Scientists find two sets that are strong enough

According to new research from Atlantic University in Florida, athletes and fitness people spend hours spending time in endless scenes.

A comprehensive analysis of dozens of studies showed that meaningful forces gained smoothness after only two sets of sets per session, while muscle growth peaked at 11 groups. The findings challenge the “more is better is better” mentality that dominated many training programs and showed that strategic, shorter exercises can be comparable to marathon sessions. For those who are time-critical, this study provides a scientific support for effective fitness growth without sacrificing valuable time to reduce returns.

The meta-analysis, published as a preprint of Spore ToRXIV, studied data from 67 studies involving more than 2,000 participants to determine the beginning of a decline in return for strength and muscle building.

Two plates of desserts

In terms of building original power, the researchers found something compelling: After only two “direct” settings in each class, welfare stands out significantly. Direct settings are those that are specifically designed for exercise or muscle testing, such as bench press kits when measuring bench press strength.

“ Rather than simply stacking more kits in a single workout, people seeking strength improvements may gain more from the increased training frequency – choose shorter, more frequent sessions,” said Jacob F. Remmert. Candidates in the Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion.

This finding is consistent with growing evidence that strength development follows different rules from muscle growth. The researchers found that even very low training volumes can lead to a significant increase in intensity when paired with heavy loads and consistent weekly frequencies.

Especially the influence of beginners is far-reaching. Those who are new to strength training can make meaningful progress with only one or two high-intensity sets per session, especially when boosting the load to more than 80% of the maximum.

Key research results:

• Power reaches stability after approximately 2 direct sets per quarter
• Peak muscle growth is about 11 parts per section
• The study analyzed data from 2,058 participants in 67 studies
• Benefits show that the returns of these two results are fast

The science behind set counting

One of the most important contributions of the study is how researchers classify different types of training sets. They did not distinguish between “direct”, “score” and “total” sets based on the specific way each exercise targets the measured results, rather than treating all sets equally.

“It’s important to understand the difference between direct sets and scores,” Remmert explained. “The direct set is for those who are specifically targeting the muscles or exercises being tested. For example, to increase bench press intensity: counting direct sets means specifically counting sets of desktop presses, and counting sets of counting score sets also include indirect work including indirect work – just like the extension of triceps – can still be trained on the bench instead of training the substitute, rather than training the model in that particular lift.”

This distinction proves crucial to understanding training responses. To gain strength improvement, only actions that directly match the tested movement provide the greatest benefit. For muscle growth, the picture is more subtle, and its set of “scores” (indirect exercises count as half-direct combination) provides the best model for predicted results.

Beyond Press Release: PUOS Revelation

Although initial coverage focused on basic discoveries, the study introduced a complex concept that was not emphasized in earlier reports: undiscoverable outcome advantages or the points of PUOS. This represents an exact threshold where adding more training volumes is statistically meaningless for individual-level improvements.

PUOS calculations show that more than 2 sets of intensity direct groups and 11 sets of muscle growth scores, the additional work produces such small, inconsistent benefits that they reduce to the smallest detectable effect size. It’s not just about reducing returns, but about identifying the exact point where more work is fundamentally worthless for measurable progress.

The mathematical accuracy of determining training thresholds represents a significant advance in the methodology of exercise science, providing practitioners with concrete, evidence-based goals rather than vague guidelines.

The story of muscle growth

For those who focus on building muscle size, the researchers found a more tolerant dose response relationship. The revenue per meeting continues to increase to about 11 parts, although the rate of return decreases as the number increases.

“Because the returns of results decrease and uncertainty of outcomes as volume increases, it is important to weigh the smaller potential benefits of the additional amount with the additional demand for on-time and recovery,” Remmert noted. “To be fair, some people value the growth of the last drop of muscle growth, regardless of the cost; for them, as long as they pay close attention to recovery, they can try higher volumes.”

Muscle building findings show that there is greater flexibility for those willing to spend more time and energy. However, researchers warn that the benefits of more than 11 sessions per lesson are often small and inconsistent, and cost-effective trade-offs need to be carefully considered.

What is particularly striking is how the relationship between sets and muscle growth follows a logarithmic pattern, rather than a linear pattern. The biggest gain comes from the first few groups, with additional progress gradually becoming smaller in each group.

Rethink training frequency

This study has profound implications for how we structure our exercise schedule. If the strength reaches a level of just two sets per class, then the logical strategy spreads the training to more frequent, shorter sessions rather than squeezing volume into a marathon workout.

This approach is consistent with emerging evidence about patterns of muscle protein synthesis. Because muscle building responds to exercise peaks, then drops within 24-48 hours, more frequent stimulation may be superior to frequent high volume sessions.

For busy professionals, this represents a paradigm shift. The best results may come from a short, focused workout throughout the week rather than dedicating the entire night to the gym.

Practical translation

“Our findings show that you can get stronger or build muscle without having to lengthy physical education classes,” said Michael C. Zourdos, PhD, chair of the Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, FAU. “There is a turning point where the benefits of doing more become very questionable – in some cases, it may even be bad for you when considering fatigue, time, etc. This challenges the common assumption that more volume always equals more benefits.”

The study verifies what many time-critical people suspect: effective training can compete with methods that are carried out in time. For intensity development, data suggest that a low-program program emphasizes frequency (2-3 sessions per week) may optimize results.

However, the researchers stress that these findings are primarily applicable to short-term to moderate adaptations. Long-term strength development may follow different patterns, and individual responses will always be different.

Volume and frequency puzzle

One of the most interesting findings of the study involves the complex relationship between training volume and frequency. While the study provides a clear guide to the amount of time per section, the best way to allocate training throughout the week is still an area that requires further investigation.

The mathematical accuracy of PUOS calculations shows that the best position for most people is in approximately 2-3 training sessions per week, with each session containing the smallest effective dose. This method maximizes the synthesis of muscle proteins while avoiding accumulated fatigue from excessive volumes.

Why does this pattern appear? The researchers point out basic physiological limitations. Muscle protein synthesis rose to baseline approximately 24-48 hours after exercise. Trying to stack other sets beyond the valid threshold does not extend this window, it is just a waste of energy and recovery.

Impact on real people

For the average person juggling work, family and fitness goals, these findings provide a liberating message: You can achieve meaningful results without living in the gym. The study shows that two consistently high-quality intensity sets will surpass sporadic high-volume meetings.

This principle goes beyond the long-term adherence of personal exercise. Plans that require excessive time commitments often lead to burnout and inconsistency. In contrast, effective protocols built around PUOS thresholds may be more sustainable in months and years.

The study also highlights the importance of progressive overload and consistency than pure volume. Whether you execute two or twenty sets, the quality of effort and system progress is more important than the number of repetitions completed.

As Zourdos concluded: “Instead, we found that the reduction in returns was very rapid, and low-dose strength training or moderate muscle growth training seemed to bring the most effective results. This is good news for busy people, and it is good news: You can be smarter, longer, and no longer see real progress.”

Related