Whatever you enjoy doing is what you will do most consistently and that is what will give you the most benefits.
I don’t think it is a case of either/or, but simply a case of preference and that is more than ok.
4 Likes
Would it be a good idea to complete periods of both high volume and high intensity?
Sure, doing “meso-cycles” or “periodization” of 3 months of one and then, after about 1-2 week lay-off, switiching to the other not only keep shins fresh but address the adapatbility issue.
MY MAN! Thank you, brother. Was pumped to see your input here.
1 Like
I would say you need to go to failure, in order to LEARN how to use the reps in reserve scale properly…
I used to say the same about studies on RIR, too. That people just don’t know how to train hard enough to actually know – they think they’re going to failure, but they’re likely at 1-2 RIR.
And although I still know that’s the case, because I work with real people and have a full staff of coaches who do, too – so we see it! There’s now research pointing in the opposite direction, too – that most people are actually pretty good at estimating their RIR accurately. I still have a hard time fully believing it’s 50/50 here, to be honest… but nonetheless, we can’t ignore any one side of the research.
Another thing to note is that there’s an issue going to failure or training with low volumes and super high intensity as we age in the gym (training age increases), because we DO get better at maximally stimulating muscle, lifting heavier loads, and pushing ourselves… That will inevitably lead to burnout and it’s why a lot of evidence-based bodybuilders actually train in the 1-2 RIR zone 90% of the time – it allows more volume to be accumulated, because recovery is better in the long run. Especially with the latest research on deloads, by Max Coleman, showing that they didn’t do anything helpful… We know that it’s probably best to set yourself up for what can be done most consistently over time. Lastly, there’s correlation data showing powerlifting causes more injuries than bodybuilding – which is another reason going all out to failure or using only low volume/high intensity protocols, especially with bigger compound lifts, isn’t a great idea.
All of this in the context of wanting to build as much muscle as you can, of course!
2 Likes
Yes and no.
Research shows that periodization actually doesn’t matter much at all for hypertrophy. In fact, most of the research on periodization for muscle growth shows you’ll build more muscle in the long run by NOT periodizing and rather just focusing on smart programming that allows week to week progressions to happen.
Now, that’s SOLELY for muscle growth. Not strength and performance.
Therefore if you get to a point where the ONLY reason you’re not getting bigger is because you’re lacking strength somewhere… then yes, implementing a lower volume program to allow higher intensities for strength development would be smart – temporarily, to break that plateau you’re in.
Lastly, research shows deloads and “sensitization phases” likely aren’t as helpful as we thought. Deloads specifically. Sensitization phases haven’t been studied well enough IMO. But point being, doing a low volume phase to create sensitivity to higher volumes for muscle growth in the next phase… It’s a cool theory and hypothetically makes sense in some ways, but from what we know it’s probably not that helpful compared to just consistently doing what works best to get enough volume in and continue progressing week to week over time.
2 Likes
This is really interesting. Based on this lack of research support, do you still use sensitization phases in your or your client’s training?
And, as said by others above me, thank you for providing a balanced view on the topic.
I get this, but I do think it runs into a reality brick wall at some point. If we pick a progression model, eventually it hits a limit (insert 1000 lbs bench press or 200 set workout example), so that’s out. So then we say, “ok, but just change a parameter and progress on that;” well, now we’re periodizing.
I’m not arguing for the sake of argument, but there is a time-bound practicality limit to any study.
1 Like
Great question, man!
The answer is less often than before, now that I see the lack of evidence supporting it.
However at times I still do think it’s practical to implement one of these phases, it’s just not for the sake of “sensitizing the muscular system to hypertrophy adaptations” or to “re-sensitize to higher volumes”… Usually it’s because a person’s getting bored and psychologically just needs a change of pace OR, even more often than that, it’s in the reverse – we implement a higher volume training block because joints are getting beat or CNS is getting fried up from lifting heavy, so we shift to a bodybuilding phase for 1-3 mesocycles.
2 Likes
Haha this is very true, man! I think the problem also is in the lack of clarity behind defining what programming vs. progression models vs. periodization actually is…
Periodization can simply be a “methodical approach to program progression schemes throughout your training calendar”… But that’s all the above in one, really lol.
Great discussion here!
2 Likes
This is a good conversation!
Your point above makes sense. It would also make sense to me depending on priorities, like maybe athletes during different parts of the season?
Or, ahem, middle-aged dudes like me chasing their various fitness dreams?
Lately, I’ve been running a plan that’s heavy on conditioning. I’ve been wondering if there’d be a benefit to reducing cardio to a “maintenance” amount (though I have no idea what that amount is) before switching to a hypertrophy plan. I’d like to believe there’d be more room for those sweet, sweet gainz.
1 Like
The problem with studies like this and the headlines that they bring is people will use it to mean “deloads are a waste of time”. There are many guys who say “Train right and you won’t ever have to deload”, and that may be completely accurate. I’m sure we would all love that. For the 99% that aren’t surrounded by top coaches, aren’t as clever with autoregulation, have moments of overreaching, can’t live our lives the way we want to for peak recovery, and a myriad of other things… it’s just not really a realistic message that should ever be preached too loudly without that caveat IMO. It fits into the “No days off culture” and is therefore easy to be misinterpreted.
1 Like
I’m curious about the cortisol factor. For me, if I go into the gym with the intent to do lifts I like and get a good pump I feel way less stressed overall. This leads to bro-ey workouts but I have realized those have paid off way better for me in terms of physique building than any of the strength-focused powerlifting-style workouts that were heavily pushed when I was a beginner in the late 00s.
On the other hand, whenever I swing back to doing work that more intensity driven, I feel a lot of anxiety. 10 years ago I was doing 5/3/1 to get my DL up (and also BB bench) and I would almost feel sick to my stomach on the “1” days because all I could think was about how I had spent all month prepping for this and I had to hit it or I failed myself and what if I felt slightly off that day etc etc.
It was just a recipe for burnout, and I just think of those days as feeling sometimes good but overall miserable.
Even when I have a seated DB shoulder press day or incline DB bench day, if I’m going for a higher weight I have just this pit in my stomach feeling, for DB shoulder press especially because just getting the weights above your head is such a draining and unenjoyable experience if you aren’t feeling 100%.
When I use Hammerstrength or selectorized or cable machines or do anything where I don’t have this nagging feeling that screwing up will be at best embarrassing and sad and at worst crush me under a bar, I can really push myself.
Maybe some people find volume work much more relaxing and enjoyable which results in better consistency and less cortisol? And volume work ends up feeling synonymous in practice with machines and accessory lifts and other stuff that veers away into the world of bodybuilding from strength training (volume in these power-lifting friendly ways like 5/3/1 BBB never worked as well re physique as just doing a gym bro routine personally).
3 Likes
I think this curve idea makes a lot of sense. I’ll probably never be “advanced”, but I do have a theory about getting to the intermediate level and beyond a bit.
I think the best approach is to try to get your strength level (imputed one-rep max) in an exercise for the muscle you want to grow up to intermediate as fast as you can, but still using bodybuilding rep ranges (8-12 reps). Therefore, do about three hard sets per workout with longish rest periods - like 3 minutes - to get the most effective sets/reps but with decent volume - but only really care about the reps on the first set (as your indicator of progress) and then the other two sets are just extra work.
Then when the strength is there (but with decent muscle too since you weren’t doing heavy triples or anything more neural-focused), then add more volume to get that next level of growth.
I found that when I actually went after triceps like this (after years of thinking benching would be enough - long arms so it didn’t really work) - they grew fast until I went a little past intermediate on the strength charts for skull crushers.
1 Like