When Weekly Volume Is Matched, Program Design Converges

The sources are meta-analyses comparing program-design choices, mostly at matched volume. Ramos-Campo 2024 reports no significant difference in strength or muscle growth between split and full-body routines when volume is equated; Rosa 2022 concludes that whole-muscle hypertrophy is similar between multi-joint and single-joint training; Andersen 2022 suggests similar effects of variable and traditional resistance training; Coleman 2022 concludes that its findings would seem to indicate that drop sets and traditional sets are both viable options, and that drop sets may provide a more time-efficient alternative; Happ 2021 reports virtually identical strength gains with electrical stimulation and conventional training at matched volume; Mirzayev 2024 reports no difference in muscle size or strength between blood-flow-restricted and traditional training, and Wang 2025 slightly less maximal-strength improvement with low-load blood-flow restriction than with heavy loads (SMD −0.19); Schoenfeld 2015 concludes that a fairly wide range of repetition durations can be employed for muscle growth; Davies 2017 reports fast and moderate-slow training both effective for dynamic strength, with a trend toward fast training at moderate intensities (ES 0.31, p = 0.06); Hackett 2018 reports different velocity effects by muscle. On training to failure: Refalo 2022 reports a trivial hypertrophy advantage for training to set failure over non-failure (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.37) and concludes that sets may be performed both to momentary failure and short of it; Vieira 2021 reports that training not to failure may offer comparable or greater strength and power improvements when volumes are equalized.