Overall training volume can't be all that matters...

[buck]

Take a guy that can squat 545 lbs for 4 reps, and do that for 3 sets in a row. The last 2 sets he can only manage 545 lbs for 3 reps and then just a double. 1 month later the same guy is able to squat the same 545 lbs but do it for 5 sets of 5, a 5X5. He has put on some muscle mass most probably.

Compare that to a guy that squats 275 lbs for 12 reps, 3 sets straight. That is 1/2 the weight as the first guy but 3x the number of reps. Then do 2 more sets for 10 and then 8 reps. 1 month later the same guy is doing the same 275 lbs for 5 straight sets but for 15 reps now.

Id wager that the first guy that was squatting heavier put on more muscle mass, and more even as a % of his bodyweight. Obviously the first man is also a lot stronger than the second and has much greater muscle mass.

As the first guy is most likely moving the weight at a slower pace, the time under tension from 25 reps vs 65 reps would probably not be as great as it might seem so I would think the heavier load would produce more muscle. But as the second guys aggregate total was 50% more pounds lifted that might make me think they may not be that far apart. Eating and drugs have been around longer then I but it seems I see some bigger upper bodies out there even though they seem to be lifting lighter then I remember 20 years ago.

 

[FK86]

I doubt you'll find any 6-12 set as intense as a Max effort double or triple

I disagree. Almost anyone can do single digit reps. Most people in the gym; that's all they do because they want to show off how much they can lift. When the reps get over ten, and the lactic acid starts building, you'll see lots of people in the gym puss out well before failure. I never see anyone do 12-20, or more, reps to true failure. If they're doing sets of 15, they're usually talking or yawning through the set.

 

[FK86]

Take a guy that can squat 545 lbs for 4 reps, and do that for 3 sets in a row. The last 2 sets he can only manage 545 lbs for 3 reps and then just a double. 1 month later the same guy is able to squat the same 545 lbs but do it for 5 sets of 5, a 5X5. He has put on some muscle mass most probably.

Compare that to a guy that squats 275 lbs for 12 reps, 3 sets straight. That is 1/2 the weight as the first guy but 3x the number of reps. Then do 2 more sets for 10 and then 8 reps. 1 month later the same guy is doing the same 275 lbs for 5 straight sets but for 15 reps now.

Id wager that the first guy that was squatting heavier put on more muscle mass, and more even as a % of his bodyweight. Obviously the first man is also a lot stronger than the second and has much greater muscle mass.

I'd actually wager the second guy would have greater gains in hypertrophy from that particular point if we're disregarding whatever they did before it. Improvements in reps that low are largely neural-based.

 

[IronLion2]

I disagree. Almost anyone can do single digit reps. Most people in the gym; that's all they do because they want to show off how much they can lift. When the reps get over ten, and the lactic acid starts building, you'll see lots of people in the gym puss out well before failure. I never see anyone do 12-20, or more, reps to true failure. If they're doing sets of 15, they're usually talking or yawning through the set.

..... So shifting from anaerobic to aerobic failure has something to do with intensity now?

 

[maldorf]

Decent article here on the dilemma.

Can You Build Muscle With Light Weights and High Reps?

What builds the most muscle? Should you do high rep, low weight training? Or are high weights with low reps the way to go?

muscleevo.net

 

[maldorf]

One thing I might add, I used that 545 lbs for 5 reps because I used to be able to do that. I was able to do a lot more than just 275 lbs for 15 reps however. I would do something like 435 lbs for 15 reps. That shows me that being able to do 1/2 the weight for even 3x the amount of reps isn't as hard to do as the heavier weight. So for me doing 545 lbs 5×5 was about equal to doing 435 15×5. So with the lighter weight I would have had to do a lot more than even 3 times as many reps to hit my muscle to failure. Not sure how many reps with 275 I could have done, but it would have been more than 30.

 

[Fit2Serve]

i dont think i have ever heard "volume is the key to growth"
more like too much volume is the key to NOT growing. i followed Arnolds workout in the Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding was a natural very healthy 16 years of age. After one week of following his workout i got sick. it was waaaaay too much volume plus i was not enhanced so was even worse. But NEVER ever in my bbing "carreer" did i ever do "high volume" i am a student of Phil Hernon and Milos Sarcev. Phil basically proved to me high volume crazy giant sets arent necassary. i grew as good or better than when following milos giant sets etc.
-F2S

 

[maldorf]

i dont think i have ever heard "volume is the key to growth"
more like too much volume is the key to NOT growing. i followed Arnolds workout in the Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding was a natural very healthy 16 years of age. After one week of following his workout i got sick. it was waaaaay too much volume plus i was not enhanced so was even worse. But NEVER ever in my bbing "carreer" did i ever do "high volume" i am a student of Phil Hernon and Milos Sarcev. Phil basically proved to me high volume crazy giant sets arent necassary. i grew as good or better than when following milos giant sets etc.
-F2S

I was the same. I had been overtraining for years before I got with Phil. I decreased volume by about 1/2 but trained more frequently. Overall volume would have still been down a lot even taking into consideration the more frequent training. Volume was way down.

I took less than 1/2 the steroids I had been too. Surprised when I actually grew muscle and strength. My weight dropped too as I leaned out because I was eating a lot less. Yeah, that's right. I gained muscle when I was:eating less, taking much less steroids, and decreased training volume. All 3 factors were applied at the same time.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

Yep, never heard volume is the key to growth.
IMO and i think most people would agree, volume and intensity are on inverse planes.
If I cant go 2 sets as hard as humanly possible then I KNOW i can go 4 sets at 80%.
BUT—we also know that a single set probably doesnt work best for hypertrophy.

Either way, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Enough warmups and feeder sets to feel good, a couple sets at maximum intensity and then be done. To me...4+ sets at max intensity just isn't doable. That mix of max intensity and just the right amount of volume will allow MOST LIFTERS to gain muscle mass AND hit their CNS hard enough to increase strength.

 

[Beti ona]

I believe more in intensity than in volume.

I like to have:

6-10 sets for chest, back, quads and hams
3-6 sets for shoulders, biceps, triceps and calves

 

[jozifp103]

Who said volume is key to growth? Jay Cutler ? I would say intensity is key to growth. You can only do so much volume when lifting intense

They do.
Lol it's just something I've heard repeated over the years. It's always "increase your volume". Or if you're dealing with joint pain or a minor nagging injury the doctor will tell you "lighten the weight and just shoot for volume based workouts"...telling you they will be just as effective. I'm basically saying I disagree because there comes a point where you can do the same volume on paper, but the weight becomes too light to stimulate growth. So I believe that's where intensity comes into play.

Do yourself a favor and try one of the John Meadows programs , or Scott Stevenson’s “Fortitude” training

I'll definitely look into that. Thanks bro.

I think you have to balance volume, reps/TUT, weight on the barbell, with intensity. You can drop the weight on the barbell to spare joints that have been injured/fucked in the past, but you'll sacrifice gains ime

But you gotta do what you gotta do....re-injuring yourself will sacrifice gains too, so its a catch 22 sometimes if your past injury is bad enough....

switching up exercises helps too if you're trying to work-around past injuries.

Yep that's exactly what I'm getting at. You can lower the weight and add sets to a certain point and still maintain similar intensity and growth....but there is a tipping point somewhere when the volume becomes irrelevant because the intensity just isn't there.

 

[brutus69]

volume is the key metric for hypertophy according to pretty much every study. not tut, not "muscle damage" not slow negatives, etc.
but i dont know how volume is defined. weight x reps total, or total number of hard sets (3 reps in reserve to failure) on each set, or total volume of "effective reps"....
i can do 200 leg presses with 300 pounds sure, but how many were the protein signaling hard reps? anyone can do 16 sets for back when u stop 4 rep, 5 reps from failure but were those effective stimulators?
a heavy set of 5 u may get 1-2 effective reps but a set of heavy 12 can get u 4 effective reps.
i'd think as long as progressive overload's achieved that will get results in time. but even then there's gonna be an end to it.
drugs. thats it. drugs.

 

[Matsuo Munefusa]

Sets that don't go to failure....they have to be somewhat effective, right? I've known a lot of pretty jacked dudes that work construction (concrete, roofing, framing, whatever). The ones I've talked to haven't been into lifting, they just go to work and go home.

All day long they're doing submaximal amounts, never to failure. But they're carrying around a decent amount of muscle. Obviously they are not as lean as we are, but they don't share the hobby. The muscle is just a side-effect of their job it seems like.

Just food for thought, and something I've wondered about for awhile now whether failure is really necessary in lifting.

 

[alfresco]

Sets that don't go to failure....they have to be somewhat effective, right? I've known a lot of pretty jacked dudes that work construction (concrete, roofing, framing, whatever). The ones I've talked to haven't been into lifting, they just go to work and go home.

All day long they're doing submaximal amounts, never to failure. But they're carrying around a decent amount of muscle. Obviously they are not as lean as we are, but they don't share the hobby. The muscle is just a side-effect of their job it seems like.

Just food for thought, and something I've wondered about for awhile now whether failure is really necessary in lifting.

Good observation.

Going to failure is not necessary but speeds up the muscle building process and can
help break through barriers to muscular size and strength. It been proven time and
time again. This is why I do not give a lot of credibility to the studies and so called
experts. (I have been training longer than most of them have been alive and
consequently experienced more, and seen more than they ever have.) Some good
advice . . . listen to the experts and do he exact opposite.

Again, going to failure is not necessary, example below:

If you are bench pressing alone and have zero safety deceives in place (like so many
did not long ago) where going to failure, the bar against you neck, was a tragic and
sometimes fatal mistake . . . you still made gains. I know I did.

Brutis69 wrote "volume is the key metric for hypertrophy according to pretty much
every study. not tut, not "muscle damage" not slow negatives, etc." Actually, most
muscle damage occurs during the 'negative' portion of the exercise and is largely
responsible for muscular soreness but I can give you some, but not many, examples
(leg extensions do not make you sore regardless of when, where and how you do
them) where that did not occur to me but that would be missing the point. And I
can give you many examples of where just negative exercise will give anybody
that is still breathing, is not half dead, outstanding results but will withhold
unless asked but is related to the original posters topic.

And to circle back to your construction observation, it remind me of something that
I read, was written 50 years ago, and still holds true in my small mind . . .

"Thirty years ago, it was noted that, "...the foreman of a crew of manual laborers will
almost always be the strongest man in the crew -- and he is the strongest because
he is the foreman, rather than being the foreman because he is the strongest."

Yet, in almost all cases, the foreman performs far less work than any of the other
men in the crew. A paradox? No -- on the contrary, simple proof of the effectiveness
of heavy exercise for the production of muscular size and strength. The foreman
works only when the combined efforts of the other men in the crew cannot produce
the desired result -- he helps to lift the heavier than normal load; thus his exercise
is brief and infrequent, but intense and irregular -- and those are the exact
requirements for producing the best results in the way of muscular size and strength.

Twenty years ago, the author noted an even more striking example of clear proof
of the same theory; the relative sizes of the two arms of an individual that has
been training with weights for a period of time long enough to produce marked results.
In almost all cases, the left arm of a right-handed weight trainee will be larger than
his right arm -- usually to a marked degree.

Why? Simply because the left arm of a right-handed man must work harder to
perform its share of an equally divided workload; it does not work more, nor differently,
it works harder, with a greater intensity of effort. And it responds by growing larger
than the right arm.

A right-handed man lacks some degree of "feel" in his left arm -- his balance and
muscular control are both less efficient in his left arm, and this remains true to
at least some degree regardless of the length of time that he has been training both
of his arms in an apparently identical manner.

The left arm works harder, so it responds to this increased intensity of effort by
growing larger, and in tests of strength that do not involve balance or muscular
coordination, the left arm will almost always be stronger as well as larger."

But when I have pointed this out to individual weight trainees as I have done on
repeated occasions the response had almost always been along exactly the same
line; "...well, in that case, I’ll do an extra set of curls for my right arm then it
grow larger too."

Having missed the entire point, they assumed that "more" exercise was required
when in fact, this situation is clear proof that all that is required is "harder" exercise.

NAUTILUS BULLETIN #1, By Arthur Jones, CHAPTER 6, INTENSITY OF EFFORT

 

[maldorf]

John Parillo used to have me do a set of 100 rep squats at the end of a leg workout, so he saw benefit to doing high reps. I think a mix of. With is good. Having muscular endurance is important because it allows you to lift a heavy load for a longer period of time before fatigue sets in.

 

[Swifto]

Volume is not "key to growth", progressive overload is. Creating a necessary adaptation to cause muscular hypertrophy is what you want. That can be by using volume, increasing weights and other intensity based techniques.

 

[buck]

John Parillo used to have me do a set of 100 rep squats at the end of a leg workout, so he saw benefit to doing high reps. I think a mix of. With is good. Having muscular endurance is important because it allows you to lift a heavy load for a longer period of time before fatigue sets in.

I some times wonder if the mind is being trained some times as opposed to the muscle. Since both are needed for real long term progress.

 

[Biggerp73]

i dont think i have ever heard "volume is the key to growth"
more like too much volume is the key to NOT growing. i followed Arnolds workout in the Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding was a natural very healthy 16 years of age. After one week of following his workout i got sick. it was waaaaay too much volume plus i was not enhanced so was even worse. But NEVER ever in my bbing "carreer" did i ever do "high volume" i am a student of Phil Hernon and Milos Sarcev. Phil basically proved to me high volume crazy giant sets arent necassary. i grew as good or better than when following milos giant sets etc.
-F2S

I agree too much volume and intensity can be detrimental, for sure. But not always. New trainers especially.

Between the ages of 15 and 19 I trained all natural, one body part per day, 12-20 sets per body part, every single set to absolute failure, with drop sets/past failure techniques on every exercise. My body responded extremely well, I was never sick, always growing and getting leaner, etc.

 

[Biggerp73]

John Parillo used to have me do a set of 100 rep squats at the end of a leg workout, so he saw benefit to doing high reps. I think a mix of. With is good. Having muscular endurance is important because it allows you to lift a heavy load for a longer period of time before fatigue sets in.

High reps can be beneficial, but IMO more so for legs

 

[Biggerp73]

Sets that don't go to failure....they have to be somewhat effective, right? I've known a lot of pretty jacked dudes that work construction (concrete, roofing, framing, whatever). The ones I've talked to haven't been into lifting, they just go to work and go home.

All day long they're doing submaximal amounts, never to failure. But they're carrying around a decent amount of muscle. Obviously they are not as lean as we are, but they don't share the hobby. The muscle is just a side-effect of their job it seems like.

Just food for thought, and something I've wondered about for awhile now whether failure is really necessary in lifting.

In fact staying away from failure can be a very effective way to train. The 5x5 routine for example is great. If you want to do heavy weight and high volume, you have to always leave a few reps in the tank. It's still very intense, as you are lifting very heavy weight, you are just stopping before failure.