Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Trained Men—Less is More?

“…For example, Barbalho et al (2) found no differences between groups on mid-thigh MT in individuals performing 5, 10, 15, or 20 weekly sets for 24 weeks, which corroborates with previous shorter-duration studies that investigated the effects of different training volumes on muscle hypertrophic adaptations (10,16). However, it is important to note that Barbalho et al (2) had their subjects performing all the sets in 1 weekly session compared with 2 or 3 weekly sessions in the current study and other former studies (10,14,16,22). On the other hand, Schoenfeld et al (22) reported that 45 weekly sets increased mid-thigh thickness to a greater extent compared with 9 weekly sets, with no differences between 45 and 27 weekly sets after an 8-week training regimen.…”

“…Recently, other studies have also investigated the effects of distinct RT volumes on muscle mass accretion in resistance-trained individuals, and results are equivocal. For example, Barbalho et al (2) found no differences between groups on mid-thigh MT in individuals performing 5, 10, 15, or 20 weekly sets for 24 weeks, which corroborates with previous shorter-duration studies that investigated the effects of different training volumes on muscle hypertrophic adaptations (10,16). However, it is important to note that Barbalho et al (2) had their subjects performing all the sets in 1 weekly session compared with 2 or 3 weekly sessions in the current study and other former studies (10,14,16,22).…”

“…This may be due to a ceiling effect in these elite athletes who already have efficient SSC utilization. The ceiling effect, defined as the reduced potential for measurable improvements in athletes who already perform at or near their physiological and biomechanical limits, can significantly attenuate observable gains from additional training interventions ( 53 ). Alternatively, the short inter-exercise rest intervals in FCT (30–40 s) may have resulted in residual neuromuscular fatigue during the plyometric phases, slightly dampening the acute potentiation of SSC-related performance ( 54 , 55 ).…”

“…The lack of significant associations between the proportion of MVPA to total PA volume and the PS risk observed among men and middle-aged adults may be explained by biological and socio-behavioral mechanisms. Biologically, higher baseline muscle mass in men may create a ceiling effect, diminishing the detectable protective benefit of PA, 43 while age-related declines in anabolic hormones (e.g., testosterone) may blunt the muscle synthesis response to PA. 44 Behaviorally, men often engage in more resistance-based occupational or leisure activities, and middle-aged adults typically exhibit fragmented, non-leisure PA patterns that are poorly captured by standard questionnaires—leading to potential underestimation of true associations. 45 The interplay of physiological thresholds and socio-behavioral factors provides a plausible explanation for the null findings in these subgroups.…”