Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

Should you add sets every week, or only when your lifts stop improving?

What the experts say

Eric HelmsPhD · strength and physique sport scientist, coach, competitor

Only when load or reps stop going up, and only if recovery is holding. Adding sets on a schedule progresses your ability to recover rather than your growth, and adding them too fast can slow hypertrophy.

What it rests onHypertrophy increases strength, which lets load or reps rise, which keeps each set in its effective range. So rising load and reps are the evidence that the current set volume is still working. He states four times in the same article that the question has no direct evidence behind it: 'it is not known when and if sets should increase to maintain the fastest rate of muscle growth possible', 'there aren't any studies that match for total volume', 'To my knowledge, there aren't any studies', 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

Source: massresearchreview.com ↗
Mike IsraetelPhD · exercise scientist

Yes, weekly. Start each mesocycle at your minimum effective volume and add sets every week toward the most you can recover from, then deload.

What it rests on'MEV serves as your starting point for each mesocycle. You'll begin around this volume and progress upward throughout the training block.' The stated mechanism is tolerance: 'Each training session increases your tolerance, requiring more volume to maintain optimal stimulus. This is why volume must increase throughout a mesocycle.' The guide gives a worked example: from an MEV of 12 sets to an MRV of 20, week 1 at 12 sets, then 14, 16, 18, 20, then a 6-set deload week.

Source: rpstrength.com ↗

Overview

They are not addressing the same lifter, and neither says so. Israetel's landmarks assume a hypertrophy-focused trainee inside a planned mesocycle with a deload at the end, someone who already knows their own MEV and MRV. Helms's framework is written for a lifter who does not have that history: his starting figure is explicitly conditioned on "if you don't have historical data indicating that a certain set volume seems to result in your best growth".

Read that way, the two are closer than they look: Israetel is describing what to do inside a block once you know your numbers, and Helms is describing how you would ever find them out. But they still give opposite instructions to the same reader in week two, and only one of them can be followed.

Where they agree

Both hold that set volume has an inverted-U dose-response, that there is a point past which more volume is worse, and that most sets should stop short of failure: RP's own guide defines a working set as 0 to 4 RIR at 30 to 85 percent of 1RM, and Helms's meta-analysis recommends terminating the majority of sets at a close proximity to failure rather than at failure.

Both also start low: Israetel's MEV is a floor by definition, and the RP guide is emphatic that you begin there. Neither is a more-is-always-better voice.

What would settle it

A trial comparing a fixed weekly set progression against a progression triggered by stalled load or reps, matched for starting volume, over enough weeks to include a deload. Helms says in writing that this study does not exist, and the RP guide's progression is presented as a system rather than as a tested protocol, so neither side currently has the evidence and both would accept the same trial as decisive.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.