Training Split for Muscle Growth
- Luke Bialobzyski, CSEP-CPT
- Sep 15
- 10 min read
The Training Split Confusion
If you've spent any time researching muscle building, you've probably encountered heated debates about training splits. Full-body versus bro splits. Push/pull/legs versus upper/lower. Three days versus six days. The fitness world seems obsessed with finding the "perfect" training split.
But what if I told you that recent research suggests the specific split you choose matters far less than you've been led to believe?
Don't get me wrong, training splits aren't irrelevant. But the science shows us that the total amount of quality work you do for each muscle group per week (your training volume) and how hard you work (your intensity) are the primary drivers of muscle growth, not the specific way you organize your workouts.
This article will walk you through the research and show you how to apply these findings to build muscle more effectively, regardless of which split you prefer.
The Real Problem: Chasing the Perfect Split
Here's what typically happens: someone new to lifting finds a training split online, follows it religiously for a few weeks, doesn't see dramatic results, then switches to a different split they heard was "better." This pattern repeats endlessly.
The real issue isn't the split—it's usually one of these factors:
Insufficient weekly volume per muscle group
Training too far from muscular failure
Poor exercise selection
Lack of progressive overload
Inconsistent execution
Let's look at what the research actually tells us about what matters most for muscle growth.
Want evidence-based training content delivered weekly? Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest research on muscle building. Subscribe
What the Research Actually Shows
The Volume Equivalency Studies
A groundbreaking 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis by Ramos-Campo et al. compared split routines (training different muscle groups on separate days) versus full-body routines, finding no significant difference in strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when training volume is equated.
This finding is crucial because it suggests that how you distribute your training volume matters less than the total amount of volume you perform for each muscle group.
Similarly, a 2024 review found that as long as the weekly volume of work was the same, two weekly full-body workouts generated the same strength gains and muscle hypertrophy as a four-day split-muscle routine.
The Dose-Response Relationship
Research consistently shows that muscle growth follows a dose-response relationship with training volume. Schoenfeld et al. (2019) found that muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes.
However, this relationship isn't infinite. The same researchers noted that marked increases in strength and endurance can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min weekly sessions over an 8-wk period, and these gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment. Alternatively, muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes.
The Volume-Growth Connection
What Counts as Volume?
When researchers talk about training volume for hypertrophy, they typically refer to the number of challenging sets performed per muscle group per week. This review aimed to determine whether assessing the total number of sets is a valid method to quantify training volume in the context of hypertrophy training.
The Volume Sweet Spots
Based on current research, here are the evidence-based volume ranges:
Beginners:
8-12 sets per muscle group per week
Focus on learning movement patterns and building work capacity
Intermediate Lifters:
12-18 sets per muscle group per week
Can handle higher volumes due to improved recovery
Advanced Lifters:
16-25 sets per muscle group per week
Research shows that individualizing the weekly training volume of research protocols provides greater gains in muscle CSA than prescribing standardized volumes
Individual Response Matters
Importantly, muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. This means your optimal volume depends partly on what you've been doing previously—suddenly jumping to very high volumes may not be beneficial if you're not adapted to them.
Intensity: The Quality Factor
Volume alone isn't enough—the quality of that volume matters tremendously. This is where training intensity comes in.
Proximity to Failure
Recent research has clarified how close to failure we need to train. A recent study using trained individuals with significant experience in failure-based training had them perform unilateral exercises, including leg extensions and leg presses. They trained for momentary muscular failure on one leg and stopped one rep short of failure on leg extensions and two repetitions short on leg presses for the other leg. The findings revealed similar quad growth in both cases, suggesting that stopping one to two reps shy of failure may still be effective for muscle hypertrophy.
Load Considerations
For muscle growth, the load you use matters less than previously thought, provided volume is equated and you train close to failure. Load Matters for Strength, Not Hypertrophy – High-load resistance training is superior for strength development, but muscle hypertrophy can occur across a range of training loads as long as volume is matched.
The High-Intensity Advantage
However, some research suggests benefits to higher-intensity training. Studies comparing high-intensity to high-volume training programs in resistance-trained individuals show that high-intensity training is more beneficial for strength enhancement, but similar to high-volume training protocols for enhancing muscle hypertrophy.
The practical takeaway: train most of your sets within 0-3 reps of failure, and don't worry too much about the specific load as long as it allows you to reach that proximity to failure.
Frequency: How It Fits the Puzzle
Training frequency—how often you train each muscle group per week—is important, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think.
The Muscle Protein Synthesis Window
Research shows that muscle protein synthetic rate (MPS) is elevated in humans by 50% at 4 hrs following a bout of heavy resistance training, and by 109% at 24 hrs following training. At an average time of 36 hrs post-exercise, MPS in the exercised arm had returned to within 14% of the control arm value.
This suggests that the muscle-building stimulus from a training session lasts roughly 36-48 hours in most people.
Frequency for Volume Distribution
The main benefit of higher frequency may simply be that it allows you to distribute your weekly volume across more sessions, potentially allowing for better performance on each set. A study by Schoenfeld and colleagues (2019) showed that distributing training volume across multiple weekly sessions enhances hypertrophy compared to once-weekly high-volume sessions.
The Frequency Research
However, direct frequency comparisons show modest benefits. Research indicates that stimulating each muscle group two to three times per week promotes greater hypertrophy compared to lower frequencies, but the effect sizes are often small when volume is equated.
Interestingly, one study comparing low-frequency (10 × 10 repetitions at 70% one-repetition maximum, once per week) versus high-frequency (2 × 10 repetitions at ∼70% one-repetition maximum, five times per week) resistance exercise training found that myofibrillar protein synthesis rates did not differ between the LF (1.46 ± 0.26%/day) and HF (1.48 ± 0.33%/day) conditions over the 7-day exercise training period.
Practical Training Split Applications
Now that we understand that volume and intensity are the primary drivers of muscle growth, let's look at how different splits can help you achieve your volume targets effectively.
Full-Body Training
Best for: Beginners to intermediate lifters, those with limited training days
Full-body training allows you to hit each muscle group 3 times per week, making it easier to accumulate sufficient weekly volume even with fewer total training days.
Sample Volume Distribution:
Each workout: 2-4 sets per major muscle group
Weekly total: 6-12 sets per major muscle group
Training days: 3 per week
Key Advantage: High frequency makes it forgiving if you miss a session, and the repeated practice of movement patterns accelerates skill development.
Upper/Lower Split
Best for: Intermediate lifters who can train 4+ days per week
This split allows you to dedicate more sets per muscle group in each session while maintaining reasonable workout length.
Sample Volume Distribution:
Upper sessions: 3-6 sets per upper body muscle group Lower sessions: 4-8 sets per lower body muscle group Weekly total: 12-24 sets per major muscle group Training days: 4-6 per week Key Advantage: Good balance between session length and weekly volume accumulation.
Push/Pull/Legs Split
Best for: Intermediate to advanced lifters with 6 training days available
When run twice per week (6 total sessions), PPL allows for high weekly volumes with logical muscle groupings.
Sample Volume Distribution:
Each muscle group trained: 2x per week Sets per session: 4-8 per major muscle group Weekly total: 16-32 sets per major muscle group Training days: 6 per week Key Advantage: Allows for very high weekly volumes without excessively long individual sessions.
5-Day Splits
Best for: Advanced lifters who need high volumes to continue progressing
The 5-day split is beneficial for building muscle as the high volume stimulates muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, if muscle growth is your goal, following this program could be a valuable option for you.
Sample Volume Distribution:
Focus muscle groups: 6-12 sets per session Secondary muscle groups: 3-6 sets per session Weekly total: 20-40+ sets per major muscle group Training days: 5 per week Key Advantage: Allows for specialization and very high weekly volumes for advanced lifters.
How to Apply This Knowledge
Step 1: Determine Your Volume Targets
Based on your training experience:
Beginner: Start with 8-10 sets per muscle group per week
Intermediate: Aim for 12-16 sets per muscle group per week
Advanced: Work up to 18-25+ sets per muscle group per week
Step 2: Choose a Split That Fits Your Schedule
Don't choose based on what's "optimal"—choose based on what you can execute consistently:
3 days available: Full-body split
4 days available: Upper/lower split
5-6 days available: PPL or 5-day split
Step 3: Distribute Volume Appropriately
Make sure you can hit your weekly volume targets with your chosen split:
Full-body example (3 days):
Target: 12 sets per week for chest
Per session: 4 sets of chest work
Total: 12 sets per week ✓
Upper/lower example (4 days):
Target: 16 sets per week for chest
Per upper session: 4 sets of chest work
Total: 16 sets per week (4 × 4) ✓
Step 4: Focus on Progression
Regardless of the split, progressively increasing resistance over time is critical for hypertrophy. Track your performance and aim to improve over time through:
Adding weight
Adding reps
Adding sets
Improving range of motion
Common Implementation Mistakes
Mistake 1: Obsessing Over Split Selection
The Problem: Spending more time researching splits than actually training consistently.
The Solution: Pick any reasonable split that fits your schedule and stick with it for at least 8-12 weeks while focusing on volume progression.
Mistake 2: Ignoring Volume Progression
The Problem: Doing the same volume week after week without progression.
The Research: Studies show that trained males can experience significant muscle growth and strength adaptations while maintaining their previous weekly set number above a certain weekly set volume threshold, but continued progression requires gradually increasing demands.
The Solution: Gradually increase weekly volume over time, adding 1-2 sets per muscle group every 2-3 weeks until you reach your maximum recoverable volume.
Mistake 3: Training Too Far From Failure
The Problem: Leaving too many reps in reserve and not providing adequate stimulus.
The Solution: Most sets should be performed within 0-3 reps of failure. Learn to recognize true muscular failure versus just discomfort.
Mistake 4: Neglecting Individual Response
The Problem: Following cookie-cutter recommendations without considering individual factors.
The Research: Individualizing the weekly training volume of research protocols provides greater gains in muscle cross-sectional area than prescribing standardized volumes.
The Solution: Start with evidence-based recommendations, then adjust based on your individual response, recovery capacity, and progress.
Practical Guidelines
Weekly Volume Targets by Muscle Group
Based on current research, here are practical weekly set recommendations:
Major Muscle Groups (chest, back, shoulders, quads, glutes):
Beginner: 8-12 sets per week
Intermediate: 12-18 sets per week
Advanced: 16-25+ sets per week
Smaller Muscle Groups (biceps, triceps, calves):
Beginner: 6-10 sets per week
Intermediate: 10-16 sets per week
Advanced: 14-22+ sets per week
Intensity Guidelines
Most sets: Within 0-3 reps of failure
Some sets: Can be further from failure (warm-ups, skill practice)
Load range: 65-85% of 1RM for most hypertrophy work
Rep ranges: 6-20+ reps can all be effective if intensity is appropriate
Frequency Recommendations
Minimum effective frequency: 2x per week per muscle group
Practical frequency: 2-3x per week works well for most people
Higher frequencies: Can work if volume per session is reduced appropriately
Progressive Overload Strategies
Add weight: Increase load by 2.5-5lbs when you can complete all prescribed reps
Add reps: Increase reps by 1-2 when possible within your target range
Add sets: Gradually increase weekly volume over time
Improve range of motion: Focus on full range of motion for better stimulus
Recovery Monitoring
Watch for signs you may need to reduce volume:
Declining performance over multiple sessions
Persistent excessive soreness
Sleep disruption
Loss of motivation
Frequent illness
Conclusion
The research is clear: successful muscle building depends more on accumulating sufficient weekly training volume at an appropriate intensity than on the specific training split you choose. When total weekly volume is controlled, split and full-body routines yield similar hypertrophy and strength gains.
This is actually liberating news. Instead of endlessly searching for the "perfect" split, you can focus on the factors that actually matter:
Adequate weekly volume for each muscle group
Training close to failure on most sets
Progressive overload over time
Consistent execution of your chosen approach
Choose a split that fits your schedule and preferences, then focus on gradually increasing the amount of quality work you do each week. Track your progress, listen to your body, and adjust as needed.
Remember: the best training split is the one you can follow consistently while progressively overloading your muscles with sufficient volume. Everything else is just details.
Ready to stop chasing the ‘perfect split’ and start building real muscle? Get your customized training plan today and train smarter, not harder.”
References
Baz-Valle, E., Balsalobre-Fernández, C., Alix-Fages, C., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2022). A systematic review of the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Human Kinetics, 81, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2022-0017
Baz-Valle, E., Fontes-Villalba, M., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2021). Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(3), 870-878. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002776
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Davies, T. B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J. W., & Pedisic, Z. (2019). Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5), 1207-1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x
Heaselgrave, S. R., Blacker, J., Smeuninx, B., McKendry, J., & Breen, L. (2019). Dose-response relationship of weekly resistance-training volume and frequency on muscular adaptations in trained men. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(3), 360-368. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0427
Lixandrão, M. E., Bamman, M., Vechin, F. C., Conceicao, M. S., Telles, G., Longobardi, I., ... & Roschel, H. (2024). Higher resistance training volume offsets muscle hypertrophy nonresponsiveness in older individuals. Journal of Applied Physiology, 136(2), 421-429. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00670.2023
MacDougall, J. D., Gibala, M. J., Tarnopolsky, M. A., MacDonald, J. R., Interisano, S. A., & Yarasheski, K. E. (1995). The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 20(4), 480-486. https://doi.org/10.1139/h95-038
Ramos-Campo, D. J., Benito-Peinado, P. J., Caravaca, L. A., Rojo-Tirado, M. A., & Rubio-Arias, J. Á. (2024). Efficacy of split versus full-body resistance training on strength and muscle growth: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(7), 1330-1340. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004774
Refalo, M. C., Helms, E. R., Robinson, Z. P., Hamilton, D. L., & Fyfe, J. J. (2024). Without fail: Muscular adaptations in single set resistance training performed to failure or with repetitions-in-reserve. Sports Medicine, 54(2), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.51224/srxiv.484
Scarpelli, M. C., Nóbrega, S. R., Santanielo, N., Alvarez, I. F., Otoboni, G. B., Ugrinowitsch, C., & Libardi, C. A. (2022). Muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(5), 1153-1157. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003558
Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K., Belliard, R., & Alto, A. (2019). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51(1), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001764
Trommelen, J., Holwerda, A. M., Nyakayiru, J., Gorissen, S. H., Rooyackers, O., Burd, N. A., ... & Van Loon, L. J. (2021). Daily myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in response to low-and high-frequency resistance exercise training in healthy, young men. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 31(3), 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2020-0274
