Are the “evidence based” guys getting their clients results, whatever their respective goals are? Has anyone of these turds presented any positive testimonials, using the exact opposite methods as you?
I don’t think that all of them train clients. A lot of them are directly involved in academia.
But the point here about the research is this -
what’s the point of doing more work if it’s not creating more growth or progress?
That’s what the research is showing over and over again. It’s not that people won’t see progress, it’s that they are doing more than they have to do for the same amount.
1 Like
More output for a worse or similar outcome is the definition of inefficiency. Just turns ppl into stimulus addicts.
What’s so confusing to me…is how this gets repeated so much with literally NO evidence behind it that it’s superior to low and moderate volume training.
Anecdotally? Nope.
Research wise? Nope.
Still repeated. It’s truly odd.
1 Like
It’s gotta be the desire to look for lack of results.
Not jacked and tan yet? Must just not have done enough work, add 10 sets. Still not jacked and tan? 10 more sets. It kinda makes sense intuitively.
1 Like
I could be way off here but this is my opinion.
Guys put things out there like MRV and MED to over complicate the process therefore making ppl believe they need their assistance to figure out the confusion they themselves created.
Also a lot of ppl site Arnold as high volume training centric but in pumping iron he says, and I’m paraphrasing, you need to take sets to failure, the last 3-4 reps of a to failure set is where you’re creating stimulus to build the muscle. Not to say he wasn’t still running high volume but he believed that the to failure sets are what was doing the work and wasn’t leaving 4 reps in the tank either.
That was in 1975. The human body hasn’t changed.
Lyle McDonald started a big argument on Israetel’s facebook page the other day over this exact issue. Looks like “evidence based” is more about anecdotal evidence than any sort of science, and even then it doesn’t add up. Not even their shady studies can prove what they want to prove no matter how much they say it does.
So why then do most people still follow a typical 4 day split with lots and lots of volume ? Social pressure maybe ? Because they see other gym bro’s do it, they do the same ? The more is better approach seems to be something that we as humans are naturally comfortable with despite as Paul says evidence to the contrary.
1 Like
I think that it’s indoctrination more than education. If you’re told something is true and is the way things work for years then you wake up and some one is like “yeah that’s not really how things work” most ppl aren’t going to just accept it.
And to be clear no one here has said that you have to train this way or you might as well not train. I think the main point has been efficiency in the gym. Getting same results with much less work.
2 Likes
Given that most of us have increasingly busy lives, surely more with less is exactly what we want. Yet somehow most people still cant believe !!
Dude I think you’re hitting the nail on the head here.
Some of this is straight forwards and easy, and some is more complicated. Proper mechanics is far more complicated than say, understanding how much work you need to do in order to get results IMO.
But if you can complicate the shit out of it, then guys who are struggling will look at that and go “woah, ok so this guy has the answers as to why I’m not making progress! Let me buy his shit!”
And off we go. Then they build a big following and sell a lot of shit and people get frustrated down the line because with that approach (do a bunch of junk) you’re going to potentially see some tiny initial gains but later the body is going to wave a big middle finger because it’s already adapted to that approach.
Then, at some point, there’s nothing. Which is what we saw in the Haun study. Zero growth. None. Zip. Nada.
If that style of training was producing muscle out the ass then that’s how EVERYONE THAT’S REALLY YOKED WOULD BE TRAINING!
But anecdotally when I’ve spent time talking with really jacked dudes…WE ALL USE LOW VOLUME APPROACHES. So weird!
This is what my hypertrophy groups are all amazed about.
They are spending like 35-40 minutes in the gym, and are all getting stronger every workout and are utterly confused as to how it’s happening.
Very interesting indeed. So this approach seems to be working with Hypertrophy, could it also be applied to pure strength training (I understand that hypertrophy and strength training are not mutually exclusive). Is there increased benefit for strength training to do more sets / repetition to improve motor patterns and assist with muscle recruitment ?
Sounds like the perfect description for neo classical economics which is the form taught today which is complete bullshit.
They have been deceived.
Actually, I used to train in a gym where there were quite a few competitive bodybuilders. I never studied their training logs or anything, but I would say that they were doing a similar amount of volume to what Paul is recommending. They would do a couple warm up sets and then maybe 2-3 sets to failure on most exercises, sometimes stuff like drop sets or super sets. They also subscribed to the idea that you shouldn’t train for more than an hour, which while itself is debatable would limit total volume.
At one time the trend was to avoid overtraining and by default that meant low-moderate volume and low frequency, now high volume and high frequency are in fashion, although at least in powerlifting I get the impression that it’s starting to fade.
Paul addressed this way back in this thread. For strength-specific training, technique becomes much more important so including low rep submaximal work is useful, like sets of 2-5 in the range of 70-80%. You can build your quads with suboptimal squat technique (as long as it isn’t an injury risk) but to move the most weight you need to optimize your technique for that exact purpose.
1 Like
I would like to ask a question regarding the research done with the low volume. How do you count warm up sets and how do you work with higher rep ranges. I have worked mostly within the 3-6 rep range. But how do you work at 6-8, 8-12 and higher ranges. Do you use some techniques? I just struggle to realise how can you measure a maximum weight for 10 reps for example.
For your 10 rep question. You are going to have to guesstimate at first. If you could for example lift 100lb for six reps, you should be able to get 10 with 85 or 90.
That’s what I do. Then go from there.
This warm up question is always so weird to me.
Do you guys really not know how to warm up properly? Not being a dick. I’m serious.
As far as figuring out your 10RM…you go into the gym and choose some weights and hit some sets to failure. then make adjustments from there to get into the desired rep range.
Guys this is the trial and error part YOU have to do. Not ask on the net.
4 Likes
I have to say, this really got me thinking. I was always in the volume group, yet I cannot say my results are something spectacular.
I should definitely try this - few sets to failure and go home.
It is funny - I like simple things, simple workouts, yet I tend to add junk volume and junk exercises, to compensate for the lack of results, which most likely does not stem from lack of volume, but lack of effort.
It will be hard to change my mentality on this, but this seems to be the answer. In the end, I will probably like the workouts without junk volume more, I just have to persuade myself than I dont need the volume.
Thank you Paul.
3 Likes
I’ve enjoyed this thread immensely, I have very little insight into anything, but I was caught up in the whole, “Train Insane.” mentality with more, more, more being the driving theme. Since dialing back my volume and really just focusing on my big lifts for a few quality sets, and then hitting a few (significantly less) accessory/supplemental work, I seem to be making much better progress, this thread has helped calm my nagging fear of, ‘not doing enough.’ haha
Too Long, Didn’t Read: Thanks for a solid thread with good information and exchanges.
1 Like