REF-1629 · Iversen, Norum, Schoenfeld & Fimland, 2021 · Sports Medicine, Vol. · Paper · PubMed · Free full text

For strength and muscle on little time, this narrative review recommends at least 4 sets per muscle group a week at 6-15 RM (or 15-40 reps taken to failure), from at least one leg-pressing exercise such as a squat, one upper-body pull and one upper-body push; in the authors' view weekly volume counts for more than frequency, supersets, drop sets and rest-pause roughly halve training time (probably better for muscle size than strength), and stretching is for flexibility goals only

Main caveat: Narrative review: how studies were found, chosen and weighed is not in the abstract, so the recommendations are the authors' synthesis, not pooled estimates.
thin evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupRead from the abstract only

Iversen and colleagues start from lack of time, among the barriers people report more often for not exercising, and review research on training variables, advanced techniques, warm-up and stretching to work out how strength training can be done in the least time.

They advise bilateral, multi-joint exercises with full dynamic movements, lowering as well as lifting, and at least one leg-pressing exercise (such as squats), one upper-body pull (such as pull-ups) and one upper-body push (such as bench press), on machines or free weights as goals, access and preference allow.

In their reading weekly volume matters more than how often one trains, and the minimum they set is 4 weekly sets per muscle group at 6-15 RM, or 15-40 repetitions when sets are taken to volitional failure.

Supersets, drop sets and rest-pause training take roughly half the time of traditional sets at the same volume, but probably favour muscle growth over strength, and their long-term effects need more study. Warm-ups can be limited to the exercises themselves, and stretching earns its time only when flexibility is the goal.

Participants

No sample: a narrative review.
Populations of the studies reviewed: not in the abstract; the framing is people who do not exercise for lack of time.

Protocol

Narrative review (the title's term); search strategy, inclusion criteria and quality appraisal are not in the abstract.
Topics: acute training variables (exercise choice, volume, frequency, load), advanced techniques (supersets, drop sets, rest-pause), warm-up and stretching.
Outcomes considered: strength and hypertrophy, weighed against the time they take.
PubMed links two comments on the review (Sports Medicine 2022, 52(6):1449-1450 and 1451-1452); not read here.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to the review (PubMed record).

Key Results

VariableThe review's recommendation
Exercise typeBilateral, multi-joint, full dynamic movements (eccentric and concentric)
Minimum exercise listOne leg-pressing exercise (e.g. squat), one upper-body pull (e.g. pull-up), one upper-body push (e.g. bench press)
EquipmentMachines and/or free weights, by goal, availability and preference
Volume vs frequencyWeekly volume matters more than training frequency
Weekly volumeAt least 4 sets per muscle group a week
Load6-15 RM; 15-40 repetitions if sets go to volitional failure
Supersets, drop sets, rest-pauseRoughly half the training time of traditional training at the same volume; probably better for hypertrophy than for strength; long-term effects need more research
Warm-upExercise-specific only
StretchingOnly when the goal is flexibility
No effect sizes, study counts or time savings in minutes are in the abstract.

Practical Application

A minimum programme fits on one line. One squat-type leg exercise, one pull and one push, with each muscle group getting at least 4 sets a week at 6-15 RM; three such exercises at 4 sets each is 12 working sets a week (our arithmetic), done in one session or split across the week (our reading of their volume-over-frequency ranking).
Count sets per week, not sessions. The authors rank weekly volume above frequency, so, on our reading of that ranking, two short sessions and one longer one that reach the same weekly sets would be interchangeable.
Light loads are allowed if the set goes to failure. 15-40 reps to volitional failure is their alternative to 6-15 RM. Inference, not tested here: useful at home or in a hotel gym without heavy weights.
Supersets, drop sets and rest-pause save time; the authors judge them probably better for size than for maximal strength. They roughly halve training time at the same volume, but the authors judge them probably better for hypertrophy than for strength. Inference, not tested here: an endurance athlete lifting for force (SYNTH-43, SYNTH-44) keeps straight sets with full rests for the main lift and saves these techniques for accessory work.
Short warm-ups; stretching only for flexibility. The authors advise warming up with the exercise itself and stretching only when flexibility is a goal. Inference, not tested here: a few lighter ramp-up sets of the first lift serve as the warm-up.
Weigh the numbers as expert judgement. This is a narrative review (C+); for the pooled evidence on set number, weekly volume and frequency, the meta-analyses REF-1626, REF-1623, REF-1624 and REF-1477 carry more weight.

Limitations

Narrative review: how studies were found, chosen and weighed is not in the abstract, so the recommendations are the authors' synthesis, not pooled estimates.
The minimum of 4 weekly sets and the 6-15 RM range come without effect sizes or named studies in the abstract.
The time saving of advanced techniques concerns training time; their long-term effects on strength and size are, by the authors' account, not yet well studied.
The populations behind the recommendations are not given; transfer to trained athletes or older adults is not shown in the abstract.
Two published comments on the review exist (Sports Medicine 2022); their content was not read.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; the open full text was not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

narrative review without a systematic method (rubric); its numbers are the authors' recommendations, not pooled estimates; read from the abstract only

Content correction 2026-11-06
2026-11-06: added from the abstract and the PubMed record; level C+ (narrative review without a systematic method).