The whole issue of overthinking this stuff reminds me of the Bruce Lee quote that encapsulated his journey through the martial arts…
“Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.”
The same thing could be transferred to resistance training, or any kind of training for that matter. Most of us need to go on this journey so that we can see the forest and not the trees.
Bro lifters may be at the start of the journey, but their simplistic view of things gets them a fair way. Then we delve deeper in to it, looking for the magic bullet that will inspire “new gains” and take us to the next level. At that point we get lost…sometimes for years. Forums are full of the lost folk, who overthink it all. Some eventually make it to the other side…
I agree. I’ve often said I’m glad the internet wasn’t going when I first started lifting (well, for lots of reasons); all the options get in the way
Yes…but the magazines were just as bad
I see your point, but I actually disagree with this for a few reasons (and I’m biased because I enjoyed this era):
- They weren’t as on-demand. You both had to wait for next month and fork out a few bucks to get the next version.
- That level of waiting created some periodization for the trainee!
- There was some level of vetting for the voices to which you were exposed: an author at least had to make it to that point.
- By way of the above, the voices had some limit below infinite; I think that at least limited the intellectual whiplash
- There was nobody for the trainee to argue with to prove they were right; you either tried it out and got disgustingly jacked or you didn’t. I sure wasn’t going to brag to my high school friends that I was reading muscle magazines.
- Lifting just plain works, so sticking with something for a month or so tended to pan out. The internet world seems to have folks not do anything because they’re afraid it’s wrong. Then, it might have been wrong, but I felt like we at least did it until the next version came.
I agree with this so much. John McCallum’s “Complete Keys to Progress” is a testament to the value of “muscle mag periodization”. The way he laid out training month to month to correspond with the releases of his articles was just absolutely perfect. Yeah: it was an opportunity to shill for Hoffman as well, but the programs had to work to SOME degree for him to keep writing. And if you had a question, you had to write to him personally and wait for a response, so you had to take time to REALLY craft that question so the time wasn’t wasted, compared to the drivebys we see in forums.
The biggest issue with forums, as has been pointed out, is the population. The sad truth is that it’s not the people that are SUCCEEDING that come to forums: it’s the people in need of help. In turn, you’re in a community of the helpless, and, ironically: seeking their help. You often end up with echo chambers of beginners telling other beginners how to NOT be beginners, because the dudes that are out there crushing it are…out there crushing it! They don’t “need” forums because they already have it figured out.
You DO get a few nutjobs that just hang out for love of the subject matter, but they tend to get drowned out over the volume of the beginners, primarily because the advice and wisdom they have to share goes against the grain of what the majority population has convinced themselves is right, and they either leave or just hang out and keep their heads down.
Confirmation bias is real!
It’s just not exciting to hear “dude, it doesn’t matter… it’s just going to take another 3 years.” That advice sucks to hear, and you see people on the internet that are jacked now, so it’s really easy to dismiss the reality. With the magazines, it was just so much harder to tell someone life isn’t fair and you got dealt a bad genetic hand and they don’t understand the secret sauce. You had to tell a buddy in real life and either he is as small as you, so you don’t see a disparity, or you’ve actually seen him in the weight room since he was 13, so you know the answer.
Those are great points and spot on and I take it back…mags were not as bad
I was thinking along the lines of too much information and also too much focus on the professional champions routines…and i get it, thats what sells
Meatloaf sandwiches powerlifter with a vegetarian bodybuilder: worlds collide.
You love to make these bold statements, but it’s just a loudly painted cardboard cutout. So EXACTLT, why is the system BS, professor?
Been following RP stuff for the last year — with my own tweeks — and have re-peaked to my best muscular levels since my late 30s. I’ll be 63 in 2 months.
Yeah, Dr Mike went to school for awhile, it’s possible he may have herd of some of those ideas before he met up with Juggernaut.
Periodization has never been shown to be superior, more effective or even necessary for hypertrophy training.
All of his so-called scientific principles and terminology are not based on actual studies.
MV, MEV, MAV, MRV. All crap.
There’s no need to start Week 1 with 8 sets at 4 RIR and then progress to 16 sets at 0-1 RIR by Week 4 before needing a deload. Following mesocycles involve even more volume.
There is no point in incorporating a week of “metabolite training” with various intensification techniques only to follow it with a deload or “resensitization phase”. There is zero scientific support for any of it.
Why would one need to adapt to more and more stress when the goal is hypertrophy?? We know you cannot force muscle growth so what is the point?
It makes sense for athletes, powerlifters, weightlifters. For them periodization and phasic training is necessary but, not when the goal is hypertrophy.
I mean look at this. People are actually doing 30+ weekly sets for a muscle.
To grow muscle, you need to:
1-Eat in a surplus and get enough protein.
2-Progressively get stronger in the 3-30rm range.
*Lower rep ranges may be better because they allow for more effective reps, mechanical tension, and recruit of motor units without the risk of building too much lactic acid which may affect the ability to reach failure. Higher rep ranges also cause more fatigue, soreness, and muscle damage that are not necessary for hypertrophy and may affect following sessions. But it will be up to one’s preference.
3-Do enough volume to stimulate hypertrophy without too much fatigue? Which is around 4-10 sets per muscle, per week.
*Beginners can get by on 3 sets, maybe 1 set a session per muscle group 3x a week.
“Re-peaked” at 60+? Then you were weak and out of shape. Like I have said you Darden/HIT guys are delusional. Anything would have worked for you.
I’m going to go with a big “like… with context.”
First, I just thought it was a well-reasoned argument with justification for each of your points.
I agree that periodization is not necessary for hypertrophy, but I think there’s great benefit to fatigue management (which you point out yourself). While I would agree that the system you laid out is needlessly complex, it does answer for accumulating volume and managing fatigue - the balance you point out as critical for hypertrophy goals.
I also agree there is “enough” volume to stimulate hypertrophy, and have no reason to think it’s not 4-10 sets. However, there are enough studies demonstrating more volume = more muscle (at least in the short term), that I am incline to believe one can do more.
With those two thoughts combined, I think my takeaway is the system is likely overly complicated, but still valid. Instead of just progressing within a reasonable volume range over a longer period of time, he advocates really pushing volume with necessary deloads/ maintenance periods to manage fatigue. All roads lead to Rome kinda thing here… the equation eventually balances itself.
I also understand the skepticism on 60 is the new 30, but don’t know that phrasing was completely necessary. We can just differ there, though.
These terms are from the book I mentioned before. So CWS uses them too.
I’ve also understand that they aren’t actually scientific classifications. I tried to use them for a while, but felt they were just distracting me.
Chris Beardsley has some great posts on this that I will try to find. He has pointed out many of the mistakes made in the volume studies.
For one, I find issues with what they call failure. Overall volume has to be in the context of training to failure or close to it. I cannot see how someone is doing 8 sets to failure on a muscle in a session and recovering in time for the next session. So, more volume may be better if you do not train hard. I believe there are studies on 4-5 RIR leading to hypertrophy so, a lot of sets in that range will illicit gains but, to me that is a waste of time in the gym.
You can find videos of Brad Schoenfeld training to “failure” with Meadows and he was very far from what looked like failure. Even Meadows gave him a look and that is the type of guy running these crazy volume studies.
30 sets per week on quads while training them 4x is absurd haha
Honestly though, watching Dr. Mike’s form when he trains is maybe more painful than the programming. His form is so weird, just mega extended at the neck and back at all points in time. You can see his own comment section starting to turn on him on any time he posts a lifting video on IG.
[quote=“OTay, post:32, topic:290545”]
Like I have said you Darden/HIT guys are delusional.
Dude, you have a severe case of DDS
Don’t put words in my mouth, son. I worked out consistently from then til now. Weak and out of shape? Hardly. Just not as peaked as I was in my late 30s, before I got hitched. At that time, I was doing 2 workouts per week, which I’ve done since forever. I now do 3, but the overall volume is only up for select muscle groups each cycle.
Yes. Even if they’re done with isolation movements.
Imagine doing 30 hard sets of squats in a week.
Hilarious! For a guy who trashes HIT, 4-10 sets/week is closer to HIT than you think. And BTW, with my own customization of RP’s program, I am doing 4-8 sets/week for most groups.
But I also have 2-3 muscles per cycle I focus on and they get about 10-12 sets.
[quote]
3-Do enough volume to stimulate hypertrophy without too much fatigue? [/quote]
Deconstruct your own sentence, will you? It could be improved:
“Balance intensity and volume, to stimulate hypertrophy without causing excess fatigue.”
We’re not that far apart really. You just need to stop with the false narrative that “all the RP people are doing 20-30 sets per bodypart per week”. It’s way off the mark.