HIT vs volume training is one of the most hotly debated topics in the gym
The question is simple: does muscle growth come down to volume or intensity?
HIT vs volume training in the gym: two classic approaches to muscle growth
The same debate has been going on in gyms for generations: do you get better results from very intense, brief and infrequent workouts (HIT) or higher training volume and more frequent stimulation (volume training)? Both have a long history and a rationale behind them – and both can work if the method suits your body, recovery and goals.
Below, I compare the two schools of thought, drawing on their leading figures: the HIT approach (Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates, Jay Vincent) and the volume training approach (Vince Gironda, Joe Weider, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ott Kiivikas)
What is HIT (High Intensity Training)?
HIT generally means:
- few working sets (often 1 “true” working set per exercise),
- very high effort (to muscular failure, RIR-0),
- longer recovery periods between workouts for the same muscle group,
- an emphasis on progressive overload (through reps, weight, tempo or ROM).
Core message: “Do less, but push harder – and recover fully.”
What is volume training?
Volume training generally means:
- more sets per muscle group,
- often more exercises and a variety of angles,
- more frequent training (e.g. each muscle group 2× per week),
- varying effort: some sets leave “reps in reserve”, while others are harder.
Core message: “More quality work provides more stimulus – if your recovery can keep up.”
Quick comparison chart
HIT
- Pros: saves time, makes progress easy to track, provides a clear focus
- Cons: training too infrequently or with too little volume may not be enough for some people; risk of burnout if you go all out every time; requires very good exercise technique
- Especially suited to: busy people, those prone to overtraining, and strong lifters who thrive on intensity and recover well
Volume training
- Pros: more “practice” (technique), greater improvements in your mind-muscle connection and work capacity, more time in the gym
- Cons: time commitment, recovery is harder to manage, easy to overtrain unintentionally
- Especially suited to: intermediate–advanced lifters who have the time and recover well; those who respond well to higher volume
Why do both approaches work?
Three key factors matter for muscle growth (hypertrophy):
- Mechanical tension (weight + technique + sufficient effort)
- Enough total work over time (a volume you can recover from)
- Progress (an increasing stimulus over time)
HIT puts a strong emphasis on points 1 and 3. Volume training emphasizes points 2 and 3. If any of these falls short (e.g. you stop progressing or your recovery breaks down), your results will stall – whichever approach you choose.
The biggest practical difference: managing recovery
The typical HIT pitfall
If you “destroy” your muscles every workout, but:
- you sleep poorly,
- your stress levels are high,
- your form breaks down,
your nervous system/joints will start to “pay the price” before your muscles have a chance to recover/grow.
The solution: keep intensity high, but avoid pushing every set to your absolute limit every week. At times, use 1 heavy top set + 1 controlled back-off set, or selectively use “RIR 0–1” (0–1 reps in reserve).
The typical volume training pitfall
Too much of a good thing: the sets add up and the pump feels great, but:
- the weights you lift aren’t increasing,
- fatigue is building,
- your appetite/sleep is suffering,
which means your training volume exceeds your ability to recover.
The solution: set clear limits on volume (e.g. 10–20 working sets per muscle group per week is a practical range for many people), do fewer “hard” sets, and leave more reps in reserve (RIR-3-4).
Which approach builds more muscle?
The honest answer: you need an approach you can recover from and make progress with.
A practical rule of thumb:
- If you quickly become overly fatigued, sleep poorly, and have high stress levels → start with an approach closer to HIT (less volume, a more precise focus).
- If you recover well, have time to train 4–6× a week, and enjoy doing more work → volume training.
- If you’re “somewhere in the middle” (like most people) → a hybrid often works best: moderate volume + high intensity on selected sets.
Examples: what do these approaches look like in practice?
1) HIT-style training 2× a week (full body)
- Squat or leg press: 1–2 working sets (heavy)
- Romanian deadlift: 1 working set
- Press (flat/incline bench): 1–2 working sets
- Row / pull-down: 1–2 working sets
- Shoulders (press or lateral raises): 1 working set
- Biceps + triceps: 1 working set each
Focus: a few exercises each workout, with truly high-quality effort and progress.
2) Volume training 5× a week (split routine)
- Day 1: chest + triceps (12–18 working sets in total)
- Day 2: back + biceps
- Day 3: legs
- Day 4: shoulders + arms
- Day 5: “lagging muscle groups” (e.g. rear delts, hamstrings, calves)
Focus: more exercise variety, more volume, and managing effort.
How to choose the right approach for you (a simple test)
Choose HIT if 3–4 of these apply to you:
- you have little time to train
- you recover more slowly / tend to overtrain
- you want a simple plan with measurable progress
- “one hard working set, log everything” suits you
Choose volume training if 3–4 of these apply to you:
- you enjoy training frequently
- you have time to train 4–6× a week
- your joints tolerate volume well
- you enjoy changing exercises and “building” different muscle groups
If you’re torn between the two: a hybrid approach (training each muscle group 2× a week, moderate volume, 1–2 hard sets) often offers “the best of both worlds”.
Where can you experiment in a relaxed setting?
If you want to find out which approach suits your body (and how to get volume and intensity right in practice), the quickest way is to have a training plan tailored to you.
At ArtGym, a private boutique gym, you can get:
- your technique right (so the intensity doesn’t damage your joints),
- precisely planned progression in training loads and volume,
- a plan that fits your work, sleep and recovery.
📚 References
Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857–2872. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e840f3
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & 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), 1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., & Krieger, J. W. (2019). How many sets are needed to maximize muscle hypertrophy? Sports Medicine, 49(6), 939–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01038-7
Krieger, J. W. (2010). Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 1150–1159. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436
Morton, R. W., Oikawa, S. Y., Wavell, C. G., Mazara, N., McGlory, C., Quadrilatero, J., Baechler, B. L., Baker, S. K., Phillips, S. M., & McKendry, J. (2016). Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training–mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 121(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00154.2016
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Davies, T. B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J. W., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x
Dankel, S. J., & Loenneke, J. P. (2020). A closer look at muscular failure in resistance training. Sports Medicine, 50(3), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01226-5
Fisher, J., Steele, J., Smith, D., & Gentil, P. (2017). Evidence-based resistance training recommendations for muscular hypertrophy. Medicina Sportiva, 21(4), 1–10.
Helms, E. R., Zourdos, M. C., Storey, A., & Aragon, A. A. (2016). Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 38(4), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000218
Text: Turg.Fitness.ee
Illustrative image: Arnold Tokko
