There were 4 training days and multiple exercises for each muscle.
Volume measured by total reps(which I’m not sure should be done this way) would be in the range of 240-288 reps per week for the volume side vs 72- 120 reps for the intensity side for chest and legs.
By your standards, this should be sufficient. Do you have any reason why you would not agree with the conclusion? And do note that I do not care much for this study and am not using it to support either side.
This problems with this study are pretty much self-evident.
For example:
“The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training volume on muscular strength and hypertrophy in sedentary, untrained young Japanese men. Eight subjects (age, 25.0 ± 2.1 years; body mass, 64.2 ± 7.9 kg; height, 171.7 ± 5.1 cm) were recruited.”
"The subjects trained their elbow flexor muscles twice per week for 12 consecutive weeks using a seated dumbbell preacher curl. The arms were randomly assigned to training with 1 or 3 sets. "
Why did you post this to support your argument when it does not even meet your definition of high volume?
EDIT
FTR I’m a gym bro. I’ve never done an actual Wendler approved 531 template and I think he has the worst taste in music ever.
Why would you be annoyed that muscle people disagree with you about muscle stuff? It’s just muscle stuff. There’s lots of differing opinions on what’s optimal, but fairly broad consensus on what the key principles to success are. 5/3/1 absolutely adheres to those principles.
If you’ve got something better, run it and log your results. I’m paraphrasing @T3hPwnisher here, but in matters of strength and internet debates, nobody really cares if they’re wrong as long as they’re bigger and stronger than the person who is right. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you’re not in the same strength ballpark as the people you’re arguing with here. If anything should annoy you, it’s that.
People probably refuse “facts” because a) there is no “basic form” of 5/3/1, b) you very clearly haven’t read any of the 4 books, and c) won’t listen to people that have read all the books and have run the various programs for years when they tell you a & b.
It’s neither. Again, 5/3/1 is not the holy grail of lifting, but it is you that is the one being ignorant about it.
So if we’ve used facts to prove that not doing 5/3/1 is not optimal for hypertrophy, doesn’t that naturally mean that actually doing 5/3/1 IS optimal for hypertrophy? With the new way that facts apparently work these days, seems solid reasoning to me.
this is the thing that pwnisher, and someone like myself, and likely anyone arguing against you, would disagree with.
If you have a program, and take away part of the program, you don’t have that program anymore. you have a different thing. You don’t have ‘kind of the same thing.’ the fact that you called it ‘a shell of itself’ should be indicative of the fact that it’s truly not the program anymore.
Side note, I’ll throw jt a bone. The dude looks good, nice physique. I just saw the last pics he posted in the RMP section. Jealous of the hamstrings. We’ve had so many dicks come through here with similar contentiousness who don’t even look like they lift. At least this isn’t that, lol.
He definitely has a pretty good physique. You can tell he puts the work in.
I just don’t understand how you can emphatically state your opinion claim it’s fact, have a whole bunch of people be like nah that’s not how it works, and then just ignore what they’re saying and restate your opinion again as a fact.
Yup. I’ve got no dog in the fight on if 5/3/1 is effective for XYZ and if he doesn’t think it’s effective, that’s fine. Guy looks like he lifts weights. I’m sure he knows how to get big. Just want to clarify what 5/3/1 IS, since people jack that up so much.
I’m not really experienced and I haven’t tried all methods yet.
My take on it would be to try more methods and and see for each one, then I can say what works best for me. Also, everyone is different, so I can’t really state what’ll work for someone else, I could only make assumption.
With all this kept in my mind, I won’t trash anyone’s opinion.
And I also won’t talk about anything I haven’t tried or experienced myself.
He sounds an awful lot like a very recent college grad or current student JUST learning training principles. I was the same way when I graduated with my sports science degree but after years of training and coaching, not to mention managing other trainers, I realized that i don’t know nearly half as much as I thought I did.
Ya, he said he’s a junior in college. Thank god I didn’t start college until I was a littler older and had the epiphany most people have: you don’t really know shit about shit and the more shit you learn the more you realize how little you really know.
I agree with the jtpender in that 531 won’t work well for him. As we all know, the most importance characteristic of a training program is believing it will work and being all in on it. If you go to the gym and follow a program with the attitude of “this is not effective…this won’t work…I should be doing something else…” your results will suck.
Clearly the OP has found a way to train he likes, and works well for him. I think the issue here is bashing another program that he clearly hasn’t taken the time to fully understand. That’s fine…I haven’t taken the time to understand the principles of many training programs, but it would not be wise to criticize its ineffectiveness, and then present this as fact.
