Congratulations! You already were a doctor in our hearts! I have a question, Dr! How much longer do you think it makes sense to keep on researching volume? In my mind, once the dose response relationship is firmly established, it all comes down individual response to other things like recovery, periodiozation, prioritization, etc. Maybe the resources would be better put to use on the best way to achieve whatever individual volume ceiling, such as lengthened partials.
@@WolfCoaching Why not just get the upper ceiling of volume given absolutely maxing out intensity first? Like why approach it with some arbitrary standard of intensity other than for safety reasons that can be easily worked around with experienced lifters and safe movements? Like just simply use failure on all fronts to where after full rom -> lengthened partials -> the person cannot move the weight from the stack. It would be FAR more interesting and less objectionable than doing some intensity standard that the people not involved in the study can actually see. Most of us are justifiably suspect of research at this point. Anyways sorry for being crass but after listening to thousands of hours of exercise scientists literally, it's getting draining.
@TheMuscularWeakling It's something far more standardizable and more relatable to real life, especially with time constraints. We want to see what is the minimum amount of volume one can do whilst also reaching very near to the maximum possible result. To do this, you would start the experimentation with maximizing intensity and changing volume. Also, if you just PICK RIR 2 or 1, not only is failure undefined there, or largely misunderstood and study dependent, the reps in reserve is also variable AND dependent on the failure definition. It's completely complicating the process. Like, just do a damn study where you have Brad Schoenfeld vs Jordan Peters program and try to find "a best program", once Jordan Peters wins that battle, then have his program vs some other scientists or IFBB pro or like GVS's and slowly discover a program that is very hard to beat. Then modify that "best program" against it self, if you really want to do just iterative science and not come up with theories like this field basically doesn't.
@@XanEli1 Its a load of nonsense. Results are possible with a handful of sets. Until intensity is taken into account seriously then its all just so wishywashy
I think in this kind of studies they only count direct work. Would be hard to tell if chest press is half a set for triceps or 2/3 or 1 set. I think leverage and technique of the lifter would be important for counting and this all would make the whole study way to complex.
Pausing at your nutritional grid @ 3:45. The group adding 6 sets basically didn't increase their calorie intake at all over the full 12 weeks? I can't relate to these study results at all. I get significantly more hungry from even small increases in volume, let alone aggressive jumps like the ones in this study.
Great video doc. I agree with your point about hypertrophy likely being dictated by the average volumes rather than the weekly increase in dosage. However, do you think that structuring a mesocycle/program in that way may be a good way to increase average volume whilst also managing fatigue and and injury risk from volume increases?
This reminds me of the training of John Defendis, from way back in the day. Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for tons of volume, maybe that's just my perception. Something for the younger guys(to training), to keep in mind. Muscle gains aren't linear, in the sense that there is an even amount of gain from week to week, or even month to month. Let's say you measure your biceps every day, (lol, me 30 years years ago, also assuming it's not fat gain) you can train properly and not see any difference for a few weeks, then one day boom, there is now say 1/4" increase. You won't really see that 1/4" split up evenly in tiny increments. So don't get discouraged, it's a marathon, not a sprint.
Thanks for the good video 👍 Do people really ever think how much they can last.. or do they believe the Internet that says 10-20 sets is right.. you can easily do 50 x6 for the chest for example.. all 6 reps sets.. I claim that there is no junk volume.. I know that 100% from my own point of view that 50 sets per week does not make the muscles smaller🤔
How can we find this study creditable when 22 out of the 24 sessions were unsupervised? We just taking the word of the subjects that they remained with proper technique, tempo and set quality for all 52 sets unsupervised? From what I see they also didnt measure sarcomere length, how could be sure they aren't measuring inflammation in this case for size increase? What really doesnt make sense in the study is that we saw an exponential increase in size from 2% to 5% to 9%. Shouldn't we see that every additional set will be worse than the previous for stimulus due to dimensioning returns? More muscle damage, fatigue and CNS drain. This seems extremely strange. On a side note we know that failure training is great for growth, would it be better to do lower volume failure training vs doing 52 sets per week of non failure training? Not to mention that we also know rest times are important for growth as well in the 3-4 minute range. So doing lower volume training to failure with more rest time will result in stronger growth compared to less rest time non failure training of higher volume? Given these sessions would probably take the same amount of time and obviously the program with less volume will have less CNS fatigue and muscle damage. Would love to see these two training styles go back to back for an extended amount of time and have sarcomere lengths compared after an appropriate deload period to see for permanent size results.
Specialization phase - if prioritize legs, lets say starting at 22sets going to 36sets within this 8-10weeks period. What about volume on all other body parts? Leave on 10-12sets for all this period?
Milo- for all these volumes are they counting indirect work towards these sets & in addition is this all done within the context that all sets either had to match or beat previous performance? Or were they still adding sets even if performance per set was not able to at least be matched (which would show they were not recovering)?
This study shorts its conclusion by not recording how many sets the participants are training for other muscles. Sure, optimal results training quads at 52 sets, but is 52 sets optimal if you're also training the rest of your body? Obviously, since it's quads which is about the largest muscle in the body, is 52 sets optimal for back, chest, or biceps? This study raises more questions than it answers.
It think the issue with volume is yet not settled. Remember that in aerobic exercise it used to be thought that you need at least 30 min of exercise to increase maximal oxygen uptake. Then came the studies about HIIT and later SIT type interval training that showed that you could get the same benefits with just couple of minutes of maximal intensity spurts of exercise. Maybe it's the same with hypertrophy. Maybe by going to absolute failure or even beyond is so effective that you only need minimal amount of exercise. Maybe the benefits of failure training don' t show up in studies where you do many sets because the many sets compensate the lack of intensity of effort and maybe going to failure with too many sets will water down the benefits because of overtraining.
So this study shows that maybe our number of effective sets with longer rest period (+2min) is much higher than 6-10 what we thought from James Krieger's metaregression?
Hey Milo, good Video! I also watched the Video with Dr. Mike about this topic. Do you reccomend volume ramping up to MRV as renaissance periodization does (MEV-MRV), the so called MAV, and deloading after reaching MRV within 4-5 weeks? Or do you only reccomend adding volume as the recovery ability gets better, meanining a volume increase becomes possible, and occasionally deloading?
Did the lower set participants progressive overload as well? Because effectively, this is progressive overload, at least as I understand the definition of progressive overload
What about for maintaining muscle while dieting? I feel like a ton of attention goes towards "what grows more muscle in a surplus" but not nearly as much on how to preserve muscle while dieting
I'm a little curious about the idea of shortened rest times lowering subsequent sets' potency. Like I do shortened rest times for my accessory work all the time (lat pulldowns, triceps pushdowns, leg extensions, etc.), mostly to save a little time on exercises I don't particularly care about. I still push these hard (I aim to be losing reps or weight as the sets go on). But if shortening my rest times means I just have to do more sets, it's not a great time saver.
Interesting topic! I have 2 strength days (I do 4-6 reps with 7-10 RPE and with a push/pull split), 2 hypertrophy days (8-12 reps with 7-10 RPE and with a push upper and lower/pull upper and lower split) and 2 recovery sessions (6 reps with 50 % of the weight I used on the strength days). Now I would like to replace the 2 recovery sessions with another 2 hypertrophy sessions in a push/pull split. I only did 18 sets per session for the strength days and hypertrophy days because I didn't want to harm my strength and I even dropped the strength volume to 12 sets, for hypertrophy I do 16-19 sets per workout. How many sets for strength and hypertrophy days do you recommend and how should I ramp up the volume (can I just add new exercises I didn't do before from one week to the other and do 3 hard sets each/add 1-2 sets immediately to each exercise or should I ease into the new volume)?
Thank you! I train squats and split squats on hypertrophy push days, on hypertrophy pull days I train RDLs and calf Raises (Maybe I could do Calf Raises everyday because they're a small muscle. I would also like to do some leg curls on the pull days but I can't do seated leg curls because I only have dumbells at home). Btw I also plan to train my neck and forearms on both strength days because it would be too much on the hypertrophy days. But on the hypertrophy days I think that it would be beneficial to include some biceps/triceps work on push/pull days.
Question...The study was done on the quads, and I suppose its because it is easier to manipulate leg training since it is not affected by other body parts. If, for example, I wanted to increase volume on triceps per week, do I take into account that my triceps are hit during chest and shoulders along with my separate triceps workout? If I do 30 sets/wk on triceps alone, but also doing 20 sets per chest and shoulders, how many sets of triceps am I really doing in a week? Like I said, this fairly linear for legs, but much more complicated for upper body parts. Thougths?
Last time I did some high volume quad stuff it was last week 3x9 sets, no free squats, all to failure, a lot beyond failure and I demonstratively couldn't recover, couldn't match last w numbers (3x8 to failure only it was getting dicey already) 2nd time, crazy drop third time, sore for whole week and half the next one, frankly not much of central fatigue though, about as expected, I didn't lower any other volume. But on the biceps year before last in the last week of the mass macrocycle I did 55 sets all failure+partials2failure, I mean I was sore and all but nothing like with quads.
@@srleplay all to failure is a big reasoin for that. High volume and lots of sets to failure won't blend well together week by week (for the same muscle group that is).
I have 2 question: What would your thoughts be on really dedicating an insane amount of time(2 or more a day sessions) to really build up to these extreme volumes on most muscle groups to try and maximize gainz. Wouldn’t the recovery demand of this make it infeasible regardless of the time you wish to put in? Where would the hypothetical average maximum sets, with all recovery factors in check, end up? Do you think this would then still be within the previously considered top end volume within the scientific community? What is your opinion on the great drop-off in weight that would inevitably happen(at least in my case😂) across for instance 15 sets of bench press or machine press within a 12-15 reps rep range. Would this still be potent for hypertrophy even though you might be doing 30-35% of your max for 12 reps by the end of the session? It’ll probably stop being effective for strength way sooner if you are in the 3-6 rep range starting at a higher relative intensity going very much down in weight to keep it at +-2 RIR How much drop-off would you consider being to much to elicit a potent enough respons? Sorry for the long question 😬
For a single muscle group, yeah i guess 52 sets may or may not be the best for hypertrophy but oh boy just imagine how hard it is to consistently train 1-3 reps in reserve for 52 sets straight.
I REALLY want to see a study comparing 20 sets of RPE 8 (2 min rest) with maybe 1-3 of them to failure AND 4 sets to absolute failure+lengthen partials at the end (4-6 min rest). That would be insanely interesting to look through.
Would way rather see like Sam Sulek's style of sets like full range -> lengthened partials until you can barely move the weight off the stack maybe 12-15 sets a week, Vs Brad's 52 sets
@@XanEli1 that's interesting too, but i think comparing extreme ends is more beneficial knowledge based. I personally stick to 5-6 sets with RPE 9-10 + lengtheng partials in 6-8 rep zone and with 2-6 min rest time on exercises that i feel great using heavy weights on and 6-10 sets with rpe 8-10 and 12-20 reps on exercises where lighter weights are more comfortable
@@XanEli1 wdym? If you're talking about my words on comparing high volume rpe 8 and low volume, i wrote about low volume "to failure+lengtheng partials" and u wrote the same about Sam's training style. I may have misunderstood what u are asking tho
@@youtubemusic2013 I just misread your first message sorry. I basically agree with what you said would be interesting yeah. These studies where it's Brad's failure is just not failure, no one that trains hard trains like that. The first rep of for example Sam Sulek's sets is harder than the last rep of many of these studies definition of failure but yet he does like an extra 10 reps on top of that further into that "failure hole". The whole concept of failure is completely fked at this point and research is becoming a laughing stalk. How bout the researchers put what they think is an optimal training approach against some pro's. Do a study where one groups training is designed by a guy like Jordan Peters, and another designed by Brad.
Hmm.. sorry but I do not understand what is a set .. I know repetitions (i.e. 10 squats), series (i.e. 3 series of 10 squat repetions), but .. sets?.. 🤔 What is referred to? Is it a multiple of series? I.e. I make 10 sets it means I make 10 times 3 x 10 squats ?.. Or sets and series are the same? .. Thanks 😊
Waiting on a study of this kind with longer rest times, so I can get a clear answer on whether 15 sets is still plenty. I'm not doubling volume if it's just like 15% more hypertrophy.
Bro you can pretty much maximize your progress with like 10 hard sets a week per bodypart. Maybe even less. Dont less these ridiculously stupid studies side track you
So the study was for 12 weeks. How would it extrapolate if we do this for a year and are only concerned about working a few muscle groups so specialization is fine. Would the study be generalizable or are there other limitations to consider if so what?
Is there any problem with training over an hour or 2 a day? Some people say after an hour a day of training testosterone levels go down and it's counterproductive, what do you think about that
When will an actual scientific theory that makes predictions about the relationship between volume and intensity actually come into existence. For example the theory may predict that doing 3 sets of an exercise with about 2RIR would be equivalent to 1 set done 10 reps beyond technical failure.
If i rarely get doms but increase my volume while training close to failure, what other short term symptoms dictate recovery problems? If a session goes worse than the previous one , is that a sign? Or you need to be patient for a pattern of bad sessions to occur ? Also joint discomfort could also be one sign?
14 wk sets of quads are leaving my almost on a wheelchair... i mean, i needo t bring up my quads and arms specially HOWEVER i'm really considering doing a MV on all muscle groups and push quad volume to the max at some point
Well, when one’s entire body is a weak point, and a more general mass routine is required instead of 1-2 specialized muscles, what do? What’s a realistic set range for general hypertrophy?
@@WolfCoachingwhen I was sixteen, not at all sporting, I went o work on a building site with my dad. I was carrying bricks etc all day and sprouted a lot of muscle.
Milo don't you think the periodization studies could be better designed? Yes, average volume being higher between groups should be the greatest player. But something tells me that planning 10-30 sets you would probably reach MRV slower than 30 sets at once and those extra weeks with higher volumes would result greater hypertrophy.
Just go jim, train hard, sleep and gains will come. What you feel is more important what study shows… Im not neglecting science here, you can learn some tricks and tips but nowdays everything is overcomplicated.
Thank you for the answer! I know that the study was conducted with very advanced lifters so I have a long way to go. So you don't advise against training with a bit of soreness?
40 working sets a week is too much even for elite lifters ( assuming 0 reps in reserve or failure ) , if you can handle that manny sets weekly you are not pushing intensity high enough. Second :exercise selection Mathers allot here , doing 3 sets of high bar ATG squats for reps to 4-8 with 0 reps in reserve is not the same has doing 3 sets of let extensions to failure ( the volume on squats has way higher quality ). I agree with your takeaways but i would say that 20 -40 sets weekly is a little bit to high in my opinion, i would say 9-30 ( depening allot of the muscle group we are talking about ) is more adequate
How do I increase my volume? Should I be doing 10+ sets for a muscle per workout twice a week? Or should I be hitting that muscle 3-4 times per week with 5-10 sets per workout?
@jlol933 how intense are you lifting. To failure? Or do you end a set a few reps before failure. Basically, do you feel like you could do your workout later on that day, or are you dead after the workout
So the results were statistically insignificant. Gee, I'm not a doctor but from what I understand, it means the study did not show support for this kind of volume. The study authors themselves stated: "the limited certainty of our findings warrants caution."
Wasn’t it like 2-3 years ago 86 sets per week was "optimal", I will wait until a study on volume has participants go until they literally cannot complete a rep on at least one set before I start adding significant amounts of volume to my training just for the f*ck of it
52 is not much. i am 70 y.o start bench press 8 months ago and i do 75 sets a week with 65-70-75-80-85-90 kilos most of them with 85- 90 kilos, and i am ok
disadvantages of high volume 1. People r gonna do shit intensity just to hit their set goal. Barely gonna go near failure so they have more energy as well for more sets. 2. Time. If we do go to failure and take 3 to 5 mins rest, how fking long will these workouts take to reach that many sets. Mfs gonna be in the gym for like 4 hours if they r training hard. Problem with this again is mfs training with no intent and intensity and no muscular failure just to hit a set goal in their mind.
So the results were statistically insignificant. That means the researchers have no confidence that the amount of sets has anything to do with the results. Why would anyone design a program based on this?
Dr can you go into recovery and how it works more in depth? Plenty of info on volume and intensity, but when it comes to recovery i believe its the true game changer. Besides sleep and sufficient caloric intake, what else can contribute to better recovery? Ive been experimenting with mega dosing supplements like magnesium glycinate (up to 1g per day) and Vitamin K2 (600 mcg), and trying to incorporate 20-30min cardio sessions repeated throughout the day.
Alright. 8 hour arm workout then.
Esketit 💯
Whatever it takes 😁
It doesn't have to be in one day
Nope.
@@LordFluffingtons that sounds all mental. Stick through it.
This was the breakdown I was looking for.
Excellent work.
Glad it was helpful king
Congrats, Doc! Thanks for explaining the data.
Excellent, excellent explanation, Doctor! Thank you!
Finally someone responds to Lyle !!! Subbed
Congrats Milo!!! You done it :D
Congrats! 🎉 👏 👏 👏
Thank you so much sir!
Congratulations! You already were a doctor in our hearts! I have a question, Dr! How much longer do you think it makes sense to keep on researching volume? In my mind, once the dose response relationship is firmly established, it all comes down individual response to other things like recovery, periodiozation, prioritization, etc. Maybe the resources would be better put to use on the best way to achieve whatever individual volume ceiling, such as lengthened partials.
Thank you! I think it makes sense to get a ROUGH idea of what the average upper ceiling is
@@WolfCoaching Why not just get the upper ceiling of volume given absolutely maxing out intensity first? Like why approach it with some arbitrary standard of intensity other than for safety reasons that can be easily worked around with experienced lifters and safe movements? Like just simply use failure on all fronts to where after full rom -> lengthened partials -> the person cannot move the weight from the stack. It would be FAR more interesting and less objectionable than doing some intensity standard that the people not involved in the study can actually see. Most of us are justifiably suspect of research at this point. Anyways sorry for being crass but after listening to thousands of hours of exercise scientists literally, it's getting draining.
@TheMuscularWeakling It's something far more standardizable and more relatable to real life, especially with time constraints. We want to see what is the minimum amount of volume one can do whilst also reaching very near to the maximum possible result. To do this, you would start the experimentation with maximizing intensity and changing volume. Also, if you just PICK RIR 2 or 1, not only is failure undefined there, or largely misunderstood and study dependent, the reps in reserve is also variable AND dependent on the failure definition. It's completely complicating the process. Like, just do a damn study where you have Brad Schoenfeld vs Jordan Peters program and try to find "a best program", once Jordan Peters wins that battle, then have his program vs some other scientists or IFBB pro or like GVS's and slowly discover a program that is very hard to beat. Then modify that "best program" against it self, if you really want to do just iterative science and not come up with theories like this field basically doesn't.
@@XanEli1 Exactly, couldnt agree more with everything you said!
@@XanEli1 Its a load of nonsense. Results are possible with a handful of sets. Until intensity is taken into account seriously then its all just so wishywashy
Love the take aways Doctor! Excellent breakdown as well. Thanks
Thank you faith n fitness guy 🙏🏻
Congratulations Dr.
Thank you sir!
Excellent video!
Great doc
Just discovered your channel through jeff nippard. Cool stuff, cool stuff man 💪🏽
How would you go about counting indirect volume? Ie. Triceps in a Machine Chest Press for example?
I think in this kind of studies they only count direct work. Would be hard to tell if chest press is half a set for triceps or 2/3 or 1 set. I think leverage and technique of the lifter would be important for counting and this all would make the whole study way to complex.
Dr Wolf, et al (and his pack) might be the coolest citation ever existed
Ah man, can't wait for the challenge video and results!!! When is it coming out?
Coming out in the next couple of weeks!
Pausing at your nutritional grid @ 3:45. The group adding 6 sets basically didn't increase their calorie intake at all over the full 12 weeks? I can't relate to these study results at all. I get significantly more hungry from even small increases in volume, let alone aggressive jumps like the ones in this study.
REAL DOCTOR LET'S GOOOOOOOOO
Nice one.
Thank you Ducky!
Great video doc.
I agree with your point about hypertrophy likely being dictated by the average volumes rather than the weekly increase in dosage.
However, do you think that structuring a mesocycle/program in that way may be a good way to increase average volume whilst also managing fatigue and and injury risk from volume increases?
This reminds me of the training of John Defendis, from way back in the day. Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for tons of volume, maybe that's just my perception. Something for the younger guys(to training), to keep in mind. Muscle gains aren't linear, in the sense that there is an even amount of gain from week to week, or even month to month. Let's say you measure your biceps every day, (lol, me 30 years years ago, also assuming it's not fat gain) you can train properly and not see any difference for a few weeks, then one day boom, there is now say 1/4" increase. You won't really see that 1/4" split up evenly in tiny increments. So don't get discouraged, it's a marathon, not a sprint.
Amazing video!
Does this mean overtraining is a myth?
Not quite; but overtraining from lifting is extremely challenging
Was that Omar or GVS at the end?
Thanks for the good video 👍
Do people really ever think how much they can last.. or do they believe the Internet that says 10-20 sets is right.. you can easily do 50 x6 for the chest for example.. all 6 reps sets.. I claim that there is no junk volume.. I know that 100% from my own point of view that 50 sets per week does not make the muscles smaller🤔
For sure! Across the week, people can do more than they think
How can we find this study creditable when 22 out of the 24 sessions were unsupervised? We just taking the word of the subjects that they remained with proper technique, tempo and set quality for all 52 sets unsupervised? From what I see they also didnt measure sarcomere length, how could be sure they aren't measuring inflammation in this case for size increase?
What really doesnt make sense in the study is that we saw an exponential increase in size from 2% to 5% to 9%. Shouldn't we see that every additional set will be worse than the previous for stimulus due to dimensioning returns? More muscle damage, fatigue and CNS drain. This seems extremely strange.
On a side note we know that failure training is great for growth, would it be better to do lower volume failure training vs doing 52 sets per week of non failure training?
Not to mention that we also know rest times are important for growth as well in the 3-4 minute range. So doing lower volume training to failure with more rest time will result in stronger growth compared to less rest time non failure training of higher volume?
Given these sessions would probably take the same amount of time and obviously the program with less volume will have less CNS fatigue and muscle damage. Would love to see these two training styles go back to back for an extended amount of time and have sarcomere lengths compared after an appropriate deload period to see for permanent size results.
Sessions were all supervised. Inflammation from accustomed to stimuli dissipates within 72 hours, usually.
Algorithmmmm! Thanks again for the quality and quantity of content!!
Glad you enjoy it!
Does this study take into account that muscle swelling is not equal to muscle Hypertrophy?
Specialization phase - if prioritize legs, lets say starting at 22sets going to 36sets within this 8-10weeks period. What about volume on all other body parts? Leave on 10-12sets for all this period?
Milo-
for all these volumes are they counting indirect work towards these sets & in addition is this all done within the context that all sets either had to match or beat previous performance? Or were they still adding sets even if performance per set was not able to at least be matched (which would show they were not recovering)?
This study shorts its conclusion by not recording how many sets the participants are training for other muscles. Sure, optimal results training quads at 52 sets, but is 52 sets optimal if you're also training the rest of your body? Obviously, since it's quads which is about the largest muscle in the body, is 52 sets optimal for back, chest, or biceps? This study raises more questions than it answers.
It think the issue with volume is yet not settled. Remember that in aerobic exercise it used to be thought that you need at least 30 min of exercise to increase maximal oxygen uptake. Then came the studies about HIIT and later SIT type interval training that showed that you could get the same benefits with just couple of minutes of maximal intensity spurts of exercise. Maybe it's the same with hypertrophy. Maybe by going to absolute failure or even beyond is so effective that you only need minimal amount of exercise. Maybe the benefits of failure training don' t show up in studies where you do many sets because the many sets compensate the lack of intensity of effort and maybe going to failure with too many sets will water down the benefits because of overtraining.
So if you do low intensity cycling you would need to do 30 minutes or how long?
I want to know their intensity. Because I'm dead after 10 sets normally... and I'm a trained lifter
So this study shows that maybe our number of effective sets with longer rest period (+2min) is much higher than 6-10 what we thought from James Krieger's metaregression?
Highest quality content for weightlifting on UA-cam. Minimal reason for bias, nuanced takes, no sacred cows.
Hey Milo, good Video! I also watched the Video with Dr. Mike about this topic. Do you reccomend volume ramping up to MRV as renaissance periodization does (MEV-MRV), the so called MAV, and deloading after reaching MRV within 4-5 weeks? Or do you only reccomend adding volume as the recovery ability gets better, meanining a volume increase becomes possible, and occasionally deloading?
Did the lower set participants progressive overload as well? Because effectively, this is progressive overload, at least as I understand the definition of progressive overload
I workout for 3 hrs… it’s for the stress relief of being at the gym, but hypertrophy is a nice side effect!
What about for maintaining muscle while dieting? I feel like a ton of attention goes towards "what grows more muscle in a surplus" but not nearly as much on how to preserve muscle while dieting
I'm a little curious about the idea of shortened rest times lowering subsequent sets' potency. Like I do shortened rest times for my accessory work all the time (lat pulldowns, triceps pushdowns, leg extensions, etc.), mostly to save a little time on exercises I don't particularly care about. I still push these hard (I aim to be losing reps or weight as the sets go on). But if shortening my rest times means I just have to do more sets, it's not a great time saver.
14:42 it fell again. I lost it xD
As did I. Donate to help 🙏🏻
Interesting topic! I have 2 strength days (I do 4-6 reps with 7-10 RPE and with a push/pull split), 2 hypertrophy days (8-12 reps with 7-10 RPE and with a push upper and lower/pull upper and lower split) and 2 recovery sessions (6 reps with 50 % of the weight I used on the strength days). Now I would like to replace the 2 recovery sessions with another 2 hypertrophy sessions in a push/pull split. I only did 18 sets per session for the strength days and hypertrophy days because I didn't want to harm my strength and I even dropped the strength volume to 12 sets, for hypertrophy I do 16-19 sets per workout. How many sets for strength and hypertrophy days do you recommend and how should I ramp up the volume (can I just add new exercises I didn't do before from one week to the other and do 3 hard sets each/add 1-2 sets immediately to each exercise or should I ease into the new volume)?
sounds like a nice split. with this split, on which day do you train legs?
Thank you! I train squats and split squats on hypertrophy push days, on hypertrophy pull days I train RDLs and calf Raises (Maybe I could do Calf Raises everyday because they're a small muscle. I would also like to do some leg curls on the pull days but I can't do seated leg curls because I only have dumbells at home). Btw I also plan to train my neck and forearms on both strength days because it would be too much on the hypertrophy days. But on the hypertrophy days I think that it would be beneficial to include some biceps/triceps work on push/pull days.
dr mike usually does less sets but each set is intense so im a little confused
Just curious what's the percent difference between the 1st group and 3rd group in muscle increase ? 2% etc...
last week evidence was low volume high intensity this week its high volume again
Question...The study was done on the quads, and I suppose its because it is easier to manipulate leg training since it is not affected by other body parts. If, for example, I wanted to increase volume on triceps per week, do I take into account that my triceps are hit during chest and shoulders along with my separate triceps workout? If I do 30 sets/wk on triceps alone, but also doing 20 sets per chest and shoulders, how many sets of triceps am I really doing in a week? Like I said, this fairly linear for legs, but much more complicated for upper body parts. Thougths?
Rich Piana 8 hour arm workout was right
What about using resistance for several of the sets (not all), to avoid injuries and help with recovery?
Last time I did some high volume quad stuff it was last week 3x9 sets, no free squats, all to failure, a lot beyond failure and I demonstratively couldn't recover, couldn't match last w numbers (3x8 to failure only it was getting dicey already) 2nd time, crazy drop third time, sore for whole week and half the next one, frankly not much of central fatigue though, about as expected, I didn't lower any other volume. But on the biceps year before last in the last week of the mass macrocycle I did 55 sets all failure+partials2failure, I mean I was sore and all but nothing like with quads.
Sounds like your quads struggle to recover! Some muscles /individuals will respond that way
@@srleplay all to failure is a big reasoin for that. High volume and lots of sets to failure won't blend well together week by week (for the same muscle group that is).
I do a 2 hour leg day, and arm day
How does rhabdo occur given these findings, what should we watch out for going for more and more volume?
I have 2 question: What would your thoughts be on really dedicating an insane amount of time(2 or more a day sessions) to really build up to these extreme volumes on most muscle groups to try and maximize gainz. Wouldn’t the recovery demand of this make it infeasible regardless of the time you wish to put in? Where would the hypothetical average maximum sets, with all recovery factors in check, end up? Do you think this would then still be within the previously considered top end volume within the scientific community?
What is your opinion on the great drop-off in weight that would inevitably happen(at least in my case😂) across for instance 15 sets of bench press or machine press within a 12-15 reps rep range. Would this still be potent for hypertrophy even though you might be doing 30-35% of your max for 12 reps by the end of the session?
It’ll probably stop being effective for strength way sooner if you are in the 3-6 rep range starting at a higher relative intensity going very much down in weight to keep it at +-2 RIR
How much drop-off would you consider being to much to elicit a potent enough respons?
Sorry for the long question 😬
1) 30-40 sets is a reasonable upper limit for now.
2) If we see more hypertrophy with super high volumes, those sets should be still stimulative
Then i’n goin to see where the road takes this hypertrophy block im in at the moment 💪💪
Thanks for the quick reply!
For a single muscle group, yeah i guess 52 sets may or may not be the best for hypertrophy but oh boy just imagine how hard it is to consistently train 1-3 reps in reserve for 52 sets straight.
I REALLY want to see a study comparing 20 sets of RPE 8 (2 min rest) with maybe 1-3 of them to failure AND 4 sets to absolute failure+lengthen partials at the end (4-6 min rest). That would be insanely interesting to look through.
Would way rather see like Sam Sulek's style of sets like full range -> lengthened partials until you can barely move the weight off the stack maybe 12-15 sets a week, Vs Brad's 52 sets
@@XanEli1 that's interesting too, but i think comparing extreme ends is more beneficial knowledge based. I personally stick to 5-6 sets with RPE 9-10 + lengtheng partials in 6-8 rep zone and with 2-6 min rest time on exercises that i feel great using heavy weights on and 6-10 sets with rpe 8-10 and 12-20 reps on exercises where lighter weights are more comfortable
@@youtubemusic2013 I mean what I said was "more extreme" per set than the sets you're talking about right?
@@XanEli1 wdym? If you're talking about my words on comparing high volume rpe 8 and low volume, i wrote about low volume "to failure+lengtheng partials" and u wrote the same about Sam's training style. I may have misunderstood what u are asking tho
@@youtubemusic2013 I just misread your first message sorry. I basically agree with what you said would be interesting yeah. These studies where it's Brad's failure is just not failure, no one that trains hard trains like that. The first rep of for example Sam Sulek's sets is harder than the last rep of many of these studies definition of failure but yet he does like an extra 10 reps on top of that further into that "failure hole". The whole concept of failure is completely fked at this point and research is becoming a laughing stalk. How bout the researchers put what they think is an optimal training approach against some pro's. Do a study where one groups training is designed by a guy like Jordan Peters, and another designed by Brad.
Wouldn't increasing volume week by week be a good strategy to increase volume while not hitting the overtraining wall?
That's it I'm starting diamond pushups 5 sets every other day!
What are your thoughts on if they were to take ALL working sets to complete failure, not just the last sets?
What do you think would happen when introducing concurrent training - maybe in the range of 3 h - 10 h zone 2 cardio per week?
Hmm.. sorry but I do not understand what is a set .. I know repetitions (i.e. 10 squats), series (i.e. 3 series of 10 squat repetions), but .. sets?.. 🤔 What is referred to? Is it a multiple of series? I.e. I make 10 sets it means I make 10 times 3 x 10 squats ?..
Or sets and series are the same? ..
Thanks 😊
Waiting on a study of this kind with longer rest times, so I can get a clear answer on whether 15 sets is still plenty. I'm not doubling volume if it's just like 15% more hypertrophy.
Bro you can pretty much maximize your progress with like 10 hard sets a week per bodypart. Maybe even less. Dont less these ridiculously stupid studies side track you
So Tom Platz was right, doc?
I thought muscle thickness was supposed to represent cross sectional area. So what parameter is it supposed to be? and was it measured by MRI?
Did the subjects had no doms? Or did they train with brutal doms but gaining muscle even with doms?
So the study was for 12 weeks. How would it extrapolate if we do this for a year and are only concerned about working a few muscle groups so specialization is fine. Would the study be generalizable or are there other limitations to consider if so what?
Could you train 2 muscles at the same time using this system( say bi's and tri's) while maintaining the other body parts?
So you're saying Tom Platz was onto something....
Is there any problem with training over an hour or 2 a day? Some people say after an hour a day of training testosterone levels go down and it's counterproductive, what do you think about that
I spend 30 hours a week weight lifting at the gym doing the stacks
When will an actual scientific theory that makes predictions about the relationship between volume and intensity actually come into existence. For example the theory may predict that doing 3 sets of an exercise with about 2RIR would be equivalent to 1 set done 10 reps beyond technical failure.
If i rarely get doms but increase my volume while training close to failure, what other short term symptoms dictate recovery problems? If a session goes worse than the previous one , is that a sign? Or you need to be patient for a pattern of bad sessions to occur ? Also joint discomfort could also be one sign?
If multiple sessions go worse, that’s a good sign. Some minor decrement for a session or two is probably nothing to worry about, though
So let’s say you are having say 30 sets a week. If you hit a muscle group twice a week on a PPL split, are we do 15 sets per workout for a muscle?
14 wk sets of quads are leaving my almost on a wheelchair... i mean, i needo t bring up my quads and arms specially HOWEVER i'm really considering doing a MV on all muscle groups and push quad volume to the max at some point
Give it a shot! It will probably help
@@WolfCoaching Would you say on a deficit could have some progress?
Well, when one’s entire body is a weak point, and a more general mass routine is required instead of 1-2 specialized muscles, what do? What’s a realistic set range for general hypertrophy?
If you’ve been training for a while, I’d say aim for 15-25+ sets!
@@WolfCoachingwhen I was sixteen, not at all sporting, I went o work on a building site with my dad. I was carrying bricks etc all day and sprouted a lot of muscle.
Milo don't you think the periodization studies could be better designed? Yes, average volume being higher between groups should be the greatest player. But something tells me that planning 10-30 sets you would probably reach MRV slower than 30 sets at once and those extra weeks with higher volumes would result greater hypertrophy.
Would you recommend bro split for this high volume training? I’m doing PPL for now, but wouldn’t it be easier to the one musclegroup per day?
Eh, PPL works fine. Frequency doesn’t matter a ton!
What about junk volum then there is no such thing as it ???
Just go jim, train hard, sleep and gains will come. What you feel is more important what study shows… Im not neglecting science here, you can learn some tricks and tips but nowdays everything is overcomplicated.
I honestly think YOU should do a study on this... Take a random guy and do this volume training and post the results....
We all know what would happen
Does this mean that Junk Volume doesn't actually exist?
What if I can't recover from soreness? I am sore for almost a week after 5 sets of leg exercise...
Gradually increase volume and see how you feel. A bit of soreness may not be anything to worry about!
Thank you for the answer! I know that the study was conducted with very advanced lifters so I have a long way to go. So you don't advise against training with a bit of soreness?
40 working sets a week is too much even for elite lifters ( assuming 0 reps in reserve or failure ) , if you can handle that manny sets weekly you are not pushing intensity high enough.
Second :exercise selection Mathers allot here , doing 3 sets of high bar ATG squats for reps to 4-8 with 0 reps in reserve is not the same has doing 3 sets of let extensions to failure ( the volume on squats has way higher quality ).
I agree with your takeaways but i would say that 20 -40 sets weekly is a little bit to high in my opinion, i would say 9-30 ( depening allot of the muscle group we are talking about ) is more adequate
How do I increase my volume? Should I be doing 10+ sets for a muscle per workout twice a week? Or should I be hitting that muscle 3-4 times per week with 5-10 sets per workout?
I'm a personal trainer... if you're new to lifting try training a muscle 3 times a week 6-8sets per workout
@@BlackElon1 Not new to lifting, been doing it for 9 or 10 years. Does that change anything?
@jlol933 how intense are you lifting. To failure? Or do you end a set a few reps before failure. Basically, do you feel like you could do your workout later on that day, or are you dead after the workout
Do you need the music? It takes away from the science. Otherwise very interesting.
10-15sets is more than enough for me personally
How did they measuring the growth? Is IT possible that a lot of the gainz just inflammation?
Men am a novice(started training 3 months ago) and train 5-15 sets per muscle group per week
Am i doing something wrong??
Nope! Keep doing this, gradually I’m moving closer to 15 or so. In a year or two, try going 15-25!
I am deleting my original commwnt, I wasn’t paying attention to some of the caveats you mentioned
So the results were statistically insignificant. Gee, I'm not a doctor but from what I understand, it means the study did not show support for this kind of volume. The study authors themselves stated: "the limited certainty of our findings warrants caution."
20 sets of lifting heavy weights don’t make sad voice in head go away, new study says 52 could.
👏👏👏🙌👏
14:39 Train so damn hard that your manly voice makes the room shake and objects fall all around you!!!
52 sets of neck curls lets go
Half of that volume is free anyway if you know what I'm saying
@Oumajiii 😏😏
Next week's news: '100 sets is optimal'. I'd rather take up smoking (which, incidentally, is safe this week).
Smoking is best for growth 💯
Wasn’t it like 2-3 years ago 86 sets per week was "optimal", I will wait until a study on volume has participants go until they literally cannot complete a rep on at least one set before I start adding significant amounts of volume to my training just for the f*ck of it
@@WolfCoaching Haha, I'm inhaling on the eccentric.
52 is not much. i am 70 y.o start bench press 8 months ago and i do 75 sets a week with 65-70-75-80-85-90 kilos most of them with 85- 90 kilos, and i am ok
Faz is right.
The science isn't worth listening to.
disadvantages of high volume
1. People r gonna do shit intensity just to hit their set goal. Barely gonna go near failure so they have more energy as well for more sets.
2. Time. If we do go to failure and take 3 to 5 mins rest, how fking long will these workouts take to reach that many sets. Mfs gonna be in the gym for like 4 hours if they r training hard.
Problem with this again is mfs training with no intent and intensity and no muscular failure just to hit a set goal in their mind.
So the results were statistically insignificant. That means the researchers have no confidence that the amount of sets has anything to do with the results. Why would anyone design a program based on this?
No one is laughing at Rich Piana's feeder workouts now!
I want to use my body not destory it
Dr can you go into recovery and how it works more in depth? Plenty of info on volume and intensity, but when it comes to recovery i believe its the true game changer. Besides sleep and sufficient caloric intake, what else can contribute to better recovery? Ive been experimenting with mega dosing supplements like magnesium glycinate (up to 1g per day) and Vitamin K2 (600 mcg), and trying to incorporate 20-30min cardio sessions repeated throughout the day.
I’ll make a video on it!
WE WANT THE LEG DAY FROM HELL
Coming soon! Stay tuned.