Understanding how competitive physique athletes structure their training is one of the most important questions in bodybuilding. While theory suggests that training volume is a key driver of hypertrophy, the actual week-to-week training patterns of athletes across the competitive season have rarely been documented—until now.

A new 2025 study by Beraldo and colleagues provides rare insights into how physique athletes train across different divisions and phases of the year. Unlike controlled laboratory studies that focus on a small number of exercises, this research collected real-world training data from bodybuilders and physique athletes. The result is a unique snapshot of how resistance training volume and cardio shift between the off-season and contest prep.

Background: why training volume matters

Training volume, typically defined as the number of working sets per muscle group per week, is one of the most discussed variables in resistance training programming. Research has shown that higher volumes, within reason, can promote greater hypertrophy.

Physique athletes face unique challenges. During contest prep, they must maintain muscle while cutting body fat, managing fatigue, and recovering in a calorie deficit. Different divisions place different emphasis on muscle groups. Classic Bodybuilding may reward pec and shoulder development, while Bikini and Wellness divisions place more emphasis on glutes and shoulders.

Despite years of theory and coaching advice, little actual data existed on how athletes in different divisions train in the off-season versus prep. Most resistance training studies are limited in scope, often testing only two or three exercises such as squats, leg presses, or leg extensions to represent lower body training. For example, Schoenfeld et al. (2018) capped their analysis at knee extensions, barbell squats, and leg press, while Enes et al. tested very high weekly set volumes (up to 52) using only three exercises.

This leaves out crucial elements of bodybuilding training—hamstring work, glute isolation, and accessory movements such as hip abductions or kickbacks—that athletes rely on to refine their physiques. The Beraldo et al. (2025) study aimed to fill this gap by systematically quantifying weekly training volume across ten muscle groups.

Purpose of the study

The primary aim was to quantify and compare weekly resistance training volume per muscle group during the off-season and pre-contest phases. Secondary aims included examining differences between men’s and women’s divisions and tracking cardio frequency and duration across training phases. The goal was to provide a division-specific snapshot of how athletes balance training, recovery, and conditioning demands throughout the year.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study involving competitive physique athletes from multiple federations, including the IFBB Elite Pro, NPC, WNBF, NABBA, and others.

Athletes reported training data for both their off-season and contest prep periods. The survey captured the number of exercises performed per muscle group, the average number of sets per exercise, and the weekly frequency of training for each muscle group.

Weekly training volume was calculated using the formula:
Exercises × Sets × Frequency = Weekly Training Volume

The analysis included ten muscle groups: pectorals, deltoids, latissimus dorsi, biceps, triceps, quadriceps, hamstrings, gluteals, calves, and abdominals.

Cardio training was also documented, including both frequency and average duration per session.

Results

Overall training trends: Resistance training volume was consistently higher in the off-season compared to contest prep. Cardio volume increased sharply during prep, with more sessions of longer duration. The trade-off was slightly less lifting and much more cardio.

Muscle group trends: Quadriceps and hamstrings were among the highest-volume muscle groups, especially in the off-season. Calves and abdominals consistently received low training volume. Nearly all muscle groups experienced reduced training volume in contest prep, with the steepest reductions in quadriceps and chest. Biceps and triceps remained consistent, but at lower volumes compared to larger muscle groups.

Exercise selection in men: During the off-season, the most common exercises were lat pulldowns, squats, 45° leg press, seated hamstring curls, and seated calf raises. During contest prep, the most frequent exercises were squats, seated hamstring curls, 45° leg press, back extensions, and seated calf raises.

Exercise selection in women: During the off-season, the most common exercises were seated hamstring curls, squats, leg extensions, lat pulldowns, and hip abduction machine. During contest prep, squats, seated hamstring curls, leg extensions, hip thrusts, and hip adduction machine were prioritized.

Division-specific insights: Bikini athletes reported the lowest overall training volumes. Shoulder sets doubled from approximately 7.5 in the off-season to 15 in prep, while glute sets decreased from 31 to 15. Wellness athletes consistently maintained 24 weekly glute sets across both phases. Classic Physique men reported the highest glute volumes among male divisions, with 12 weekly sets in both phases.

Interpretation

The findings suggest that contest prep is marked by selective reductions in resistance training volume, especially for large upper-body muscles in men, combined with a substantial increase in cardio.

Off-season training placed more emphasis on division-specific aesthetics. For example, Classic Bodybuilding favored higher pec and delt volumes, while Bikini and Wellness competitors maintained high glute focus.

These reported volumes provide valuable benchmarks but should not be mistaken for “optimal.” The study shows how athletes allocate training in practice, but individualization remains key.

Conclusion

Weekly training volume in physique athletes is tailored to both the season phase and the division’s judging criteria. The off-season prioritizes building muscle with higher resistance volumes, while contest prep shifts toward maintaining muscle and increasing cardio.

The study by Beraldo et al. (2025) is one of the first to capture real-world programming at scale, offering both researchers and practitioners a clearer view of how athletes actually train.

Want to follow evidence-based programs designed for physique athletes? Check out my Road to Worlds, Ms. Bikini Olympia, or Pro Fitness Model programs — just $12.99 each → https://shop.bia-body.com/collections/training-programs

Frequently Asked Questions

How many sets do physique athletes do per week?
According to Beraldo et al. (2025), weekly training volume varies by muscle group and division, but many physique athletes report between 15–30 weekly sets for larger muscles like the quads, glutes, and hamstrings during the off-season. Smaller muscle groups such as biceps and calves often receive less, in the range of 7–12 sets.

Do physique athletes train less during contest prep?
Yes. Across divisions, resistance training volume tends to decrease during contest prep. This reduction helps athletes manage fatigue and recovery while in a calorie deficit. At the same time, cardio training usually increases in both frequency and duration.

Which muscles get the most training volume?
Quads, hamstrings, and glutes typically receive the highest training volumes. Glute training is especially prioritized in Bikini and Wellness divisions, while pecs and delts receive greater emphasis in Classic Bodybuilding.

Why do Bikini athletes have lower training volumes than other divisions?
Bikini competitors reported some of the lowest total weekly set volumes in the Beraldo et al. (2025) study. This reflects the judging criteria of the division, which emphasizes balance, symmetry, and lower levels of muscularity compared to Classic or Wellness categories.

How accurate is self-reported training data?
Self-reported surveys provide valuable insight into real-world training practices, but they rely on athletes accurately recalling and reporting their programs. These results show what athletes are doing, not necessarily what is optimal for muscle growth.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post How physique athletes really train: off-season vs contest prep appeared first on BiaBody.

But let’s dig into this a bit deeper. What does “looking like I work out” even mean, and where does that expectation come from?

The truth behind “fitspo” images

Our perception of what a fit or muscular body should look like is shaped by:

• Social media filters and posing

• Extreme leanness, which isn’t always healthy or sustainable

• Genetics and body composition

• Performance-enhancing drugs (often unspoken but common)

• Strategic lighting, angles, and camera tricks

So if your progress doesn’t match the aesthetic you’re seeing online, it doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. It means the goalposts were never real to begin with.

Why you and your friend train the same… but look different

Fitness results aren’t one-size-fits-all. Even with similar routines, people respond differently due to:

• Genetics

• Hormonal differences

• Age and training history

• Body type

• Past dieting and metabolic adaptation

Visible changes can vary wildly—even if two people lift the same weights and follow the same program.

What real progress actually looks like

Aesthetics are only one piece of the puzzle. Many of the most important changes from training happen beneath the surface. For example:

• Increased lean mass without dramatic external change — research indicates that a typical increase is about 2–3mm of muscle thickness every 2–3 months, which isn’t immediately visible.

• Stronger bones, improved insulin sensitivity, better blood biomarkers, enhanced heart health, and overall fitness

• Improved energy levels, better stress resilience, improved sleep, or enhanced mental health

These physiological and mental shifts are major wins—even if they don’t show up in your next gym selfie.

Track what really matters. Use the free BiaBody Progress Tracker to monitor your non-scale victories like strength, energy, sleep, and mood.

Shift your mindset: train for health, not just looks

Focusing only on what you see in the mirror can make training feel discouraging. But when you shift your mindset to what training gives you—strength, confidence, resilience—you unlock a much more rewarding fitness journey.

This is the approach we take in our 1:1 coaching and training programs: science-backed, results-driven plans that go beyond aesthetics.

Let go of unrealistic standards

So the next time you catch yourself thinking, “I don’t look like I work out,” ask instead:

• Am I getting stronger?

• Do I feel more confident?

• Is my health improving?

You might be making more progress than you realize.

Ready to make training feel better—and more effective?

Explore our coaching options
Download your training program
Track the progress that matters

You deserve to feel proud of your progress—even if it doesn’t look like a fitness influencer’s highlight reel.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Why don’t I look like I workout? appeared first on BiaBody.

Have you ever wondered if taking a short break from the gym could actually help you grow more muscle?

There’s been a lot of buzz around the idea of deloads—a planned reduction in training volume or intensity—to help your body recover and potentially boost results. But do deloads really work? And can you make gains by training less?

Let’s dive into what the latest research has to say.

What are deloads?

A deload is a short, intentional break in your training plan—typically lasting a few days to a week. It’s used to reduce fatigue, aid recovery, and in theory, re-sensitize your muscles to the training stimulus.

The concept is based on the idea that when you train continuously, your muscles adapt and gains start to slow. Some experts believe that a strategic pause could “reset” your responsiveness and potentially reignite growth.

Muscle re-sensitization: Why it matters

When you first start lifting, progress is often rapid. But as your body adapts, those gains taper off. This is where the theory of muscle re-sensitization comes in.

Research suggests that with ongoing training, the molecular signals that stimulate muscle growth become less active. However, taking time off may “re-sensitize” these signals, allowing for renewed progress when training resumes.

In animal models and some human studies, this effect has been linked to increased muscle protein synthesis following a rest period.

One pivotal 2013 study explored this by comparing continuous vs. periodic training. Participants who took 3-week breaks every 6 weeks showed similar hypertrophy compared to those who trained non-stop for 24 weeks. That sparked the question: could shorter deloads offer the same benefit?

The 2023 study on deloads

Coleman et al. (2023) published a study titled:

Gaining more from doing less? The effects of a one-week deload period during supervised resistance training on muscular adaptations Link to study

This study examined whether a 1-week deload, implemented mid-way through a 9-week training cycle, would improve muscle growth and strength in trained individuals.

Study design and methodology

• Participants: 39 experienced resistance-trained adults
• Training split: 2 upper-body + 2 lower-body sessions per week
• Exercises: Smith machine squat, leg extension, straight-leg toe press, seated calf raise (notably lacking posterior chain work)
• Reps & sets: 5 sets of 8–12 reps to failure with 2-minute rest intervals
• Deload group: Took week 5 off entirely
• Control group: Trained continuously for 9 weeks

Upper-body training was prescribed but unsupervised. Participants were asked to maintain regular dietary habits throughout.

Key results

• Both groups saw similar hypertrophy results
• The control group had slightly better strength gains (Smith machine squat and isometric knee extension)
• Authors concluded a 1-week deload did not significantly enhance or impair muscular adaptations

The findings suggest that a short break doesn’t hurt your progress, but it might not provide measurable hypertrophic benefits in a moderate program either.

Study limitations and deeper analysis

While the study was well-structured, several important limitations deserve attention:

1. No post-deload measurement: Muscle size wasn’t measured immediately after the deload, missing potential short-term re-sensitization effects.
2. Volume discrepancy: The deload group completed 16 workouts vs. 18 in the control group. This raises the question of whether differences were due to rest or simply less training.
3. High compliance blurred data: 96% adherence meant any minor missed sessions could equalize group volume, making outcomes harder to interpret.
4. Low training volume: The study wasn’t designed to induce overreaching or accumulated fatigue—which is when deloads are most impactful.

Can deloads boost your progress?

This study didn’t disprove muscle re-sensitization. It simply didn’t capture it.

The authors claimed their data provided evidence against the value of deloads, but their methodology didn’t support such a strong conclusion. The lack of acute muscle measurement and the modest training stimulus limit its applicability.

Deloads likely offer the most benefit after high-intensity blocks, during periods of fatigue, or to prevent overtraining.

Takeaway: Are deloads worth it?

Yes—but context matters.

If you’re training hard and consistently, a deload can:

• Help manage fatigue
• Support long-term recovery
• Prevent plateaus
• Possibly enhance muscle re-sensitization

If your program is moderate and you’re feeling great, a deload might not change much. But the reassurance that you won’t lose gains during a short break is valuable.

Final thoughts

The 2023 study by Coleman et al. adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that deloads are safe and may have strategic value—but more research is needed to measure their full potential.

So, don’t fear taking time off when you need it. Smartly timed deloads can be part of a successful long-term training strategy.

For help structuring your next training cycle, explore 1:1 coaching or download the BiaFit App.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Do deloads actually work? What the research says about taking a week off training appeared first on BiaBody.

Various factors related to exercise technique have become hot topics in the evidence-based fitness space. A narrative review published in 2024 seemed to suggest we don’t know as much as we think about how technique impacts hypertrophy.

In this review, the authors concluded that “when trying to maximize hypertrophy, one should employ a ROM that emphasizes training at long muscle lengths, while also employing a repetition tempo of between 2 and 8 seconds.”

The long muscle length recommendation, however, seems to be much more nuanced than presented. Regardless, the paper sparked a lot of conversation—and in many ways, underplayed the importance of exercise technique. Or at least, it admitted the direct evidence for many technique-based recommendations was lacking.

Do cheaters prosper? A closer look at the new study

As a follow-up, a new study titled “Do Cheaters Prosper?” set out to answer that question directly. Conducted by researchers at CUNY Lehman College with contributions from well-known fitness educator Jeff Nippard, this is one of the most direct investigations we’ve seen on this topic.

Here’s how they did it:

• Participants: 30 untrained men and women

• Design: Each person trained both arms, but in two different ways

  • One arm: strict, controlled form

  • Other arm: used external momentum (aka cheat reps)

• Exercises: Bicep curls and tricep pushdowns

• Training duration: Twice a week for 8 weeks

• Sets/reps: 4 sets of 8–12 reps per arm, going to momentary failure

• Measurement: Muscle thickness via ultrasound at 55% and 65% of upper arm length

What did they find?

Both arms experienced muscle growth—no surprise there. But here’s the key finding:

There was no significant difference in muscle growth between the cheat reps and strict reps.

That’s right—using momentum didn’t help, but it didn’t hurt either.

Participants saw moderate hypertrophy, with changes in muscle thickness ranging between 5.6% and 14.7%.

Interestingly, total training volume (the amount of weight lifted over the 8 weeks) was significantly higher in the cheat rep condition. Some participants lifted nearly double the volume with the cheat arm.

And yet… muscle growth remained the same. Why?

The likely explanation is that the added momentum shifted some of the effort away from the target muscles (biceps and triceps) and onto supporting muscles like the shoulders, back, and legs. So, even though the load increased, the stimulus to the target muscle likely stayed about the same.

So should you use cheat reps?

Cheat reps aren’t necessarily bad. In fact, this study shows they can be used without compromising muscle growth—at least in beginners performing isolation exercises.

But that doesn’t mean cheat reps are superior, or that strict form is irrelevant. Strict form is still your safest bet, especially over longer periods or when performing complex, multi-joint movements.

The study did report some minor complaints (like elevated heart rate during cheat reps), but no serious injuries. Still, the authors cautioned that momentum-based lifting could increase joint and tendon stress over time if form breaks down.

Also, keep in mind:
This study looked at beginners doing single-joint exercises. We still don’t know how cheat reps affect advanced lifters or compound lifts like deadlifts or rows.

Reframing the discussion: is this eccentric overload?

Let’s think critically about why both training arms saw growth.

It’s likely that the cheat reps created what’s known as eccentric overload. Using momentum during the concentric phase (lifting the weight) allows for heavier loads to be lifted overall. But the key detail is this: the cheat rep group still controlled the eccentric (lowering) phase for ~2 seconds.

In this light, the study could be reframed as comparing traditional isotonic training to eccentric overload training—which would explain the similar results.

The takeaway?

Cheat reps work… if you control the negative.

Final thoughts: cheat reps as training tools

It’s worth noting that the cheat group likely spent less time at long muscle lengths. That’s an important insight because it challenges the prevailing belief that long muscle lengths are the most critical factor in hypertrophy.

So here’s the big picture:

Cheat reps, used carefully, aren’t muscle killers
You can use them to push past failure or add training variety
But they shouldn’t replace strict form as your default

Think of cheat reps like hot sauce:
Great for a little extra kick, but not something to pour over every workout.

Train with purpose. Know why you’re doing what you’re doing. That’s how real progress happens. Learn about which tempo wins for muscle growth here.

Reference:

Oikawa SY, Miller G, Janas G, Nippard J, Jenkins ND, Tinsley GM, Schoenfeld BJ. (2024). “Do Cheaters Prosper? A Within-Subject Investigation into the Effects of Cheat Repetitions on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength.”
Read the full study on ResearchGate

Want more information about optimizing your muscle growth? 

Check out these audio articles from past issues of BiaBrain magazine:

• Why is Muscle Growth Limited
• Increasing Training Volume & Muscle Growth
• Cluster Sets versus Traditional Sets for Muscle Hypertrophy?

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Do cheat reps help or hurt muscle growth? New 2024 study breaks it down appeared first on BiaBody.

A newly released preprint study provides fresh data comparing the effects of lengthened partials (LP) and full range of motion (ROM) training with added partials on muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained individuals. This article reviews the study’s methods, findings, and implications for program design.

Background: Prior findings on lengthened partials

Previous research by the same group of investigators examined the effects of lengthened partial supersets (LPSS)—repetitions performed in the stretched position beyond failure—on muscle growth in untrained individuals. In that study, participants in the LPSS condition experienced an average increase of 0.19 cm in medial gastrocnemius thickness, compared to 0.14 cm in the full ROM condition.²

Although the absolute difference in growth was only 0.05 cm, the result was heavily amplified online, with claims of “43% more muscle growth” in the LP group. While technically accurate in relative terms, this reporting was misleading given the small magnitude of change. The observed difference is unlikely to be practically meaningful and warrants further investigation in trained individuals.

The new study: Research in trained lifters

The most recent study by Larsen et al.¹ sought to address this gap by examining the effects of lengthened partials in a more experienced population. The study included 23 resistance-trained individuals, defined as participants who had performed at least two resistance training sessions per week for the previous three years.

Researchers employed a within-subjects design, where each participant trained both legs separately under different conditions:

• One leg performed Smith machine calf raises with full ROM, followed by lengthened partials to failure

• The other leg performed lengthened partials only, taken to failure

Of note, three participants reported not including calf-specific exercises in their routines at the time of the study, which may have affected their responsiveness to the intervention.

Training protocol and outcome measures

Participants trained calves twice per week for 8 weeks. The repetition ranges were structured to balance training volume across both legs:

• LP group: 10–20 repetition maximum (RM)

• ROM + LP group: 5–10 RM followed by 5–10 lengthened partials

To assess hypertrophic changes, medial gastrocnemius muscle thickness was measured using B-mode ultrasound before and after the training period.

Study results: Small differences in muscle growth

Following the 8-week intervention, researchers observed:

• ~0.19 cm of growth in the lengthened partials group

• ~0.13 cm of growth in the full ROM + partials group

The difference between the two conditions—0.06 cm—was minimal. Although the authors noted a possible advantage for lengthened partials, they emphasized that the magnitude of difference was small and that the strength of the evidence was limited.

Conclusion: Practical implications for training

Despite growing interest in lengthened partials, current evidence does not support the notion that they are significantly superior to full range of motion training. In this study, both methods were effective for stimulating hypertrophy in the medial gastrocnemius of resistance-trained individuals, with only marginal differences observed between the two.

Given the modest findings and the limitations of the study design, there is no compelling reason to replace full ROM training if it aligns with individual preference and performance goals. Ultimately, consistency, enjoyment, progressive overload, and recovery remain the most important factors for long-term muscle development.

Reference and Study Link

Preprint Available:
Larsen S, Sandberg NØ, Schoenfeld BJ, Fredriksen AB, Fredriksen BS, Wolf M, van den Tillaar R, Swinton PA, Falch HN. Training beyond momentary failure: The effects of past-failure partials versus initial partials on calf muscle hypertrophy among a resistance-trained cohort.
Read the full preprint here →

Related Study:
Larsen S, Swinton PA, Sandberg NØ, Kristiansen BS, Fredriksen AB, Falch HN, van den Tillaar R, Wolf M. Resistance training beyond momentary failure: The effects of lengthened supersets on muscle hypertrophy in the gastrocnemius. 2024.

If you are looking to apply research-backed strategies to your own training, consider 1-on-1 coaching or explore the BiaFit app, available now on iOS and Android, to access smart, evidence-based training programs tailored to your goals.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Lengthened partials vs. full range of motion: What the latest research says about muscle growth appeared first on BiaBody.

It seems logical — if your muscles grow, you should automatically be able to lift more weight, right? But a 2021 study by Buckner and colleagues challenges that assumption and reveals a much more nuanced answer.

In this article, I’ll break down the research, highlight key findings, and share what it means for your training program if you’re serious about getting stronger.

The Big Question: Size vs Strength

Over the past three to five years, fitness enthusiasts have hotly debated whether gaining muscle size (hypertrophy) directly boosts strength potential.

Think about it: if your biceps get bigger, do you automatically curl more weight?
Or is it more about how you train — your rep ranges, load selection, and program design — rather than just how large your muscles grow?

Spoiler alert: it’s a loaded question, and today’s research review helps shed some important light on it.

Study Overview: Buckner et al., 2021

The 2021 study, published in Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, aimed to examine the relationship between exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in resistance-trained individuals.

Specifically, the authors wanted to determine:

• Does traditional hypertrophy training (higher reps, moderate weights) lead to better strength gains compared to just lifting heavy singles?

• If you gain muscle size, does that provide a strength advantage later on?

In short: does bigger muscle size increase strength potential — especially in trained lifters?

Study Methods: How It Was Tested

To find out, researchers had 25 resistance-trained individuals perform bicep curls with each arm, but each arm followed a different training condition:

• One arm: Four sets of 8–12 reps taken to failure (traditional hypertrophy training)

• Other arm: Worked up to a heavy single (one-rep max training) each session

Both arms trained twice per week for 8 weeks.

Following this, participants entered a 4-week strength-focused mesocycle, where both arms trained identically — working up to a one-rep max during each session, with hypertrophy maintenance sets added.

Measurements:

• Maximal 1RM biceps strength

• Biceps muscle thickness (via B-mode ultrasound)
  These were assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks, and again after the 4-week strength phase.

Study Results: What Happened?

Here’s what the researchers found:

1. Muscle growth:
   The traditional hypertrophy group (8–12 reps) experienced greater increases in muscle size compared to the 1RM-only training group.

2. Strength gains:
   Despite the difference in muscle growth, strength gains were similar between both arms after the initial 8 weeks.

3. No advantage from hypertrophy:
   Even after the 4-week strength phase, the bigger arms (from hypertrophy training) did not outperform the smaller arms in terms of strength.

• The changes in muscle size were moderate, with the greatest gains at the 70% upper arm site.

• Mean muscle thickness increase: 0.21 cm — a small, measurable change, but not enough to produce a strength advantage.

What This Means for You

1. Strength Is Not Just About Size

Despite traditional thinking — and what many textbooks suggest — strength adaptations are not solely dependent on muscle growth.

In this study, even trained lifters with years of experience were able to boost their strength without significant hypertrophy, suggesting other factors at play.

2. Neural Adaptations Matter

Practicing lifting heavy weights can strengthen your body through neural adaptations (like better motor unit recruitment and coordination) even when your muscles don’t visibly grow.

This might explain why focusing on low-rep, high-load training can produce strength gains without drastic size changes.

3. Bigger Muscles May Help — Over Time

While short-term gains in muscle size didn’t improve strength in this 12-week window, it’s still possible that longer-term hypertrophy (over 6–12 months) could play a more significant role in strength adaptations.

But if your primary goal is to get stronger fast?
You need to focus on training specifically for strength:

• Heavy loads

• Low reps

• Practicing the actual lifts you’re trying to improve

Main Takeaway

If you want to get seriously strong, you have to train specifically for strength — not just chase bigger muscles.

Additional size might eventually contribute to performance, but it’s not the only factor (or even the biggest factor) when it comes to short-term strength gains.

In fact, the small muscle growth you might achieve over an 8-week training block is probably too small to make a meaningful impact on your ability to move heavier weights.

What Do You Think?

Have you ever gotten stronger without seeing big changes in muscle size?
Or maybe you’ve experienced size gains without an obvious strength boost?

I’d love to hear your experience — drop a comment below and let’s talk about it!

If you found this article helpful, make sure to check out more evidence-based fitness tips right here each week.

Related reading:
Want to focus on growing muscle size the smart way? Check out my evidence-based hypertrophy training tips here — packed with practical strategies you can apply in your next training block.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Does Bigger Muscle Size Increase Strength? What Science Really Says appeared first on BiaBody.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Should You Adjust Your Workouts Based on Your Menstrual Cycle? Science Says… appeared first on BiaBody.

For instance, research suggests that resistance-trained individuals may benefit from periodically increasing their weekly set volumes, either to target lagging muscle groups, or to maximize overall hypertrophic adaptations (2). Evidence supporting this comes from a 2022 study by Scarpelli and colleagues (3), which found that tailoring resistance training volume—specifically by increasing weekly sets by 20% for the quadriceps—resulted in superior muscle growth compared to a fixed volume of 22 weekly sets. Over an 8-week period of unilateral leg exercises, the individualized program achieved a 9.9% increase in quadriceps muscle size, compared to a 6.2% increase with the standardized volume. These findings suggest that progressive volume increases may enhance hypertrophic adaptations.

Interestingly, however, other studies on the topic, such as those by Ostrowski et al. (4) and Aube et al. (5), reported no significant differences in muscle growth or strength, when baseline training volumes were taken into account. Both studies observed inconsistent results when adjusting training volumes relative to baseline. The inconsistent results from these studies underscore the uncertainty regarding whether increasing training volume relative to baseline effectively enhances muscle growth or strength in trained individuals. These variations are particularly evident when considering differences in study design and the specific muscle groups tested. Additionally, research on adjusting baseline training volume for muscles other than the quadriceps and for strength improvements is still quite limited.

That’s where a recent paper from Moreno and colleagues comes into play. The researchers of this study aimed to examine muscle growth and strength adaptations in the elbow flexors or biceps, by comparing the effects of simply maintaining participants’ usual training volume (or baseline training volume), to a higher number of sets, relative to baseline.

So let’s take a look at what they did? Hear my thoughts in this video: 

The group of researchers here at the University of South Florida, recruited 42 recreationally trained men and women between the ages 18-35 to participate in this study. The participants had to have trained their biceps for at least 6 months prior to enrolling in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to have one arm continue with the same number of sets they were accustomed to, directly targeting the biceps each session, while the other arm performed an additional 2 sets per session. So for example, if a participant had previously been performing 4 sets of bicep curls per session, one arm simply continued performing 4 sets, while the opposite arm performed 6 sets.

All sets of exercise were taken to task failure, or the point at which the participants could no longer perform an additional repetition with good form, focusing within an 8-12 rep range. All sets were performed using the unilateral standing dumbbell curl exercise, and the participants trained 2x per week for a total of 12 weeks, 8 of which were supervised by the research team and 4 occurred at the participants gym of choice. The researchers measured bicep muscle thickness across multiple sites, including the 50, 60, 70% sites, and 1RM strength was also measured pre- and post-intervention. 

So what did they find?

After the 12-week training intervention, the researchers observed a significant increase in muscle size at each site of the biceps, with muscle thickness increasing by approximately 0.14 – 0.16 cm. Interestingly, there were no significant differences observed between the two training conditions, meaning, both conditions increased muscle size to a similar magnitude after the 12 weeks. Similarly, for muscle strength adaptations, researchers observed no significant differences between the two conditions. Both conditions increased their 1RM strength by about 2kg after the 12-week training period. 

So what does this mean for me?

While some data suggests that periodically increasing set volume can enhance muscle growth, the current study found no advantage to prescribing additional sets compared to sticking with an individual’s baseline training volume. Instead, the extra 2 sets per session (or 4 weekly sets) seemed redundant for stimulating further muscle growth.

In other words, it seems as though the participants’ baseline training volume was already a sufficient stimulus to maximize muscle growth adaptations in these previously trained lifters. 

It is also possible that the additional sets could have been more effective if they were applied to a different exercise targeting the biceps, for example, preacher curls, rather than adding more sets of the same exercise which was the standing dumbbell curl. Another option which might have helped stimulate muscle growth more effectively could be distributing the additional sets across three training sessions instead of two, however, this could not be answered with the current study design. 

So what are my practical takeaways from this paper: 

In summary, this study found that increasing the number of sets beyond baseline did not lead to greater muscle growth in recreationally trained individuals, compared to sticking with the baseline training volume. Both training conditions were similarly effective in promoting significant increases in muscle thickness and 1RM strength of the biceps. In the context of training to maximize muscle growth, there are a multitude of ways that we can adjust our training in order to avoid growth plateaus. It seems that simply adding more sets of the same exercise, while an easy adjustment to make, might not be the most effective change if you’re already performing enough sets for a given muscle group. Instead, consider progressing through other strategies, like increasing the load or weight you lift, adding additional training sessions, or including different exercises that target the muscle in a new way.

References

1. Counts BR, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Dankel SJ, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Loenneke JP. Muscle growth: To infinity and beyond? Muscle & nerve. 2017;56(6):1022-30.
2. Schoenfeld B, Fisher J, Grgic J, Haun C, Helms E, Phillips S, et al. Resistance training recommendations to maximize muscle hypertrophy in an athletic population: Position stand of the IUSCA. International Journal of Strength and Conditioning. 2021;1(1).
3. Scarpelli MC, Nóbrega SR, Santanielo N, Alvarez IF, Otoboni GB, Ugrinowitsch C, Libardi CA. Muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022;36(4):1153-7.
4. Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Lyttle AD. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. Journal of strength and Conditioning Research. 1997;11:148-54.
5. Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Anand A, Barakat C, Pearson J, et al. Progressive resistance training volume: Effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022;36(3):600-7.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Training Volume: Is more “Always” Better for Muscle Growth? appeared first on BiaBody.

How the Study Was Conducted

Researchers aimed to test L-Citrulline’s effectiveness before resistance training. Here’s a breakdown of what they did:

• Participants: 18 resistance-trained men and women
• Supplementation: Each participant took 8 grams of L-Citrulline or a placebo one hour before training.
• Study Design: A crossover approach where participants experienced both the L-Citrulline and placebo conditions.

Once in the gym, the participants completed three key performance tests:

1. Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull: Measures force output in a static position.
2. Ballistic Bench Press: Two sets of two reps at 75% of their 1-rep max, measuring explosive power.
3. Strength-Endurance Bench Press: A 5-rep max at 75% of their 1-rep max, assessing total volume and muscle oxygenation.

Additionally, the researchers tracked subjective factors, including energy levels, focus, fatigue, and muscle pump.

The Surprising Results

Despite L-Citrulline’s claims, the study revealed no significant improvements for participants who took the supplement compared to the placebo group:

• Force Output: In the mid-thigh pull, results were identical for both groups.
• Explosive Power: Barbell velocity and power during the bench press showed no improvement.
• Strength-Endurance: Both groups completed nearly the same number of reps.
• Muscle Oxygenation: No measurable differences were observed.
• Subjective Factors: Fatigue levels were slightly higher for women, but this was unrelated to L-Citrulline.

What Does This Mean for Your Workouts?

Based on this study, a single 8-gram dose of L-Citrulline did not improve strength, endurance, or muscle oxygenation during resistance training.

However, this doesn’t completely rule out L-Citrulline as a performance enhancer. More research is needed to determine if:

1. Higher doses might be more effective.
2. Long-term supplementation provides cumulative benefits.

For now, if you’re considering L-Citrulline for your workouts, it may not deliver the dramatic results that supplement companies promise.

Final Thoughts

L-Citrulline is a popular ingredient, but this study highlights the importance of evidence-based supplementation. Not every pre-workout claim holds up under scrutiny, and this research serves as a valuable reminder to focus on proven strategies for enhancing resistance training.

References

1. Gonzalez AM, Yang Y, Mangine GT, Pinzone AG, Ghigiarelli JJ, Sell KM. Acute Effect of L-Citrulline Supplementation on Resistance Exercise Performance and Muscle Oxygenation in Recreationally Resistance Trained Men and Women. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. 2023;8(3):88.
2. Gonzalez AM, Townsend JR, Pinzone AG, Hoffman JR. Supplementation with nitric oxide precursors for strength performance: A review of the current literature. Nutrients. 2023;15(3):660.

Key Takeaways:

• L-Citrulline did not significantly improve resistance training performance in this study.
• The supplement showed no measurable effects on force output, endurance, or muscle oxygenation.
• More research is needed on dosage and long-term use.

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post Does L-Citrulline Really Boost Resistance Training Performance? appeared first on BiaBody.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Holly Tiarne Baxter (@hollytbaxter)

1. Understand Why You’re Fixating on Food

Often, food focus is a symptom of negative thoughts about our bodies. We might view food as an enemy or something we need to control obsessively. To overcome this, it’s crucial to understand the root cause of these feelings. For me, it started with shifting my mindset and using positive self-talk. Instead of being harsh on myself, I began seeing my body in a more balanced way. Self-compassion can be a game-changer!

2. Practice Self-Awareness

It’s easy to blame food for everything, but most of the time, it’s our emotions that are at the core of this fixation. Do you reach for snacks when you’re bored, stressed, or in a social situation? I used to, and recognizing those triggers was the first step toward managing them in healthier ways. Instead of using food as a quick fix for emotional needs, I started addressing those feelings directly.

3. Diversify Your Interests

Engaging in hobbies or activities that make me feel fulfilled helped reduce the time I spent obsessing over food. This was a turning point in my journey because I realized that pursuing fat loss alone wouldn’t bring lasting happiness. Sure, achieving a low body fat percentage can feel great for a while, but it’s temporary. When I began setting goals in other areas of my life, I found true, long-term fulfillment. Diversifying your interests allows you to live a more balanced life.

4. Create a Positive Food Environment

Strict rules around food can create anxiety and make you feel deprived, leading to constant food thoughts. I found peace by embracing a wide variety of foods and practicing food neutrality – meaning I stopped labeling foods as “good” or “bad.” By allowing myself to enjoy all types of food in moderation, I reduced the noise in my head caused by deprivation.

5. Focus on Holistic Health

It’s not just about how food affects your body composition. Food is fuel, and it’s essential for your mental, emotional, and physical well-being. I started seeing food as a source of energy that helps me feel better throughout the day, improves my focus, and supports recovery after workouts. When you shift the focus from body image to overall health, it takes the pressure off and allows you to make more mindful food choices.

6. Embrace Imperfection

This might be the hardest step, but it’s also the most important. We live in a world with unrealistic beauty standards that can make us feel like we’re never enough. I had to learn how to practice self-compassion and stop judging myself so harshly. Embracing imperfection means recognizing that we’re all unique, and that’s something to be celebrated. Being kind to yourself is key to building a healthier relationship with both food and your body.

By implementing these strategies, I’ve found freedom from food obsession, and I believe you can too. It’s about changing your mindset, allowing yourself some grace, and pursuing fulfillment in all areas of your life. You’ve got this!

Holly Baxter

Holly T. Baxter is an Australian Dietitian with over 13 years of experience in health and fitness. She holds a degree in Food Science and Nutrition and a Master of Dietetics from Deakin University. A former professional physique athlete, Holly has two World Championship titles. Her latest project, BiaBody, is dedicated to women’s health and fitness. As an APD Dietitian and Online Physique Coach, she focuses on evidence-based health education and empowering women through fitness.

The post 6 Ways to Reduce Food Focus and Cultivate a Healthier Mindset appeared first on BiaBody.