This discussion did NOT confirm my biases! I love it when that happens! Thanks to all involved for being civil, and for giving me an opportunity both to keep my mind open and to think critically. This kinda stuff is why I love this pod!
Finally! Long awaited episode for me, thank you, Steve, and the Revive Stronger team for hosting the authors of one the most important papers of 2023. There are still doubts, yes, and it is necessary to give voice to those who raise doubts - scientifically, with a reasonable approach and asking the tougher questions. Valid concerns persist regarding Brad's lab practices, notably regarding ultrasound methodologies and the absence of blinding protocols. These issues warrant thorough examination and transparent discussion to ensure the integrity and reliability of research findings. And the consumer is here for it!
This was...one of the greatest episodes of Revive Stronger ever put out. One of the best podcast episodes overall I've heard. Steve is the man and Sam is someone I'm now going to start looking out for, thoughtful perspectives all round!
Love when these drop as I'm starting my workout! At an hour in, I'm really appreciative of Sam and Holly's willingness to challenge some very popular studies. As Sam said, this is what real scientific discourse looks like and we're all better informed for it.
Thankyou ! I dont think we are far off on many of the practical recommendations but I’m cautious in implementing the Schoenfeld recommendations with almost no papers observing such large magnitudes of growth, especially in such short time frames
My two dogs were especially interested in the Balony Demonstration by Sam ;-). But it is really a good way to actualize it. I like to grab a steak, and think how much 2 lbs of (muscle) meat actually look like. Gaining 1 kilogram of muscle tissue ... that's a very solid year of bodybuilding in my book. Looking forward to have Sam and Holly back on the channel again!
Spent most of the podcast nodding when Sam Spoke. Until the volume summary when Josh’s recommendations rang true to me and Sam’s seemed way too high 😅ironically and seemed to contradict some of the stuff he said prior. I don’t think you need so many exercises per body part in one session the way Sam suggests. Here’s my take away. Keep abreast of the research but don’t follow it blindly. Trust your own instincts and experience It’s only yourself that matters at the end of the day. Anyways thanks all. Thanks Steve
You may be right! Something we Haven’t really studied….and I would Probably lean toward the bottom of my range. The higher end would be teasing out the differences between flat bench/incline and decline and these sorts of things. But I would also suspect that the number of sets necessary as you progress through a training session would decrease across exercises.
Thank you for this very high level and insightful discussion! It seems to me that there needs to be greater standardization across scientific studies in terms of measurement methods (ultrasound, MRI, etc.). Also, I may have missed it, but are diet, stress, and sleep being tracked (never mind controlled) in these studies? What if some subjects are bulking (intentionally or unintentionally), others cutting, some getting optimal protein, some getting less protein than they need to fully recover? Finally, I think muscle growth needs to be more finely differentiated in terms of fiber type and myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic growth (which also relates to the swelling issue). Genetics may partly determine the relative proportions of these kinds of hypertrophy for a given style of training. Studies suggest that androgen receptor density and distribution are key to determining how well a person responds to resistance training. One can expect quite a lot of variance due to individual genetic differences which will reduce statistical power in already low-N studies.
If sets are being taken to true failure and reps are performed with control and no momentum… there is no way these high volumes are doable or effective
Not if you're doing it for multiple muscle groups. But imagine only doing 1 set for every other muscle group and having the rest of your energy and time available for 1 muscle. Then it's definitely doable if you have a high frequency approach. 6 days of 5 sets of quads and you're already at 30 sets. That's not 5 days of squats either. It can be Squats, leg press, hack squat, leg extension, sissy squat... or repeat some of the same exercises but at different rep ranges, multiple studies have shown that anything between 5 and 35 reps can work for hypertrophy.
@@Anandfulness see what your saying but I think Sam’s point was well made about the maximum amount of stimulus and therefore adaptation that a muscle can experience in one go. I think it all comes down to recruiting all motor units in a muscle - if the individual repetitions are fast and use a lot of momentum and the sets are not to failure then it might take 10 sets for example. But if sets are taken to real failure and the reps are controlled, far less sets are needed
Mike Mentzer enters the chat. 1 set to failure is actually all it takes. You don't need to do any more volume than 1 set to failure. Sure, do 2 or 3 sets if you want to, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1 set to failure is sufficient stimulus for muscle growth. I've gained 10kg in 3 months training one day a week doing the least amount of work possible. One set to failure is enough and I can come back the following week and am always able to do more reps or more weight.
Thank you for such a nuanced discussion! One question, I've seen so much discussion on high vs low volume, particularly since the 52 set study came out. But the caveat is always brought up that 52 sets was only the last couple of weeks and their weekly average wasn't so high. I would love to hear this discussed in terms of volume cycling. Maybe 52 sets is too much to sustain long term. But could this be a point of evidence towards temporary over reaching? Perhaps it isn't only "high volume" that's driving adaptation, but the "increasing volume"? Particularly in regards to the 52 set study. Perhaps that would imply periodizing from moderate volume, driving up to an over reaching, unsustainable level of volume, and then resetting? I could envision a cycle like that for chest where I keep back volume moderate, then at the end of the cycle, going down to moderate chest volume and cycling back volume up to those very high volume numbers.
I would fall on the side of arguement of myofibrilla hypertrophy vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. And, to be honest, Dorian found that relationship in the 1990s. Lighter progressive weight warm up sets, which are only taken to the point the muscle starts to feel its working hard. - primes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Then one flat out heavy 8-12 to muscle failure. - myofibrilla hypertrophy. The sarcoplasmic warm ups primes with fluid/nutrients etc, as well as pre-fatiuging slow twitch fibres. The myofibrilla working set is what actually grows myofibrillas, particularly the fast twitch fibres as the slow twitch have been pre-fatigued. The problem with high volumes is load reduces, but at whay point does muscle fibre fatigue and failure set in, and at what point does sarcoplasmic and myofibrilla protein synthesis plateau? Is the extra reps and sets worth the time and fatigue if myofibrilla protein has plateaued, and the extra "gain" is just sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which dissipates far quicker than actual muscle fibre growth.
To expand further, my hypothesis would be that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is more a result of slow twitch muscle fibre work load than fast twitch. And thus, high volume training (which by definition involves lighter loads), and especially RIR training, achieves more sarcoplasmic growth potential than myofibrilla growth potential. For example, does a 3 rep 3RM set produce a "muscle pump"... I would say it doesn't. But, do a set of 50% 3RM until the muscle starts to feel like it's starting to work, then stop (RIR). Is there a pump now? Another example... either marathon runners or long distance walkers. They don't often move into using fast twitch fibres. But leg muscles still obtain a certain pump, and I would presume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, relative to the range of limb movement. But they have very slight muscles because they don't achieve myofibrilla muscle fibre growth to any extent. With these high volume studies, I would judge that they are achieving more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy long before any potential myofibrilla hypertrophy happening. And whether any, or how much, myofibrilla hypertrophy is taking place is dependent on exactly how close participants are to muscular failure. As others have pointed out, 45 sets to muscular failure is questionable.
Check targeted hypertrophy for strength paper. And I think type 2 muscle fibers get activated thus myofibral hypertrophy is stimulated as long as you hit failure regardless of rep range. If you want to achieve mostly myofibral hypertrophy you can't do a lot of sets and you have to keep reps low and close to failure because high volume work would cause too much fatigue which would impede type 2 muscle fiber activation.
I love these debates and informative podcasts. I would never lift high volume and have never liked even moderate volume. I've always been a low volume strength guy. That's always worked for me. A 500 lb. squat, 400 lb. bench, and 17 to 18 inch arms did not take me doing much volume work or time. I benched and squatted one day a week doing singles and low volume training to obtain those weights. It took so little work it wasn't even meaningful to me. The bench I set as a goal of four plates. Did it. Got bored benching, never went for 500. The squat just happened during linear progression squatting one time a week for about a year, the length of my membership at a powerlifting gym. I will say lifting at a gym where 500 plus was common did make it mentally easier to push up weights. Thus I've never seen the need for high volume. When you are naturally bigger than the people around you with minimal work, volume means nothing to you. I've seen other guys in the gym work like animals doing volume to get big, so I've seen that do the job. Though too often I see volume work with no progressive overload of any kind and that seems like the biggest waste of time. Do a lot of sets with light weights to accomplish no muscle size increase and no strength increase. just maintain and I guess feel good. That seems like the most useless waste of time I've ever seen, which is why I always fall on the side of some kind of progressive overload being the primary driver of hypertrophy with strength being a byproduct. If you're not doing some kind of progressive overload, then you can do volume for days and nothing happens. I've literally seen this in tons of commercial gyms where the same people do tons of sets and reps while gaining absolutely no changes to their physiques because they never pushed the weight up.
One way to increase volume is progressive overload. Doing a set of 5 with 100kg is less volume that doing a set of 10 with 100 kg or atleast its more tonnage or stimulus for growth. The question is what's the best way to progressively overload for hypertrophy.
How is body weight monitored and controlled for? It is obviously a key variable that will impact the results and it is unclear to me how this is accounted for in any of these volume studies. There are a lot of other variables that should be accounted for and controlled, but body weight and its importance and impact seems paramount. Anyone……? Also how is it even possible there is not a control group that is not doing any training in these studies. Again……anyone?
I'm assuming that they'd be in a caloric surplus to some degree if low body fat. Since muscle doesn't grow out of thin air, being in a deficit with low body fat isn't going to be ideal.
Steve, you should see if you can get Eric Trexler back on to review the paper and this podcast. It would be really interesting to hear his review of the material
As an economist (which is to say I use and actually understand statistics) and a life long recreational bodybuilder and gym rat - I can assure you very few fitness folks understand any of the data or analysis in these studies - most people in these podcasts have no idea what they are talking about regarding the data, the statistics, and the results - trust me. But Sam gets it 😉Also Josh’s comment that ‘a small effect size makes it difficult to interpret’ - um, nope, it makes it easier to interpret 😳 I think that illustrates my point. All that said - great episode! I love these discussions.
Are you referring to my comment that training studies are trying to detect small effects between groups, but have small sample sizes, thus it's difficult to interpret/apply individual studies? If so, I'm curious about different perspectives on that. The best estimate I've seen for resistance training compared to non-training control is a between-group effect size of ~0.34. So, we can expect considerably less than that between two training groups. This is hard to detect with the samples we often see in our field. I hate to be dropping a PubMed link in a youtube comment, but I figure I'll drop the below paper where my thinking stems from regarding the magnitude of effects compared the expected variability. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38037792/ - Josh
@@blaizenflame A small effect size means the thing you are testing has no impact in the real world and makes no practical difference (even if it is “statistically significant “). Conversely, a large effect size means the thing you are testing is important and makes a big difference. So if the effect size is small, it doesn’t mean the data is hard to interpret, it just means the thing you are testing has no meaningful impact.
@@datadrivenstrength Josh thanks for reading my comment and the reply. But, yes, that’s the comment. Also, leading into that comment you make a lot of really good observations on some of the practical limitations with the studies. I think sample size perhaps being the biggest limitation. I understand the real world problems on doing these studies, but a few of the variables one would need to control and understand the effect they have on the results, include but are not limited to - training age, biological age, training history, body weight, body weight changes, lean muscle mass at the beginning of the study, calories, macronutrient composition, food quality composition, hydration, limb lengths (depending on the exercises employed), supplementation (eg Creatine), control of measurements and performing multiple measurements of the same thing on the same person by multiple people to assess and understand measurement errors, etc. The point is you cannot interpret the results of volume on the results, statistically speaking, without also understanding and accurately accounting for all other variables that could impact the results - some of which I’ve mentioned. I’d be happy to share and discuss what variables would need to be considered and controlled such that the study results would be meaningful. I think a lot of the statistical analysis and discussion actually misses the boat and is moot given the deficiencies in the underlying study design.
I really dig how Menno worded it out. Some people say how it's great that people are willing to challenge popular studies like this, but I think Menno and a couple of others are really on the side of challenging status quo by thinking this study does provide helpful results and can be valid. Because like Menno said, people don't want to train at very high volumes (at appropriately high intensity). It sucks, it makes you almost lethargic. It's almost ingrained bias of everyone. Which is also why a lot of people ridiculed the study right away. A few people said it's actually well performed study and if you read it through and considered what you've seen in real life, the set numbers aren't that crazy, like around 30 and growing, counting in direct and indirect volume. Not for every muscle at the same time, not for 1-2 sessions, but over the week in multiple sessions. Also noteworthy that it wasn't to my understanding straight sets of the same number until the last set. Pelland also spoke about what I was thinking regarding designing a study in a more real life program like way. There's already difficulties in eeking out results in the studies enough, we don't just want to dish out 0 results about a topic where there actually is an effect, just to hand out a practical program as a result. That's not even the point of science; its point is to find out what's real and true, what is happening and what effects exist, not to give dynamic answers to how to apply knowledge. That's the task of people reading the research and gaining knowledge - applying it. To sum it up, many people didn't like the result of the study and had a knee jerk reaction to it, questioning how it was performed and the results themself (not that challenging a study was bad itself). But like Menno said maybe that's the uncomfortable truth. That we could benefit from more than we thought we could. It's been a trend in my understanding lately that studies have struggled to find the limit where your volume becomes a negative effect and finding volumes that people can't handle without long time consequences. And to be fair we have established that very little training also has an effect so you don't have to be the one optimising and really pushing yourself to the limit. You can get great results with fairly chill program. And you might not even be conditioned to access those very high volumes in a long long while if you started training now. Btw don't look up weightlifting training. Pretty much every move they do has quads involved and they train often, they have the competitive lifts and the strength + hypertrophy lifts.
There is no upper limit to volume for gains scientifically speaking, can you train with 50 sets for big legs? It takes years to get big. Is it impossible to do this sort of program for a meso or two: everyday legs with a b workouts: A workout stiff legged deads 5x8-12 then leg presses 5x8-12. B workout: squat 5x8-12 and 45 degree back extensions 5x8-12. That's 35 sets for hammies, glutes and quads ie 70 sets for legs per week. I'd say this would be brutal but you basically can't train other muscle groups effectively on this program
When trying to figure out if an individual is a low or high responder to high vs low volume… would you recommend someone to start out around 4-6 sets per week per body part per week I and only increase if they are not progressing? I’m trying to figure out which end of the volume spectrum I respond best to
If you pick a reasonable number of sets - say 8 per week (which is completely random but in the real world is reasonable) - and you are making progress, practically speaking - there is no reason to increase volume. Do not fall into the trap of increasing volume, for the sake of increasing volume, if what you are doing is working.
@@serpentking8503well said, it can be difficult since I feel I’m missing out doing mostly 6-15 sets per week, but I only have so much time to train. Also I’ve been lifting for about 14 years so progress is going to move at a snails pace. So sometimes I question, is grass greener on the other side (ex. More volume) or am I growing as fast as I can given my training status and slow to hypertrophy genes lol
Is it possible that I'm doing TOO much if I'm seeing progress in the gym? I don't have a lot to do in my life so I like to spend as much time as possible in the gym, but I obviously don't want to risk not getting gains. I'm currently doing glutes/legs 3x/week, 9 sets on day 1, 6 sets on day 2 and 9 sets again on day 3 - 24 sets in total. And I've been making good progress.
From a progress standpoint not really but one could argue that doing a ton of volume may make it easier to get injured. However, as long as you are making progress and your body feels fine, I wouldn't worry about that.
Once you factor in differences in proximity to failure, exercise selection, rest times, tempo with individual differences 24 sets really isn’t that crazy high. If you suspect you might be doing more than you should there is an easy fix too, just decrease your volume around 1/3 without changing anything else (don’t go harder to compensate) and if you make better progress for more than a couple weeks then you know. The first couple weeks could give you good progress simply because you’re effectively “peaking/deloading” so don’t put too much stock on them.
Do you think in normal people training scapular depression isnt trained enought? I mean if you do latbpulldowns and Stop ilon rir 0 Your scapular Depression is maybe 10ish reps away from failure. Does this mean there is maybe some lat, lower trap and pec minor dips, which peole dont get if they dont train isolated scap Depression?
Like the good narcissist he is, Brad always accuses OTHERS of being biased and having an agenda. Which is nothing but his typical ad hominem to ignore valid criticism he can't address. Because of course Brad Schoenfeld is above such. How do we know? He said so. And nobody who isn't unbiased could possibly say "I don't need to blind my papers because I'm unbiased." Right? Hahahahaha. Schoenfeld is a joke and I'm glad more are starting to realize it.
Don’t worry Lyle, when this is all said and done you’ll turn out to be right as always. It’s disgusting how in this industry anyone who doesn’t lick Brads boots is labelled as an A-hole. Such a joke.
I have the Option, that for example if you ever start with a leg quad compound like leg press or squad you maybe miss out over time some rectus femoris gainz even if you do sissy squads reverse nordic or lwg extension afterwards. Because you may fatique the other quad muscles and your cns so much that the rectus femoris can not hit 100percent. Whats your thoughts on this?
This discussion did NOT confirm my biases! I love it when that happens! Thanks to all involved for being civil, and for giving me an opportunity both to keep my mind open and to think critically. This kinda stuff is why I love this pod!
Finally! Long awaited episode for me, thank you, Steve, and the Revive Stronger team for hosting the authors of one the most important papers of 2023. There are still doubts, yes, and it is necessary to give voice to those who raise doubts - scientifically, with a reasonable approach and asking the tougher questions. Valid concerns persist regarding Brad's lab practices, notably regarding ultrasound methodologies and the absence of blinding protocols. These issues warrant thorough examination and transparent discussion to ensure the integrity and reliability of research findings. And the consumer is here for it!
This was...one of the greatest episodes of Revive Stronger ever put out. One of the best podcast episodes overall I've heard. Steve is the man and Sam is someone I'm now going to start looking out for, thoughtful perspectives all round!
Thanks for the kind words. Really glad you enjoyed the discussion!
Lyle Mcdonald has entered the chat
Love when these drop as I'm starting my workout! At an hour in, I'm really appreciative of Sam and Holly's willingness to challenge some very popular studies. As Sam said, this is what real scientific discourse looks like and we're all better informed for it.
Thankyou ! I dont think we are far off on many of the practical recommendations but I’m cautious in implementing the Schoenfeld recommendations with almost no papers observing such large magnitudes of growth, especially in such short time frames
Hope you enjoyed the episode!
This. Exactly this, I couldn't have put it better myself. Progress was made today and everyone benefits.
My two dogs were especially interested in the Balony Demonstration by Sam ;-). But it is really a good way to actualize it. I like to grab a steak, and think how much 2 lbs of (muscle) meat actually look like. Gaining 1 kilogram of muscle tissue ... that's a very solid year of bodybuilding in my book. Looking forward to have Sam and Holly back on the channel again!
Thankyou ❤
Seems like Lyle McDonald was right, as per usual.
Yep. Funny how everyone called him crazy and an A-hole. And the sad part is nobody will apologize or admit he was right all along.
My exact thoughts.
Right about what
@@JimmyStruthers-lb3snwell, he is kind of an A$$ hole. He’s just an A$$ hole that’s usually right.
Spent most of the podcast nodding when Sam Spoke. Until the volume summary when Josh’s recommendations rang true to me and Sam’s seemed way too high 😅ironically and seemed to contradict some of the stuff he said prior. I don’t think you need so many exercises per body part in one session the way Sam suggests.
Here’s my take away. Keep abreast of the research but don’t follow it blindly. Trust your own instincts and experience It’s only yourself that matters at the end of the day. Anyways thanks all. Thanks Steve
You may be right! Something we
Haven’t really studied….and I would
Probably lean toward the bottom of my range. The higher end would be teasing out the differences between flat bench/incline and decline and these sorts of things.
But I would also suspect that the number of sets necessary as you progress through a training session would decrease across exercises.
@@samuelbuckner thanks for taking the time to reply Sam. PS just looked at some of your workout videos. Crazy impressive.
Thank you for this very high level and insightful discussion! It seems to me that there needs to be greater standardization across scientific studies in terms of measurement methods (ultrasound, MRI, etc.). Also, I may have missed it, but are diet, stress, and sleep being tracked (never mind controlled) in these studies? What if some subjects are bulking (intentionally or unintentionally), others cutting, some getting optimal protein, some getting less protein than they need to fully recover? Finally, I think muscle growth needs to be more finely differentiated in terms of fiber type and myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic growth (which also relates to the swelling issue). Genetics may partly determine the relative proportions of these kinds of hypertrophy for a given style of training. Studies suggest that androgen receptor density and distribution are key to determining how well a person responds to resistance training. One can expect quite a lot of variance due to individual genetic differences which will reduce statistical power in already low-N studies.
If sets are being taken to true failure and reps are performed with control and no momentum… there is no way these high volumes are doable or effective
Not if you're doing it for multiple muscle groups. But imagine only doing 1 set for every other muscle group and having the rest of your energy and time available for 1 muscle. Then it's definitely doable if you have a high frequency approach. 6 days of 5 sets of quads and you're already at 30 sets. That's not 5 days of squats either. It can be Squats, leg press, hack squat, leg extension, sissy squat... or repeat some of the same exercises but at different rep ranges, multiple studies have shown that anything between 5 and 35 reps can work for hypertrophy.
@@Anandfulness see what your saying but I think Sam’s point was well made about the maximum amount of stimulus and therefore adaptation that a muscle can experience in one go. I think it all comes down to recruiting all motor units in a muscle - if the individual repetitions are fast and use a lot of momentum and the sets are not to failure then it might take 10 sets for example. But if sets are taken to real failure and the reps are controlled, far less sets are needed
Mike Mentzer enters the chat.
1 set to failure is actually all it takes. You don't need to do any more volume than 1 set to failure. Sure, do 2 or 3 sets if you want to, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1 set to failure is sufficient stimulus for muscle growth. I've gained 10kg in 3 months training one day a week doing the least amount of work possible. One set to failure is enough and I can come back the following week and am always able to do more reps or more weight.
Thank you for such a nuanced discussion! One question, I've seen so much discussion on high vs low volume, particularly since the 52 set study came out. But the caveat is always brought up that 52 sets was only the last couple of weeks and their weekly average wasn't so high.
I would love to hear this discussed in terms of volume cycling. Maybe 52 sets is too much to sustain long term. But could this be a point of evidence towards temporary over reaching? Perhaps it isn't only "high volume" that's driving adaptation, but the "increasing volume"? Particularly in regards to the 52 set study.
Perhaps that would imply periodizing from moderate volume, driving up to an over reaching, unsustainable level of volume, and then resetting? I could envision a cycle like that for chest where I keep back volume moderate, then at the end of the cycle, going down to moderate chest volume and cycling back volume up to those very high volume numbers.
Where was Lyle on this pannel, Steve ? This episode would have blown out the internet.
Apparently Steve doesn’t get along with Lyle. What a complete shame. Super unfair that Lyle is left out of these discussions
Steve was dickriding Mike and his high volume dogshit, that's why he do not like Lyle
Round table time! Sunday morning acitivity planned 😀.
Great round table! A suggestion: The video border seems odd, can the screen be pushed edge to edge instead of having a gap?
Great topic! Great people! Thanks, Steve, and I Appreciate Baby Yoga in the background!
I would fall on the side of arguement of myofibrilla hypertrophy vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. And, to be honest, Dorian found that relationship in the 1990s.
Lighter progressive weight warm up sets, which are only taken to the point the muscle starts to feel its working hard. - primes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
Then one flat out heavy 8-12 to muscle failure. - myofibrilla hypertrophy.
The sarcoplasmic warm ups primes with fluid/nutrients etc, as well as pre-fatiuging slow twitch fibres. The myofibrilla working set is what actually grows myofibrillas, particularly the fast twitch fibres as the slow twitch have been pre-fatigued.
The problem with high volumes is load reduces, but at whay point does muscle fibre fatigue and failure set in, and at what point does sarcoplasmic and myofibrilla protein synthesis plateau? Is the extra reps and sets worth the time and fatigue if myofibrilla protein has plateaued, and the extra "gain" is just sarcoplasmic hypertrophy which dissipates far quicker than actual muscle fibre growth.
To expand further, my hypothesis would be that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is more a result of slow twitch muscle fibre work load than fast twitch. And thus, high volume training (which by definition involves lighter loads), and especially RIR training, achieves more sarcoplasmic growth potential than myofibrilla growth potential.
For example, does a 3 rep 3RM set produce a "muscle pump"... I would say it doesn't.
But, do a set of 50% 3RM until the muscle starts to feel like it's starting to work, then stop (RIR). Is there a pump now?
Another example... either marathon runners or long distance walkers. They don't often move into using fast twitch fibres. But leg muscles still obtain a certain pump, and I would presume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, relative to the range of limb movement. But they have very slight muscles because they don't achieve myofibrilla muscle fibre growth to any extent.
With these high volume studies, I would judge that they are achieving more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy long before any potential myofibrilla hypertrophy happening. And whether any, or how much, myofibrilla hypertrophy is taking place is dependent on exactly how close participants are to muscular failure.
As others have pointed out, 45 sets to muscular failure is questionable.
Check targeted hypertrophy for strength paper. And I think type 2 muscle fibers get activated thus myofibral hypertrophy is stimulated as long as you hit failure regardless of rep range. If you want to achieve mostly myofibral hypertrophy you can't do a lot of sets and you have to keep reps low and close to failure because high volume work would cause too much fatigue which would impede type 2 muscle fiber activation.
Fantastic episode
where Mike in this discussion?
I love these debates and informative podcasts. I would never lift high volume and have never liked even moderate volume. I've always been a low volume strength guy. That's always worked for me. A 500 lb. squat, 400 lb. bench, and 17 to 18 inch arms did not take me doing much volume work or time. I benched and squatted one day a week doing singles and low volume training to obtain those weights. It took so little work it wasn't even meaningful to me. The bench I set as a goal of four plates. Did it. Got bored benching, never went for 500. The squat just happened during linear progression squatting one time a week for about a year, the length of my membership at a powerlifting gym. I will say lifting at a gym where 500 plus was common did make it mentally easier to push up weights. Thus I've never seen the need for high volume. When you are naturally bigger than the people around you with minimal work, volume means nothing to you. I've seen other guys in the gym work like animals doing volume to get big, so I've seen that do the job. Though too often I see volume work with no progressive overload of any kind and that seems like the biggest waste of time. Do a lot of sets with light weights to accomplish no muscle size increase and no strength increase. just maintain and I guess feel good. That seems like the most useless waste of time I've ever seen, which is why I always fall on the side of some kind of progressive overload being the primary driver of hypertrophy with strength being a byproduct. If you're not doing some kind of progressive overload, then you can do volume for days and nothing happens. I've literally seen this in tons of commercial gyms where the same people do tons of sets and reps while gaining absolutely no changes to their physiques because they never pushed the weight up.
One way to increase volume is progressive overload. Doing a set of 5 with 100kg is less volume that doing a set of 10 with 100 kg or atleast its more tonnage or stimulus for growth. The question is what's the best way to progressively overload for hypertrophy.
exhaustive informative episode
How is body weight monitored and controlled for? It is obviously a key variable that will impact the results and it is unclear to me how this is accounted for in any of these volume studies. There are a lot of other variables that should be accounted for and controlled, but body weight and its importance and impact seems paramount. Anyone……? Also how is it even possible there is not a control group that is not doing any training in these studies. Again……anyone?
I'm assuming that they'd be in a caloric surplus to some degree if low body fat. Since muscle doesn't grow out of thin air, being in a deficit with low body fat isn't going to be ideal.
Great information. Legitness we are all going to look like super sayians
Lift weight stricty it works 👍
Steve, you should see if you can get Eric Trexler back on to review the paper and this podcast. It would be really interesting to hear his review of the material
As an economist (which is to say I use and actually understand statistics) and a life long recreational bodybuilder and gym rat - I can assure you very few fitness folks understand any of the data or analysis in these studies - most people in these podcasts have no idea what they are talking about regarding the data, the statistics, and the results - trust me. But Sam gets it 😉Also Josh’s comment that ‘a small effect size makes it difficult to interpret’ - um, nope, it makes it easier to interpret 😳 I think that illustrates my point. All that said - great episode! I love these discussions.
Genuine question because I don't know much about statistics, how is it easier to interpret?
Are you referring to my comment that training studies are trying to detect small effects between groups, but have small sample sizes, thus it's difficult to interpret/apply individual studies? If so, I'm curious about different perspectives on that.
The best estimate I've seen for resistance training compared to non-training control is a between-group effect size of ~0.34. So, we can expect considerably less than that between two training groups. This is hard to detect with the samples we often see in our field.
I hate to be dropping a PubMed link in a youtube comment, but I figure I'll drop the below paper where my thinking stems from regarding the magnitude of effects compared the expected variability.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38037792/
- Josh
@@blaizenflame A small effect size means the thing you are testing has no impact in the real world and makes no practical difference (even if it is “statistically significant “). Conversely, a large effect size means the thing you are testing is important and makes a big difference. So if the effect size is small, it doesn’t mean the data is hard to interpret, it just means the thing you are testing has no meaningful impact.
@serpentking8503 what about if the effect size is moderate?
@@datadrivenstrength Josh thanks for reading my comment and the reply. But, yes, that’s the comment. Also, leading into that comment you make a lot of really good observations on some of the practical limitations with the studies. I think sample size perhaps being the biggest limitation. I understand the real world problems on doing these studies, but a few of the variables one would need to control and understand the effect they have on the results, include but are not limited to - training age, biological age, training history, body weight, body weight changes, lean muscle mass at the beginning of the study, calories, macronutrient composition, food quality composition, hydration, limb lengths (depending on the exercises employed), supplementation (eg Creatine), control of measurements and performing multiple measurements of the same thing on the same person by multiple people to assess and understand measurement errors, etc. The point is you cannot interpret the results of volume on the results, statistically speaking, without also understanding and accurately accounting for all other variables that could impact the results - some of which I’ve mentioned. I’d be happy to share and discuss what variables would need to be considered and controlled such that the study results would be meaningful. I think a lot of the statistical analysis and discussion actually misses the boat and is moot given the deficiencies in the underlying study design.
I really dig how Menno worded it out. Some people say how it's great that people are willing to challenge popular studies like this, but I think Menno and a couple of others are really on the side of challenging status quo by thinking this study does provide helpful results and can be valid. Because like Menno said, people don't want to train at very high volumes (at appropriately high intensity). It sucks, it makes you almost lethargic. It's almost ingrained bias of everyone. Which is also why a lot of people ridiculed the study right away. A few people said it's actually well performed study and if you read it through and considered what you've seen in real life, the set numbers aren't that crazy, like around 30 and growing, counting in direct and indirect volume. Not for every muscle at the same time, not for 1-2 sessions, but over the week in multiple sessions. Also noteworthy that it wasn't to my understanding straight sets of the same number until the last set.
Pelland also spoke about what I was thinking regarding designing a study in a more real life program like way. There's already difficulties in eeking out results in the studies enough, we don't just want to dish out 0 results about a topic where there actually is an effect, just to hand out a practical program as a result. That's not even the point of science; its point is to find out what's real and true, what is happening and what effects exist, not to give dynamic answers to how to apply knowledge. That's the task of people reading the research and gaining knowledge - applying it.
To sum it up, many people didn't like the result of the study and had a knee jerk reaction to it, questioning how it was performed and the results themself (not that challenging a study was bad itself). But like Menno said maybe that's the uncomfortable truth. That we could benefit from more than we thought we could. It's been a trend in my understanding lately that studies have struggled to find the limit where your volume becomes a negative effect and finding volumes that people can't handle without long time consequences. And to be fair we have established that very little training also has an effect so you don't have to be the one optimising and really pushing yourself to the limit. You can get great results with fairly chill program. And you might not even be conditioned to access those very high volumes in a long long while if you started training now.
Btw don't look up weightlifting training. Pretty much every move they do has quads involved and they train often, they have the competitive lifts and the strength + hypertrophy lifts.
I don't. Sam made great point across the board and Menno didn't address them well.
There is no upper limit to volume for gains scientifically speaking, can you train with 50 sets for big legs? It takes years to get big. Is it impossible to do this sort of program for a meso or two: everyday legs with a b workouts: A workout stiff legged deads 5x8-12 then leg presses 5x8-12. B workout: squat 5x8-12 and 45 degree back extensions 5x8-12. That's 35 sets for hammies, glutes and quads ie 70 sets for legs per week. I'd say this would be brutal but you basically can't train other muscle groups effectively on this program
When trying to figure out if an individual is a low or high responder to high vs low volume… would you recommend someone to start out around 4-6 sets per week per body part per week I and only increase if they are not progressing?
I’m trying to figure out which end of the volume spectrum I respond best to
It's starting to appear that those who respond to well to low volume respond well to to high volume too.
Good growers are just good growers 🤷♂️
@christopherhall7216thank you! When you mean systematically, do you mean if no increase in performance then add a set?
If you pick a reasonable number of sets - say 8 per week (which is completely random but in the real world is reasonable) - and you are making progress, practically speaking - there is no reason to increase volume. Do not fall into the trap of increasing volume, for the sake of increasing volume, if what you are doing is working.
@@serpentking8503well said, it can be difficult since I feel I’m missing out doing mostly 6-15 sets per week, but I only have so much time to train. Also I’ve been lifting for about 14 years so progress is going to move at a snails pace. So sometimes I question, is grass greener on the other side (ex. More volume) or am I growing as fast as I can given my training status and slow to hypertrophy genes lol
That’s what I do. 4-6 sets per muscle per session, each muscle 1 x week
Josh looks absolutely shook the entire episode 😂😂😂
Is it possible that I'm doing TOO much if I'm seeing progress in the gym? I don't have a lot to do in my life so I like to spend as much time as possible in the gym, but I obviously don't want to risk not getting gains. I'm currently doing glutes/legs 3x/week, 9 sets on day 1, 6 sets on day 2 and 9 sets again on day 3 - 24 sets in total. And I've been making good progress.
From a progress standpoint not really but one could argue that doing a ton of volume may make it easier to get injured. However, as long as you are making progress and your body feels fine, I wouldn't worry about that.
Once you factor in differences in proximity to failure, exercise selection, rest times, tempo with individual differences 24 sets really isn’t that crazy high. If you suspect you might be doing more than you should there is an easy fix too, just decrease your volume around 1/3 without changing anything else (don’t go harder to compensate) and if you make better progress for more than a couple weeks then you know. The first couple weeks could give you good progress simply because you’re effectively “peaking/deloading” so don’t put too much stock on them.
Do you think in normal people training scapular depression isnt trained enought? I mean if you do latbpulldowns and Stop ilon rir 0 Your scapular Depression is maybe 10ish reps away from failure. Does this mean there is maybe some lat, lower trap and pec minor dips, which peole dont get if they dont train isolated scap Depression?
Great conversation!
Mike Isreatel will somehow politically turn the debate around as usual.... .
Only thing in science we know is that we don’t fully ever know 😂
Like the good narcissist he is, Brad always accuses OTHERS of being biased and having an agenda. Which is nothing but his typical ad hominem to ignore valid criticism he can't address.
Because of course Brad Schoenfeld is above such. How do we know?
He said so.
And nobody who isn't unbiased could possibly say "I don't need to blind my papers because I'm unbiased." Right?
Hahahahaha. Schoenfeld is a joke and I'm glad more are starting to realize it.
Don’t worry Lyle, when this is all said and done you’ll turn out to be right as always. It’s disgusting how in this industry anyone who doesn’t lick Brads boots is labelled as an A-hole. Such a joke.
My main man Menno!
Dante Trudel has entered the chat
MH guy looks like Drew Doughty from the Los Angeles Kings hockey team.
How much does a 20 lb weighted vest increase bmr?
17
@@shoqed 17 caloriesbb by only
69
✝️💪
I have the Option, that for example if you ever start with a leg quad compound like leg press or squad you maybe miss out over time some rectus femoris gainz even if you do sissy squads reverse nordic or lwg extension afterwards. Because you may fatique the other quad muscles and your cns so much that the rectus femoris can not hit 100percent. Whats your thoughts on this?
Hit it from a different angle next time.
I like how sams max recommanded sets go to 48 per week :D no wonder he was so opposed to 52...(jk)
If you train light then do many sets. Train hard and its 1-2 per week. Toss it off and do 50 per week
The Jets are NOT dropping over $20M on a #2 WR. This isn't Madden. You spend on OL and get a couple of lower priced WR. You already have a #1 WR.