Does Volume Really Make a Difference?

Bricknyce · January 20, 2010, 9:28pm

[quote]dankid wrote:
Look im not trying to come up with some super new magic training principle that is the holy grail of building muscle.

Im just questioning the “knowledge” that has been passed on in the industry that low volume is for strength and higher volume is for size. Ive seen the Bodybuilding Bible posted on these forums and pretty much agree with everything in it. BUT, I also dont think that its the end-all-be-all to getting bigger. It probably is perfect for almost everyone, and if you understand HOW to train, then you can make anything work. That line of thinking is what led me to question the whole notion of volume.

I too have wasted time on the writings of various gurus and the typical bb’ing type training. I have completely denounced the benefits of high volume low weight training. The old GVT and 10x10 methods were trendy, but I dont think they were beneficial to that many people.

I may have taken things to an extreme in that with my training, im pretty much always lifting in the 85-95% range. I found I like this range. But for most people I think 75-90% is where its at. Sometimes a little less weight or a little more weight may be of use.

As for frequency, I think its not that important. As long as you are able to get stronger and make progress, then your frequency is fine. This will almost always be 1-3x per week, and most of the time probably 2x. No surprise here.

Volume is the only variable that im not too sure on. I know how volume can manipulate performance and strength gains, but there is still this notion that volume somehow leads to building muscle. There may be some truth to this, and maybe not. This is what im trying to question.

Generally, i’ll just raise my volume when im taking in more calories, and my recovery is good, and lower the volume when things are reversed. This has worked pretty well, and I have no reason to try differently.

And at least im ignoring the many other aspects of this topic that would make it VERY complicated (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, TUT, etc) Im just looking at it from a practical point of view.

Here is another way to voice it:

If you could continue to make steady strength gains but increase your volume by 25%, would there be any benefit?[/quote]

You’re too deep for me at this point.

I just do what works - 3 to 4 x 8 to 12 for mass and “smaller/assistance” exercises and 1- to 5-rep maxes for strength.

Everything else is too deep for me.

I was once a “thinker”. Now I’m not. That’s why if someone other than a patient/client (someone who I have to provide a service for to get paid by my employer) talks to me in so much depth about nutrition and fitness, I run the other way.

Same goes for talk about race, religion, and politics. I know a great deal about all three topics, but can’t manage a full-blown conversation in them because:

The person I’m talking about doesn’t care to see my point of view.
It’s exhausting.
Shoving my thoughts down their throats doesn’t do anything for me.

its_just_me · January 20, 2010, 10:05pm

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
It depends on what you mean by 5 x 5.

Anyway, most intermediate guys train in the same fashion; they don’t do straight sets. So what does 1 x 5 mean? ONE hard set of 5 reps that succeeds 4 lighter sets of 5 reps?

If you’re training as hard as possible and you’re not a newbie, you CAN’T complete 5 sets of 5 with the same weight, let alone for any set-rep scheme!

5 x 5 for 300 lbs looks like this:

Set 1: 185
Set 2: 215
Set 3: 245
Set 4: 275
Set 5: 300

Maybe you can call this 5 x 5. Or maybe you can call it 1 x 5 because there is only one all-out blast set. Or maybe you can call it 3 x 5 because only the last 3 sets are difficult.

I consider it 5 x 5.

Even when someone writes 1 x 5, you’d be off your rocker to think that there weren’t several or a lot of warmup sets, unless this person is very weak in big lifts (<200 pounds in bench, squat, and deadlift). it takes MANY sets to warmup to a max-effort attempt of 1 to 5 reps. If you want to do an all-out blast, ME set with 3 to 5 reps, it’s gonna look like this:

bar x 5
75 x 5
105 x 5
135 x 5
165 x 5
195 x 5
225 x 3
255 x 3
275 x 3
300 x 3 to 5

The alternative is to complete 5 not-so-hard sets which is absolutely NO fun. Plus no one successful does that.
[/quote]

That was EXACTLY what I mean too.

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I think there’s more to it than just increasing the sets. For bodybuilding, you need to do more max effort in the 70-90% range, whereas with powerlifting, you need more sets overall (small jumps in weight between sets) to better prepare the system. So although you’ve done more sets (volume), it’s not going to do much for hypertrophy until it reaches the higher fatigue levels…
[/quote]

If you’re lifting huge weights it takes many more “steps” (ramping) to work up to your max, or near your max…if your powerlifting. So telling you to do so many sets doesn’t really mean anything unless you’re really specific. e.g. are we talking about accumulative fatigue (something CW is fond of), or ramping etc etc…

Example bench:

bar x 5
75 x 5
105 x 5
135 x 5
165 x 5
195 x 5
225 x 3 (work set)
255 x 3 (work set)
275 x 3 (work set)
300 x 3 (work set - max)

On this example that Bricknyce wrote (my added work sets), you’re not reaching the 70-90% range until you reach about 225 (3 sets remaining after that). And even then, it isn’t max effort until the last set. It’s the work in this 70-90% range and the max effort set at the end, (and maybe even a drop set too), which will do the most for hypertrophy. In other words, just adding sets won’t do much for hypertrophy unless these sets are intense.

Example squat:

120 x 5 (warm up)
175 x 5 (warm up)
220 x 5
260 x 3
285 x 3
310 x 3
335 x 3
360 x 3
385 x 3
410 x 3
435 x 3
460 x 3
485 x 3
500 x 3 (near failure)

So although there’s 12 sets (high volume), this won’t do much for hypertrophy…

By the way, I’m used to doing weights in metrics, so the example will probably look funny to most lol.

dankid · January 20, 2010, 10:22pm

Ya I see what your getting into Brick, and it makes much less sense using 5x5 than what im currently doing.

For me, it started out as 14x2 and you try to rest only 60 seconds between sets. When you can complete all the sets you increase the weight.

Now this isn’t typical bb’ing training or even strenght training, but I like it because its easy to monitor progress and alter the stimulus.

For ex: You might be benching on this with 250 and get all 14 sets of 2. At this point some people might add a SMALL amount of weight like 5lbs. If this were the case for me, i’d probably hit 14x2 on the very next workout.

But I could add a larger amount of weight, like 10 lbs and do 260. I wouldn’t get 14x2 on the first workout, but maybe 8x2. But within a few workouts, i’d probably hit 14x2, and then up the weight again.

The same thing can be done with rest breaks. You could cut the rest breaks down to 40 seconds, and keep progressing in weight, or decrease the rest further.

Or, when you do a jump up in weight, you can lengthen the rest breaks to 90 seconds, or whatever.

Im not saying there is anything special about this method, I just think its easy to no screw up.

Ok, so I started with 14x2, and for one reason or another after a few weeks, it became 7-10x2. Naturally though since im doing less sets, im either pushing harder on all those sets, or taking larger jumps when I increase weight.

Ok which leads to the point im at now. Im doing sorta a specialization phase now, in which im focusing on pressing first. Ive decreased the volume and frequency of everything else, and am mainly doing 7x2 for the non-specialized movements. I was thinking, does it make sense to increase my pressing lifts to 14x2, or is there really no benefit to the higher volume, and I should really just try to lift heavier.

Thats my perspective as of now, with how im viewing this volume scenario. Its a little different then the typical 3x6-8 or 5x5, where each set or the final sets are taken to near failure.

Another part of volume that I think I can conclude is not beneficial is the addition of sets, with no intent to increase weight.

Ive seen it recommended in many articles by various “gurus”, but it goes like this.

Progression by # of set - Youve been benching around 3x8 with 250, rather than go to 255 on the next workout go to 4x8, then 5x8, THEN increase the weight. In theory the added work and volume would lead to gains in mass, but I think in this scenario its the same thing. The heavier weight will be more of a stimulus for growth than added TUT or sets with the same weight. The guy that starts adding sets might get to 5x8 with 250, but in the same time, he could have probably progressed to 265+ with 3x8; hypothetically.

And I guess the way the Bodybuilding Bible and most on this site are advocating makes it pretty simple. You just ramp up the weight and try to increase your final set or two sets over time.

Simple enough, and I have used this method from time to time, but a lot of the time I prefer the way im doing it now, just because I seem to be able to make steadier gains. It may be that I have not yet “mastered” the ramping method, and it might be something I have to learn in the future.

Well, I still dont know about volume. Its something im gonna be skeptical about anytime it comes up. I’ll probably try going back to 14x2, but if my ability to progress in load slows, then I’ll be going back to 8x2

***As a note, this isn’t the way I train on everything. I do this mainly for the bigger lifts, like bench, press, squat, and deadlift. But occasionally I will do curls or tricep ext with heavier weights and 10x3 with low rest. Most of the time though for these other lifts, I try to ramp up in weight while training in a rep range.

dankid · January 20, 2010, 10:37pm

@ Its just me & Bricknyce -

The method of ramping outlined in Itsjustme’s post is pretty much how I would ramp if I were building toward a max. I usually use this method on my heaviest days when im trying to see if my other stuff is actually working and if my max strength is increasing.

Although when I do this method I dont even think about the number of working sets. I usually only worry about working sets with ramping with sets of 5 or more.

Ex: The other day as one of my assistance lifts, I did high incline DB press supersetted with another lift. It went like this

40 x 5 (warmup)
60 x 3 (warmup)
70 x 1 (warmup)
70 x 5
75 x 4
70 x 4
70 x 4

Or something like this. Now for this, I was aiming for more working sets, as I still haven’t decided my view on volume for size. But I could have seen stopping after the set of 75x4 to be the perfect point to stop.

As I said, this method is simple and has worked pretty well for me, but I dont think it will increase my strength as well as the other way I train. But this isn’t one of my primary lifts anyways. If it was, and if possible, i’d probably do 75’s for a bunch of sets of 2-3. Then i’d make the jump to 80’s and etc. But this doesn’t work with DB’s and as I said this isn’t a lift I was focusing on for strength.

In this case, I think increased volume would be a benefit, but only because it will be needed in order to progress in weight. I need more reps with 70s-75s before I can make the jump to 80’s. But to me, as soon as I can get around 4-5 reps with 80’s for at least one set, then I need to go for it, rather than add more volume with 75’s.

Bricknyce · January 20, 2010, 10:50pm

There’s no mastering warming up or ramping up to a max set, considering that all you need is half an adult brain and basic math and instincts to do it. If it took mastery, we’d be left with 10 IFBB pros and zero to one big guys in every gym.

I know all the methods you wrote on, and I (that’s me, not my attempt to shove shit down other people’s throats) think they’re boring as hell or are worth using during back-off weeks in strength routines.

For example, there are several ways to back off from max-effort work in a Westside template:

Don’t do the ME exercise at all.
Work up to 80% of your 1 to 3 rep max.
Keep the ME exercise and do nothing else for the remainder of the workout.
What you write of here and what Jim Wendler advises for some cases: do more submaximal sets. So instead of doing 300 for a single, warm up and use straight sets of 275 for several sets of 1 to 3 reps, say about 6 to 8 sets or until you know you’ve had enough.

But again, that shit is boring and I don’t see any big, strong motherfuckers doing it - in bodybuilding or powerlifting. Do you know how boring it is for most to pace themselves like that and not feel like they’re working hard. Yeah, it’s a mental thing, and sometimes what’s mentally satsifying isn’t good for us. But in MOST cases of working out and nutrition it IS very important.

Seriously - how long can one stick with an exercise or nutrition regimen that they hate? Those with extreme discipline or some type of outrageous reward can do it for a few years, and then that’s it! I used to want to compete or at least look like I compete. Now I want neither, because the benefits are non-existent for me or are minimal, as I discussed in my “Bible” thread. I don’t want to go to extremes to be pointed out in a crowd because being pointed out in a crowd does nothing meaningful for me now. I don’t and most likely would NEVER earn a living off of being so goddamn big or ripped or from competing.

This is why mentally satisfying, SIMPLE routines are best for most - even for most advanced men.

Do you actually think any top naturals or pros like Ronnie or Dorian ever thought:

"Alright - this upcoming week marks the start of my accumulation phase; it’s time to start adding another set every week to every exercise. Also, like CW recommends - I’ll add 2.5% of weight to every exercise every week.

“For the first exercise, I’ll implement a nervous-system-draining ratchet-ramped setup. For the next one, I’ll implement a muscle-traumatizing, traditional 3 x 8 scheme. For the third, I’ll do an ultra-high rep, low-set blood-flushing modus operandi.”

NO, they didn’t and don’t do that! My gut hunch is because being a top bodybuilder is exhausting and stressful as it is, and they’d probably wind up in a fucking madhouse if they made it mentally more so!

Matsa · January 21, 2010, 12:38am

[quote]dankid wrote:
Look im not trying to come up with some super new magic training principle that is the holy grail of building muscle.

Im just questioning the “knowledge” that has been passed on in the industry that low volume is for strength and higher volume is for size.[/quote]

Where did this come from? There are plenty of high volume programs for strength.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Yeah, it’s a mental thing, and sometimes what’s mentally satsifying isn’t good for us. But in MOST cases of working out and nutrition it IS very important.

Seriously - how long can one stick with an exercise or nutrition regimen that they hate? Those with extreme discipline or some type of outrageous reward can do it for a few years, and then that’s it! I used to want to compete or at least look like I compete. Now I want neither, because the benefits are non-existent for me or are minimal, as I discussed in my “Bible” thread. I don’t want to go to extremes to be pointed out in a crowd because being pointed out in a crowd does nothing meaningful for me now. I don’t and most likely would NEVER earn a living off of being so goddamn big or ripped or from competing.

This is why mentally satisfying, SIMPLE routines are best for most - even for most advanced men.
[/quote]

I agree. I really believe that part of the reason why some things works well for one guy but not so well for another is caused by their mentality.

atapene · January 21, 2010, 1:37am

…

hungry4more · January 21, 2010, 2:26am

Holy fucking baby balls shit.

The reason why the quality of forum discussions has gone down the shitter is largely because a lot of people who were regular posters, talking training a lot, realized that they just had to figure out what worked best for THEM, for THEIR goals. Either that or got sick of BS politics and such.

I can say that while having been away from this site for the greater part of a year, I discovered a lot about how my body responds to different routines now that I fall into the “intermediate” category. It’s kinda like being a beginner all over again, really. You’ve gotta find ways to get stronger consistently, utilize methods that might not have worked well as a newbie.

And all this while barely reading a thing online…I just took my basic knowledge, and tried different shit. High volume, low volume, high frequency, low frequency, high intensity, lower intensity, and every combination of those. It just took some more time under the bar, that’s all.

Bricknyce · January 21, 2010, 4:24am

[quote]dankid wrote:
Ya I see what your getting into Brick, and it makes much less sense using 5x5 than what im currently doing.