WHY VOLUME WORKS..

STEEDA69 · Jun 5, 2007

swervedriver said:
All I have to say is watch Jay Cutler train... He does high volume, and it certainly seems to be working for him... In fact, I talked to him about training, and he said that volume is the way to go, and that constantly going to failure with super heavy weight will eventually lead to injuries which will ultimately slow your gains... He views training as a marathon, not a sprint...
.

Well, If you DID in fact talk to Jay, you would have noted that when he started training at age 17, he gained 50+ lbs of muscle in his very first year! A year after that, (age 19) he entered his
3rd show (Junior Nationals) and won his class... (Branch Warren won the overall in the same show at age 19 with only 3 years of training under his belt).

Most of us DO NOT have this kinda luxury.(genetics), Jay can do WHATEVER he wants in the gym and he WILL grow, PERIOD! Branch admits to training 2 - 3 hours a day (everyday) when he first started! He would literally strive to Hit EVERY machine in the gym!

Again, most of us would be severely overtrained on half as much!

Many of us have followed workout routines similar to "the pro's" at some point in our "lifting" years, yet very few of us actually resemble the mass, strength, symmetry or muscularity displayed by these genetic freaks.

JD~

STEVO 47 · Jun 5, 2007

maldorf said:
I agree totally with you on this. If you look at some of the smaller powerlifters they really dont have that much muscular size but are strong as hell. Ive seen guys in the gym much smaller than me benching 100 lbs more than me, and a long time ago there was a guy with toothpick legs I watched squat over 500 lbs to depth.

From what I gathered, powerlifting consists of doing singles with
heavy weight and using good teq. Of course this wont build muscle
but more or less stronger tendens. I've tried doing lots of reps and
sets. That shit wore me down to the point I burnt out real quick.
I always gained on 4 sets of 6 to 8 on each exercise. Mod. to heavy
sometimes to failure sometimes not. My opinion is doing the same thing
over and over will make you stale. Change the lift not the reps or sets

swervedriver · Jun 5, 2007

The only thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that guys who are HIT advocates are almost fanatical about it... I mean they think that HIT is the only way... If HIT was the greatest training method on earth then why doesn't everyone who uses HIT effectively look like Mentzer or Dorian... Basically some really grow with it some don't... Thats my point... Yeah I think HIT has its place, as does volume, DC, and other methods... I've been reading old BFT stuff by the late Trevor Smith, and from what I've read his methods they seemed brutal at the least... He also advocated training heavy as possible and going passed failure... Can I discredit what he says? No because it obviously worked for him and a few others that he trained... Do I think it would work for everyone? No... To me his methods seem like overtraining even though it was only 4 days a week... Ultimately what I am getting at is not every training method will work for everyone... It is up to the individual to find what works for him and go with it... Volume works for some, but it would be overtraining for others... Those same ones who do well with volume would find HIT to not be enough sets... Its all in what your body needs... So really there is absolutely no reason to even be debating the subject because it is individual based, and what works for the pros or others might not work for you...

STEVO 47 · Jun 5, 2007

I go by what works for me. I never bothered to read up on this
program called HIT. Don't even know what it is. What I do know is
after years of trial and error, I go by the STEVO program. And it works
just fine for me.

RazorCuts · Jun 5, 2007

It still all comes down to genetics. To think Cultler or Coleman would have any different results if they did DC or Big A's routine is just assinine. They do what they enjoy and that keeps them consistant in the gym.Of course whatever someone is doing they are going to promote and tell everyone that this works best. The genteic factors such as utilization of nutrients and anabolics is also in thier favor as superior genetics always cover all basis not just the rate of muscle growth.
The fact is DC may not be any better than volume but from what i have seen and heard it seems to keep gains more consistant over a longer period of time.

OuchThatHurts · Jun 5, 2007

STEVO 47 said:
I go by what works for me. I never bothered to read up on this program called HIT. Don't even know what it is. What I do know is after years of trial and error...

Then what are you even doing in this thread?

OuchThatHurts · Jun 5, 2007

RazorCuts said:
It still all comes down to genetics. To think Cultler or Coleman would have any different results if they did DC or Big A's routine is just assinine. They do what they enjoy and that keeps them consistant in the gym.Of course whatever someone is doing they are going to promote and tell everyone that this works best. The genteic factors such as utilization of nutrients and anabolics is also in thier favor as superior genetics always cover all basis not just the rate of muscle growth.
The fact is DC may not be any better than volume but from what i have seen and heard it seems to keep gains more consistant over a longer period of time.

How and where have you seen and heard this? Where and from who? Explain.

RazorCuts · Jun 5, 2007

OuchThatHurts said:
How and where have you seen and heard this? Where and from who? Explain.

What part are you asking about? How genetics dictate the final outcome or how training DC ala low volume will work for the genetically gifted just as high volume will?

Kaiser · Jun 5, 2007

OuchThatHurts said:
Then what are you even doing in this thread?

I also do not understand some of these replies, especially the ones you had to delete. Can everyone stop being a pain in the balls and actually THINK before you post?

OuchThatHurts · Jun 5, 2007

RC, you said:

RazorCuts said:
The fact is DC may not be any better than volume but from what i have seen and heard it seems to keep gains more consistant over a longer period of time.

"from what I have seen and heard"... My question was simply what have you seen and heard? Or rather, where have you seen it, and from whom did you hear it?

Narus63 · Jun 5, 2007

swervedriver said:
The only thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that guys who are HIT advocates are almost fanatical about it... I mean they think that HIT is the only way... If HIT was the greatest training method on earth then why doesn't everyone who uses HIT effectively look like Mentzer or Dorian... Basically some really grow with it some don't... Thats my point... Yeah I think HIT has its place, as does volume, DC, and other methods... I've been reading old BFT stuff by the late Trevor Smith, and from what I've read his methods they seemed brutal at the least... He also advocated training heavy as possible and going passed failure... Can I discredit what he says? No because it obviously worked for him and a few others that he trained... Do I think it would work for everyone? No... To me his methods seem like overtraining even though it was only 4 days a week... Ultimately what I am getting at is not every training method will work for everyone... It is up to the individual to find what works for him and go with it... Volume works for some, but it would be overtraining for others... Those same ones who do well with volume would find HIT to not be enough sets... Its all in what your body needs... So really there is absolutely no reason to even be debating the subject because it is individual based, and what works for the pros or others might not work for you...

I think the main reason a lot of people don't grow off HIT or anything else is ..well they are not consistent. They miss a workout here or there they eat good for a few days then go off the diet simply because of the fact they have a life out side of BB. If we all could just sleep train and eat and didn't have to work 8-12 hours a day. And life was just a matter of setting around and resting like the top BB's do then sure we all would grow like weeds. No amount of gear or volume or hit will work if you not consistent.
Most people don't look like Dorian and Jay because they cant afford to live that strict of a life style.

RazorCuts · Jun 5, 2007

People i know and have trained or trained with have always made steadier gains over a longer period of time then when using a higher volume approach. This could be traditional HIT, DC, Heron or Big A's training style.
Most seem to platue when using a higher volume approach and progression seems to level off. We all know progression is the main reason for growth.
When switching over to lower volume most trainees seem to progress for a longer rate.
Try this for yourself. As you asked in a previous post about how many sets/reps. Choose one body part and use the low volume approach and see how long you can progress and make gains. Pick 2-3 movements ,Heavy weight 6-15 reps 1 work set done every 5th day taken to failure or even a rest/pause style. I gaurantee if you have the genetics for this bodypart you will see the same or better progress as if you did 12 sets and you spent much less time.
The question is what is high volume and when is enough enough? 6-12-20-50 sets?

OuchThatHurts · Jun 5, 2007

Narus63 said:
I think the main reason a lot of people don't grow off HIT or anything else is ..well they are not consistent. They miss a workout here or there they eat good for a few days then go off the diet simply because of the fact they have a life out side of BB. If we all could just sleep train and eat and didn't have to work 8-12 hours a day. And life was just a matter of setting around and resting like the top BB's do then sure we all would grow like weeds. No amount of gear or volume or hit will work if you not consistent.
Most people don't look like Dorian and Jay because they cant afford to live that strict of a life style.

You know most of these guys have jobs in real life right?

DOGGCRAPP · Jun 6, 2007

maldorf said:
I agree totally with you on this. If you look at some of the smaller powerlifters they really dont have that much muscular size but are strong as hell.

I always have to shake my head when someone uses this example. Let me ask you a question. If you were a powerlifter trying to stay in a certain weight class do you think your going to eat to get up to a whole new muscular size/level and fall out of that weight class? You said you weigh something like 275 currently did you not in another thread? Lets say you ate enough to maintain 275lbs for the next decade, do you think you will magically wake up one day in the next decade and weigh 25 lbs of muscle mass larger and be 300 pounds when you ate enough to keep you at 275?
I say this repeatedly and it sounds stupid as hell but people seem to lose the basic concept. If you weigh 250 and eat enough to maintain 250 then expect to stay 250 even if you happen upon the most magical lifting routine created by a higher power/god themself.
I dont know what my own training ideas are. I dont know if they are volume or low volume or whatever they are. I basically do in 2 workouts (and in a week) what percieved volume guys do in one workout per week. I never felt the all encompassing urge to classify it.

If ronnie does chest today and does the following

Incline
135x12
225x10
315x10
405x8
455x6

flat dumbells
100x12
150x12
200x12

pec deck
120x15
150x12
175x10

Is that volume or HIT? See I dont count warmup sets, I dont see the reasoning to count something you have done 3000 times previously getting ready for your top sets. Something thats not really building muscle mass anyway. Ronnie would count that as "I did 11 sets for chest"...I look at that and think "well 3-4 actual work sets" because we sure as hell know those warmup sets he has done every chest workout for the last 20 years isnt building muscle. So it comes down to how you look at things--do you count warmup sets? Or do you count actual sets that are building muscle mass? I dont see major differences in how Yates or Ronnie (or even how I have people doing things) honestly. Yates didnt count his warmup sets, Ronnie and most pro bodybuilders do. Apples and Oranges.

swervedriver · Jun 6, 2007

Dante, you make an a good point... If one counts their "warmups" then everyone pretty much trains volume... However, didn't Dorian and most HIT trainees deviate from this by not incorporating anymore warmups (or rather just throwing in a single warmup just to get feel of the exercise) after their first initial exercise for a particular bodypart, thus lessening the amount of volume used? I would like to hear what some of you guys think about Trevor's BFT training? Has anyone attempted it and if so did you like it or think it was just way too much... I have just been reading alot of his stuff lately and have been interested in whether or not others have tried it... I know he trained Robby Robinson for the Master's O, and he looked phenomenal...

Massive G · Jun 6, 2007

I know I was totally shocked when I saw Dorian Yates work out video over 10 years ago.
I was shocked to see he trained like everyone else, just a bit heavier and harder but his chest work out consisted of
4-5 sets of Incline BB presses
2-3 sets of seated hammer benches (with forced reps)
2 sets of dbell flyes
1-2 sets of cable crossovers

biceps he did
3-4 sets of bb ez curls
3 sets of seated dbell curls
2-3 sets of one arm nautilus curls (with forced reps)

Back was 4-5 sets of nautilus plate pullovers with some forced reps
2-3 sets of hammer pulldowns with forced reps
2-3 sets of bb rows
2-3 sets of 1 arms hammer seated rows with forced reps
2 sets of floor deads
2-3 sets of hyper extensions with weight

now that's from memory, I may be off a set or two, but point is he did a lot of sets.
He did train harder and heavier than any other pro back then and had the tears to prove it.

He's one of my fav's but HIT and Yates shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

maldorf · Jun 6, 2007

DOGGCRAPP said:
I always have to shake my head when someone uses this example. Let me ask you a question. If you were a powerlifter trying to stay in a certain weight class do you think your going to eat to get up to a whole new muscular size/level and fall out of that weight class? You said you weigh something like 275 currently did you not in another thread? Lets say you ate enough to maintain 275lbs for the next decade, do you think you will magically wake up one day in the next decade and weigh 25 lbs of muscle mass larger and be 300 pounds when you ate enough to keep you at 275?
I say this repeatedly and it sounds stupid as hell but people seem to lose the basic concept. If you weigh 250 and eat enough to maintain 250 then expect to stay 250 even if you happen upon the most magical lifting routine created by a higher power/god themself.
I dont know what my own training ideas are. I dont know if they are volume or low volume or whatever they are. I basically do in 2 workouts (and in a week) what percieved volume guys do in one workout per week. I never felt the all encompassing urge to classify it.

If ronnie does chest today and does the following

Incline
135x12
225x10
315x10
405x8
455x6

flat dumbells
100x12
150x12
200x12

pec deck
120x15
150x12
175x10

Is that volume or HIT? See I dont count warmup sets, I dont see the reasoning to count something you have done 3000 times previously getting ready for your top sets. Something thats not really building muscle mass anyway. Ronnie would count that as "I did 11 sets for chest"...I look at that and think "well 3-4 actual work sets" because we sure as hell know those warmup sets he has done every chest workout for the last 20 years isnt building muscle. So it comes down to how you look at things--do you count warmup sets? Or do you count actual sets that are building muscle mass? I dont see major differences in how Yates or Ronnie (or even how I have people doing things) honestly. Yates didnt count his warmup sets, Ronnie and most pro bodybuilders do. Apples and Oranges.

You made some good points that many people overlook. I do agree with everything you said in your post. THe thing is, many people think just because you have big muscles you will be strong. This is not necessarily the case. It depends on how you train. I like to train volume for a few weeks and then start raising the resistance and drop the volume for two more weeks, working my way up in weight over the course of 4 weeks. I then start the cycle again when I finish the 4 weeks. Seems to work decent for me. I have tried training lower volume and higher intensity(low reps) for weeks on end and every time I end up with sore joints and tendons, and my physique doenst look any better than before even though I am stronger.
I know very well that you must increase food intake in order to increase body mass. I was just trying to make the point that gains in strength do not always necessarily mean gains in muscle mass.

pdogg7 · Jun 6, 2007

I think there are several discussions going on in this thread. This thread started about why volume works. That then started the HIT versus volume discussion and then strength in relation to size. Last but not least how do you define HIT or Volume.
My definition of HIT is the old Metzner way. Which for me consisted of 2 exercises per body part with 2 worksets. The first exercise being a super-set before the main exercise. Then wait at least 96 hours till you train your next body part.
My HIT workout for back was.
Close grip pulldowns 1x10 super-set with 1x10 deadlift. Warm ups depended on weight being used.
For me volume is multiple exercise per body part with the last set of each exercise being a worksets. Hitting every body part at least once a week. A volume workout for back would probably be something like this.
Pulldowns-4x10
deadlift-4x10
dumbellrows-4x10
seated rows-4x10
The big difference being number of worksets and time between training.

As far as the strength question. I think this issue is decided by your genetic makeup more than anything else. In the end there are to many factors in the equation to have a definitive answer to the questions. It all goes back to what I read on hear all the time. Do what works for you.

RazorCuts · Jun 6, 2007

True HIT routines are that of Jones and Darden. Metzner just revamped the ideas that these men had and took it to the extreme. HIT in the beginning were full body routines done 2x a week using one work set to failure. Darden today is still pushing the original work by Jones.
This argument can go on to the end of time but the bottom line is what you enjoy and keeps you consitant in the gym.

STEVO 47 · Jun 6, 2007

OuchThatHurts said:
Then what are you even doing in this thread?

Well lets see, if you'd go through my other posts here then you would
see that I was stating my thoughts on volume training which I do
know. Thats why I'm here. Wasn't that the topic?
PS. And I do know what HIT is, I was just lightening up on the subject a bit
thats all. ............SORRY!

WHY VOLUME WORKS..

New member

Kilo Klub Member

FOUNDING Member

Kilo Klub Member

New member

Moderator / Psy, Ret.

Moderator / Psy, Ret.

New member

Moderator/Computer Geek

Moderator / Psy, Ret.

New member

New member

Moderator / Psy, Ret.

Featured Member / Kilo Klub

FOUNDING Member

Featured Member / Kilo Klub

Featured Member / Kilo Klub

New member

New member

Kilo Klub Member

Similar threads

Popular tags

Popular tags

Forum statistics