Paul Carter on volume

[heavyhitter]

Yeah, he's a very successful personal trainer now. Kate Upton and Chelsea Handler are among his clients. I think he trains some NBA and NFL guys too if I'm not mistaken.

It’s crazy to watch people progress from an anonymous dude on a forum that you talk to into super successful like that. Pretty cool

 

[xpoc]

Bruno’s a beast man

I have read some coaches state that if total volume is the same, then all is equal. So my question to them would be, had Bruno stopped the set at 20 reps and did 3 sets of 20, instead of one set of 60, in their opinion would the resulting hypertrophy be the same?

Next, when it comes to frequency. I know Schoenfeld recently published a study that suggested that if weekly volume is the same, then frequency does not matter. Carter responded to the post and agreed with Schoenfeld. So in a typical bro split if you hit chest 1x per week and do 12 sets the results would be insignificant if you trained chest 2x per week with 6 sets per session (12 total).

Here is my rub with that and what I don't understand. If I train chest really hard 1x per week, I have 4 strong sets in me and then sets 5-12 my performance drops rapidly. So essentially, I have 4 strong sets and 8 less than stellar sets, albeit I am still giving my best effort. Whereas if I divide that up into 2 separate workouts I have 4 strong sets one day one, and another 4 on day 2. So I have DOUBLED the amount of top performance sets from 4-8. And I have lessened my number of lower performance sets from 8 to 4. This is why higher frequency, lower volume per workout makes sense to me. However, the study posted by Schoenfeld and endorsed by Carter do not necessarily support this logic. Not arguing, just trying to make sense of it. Perhaps as long as I am giving my best effort, the actual performance is inconsequential???

 

[danieltx]

Perhaps as long as I am giving my best effort, the actual performance is inconsequential???

Yes.

Don't overthink this, don't try to put X amount of sets as the ideal number. What works best varies for everyone. Try to completely fatigue the muscle completely in as few sets as possible and you'll be fine.

 

[N.L....M.....]

I have read some coaches state that if total volume is the same, then all is equal. So my question to them would be, had Bruno stopped the set at 20 reps and did 3 sets of 20, instead of one set of 60, in their opinion would the resulting hypertrophy be the same?

Next, when it comes to frequency. I know Schoenfeld recently published a study that suggested that if weekly volume is the same, then frequency does not matter. Carter responded to the post and agreed with Schoenfeld. So in a typical bro split if you hit chest 1x per week and do 12 sets the results would be insignificant if you trained chest 2x per week with 6 sets per session (12 total).

Here is my rub with that and what I don't understand. If I train chest really hard 1x per week, I have 4 strong sets in me and then sets 5-12 my performance drops rapidly. So essentially, I have 4 strong sets and 8 less than stellar sets, albeit I am still giving my best effort. Whereas if I divide that up into 2 separate workouts I have 4 strong sets one day one, and another 4 on day 2. So I have DOUBLED the amount of top performance sets from 4-8. And I have lessened my number of lower performance sets from 8 to 4. This is why higher frequency, lower volume per workout makes sense to me. However, the study posted by Schoenfeld and endorsed by Carter do not necessarily support this logic. Not arguing, just trying to make sense of it. Perhaps as long as I am giving my best effort, the actual performance is inconsequential???

In my experience only speaking for myself I’ve never noticed a difference training a body part once a week vs higher frequency. Just train hard and progressive and week to week consistently over time. There’s only so much lean tissue someone can accrue. There’s a study to support it all. The best training program is the one you enjoy the most as the one that you put the most into and the one you’ll get the most out of. I think more people spin their wheels looking for the best way to train than guys who find routine and stick with it

 

[lookslikesausage]

It’s crazy to watch people progress from an anonymous dude on a forum that you talk to into super successful like that. Pretty cool

Ben had one of the best mentors in the game and the cool thing about that is Ben is always super respectful and gives props to him (Mike Boyle).

 

[FK86]

Studies are nice, but they always have holes in them. Our bodies don't run on a weekly schedule. They don't recognize seven days as a magical number. As for volume being equal, I think that only applies if the levels of effort are on par. With a 60-rep capability, the first 20 are not in the effective rep category. If he had broken it down to 3 sets of 20 and progressed the load on all 3 over time he'd make progress, but eventually he'd get closer to failure where 3 sets of 20 with the newer loads wouldn't be possible.

Volume can get a little murky when Schoenfeld states that say, five sets a week is the best for a muscle group. So for chest, does that include stimulation I get from the dips I'm doing for triceps or the seated presses I'm doing for shoulders? For quads is it taking into consideration my deadlifts? 100% not worth it to overthink that stuff.

I've done both types of frequency and they both work, but as a natural I have nothing to keep things elevated. In my own personal experience some detraining occurs with once a week frequency. I've used and had success with 5/3/1, but always hit the same walls. With a twice per week frequency strength gains are much better, which would lead to better muscle gains over time. Schoenfeld and Carter stating frequency doesn't matter if volume is equated for ignores the fact that MPS levels return to baseline in normal people after like 36 hours or something.

 

[juggy38]

Studies are nice, but they always have holes in them. Our bodies don't run on a weekly schedule. They don't recognize seven days as a magical number. As for volume being equal, I think that only applies if the levels of effort are on par. With a 60-rep capability, the first 20 are not in the effective rep category. If he had broken it down to 3 sets of 20 and progressed the load on all 3 over time he'd make progress, but eventually he'd get closer to failure where 3 sets of 20 with the newer loads wouldn't be possible.

Volume can get a little murky when Schoenfeld states that say, five sets a week is the best for a muscle group. So for chest, does that include stimulation I get from the dips I'm doing for triceps or the seated presses I'm doing for shoulders? For quads is it taking into consideration my deadlifts? 100% not worth it to overthink that stuff.

I've done both types of frequency and they both work, but as a natural I have nothing to keep things elevated. In my own personal experience some detraining occurs with once a week frequency. I've used and had success with 5/3/1, but always hit the same walls. With a twice per week frequency strength gains are much better, which would lead to better muscle gains over time. Schoenfeld and Carter stating frequency doesn't matter if volume is equated for ignores the fact that MPS levels return to baseline in normal people after like 36 hours or something.

I want to touch on your second paragraph. But let’s boil it down to effect sets per muscle per workout. Saturday is your first leg day. Friday you worked half a day, hit all your meals, got to stretch out at the house, had some sex with the wife and slept 9 hours. You did 9 working sets for quads and 6 working sets direct hams Saturday and fucked shit up.

Sunday you had a head cold and missed 1,000 calories. Monday and Tuesday work was a disaster and worked 10 hours both days. Also, your son was sick Tuesday and you only slept 5 1/2 hours.

Wednesday rolls around. You hit the same fatigue and strength loss with 6 sets and 4 sets for quads/hams.

that is a form of auto regulation. It’s not a wasted workout, just that your body got an adaptive stimulus with less work because of the fatigued state. But you need to be experienced and not a vagina to know when you’ve hit that place and not just being a sissy.

you don’t need to win every workout, and if you are, your training too far from failure. You should progress over the LONG term. Like minimal would be an 8 week block for advanced guys using progressive overload

 

[N.L....M.....]

I wouldn’t take that bet. Those old elitefts workouts were insane!

When Dave Tate and John Meadows get a session in together it’s a hell of a thing

 

[b-boy]

GODDAMN you guys way overthink training. I honestly do not know one single black person that thinks about training like some of you guys do, effective sets, reps, how many times to train a muscle , bla bla bla. We just go into the gym and DO WORK! You work hard and reap the benefits, end of story. I've seen prison brothers do the most insane workouts and they don't stress about recovery, or overtraining. We work, we grow, the same applies to white guys in prison, they just fucking work and get fucking jacked. When I was younger it was all about out working your workout partner, you tried to bury him each workout and he tried to do the same to you...those were the years I made my best gains.

 

[qbkilla]

I have read some coaches state that if total volume is the same, then all is equal. So my question to them would be, had Bruno stopped the set at 20 reps and did 3 sets of 20, instead of one set of 60, in their opinion would the resulting hypertrophy be the same?

Next, when it comes to frequency. I know Schoenfeld recently published a study that suggested that if weekly volume is the same, then frequency does not matter. Carter responded to the post and agreed with Schoenfeld. So in a typical bro split if you hit chest 1x per week and do 12 sets the results would be insignificant if you trained chest 2x per week with 6 sets per session (12 total).

Here is my rub with that and what I don't understand. If I train chest really hard 1x per week, I have 4 strong sets in me and then sets 5-12 my performance drops rapidly. So essentially, I have 4 strong sets and 8 less than stellar sets, albeit I am still giving my best effort. Whereas if I divide that up into 2 separate workouts I have 4 strong sets one day one, and another 4 on day 2. So I have DOUBLED the amount of top performance sets from 4-8. And I have lessened my number of lower performance sets from 8 to 4. This is why higher frequency, lower volume per workout makes sense to me. However, the study posted by Schoenfeld and endorsed by Carter do not necessarily support this logic. Not arguing, just trying to make sense of it. Perhaps as long as I am giving my best effort, the actual performance is inconsequential???

Good post. Keep in mind if you split say 8 sets of delts into 2 days a week, you can likely lift more total weight on all 8 sets. Always good to start simple and change things up as you need to, or get bored with a split and need something new to keep intensity up. Never understood why some don't use programming as a tool , but at the same time, some overcompates it and try to have a perfect program on paper then train half ass. Pick a volume that's appropriate based on you, pick a frwuency, then exexute all sets with perfect form to failure.

 

[N.L....M.....]

GODDAMN you guys way overthink training. I honestly do not know one single black person that thinks about training like some of you guys do, effective sets, reps, how many times to train a muscle , bla bla bla. We just go into the gym and DO WORK! You work hard and reap the benefits, end of story. I've seen prison brothers do the most insane workouts and they don't stress about recovery, or overtraining. We work, we grow, the same applies to white guys in prison, they just fucking work and get fucking jacked. When I was younger it was all about out working your workout partner, you tried to bury him each workout and he tried to do the same to you...those were the years I made my best gains.

You mean to tell me Ronnie Coleman wasn’t in the gym calculating percentages and thinking about how many reps were left in the tank? Or the perfect amount volume to frequency ratio and counting tempos while obsessing over studies in his free time in order to get the perfect routine? Well thats just ridiculous. Can you cite a pubmed study to back this up?

 

[Elvia1023]

Too many of you get lost in the details. If I do 3 sets of 10 compared to a set of 30 but I could do that then do a set with 3 reps in reverse for additional volume... etc... just training fucking hard and listen to your body. Half the time you aren't even training to failure. You can find evidence to support any method because fact is they all work. Now it's common sense for me that training twice with half the sets (as long as you train to failure, pick a sensible number of working sets and most importantly are able to recover in time for the next session) is better than 1 giant session. But nothing is written in stone and everyone is different and if you prefer a typical bro split and feel better doing that then go for it. Just pick one and stay consistent with everything and you will get results. I have been back in the gym (closed for months) for a few weeks and I have lifted over 2 hours 6 days per week and most of you would think massively overtraining but I simply enjoy it and if you eat enough you will still grow even doing what most would deem "overtraining".

 

[qbkilla]

Too many of you get lost in the details. If I do 3 sets of 10 compared to a set of 30 but I could do that then do a set with 3 reps in reverse for additional volume... etc... just training fucking hard and listen to your body. Half the time you aren't even training to failure. You can find evidence to support any method because fact is they all work. Now it's common sense for me that training twice with half the sets (as long as you train to failure, pick a sensible number of working sets and most importantly are able to recover in time for the next session) is better than 1 giant session. But nothing is written in stone and everyone is different and if you prefer a typical bro split and feel better doing that then go for it. Just pick one and stay consistent with everything and you will get results. I have been back in the gym (closed for months) for a few weeks and I have lifted over 2 hours 6 days per week and most of you would think massively overtraining but I simply enjoy it and if you eat enough you will still grow even doing what most would deem "overtraining".

Pretty much agree with this. I think adjusting volume and frequency can be smart and wouldn't call it overcomplicating training as long as people don't think these factors are more important than intensity. Yet when people start to focus on rir and percentages, total poundage, etc, then they start to travel down to path of overanalyzing training.

I've seen some posts on other forums where people try to use math to calculate how many sets and reps to do on a deload. A deload just need to be a back off week to recover, no need for math calculations.

 

[Kaladryn]

For meticulous advanced bodybuilders, it is ALL about the tiny details! Exactly where your mind is during every millisecond of your set, where you are focused, how you are focused, and exactly what things you are focused on. 90% of the people in the gym are making very little progress, I'm over here progressing like crazy on tiny doses close to half a century old. The reason is I'm paying attention to micro details on everything, NOT overdoing it, NOT undergoing it, figuring out exactly what is enough of hundreds if not thousands of tiny details.

The TRAINING is WAY more than "they" say, it's not "80% diet" it's not the drugs, it's exactly how you train relative to your OWN needs, this is everything, the foundation of every gain from every gram of food and every mg of AAS will come from the base of this training.

NOT paying attention to details and just "doing the work" will get you a long way, but once you get YEARS or DECADES under your belt, once you hit the "big plateau" it will be the details of how you train and how you adjust your training that bring you success. The eating is so simple, figuring out how much to train is relatively simple (assuming you are not a bonehead, so many boneheads... you can't just do the same thing over and over, stubbornly).

The details that are being missed are in everything, everyone is missing them, myself included, the goal is to slowly uncover these details over time, learn from them, and use them.

To the person who has some issue with motivation, consistency, or dedication, yes you need to first learn how to just get the work done. To the advanced person who has been doing this for 5-10+ years and whose biggest problem is walking that line between overtraining and undertraining perfectly, the details, the grey areas, the tiny adjustments, the constant exploration, and discovery are what leads to results.

 

[danieltx]

To the person who has some issue with motivation, consistency, or dedication, yes you need to first learn how to just get the work done. To the advanced person who has been doing this for 5-10+ years and whose biggest problem is walking that line between overtraining and undertraining perfectly, the details, the grey areas, the tiny adjustments, the constant exploration, and discovery are what leads to results.

Excellent way of putting it. I think most people, even members here, aren't consistent with bodybuilding long enough to reach that level, which is why we're emphasizing just work fucking hard.

I have MyFitnessPal data for 5+ years and an Excel spreadsheet of training / supplementation / how I'm feeling notes for 5+ years. I consider myself to be a pretty advanced bodybuilder now and I couldn't have gotten here without tracking all that.

 

[maldorf]

Too many of you get lost in the details. If I do 3 sets of 10 compared to a set of 30 but I could do that then do a set with 3 reps in reverse for additional volume... etc... just training fucking hard and listen to your body. Half the time you aren't even training to failure. You can find evidence to support any method because fact is they all work. Now it's common sense for me that training twice with half the sets (as long as you train to failure, pick a sensible number of working sets and most importantly are able to recover in time for the next session) is better than 1 giant session. But nothing is written in stone and everyone is different and if you prefer a typical bro split and feel better doing that then go for it. Just pick one and stay consistent with everything and you will get results. I have been back in the gym (closed for months) for a few weeks and I have lifted over 2 hours 6 days per week and most of you would think massively overtraining but I simply enjoy it and if you eat enough you will still grow even doing what most would deem "overtraining".

As far as overtraining, you just dont know if it will happen unless you try it. Thats if your program is at least sensible. There was a time in college where I found myself actually losing weight and strength in the gym. Only time that ever happened. I hadnt decreased my calories, at least not on purpose. I was training a lot though and probably not getting enough sleep. I was definitely overtrained. Only did each bodypart once a week too, and the muscles would still be sore the next week when I trained it again. I cut back the volume, not intensity, and within 1 week I was making gains again. I found that especially true for my biceps. Everybody is going to be a bit different on that front and you just have to listen to your body. I think I tended to over train a lot when I was younger.

 

[Kaladryn]

There are two different kinds of overtraining, one is a systemic condition of the body the other is just doing a bunch of superfluous reps and sets that delay recovery, increase wear and tear on joints, and ultimately just hamper your gains. You will often see no actual effect from the latter kind of overtraining, you just won't grow as well, and you will never know why.

 

[danieltx]

I think the issue for most guys is under-recovering via poor sleep / supplementation / diet / training structure / etc. rather than overtraining.

 

[maldorf]

There are two different kinds of overtraining, one is a systemic condition of the body the other is just doing a bunch of superfluous reps and sets that delay recovery, increase wear and tear on joints, and ultimately just hamper your gains. You will often see no actual effect from the latter kind of overtraining, you just won't grow as well, and you will never know why.

Yeah, the kind where you just dont grow is harder to detect, and I suspect I was in that a lot. The time I mentioned above was extraordinary because I actually lost a bit of bodyweight and a significant amount of strength, enough that I really took notice. Having to drop your weights in lifts really feels weird when you are training very hard. Lack of sleep and stress at college probably played into it.

 

[maldorf]

I think the issue for most guys is under-recovering via poor sleep / supplementation / diet / training structure / etc. rather than overtraining.

Thats true I think. Sometimes guys can actually overtrain though because of too much volume and less common too much intensity. Ive overtrained from both causes. Overtraining from too much volume is most common I think. WIth the intensity, I overtrained if I didnt force myself to do some periodization. I used to do some 5x5 and other powerlifting programs and had to space those out enough to avoid problems. Detraining is important when hitting it really hard.