Over the past five years, training culture has shifted toward accumulation. Hybrid racing has normalised high weekly volumes across multiple physical qualities. Tactical athletes are increasingly influenced by competitive fitness programming. Recreational endurance athletes now supplement mileage with strength work, interval sessions, and conditioning circuits. The underlying assumption is that broader exposure and greater total workload will produce more robust athletes.

In practice, what has increased is not necessarily performance, but total training load. The modern athlete is rarely under-stimulated, typically they are overstretched. Occupational stress, poor sleep, travel, and inconsistent nutrition coexist alongside ambitious training plans that assume an unlimited capacity to recover. Volume has become a proxy for seriousness, and fatigue, a proxy for productivity.

Physiology, however, does not reward accumulation indiscriminately. Adaptation occurs in response to a sufficient stimulus that can be recovered from. Beyond that threshold, additional work increases fatigue at a faster rate than it increases fitness. The relevant question is therefore not whether hard work is required, but how much is actually necessary.

To answer that question, we must move beyond training culture and into training physiology. When examined through the lens of dose–response research, the evidence is consistent: adaptations increase as training stress increases, but the relationship is not linear.

Across hypertrophy research, moderate weekly volume appears to capture most available adaptation. Reviews in 2022 and 2023 suggest that roughly 10–20 hard sets per muscle group per week produces near-maximal growth for most trained individuals. Beyond that, returns diminish rapidly. Adding 10 more sets does not double results — it often adds fatigue more than muscle. In other words, optimal training (the level that maximises most athletes’ progress) is often much lower than the maximal possible training.

Coaches and athletes should recognise that more training volume does not automatically produce proportionally more gains. In fact, chronic performance stagnation or decline is typically not due to too little work, but rather to an imbalance where training stress outpaces recovery. As Kreher and Schwartz note, “performance increases are achieved through increased training loads [but] increased loads are tolerated only through interspersed periods of rest and recovery”. This means that allocating time for sleep, nutrition, and consistency often yields greater improvements than simply piling on more workouts.

To put it another way, the science of dose-response in exercise shows that both muscle size and strength improve as weekly training volume increases, but with diminishing returns. For hypertrophy, one meta-analysis found that doing 2–3 sets per muscle per week produced far more growth than doing just 1 set. However, adding volume beyond approximately 3–6 sets per muscle showed little extra benefit. For example, its been shown that just 4–6 sets per muscle per week are enough for substantial hypertrophy, and doubling that up to 10 sets per week yielded only incremental gains. Likewise, a recent analysis introduced the idea of a “Point of Undetectable Outcome Superiority” – roughly where extra sets stop giving meaningful individual benefit. For strength specifically, the plateau can be even lower: one report noted that strength improvements essentially maxed out after about two directly targeted sets per exercise. In practical terms, these findings mean avoiding marathon training sessions: even one or two hard, well-executed sets of a heavy lift per session can drive significant strength gains when workouts are consistent. Beyond that, each extra set adds time and fatigue with only marginal payoff.

Growth scales with volume (within reason): Increasing from very low training volume yields clear gains, but improvements taper off as volume rises. For example, performing 3 sets of a squat yields substantially more muscle gain than 1 set did.
Plateaus and diminishing returns: Virtually all data show diminishing returns: doing 2–3 sets per muscle is much better than 1 set, but doing 6–10 sets instead adds little extra hypertrophy.
Different for strength vs size: Strength gains hit a plateau faster than size. Analyses suggest that just two sets per session of a heavy lift produce most of the strength improvement; extra sets beyond that give minimal extra benefit (Pelland et al., 2024). Hypertrophy is somewhat more volume-tolerant, but still with clear diminishing returns.
Heavy loads and intensity matter: Since low volume with heavy loads tends to recruit maximal motor units, focusing on lifting heavy loads (approximately 80%+ 1RM) is more efficient than endless high-rep sets. In summary, optimal dose equals just enough volume at high intensity, with full recovery; pushing beyond that quickly becomes counterproductive.

Strength Training: Efficient Gains with Less Volume

Strength adaptations depend heavily on intensity and form, not just on how many sets you do. In practice, very low-volume training often suffices for real progress. Comprehensive analyses report that individuals can make meaningful strength gains with just one to two high-intensity sets per exercise per session, especially when lifting above approximately 80% of their one-rep max. In other words, even sessions that last only 20–30 minutes can be enough if they focus on heavy, full-body lifts. Coaches have observed that adding more sets to a workout often yields little extra strength compared to instead increasing frequency. Rather than performing five sets of squats in one afternoon, it may be better to perform two sets on separate days, keeping each set focused and technically sound.

Minimal sets, big lifts: Research confirms that even a single set of a major lift, taken close to failure, can increase strength over time. When repeated consistently across a weekly plan, strength gains are very possible.
Intensity over failure: Importantly, pushing to absolute muscular failure is not necessary for strength. A meta-analysis demonstrated that stopping several repetitions short of failure produced essentially the same strength improvements as training to failure.
Adequate recovery: Since heavy strength work taxes the nervous system, maximising gains requires sufficient rest between sessions. Overtraining syndrome is fundamentally a maladapted response to excessive exercise without adequate recovery.
Frequency vs volume: For strength, giving each muscle group exposure two to three times per week is typically sufficient. Combining high intensity with excessive frequency can degrade performance when recovery is neglected.

Overall, an evidence-based strength program emphasises heavy, focused efforts on primary lifts, with just enough sets to progress before terminating the session. Most individuals reach diminishing returns quickly when volume climbs beyond moderate thresholds.

Applied Programming: Strength (Tactical / Hybrid Athlete)

To make this practical, consider a tactical athlete preparing for selection while maintaining a substantial aerobic base.

A common error in this population is to layer high-volume hypertrophy-style strength training on top of loaded marching, running, and occupational stress. The athlete completes five sets of squats and four accessory movements for the lower body, and then attempts to recover in time for threshold intervals 24 hours later. Performance stagnates, and soreness is interpreted as evidence of insufficient work.

An application of the Minimum Effective Dose approach would look materially different:

Example Weekly Strength Structure (In-Season or Selection Prep)

2–3 strength sessions per week
Primary lifts only (e.g., squat, hinge, press, pull)
1–3 working sets per lift at ≥80% 1RM
1–2 accessory movements with low total volume
Stop 1–2 reps short of failure

A lower-body session may consist of:

Back squat: 3 × 3–5
Romanian deadlift: 2 × 5
Split squat: 2 × 6 per side

Total hard sets: 7. Session duration: approximately 45 minutes.

The intent is to maintain or incrementally build maximal strength without generating excessive residual fatigue that compromises conditioning or field performance. If strength numbers progress slowly but consistently, and endurance sessions remain high quality, the dose is sufficient.

The objective is not to exhaust musculature; it is to preserve neuromuscular capability while the broader training load is high.

Endurance and Energy-Systems Training: Quality Over Quantity

Endurance training follows the same principle: focused, high-quality work often outperforms excessive mileage. Studies in recreational runners have demonstrated that two to three high-intensity interval training (HIIT) sessions per week, combined with moderate aerobic work, can produce substantial improvements in aerobic fitness.

In controlled trials, runners performing structured interval training improved VO₂max to a greater extent than those performing longer steady-state sessions, despite similar or lower total training time. The conclusion was that high-intensity training as well as continuous endurance exercise led to significant improvements with less than approximately 2.5 hours of training per week.

HIIT vs steady-state: Both are beneficial, but HIIT is time-efficient. Reviews indicate that 2–3 HIIT sessions per week can improve VO₂max and running economy in amateur runners.
Intensity is key: Maintaining high heart rate exposure drives adaptation. Even relatively small volumes of work performed above 90% HRmax can produce measurable improvements.
Minimal volume, maintained intensity: Endurance can be maintained with very low weekly volume provided intensity is preserved.
Combine systems wisely: Optimal endurance programming integrates both high-intensity and continuous work rather than relying exclusively on either modality.

Applied Programming: Energy Systems (Runner / Hyrox Athlete)

In endurance and hybrid sport, excess volume is often justified as “aerobic base development.” While aerobic capacity is foundational, the assumption that more mileage is always protective is unsupported once a base level is established.

Consider an amateur half-marathon runner training five days per week who adds two additional moderate-intensity runs because recovery feels “too easy.” Within four weeks, resting heart rate increases, perceived exertion climbs, and pace at threshold regresses. An Minimum Effective Dose informed structure would prioritise intensity distribution and recovery:

Example Weekly Aerobic Structure (Amateur Endurance Athlete)

1 long aerobic run (60–90 minutes, controlled pace)
1 threshold or interval session (e.g., 4 × 4 minutes at high intensity)
1 moderate aerobic run (45–60 minutes)
Optional 1 short easy recovery run

Total sessions: 3–4.

The high-intensity session provides a potent stimulus for VO₂max and lactate threshold development. The long run maintains aerobic efficiency and durability. The remaining work supports recovery and movement economy. Additional “grey-zone” mileage is deliberately avoided.

For a Hyrox athlete, the same logic applies. Rather than performing multiple long mixed-modal conditioning circuits per week, a more productive structure may include:

1 dedicated high-intensity interval session
1 race-specific running session
1 longer aerobic effort
Strength work separated and controlled

The goal is to target specific physiological systems with intent, not to accumulate fatigue through repeated moderately hard sessions.

By adhering to these principles, the coach becomes a guardian of efficiency. Instead of assuming that a lack of progress requires additional volume, the more appropriate question becomes whether the athlete is fully recovering, consistently applying effort, and training at the correct intensities.

The evidence repeatedly demonstrates that small volumes of hard, purposeful training are sufficient for meaningful adaptation. The body adapts to stress that is applied and recovered from, not to stress that accumulates without resolution.

The Minimum Effective Dose is particularly relevant now because modern athletes are rarely single-domain performers. Tactical professionals must balance strength, endurance, load carriage, and occupational readiness. Hybrid competitors must sustain high outputs across both muscular and aerobic demands. Recreational runners increasingly integrate lifting into their programmes.

When multiple stressors coexist, restraint becomes a performance skill. The athlete who applies the smallest effective stimulus consistently for months will outperform the athlete who alternates between excessive load and forced de-loads. Progress is not determined by the most work tolerated in a week. It is determined by the highest quality work that can be repeated without interruption.

This is not minimalism. It is precision.

Reference List

Baz-Valle, E., Fontes-Villalba, M. and Santos-Concejero, J. (2022) ‘Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(9), pp. 2570–2581.

Bernárdez-Vázquez, R., Raya-González, J., Castillo, D. and Beato, M. (2022) ‘Resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: an umbrella review’, Sports Medicine, 52(11), pp. 2667–2681.

Brandt, M., et al. (2025) ‘Determinants of performance in HYROX competition: the role of aerobic capacity and strength’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 39(1), pp. 112–120.

Carvalho, L., Junior, R.M., Barbalho, M., Gentil, P. and Schoenfeld, B.J. (2022) ‘Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Sports Medicine, 52(2), pp. 385–399.

Currier, B.S., et al. (2023) ‘Resistance training frequency and hypertrophic/strength adaptations: a network meta-analysis’, Sports Medicine, 53(6), pp. 1201–1219.

Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B.J., Davies, T.B., Lazinica, B. and Krieger, J.W., 2021. Effect of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10(3), pp.263–273.

Helgerud, J., Høydal, K., Wang, E., Karlsen, T., Berg, P., Bjerkaas, M., Simonsen, T., Helgesen, C., Hjorth, N., Bach, R. and Hoff, J., 2007. Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO₂max more than moderate training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(4), pp.665–671.

Kreher, J.B. and Schwartz, J.B., 2012. Overtraining syndrome: A practical guide. Sports Health, 4(2), pp.128–138.

Matomäki, P., et al. (2024) ‘High-volume low-intensity versus low-volume high-intensity endurance training: effects on VO₂max and performance determinants’, European Journal of Applied Physiology, 124(3), pp. 915–929.

Milanović, Z., Sporiš, G. and Weston, M., 2015. Effectiveness of high-intensity interval training in improving aerobic and anaerobic fitness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 45(10), pp.1469–1481.

Mujika, I. and Padilla, S., 2000. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Sports Medicine, 30(2), pp.79–87.

Pelland, L., Buckner, S.L., Dankel, S.J., Jessee, M.B. and Loenneke, J.P., 2024. The point of undetectable outcome superiority in resistance training dose-response relationships. Sports Medicine, [online ahead of print].

Refalo, M.C., Helms, E.R., Trexler, E.T., Hamilton, D.L. and Steele, J. (2023) ‘The effect of proximity to failure on muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Sports Medicine, 53(4), pp. 649–665.

Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D. and Krieger, J.W., 2016. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 46(11), pp.1689–1697.

Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D. and Krieger, J.W., 2017. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), pp.1073–1082.