Mike Israetel is not The be-all end-all when it comes to science and Hypertrophy. He has biases and has been incorrect on many things that he’s now trying to walk back. Don’t just listen to him because he’s a PhD and harps on the term science a lot. He has a video on YouTube that’s still up called “You Should Probably Train MORE Than the Pros” And this video was aimed at naturals.
Also if you watch him train, even when he claims he’s training to failure or just shy of it, he isn’t. There’s no velocity loss on any of his reps. This could also explain why his volume recommendations are so high, he can get away with it because he trains so far from failure. As well as so much growth hormone that his head has mutated.
If you take a look at Brad Schoenfeld’s instagram for the last 12-18 months you should find posts about a number of studies supporting the low volume approach to training and how it works quite well for hypertrophy. My recollection is that the research is that the low volume approach doesn’t work quite as well for strength and it sounds like you’re coming from a powerlifting background so that may be why you’re not used to seeing it. Keep in mind that Carter at least is focusing exclusively on hypertrophy and so the approach he’s taking is designed to achieve what he believes will be optimal for hypertrophy.
Try it for 2-3 months and assess if it is suited to you or not. We have to bear in mind that sure we all share the same physiology but there individual differences as well (hence why Platz withered on Arnold’s program while he excelled).
Personally I have my doubts about only two working sets per week (even accounting that the preparatory sets have an impact, though less effective) might be enough for an advanced but who knows? Maybe that’s what will bring the best gains in regards to your lifestyle, fatigue, etc…
Concerning high volume this year I’ve been experimenting with high volume, and these last 11 weeks crazy high volume (130 working sets not counting abs/calves) and I have gained muscles and beat PRs in several lifts, but indeed the fatigue is otherwordly right now. If I get bad sleep or something it’s done for my energy (also I’m on a slight deficit lol). But it made me re-evaluate what we are capable of if we really want to, even when being natural and older.
Eager to go back to low volume soon though and allocate more time/energy for work.
2 sets is enough to illicit hypertrophy… the nuance being it’s not likely optimal, but neither is anything over @10 sets. They’ll even tell you that if you follow them on IG or Tiktok.
Indeed… but optimal for what? Fatigue management and general quality of life? Short term or long term hypertrophy?
Latest méta-regression indicates 25+ fractionnal sets per week, and a positive dose-response in regard to volume and hypertrophy… at the cost of fatigue and time of course… but if it grows more muscle then? The issue becomes what volume is optimal for you and your own characteristics, lifestyle, recovery etc…
The Resistance Training Dose-Response : Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain
I must add that the values here fractional volume, not direct volume, meaning that one set of Lat Pulldowns counts as one set for lats and half a set for biceps.
I think they’re counting edema as “hypertrophy” … all the latest Metas I’ve seen are far less volume. Knowing what I do about fatigue mechanisms, CA2 accumulation, CNS and Supraspinal stuff, etc… And I still do high level MMA stuff… I typically err on the side of much lower volume.
Honestly it gets so tiresome trying to figure this stuff out sometimes. Likely so many co-factors that can’t really be standardized across the population to settle on any one protocol.
It could be a brilliant program from an amazing coach that creates world champions out of band camp fat kids, but if it feels like crap and you can’t do your day job, what is it worth?
Indeed there is no answer, and everyone would have a different optimal program, that would be different at different stages of their lives (for instance, doing high level MMA).
In my humble opinion, from my experience working with gen pop or a literal world record holder, I would say that
• Hardgainers/“ectomorphs”/slow-twitch fibers dominant/more endurant people would probably benefit from more volume.
• Easygainers/stronger/more explosive/fast-twitch fibers dominant people would probably benefit from less volume.
Which is the direct opposite of what I used to believe.
I resumed logging a week ago I believe, but I’m doing something stupid which is John Meadows exact plan to prepare for the Arnold Classic (yeah I wanted to do something crazy. “You never know when the line is if never cross it!”).
I can assure you that after having done these legs sessions, going back to low volume, sets of 5-8 will be a fucking walk in the park. I think I had to take 10 mins of rest after the second set of 20 squats
Gee I’d say 4-8 sets depending on bodypart for low volume, less than that if you add some high-intensity techniques. And high volume, up to 20 no problemo… Even more if you decide to cut volume on other bodyparts and use higher frequency.
I don’t see the point then unless you’re injured/achy or can’t maintain proper technique or want to introduce a different training stimulus for whatever reason
@aldebaran so today I did (among other things) 3x8 bench and 3x10 cable pushdown. So, that’s 24 sets of chest and 42 sets of triceps? If that’s the case, I’m well over the meta analysis recommendations after just one session.
No that’s 3 sets of chest and 4,5 sets of triceps (and 1,5 of shoulders) using the fractional method.
Number of repetitions is something else and opens a whole other can of worms… Then we can add exercise selection fatigue induced, morphology, fun factor, and shoot oursleves in the head
When Layne Norton made recommendations for hardgainers (or maybe it was Menno Henselman), I think he said hardgainers need a “bit” more volume.
I wondered if anybody had quantified that. 10-percent more? 30?
For a while, the science-based guys all seemed to suggest 10-20 sets per bodypart per week. I just don’t see how you go above that without giving up some intensity. As an extreme example, just about nobody could recover from, say, 25 sets of 20-rep breathing squats per week. 25 sets of 6 with 3RIR…maybe.
I agree with you. You can beyond if you’re insane/have a passion for the sport/it’s your job.
And no, nobody could recover from that lol but then again comes the issue of what is a series… A set of 20 breathing squats is harder than the already horrible straight set of 20, which is already so much more harder to recover physically and psychically than a set of 8… which is way harder to recover than a set of leg extension… and so on
He recommends going moderate and increasing if there is progress and no signs of excessive fatigue or plateaus. And that’s the best answer any one of us can come up with.
