Paul do you think that some of the questions and differing opinions comes merely from the understanding of the term volume. I see a lot of discussion on what constitutes high volume vs low volume, or what is classed as volume training and what isn’t.
When there is talk of what other top bodybuilders used to back up the need for volume I wonder if both sides of the argument are saying nearly the same thing. Yes bodybuilders use volume as a tool, and people seem to think this means lots and lots of sets. But maybe when we break it down and look at the intensity and worksets they are actually doing, we find out that they are actually doing a lower number of high intensity sets than we think.
1 Like
No. I’m not going to be running a “host a guest” type of podcast. Having Brad on was an exception.
Meadows more or less went over that in the video he did about it.
If you’re counting ALL his sets, then you’d say he did 16 sets for a muscle in the given workout.
But if you’re only counting the ones he put real effort into then it’s like half of that.
I’ve always just counted the work sets. The quality ones responsible for growth. Otherwise it’s just a warm up or feeder set. I would never count those.
5 Likes
@Paul_Carter, I know you brought this up awhile ago in the thread, but I was playing around with the Dr Casey Butts formula and had a thought.
From my understanding, he reverse engineered that by looking at past pros (or he at least checked his results by comparing the numbers to those guys). If that is the case, then wouldn’t the formula be estimating genetic potential based on the outliers rather than the average Joe? Did he make an adjustment?
I think the top pros in just about any sport are outliers.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, I’m about 20-25 lbs short of my genetic ceiling according to the formula lol. I’m either failing or my genetics just aren’t cooperating. Either way, I’m pretty comfortable with where I am so this is just my curiosity speaking.
Why would he use average people? That would make less sense to me all together.
You’d want to use the overall average of the best natural guys that way you’re getting an idea of what the genetic ceiling is going to look like naturally.
I wouldn’t consider them to be outliers. To me, an outlier is like Ronnie before he got on drugs or Kai before drugs. Even if they are factored in, you’re still not using outliers as the basis because outliers are the rarest of even the rare.
So I think a better way to describe it is that he’s using the average of the guys with great genetics (not exceptional), who worked to maximize that. That’s a pretty good standard to use IMO.
Let’s use powerlifting for example.
You have elite totals, which the really best guys can hit, and then you have world record totals.
Ronnie and Kai would be the world record total for natural guys. But the upper echelon guys can hit elite. And there has to be a standard for elite, even if it looks intimidating.
Why did you make an exception for Brad, but wouldn’t for Thib?
That’s interesting, I always thought that chin ups were the best exercise for the lats. What is a better lat exercise then? Rows? I can only say how it feels for me and where I get sore, chin ups seem to hit the lats more than anything else and rows mostly feel like upper back/rhomboids and such, not nearly as much lat involvement as chin ups.
The average Joe hasn’t maxed out his genetic potential. And once he does, he isn’t an average Joe anymore.
2 Likes
I don’t want to completely turn this thread about me,… I did plenty of sets, and none of them were half ass or just done for the sake of accumulating volume. I did rest as long as I needed so that I could attack the next set and feel that it would be productive. Every Wnbf pro/coach I’ve known does the exact same thing. They’re also attentive to their own recovery, which usually amounts to a better focus on diet, sleep, and not overdoing the cardio.
Please realize though that no one is ever advocating spending countless hours in the gym. That’s just stupid. What most successful trainers will tell you though, is that they don’t freak out and obsess about being done under some magical time frame that seems the consensus among all fitness writers that month. They stay and do what they need to do, taking as much time as they need to because that’s what dedication and commitment mean.
Think about the old school guys (arnold, platz…), they did tons of volume, very little cardio, and very little PEDs (compared to today’s norm even for amateur competitors), and they walked around with a ton of size, AND retained a ton of size when they dieted down. Let that realization sit for a moment. I hate to beat a dead horse, and I hate even more to recount stories of myself, but every year I was active as a competitor, I did more working sets (not warm ups, but hard, rep or two shy of failure sets), less cardio, and stepped onstage retaining more muscle every year. This simple realization was echoed by every single pro I’ve worked with or just become friends with during my years in and around the sport (not the scrawny bantams that make most people think all natural guys have no muscle, but guys stepping onstage in true contest conditioning as middle, light heavy, or even heavy weights and putting the average NPC competitor to shame IMO) THat’s probably why I started looking more at the old competitors, and to be honest, plenty of the other coaches I know are well aware of what used to work (and still does!), and not getting too swept up in the latest studies and minutae.
With regard to genetic limits, well Mentzer always said (and this is pretty spot on) that you don’t know how far you can go until you finally reach that point. Unfortunately in this sport, too many people are quick to claim genetic limit as an excuse for lack of continued progress. With so many variables in constant flux, it’s more often the case that the perfect combination has yet to be found. Sure progress will slow with sufficient time, there is no question to that, but whether an individual’s progress has slowed due to a lack of recovery issues (whereby lessening volume can be a good solution for some), or some other concern,
that’s where a good coach can pull a whole deck of options out of his sleeve. No one is ever going to just blow up a client’s working volume out of the gate, with no knowledge of what they were doing previously, that’s just ludicrous.
Again, I don’t want to derail Paul here, because it’s his forum, and people want his opinions, but I think most people on this site have come to know me in the last 20 years, and know I’m not some nut job arguing online -lol. I’ve coached professional athletes, professional bodybuilders (Wnbf, IFBB, Npc National level), even a few doctors, as well as won two pro cards myself, and have access to some serious scientific and accomplished folk in my close circle.
I DO agree with Paul on the importance of intensity, and I do agree with his comments about not listening to people who haven’t proven that they can do what you’re seeking advice on doing yourself (I’m sure plenty have heard me rant over the years about last place contest finishers offering coaching and prep advice).
(sorry about the long post, I’m fully caffeinated and have some quiet time to myself this morning -lol)
S
6 Likes
Brad doesn’t do a lot of podcasts and he’s also the premiere researcher in the industry.
This part isn’t quite true. Platz for example, only did around 1-2 sets of squats. He talked about this with some friends of mine. When he did his high rep squats it was only a couple of sets citing “there’s no way I could get up mentally for more than a couple of sets like that.”
We’ve also come a long ways in terms of understanding when there’s a general point of diminishing returns with frequency and volume, etc. And this gets seen in research over and over again. That doing more sets, more days a week, etc only helps up to a point. It’s up the individuals to figure out what that “point” is and it’s going to be a bit different for everyone.
Exactly. Which is why people quoting Nuckols in here are presenting baseless counter points. When Greg gets shredded for the first time (or even diets down to a non obese level of bodyfat) then maybe he’ll have a point. When Greg builds some legitimate level of muscle mass he can write or talk about how to get jacked. Thus far, he’s done neither. So no, he’s no expert on those subjects no matter how many articles he writes or how many papers he has citations for.
2 Likes
The lats don’t get fully lengthened or shortened in relation to the fibers with chins. The upperback muscles are the ones that get fully shortened.
The lats attach to the spine and fan upwards into the humerus. That’s the direction the arm needs to travel in order to fully lengthen and shorten them.
You have to look at arm path to determine what areas of the back are being worked most effectively. Just like with the pecs. The angle of the arm in relation to the torso is going to determine bias in terms of segments of the pecs.
So to work the lats, the arm has to come from in front of the body, and then down into the hip to bias them. That doesn’t happen with chin ups. The upper back gets smashed, but the lats never fully lengthen or shorten under more tension than the upperback.
It’s not so much about the movement but execution of it. For example a dumbbell row can bias the lats or upperback, but that will depend on the path the arm takes throughout the ROM.
This is also why deadlifts are not a back builder either. Everything back there works in a static position to hold the spine in place. Very substandard to choose deadlifts to work the back for hypertrophy purposes. And it drives me nuts that people still choose deadlifts for “back work”.
One arm lat pulldowns work the lats well as do inverted rows.
Inverted rows do not. They shorten the muscles of the upperback.
Again, if we’re talking optimal movements that bias the lats, the arm has to come from in front of the body, and then move down into the hip. The arm path, once again, will dictate what is getting biased in back work.
The one arm pulldown CAN bias the lats, but it all depends on execution.
The easy way is to try a high intensity top set approach. If it works for you it works but if volume works thats great. I think Paul is trying to open the door a little more to this approach. Theres no one size fits all. Being close minded on it isnt an optimal approach. Bruce lee principle that poliquin always echoed “adopt what is useful discard what is not”
Are the only really good ones straight arm pulldowns, pullover variations and hammer strength supinated rows?
It’s not about the movement per say, it’s about the execution. But any movement, like an inverted row, where the arm path is coming behind the body at mid-line, isn’t going to bias the lats. It will bias the upperback, i.e. rhomboids, mid and upper traps, etc.
1 Like
Doing 100 Pull-Ups a week blew up my lats.
Would you say that’s more likely because my of personal build (5’7 with short arms, long torso, short legs) than the movement itself? Every time I do pull-ups my lats are sore for 1-2 days after.
The lats get worked during pull ups. Never said they didn’t. But are they an optimal movement if you’re trying to bias them over other parts of the back? No.
It depends on grip width and arm path. A fairly close parallel grip or supinated grip will do a solid job of biasing the lats. But an overhand grip is going to shorten the upper back and will not fully shorten the lats.
Soreness isn’t usually more related to a muscle being stretched/lengthened under load. The component that is missing with a chin is the shortening of the lats.
I will say this, if you have a weak muscle group, it’s highly likely you don’t get it shortened often enough.
2 Likes
This is interesting, I always felt like if I go closer than shoulder with grip then I don’t feel it in my lats.