross zero.

So rest at least 60 to 90 seconds between working sets. Longer is fine if it helps you match your reps from one set to the next.

PRGRES starts a rest timer when you check off a set. The default is 2 minutes. You can change it in Settings or give an exercise its own time, and add or remove 15 seconds while you rest. A timer keeps you from cutting rest short by accident, but it matters less than the sets and reps you log.

Tracking weekly sets in PRGRES

PRGRES, the free iPhone workout tracker I make, counts your working sets per muscle for the current week as you log.

During a workout, each exercise has a chip like “1/10 sets this week.” The first number is your working sets this calendar week for that exercise's main muscle. The second is the weekly target for that muscle. The chip changes color as you go from below the minimum to over the limit.

In Stats, the Muscle Map tab tags each muscle with this week's status: Below MEV, Minimum Effective, Optimal, Near Limit or Exceeds MRV. A separate Needs Work tag marks muscles that get far fewer sessions and sets than the rest. Volume Landmarks, one tap further, lists every muscle with its sets this week, its target, and how many sessions trained it in the last 7 days.

Where the targets come from

MEV (minimum effective volume), MAV (maximum adaptive volume) and MRV (maximum recoverable volume) are coaching terms popularized by Renaissance Periodization. They aren't study results, and RP calls its own volume numbers “starting points, not gospel” (RP, Training Volume Landmarks). Treat the numbers in PRGRES the same way.

The targets depend on your experience level, which PRGRES estimates from your workout history. New users start at beginner. RP treats MAV as a range between MEV and MRV. PRGRES picks one number inside that range as the weekly target, and that is the second number in the chip. These are the intermediate values, in working sets per week:

Every target except forearms sits between 12 and 16, inside the 10–20 range from the reviews. Beginner values are lower (chest is 4, 10 and 16, which is why the chip above reads 1/10) and advanced values are higher (chest is 8, 17 and 22).

Adjusting your weekly sets

Pick a target for each muscle, log every set for two weeks, then compare what you did with what you planned.

If a muscle isn't growing and you're recovering fine, add 1 or 2 weekly sets for it and give that a month or two before you change it again. If your reps at the same weight keep dropping over two or three sessions, cut sets instead. Those two rules are mine. None of the studies above tested them.

PRGRES shows “Deload may help recovery” on a muscle's exercises during your workout when that muscle's weekly sets reach its MRV two weeks in a row, or when your logged RPE for it averages 8.5 or higher two sessions running. For adding weight and reps week to week, see how to track progressive overload.

Sources

1. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1073–1082. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
2. Baz-Valle E, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Alix-Fages C, Santos-Concejero J. A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. J Hum Kinet. 2022;81:199–210. PMC8884877
3. Pelland JC, Remmert JF, Robinson ZP, Hinson SR, Zourdos MC. The resistance training dose response: meta-regressions exploring the effects of weekly volume and frequency on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Sports Med. 2026;56(2):481–505 (online December 4, 2025). doi:10.1007/s40279-025-02344-w
4. Robinson ZP, Pelland JC, Remmert JF, Refalo MC, Jukic I, Steele J, Zourdos MC. Exploring the dose-response relationship between estimated resistance training proximity to failure, strength gain, and muscle hypertrophy: a series of meta-regressions. Sports Med. 2024;54(9):2209–2231. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02069-2
5. Singer A, Wolf M, Generoso L, et al. Give it a rest: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis on the effect of inter-set rest interval duration on muscle hypertrophy. Front Sports Act Living. 2024;6:1429789. doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1429789