To get stronger, do you need a handful of heavy sets a week or a lot of them?

What the experts say

Andy GalpinPhD · human performance scientist

Build strength on the 3 to 5 rule: 3 to 5 days a week, 3 to 5 exercises, 3 to 5 reps, 3 to 5 sets, 3 to 5 minutes rest

What it rests onStrength and power come from high force and high intent per repetition rather than from accumulated fatigue, so reps stay low enough to stay fast and heavy, rest stays long enough to repeat that quality, and the exposure is repeated often enough across the week to drive the adaptation. He offers the rule as a memorable default for people who will not otherwise structure anything.

Source: hubermanlab.com ↗

Jeff NippardBSc biochemistry · coach, competitive lifter and study co-author

One heavy set two or three times a week will get most people stronger

What it rests onFor strength specifically, a single heavy set performed two to three times per week builds strength in most people; past a low floor his position is to push the sets you already do harder rather than to add more of them.

Source: youtube.com ↗

Overview

The positions are not addressed to the same person. Galpin's rule sits inside a programme with a named strength emphasis for the quarter, written for someone who has chosen strength as the quality they are training and who has three to five days a week to give it. Nippard's claim is framed as the least you can do and is aimed at a general audience whose limiter is time and adherence.

Neither side is sourced in older adults, in beginners past their first year, or in anyone whose limiter is joints rather than stimulus, and Galpin's own standards carry a flat 15% adjustment for women with no evidence population attached.

Where they agree

They agree on the mechanism and on most of the practical detail. Both hold that strength comes from high force at low reps with real intent behind each repetition, both use performance rather than soreness or a wearable as the signal to change something, and both would say that a programme you actually do beats a better one you do not. Galpin's first non-negotiable is adherence, which is Nippard's whole argument for doing less.

What would settle it

A dose-response trial of heavy-set volume with strength as the outcome, equated for proximity to failure and for intent, run in both trained and untrained people over longer than the usual eight to twelve weeks, and reporting adherence and dropout alongside strength. Nobody has run the comparison at the range these two positions span.

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.

Record where you land on this, and change your mind later without losing the history
The 5 practices that follow from this question, graded and linked to the source
Everything else these people publish, read and graded, in one place

Get started

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