How should training volume be measured per muscle group to reflect actual mechanical stimulus?

Our analysis of the available research suggests that not all sets are created equal when it comes to stimulating a muscle. For example, two people might do the same number of sets for chest, but if one chooses exercises that activate the chest more effectively, their chest muscles may experience greater mechanical demand. That’s why we’re seeing evidence lean toward tracking volume in a more precise way—based on how hard each exercise works the muscle, not just how many sets were performed overall ¹.

The evidence we’ve reviewed supports the idea that adjusting volume measurements to reflect actual muscle involvement could better represent the true stimulus each muscle group receives over the course of a week ¹. This means a set of incline press might “count” more for the upper chest than a push-up, not because of the movement itself, but because of how much the muscle is engaged during it.

We don’t yet have enough detail on how to standardize this approach—like how to score muscle activation across different exercises—but what we’ve seen so far points toward a shift in how we think about volume. Instead of treating every set for a body part the same, we may need to weigh them based on effectiveness.

Based on what we've reviewed so far, tracking volume by muscle-specific exercise impact could be more meaningful than counting sets alone.

Practical takeaway: Focus on exercises that truly engage the muscle you’re trying to train—doing more sets only helps if those sets are actually working the right muscle hard enough.