From what I understand, his recommendations are to start off each mesocycle with sets 3-4 reps from failure, the deload would be significantly easier than that. Also for hypertrophy he advises increasing volume each week of the mesocycle, and that is the other thing that really conflicts with what Paul is saying.
Since we’re on the topic, what would you do differently if the focus is on strength rather than hypertrophy? I’m guessing that less total work sets would be part of it, and also maybe some submax/CAT work staying far from failure could help, particularly for someone whose technique is lacking. What about a little bit more frequency, like squatting and benching twice a week?
My average frequency was four days a week, and probably always has been. I used a variety of bro splits but the last many years it’s consistently been push-pull-legs.
Again, I don’t think there’s anything magical in the split itself, and movement syntax is probably more important than how you’re dividing up muscle groups.
When I was at my strongest it was using sub-max work with more volume in order to facilitate that “learning” of a movement. When you use a high degree of velocity in a movement, even with sub max loading, you will activate the greatest amount of motor units, no different than if you’re using maximal poundages. Except that you’re not beating yourself to shit with sub max loads. This is why I consider it an optimal way to train for pure strength. But it isn’t the optimal way to train for growth due to the fact that growth has a massive cellular component associated with it, and strength does not.
Just like with the reps, Dr Mike says start at an effective number of sets(maybe 9), then progress by building up to a still effective, higher number of sets(maybe 15).
After awhile, wave it back down and start over.
Waving the work load to stay under the meaty, effective part of the U Shaped volume curve Paul mentioned above.
I’m not claiming to have all the answers here, but if what Paul is saying is true then it sounds like Mike’s method would have a barely effective first week or two of each mesocycle since the total number of sets is low and you are far from failure. But then the last week of the deload you are supposed to be close to your MRV or even overreaching a bit and that could potentially be counterproductive as well as simply wasting time and energy.
Now I’m sure that Mike would have something to say about this, I recall him saying something along the lines of pushing too close to failure at the beginning of a mesocycle is going to cause excessive muscle damage (too much recovery cost and minor increase in hypertrophy) as well as the fact that it will limit progressive overload because you won’t be able to go far. For example, if in week 1 you do your first work set for 10 at RPE10 or even fail the last rep then by week 4 you might only be doing 5 on the first set and the following sets will either be too few reps to really stimulate hypertrophy or you will have to reduce weight which means not progressively overloading. Of course it doesn’t have to be this way, it would just require a different structure in terms of volume, frequency, and progression to make it work.
As I’ve been following Dr. Mike’s training methods for some time now, the major benefit for me personally has been the management of fatigue…once I worked through his protocol and determined my limits. His methods (foundationally built on using RIR progressions) absolutely work.
The issue I have had in the past with training balls to the wall all the time isn’t the ability to train that way but to have a tendency to train overboard in that way. As I look back, the only way to explain my failures there is that I had been doing too much volume. I have never had enough discipline to know when to say when. Mike’s mesocycles provide a structure that prevents this from happening.
I’m positive both ways work. It seems it’s just a matter of finding the most optimal way to train for each individual and then being able to consistently train in such way over time while ensuring that the basic principles of progressive overload are being used. Isn’t this really what’s being said here?
Paul, I enjoyed the article. I agree with the takeaway on junk volume. Using RIR is a learned skill for sure. It takes a lot of practice to be able to accurately estimate a true RIR to the extent that down-regulation of effort isn’t happening and essentially turning that volume into junk.
What you’re saying is, you trained hard with too much volume.
It’s not that training hard makes it harder to recover, it’s that training hard makes it harder to do more sets and still recover. But the good part is that you don’t have to do a lot of work for basically the same or even better results. And that’s what the study showed from my article.
I have zero desire to go into the gym and do anything but train brutally hard.
If someone can make a higher volume system where the effort is lower work for them, then that’s great. I just can’t.
Do you think effort and density are the same thing?
The formula you gave for volume was volume =weight x reps x sets
So a guy doing 20 sets at half the weight does the same volume as a guy doing 10 sets at full weight, given reps are equal. So although tonnage is equal effort isnt.
If you divide by time so density = volume / time of workout
Now the the guy doing 20 sets does the same volume but density drops.
Anecdotaly this makes sense to me as people dont count warm up sets towards volume. Why not… you lifted it!! but all it does is make the time period you are focusing on longer and thus reduce density.
So maybe effort can be more accurately defined by looking at in terms of density.
It also fits that you cant add effort by simply adding volume, because again the 20 set guy with exactly the same volume of the 10 set guy can add tonnage by doing set 21, but at the same time his density figure keeps dropping the more sets he puts in.
Also it works you can increase weights at the expense of reps and sets but eventually your density figure goes down because although your time figure is very low, so is your total volume.
Well, this is why “volume” can’t really be the driver for growth. Because total tonnage is how you accurately define volume. It becomes arbitrary when you’re looking at it face value wise.
If I lifted 6,300 pounds in volume that doesn’t tell me anything about how it was done.
Does anyone really think that 315 x done for 4 sets of 5, with 3 minutes rest between sets, is the same as 1 all out set of 315 x 20? That’s what the study above looked at. When you remove the metabolic stress factor, you don’t induce the growth response to the same degree. It’s not even close.
This is why doing enormous sets of volume, with tons of reps left in the tank, are a very sub-optimal way to induce growth. It doesn’t press the body to do the remodeling for survival. Someone who can do 315 x 20, all out, is going to sleep walk through 315 x 4 sets of 5 with 2-3 minutes rest between sets.
Even though there is no way to quantify effort, lack of effort with the masses is painfully obvious when almost everyone at my gym doesnt even break a sweat lifting and are barely straining on their last reps. The same people that have been at the gym for as many years as me, working out the same times as me, with no change year over year over year. Granted its a local commercial gym, not a specialized gym. But hey, if mediocrity without progress is their goal, well then they’re successful.
This is kinda how I’ve always felt. Give me 1 20 repper vs 5x5 at same weight. I feel it more, push harder and grow more. This is the mantra of Dc training and as you’ve said there are tons of monsters that have come from that school of thought.
Not to mention Dorian Yates. Taking 1 set to absolute failure on a 2-3 movements and he was fairly successful to say the least.
I see people saying this over and over in this thread, but you guys are wrong. Never heard of RPE or reps in reserve? Never actually pushed to failure? You can’t always tell if someone else is really putting all their effort into a set because some people can fake things like that, but who the hell does that anyway? They belong in Hollywood and not in a weight room.
Hey Paul, the thing I don’t really get is why you are so adamant about low frequency. Especially if you aren’t doing a ton of volume, under normal circumstances you should be recovered in a couple days so why not train those same muscles again? Before I got into powerlifting I was doing bodybuilding-style training and at one point I started doing push and pull workouts twice a week and my rate of progress was way faster. Volume per session was fairly low, around what you recommend. Looking back at that, I wish I had been squatting twice a week too.
It’s interesting that you ask that right now. I am just finishing up a 9 week hypertrophy group where the intensity was waved every two-three weeks (so the “effort” increase during those weeks).
The guys that continued setting PR’s and felt great were the ones that opted for the 3 and 4 times a week splits. Where the six day a week guys ALL feel run down now.
I don’t have an issue with hitting a muscle twice in a week, but there’s nothing magical about it either. Both in anecdotal evidence and the peer reviewed work, hitting a muscle group twice a week offers up some benefits, but they aren’t overwhelming. Why train more, with more volume, when less will get it done all the same or even better? That’s the question guys need to be asking themselves.
No one should be looking for maximum recoverable volume IMO. In fact, that study from the article I did should cement that. The women doing the 15 and 20 sets a week were STILL recovering, because they were still making gains. But the ones in the 5 and 10 set groups absolutely destroyed them in terms of strength and muscle gains.
So rather than looking for the maximal amount you can recover from, look for the OPTIMAL amount of volume that works synergistic with effort.