Yeah. I’ve gotten a better understanding in 2 posts of yours than I did when he tried to introduce the format and the ensuing hullabaloo.
3 Likes
States the last 5 reps in a set are really the only ones that will stimulate the MYOPS process. Anything over 10 being far too fatigue inducing. Probably a little nuance in there but they do publish their research and findings. I follow both on IG and have great success using their principles with my trainees and myself
2 Likes
I generally train with very low volumes, similar to this. I think you’ll be surprised and impressed with how well you can grow on such low volume if you’re good at really pushing to The limit within a set. It’s a good way to ensure your recovery exceeds your output. If you don’t like pushing your sets really hard, you’re probably better off using more sets.
3 Likes
Stimulus:Fatigue ratio… supported by physiology
1 Like
I didn’t contribute initially, as I’m not familiar with the material, but this was my speculation. This is specifically targeted to advanced lifters because they’re the kind of dudes that CAN dig deep enough into one set to get the desired stimulus AND they can ALSO dig so deep into that one set that doing anything else is going to severely compromise their ability to recover.
When Matt Wenning squatted 520 for 24 reps…
He had previously squatted 865lbs raw. 520 is roughly 60% of that. Some dude with a 100kg max squat squatting 60kg for 24 reps is just plain NOT going to get the same effect, both in terms of stimulus and impact to recovery. Because after this set, Wenning was done for a LONG time. Like, multiple days to weeks. This was a literal once in a lifetime sorta effort.
7 Likes
Just to counterpoint: I think that’s also why higher volume is effective for advanced lifters. It’s the Kenny Rogers rule: you gotta know when to hold ‘em and…
1 Like
That’s the thing, you’ve got to be able to push a set for all it’s worth to be a worthwhile endeavor and most beginners don’t have any concept of what a set like that looks or feels like. That video is an extreme example of why you only need one set if you train hard enough. It would be irresponsible and honestly impossible to suggest Wenning would make better gains if he did 4 sets Beyond this one!
I have some online clients who have told me, when I send them a program that only features one or two work sets per exercise, that’s the workout was too easy. That tells me all I need to know about how hard they’re pushing their sets haha-usually a good indication on how advanced they are. Brother, YOU control how hard a session is lol
2 Likes
Totally agree, but I don’t even think they can - the capacity to recruit that much muscle just isn’t there yet.
3 Likes
@TrainForPain Yup! Using the same lifter, his “Wenning Warmups” were responsible for adding muscle to his frame where, as a 600lb raw bencher, he was benching 30lb dumbbells for sets of 20-25, at an RPE of like 4.
This is the big part about being “advanced”: you know how to make this stuff work and when to use it. So many young dudes wanna win the award for being called “advanced”, but it’s like having a PhD in lifting: you are just THAT deep in the knowledge.
I love this! It also works in reverse too. When I see a trainee say “Yeah, I do 3 exercises per muscle group for 5 sets, all sets to failure”, I know that NONE of those sets are hard. You’re going to failure 30 times in a single workout and AREN’T in the hospital?
4 Likes
Chris writes that advanced lifters need less volume and more frequency because they can likely only grow when activating the highest threshold motor units. However, this also means that CNS fatigue has to be managed and so less volume is required.
TLDR: Minimize fatigue while finding ways to recruit the highest threshold motor units possible.
@Kongs in earlier posts (maybe his 1st book) he mentions how advanced lifters may also benefit from regional hypertrophy and that is why it is better to vary exercises. He has also posted on how the 1st set of an exercise produces most of the stimulus for growth (another reason to do more exercises and less sets)
6 Likes
Big Paul Carter fan and I think you nailed it.
1 Like
Thanks for all the comments. The squat video is more of a power groove, an intensity technique, and it contradicts the fatigue concept by Chris and Paul. I now understand the concept better, and Chris’s post images were very helpful in this regard, so thanks for that. It’s still a bit hard to believe since absolutely no advanced athletes train this way, reducing the volume so much. It also contradicts almost everything other science-based experts preach. I’ve been training for 17 years, with some breaks and program hopping, but also with national titles in bench press and deadlift in Germany. I think I might give the program a try. Are there any experiences with it here?
Low low sets, twice a week.
How many body parts do you train each session?
Are these like old timey, 1 set of 12-20 different lift workouts?
One Set of rows, one set of Pulldowns, one set Reverse butterfly. No deads, no other Back Exercises.
1 Like
This begs the question:
Why are you listening to them, then?
Nothing against you or them, but with your history and accomplishments, you clearly have done what works.
Is there a change in direction that you’d like to take your training in?
2 Likes
I’d say it’s for the same reason Jeff Nippard or JP keep trying out new training methods or concepts, or even Paul Carter. It’s my hobby. I enjoy experimenting with new things. It’s fun to focus on optimizing training processes. JP knew exactly that top and backoff sets with 0 RIR worked best for him, yet he still tried the volume method from Renaissance Periodization and at one point got completely lost in the High Frequency Overload Push-Pull program. I’d say it’s for the same reason you’re still active in forums—it’s a hobby.
I am 31 and work full time as a psychologist. It is not possible to carry around the fatigue of high volume training. I need to be fully present and concentrated the whole day. Sounds like a wish to do 2-3 sets per week in 2-3 sessions and not miss out on gains, you know? At the same time Mike Israetel is preaching (to pro athletes, bodybuilders, science based lifters etc.) that he could do 8 sets of lateral raises 4 times per week for best gains. At the same time Beardslay is talking about 1 direct lateral raise set in his program for advanced trainees. It is just confusing. More than ever.
2 Likes
Ok. I can definitely understand trying to find the ballance of fatigue and other requirements, and that as your needs change, so should your training or exercise habits.
Let us know how it goes. 
1 Like
Thank you for your response. However, I did not seek advice or justification for doing less training volume when life demands it. As the title suggests, my concern is understanding the rationale behind recommending such low volumes, whether there are empirical insights or similar experiences. This stands in contrast to other science-based experts like Mike Israetel.
1 Like
Training to failure is stimulating, but can be damaging.
To get the stimulation Carter/Beardsley say go all the way to failure. That’s where the “best reps” are. And to avoid damage, just do few sets.
To avoid the damage, Isreatel says don’t go to failure. By not going to failure, you miss out on a few of the “best reps.” So you do more sets to accumulate those good reps.
2 approaches to deal with the same issue.
2 Likes
