And I would like to add a research conclusion from Schoenefeld 2019 Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men - PubMed
„…muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes“
I’m not being a dick, but do you know how to actually read through a study or just read the abstract? Because I’ve covered that study in this thread and it’s a total shit show.
Long story short on that study, nothing was blinded.
There were NOT more gains seen in the higher volume groups. But you’d have to know how to actually break a study down in order to see that. You’re just regurgitating what you’ve heard/read and reading the abstract. Try actually learning how to read a study in depth and you’ll figure this stuff out.
Second, there’s always going to be outliers. Lee Priest also did really high volume as well. But he was super jacked as a 15 year old and totally natural. You don’t use outliers to try and make a point. They are considered exceptions for a reason. Serge also trained super light.
It’s really a myth that MOST bodybuilders do pump training only. MOST bodybuilders train really heavy, but with higher reps.
Perhaps sarcoplasmic hypertrophy combined with the fact that drugs give you better results.
Read Lyle McDonald’s review of that study. Also read his review of the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy study. Schoenfeld is pure bullshit.
BTW thanks for the discussion guys because in two weeks we’re going to cover the topic of if natural guys should train different than enhanced guys. And basically the short answer is “no”.
Most people spouting this off are just way off the mark on their science and are also completely ignoring the anecdotal evidence as well.
It’s really weird too, because for the two decades I was natural I never once even bothered asking that question. I trained just like the drugged out guys and made gains. But when I look around on social media the average natural guy…I can’t tell he trains. I think so many natural guys have this built in delimiter that keeps them from progressing because of so much analysis. I’m forever thankful I got to get in all of my foundation years before the internet, where people ruminate over minutia that doesn’t f’n matter.
“OMG I need to stimulate MPS as often as possible! I need a higher degree of gene expression! I need to hit a bodypart twice a week, and do a lot of volume!”
GTFO.
Here’s your answer.
Who said we disagree? You don’t have to do 30 sets to get a pump. Try one of Paul’s 350 sets. Try a drop set.
Now that we’ve established the deadlift, bench, and squat suck donkey balls, what are your go-to compound movements for building overall strength in a non-powerlifter (someone that sits in an office, but might need to move a couch type of person…)?
I never said that squats and bench suck. I said that deadlifts are a sub par movement for back development. I consider deadlifts a lower body movement anyway. so I’m not sure why guys talk about back building when speaking of deadlifts. And I’ve covered that like, a zillion times.
I don’t squat anymore because squats never did shit for my leg development. they do for some, but those people tend to have short femurs, have great ankle flexibility which creates significant knee flexion, and can maintain a neutral spine in their squats so that the loading is very evenly distributed throughout the lower body.
^ So when you look at that, people should see why squats really aren’t optimal for everyone when it comes to leg movements for quad size. There’s a lot of shit that needs to be in place for them to be very effective for that…some of which you don’t even have control over like femur length.
I think from a mass gaining standpoint you just have to pick movements that fit your structure, provide great stability, and have a proper resistance curve for the muscle you’re working.
That’s why I’m not big of offering up my own routine. Because people will see it, and think “oh well that will work for me” without realizing that it’s probably not right for them in a myriad of ways.
You’re right, I was just trying to make a joke while asking the question. Thanks for the response.
Here’s something to add to the discussion: guys like Liliebridge or Malanichev who only do one work set once a week. How would that realistically work for a natural guy? Malanichev’s recent setup was pretty similar to Eric Liliebridge in terms of doing only one work set and alternating heavy squat/light DL and vice versa from week to week, the only difference is that Lillibridge does some assistance work and Malanichev does none. He was doing some leg curls after tearing a hamstring, but that’s it.
If I had to explain why this works for them, it’s because they are already huge and strong as hell and one hard work set is sufficient to drive strength gains. They don’t need any technique work because their technique is basically perfect. But a natural guy would lose muscle mass because of the extremely low volume, with the right combination of drugs you can avoid that.
Of course these guys are the far end of the outliers, aside from special cases like them I don’t believe that drugs vs. natural makes an actual difference in training methods.
This is hilarious.
Eric has been training that way since day 1. That’s how they have always trained. Literally from the early years. I think it’s safe to say that anabolics or not, Eric is a freak.
It’s funny that you bring this up though because I had started an article detailing my natty years of training venturing into powerlifting. This was before Eric and that training style was ever really known. It was super similar.
The transition I made from lifting for pure mass to trying to get strong, when I was natty was like this.
Monday -
Bench - generally 1 top working set, then 1 back off set for reps. During this time I remember hitting 315x10. I had been chasing 315x10 for a while.
I don’t remember what I did after except for incline db press. That was pretty constant.
Thursday - Squat or Deadlift
I alternated these each week.
On squat weeks, I would do back work. So after squats I’d hit lat pulldowns and rows.
On deadlift weeks I would do leg curls and leg press.
So basically I was using low neural taxing support work following the squats and deadlifts.
Squats and deads were always up to 1 top set. For squats it was 5-10 reps, and deadlifts never more than 5, and usually 3.
Every other Saturday I would do a shoulder and arm workout.
I must have done that for at least two years non-stop. And I hit a 550 squat, 585 pull, and 385 bench totally natty with that.
I kept to these same principles for most of my powerlifting time. The only difference was with squats I eventually graduated to more acceleration based work. That way I wasn’t using 600+ pounds every damn week, which I HATED. And the same for pulls. When I was pulling over 700 consistently I got there by using between 75-80% of 700 for triples, and judged my speed. So I’d hit 2 sets of 545-585 for a triple and go by how fast it was moving.
When 585 was moving like it was an empty bar for triples I went to 635 to test.
When I hit 635 for a fast triple I knew I was good for 7. So I went and tested. The next week I pulled 675 from a deficit easily, then 705 the following week from a deficit. A few weeks later it was 705 for a double, then 725 a short while after that.
But none of my training leading up to that was over 600 until the testing weeks.
I was not natty then. But my dose was 500mg of test a week and that’s it. No tren, no orals. I have never been a big drug guy. Minimal dose for maximal results. In everything.
But back to that other stuff. The squat and the big three in general are not overly complex movements to learn. Eventually the body knows them really well, and then it’s about not getting injured, and developing incredible efficiency in the lifts. Once you get that dialed in, it’s really about peaking for the contest.
That’s why you see a guy like Eric or Malan and they can hit a squat twice a month and be fine. But I honestly think once you’re past the intermediate stages of training this still applies.
BTW Eric pulled 600 at 198 when he was like 16 years old. He pulled 650 a year after that at 17.
He was in fact natural then. That’s why I lose my shit when people say that it’s all drugs. Show me a 17 year old pulling 650 natural at 220. That shit is beyond rare.
The main thing I’m thinking (and maybe I’m wrong) is that it would be hard to maintain muscle mass with such low volume. Lilliebridge is doing some form of volume on his assistance day, but Malanichev is doing nothing but one set on the comp lifts. On top of that, there is an interview with him where he says he drops weight during the offseason and then bulks back up leading into a meet, in that interview he looks way thinner than his normal massive self. Matt Wenning was doing the same thing, but his training is different. So maybe I’m just intrigued by Malanichev, because that sort of thing sounds to me like you would need a lot of drugs to make it work.
Yeah, sounds like he would have been world class even if he had stayed natural. I can think of one other guy who was somewhere around that level, Krzysztof Wierzbicki. He’s now about 25-27 and trying to break Ed Coan’s 901@220 record (with a stiff bar and 2 hour weigh in), and he still passes drug tests. Guys like that are maybe one in 10 million.
Read through the thread, got some good takeaways. One thing I would like clarity on is it 8-12 sets per session, per muscle group, or what? It’s been referenced both ways multiple times throughout the thread. I feel like there’s a pretty big difference between the two, considering if you do a chest/shoulder/triceps workout vs chest/triceps or whatever other split you want you get different amounts of work sets. Depending on how you broke up your training split (3 vs 4 vs 5 day) you again get pretty different amount of work sets for each muscle group for the week.
It also gets pretty muddled when you start trying to count rest pause sets, drop sets, etc. I know that was briefly addressed earlier but all I really got from it was “don’t focus too much on it”, but to me again it can pretty drastically change how many “sets” you do for a muscle group or session.
I’m needing to change my mindset up and come up with a new plan that puts a lot of this stuff in but I don’t want to make myself a workout plan that ends up actually doing the opposite of the goal, which is upping intensity, removing BS volume, and most importantly make progress.
Generally speaking, you can count a chest or shoulder pressing movement as half a set for triceps.
You guys do know I’m about to start a high intensity training group this week, right? Where I will cover all of this.
I might be interested in getting info on this.
It’s per muscle group and per week. If you hit everything once a week then you get to do more each session. If you train each muscle multiple times a week then spread it out.
And a set is one taken to failure (or close to it). I count drop sets and rest/pause sets as one set.
Somewhat related question, for Paul or anyone in the know. If you can only reliably train twice a week, would you look to try and squeeze everything in to those two sessions or just pull back and admit results will be noticeably less?
@dagill2 have you ever run WS4SB? The first version. Great for two gym days, and the third can easily be made into a quick home workout. Day three is an upper body pump session more or less, so it’s easy to squeeze it in.
I haven’t, I’ll have a look into it. Thank you