For Menno to come up with a conceptual model of hypertrophy that is consistent, observable, quantifiable, testable, and yet elegantly simple is no small feat. You stand out in your field, Mr. Henselmans. Thank you for your contributions to the world
time under tension is one of the older bodybuilding ideas, he didn't come up with any part of this. Not to say that it's bad or wrong or poorly presented, it's a good metric but it's not original. There is some debate though about using the term "tension" and many prefer the term "volume"
Einstein didn't invent the concepts of energy, mass or the speed of light which doesn't make his combining them into a single equation any less useful. Not that Menno's Model is likely to be as useful as that. Still, seeing the relationship of the variables expressed algebraically makes me want to graph the function. That leads to questions about how comparable sets of different intensity, duration, proximity to failure, intra-set rest, etc are. Useful questions like he was raising in the video. I think that's the point.
What I learned from this is that I should really increase my rest time between sets. I have a bad habit of being locked up in the idea that your are being lazy or inefficient if you wait too long between sets.
I learned the opposite. No need for rest between sets, just do the same volume and add a little every few weeks. Myoreps and dropsets to achieve equivalent volume accumulation in half the total time.
@@Subscribe2Glide Thats just not true. for example, doing 200 kg leg press for 8-12 3 sets and doing 150 kg leg press myoreps will lead to basically the same fatigue and need for more rest. Due to myoreps being used with lighter weight you will go for 15+ every time and that uses a lot of energy, your cardio will be challenged. Your body if not rested enough, will not be able to produce enough power for the muscle to get progressively stronger or overloaded. Also myoreps and dropsets can only be used in isolation excersises, I would love to see someone do myorep squats...
@@tindobranic4791 funnily I tested this very alteration on monday. I switched from my normal twice weekly Inclined leg press 250kgs x 15 x 3 = 11,250kgs to 200kgs x 20 x 3 sets = 12, 000kgs total moved this was after realizing a few months ago that doing my PB of 350kgs x 10 was not worth it, risk to joints & systemic overload wise.
@@tindobranic4791I do myorep squats twice a week. I don’t get why you think it’s something strange. It’s HARD! So possibly not seen often. Go read about Tom Platz
Agree! To be honest, I clicked on the video just to have something playing in the backgorund while on lunch break. Ended up glued to the screen, replaying certain parts just to make sure I got everything right. Interesting stuff.
Well reasoned and to the point. Mainly cutting through paralysis by analysis for recreational lifters, which is the vast majority of the gym population. If "gains are proportional to reps" doesn't suffice anymore, chances are you're in the more professional portion of the population, for whom it makes sense to spend the time, effort and resources for a more tailored and optimized approach. If that simplicity lowers the barrier to entry and makes more people comfortable to get off the couch and into the gym, you performed an actual public service
I increased my rest time between sets. I already make my sets shorter, than before. Now I have more energy for more sets and I have longer time of stimulation for my muscles. I didn't know it's scientifically correctly. Before I watched this video, I thought I was doing another hypertrophy experiment that would end in failure. Thank you.
10 years ago...more or less, i read or saw a guy talking about this in another way... High rep sets x 2 Mid rep sets x 3 Low rep sets x 5+ Sort of encapsulated it in a way. Also he talked about the number of reps being the denominator.
Was starting to listen to Chris and Paul's response to this. So I stopped it and came by to listen to you explain the model yourself first. Great info here Menno, looking forward to the discussion from C&P also. I personally am able to do 2 to 3 times as much volume per week per bodypart doing a bro split. 2x a week training left me mostly able to only do 1 set each day, so only 2 sets per week per body part, as doing a second set immediately tanked performance until a deload, or reducing volume back to 1 set. [yes even calves, forearms, side delts] So for me, increased frequency led to less volume. I am going to try 2x a week again as my volume has climbed since implementing the bro split, to see if I am able to recover in time and get more volume in on a 2x/wk split.
You need to incorporate RIR into this model - for example, if you do 50 sets of 10 reps but using your 30RM you won’t be gaining muscle, despite lots of reps and sets being done. You’re simply too far from failure to generate sufficient tension, even though you’ve done a lot of reps. This is where the effective reps model fills the gap. How does your model account for this?
The model breaks down when you look at protocols like these that nobody does indeed. The effective reps model explains this, but the existing variants of it perform very poorly for nearly all the other variables I mention in this video. So it's a rather complicated model with very limited predictive power, even for (realistic) RIR and training to failure studies, which should be its strength.
Thanks for coming back! Could a way to circumvent this issue be to adjust your model, so instead of “number of sets per muscle per week determines hypertrophy”, it becomes “number of sets per muscle per week close to failure determines hypertrophy”? Or does this have its own issues? I feel like there should be some incorporation of proximity to failure, since we know sets beyond, say, 8-10 RIR (maybe much less in trained lifters) don’t cause any meaningful growth irrespective of how many reps / sets performed. What do you think?
Who in their right mind wants to do 30 rep sets with most of it being junk volume I'm already bored just thinking about it man I've got other things to do in life
@@menno.henselmans So if the model breaks down at certain RM level when it becomes too high - why not introduce a threshold, at which it becomes viable? E.g., 3RIR or whatever - based on the existing evidence.
love menno; took his PT course & it's gold. but not clear how this model is practically different from beardsley's model other than not mentioning how fatigue & recovery affect it. the prinicples are the same & the practical takeaways for non-drugged, non-pros are too.
Thank you! This model is very different though. Beardsley's model fails to explain the effect of rest intervals (without a whole lot of additional modifications and things we cannot practically measure like 'fatigue'), training frequency, the diminishing returns to additional sets and the results of training to failure studies (see my IG for 2 recent studies that fit the HH model but not Stimulating Reps). The only 2 things both models agree on are training intensity and rep tempo.
Myself and my wife train every other day and we do non paired supersets due to family life work etc, we do not have the time to take 2-3 min rest between sets. We normally rest around 1 min potentially less, my wife does need less rest as weights are lighter, we add reps weekly rather than weights, weights would increase every 4 weeks etc. I know research suggests resting longer however we do quite a bit of volume on a weekly basis 15 sets weekly for some muscle groups that are trained for 3 sets and 10 sets weekly for those muscle groups that are trained for 2 sets. Could we improve on this?
@menno.henselmans I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to do this, but I've listened to his podcasts and you guys appear to me to be aligned on rest intervals, diminishing returns, & frequency. (Although to be fair, I'm listening to this as a trainer of normies, trying to pull out practical takeaways, and so from a scientific model, there may be significant divergence) regardless, the more engagement between high-level researchers to present testable models, the better. 🙏
@@greenwavefitness7545 hi and thanks for your feedback. I used to do HF powerlifting back in the day worked a treat got really strong, I used that method for coaching strongman with some variables. However I definitely do not have the time or the luxury to be in the gym for 2 hours so build my home gym and following Menno and Mike Isratel I put together no paired superset that work really well, hopefully the high requency will pay off at some point. I do like spreading the volume across days.
Huge factor twice whe I was at my bigest i had very emotional stress,im way better now in a few months when started to feeling better , i also for sure have better results with high volume and short rest keep pumping blood to the muscle all out sets , lifting the more reps with more rest didnt work well for me
Excellent information....been training for 40yr+ and changing up routines. since last year I switched from splitting per muscle group to full body and gain muscle.
Rest pause training has been a game changer for me personally as ability to move more load is consistently going up. I bias towards more machine work though which I think encourages less of a neurological taxing effect
I have two problems regarding training frequency corelated with training volume that I'd like to discuss. 1. If you have for example a classical program for the chest: flat bench 4 sets, incline press 4 sets, flyes 4 sets. I noticed that when I do the program in one day, at the second exercise (incline press) I am able to put more weight on the bar, because my muscle and my body in general are more warmed up for high effort. When I do it in separatted days, incline press being my first exercise, I am not able to generate so much force, because Is my first set and I am still adjusting to the effort, even after my 3 warme-up sets. 2. Second problem, when you stimulate a muscle, the adaptive curve spikes, and returns to the baseline within 4-5 days or so. So if you training a muscle just once per week, you might just start from the begining, because you lost the previous adaptation. I'm curious what you have to say about those 2 points, one being against more frequent training, the other one pro frequency.
Im honestly sceptical if you actually do better on incline directly after bench, and is so, if you actually train your regular bench hard to begin with in that case. Ivé never heard of anyone that agrees with your with regard to your first point. With regard to you second point your adaptive curve spikes depend on how much your train. It doesnt spike as high if your train less sets but this balances out if you train more frequently, and if you train a lot but not as often it balances out the other way since get bigger spikes but less often.
Dare I say that there's a lot of "repetition" in comparing the model to each training variable? 😃 Seriously though, this is a really helpful way to approach training! Thanks!
The problem with high training frequency is that while it may work in the short term, it has a higher chance of overuse injuries and overtraining/overreaching in the long term (which can not only cause stagnation, but also regression). Because gains over time are highly diminishing and most people train for multiple years anyway, it doesn't make sense to expose yourself to the increased risk of injury and stagnation/regression of high frequency when you can get the same end results with low frequency.
As a guy in my 40s, I agree with this. I maintain quite a good physique with 2 full body workouts in a week (1st basic, second comprehensive), with 3-4 weeks dieting and cardio in between. Have I been bigger in my twenties? Yes. But IMO I look better than most natties in the gym, a lot is due to genetics but also, I log my workouts and give genuine effort. The question for many people older than say, 35, is not "how do I get bigger", but "how do I maintain a good/acceptable, healthy physique from now into my 80s, with a minimum of time investment." The answer for me is: 1. Full body workout 2. Alternate 3-6 unrelated body parts in each circuit, until workout complete (no rest other than setup/walking between) 3. Not to do a weight I can't get 15+ reps on fresh, to alternate. Do 1-2 RIR. 4. Rest pause with 20s rest between myoreps, for minor focus muscles (everything that isn't delts, biceps, triceps, lats, pecs, quads, glutes, hams, calves). Majors get 3 total sets (actually six for back and chest with compounds, e.g. pull downs, rows/ flat and incline press) 5. Physio/prehab for maybe 1/4-1/3 of the volume. 6. Begin with 5-7min cardio to overall warmup. 7. Earbuds and workout music. 8. Controlled, non-explosive movement. Minimize peak tension on the joint. I am easily strong enough for daily tasks. Injury means time off and time off means regressing. 3-4 hours a month of weights, and 7-15 hours of cardio approximately.
honestly very good model, will definitely have to show people this video when i reference it tho so their inevitable flood of questions and criticisms are answered
Menno, thank you for this video. Very informative! I am slightly confused on one thing. Maybe you can clarify? If time under tension and training volume is the most important factor for muscle growth, how do we analyze number or reps, NOT sets. One study you mentioned noted that when a group was allowed to lift 3x per week, for 3 set, but was allowed to vary the number of reps, they had double the muscle growth vs the groups that were restricted to the same sets and same reps per set. Yet you also noted that hypertrophy is essentially the same between 5-30 reps. But it seems from the study, the more reps you do in a set, the more gains. How do we understand this relationship of number of reps to hypertrophy? Particularly when the number of reps can vary depending on how heavy you are lifting. Would it mean that given the same weight, if you lift more reps than you did previously in a set, you'll get better gains? But we also don't need to go to failure for hypertrophy to happen. So, there must be some sweet spot that means you do as many reps as possible to just before failure. Am I understanding this correctly? Thank you again!
Whether reps matter depends on if you're using the same weight or not. If you are, the tension per rep should be approx. the same, so the reps matter. When you use a lower intensity, you sacrifice tension for time under tension and the net effect seems to be neutral, so then the reps don't matter and we can simply count the number of sets.
i think that Menno's model implicitly assumes that RIR is a fixed variable within the proven hypertrophy-inducing range - whether you use 0, 1, 2, 3 is up to you, but be consistent, of course
@@PrinceoftheVioletFlame How does the frequency which one trains affect the way how muscles look on their body? What you said just sounds like he was smaller and had better insertions than most people
Hi Menno, this is amazing, thank you for the fantastic video! The only thing Im not sure about the fit is the diminishing returns on doing multiple sets. We know that the gains from 2 sets will be greater than 1 set, but not 2x greater - as you described in the video. Lets say the second set gets you 50% more gains as a ballpark estimate compared to the 100% from the first set. I find it hard to see that could be explained purely from the sdecond set being half as many reps as the first set - because in practice I think the majority of lifters, except for the SUPER strong who are pushing max intensity, would not see such a significant rep fall off between sets. what do you think else could account for the difference and the diminishing returns for more volume?
This is where a modified version of the effective reps model is better imo. If you do a first set for 9 reps @ 1RIR and then a second set with 7 reps, you get 4 effective reps from the first set and if you use the first set as the standard for what counts as an effective rep then you get 2 effective reps from the second set. So doing 2 sets gives you 6 effective reps in total Vs 4 effective reps from only doing the first set.
Wouldn't work for everyone as we all have different genetics that adapt to stimulus in their own way, some can recover from plenty of volume therefore that is optimal for them, others can't and need to go more of a high intensity low volume route. We are all too individual
I have seen research that time under loads of 15-75 seconds produce statistically the same hypertrophy if they are taken close to 0 RIR. This implies to me that the last 15 seconds of effort before going to momentary failure produces basically all of the hypertrophy. There is also evidence that sets of 90 seconds or longer DON'T produce as much hypertrophy as sets in the 15-75 second range also taken to failure. Keep in mind though that just because you are under load for 15-75 seconds doesn't mean that the target muscle is under constant tension for all of that time. What percentage of your 1RM do you think you can keep under load for 15-75 seconds?
What do we want? Do we want bigger looking muscles or to be stronger and fitter? I do calisthenics and weight combined and for me it's important to be stronger, lean and fit rather than looking bulky and more muscled.I believe the progressive overloading without diminishing the repetitions but reaching to higher repetitions with increased weight to match the same repetition range with the previous weight takes time. Yet it's achievable.
So for good results: - Optimize Weekly Volume - High rest times are not needed if you can put in more total reps in shorter time with shorter rest times (optimum depends on person) - Going to failure not that relevant --> optimize for less strain on body/recovery and get in more total volume instead --> Absolut timesaver could be circle training with like 4 different exercises for 4 different Muscles
Nice, Menno. Tip: check out how to pronounce "equivalent" ;-) It still seems strange that the frequency doesn't seem to matter, as the anabolic window seems to be only about 2 days after working out. But apparently the growth stimulus is just proportionally bigger when you condense the training...
Two things/questioms: One, I thought that going close or to actual failure increased tension? Isn't tension the highest when you're trying to move the weight fast but it is going slow? So then by extension you would need less total reps per workout or week to get the same hypertrophy? Unless I missed something you're saying it's total reps and that's it? Two, Charles Stayley had a training plan where your only focus was to just beat the reps you did every workout, number of sets and rest didn't matter. What do you think of that?
I don't see how this model is particularly novel. We've known for a long time that hypertrophy is proportional to total weekly training volume, which is often defined as load x reps x sets. Hence, the expression 'volume is king' for hypertrophy. A person who is capable of doing more total volume in a week (call it 'mechanical work'), consistently from week to week, is going to be more jacked than someone whose maximum recoverable volume is lower. And guess what anabolic steroids do? They enable you to do and recover from more volume. Is Menno's model capturing something that I'm missing?
@@lancer717 Sure. In order to grow, your body needs to be able to recover from the amount of volume you do, and that requires rest, nutrition, and the relevant muscle building genetic machinery. This is where the concept of 'maximum recoverable volume' is applicable. I don't see how this is inconsistent with my original point though. Could you elaborate?
no I think you are right, this is simply the Time under Tension idea that is pretty old. I think it's probably right although I would substitute Volume for the term Tension because I don't think tension is broad enough, like if you did isometrics or shortened partials you would probably get less gains for instance.
It's a dumb model. It basically imply that lower reps to failure would be much better than low reps to failure. 5x5x84kg and 5x30x50kg have a DRASTICALLY different tonnage and likely the same hypertrophy effect in a exercise where 1RM is 100kg.
so the next step would be to plot out routines etc on a continuum of ever increasing volume....thus making gains almost "plug and play". There would be plots for overall body (limited by total body mrv) and also plots for individual bodyparts if one is specializing
Best beginner advice from Andy Galpin is 3-5. 3-5 reps, 3-5 sets, 3-5 times per week. Definitely a strength bias, but if you hit the 5 reps gonna get plenty of growth and strength as a newbie.
It would be amazing if you could make a video (perhaps a collab with a big name fitness youtuber) that "demonstrates" these concepts with practical examples, comparing conventional fitness "formulas" like 3 sets of 12, (or 5x5) MYO sets, drop sets etc with
Thank you for this video. If I understood correctly: more (sets/reps) is better (hypertrophy/growth), irrespective of the details. The diminishing incremental returns, however, would imply that after a certain number of sets per week, the added benefit is near zero, while recovery is compromised. The question, then, is how does one know what the optimal number of sets per week is? That is to say, what is the best approach to quantifying recovery, so that the number of sets performed per week is as high as possible without going overboard?
What about cluster sets or rest-pause? When you intentionally doing not 10 reps per set, but 5 - 3 - 2 with a pause? Is it considered as a hypertrophy set, because the total reps is 10?
A model that's very easy to understand and implement in my program. I've had shoulder issues since I've increased my weights, so maybe I should lower it and do more reps since I will get the same result. Very nice!
As an older, injury prone lifter, lighter is without doubt better. 15-30 is where it's at. Lower bodyfat % also lowers strength thereby lowering tension requires, thereby protecting your joints further.
Random aside, but may want to check out a shoulder rehab exercise that Tom Morrison recommends (should be able to find on UA-cam easily). Basically you move a dumbbell in some specific motions to work out the different rotator cuff muscles under load. The nice thing about it is that you can progressively load the dumbbell to really strengthen the rotator cuffs in a more serious way.
Today I dropped my lift weight back by about 9%. Keeping my effort relative to failure consistent with my previoius workout, I was able to complete around 33% more repetitions than my last workout (ie first set went from 15 to 20 reps). If I were to use the total weight lifted in the exercise over all my sets as the measure then I had about a 20% increase in volume. It felt good. I noticed less strain on my joints, mind muscle connection felt better as I was lifting a less challenging weight and had better control over it. The burn felt good, and the muscle pump at the end felt better. overall it felt like a good thing to try, and I feel like the disproportionate increase in volume relative to the drop in weight made it a good trade. If I didn't get as much increase in volume, or if my 1st set blew out past 30 reps I probably would stick to the heavier weight but this was good thanks!
Very nice model. I have three questions: 1. Would it account for using 1-5 rep sets? 2. Does it account for different RIR/RPE on different sets? 3. How does it take recovery into account?
Perhaps you could clear up my confusion about what you said around the 6:00 mark and at the end - that is, it doesn’t matter to muscle growth if you do, for example, 42 reps (16, 14, 12) of DB bench presses to failure with 75 lbs in each hand or 42 reps of DB presses with 50 lbs in each hand (again, 16, 14, 12). I find if I revert to the 50 lb DB’s for a while that when I go back to 75 lbs, I can no longer do 16, 14, 12 with 75 lbs. So I’ve lost strength obviously. Or endurance perhaps. I don’t measure my muscle volume but instead assume the more weight I can lift in that 5 to 30 rep range, the bigger my muscles are going to be. Perhaps that’s incorrect and I’m losing strength not muscle volume at the lower weight. I mean, if I could stay the same size by doing less work (42 reps with 50 pounders) I’d prefer to do that because it’s much less taxing. But somehow I don’t think that’s the case. I’m thinking that in order to grow, I have to push the heavier weight for 16, 14, 12 and keep pushing up the number or reps rather than pushing the lighter weight for the same number or reps. In fact, what happens when I use the 50’s is that I can instantly do noticeably more than 16, 14, 12 which is what I do on vacation (the resorts never have 75 pounders)…I do something like 20, 18, 16. Nonetheless, when I get home, I can no longer do 16, 14, 12 with the 75 pounders until I keep pushing for two or three weeks to get back to my former numbers at 75’s. Did I understand you correctly? Or have I missed something? Perhaps your video on training to failure explains this. Thanks.
Interesting. Even with all the studies, yes, still lots of nuances. Sleep quality, sunlight, hydration, nutrition, stress,... Agree, need to start somewhere
Hello Menno, thank you for your contributions. I believe there is a potential flaw in this model. I would appreciate it if you could clarify something. You state this… “If you are increasing your training volume, whether it’s repetitions or number of sets… then it does increase muscle growth.” In this you seem to be implying that volume, as a principle, is related to reps + sets + frequency. Is that correct? Best, Martyn
So let's see if i get this right - If e.g. my pullup max is 9 reps, it would be better to do 2 sets of 7 reps every day than 5 sets (9,7,6,5,5 reps) twice per week = more sets, more reps, more volume...? Think I'll give it a try... 👍
you nailed it, that's exactly what the model implies. Your recovery ability and your real and perceived RIR are the two exogenous variables which you need to manage. You're in the established RIR range for hypertrophy (which you are), so just need to hold your key recovery variables as constant as possible. In your example, for a fixed bodyweight ,the high frequency, lower RIR strategy will produce 98 reps compared to the 64 reps of the low frequency, higher RIR strategy. With a volume margin this size, it doesnt matter if you're overexaggerated your recovery ability
the thing that determines how much muscle you can build is determination and strong will resistance to pain and temptations over the years you need to train hard consistency fight for every rep and have a 24/7 diet that promotes muscle building to force your body to adapt that's why you rarely see someone who trains and has good results
Great video. I'm confused about failure though. In your model, the number of sets, reps, tension (weight) and time under tension seem to be the variables for growth. But, those variables don't depend on the trainee's fitness at all. Let's say I'm training with my friend who is much bigger and stronger than I am. With this model, if we trained identically to each other, we would gain the same amount of muscle? I don't see how this makes sense, the variable of failure (or closeness to failure) must be taken into consideration in my opinion. I'd love to see a reply from you, Menno!
Proximity to failure is taken into account via the total rep volume. If one of you simply does more reps because he trains harder, he'll probably grow more (assuming he can recover etc.).
I think he means if you squatted 100kg for a 10RM while your stronger friend does the same but could do 30reps if he wanted, is hypertrophy (as percentage) the same?
Hypertrophy can't literally be the integral of tension and time since volume-load is much higher for lighter sets. There must be some sort of non-linear relationship
Yes. As I have incirporated some DC training principles into my own, e.g. on minor priority I do a second set 20-30s after the previous. E.g. 14:27 Maybe 20r on first, 9 on the second. It saves time but does it generate results? Personally I am happy with it. I do 2 full body workouts, 1hr basic and 2 hrs comprehensive, about 4 days apart, during a one week bulk and then 3-4 weeks of cutting. Somehow I maintain quite well.
If this is indeed true, the implications are insane in my opinion. You could for example do a specialization period for a muscle by doing a massive number of sets for it per week and be able to recover from it, because you could do each set fresh. Maybe like a set every three hours or so. The hypertrophy should be crazy according to this theory. However, I do think nobody can just jump from 9 sets to 30 a week for a muscle. I think there would be too much inflammation. So a gradual ramp up would be needed, as in anything related to bodybuilding and strength training.
I am curious if you gain anything athletically by training to failure, in the sense that you can handle more discomfort and push yourself harder than someone who stops with more RIR. I know this topic is about hypertrophy, but I have a feeling that the effort is not actually wasted and that there may be more benefits to the mental challenge of pushing to your actual limit
This model does not explain why in some studies increasing training density, that is, reducing rest intervals while maintaining the same intensity and time under tension, generated more hypertrophy and strength gains.
@@svengali5415 In the first study below the intensity and volume load was exactly the same, in the second it was not exactly the same but it was similar. "The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations" "Greater gains in strength and power with intraset rest intervals in hypertrophic training." There are also several studies in which the intensity and volume load may not be the same but still the group that performed less work throughout the training had equal or even greater gains, which shouldn't happen according to Menno Henselmans' model. I will mention two of those studies below that use decreasing rest intervals and there are others that are easy to find if you search for studies on drop sets, rest and pouse and myo-reps, Menno Henselmans himself shares several of them on Facebook and Instagram. "Comparison between constant and decreasing rest intervals: influence on maximal strength and hypertrophy" "Strength and hypertrophy responses to constant and decreasing rest intervals in trained men using creatine supplementation"
It's occurred to me that your definition of intensity is purely % of 1RM that you're lifting, but typically intensity is describing how many RIR you leave per set. Because by this second definition, intensity certainly matters, as those later reps recruit the previously unrecruited muscle fibers and therefore apply the tension and stimulus to all of your available muscle fibers which is exactly what we want for muscle growth.
Menno's model implicitly assumes that RIR is a fixed variable within the proven hypertrophy-inducing range - whether you use 0, 1, 2, 3 is up to you, but be consistent, of course
Question: I love the formula, but, given a situation where intensity remains the same, then the number of reps will predict one’s hypertrophic growth. This makes sense in the case of bench press: Doing 60 reps with 225 lbs produces more growth than doing 50 reps at that weight. It also makes sense with pull-ups or pushups or squats. However, when I run, is the intensity not the same? Does this mean I increase hypertrophy by running 2 miles instead of 1 mile? Seems unlikely, yet this is what the formula would predict, no?
Does this model not suggest a completely different training approach? Rather than hitting the same muscle in subsequent sets and exercises (3x chest press, followed by 3x pec deck), should I not spread things out as much as possible? 1x chest press, 1x lat pull, 1x leg-press etc, and maybe do that cycle twice. Then do that same workout 2-4x per week. Basically maximizing rest-periods between sets as much as possible and thus maximizing volume.
@@executivelifehacks6747 Yeah, I've been experimenting with this style, also employing drop-sets, I get a full-body workout in under 1h and get more sore than before.
yes that's what it implies - 1 working set of 1 exercise for each bodypart, trained as frequently as your recovery permits. Circuit training with 1-2 warm rounds would work well here
Hi Menno, there is still one thing that confuses me with the model you evoke in the video: what about proximity to failure? You mention that training to failure has been shown to not improve hypertrophy, but this is compared to training 1-3 reps from failure, isn't it? If you take your first sets at a RPE 5 for example, does your model still stand? That would mean that staying far from failure at least on the first sets, because it helps do more reps on subsequent sets thanks to the lesser accumulated fatigue, can be better for hypertrophy than training close to failure because it allows to achieve larger total volumes.
yes, of course it is - this is an exercise in applying research-based knowledge and logic to the isolation of variables to identify the true levers to muscle growth, as opposed to accepting the conclusions of bro-science (eg longer rest b/n sets is simply the key)... Menno has boiled it down to the one variable influenced by all the others .....exogenous idiosyncratic variables like YOUR RIR (real and perceived) and YOUR recovery ability/strategies can't be tested independently - they are the variables you must set and control
How does your model explain diminishing returns for additional sets? Yes if you do the additional sets with short breaks the reps/set go down. But if I take a few hours in between sets, I could repeat the same performance several times per day. This should give me a multiple of the gains right?
@@menno.henselmans I see, perhaps recovery is the variable here affecting the results. Regardless, thanks for your amazing contribution. I found most of your points consistent with my (limited) training experience
Love this. Using the luxury of home weights, I changed my workout to rotate exercises every set, so ABCABC rather than AABBCC, effectively increasing rest time for all muscles but keeping the workout length exactly the same. The pump was crazy, like my first ever workout, using this method I'm getting so much bang for my time and effort that all I need to be careful of is increasing volume too quickly and getting too much fatigue
This is super interesting Menno, especially debunking so many old myths that seem to have become training 'law'. regarding time under tension and volume vs intensity and what you said about training to or near to failure resulting in few reps so less time under tension than more reps further from failure, i wonder if you have looked at the old training technique of pyramid sets? i would be interested to know if you have and what the results are, since i imagine that after reaching your set with highest weight to or near failure for say 6 reps, by your model you can't do more sets of equal intensity for equal number of reps but using pyramid technique you drop the weight but go again to or near failure and maybe get more reps than the previous heaviest set, and then on the next set the same again, less weight again but to failure again and for more sets again... all to or close to failure but with decreasing weight and increasing or at least the same number of reps each set. your thoughts?
I'm wondering how this would apply to rest-pause. If you did 10 reps to failure, then 5 more as myoreps this would be the same time under tension as having a full rest between 10 and 5 reps. But with myoreps you'd be at 0 RIR for those 5 reps, full rest you'd be at 4-5 RIR, which it's hard to believe is equal.
You wouldn't be at 0 RIR. With myo reps you are still resting so it would just count as the same thing as the short rest but matched volume study showed.
@Menno the only question you’re not answering then is what does the diminishing returns curve look like for most people, so we can choose how many sets per week we want to do? Eg how much difference is there between 1 set per week, 3, 12 and 20?
Also need to be careful not to do more than you can recover from. Some of it you can just feel out and make sure you're still doing progressive overload over time (increasing weight or reps or sets) without stalling for a few weeks in a row and also that if you got sore, aren't still very sore by the next time you're training. In those cases, may need to lower volume or do a deload for a little bit.
The model says nothing about having to train close to failure. If I do 3 sets of 10 (6 rir) vs 2 sets of 15 (1 rir), the model will predict the same hypertrophy but we all know that 6 rir is too far from failure.
For short term measurements? Sure, everything is volume. For long term, i.e what happens if I just throw weight around for months? Good luck staying out of the orthopedic surgeons office. Keep eccentric tempo slow, don't hammer your muscles in one weekly session, and you will see results in the long term, which is what counts. Dr. Mike has all the details :)
There is nothing novel here. Chad Waterbury built the mechanical tension “model” 20+ years ago. Recent research, and certainly yours, continues to establish his work.
If I understand this content correctly, I should abandon doing myo rep sets (which I just began a few weeks ago) as that has slightly decreased the total number of reps I am performing for each exercise compared to what I used to get when I did a more traditional length rest interval between sets (e.g. two to three minutes). Apparently, the only benefit to myo rep sets (if the model Henselmans has described is correct) is a shorter exercise routine.
If you're training a muscle group once a week, it usually means you're lifting your heaviest weights for each set, pound-for-pound, and need all that recovery time. When you're lifting lighter for that muscle group, you'll recover faster and be able to train 2-3×/week. Imho, ppl place an overemphasis on (complete) protein intake/synthesis and NOT enough on building strength through HEAVY weights.
@@elisabeth4342 I agree, but I'm talking about building muscle more than strength though both are obviously important. Personally, I prefer a more volume approach. Strength is incorporated, but due to several sporting injuries not as much as a few years ago.
@@gurufitness1984 I can relate to both the sports injuries AND the bodybuilding injuries. That's why it's even more important to build up strength in your "weak" and injured muscles/muscle groups. Otherwise, how will you efficiently (safely) increase the volume in your normal regimen? Also, don't you think natural strength, power and WELL-DEFINED hypertrophy are strongly correlated (no pun intended)? Granted, it's NOT always the case. But in many instances, the most well-developed people in ANY gym ARE USUALLY the STRONGEST!
@@elisabeth4342 I don't have weak areas as such because you can increase strength no matter which rep range you are using. Doing a 20 rep set today with a weight that a year ago would have been impossible is a definite strength increase. Dropping below 10 reps on many exercises simply decreases my ability to actually walk the following day so it isn't very practical.
@@gurufitness1984 Most people experiment with ALL rep ranges (below 5 reps to complete muscle failure is the only exception). You have people on all levels doing the same rep ranges for the same exercises. The only differences are the weights lifted, the results and any possible injuries to work through or around... Any injury is considered a "weakness" until you can build it up again - as much as possible. Did you see a reputable and experienced sports medicine doc about any nagging issues? It sound like you have DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness). That goes away when your body becomes used to the way you've been training. Give it a couple of weeks... If you're STILL experiencing the same initial muscle soreness you MAY be overdoing the intensity (weight, reps to failure, number of sets, not enough recovery time, etc.).
Since you are getting in more first sets by training more often, why would that not increase hypertrohy more than doing more sets less frequently, given that it's the first set that stimulates the most hypertrophy?
A very interesting video. One thing I've wondered is, typically in programs, weights are increased over time, which means reps drop. Then one typically compensate by adding sets, to increase volume, which is in line with the video. But what would happen if we perhaps decreased, or had a super random choice of weight, and we just slowly increase sets. So for example Monday, you do 3 sets of 10, Wednesday you do 3 sets of 5 with heavier weights, and Friday you do 3 sets of 20 with lighter weights, is that as good as keeping the weight constant or increasing?
There's definitely different patterns that some people will do, depending on their goals. If you really want to get into the weeds, the science hypertrophy book from RP Strength goes into a an overwhelming about of detail lol. But a lot of it is more applicable to people who have been training a long time and both need more stimulus and need to really manage systemic fatigue. A nice thing about Menno's approach is simplicity for when you don't need all of that. Also keep in mind that a goal of strength is different than for size specifically, and sets of 5 is getting closer to the strength side of things. But as for like 8-12 vs 15-20 (or even 30), you could use the higher reps to focus more on technique, especially when you might be more tired.
One question please Menno, You explain that total reps x weight per week or total training volume predicts muscle hypertrophy, but at the start you state that mechanical tension is the #1 driver of muscle growth, how would this turn out in real life best scenario? For example, should i train for example 3sets 1-3 reps on bench 3x a week so very heavy 9sets total lets say to simplify i did 18reps total with 70kg benchpress that week, or would i get more growth out of lets say 35kg weight and i did triple the amount of reps being 54, which equates to a way greater total weekly volume ?? This is what has me wondering for years now.. Also, once, I trained like this for 3 months , and I ate my protein but still had zero results, probably because I was at maintenance calories..? Or was it because I didn't train with heavy enough weights or close enough to failure??? Appreciate your reply !! Thanks, all the respect
Taking a shorter rest between sets typically has me feeling like I’m working more, but it’s probably best to rest longer and squeeze out more volume per set. A study you’ve shown on your instagram indicating better hypertrophy with a training partner (and even moreso with a trainer) seems to also go along with the idea that longer rest is more efficient (fatigue-wise) than shorter rest durations. Would you agree?
Is there an established picture of how the diminishing returns of volume diminish? E.g. all else being equal (i.e. same weight, same reps per set), doing 10 sets/week is 5 times better than doing 2 sets/week, but doing 50 sets/week is only 2 times better than 10. Or whatever the numbers might be. Are there studies splitting it per muscle or muscle group?
@ConservativeMD1 Thanks. Though I was more looking for something that would paint a picture (or rather a graph) of how growth relates to volume. “How much growth should you expect from 7, 8, 9, 10, 11….20…30 sets?” Though I can see how a study like that would be really hard to design, execute and control.
For Menno to come up with a conceptual model of hypertrophy that is consistent, observable, quantifiable, testable, and yet elegantly simple is no small feat. You stand out in your field, Mr. Henselmans. Thank you for your contributions to the world
time under tension is one of the older bodybuilding ideas, he didn't come up with any part of this. Not to say that it's bad or wrong or poorly presented, it's a good metric but it's not original. There is some debate though about using the term "tension" and many prefer the term "volume"
Einstein didn't invent the concepts of energy, mass or the speed of light which doesn't make his combining them into a single equation any less useful. Not that Menno's Model is likely to be as useful as that.
Still, seeing the relationship of the variables expressed algebraically makes me want to graph the function. That leads to questions about how comparable sets of different intensity, duration, proximity to failure, intra-set rest, etc are. Useful questions like he was raising in the video. I think that's the point.
It has so many flaws...Look up The Chris and Paul show and watch their video on Henselmans Hypertrophy model
@@BigBADSTUFF69I reckon it was a joke. I do think he made it a joke in the video too 🤷🏽♂️
Thank you for justifying the 15-minute power naps I sometimes take between sets.
(I probably need to eat more carbs.)
What I learned from this is that I should really increase my rest time between sets.
I have a bad habit of being locked up in the idea that your are being lazy or inefficient if you wait too long between sets.
I learned the opposite. No need for rest between sets, just do the same volume and add a little every few weeks. Myoreps and dropsets to achieve equivalent volume accumulation in half the total time.
@@Subscribe2Glide Thats just not true. for example, doing 200 kg leg press for 8-12 3 sets and doing 150 kg leg press myoreps will lead to basically the same fatigue and need for more rest. Due to myoreps being used with lighter weight you will go for 15+ every time and that uses a lot of energy, your cardio will be challenged. Your body if not rested enough, will not be able to produce enough power for the muscle to get progressively stronger or overloaded. Also myoreps and dropsets can only be used in isolation excersises, I would love to see someone do myorep squats...
@@tindobranic4791 funnily I tested this very alteration on monday. I switched from my normal twice weekly Inclined leg press 250kgs x 15 x 3 = 11,250kgs to 200kgs x 20 x 3 sets = 12, 000kgs total moved this was after realizing a few months ago that doing my PB of 350kgs x 10 was not worth it, risk to joints & systemic overload wise.
💬
@@tindobranic4791I do myorep squats twice a week.
I don’t get why you think it’s something strange.
It’s HARD! So possibly not seen often.
Go read about Tom Platz
I have to admit, these videos are always more interesting than I expect.
Agree! To be honest, I clicked on the video just to have something playing in the backgorund while on lunch break. Ended up glued to the screen, replaying certain parts just to make sure I got everything right. Interesting stuff.
This is the single most insightful video about hypertrophy in all of youtube.
This is the first time I’ve seen volume and its variables explained so crearly, thank you for this video
Well reasoned and to the point. Mainly cutting through paralysis by analysis for recreational lifters, which is the vast majority of the gym population. If "gains are proportional to reps" doesn't suffice anymore, chances are you're in the more professional portion of the population, for whom it makes sense to spend the time, effort and resources for a more tailored and optimized approach.
If that simplicity lowers the barrier to entry and makes more people comfortable to get off the couch and into the gym, you performed an actual public service
Really appreciate the work you do. I have been training for 20 years and I still change up my routine based off the data you explain so thoroughly.
I increased my rest time between sets. I already make my sets shorter, than before. Now I have more energy for more sets and I have longer time of stimulation for my muscles. I didn't know it's scientifically correctly. Before I watched this video, I thought I was doing another hypertrophy experiment that would end in failure. Thank you.
10 years ago...more or less, i read or saw a guy talking about this in another way...
High rep sets x 2
Mid rep sets x 3
Low rep sets x 5+
Sort of encapsulated it in a way.
Also he talked about the number of reps being the denominator.
Was starting to listen to Chris and Paul's response to this. So I stopped it and came by to listen to you explain the model yourself first. Great info here Menno, looking forward to the discussion from C&P also.
I personally am able to do 2 to 3 times as much volume per week per bodypart doing a bro split. 2x a week training left me mostly able to only do 1 set each day, so only 2 sets per week per body part, as doing a second set immediately tanked performance until a deload, or reducing volume back to 1 set. [yes even calves, forearms, side delts] So for me, increased frequency led to less volume. I am going to try 2x a week again as my volume has climbed since implementing the bro split, to see if I am able to recover in time and get more volume in on a 2x/wk split.
One of the best channels! Mano keep them videos coming please.
It fits perfect with my 40 Years of Training and my Experience as a Trainer since 10 Years. Greetings from Germany
dann erkläre mal kurz auf deutsch bitte und so als ob ich 5 jahre alt wär, danke
@@protoping
Dein Anspruch klingt schon mal wie der eines 5 jährigen :-)
Do you still do German Volume training there in da Fatherland?
You need to incorporate RIR into this model - for example, if you do 50 sets of 10 reps but using your 30RM you won’t be gaining muscle, despite lots of reps and sets being done. You’re simply too far from failure to generate sufficient tension, even though you’ve done a lot of reps. This is where the effective reps model fills the gap. How does your model account for this?
Any citations to prove that you won’t gain muscle doing that?
The model breaks down when you look at protocols like these that nobody does indeed. The effective reps model explains this, but the existing variants of it perform very poorly for nearly all the other variables I mention in this video. So it's a rather complicated model with very limited predictive power, even for (realistic) RIR and training to failure studies, which should be its strength.
Thanks for coming back!
Could a way to circumvent this issue be to adjust your model, so instead of “number of sets per muscle per week determines hypertrophy”, it becomes “number of sets per muscle per week close to failure determines hypertrophy”? Or does this have its own issues?
I feel like there should be some incorporation of proximity to failure, since we know sets beyond, say, 8-10 RIR (maybe much less in trained lifters) don’t cause any meaningful growth irrespective of how many reps / sets performed.
What do you think?
Who in their right mind wants to do 30 rep sets with most of it being junk volume I'm already bored just thinking about it man I've got other things to do in life
@@menno.henselmans So if the model breaks down at certain RM level when it becomes too high - why not introduce a threshold, at which it becomes viable? E.g., 3RIR or whatever - based on the existing evidence.
This was probably the best video on training variables i have ever seen. Hightly impressed!
love menno; took his PT course & it's gold. but not clear how this model is practically different from beardsley's model other than not mentioning how fatigue & recovery affect it. the prinicples are the same & the practical takeaways for non-drugged, non-pros are too.
Thank you! This model is very different though. Beardsley's model fails to explain the effect of rest intervals (without a whole lot of additional modifications and things we cannot practically measure like 'fatigue'), training frequency, the diminishing returns to additional sets and the results of training to failure studies (see my IG for 2 recent studies that fit the HH model but not Stimulating Reps). The only 2 things both models agree on are training intensity and rep tempo.
Myself and my wife train every other day and we do non paired supersets due to family life work etc, we do not have the time to take 2-3 min rest between sets. We normally rest around 1 min potentially less, my wife does need less rest as weights are lighter, we add reps weekly rather than weights, weights would increase every 4 weeks etc. I know research suggests resting longer however we do quite a bit of volume on a weekly basis 15 sets weekly for some muscle groups that are trained for 3 sets and 10 sets weekly for those muscle groups that are trained for 2 sets. Could we improve on this?
@menno.henselmans I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to do this, but I've listened to his podcasts and you guys appear to me to be aligned on rest intervals, diminishing returns, & frequency. (Although to be fair, I'm listening to this as a trainer of normies, trying to pull out practical takeaways, and so from a scientific model, there may be significant divergence) regardless, the more engagement between high-level researchers to present testable models, the better. 🙏
@@greenwavefitness7545 hi and thanks for your feedback. I used to do HF powerlifting back in the day worked a treat got really strong, I used that method for coaching strongman with some variables. However I definitely do not have the time or the luxury to be in the gym for 2 hours so build my home gym and following Menno and Mike Isratel I put together no paired superset that work really well, hopefully the high requency will pay off at some point. I do like spreading the volume across days.
I can tell you what makes muscle NOT grow - being stressed out
Huge factor twice whe I was at my bigest i had very emotional stress,im way better now in a few months when started to feeling better , i also for sure have better results with high volume and short rest keep pumping blood to the muscle all out sets , lifting the more reps with more rest didnt work well for me
@@nikosrosos5180 it's also more time efficient so that's another plus for you 👍🏻
😂
Sleep is super important too
weed
This is the most valuable lifting video I've ever watched and I've watched a lot of them. Thank you.
Excellent information....been training for 40yr+ and changing up routines. since last year I switched from splitting per muscle group to full body and gain muscle.
Do you mind sharing your workout routine and schedule. I'm limited time to work out and want to find something effective
Rest pause training has been a game changer for me personally as ability to move more load is consistently going up.
I bias towards more machine work though which I think encourages less of a neurological taxing effect
I have two problems regarding training frequency corelated with training volume that I'd like to discuss. 1. If you have for example a classical program for the chest: flat bench 4 sets, incline press 4 sets, flyes 4 sets. I noticed that when I do the program in one day, at the second exercise (incline press) I am able to put more weight on the bar, because my muscle and my body in general are more warmed up for high effort. When I do it in separatted days, incline press being my first exercise, I am not able to generate so much force, because Is my first set and I am still adjusting to the effort, even after my 3 warme-up sets. 2. Second problem, when you stimulate a muscle, the adaptive curve spikes, and returns to the baseline within 4-5 days or so. So if you training a muscle just once per week, you might just start from the begining, because you lost the previous adaptation. I'm curious what you have to say about those 2 points, one being against more frequent training, the other one pro frequency.
Im honestly sceptical if you actually do better on incline directly after bench, and is so, if you actually train your regular bench hard to begin with in that case. Ivé never heard of anyone that agrees with your with regard to your first point. With regard to you second point your adaptive curve spikes depend on how much your train. It doesnt spike as high if your train less sets but this balances out if you train more frequently, and if you train a lot but not as often it balances out the other way since get bigger spikes but less often.
I really appreciate your explanation here. It was simple and easy to understand. Thank you!
best YT suggestion of the year
Dare I say that there's a lot of "repetition" in comparing the model to each training variable? 😃
Seriously though, this is a really helpful way to approach training! Thanks!
Thanks for your time and effort menno
I thought I was training. turns out I'm just washing
The problem with high training frequency is that while it may work in the short term, it has a higher chance of overuse injuries and overtraining/overreaching in the long term (which can not only cause stagnation, but also regression). Because gains over time are highly diminishing and most people train for multiple years anyway, it doesn't make sense to expose yourself to the increased risk of injury and stagnation/regression of high frequency when you can get the same end results with low frequency.
And this is why everyone is small and weak.
As a guy in my 40s, I agree with this. I maintain quite a good physique with 2 full body workouts in a week (1st basic, second comprehensive), with 3-4 weeks dieting and cardio in between.
Have I been bigger in my twenties? Yes. But IMO I look better than most natties in the gym, a lot is due to genetics but also, I log my workouts and give genuine effort.
The question for many people older than say, 35, is not "how do I get bigger", but "how do I maintain a good/acceptable, healthy physique from now into my 80s, with a minimum of time investment."
The answer for me is:
1. Full body workout
2. Alternate 3-6 unrelated body parts in each circuit, until workout complete (no rest other than setup/walking between)
3. Not to do a weight I can't get 15+ reps on fresh, to alternate. Do 1-2 RIR.
4. Rest pause with 20s rest between myoreps, for minor focus muscles (everything that isn't delts, biceps, triceps, lats, pecs, quads, glutes, hams, calves). Majors get 3 total sets (actually six for back and chest with compounds, e.g. pull downs, rows/ flat and incline press)
5. Physio/prehab for maybe 1/4-1/3 of the volume.
6. Begin with 5-7min cardio to overall warmup.
7. Earbuds and workout music.
8. Controlled, non-explosive movement. Minimize peak tension on the joint. I am easily strong enough for daily tasks. Injury means time off and time off means regressing.
3-4 hours a month of weights, and 7-15 hours of cardio approximately.
honestly very good model, will definitely have to show people this video when i reference it tho so their inevitable flood of questions and criticisms are answered
Menno, thank you for this video. Very informative! I am slightly confused on one thing. Maybe you can clarify? If time under tension and training volume is the most important factor for muscle growth, how do we analyze number or reps, NOT sets. One study you mentioned noted that when a group was allowed to lift 3x per week, for 3 set, but was allowed to vary the number of reps, they had double the muscle growth vs the groups that were restricted to the same sets and same reps per set. Yet you also noted that hypertrophy is essentially the same between 5-30 reps. But it seems from the study, the more reps you do in a set, the more gains. How do we understand this relationship of number of reps to hypertrophy? Particularly when the number of reps can vary depending on how heavy you are lifting. Would it mean that given the same weight, if you lift more reps than you did previously in a set, you'll get better gains? But we also don't need to go to failure for hypertrophy to happen. So, there must be some sweet spot that means you do as many reps as possible to just before failure. Am I understanding this correctly? Thank you again!
Whether reps matter depends on if you're using the same weight or not. If you are, the tension per rep should be approx. the same, so the reps matter. When you use a lower intensity, you sacrifice tension for time under tension and the net effect seems to be neutral, so then the reps don't matter and we can simply count the number of sets.
i think that Menno's model implicitly assumes that RIR is a fixed variable within the proven hypertrophy-inducing range - whether you use 0, 1, 2, 3 is up to you, but be consistent, of course
Basically, volume is still king
Correct
@@PrinceoftheVioletFlame How does the frequency which one trains affect the way how muscles look on their body? What you said just sounds like he was smaller and had better insertions than most people
@@PrinceoftheVioletFlameand tons of steroids
Then what’s stopping you from living in the gym and lifting weight 16 hours a day ? Assuming money and family isn’t an issue
@@luismendez6081
If I have the time and money, I don't mind working out at the gym for 6-8 hours lol
Hi Menno, this is amazing, thank you for the fantastic video! The only thing Im not sure about the fit is the diminishing returns on doing multiple sets. We know that the gains from 2 sets will be greater than 1 set, but not 2x greater - as you described in the video. Lets say the second set gets you 50% more gains as a ballpark estimate compared to the 100% from the first set. I find it hard to see that could be explained purely from the sdecond set being half as many reps as the first set - because in practice I think the majority of lifters, except for the SUPER strong who are pushing max intensity, would not see such a significant rep fall off between sets. what do you think else could account for the difference and the diminishing returns for more volume?
I agree, I think there is an oversimplification
It indeed doesn't track linearly, but it at least qualitatively explains the phenomenon, something no other model I've seen does.
@@menno.henselmansbasically there is just a ramp function that asymptotes to the local or system total recoverable volume (e.g. Dr Mike). Presumably?
This is where a modified version of the effective reps model is better imo. If you do a first set for 9 reps @ 1RIR and then a second set with 7 reps, you get 4 effective reps from the first set and if you use the first set as the standard for what counts as an effective rep then you get 2 effective reps from the second set. So doing 2 sets gives you 6 effective reps in total Vs 4 effective reps from only doing the first set.
What about a focus on effective reps using myoreps vs longer rest times and regular sets?
I would like all these weightlifting and bodybuilding geniuses to sit down and craft the best possible training routine.
Wouldn't work for everyone as we all have different genetics that adapt to stimulus in their own way, some can recover from plenty of volume therefore that is optimal for them, others can't and need to go more of a high intensity low volume route. We are all too individual
With this model, I can see how set intensifiers like drop sets, cluster sets, myr reps etc would be like gold.
Absolutely amazing video as always! Thanks for sharing. 🙌
I have seen research that time under loads of 15-75 seconds produce statistically the same hypertrophy if they are taken close to 0 RIR. This implies to me that the last 15 seconds of effort before going to momentary failure produces basically all of the hypertrophy. There is also evidence that sets of 90 seconds or longer DON'T produce as much hypertrophy as sets in the 15-75 second range also taken to failure. Keep in mind though that just because you are under load for 15-75 seconds doesn't mean that the target muscle is under constant tension for all of that time. What percentage of your 1RM do you think you can keep under load for 15-75 seconds?
What do we want? Do we want bigger looking muscles or to be stronger and fitter? I do calisthenics and weight combined and for me it's important to be stronger, lean and fit rather than looking bulky and more muscled.I believe the progressive overloading without diminishing the repetitions but reaching to higher repetitions with increased weight to match the same repetition range with the previous weight takes time. Yet it's achievable.
So for good results:
- Optimize Weekly Volume
- High rest times are not needed if you can put in more total reps in shorter time with shorter rest times (optimum depends on person)
- Going to failure not that relevant --> optimize for less strain on body/recovery and get in more total volume instead
--> Absolut timesaver could be circle training with like 4 different exercises for 4 different Muscles
Nice breakdown for the complexity involved.
Your content is the best on the internet, glad I opted for your PT program. One of the best decisions of my life ❤🎉
Great stuff! Thanks Menno.
Nice, Menno. Tip: check out how to pronounce "equivalent" ;-) It still seems strange that the frequency doesn't seem to matter, as the anabolic window seems to be only about 2 days after working out. But apparently the growth stimulus is just proportionally bigger when you condense the training...
Two things/questioms:
One, I thought that going close or to actual failure increased tension? Isn't tension the highest when you're trying to move the weight fast but it is going slow? So then by extension you would need less total reps per workout or week to get the same hypertrophy? Unless I missed something you're saying it's total reps and that's it?
Two, Charles Stayley had a training plan where your only focus was to just beat the reps you did every workout, number of sets and rest didn't matter. What do you think of that?
I don't see how this model is particularly novel. We've known for a long time that hypertrophy is proportional to total weekly training volume, which is often defined as load x reps x sets. Hence, the expression 'volume is king' for hypertrophy. A person who is capable of doing more total volume in a week (call it 'mechanical work'), consistently from week to week, is going to be more jacked than someone whose maximum recoverable volume is lower. And guess what anabolic steroids do? They enable you to do and recover from more volume. Is Menno's model capturing something that I'm missing?
But resting is when muscles grow, no? Don’t we need time to rest before we start rolling muscle fibers again the next day?
@@lancer717 Sure. In order to grow, your body needs to be able to recover from the amount of volume you do, and that requires rest, nutrition, and the relevant muscle building genetic machinery. This is where the concept of 'maximum recoverable volume' is applicable. I don't see how this is inconsistent with my original point though. Could you elaborate?
yea, he is just creating content at this point....until we get new relevant data it's all that's left.
no I think you are right, this is simply the Time under Tension idea that is pretty old. I think it's probably right although I would substitute Volume for the term Tension because I don't think tension is broad enough, like if you did isometrics or shortened partials you would probably get less gains for instance.
It's a dumb model. It basically imply that lower reps to failure would be much better than low reps to failure.
5x5x84kg and 5x30x50kg have a DRASTICALLY different tonnage and likely the same hypertrophy effect in a exercise where 1RM is 100kg.
so the next step would be to plot out routines etc on a continuum of ever increasing volume....thus making gains almost "plug and play". There would be plots for overall body (limited by total body mrv) and also plots for individual bodyparts if one is specializing
Best beginner advice from Andy Galpin is 3-5. 3-5 reps, 3-5 sets, 3-5 times per week. Definitely a strength bias, but if you hit the 5 reps gonna get plenty of growth and strength as a newbie.
To failure?
It would be amazing if you could make a video (perhaps a collab with a big name fitness youtuber) that "demonstrates" these concepts with practical examples, comparing conventional fitness "formulas" like 3 sets of 12, (or 5x5) MYO sets, drop sets etc with
Thank you for this video. If I understood correctly: more (sets/reps) is better (hypertrophy/growth), irrespective of the details. The diminishing incremental returns, however, would imply that after a certain number of sets per week, the added benefit is near zero, while recovery is compromised. The question, then, is how does one know what the optimal number of sets per week is? That is to say, what is the best approach to quantifying recovery, so that the number of sets performed per week is as high as possible without going overboard?
What about cluster sets or rest-pause? When you intentionally doing not 10 reps per set, but 5 - 3 - 2 with a pause? Is it considered as a hypertrophy set, because the total reps is 10?
A model that's very easy to understand and implement in my program. I've had shoulder issues since I've increased my weights, so maybe I should lower it and do more reps since I will get the same result.
Very nice!
But won't the greatly increased volume also irritate your shoulder?
As an older, injury prone lifter, lighter is without doubt better. 15-30 is where it's at.
Lower bodyfat % also lowers strength thereby lowering tension requires, thereby protecting your joints further.
Random aside, but may want to check out a shoulder rehab exercise that Tom Morrison recommends (should be able to find on UA-cam easily). Basically you move a dumbbell in some specific motions to work out the different rotator cuff muscles under load. The nice thing about it is that you can progressively load the dumbbell to really strengthen the rotator cuffs in a more serious way.
this is nothing new but still it's surprising to find something informative on YT lately ! Well done !
Today I dropped my lift weight back by about 9%. Keeping my effort relative to failure consistent with my previoius workout, I was able to complete around 33% more repetitions than my last workout (ie first set went from 15 to 20 reps). If I were to use the total weight lifted in the exercise over all my sets as the measure then I had about a 20% increase in volume.
It felt good. I noticed less strain on my joints, mind muscle connection felt better as I was lifting a less challenging weight and had better control over it. The burn felt good, and the muscle pump at the end felt better. overall it felt like a good thing to try, and I feel like the disproportionate increase in volume relative to the drop in weight made it a good trade. If I didn't get as much increase in volume, or if my 1st set blew out past 30 reps I probably would stick to the heavier weight but this was good thanks!
Very nice model.
I have three questions:
1. Would it account for using 1-5 rep sets?
2. Does it account for different RIR/RPE on different sets?
3. How does it take recovery into account?
Great content. Thanks Menno.
Perhaps you could clear up my confusion about what you said around the 6:00 mark and at the end - that is, it doesn’t matter to muscle growth if you do, for example, 42 reps (16, 14, 12) of DB bench presses to failure with 75 lbs in each hand or 42 reps of DB presses with 50 lbs in each hand (again, 16, 14, 12). I find if I revert to the 50 lb DB’s for a while that when I go back to 75 lbs, I can no longer do 16, 14, 12 with 75 lbs. So I’ve lost strength obviously. Or endurance perhaps. I don’t measure my muscle volume but instead assume the more weight I can lift in that 5 to 30 rep range, the bigger my muscles are going to be. Perhaps that’s incorrect and I’m losing strength not muscle volume at the lower weight. I mean, if I could stay the same size by doing less work (42 reps with 50 pounders) I’d prefer to do that because it’s much less taxing. But somehow I don’t think that’s the case. I’m thinking that in order to grow, I have to push the heavier weight for 16, 14, 12 and keep pushing up the number or reps rather than pushing the lighter weight for the same number or reps. In fact, what happens when I use the 50’s is that I can instantly do noticeably more than 16, 14, 12 which is what I do on vacation (the resorts never have 75 pounders)…I do something like 20, 18, 16. Nonetheless, when I get home, I can no longer do 16, 14, 12 with the 75 pounders until I keep pushing for two or three weeks to get back to my former numbers at 75’s. Did I understand you correctly? Or have I missed something? Perhaps your video on training to failure explains this. Thanks.
this video is absolutely insane, thank you so much
Interesting. Even with all the studies, yes, still lots of nuances. Sleep quality, sunlight, hydration, nutrition, stress,... Agree, need to start somewhere
Hello Menno, thank you for your contributions.
I believe there is a potential flaw in this model. I would appreciate it if you could clarify something.
You state this…
“If you are increasing your training volume, whether it’s repetitions or number of sets… then it does increase muscle growth.”
In this you seem to be implying that volume, as a principle, is related to reps + sets + frequency. Is that correct?
Best,
Martyn
So let's see if i get this right - If e.g. my pullup max is 9 reps, it would be better to do 2 sets of 7 reps every day than 5 sets (9,7,6,5,5 reps) twice per week = more sets, more reps, more volume...? Think I'll give it a try... 👍
you nailed it, that's exactly what the model implies. Your recovery ability and your real and perceived RIR are the two exogenous variables which you need to manage. You're in the established RIR range for hypertrophy (which you are), so just need to hold your key recovery variables as constant as possible. In your example, for a fixed bodyweight ,the high frequency, lower RIR strategy will produce 98 reps compared to the 64 reps of the low frequency, higher RIR strategy. With a volume margin this size, it doesnt matter if you're overexaggerated your recovery ability
the thing that determines how much muscle you can build is determination and strong will resistance to pain and temptations over the years
you need to train hard consistency fight for every rep and have a 24/7 diet that promotes muscle building to force your body to adapt
that's why you rarely see someone who trains and has good results
Great video. I'm confused about failure though. In your model, the number of sets, reps, tension (weight) and time under tension seem to be the variables for growth. But, those variables don't depend on the trainee's fitness at all.
Let's say I'm training with my friend who is much bigger and stronger than I am. With this model, if we trained identically to each other, we would gain the same amount of muscle? I don't see how this makes sense, the variable of failure (or closeness to failure) must be taken into consideration in my opinion.
I'd love to see a reply from you, Menno!
Proximity to failure is taken into account via the total rep volume. If one of you simply does more reps because he trains harder, he'll probably grow more (assuming he can recover etc.).
I think he means if you squatted 100kg for a 10RM while your stronger friend does the same but could do 30reps if he wanted, is hypertrophy (as percentage) the same?
Hypertrophy can't literally be the integral of tension and time since volume-load is much higher for lighter sets.
There must be some sort of non-linear relationship
It's most likely not just a linear formula without any modifiers indeed.
Great info!
You mentioned that the model "breaks" when you look at intensifiers like drop sets , could you expand a bit on what that means?
Thank you!
Yes. As I have incirporated some DC training principles into my own, e.g. on minor priority I do a second set 20-30s after the previous. E.g. 14:27 Maybe 20r on first, 9 on the second.
It saves time but does it generate results? Personally I am happy with it. I do 2 full body workouts, 1hr basic and 2 hrs comprehensive, about 4 days apart, during a one week bulk and then 3-4 weeks of cutting. Somehow I maintain quite well.
If this is indeed true, the implications are insane in my opinion. You could for example do a specialization period for a muscle by doing a massive number of sets for it per week and be able to recover from it, because you could do each set fresh. Maybe like a set every three hours or so. The hypertrophy should be crazy according to this theory.
However, I do think nobody can just jump from 9 sets to 30 a week for a muscle. I think there would be too much inflammation. So a gradual ramp up would be needed, as in anything related to bodybuilding and strength training.
Very intriguing and useful information! Thank you!
Need a model for/that includes intensity techniques next, please!
I am curious if you gain anything athletically by training to failure, in the sense that you can handle more discomfort and push yourself harder than someone who stops with more RIR. I know this topic is about hypertrophy, but I have a feeling that the effort is not actually wasted and that there may be more benefits to the mental challenge of pushing to your actual limit
How does RIR fit in this model? What if I would train with 10 or 15 RIR but equate volume?
Love the model and the video, thank you for sharing.
Very solidly founded presentation. Thanks.
Volume equated rest interval data was very interesting
This model does not explain why in some studies increasing training density, that is, reducing rest intervals while maintaining the same intensity and time under tension, generated more hypertrophy and strength gains.
which studies are they? pls cite
@@svengali5415 In the first study below the intensity and volume load was exactly the same, in the second it was not exactly the same but it was similar.
"The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations"
"Greater gains in strength and power with intraset rest intervals in hypertrophic training."
There are also several studies in which the intensity and volume load may not be the same but still the group that performed less work throughout the training had equal or even greater gains, which shouldn't happen according to Menno Henselmans' model.
I will mention two of those studies below that use decreasing rest intervals and there are others that are easy to find if you search for studies on drop sets, rest and pouse and myo-reps, Menno Henselmans himself shares several of them on Facebook and Instagram.
"Comparison between constant and decreasing rest intervals: influence on maximal strength and hypertrophy"
"Strength and hypertrophy responses to constant and decreasing rest intervals in trained men using creatine supplementation"
It's occurred to me that your definition of intensity is purely % of 1RM that you're lifting, but typically intensity is describing how many RIR you leave per set.
Because by this second definition, intensity certainly matters, as those later reps recruit the previously unrecruited muscle fibers and therefore apply the tension and stimulus to all of your available muscle fibers which is exactly what we want for muscle growth.
Menno's model implicitly assumes that RIR is a fixed variable within the proven hypertrophy-inducing range - whether you use 0, 1, 2, 3 is up to you, but be consistent, of course
Simply brilliant Menno, bravo mate, well done & a high density knowledge delivery - hypothesis backed up by research, not "bro-science" lol
Really appreciate this summary 👍
Question: I love the formula, but, given a situation where intensity remains the same, then the number of reps will predict one’s hypertrophic growth. This makes sense in the case of bench press: Doing 60 reps with 225 lbs produces more growth than doing 50 reps at that weight. It also makes sense with pull-ups or pushups or squats. However, when I run, is the intensity not the same? Does this mean I increase hypertrophy by running 2 miles instead of 1 mile? Seems unlikely, yet this is what the formula would predict, no?
Does this model not suggest a completely different training approach? Rather than hitting the same muscle in subsequent sets and exercises (3x chest press, followed by 3x pec deck), should I not spread things out as much as possible? 1x chest press, 1x lat pull, 1x leg-press etc, and maybe do that cycle twice. Then do that same workout 2-4x per week. Basically maximizing rest-periods between sets as much as possible and thus maximizing volume.
Yes. Alternate sets between unrelated body parts. 3-6 different exercises. Full body workout. Very time efficient.
@@executivelifehacks6747 Yeah, I've been experimenting with this style, also employing drop-sets, I get a full-body workout in under 1h and get more sore than before.
yes that's what it implies - 1 working set of 1 exercise for each bodypart, trained as frequently as your recovery permits. Circuit training with 1-2 warm rounds would work well here
Hi Menno, there is still one thing that confuses me with the model you evoke in the video: what about proximity to failure? You mention that training to failure has been shown to not improve hypertrophy, but this is compared to training 1-3 reps from failure, isn't it? If you take your first sets at a RPE 5 for example, does your model still stand? That would mean that staying far from failure at least on the first sets, because it helps do more reps on subsequent sets thanks to the lesser accumulated fatigue, can be better for hypertrophy than training close to failure because it allows to achieve larger total volumes.
This whole video is quantifying growth stimulus, not muscle growth. Growth is stimulus + recovery.
yes, of course it is - this is an exercise in applying research-based knowledge and logic to the isolation of variables to identify the true levers to muscle growth, as opposed to accepting the conclusions of bro-science (eg longer rest b/n sets is simply the key)... Menno has boiled it down to the one variable influenced by all the others .....exogenous idiosyncratic variables like YOUR RIR (real and perceived) and YOUR recovery ability/strategies can't be tested independently - they are the variables you must set and control
How does your model explain diminishing returns for additional sets? Yes if you do the additional sets with short breaks the reps/set go down. But if I take a few hours in between sets, I could repeat the same performance several times per day. This should give me a multiple of the gains right?
The model can't explain uncommon scenarios like that indeed.
@@menno.henselmans I see, perhaps recovery is the variable here affecting the results. Regardless, thanks for your amazing contribution. I found most of your points consistent with my (limited) training experience
Love this. Using the luxury of home weights, I changed my workout to rotate exercises every set, so ABCABC rather than AABBCC, effectively increasing rest time for all muscles but keeping the workout length exactly the same. The pump was crazy, like my first ever workout, using this method I'm getting so much bang for my time and effort that all I need to be careful of is increasing volume too quickly and getting too much fatigue
This is super interesting Menno, especially debunking so many old myths that seem to have become training 'law'. regarding time under tension and volume vs intensity and what you said about training to or near to failure resulting in few reps so less time under tension than more reps further from failure, i wonder if you have looked at the old training technique of pyramid sets? i would be interested to know if you have and what the results are, since i imagine that after reaching your set with highest weight to or near failure for say 6 reps, by your model you can't do more sets of equal intensity for equal number of reps but using pyramid technique you drop the weight but go again to or near failure and maybe get more reps than the previous heaviest set, and then on the next set the same again, less weight again but to failure again and for more sets again... all to or close to failure but with decreasing weight and increasing or at least the same number of reps each set. your thoughts?
I'm wondering how this would apply to rest-pause. If you did 10 reps to failure, then 5 more as myoreps this would be the same time under tension as having a full rest between 10 and 5 reps. But with myoreps you'd be at 0 RIR for those 5 reps, full rest you'd be at 4-5 RIR, which it's hard to believe is equal.
He is saying that volume equals growth so it would be the same but in less time. I like myos and drops
You wouldn't be at 0 RIR. With myo reps you are still resting so it would just count as the same thing as the short rest but matched volume study showed.
Does this mean Greasing the Groove a la Pavel could work for hypertrophy if you just got enough weekly volume and got to 8 RIR each set?
@Menno the only question you’re not answering then is what does the diminishing returns curve look like for most people, so we can choose how many sets per week we want to do? Eg how much difference is there between 1 set per week, 3, 12 and 20?
Also need to be careful not to do more than you can recover from. Some of it you can just feel out and make sure you're still doing progressive overload over time (increasing weight or reps or sets) without stalling for a few weeks in a row and also that if you got sore, aren't still very sore by the next time you're training. In those cases, may need to lower volume or do a deload for a little bit.
Very informative. Thanks!
The model says nothing about having to train close to failure. If I do 3 sets of 10 (6 rir) vs 2 sets of 15 (1 rir), the model will predict the same hypertrophy but we all know that 6 rir is too far from failure.
For short term measurements? Sure, everything is volume. For long term, i.e what happens if I just throw weight around for months? Good luck staying out of the orthopedic surgeons office. Keep eccentric tempo slow, don't hammer your muscles in one weekly session, and you will see results in the long term, which is what counts. Dr. Mike has all the details :)
There is nothing novel here. Chad Waterbury built the mechanical tension “model” 20+ years ago. Recent research, and certainly yours, continues to establish his work.
If I understand this content correctly, I should abandon doing myo rep sets (which I just began a few weeks ago) as that has slightly decreased the total number of reps I am performing for each exercise compared to what I used to get when I did a more traditional length rest interval between sets (e.g. two to three minutes). Apparently, the only benefit to myo rep sets (if the model Henselmans has described is correct) is a shorter exercise routine.
Doesn't protein synthesis affect muscle growth more if the muscle is trained 3 times weekly rather than once?
If you're training a muscle group once a week, it usually means you're lifting your heaviest weights for each set, pound-for-pound, and need all that recovery time. When you're lifting lighter for that muscle group, you'll recover faster and be able to train 2-3×/week. Imho, ppl place an overemphasis on (complete) protein intake/synthesis and NOT enough on building strength through HEAVY weights.
@@elisabeth4342 I agree, but I'm talking about building muscle more than strength though both are obviously important. Personally, I prefer a more volume approach. Strength is incorporated, but due to several sporting injuries not as much as a few years ago.
@@gurufitness1984 I can relate to both the sports injuries AND the bodybuilding injuries. That's why it's even more important to build up strength in your "weak" and injured muscles/muscle groups. Otherwise, how will you efficiently (safely) increase the volume in your normal regimen?
Also, don't you think natural strength, power and WELL-DEFINED hypertrophy are strongly correlated (no pun intended)? Granted, it's NOT always the case. But in many instances, the most well-developed people in ANY gym ARE USUALLY the STRONGEST!
@@elisabeth4342 I don't have weak areas as such because you can increase strength no matter which rep range you are using. Doing a 20 rep set today with a weight that a year ago would have been impossible is a definite strength increase. Dropping below 10 reps on many exercises simply decreases my ability to actually walk the following day so it isn't very practical.
@@gurufitness1984 Most people experiment with ALL rep ranges (below 5 reps to complete muscle failure is the only exception). You have people on all levels doing the same rep ranges for the same exercises. The only differences are the weights lifted, the results and any possible injuries to work through or around...
Any injury is considered a "weakness" until you can build it up again - as much as possible. Did you see a reputable and experienced sports medicine doc about any nagging issues?
It sound like you have DOMS (delayed onset muscle soreness). That goes away when your body becomes used to the way you've been training. Give it a couple of weeks... If you're STILL experiencing the same initial muscle soreness you MAY be overdoing the intensity (weight, reps to failure, number of sets, not enough recovery time, etc.).
All of this makes ton of sens thanks
Since you are getting in more first sets by training more often, why would that not increase hypertrohy more than doing more sets less frequently, given that it's the first set that stimulates the most hypertrophy?
this is clearly implied in this model
A very interesting video.
One thing I've wondered is, typically in programs, weights are increased over time, which means reps drop. Then one typically compensate by adding sets, to increase volume, which is in line with the video.
But what would happen if we perhaps decreased, or had a super random choice of weight, and we just slowly increase sets.
So for example Monday, you do 3 sets of 10, Wednesday you do 3 sets of 5 with heavier weights, and Friday you do 3 sets of 20 with lighter weights, is that as good as keeping the weight constant or increasing?
There's definitely different patterns that some people will do, depending on their goals. If you really want to get into the weeds, the science hypertrophy book from RP Strength goes into a an overwhelming about of detail lol. But a lot of it is more applicable to people who have been training a long time and both need more stimulus and need to really manage systemic fatigue. A nice thing about Menno's approach is simplicity for when you don't need all of that. Also keep in mind that a goal of strength is different than for size specifically, and sets of 5 is getting closer to the strength side of things. But as for like 8-12 vs 15-20 (or even 30), you could use the higher reps to focus more on technique, especially when you might be more tired.
So training with low intensity can result in muscle growth?
For sure, if you go close to failure.
Great video!
One question please Menno, You explain that total reps x weight per week or total training volume predicts muscle hypertrophy, but at the start you state that mechanical tension is the #1 driver of muscle growth, how would this turn out in real life best scenario? For example, should i train for example 3sets 1-3 reps on bench 3x a week so very heavy 9sets total lets say to simplify i did 18reps total with 70kg benchpress that week, or would i get more growth out of lets say 35kg weight and i did triple the amount of reps being 54, which equates to a way greater total weekly volume ?? This is what has me wondering for years now.. Also, once, I trained like this for 3 months , and I ate my protein but still had zero results, probably because I was at maintenance calories..? Or was it because I didn't train with heavy enough weights or close enough to failure??? Appreciate your reply !! Thanks, all the respect
Taking a shorter rest between sets typically has me feeling like I’m working more, but it’s probably best to rest longer and squeeze out more volume per set. A study you’ve shown on your instagram indicating better hypertrophy with a training partner (and even moreso with a trainer) seems to also go along with the idea that longer rest is more efficient (fatigue-wise) than shorter rest durations. Would you agree?
For time-efficiency, there's an optimum. It won't be 1 minute and it won't be 10 minutes.
Very interesting and clear.
Is there an established picture of how the diminishing returns of volume diminish?
E.g. all else being equal (i.e. same weight, same reps per set), doing 10 sets/week is 5 times better than doing 2 sets/week, but doing 50 sets/week is only 2 times better than 10. Or whatever the numbers might be. Are there studies splitting it per muscle or muscle group?
@ConservativeMD1 Thanks.
Though I was more looking for something that would paint a picture (or rather a graph) of how growth relates to volume. “How much growth should you expect from 7, 8, 9, 10, 11….20…30 sets?”
Though I can see how a study like that would be really hard to design, execute and control.
@ConservativeMD1 definitely, it would have to be a very large study or meta analysis to cut through the noise from other variables.