That sounds good in theory, but 3-4RIR is the bare minimum to stimulate hypertrophy and combined with less sets it might be just enough to prevent atrophy at that point.
My impression with a lot of these fitness figures is that they are being different for the sake of being different. Everyone wants some kind of shortcut to gains and a more effective way of training, but it’s becoming more and more evident that anything beyond the basics is mostly a waste of time.
i think PC was trying to get away from the mindset “volume for volumes sake”.
like going into a workout thinking…i have to do 3 sets flat dB, 3 sets incline bench, 3 sets dips, and 3 sets of flys for chest. You don’t “have to”. you could do 1 RP set of flat DB, 1 drop set incline DB, and 1 set balls to the wall of dips SS with cable flys and fully stimulate the muscle.
Obviously intensity is drastically different for the sets.
Here’s the thing, Paul says 8-12 sets per muscle group per session is optimal, James Krieger (of the evidence-based high volume fanatics) says that hypertrophy peaks at 8-10 sets per muscle group per workout. You can find this on his and the JPS fitness Instagram pages. He also says that 1-1.5x/week frequency is optimal, which is the exact same as what Paul advocates (4 day PPL split, one workout done twice each week). The funny thing is that when I pointed this out Paul got upset like I was attacking him.
So the only major difference here is that Paul says go to failure (and maybe do 2 extra sets) while Krieger doesn’t necessarily recommend failure. Miniscule differences.
Paul made some valid criticisms of Krieger, Israetel, and Schoenfeld, largely relating to some of the shitty studies they have done and backwards interpretations of data, but now it looks like he’s trying to be the HIT guy in the gang. I don’t see how you could make such harsh criticisms of someone (and publicly on top of it) and then turn around and act like you are friends.
Paul isn’t into high frequency, Schoenfeld just published a study (which Paul linked in his thread) showing no benefit to 3x over 2x/week frequency with equal volume. The only remaining variable is to see if 3x with higher total volume (perhaps equal volume per session) gives better results, but again how much total volume can you handle in a week?
As for 12-20 sets once per week, it looks like for most people the upper end of that is going to be too much. Sure there are people who have built up a tolerance for volume, genetic outliers, and of course drugs, but from the sounds of things for most people it is more volume for no addition benefit and possibly counterproductive at some point. Yes, there are pro bodybuilders and such who do better with such high volume but that doesn’t apply to the average lifter.
Yeah, well that’s the thing about trying to be the latest, most brilliant author out there, when anyone brings up other approaches that have unquestionably worked for years, or points out that your own results obviously don’t really put you at the top of the game (for anyone who has ever witnessed a bodybuilding contest in person, and then seen any of the competitor’s versions of events in their social media reports knows), you can’t just ignore it.
Yep. Assisted or not, there are decades of anecdotal evidence of actually impressive bodybuilders supporting this. No quoted study (usually done on non-advanced trainers, with no attention to diet or even training programs that resemble what a seriously competitive lifter would be doing) can argue that point.
Yeah, pretty much. Effort, intensity,… it can be a real variable term depending on who you speak to. My own magic moment of realization was in stimulating growth, but not just racking up fatigue, was (for me, and plenty of others mind you, lest anyone start the outlier, or n=1 arguments), coming close to failure (which has been proven to be the same result as hitting failure), but not driving yourself into the ground, hence allowing for a few more sets (different patterns of fiber recruitment) to be done because you didn’t buy into that intensity=/=volume notion. This is why so many actually advanced competitors employ this approach.
S
I had to have that imposed upon me. I was one of those that believed if you weren’t a quivering broken mess by the end of the session, you weren’t done yet.
A good and much more methodical friend of mine finally told me “Just trust the process.”. Probably the most valuable little tidbit I’ve ever learned (kinda). Even now it’s easy to revert back to the “Beat yourself into better shape” mindset.
This right here is the problem. What works best for advanced bodybuilders is quite likely not the same thing that will work best for 90% of people looking for training advice online.
Well what’s your definition of “non-advanced?” I ask because most studies that get bandied about by fitness authors were done on either completely untrained individuals, or those with maybe a year (of who knows what type of training and diet) under their belt. So is it time put in? Level of development? Training knowledge and adherence to intelligent plan?
I’m not saying that any approach only works on either advanced or not trainers, because such a blanket statement, irrelevant of a myriad of other factors would play into the mix.
S
I’ve learned that “stimulating” and not “annihilating” my muscles is a much better approach. I actually feel good all the time while still lifting heavy. Joints feel good, bones feel good, ligaments feel good, and I overall just feel great lol.
On another note…
Do any of you actually count the number of sets you do per body part per week?
How do you try balancing it all out? I squat, hinge, press, pull and I do a 1:1 for those just to make sure I don’t over do one compared to the other.
I didnt used to “count” them per se, but I’ve generally followed programs that had them laid out (as a common example, 5/3/1 BBB or Max-OT).
As I have gotten more and more into Waterbury type training I have actually really gotten to like his “total rep” system, which means (as a single example) that you pick a weight you can do 10-12 reps with before technique fails or speed slows noticeably, and you do 40 total reps. It usually works out to 4-5 sets. Other rep schemes he uses are 15 total reps with a 2-3RM, 25 total reps with a 4-6RM, and 50 total reps with a 20-22 RM (a bit of a moving target, but its easier to hit than you may think at first glace). Again, RM meaning speed slows down noticeable or technique change is needed to complete the rep.
I resisted many of his ideas when first presented with them, but honestly Ive come around to almost everything he has written to a certain extent, and I’m probably just as muscular as I’ve ever been with a smaller time commitment to the gym.
That is awesome man! Doing more work (or better work) in less time is always great!
The question is how do we first define advanced. For powerlifting I would say at least around 400 Wilks, for bodybuilding I’m not too sure since that’s not my sport but maybe several years of consistent training along with adequate nutrition, and of course significant muscular development. If you trained hard for a long time and you still suck you aren’t advanced and if you start at or near the top then you are an outlier.
Those would be beginners, and you are right in saying that these studies are likely not applicable to people who have actually trained seriously for several years.
Maybe that’s the problem, all the fitness gurus are trying to find the optimal approach for everyone and there just isn’t one. In all those studies, good ones and bad ones, there are people who made good gains off the “bad” program and people who got smaller and weaker off the “good” one, so a large part of the equation is simply figuring out what works for you as an individual through trial and error.
Seems to me like certain muscle groups/movements respond differently, like I can do a lot more benching than deadlifting and make progress but if I train bench like deadlift and vice versa then both will have issues.
@The_Mighty_Stu @BrickHead how did you guys “know” when you were doing the right volume vs too much/ too little or the sets were too hard/ not hard enough, etc.?
There’s so many variables. I don’t compete in anything, so it’s not critical for me, but I really don’t know how people decide what’s “perfect” for them.
I know you didnt ask me, but…
I think this idea can really, REALLY trip people up and is responsible for most of the program hopping or questioning people do of themselves. While there might be a “perfect” program, we should instead look for effective ones.
One of the things I have always liked that Skip LaCour used to say was that “There are no zero’s in training” … Meaning, if you are training hard what you are doing should be working. It MIGHT not be optimal and maybe there is something you could be doing better, but if you are busting ass maybe your program is an 8/10 instead of a 9/10, but you arent wasting your time.
I think it all comes down to progress, and then after that experience or “logic.” - Meaning, obviously 1 rep isnt going to do it, and 100 sets is too much. So if you are making progress (whatever that means to you) on your current system you are doing “enough” (but maybe not “perfect” as labeled above).
When progress stops you kind of have to evaluate where to go from there… Add more of something (reps/weight/sets/exercises etc…), or maybe cut back if you have been pushing the red line for a while. This is kind of where the experience comes in, which allows you to use a bit of logic on the issue, meaning if you have upped the sets from 8 to 10 to 12 to 15 to 20 and the last 2 jumps didnt do anything… you probably arent heading in the right direction.
An oversight on my part, to be sure.
Great response. I think you’re dead-on with everything. I remember Wendler writing something like “nobody who lifts weights gets smaller and weaker; stop worrying about it,” which is the same sentiment.
Thanks for that!
I think you’re 100% correct. I think this is why a lot of ppl use block periodization as well. You kinda always have a plan. It kinda allows for longer training cycles without having to step back and completely overhaul everything.
Like you said issue is most ppl program hope and can’t commit to the process. Lots of newbies want results yesterday.
As far as figuring out what’s perfect you one person, that takes time and keeping a log. If you lift for 12 weeks made no progress in whatever your goal was look back be honest with yourself. Was it lack of effort, motivation if not how many sets were you performing? Make adjustments from there.
I definitely agree with this for 99% of us. I guess for off-season bodybuilders I really am kind of curious. Here’s what I mean:
They want to add muscle; well, they’re definitely going to gain weight because they’re eating.
So now we say, well, are you getting stronger? Probably, because they’re eating and because their joints will feel better/ leverages will improve. We also start adding in that maybe we’re changing the lift slightly and lift more weight but muscle tension changes.
The goal obviously is to look better, but you’re going to get a little fatter, so now your look is completely different, so who knows?
Etc.
Anyway, this is a complete thought experiment on my part, so it may not even be practical enough to deserve an answer.
Like Lonnie points out, there’s a certain amount of “give it enough time to work and try to be analytical” involved I suppose. A common saying among better bodybuilders is to trust the process. That’s because even when you’re doing everything correctly, it’s a darn slow process.
I used to pull up competitive bodybuilders as examples of how much honest muscle you can gain over a stretch of time because once you’ve gone through a prep, you’re so lean you can compare contest shape one year to the next (assuming you’re in real top 5 shape and not “my friends all say I’m under 10%”). As much as I hate to use myself as an example, I put on about 2-3 lbs per year each year I competed. Now, I couldn’t truly say that with any degree of certainty until I weighed in for the show and saw my stage weight - all in similar if not better - conditioning steadily increase.
Its also interesting to address your suggestion of better leverages and feeling stronger in the off season. I was usually 25 lbs over my stage weight when not competing, and as I got smarter about everything (better?), I lifted less weight. If anyone asks my best lifts, I quote them what I used to “move” years before I figured out how to actually look like a bodybuilder. Of course not everyone can check their ego and work with 250 on a bar and use it strategically when they’ve been constantly running their mouths about how they bench 4 plates a side for years.
S
I figure if the mirror wasn’t clear enough in that situation you could always have your bf % professionally checked before and after. If you ran 12 good weeks of focused training and diet you’d see if the results were there. Also good coaching would help with that as well. I know in the strength world some really strong guys who are strength coaches however let another coaches program their blocks. Basically this is to prevent them not programming things they need but hate doing. I think an outside skilled eye is great for anyone at any level.
I understand. I’m a classic over thinker with anything I really love doing so no worries.
This is interesting, and I think really drives home the importance of experience in your sport.
I think this is a great point. Just like any endeavor - if you want to do it at a high level it’s probably most beneficial to just get out of your own head
