Bulking will build muscle faster for everyone. Someone that is more advanced may not be able to build muscle during a maintenance. If that is you, I would potentially train more for strength during maintenance. That way you can carry over that strength to your next bulking cycle.
As a practical take away/peace of mind interpretation i would say this study should make you not worry about “junk volume” given you are recovering from and enjoying your current level of training volume.
I’ve done both high volume and low volume and high frequency/ low frequency. High rep low rep. I’ve found different muscle groups and joints respond differently. My preference is higher workout frequency while hitting almost all muscle groups twice every 5-7 days. Training every set to failure excluding legs. Doing 2 to 3 exercises per body part with 1-3 sets per exercise. With a rep range between 10-35 reps.
I gotta say, I thought I was the guy who didn't care for faces and was more into the material, read or heard. However I was kinda excited that SBS has cameras back. Apparently even the introverts nerds after covid enjoy human contact or relatability, easier communication through facial expressions. And of course these three are quite hunks so being able to objectify them is also a pro. Milo seems like a real muscle veteran, been to trenches everywhere. Bet he has some medals for his services too. And I admit I'm impressed by the aura of movie villain with stroking the cat just barely making the camera frame. If Milo tells me to do all the volume, I have no options and he will make sure I'll do it with laser sharks if nothing else. And shoutouts to Pak's Nocebo University shirt. When you call something "the Colorado experiment", it instantly makes you think something like the prison experiment or the starvation studies. It doesn't have a good ring to it. But wait, are you guys implying that societies with common tax paid healthcare and other welfare services have an ingrained ideology that contributing to the society and common good is desirable over individualist self-focused optimising? I must admit there's been times when I have been sick or sleeping poorly and stressed out, being busy with school etc and training has dropped for a while or trying to keep it up with like once a week session. I'm slightly upset I haven't gained at least 20 kg of muscle by that intensity training. I'm thinking I've trained too much in between. But chinese weightlifters definitely have been popping up in social media last year, to the point of people going "wow that guy's a shrimp ever since he had a break from competition, no way he's making the olympics" and later that year go "wow he's ripped out of his mind, just a chunk of pure muscle". What Milo said I think really highlighted the reasons to the surprising reaction to the study. People's mindset in general wasn't in on what the researchers actually mean with their words. It wasn't the first thought that every back exercise you do is volume for a specific muscle and then you count that muscle's volume, I think the initial reaction/expectation was "you're gonna do 52 sets of squats and your regular tough training". Your volume skyrockets when you start counting the indirect work. Like I'd intuitively count skull crushers but I wouldn't think of bench and overhead press as tricep workout right away, even though for sure your triceps are working. In fact I don't even know what muscle I'd name for overhead press, the compounds tend to be a separate foggy category in my head outside maybe squat = quad, bench = chest. Despite them working a lot of muscles intensely.
We are acting like all the criticism on the 52 set paper is in bad faith. There were really good posts making reasonable criticisms….all of these points were written off as anti-science. There seems to be an Inability to actually discuss things with people who think differently without calling them anti-science or haters. This attitude towards criticism isn’t productive IMO
I’m a tad confused how this is the takeaway from these 2 episodes on volume if you listen to them in their entirety. The level of specificity of the critique of Big Volume™️ doubters within these episodes is higher than I have seen anywhere else.
@@hayesdelezene4590 I don’t know what my goalpost has changed on? I’m more than happy to engage in discussion if you want any clarification on my position.
Greg: Kind of off topic, but since you decided to treat us to a bodybuilding history, I think it's worth noting that you got a lot wrong. I'll mention just a few things about Arthur Jones and Vince Gironda that you touched on. First, Arthur Jones: Arthur Jones was primarily a designer of exercise machines (Nautilus). He "coached" (actually, tortured) Casey Viator, but his "coaching" of Mike Mentzer was very short-lived. Mentzer adopted the Nautilus training philosophy, but to the extent that he had a coach at all, it would have been Roger Schwab of Main Line Nautilus in Bryn Mawr, PA. As for coaching Dorain Yates, that just didn't happen. I don't recall Yates saying he ever met Jones. Yates was influenced by Mentzer, but to say--as Mentzer did--that Mentzer trained Yates is a stretch. Yates trained himself; Jones certainly didn't coach him. Turning to Gironda, it is not accurate to say he coached Arnold. Arnold did go to him for advice, which prompted one of the funniest exchanges in 1960s era bodybuilding--I'll leave it to you and your listeners to look up that story--but Arnold wasn't "trained by" Gironda, except maybe for some contest prep. You can take one look at Arnold's training, which was heavy into bench press and squats (and even deadlifts) and recognize that that training was not Gironda-coached or even Gironda-inspired. Gironda HATED the bench press and squat, and never recommended regular deadlifts to my knowledge. In fact, he would throw people out of his gym for benching, and he didn't have conventional squat racks. Much the same could be said about Gironda training Zane. Zane certainly was influenced by him, but Zane's training was Zane's, not Gironda's. And to characterize Gironda as an apostle of high volume training is off-base. Most of his programs called for relatively low volume, and his 8x8 was not his principal method for building size. It was largely a cutting routine. As I said in the beginning, this history stuff is slightly off topic, The meat of the discussion on the podcast is really interesting. But if you are going to present the history of low-volume versus high-volume training, you should try to get your facts rights. I'll add one more thought: I trained at Roger Schwab's facility in the late 1970s. The training was totally orthodox HIT at the time. We generally did 2 or 3 full body sessions per week. In each session, we did two sets each for quads, chest, shoulders, biceps and triceps, and one set each of calves, hamstrings, and hips.The two sets were preexhaust (one isolation immediately followed by a compound exercise). As noted, that was done two or three times per week. The crazy one set or less per week stuff largely was a Mentzer thing in the 1990s.
So, in these studies that shows more volume equals more gains, are the groups doing less volume lifting at a higher intensity to compensate for the lower volume, or are we simply comparing low volume vs higher at the same intensity? I see how that intensity compensation could make the results harder to understand, but hey, I'm no scientist!
Nordic study participation. When the sun barely gets above the horizon for weeks or months, you'll sign up for lifting mountains and being stabbed to chase the boredom. Look at Edvard Munch's "The Scream." That's a guy who signs up for your research.
It doesn’t matter what the effect size is if it is not statistically significant. If it is not statistically significant, then by definition you have failed to reject the null hypothesis and you cannot use the data to claim that there is an effect of your intervention. That is the whole point of testing for significance. Using a non significant result to claim that a study shows that an intervention(in this case higher training volumes) is more effective likely means you don’t understand statistical significance.
Training volume is quite interesting. Doing powerlifting and bodybuilding, I was used to like 20-35 sets a week for legs e.g. So I did 3x1-2 hours of legs a week. Now that I moved to climbing training, I am doing close to 10 hours of climbing/climbing related training a week and my forearms are getting like 8 hours of training a week. It feels like 200 sets of forearms a week :D
I think the criticism about cell swelling and fluid retention from higher volumes is a fair criticism. I think it deserves its own study. You may say that those going to failure experience the same damage, therefore, the same fluid cel swelling should occur...but, doing 10 sets once a week vs twice a week is a big difference. The higher frequency that comes (typically) w higher volume turns acute inflammation into chronic (if you will). I've noticed this in my own training and in others. I know that's anecdotal, but is it just a happy coincidence that everyone who does a bro split tends to lose little to no size when deloading, where as high volume/frequency guys seem to completely deflate within 2 weeks? Just look at Geoffrey verity Schofield for a welll known example of someone who uses very high volumes. The last 2 times he took a couple weeks off he nearly lost 20 lbs...TWENTY POUNDS!!! So, before you dismiss it as people being critical, maybe take a deeper look into it. I think it would be worthwhile and help critics become more accepting of science, maybe less accusatory of bias.
seriously though.. the jokes on Stronger By Science is on another level, it's like y'all practice comedy just for that 0.1% of the duration that is the joking....
First off, thank you. Secondly, you should feel free to declare how studies are not written for the public but for other scientists who know how to apply restrictions and statistics.
We live in a world that people think 10K steps is a death march and you're shocked that 26 sets of heavy leg training is considered high? I accept Wolf's point that people get used to higher volumes but look at Pak getting gassed after four sets. Does anybody think you can improve your work capacity that much in 14 weeks? Which gets to my question. Was the effect from the 26 sets? Or was it from the increased volume? If it was from the 26 you could stay at 26 forever. If it was from the increased volume you need to continually increase.
"when people apply very different standards of research criticism for studies they like and studies they don't" should have taken the time to pause and say "shout out to Lyle McDonald" here
Wish these guys would actually have on some proponents of the lower volume crowd that have good arguments contradicting what they’re saying here. This sounds more like a feedback loop.
He left sbs and macrofactor and took a university researcher position. He also joined the iron culture pod with omar and helms and started a pod with the MASS team.
@@wizzelhoart they kept it professionally and polite in public. But I'd probably guess so to a certain degree, judging from the relative thoroughness of the split and the diverging interests such an event logically entails from a financial perspective in regards to buy-out etc. But SBS still hosts occasional new articles by Trex, so they probably handled it decently.
great talk. But unfortunately, all I want to do now is to do 100 sets of various muscle groups just to give the proverbial middle finger to the whiners out there
Maybe Bezval didn’t find a dose-response in the quads because studies were having subjects perform knee extension for their quad work and we know that the knee extension is the worst exercise for quad growth (sarcasm) 😂😂
Great video but It'd be nice if Dr. Wolf would move his mic a couple inches back. I feel like it's so close it comes off like he's trying to do ASMR when he's talking.
So pleased to see face-cams back again!! +1 for cat cameos. Truly a new era of SBS. Incredible line up. Excited for future collaborations!
Upvote for Greg's updated volume recommendations
please do an episode on bulking v maintenance. is it really the same for building muscle?
Bulking will build muscle faster for everyone. Someone that is more advanced may not be able to build muscle during a maintenance. If that is you, I would potentially train more for strength during maintenance. That way you can carry over that strength to your next bulking cycle.
Thank you for the suggestion! We’ll add it to the list of topics.
Already stoked for the second part. But I honestly would not have minded a 7.5 h mega-episode.
You're in for the treat! Part is 2 is nearly 5 hours long 😄
@@strongerbyscience Ah, you make my day!
As a practical take away/peace of mind interpretation i would say this study should make you not worry about “junk volume” given you are recovering from and enjoying your current level of training volume.
Yeah, I personally think that is a solid take-away. Certainly, the threshold for “junk volume” appears much higher than previously thought.
-Milo
I’ve done both high volume and low volume and high frequency/ low frequency. High rep low rep. I’ve found different muscle groups and joints respond differently. My preference is higher workout frequency while hitting almost all muscle groups twice every 5-7 days. Training every set to failure excluding legs. Doing 2 to 3 exercises per body part with 1-3 sets per exercise. With a rep range between 10-35 reps.
I gotta say, I thought I was the guy who didn't care for faces and was more into the material, read or heard. However I was kinda excited that SBS has cameras back. Apparently even the introverts nerds after covid enjoy human contact or relatability, easier communication through facial expressions. And of course these three are quite hunks so being able to objectify them is also a pro.
Milo seems like a real muscle veteran, been to trenches everywhere. Bet he has some medals for his services too. And I admit I'm impressed by the aura of movie villain with stroking the cat just barely making the camera frame. If Milo tells me to do all the volume, I have no options and he will make sure I'll do it with laser sharks if nothing else. And shoutouts to Pak's Nocebo University shirt.
When you call something "the Colorado experiment", it instantly makes you think something like the prison experiment or the starvation studies. It doesn't have a good ring to it. But wait, are you guys implying that societies with common tax paid healthcare and other welfare services have an ingrained ideology that contributing to the society and common good is desirable over individualist self-focused optimising?
I must admit there's been times when I have been sick or sleeping poorly and stressed out, being busy with school etc and training has dropped for a while or trying to keep it up with like once a week session. I'm slightly upset I haven't gained at least 20 kg of muscle by that intensity training. I'm thinking I've trained too much in between. But chinese weightlifters definitely have been popping up in social media last year, to the point of people going "wow that guy's a shrimp ever since he had a break from competition, no way he's making the olympics" and later that year go "wow he's ripped out of his mind, just a chunk of pure muscle".
What Milo said I think really highlighted the reasons to the surprising reaction to the study. People's mindset in general wasn't in on what the researchers actually mean with their words. It wasn't the first thought that every back exercise you do is volume for a specific muscle and then you count that muscle's volume, I think the initial reaction/expectation was "you're gonna do 52 sets of squats and your regular tough training". Your volume skyrockets when you start counting the indirect work. Like I'd intuitively count skull crushers but I wouldn't think of bench and overhead press as tricep workout right away, even though for sure your triceps are working. In fact I don't even know what muscle I'd name for overhead press, the compounds tend to be a separate foggy category in my head outside maybe squat = quad, bench = chest. Despite them working a lot of muscles intensely.
We are acting like all the criticism on the 52 set paper is in bad faith. There were really good posts making reasonable criticisms….all of these points were written off as anti-science.
There seems to be an Inability to actually discuss things with people who think differently without calling them anti-science or haters.
This attitude towards criticism isn’t productive IMO
I’m a tad confused how this is the takeaway from these 2 episodes on volume if you listen to them in their entirety. The level of specificity of the critique of Big Volume™️ doubters within these episodes is higher than I have seen anywhere else.
@@hayesdelezene4590 this is just a specific critique to a specific point made regarding swelling in the 52 set paper.
@@samuelbuckner the scent of goal post shifting has wafted down upon the back of a eastward gust to my nostrils
@@hayesdelezene4590 I don’t know what my goalpost has changed on? I’m more than happy to engage in discussion if you want any clarification on my position.
i love this new format
Great episode, looking forward to part 2!
Greg: Kind of off topic, but since you decided to treat us to a bodybuilding history, I think it's worth noting that you got a lot wrong. I'll mention just a few things about Arthur Jones and Vince Gironda that you touched on. First, Arthur Jones: Arthur Jones was primarily a designer of exercise machines (Nautilus). He "coached" (actually, tortured) Casey Viator, but his "coaching" of Mike Mentzer was very short-lived. Mentzer adopted the Nautilus training philosophy, but to the extent that he had a coach at all, it would have been Roger Schwab of Main Line Nautilus in Bryn Mawr, PA. As for coaching Dorain Yates, that just didn't happen. I don't recall Yates saying he ever met Jones. Yates was influenced by Mentzer, but to say--as Mentzer did--that Mentzer trained Yates is a stretch. Yates trained himself; Jones certainly didn't coach him. Turning to Gironda, it is not accurate to say he coached Arnold. Arnold did go to him for advice, which prompted one of the funniest exchanges in 1960s era bodybuilding--I'll leave it to you and your listeners to look up that story--but Arnold wasn't "trained by" Gironda, except maybe for some contest prep. You can take one look at Arnold's training, which was heavy into bench press and squats (and even deadlifts) and recognize that that training was not Gironda-coached or even Gironda-inspired. Gironda HATED the bench press and squat, and never recommended regular deadlifts to my knowledge. In fact, he would throw people out of his gym for benching, and he didn't have conventional squat racks. Much the same could be said about Gironda training Zane. Zane certainly was influenced by him, but Zane's training was Zane's, not Gironda's. And to characterize Gironda as an apostle of high volume training is off-base. Most of his programs called for relatively low volume, and his 8x8 was not his principal method for building size. It was largely a cutting routine. As I said in the beginning, this history stuff is slightly off topic, The meat of the discussion on the podcast is really interesting. But if you are going to present the history of low-volume versus high-volume training, you should try to get your facts rights. I'll add one more thought: I trained at Roger Schwab's facility in the late 1970s. The training was totally orthodox HIT at the time. We generally did 2 or 3 full body sessions per week. In each session, we did two sets each for quads, chest, shoulders, biceps and triceps, and one set each of calves, hamstrings, and hips.The two sets were preexhaust (one isolation immediately followed by a compound exercise). As noted, that was done two or three times per week. The crazy one set or less per week stuff largely was a Mentzer thing in the 1990s.
I’ve heard many bodybuilders won’t do legs the week before a competition because the swelling makes their legs look blurry and less striated.
Aight then 8 hour arm workout it is!
So, in these studies that shows more volume equals more gains, are the groups doing less volume lifting at a higher intensity to compensate for the lower volume, or are we simply comparing low volume vs higher at the same intensity? I see how that intensity compensation could make the results harder to understand, but hey, I'm no scientist!
Half-natty beard gang.
Thanks for the content!
They are the beard gang.
You’re very welcome!
What a great line up
Nordic study participation. When the sun barely gets above the horizon for weeks or months, you'll sign up for lifting mountains and being stabbed to chase the boredom. Look at Edvard Munch's "The Scream." That's a guy who signs up for your research.
It doesn’t matter what the effect size is if it is not statistically significant. If it is not statistically significant, then by definition you have failed to reject the null hypothesis and you cannot use the data to claim that there is an effect of your intervention. That is the whole point of testing for significance. Using a non significant result to claim that a study shows that an intervention(in this case higher training volumes) is more effective likely means you don’t understand statistical significance.
If pak and Milo are joining, call more attention to this! I’ll be honest, I had stopped listening, but I’m all the way back in now.
Training volume is quite interesting. Doing powerlifting and bodybuilding, I was used to like 20-35 sets a week for legs e.g. So I did 3x1-2 hours of legs a week. Now that I moved to climbing training, I am doing close to 10 hours of climbing/climbing related training a week and my forearms are getting like 8 hours of training a week. It feels like 200 sets of forearms a week :D
I think the criticism about cell swelling and fluid retention from higher volumes is a fair criticism. I think it deserves its own study. You may say that those going to failure experience the same damage, therefore, the same fluid cel swelling should occur...but, doing 10 sets once a week vs twice a week is a big difference. The higher frequency that comes (typically) w higher volume turns acute inflammation into chronic (if you will).
I've noticed this in my own training and in others. I know that's anecdotal, but is it just a happy coincidence that everyone who does a bro split tends to lose little to no size when deloading, where as high volume/frequency guys seem to completely deflate within 2 weeks? Just look at Geoffrey verity Schofield for a welll known example of someone who uses very high volumes. The last 2 times he took a couple weeks off he nearly lost 20 lbs...TWENTY POUNDS!!!
So, before you dismiss it as people being critical, maybe take a deeper look into it. I think it would be worthwhile and help critics become more accepting of science, maybe less accusatory of bias.
We’ll be touching on this criticism in Part 2! Stay tuned.
what video did he say that in? he literally just released a video saying he's only done one workout in the past 2 weeks and is not worried about it
seriously though.. the jokes on Stronger By Science is on another level, it's like y'all practice comedy just for that 0.1% of the duration that is the joking....
First off, thank you. Secondly, you should feel free to declare how studies are not written for the public but for other scientists who know how to apply restrictions and statistics.
We live in a world that people think 10K steps is a death march and you're shocked that 26 sets of heavy leg training is considered high?
I accept Wolf's point that people get used to higher volumes but look at Pak getting gassed after four sets. Does anybody think you can improve your work capacity that much in 14 weeks?
Which gets to my question. Was the effect from the 26 sets? Or was it from the increased volume? If it was from the 26 you could stay at 26 forever. If it was from the increased volume you need to continually increase.
"when people apply very different standards of research criticism for studies they like and studies they don't"
should have taken the time to pause and say "shout out to Lyle McDonald" here
Wish these guys would actually have on some proponents of the lower volume crowd that have good arguments contradicting what they’re saying here. This sounds more like a feedback loop.
what happened to Drex?
He left sbs and macrofactor and took a university researcher position. He also joined the iron culture pod with omar and helms and started a pod with the MASS team.
@@Yajoy-kh3kc was there any friction w Greg?
@@wizzelhoart they kept it professionally and polite in public. But I'd probably guess so to a certain degree, judging from the relative thoroughness of the split and the diverging interests such an event logically entails from a financial perspective in regards to buy-out etc.
But SBS still hosts occasional new articles by Trex, so they probably handled it decently.
For the algorithm
And iam Alehandro baby 😂
Oh, boy. People from sports science are really bad at math, huh? Statistics should be done by people that can at least prove a thereom.
IT'S ERIC... oh
❤
8:34 my man pronounced his own name worse than Greg did previously lol
47
124
217
D
great talk. But unfortunately, all I want to do now is to do 100 sets of various muscle groups just to give the proverbial middle finger to the whiners out there
What is the proverb?
Maybe Bezval didn’t find a dose-response in the quads because studies were having subjects perform knee extension for their quad work and we know that the knee extension is the worst exercise for quad growth (sarcasm) 😂😂
Great video but It'd be nice if Dr. Wolf would move his mic a couple inches back. I feel like it's so close it comes off like he's trying to do ASMR when he's talking.