Where did I say you would?
However, there are reasons.
I would rather do more sets at a lower RPE than fewer sets using “extending methods” which may cause more fatigue.
If you have a physical job, other physical hobbies, play a sport etc. training more often with less sets per session would allow progress without excessive fatigue/soreness.
If you prefer lower reps or full body, sessions will usually take longer.
There’s been progress but it’s been a long road of one stepb forward, two steps back. That’s mostly due to this:
It only takes about six weeks before something acts up.
I had surgery for a torn hip labrum in Dec 2017 and just had a chronically subluxing biceps tendon repaired on Wednesday.
The hip was a slow onset and the biceps tendon initially popped out of the groove when I dunked a basketball in October.
For strength? Possibly, yes. But how much volume extra does one need? Even in the studies where Schoenfeld compared these, the lower and lowest volume tiers produced as much strength gain as the higher ones. There was no difference.
In fact in most studies, from a strength gaining perspective the lower volumes consistently produce as much strength gain as higher ones. So why do more work for the sake of it?
For growth? No. This has been seen over and over and over again in studies and anecdotally. You’re just not going to build any extra tissue without significant degrees of tension and stress.
So really it’s all about goals.
I can’t imagine a coach who helps people with this kind of thing doesn’t know the answer to this, but I’ll offer my perspective as a reformed nuance chaser.
Basically many of us get into lifting to look like a body builder (or lift heavy shit like the people who get “press coverage”).
So when we are 5 or even 10 years in (and actually busting ass) and aren’t 230 in contest shape we start to wonder what we did wrong… hmmm, maybe if I train everything twice a week that will help… Not really… Maybe I need three times a week? Fuck it, 2-a-days… maybe if I do super high volume training that will help… maybe it’s the peak contraction or the pinky angle or rep speed or tempo or blah blah blah blah.
Do enough of that shit and you figure out most of it is just window dressing (and the reason that people in magazines or who turn pro BBer get there is either a superior genetic hand and just respond better to the same shit you’re doing… or drugs, let’s be honest), and you eventually revert back to basic ass training and just accept the gains you get from it. If that means a lean 185 instead of 225 then so be it.
This describes me as well until a few years ago. Took me a few years to to realize basically what you said ,”we all have a genetic ceiling and just aren’t going to get much bigger naturally”
However I wish someone had told me this when I started so I wouldn’t have been chasing magic programs and stressing about something that is basically just a hobby for me.
Exactly! And many also get to a point in life in which we can’t do whacked out stuff like extreme bulks and cuts. I look back at my contest prep and I truly can’t fathom how I did it.
I do what suits my life now and try to be as consistent as possible. And really, at this point it actually IS about health and maintaining physical ability. I mean, do I really want to be one of those stereotypical dads I grew up around, unable to participate in physical activities with their own children and riddled with physical problems? BUT… if there are days in which I simply cannot make it to the gym or the visit simply isn’t worth it at those times, so be it!
People can contest me on this, but I don’t think it’s possible to live a “normal” life if one wants to actualize FULL potential in strength, stage condition, and/or size.
Oh I know the answer. It’s more of a rhetorical question and I want guys to own it outright because that’s how they usually get past it.
I think this is pretty much true for reaching FULL anything in life. Nelson Mandela more or less said he was an awful father/husband (an extreme example but was using to illustrate, and only half a cup of coffee in lol).
You were talking about Mike Israetel, that is what his methods are about.
You’re comparing opposite ends of the spectrum, and it’s impossible to compare like this because how many low RPE sets are you talking about? 45 like their crazy study? And of course more sets is more time consuming.
Wouldn’t training less often with less sets accomplish the same thing? Read about Borge Fagerli’s training methods. I’m not aware of any pro bodybuilder who trains like that, but it seems to work for regular non-competitive lifters, which is who he is mostly dealing with.
If you plateau in say squats you change the rep range, change the type of squat, change the order of exercises or gasp…add more volume which is exactly what intensity techniques are doing.
Here’s something I try to impress upon guys early.
You probably can be far more jacked and lean than you think, but if you aren’t one of the most jacked dudes in the gym a mere six months into training, then you’re probably never going to be an elite level type beast. The guys that are true outliers grow like weeds early on. And I don’t just mean typical noob gains, I mean they usually are lean, and look like they have been training for quite a few years within the first 6-8 months.
If that didn’t happen to you, then you’re probably not going to be rocking some elite level physique in your life. That might suck, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can still get damn big and strong if you stay after it for a long time.
I don’t think it’s insecurity. I think it’s a combination of a) information overload b) return on investment, and c) expectations (probably unrealistic ones).
A) You’ve got HIT Jedi’s, DC advocates, nurotyping, full body, “bro” splits, 5/3/1, Olympic lifting, Crossfit, etc… Every one of them has their experts. Every one of them has success stories.
When it comes to diet you’ve got vegan, keto, carnivore, IIFYM, fasting, intermittent fasting ________ (insert 50 different diet strategies), etc… Same deal here. You’ve got doctors and nutritionists and pro-bodybuilders and athletes, etc…
B) I don’t know about everyone else, but my time is extremely limited.
C) It seems like every damn poster on here pulls 500+, squats 4 plates, or is shredded. Pull up IG and it’s even worse. I think social media has completely fucked expectations.
I mean, just look at this site. We’ve got access to you and CT and Jim Wendler, which is fucking awesome for what it’s worth, but you guys agree on some stuff and disagree on a lot of stuff. At the same time you’ve got articles by Dr. Darden on the new HIT. There’s so much god damn information it makes me want to throw my computer out the window.
I’m an accountant. I’m about to put together a report on average cost of labor by task for our fulfillment team. I don’t want to waste my time in the gym or in the kitchen.
At the end of the day, like you mentioned earlier, I think it comes down to having certain training principles that account for 80-90% of your training philosophy and, at least imo, that has to come from experimentation. Reading “experts” is like reading a map. You still have to make the trip, get lost a few times, and figure it out on your own.
*One other thing I just thought of. I spent most of my youth being coached. Mostly baseball, but also basketball and a little bit of soccer. Even when I was in the military, I had instructors be it in boot camp or martial arts training, etc… I didn’t really start lifting until I was probably 22 and T-nation has basically been my “coach”. Everything from articles to posters. Even bad posters…
No, it’s not just the volume that it’s changing. It’s the type of stimulus the body has to adapt to.
Once again, I’ve posted in this thread, that removing the metabolic stress component EVEN WHEN VOLUME IS EQUATED FOR, offers up different results in terms of adaption.
Or did you miss that part?
Or did you miss the part where the study that Mike helped fund showed that all of that excess volume literally did NOTHING for creating more muscle growth??? Guess you did.
Yes, which is what I wrote. He has said many times that what he is talking about when it comes to the “science” application it is for people looking to compete/ optimize Max muscle gain. Other wise start at the lowest volume and progressively overload add sets only when needed is plateau. The split does not even really matter.
Now you are taking it to extremes. You start with the lowest volume. That was one study, which I thought was done stupidly. I do not even agree with a lot of Brad’s or James
K’s findings.
I have done my reps and it is not something I would do indefinitely. It will wear you down. Borge has recommended programming for a while as has CT. Though they are time savers.
At the end of the day it is about preference and what fits you lifestyle. Whether you add volume to an exercise, add an exercise, or intensity techniques.
Ok first off…
It’s well know that beginners can train with more volume early on because it’s far more difficult to overrun their recovery, and the byproduct of the neurological adaption to learning the lifts is muscle growth. As someone progresses, they can lift more weight, and generate more effort, but their ability to recover does not improve, thus they usually need to do LESS volume. And that is what we see from a consistent anecdotal standpoint.
The “high effort training wears you down” is some bullshit spouted off by the high volume group. Like with any training modality for it to be effective you use periodization so you’re not training balls out all the time. Even Dorian went into this. Dante has covered this and so has Dr. Stevenson.
You’re not making any intelligent cases here. We get it man, you like the RT training program. Train how you like, but the majority of guys that get really big do NOT train that way.
I think you’re on point here. One thing that I heard early on was this. “Find a person that knows his/her stuff follow their principles.” Use their techniques for progression etc. I did that with Wendler for a long time and got pretty decent results. Since then I’m bored with deadlifting squatting and benching all the time. I got into Paul’s writings and methods and have used them. I’ve ran several of Paul’s programs but mostly use his methods In What I think works for me.
There’s just so much information available now. They all promise the “fastest” results so for a noob getting on the fitness internet is like an alcoholic in a liquor store, they’re gonna wanna try everything. And switch programs week to week cause they’re not shredded and jacked after the opening week.
More people need to see this. A lean 185 is jacked for a “normal” guy that is around 6 feet tall. Lean 170s is jacked for a guy that is about 5’8"-5’10".
Most people are not going to get over 200 and be shredded. Jason Ferruggia has talked about this before. http://jasonferruggia.com/badass-or-fatass/
Ahhh. Mission accomplished.
On the theme of Paul’s question, the younger me would look at this and say “damn I guess I’m just not doing the right program for me” to now where I think “well obviously there a 500 ‘correct’ ways to train and I’ve been doing it right this whole time”
I guess you just have to go through all of them to get there, at least I did.
This is why I train the way I train now… I no longer find it “cool” to almost pull a muscle every time I sit on a toilet because I’m so sore 3-4 days out of the week. “Sorry kids, dad can’t run around or squat down because i just trained legs”
That’s correct. I competed at 173, shredded, at 5’10”.
This and I think you have to be able to recognize what your real goal is and/or when that goal changes. I used to pretend I was a “powerlifter” in my garage w/ my 350 3/4 squat, my whopping 425 deadlift, and my sweet power belly.
Being strong is important to me and using heavy compound movements is something I always want to incorporate into my training, but I never was a powerlifer by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly wasn’t a real one nor was I a garage powerlifter.