I’m actually working on a new hypertrophy book ATM.
I don’t think it’s relevant really. Whether you count it as one or three, one thing people need to get out of their head is the total number of sets being performed.
Again, allow the effort to dictate that. Rather than trying to figure out some appropriate number of sets then regulating your effort in order to do them.
Here was my chest, shoulders, triceps training from the other night.
Machine Press - 1 50% set
Incline Side Laterals - 1 muscle round
Press Flyes - 1 x 8
Cheat Side Laterals - 1 x 6
Strict Side Laterals - 1 x 10
PBN - 1 x 12
Triceps Parallel Pushdowns - 1 50% set
Feet Elevated Push Ups - 50 total reps
Depending on how you look at it, chest got 3-4 sets, shoulders got “4” sets, and triceps got 1-2 direct sets. But that could be broken down a number of ways because a muscle round can be looked at as 6 sets, or 1 set because it’s clustered. I don’t count sets. I just go by effort.
How do you decide when enough is enough?
Well after 30 years of doing this I kind of have a good feel for that. That’s why it’s important to experiment and not use studies to figure this stuff out. No study can tell you better than what your body can if you’re paying attention.
I will also add that when you’re not overrunning recovery you should feel good in the gym and outside of it. I saw a really dumb meme by Nuckols a while back that was something like “feeling good? Do a little more.”
No. If you’re feeling good, and you’re seeing performance increases in the gym, then you’re dialed in. Literally 1-2 more sets of highly intensive work could mean less performance improvements and less gains. Look at that study I used for the last article. There was a MASSIVE difference in the 10 and 15 set groups in terms of gains and performance improvement. And not much of a difference in the 5 and 10 set groups.
Most guys don’t train hard enough with the sets they have prescribed for themselves, and believe that doing “more” will somehow make up for that. It really just doesn’t work that way in the real world.
1 Like
So do you think some people can (if anybody can) benefit from high frequency?
I guess I just constantly wonder why so many of you think that more frequency and/or volume is the answer?
Do you want to get bigger and stronger, or just spend more time in the gym? The answers to those questions are quite different.
2 Likes
I’m not currently using high frequency, I’m just wondering, because I’ve had some success with it (for my back and legs)
I saw Israetel mentioned in this thread a few times. Last night I read an IG post from him outlining his current program of eleven weight training sessions per week! He looks the best he ever has, but his high volume, high frequency training is not producing different results than others!
Most pro bodybuilders, natural and enhanced train each muscle with low frequency. I and others have said it so many times: doubling the rate of frequency and protein synthesis does not produce a doubling in results or even speed them up much past a beginner phase!
Take powerlifting too, and one can see some of the best ever trained with low frequency and even sometimes low volume. Kirk Karwoski sometimes would ramp up to a work set of squats and leave the gym!
1 Like
Not trying to start an argument or anything, but if you are going to say stuff like that it would be helpful if you could give some directions to figure out what an appropriate training volume would be. I’m not new to this myself and I have a pretty good idea of what I need, and it’s pretty close to what you are advocating as well. But for some beginner/intermediate guys, they have no idea where to start.
So here is the question: for someone new to this, how would you decide that they have done enough work for today?
Yeah, Nuckols is largely responsible for this high volume trend that was going strong for a while. He has a way of presenting opinions in a convincing way, but when you look into it he is often wrong. I got into an argument with him on Facebook because he was saying that SSB squats are worthless and so on, he deleted the thread and said he didn’t have time to argue after I quoted one of his own articles. He then re-opened the discussion a week or two later and completely changed his tune. So yeah, I can see why you aren’t a huge fan of these guys.
There was even a recent study that found one set to failure to be optimal for strength gains, not sure if Schoenfeld was involved but he was talking about it. The caveat that he added, which I agree with, is that if you are training for something like PL then adding some submaximal volume could potentially be useful because technique is a major consideration. PLers who did well with barely any volume like Coan or Efferding already had great technique, if not then technique work is useful.
But anyway, my point with this is that some of the statements from this “evidence-based” crowd seem to completely contradict one another and their default answer is more volume.
Just for the sake of argument, you mentioned Efferding earlier. He said that back when he was training for BB with Flex Wheeler he was training twice a day, his 2 day a week training was when he was doing PL. If you read his Vertical Diet book, his hypertrophy program guidelines say to build up to the point where you are training twice a day. I’m not saying this is good, I’m just pointing out that this is his current opinion. I also don’t think it is necessary.
Apparently that was all he ever did for squats, one all-out work set. He said sometimes he did hack squats after, but that was it. He looked like he would have done alright as a bodybuilder too, without actually training for it.
1 Like
Good points.
Two-a-day routines seem depressing.
3 Likes
I did 2 a days several years ago because someone “more smarter” than me recommended it. I got injured and missed 2 months of productive training.
3 Likes
Not trying to start an argument or anything, but if you are going to say stuff like that it would be helpful if you could give some directions to figure out what an appropriate training volume would be. I’m not new to this myself and I have a pretty good idea of what I need, and it’s pretty close to what you are advocating as well. But for some beginner/intermediate guys, they have no idea where to start.
So here is the question: for someone new to this, how would you decide that they have done enough work for today?
Sure! For the beginner, I personally believe they can get away with more volume and often need it. The muscle growth in beginners and even intermediates is the result of the neural adaption to learning the movements. Once that neural adaption has happened (more or less) then the rate of gains slow down.
I still think a beginner or intermediate is looking at something to the tune of 12-15 sets within a training session, mostly on the big lifts. For a beginner or intermediate it’s really about the volume within training the movements, and not muscle groups AS MUCH. The growth will take care of itself so long as they are learning the movements, and focusing on pure progressive overload.
And yes Nuckols was/is a big problem with this volume theory except that it doesn’t even hold up in the studies. I’m honestly not sure why so many of these guys are so emotionally attached to the volume for growth theory. And outside of Mike, none of them have any impressive degree of muscular development, but I guess anecdotal evidence doesn’t matter? Who knows. Nuckols hasn’t had a single idea of his own ever. I’m literally baffled that people follow him or think he’s an expert at anything. Still waiting on him to get lean since he wrote about that too. Can’t eye roll hard enough about that.
As far as Kirk, yup. That’s spot on. We’re close friends and have talked about training for hours on end. He would warm up to a top set of squats for the day and that was it. During meet prep, he’d do 6 weeks of no belt, no wraps, then try to hit an 8 rep PR in that 6 weeks. I believe his best was 655x8 no belt, no wraps. Then he’d slowly add the belt and wraps and suit in. But yeah the whole cycle was 1 top set. Coan trained the same way, and actually did a lot of Kirk’s programming over the years too.
Basically, the great majority of the strongest guys I know all trained this way. I truthfully don’t know of many big, strong guys that use a high volume approach. Not if you’re actually in the gym with them and count TRUE work sets, i.e. close to failure (either form failure or real failure).
The high volume systems that are supposed to be based in science? Few and far between use them and get massive and strong.
1 Like
If we are also speaking about strength, there are benefits from higher volume training. There are a lot of very strong lifters whose (weekly) volume can be pretty high (WL/PL). So I think you are simplifying a bit here.
I have no problem with the claim that low volume/high intensity builds mass, but there are more things to consider when speaking about strength training. So its not so simple that one can say that low/high -volume is the only way down the road.
Ok so what are the benefits? I don’t disagree, I just think it has to be used a certain way.
In virtually every study ever done, strength benefits fall off very quickly when volume starts ascending. The inverse U-curve with strength volume drops off very quickly.
Fantastic thread, lots of useful insight by many contributors in here.
Paul, was wondering what’s your approach for bodyweight exercises - obviously, referring to non-weighted versions of those.
There seems to be a certain consensus on the opposite side, that is, to train them packing a lot of volume while staying away from failure, this is what many programs advocate to increase numbers on pushups, chins and dips at least.
But I also remember you suggested doing a ton of lunges if I’m not mistaken - like hundreeds of them, consecutive.
Form, effiency and conditioning. There are also long term benefits, when you come off from a high volume block to intensity block (peaking etc.), the training feels easier to handle.
But I can not (personally) argue against you, you’ll have pretty good merits against mine. But if we consider that volume is useless, we also say that guys like Sheiko or Chad Wesley Smith are wrong. That is a quite a statement.
Ps. I need to add that I’m speaking only about the PL/WL. I don’t know much about bodybuilding or how they train generally.
I can answer the question as to why people think volume is the answer…
Drugged up body builders, or people so on the high end of the spectrum genetically, get all the coverage so those are the standards we shot for.
That’s fine really, not hating… but then you have some serious natty lifter bust ass for 5 years… hell, even 10-15 years and they still weigh under 200 in shape (4 pack visible, let’s say). Stu on this board went natty pro and he was like 175 on stage, for a single example. Those are generally the numbers you see at natty shows and that’s on the high end depending on height.
Hmmm… so they say to themselves, well I train very hard and have made great progress but I still don’t look like Person X (we will assume they are naive enough to not have figured out about all the steroids at this point) … and if they are training really hard (multiple gut busting sets, 4-5 days per week), training “harder” isn’t really an option… so you start to think “I’ll just train MORE”
Obviously I’m drawing on some personal experience here, but over time I have settled into what I like and what I need, but I don’t think I’ve ever reaaaallly gotten to a point where I can intuit when I’ve done “enough” or worked “hard enough” to get optimal gains.
1 Like
Steroids are interesting.
Some say that high volume programs are for people on gear since nattys don’t recover from high volume.
On the other spectrum people say that low volume programs are for steroid users since they get more out from less work.
Make up your mind people!
2 Likes
I think Shieko is awesome.
I also wrote base building, and it’s built around more volume with compensatory acceleration and sub max loading.
Yes, there can most definitely be a super compensation effect from high volume as well, totally.
I also think for beginners it can be great for helping to develop the neural efficiency of a lift.
As for muscle growth, once again, it’s the inverse U-curve. Basically you can build a LOT of muscle on very little volume.
1 Like