Correlation does not imply and most assuredly does not prove causation and that’s the basic problem I have with any study conclusion based on meta analysis.
I have seen many well done studies utilizing large numbers of participation which indicate 1 set to voluntary failure as efficacious or more efficacious than multiple sets.
There are a multitude of problems with studies of resistance training that are difficult if not impossible to solve as by necessity these studies involve human motivation and bias.
2 Likes
In my opinion, it comes down to progressive overload. If you get to repping big weight on the mass building exercises, it doesn’t matter much how you get there. I have done better with more volume, but hit or low volume works for some.
Yep, the conclusion of the Schoenfeld’s 2016 meta-analysis is just moronic. People really believe that doing 10+ sets is going to give you 9,8% more gains? Where is the magic switch between the 9th and 10th that doubles your gains? Research at this point is looking to find the point at which training volume becomes detrimental to gains, which is kind of sad because nobody needs such extreme volumes (16 sets of leg curls for example).
1 Like
Hi Scott,
Have you heard of Ron Laura’s Matrix training?
His system utilizes progressive segmental training (like 21s) and employ diferente sequences each workout.
Talk about variety.
The sad part is I always see people in the gym sitting on a piece of equipment for about 15 minutes doing God knows how many sets and resting way too long with nothing to show for it
2 Likes
Big Weight is a range between 30-85% RM, so load should increase as you get stronger. Also training with a high level of Effort (not maximal) is really important for hypertrophy.
Increasing the weight or the reps perfomed does not increase the mechanical tension muscle fibers are subjected to, you just are basically applying the same stimulus over and over again.
Great post, thanks.
1 Like
Hello everyone,
I hope you are all doing good.
I had some time off and continued researching the training volume issue.
Here’s a scatterplot using the 15 studies that Schoenfeld used in his 2016 meta-analysis.
Also, I added the following studies to my analysis:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339271428_Progressive_Resistance_Training_Volume_Effects_on_Muscle_Thickness_Mass_and_Strength_Adaptations_in_Resistance-Trained_Individuals
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336855244_High_Resistance-Training_Volume_Enhances_Muscle_Thickness_in_Resistance-Trained_Men
https://lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/107256
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327342013_Dose-Response_of_Weekly_Resistance_Training_Volume_and_Frequency_on_Muscular_Adaptations_in_Trained_Males
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327286690_Resistance_Training_Volume_Enhances_Muscle_Hypertrophy_but_Not_Strength_in_Trained_Men
And both Amirthalingam studies on GVT.
The difference with Schoenfeld’s paper is that instead of comparing the total % of muscle gained, I did a comparison of the % per week, or rate of muscle gain per week. This allows a more balanced comparison between studies of different length.
Two things stand out:
- Results are all over the place, regardless of training volume.
- Two datapoints at the far right of the graph belong to the Schoenfeld’ volume study, rectus femoris and vastus lateralis doing 45 sets. They turned out to be outliers, so I excluded them of the last graph.
So much for the volume hypothesis of muscle growth…
1 Like
Thank you for that clarification
Yes, muscle growth is really just a response to the stimulus (tension and fatigue). If you are gaining real muscle, the strength gain is apparent. I think when people just focus on strength, it becomes a bit misguided while training for size. Lots of techniques (neurological) can help strength including low rep training, but that doesn’t seem to be as productive for size based on studies and anecdotal experience.
I have found VERY low volume and frequency good for strength (or demonstration of such), yet poor for size.