Mike Israetel volume reccomendations

[Lumpi]

I trained low volume HIT for some years. This january i went back to RIR Training with high volume and I gotta say I get pretty much the same results with high volume and not going to failure than with HIT. Problem for me with going to failure in every set is that I feel destroyed after. Its just not doable for me when working full time job, having a family, pets and soon to be a father. I get the same results with a lot more volume, higher frequency, staying at 1-2 RIR and feeling good after 1,5-2 hours in the gym and not like conplete dogshit. Not saying it is for everyone, hell no, I honestly wish I was made for lower volume, going to failure more often and so on but my body and my life just do not feel right with it. People just have to find out what works for them in their life. As always, its good to know science but its better to try it for yourself.

 

[Lumpi]

By the way this might be very subjective and only my personal opinion but I find lower volume or HIT to work better for people on gear. Not sure why, but higher volume works great for both camps, people on gear and naturals.

Again, just what I have seen over the years. May be wrong here.

 

[qbkilla]

Imo I think low volume is better, wasting time doing extra sets is silly. If your chest can grow on 7 sets why do 14 for 3 percent more growth.

But the table does interest me when thinking of lagging parts. If someone is doing 9 for side delts, and they are weak, maybe doing 16 will help?

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I think both work. But i think if people have any goals of getting stronger and progressing weights, then RIR is not the way to go.

We've seen guys get huge from 8 total work sets and guys get huge from 25 total work sets. I think everyone probably responds a bit differently.
I just know that when i was doing higher volume, not pushing failure and not writing down my weights (notes about progress), i basically stayed the same size for years on end. The moment i dialed up intensity and focused one moving the weights up and progressively getting stronger, i grew.

I know JM and Dr Scott have talked about how possibly switching things up once in awhile would also be beneficial. A low volume approach for some months then move to something higher. I know lots of guys who went from DC to Mountaindog programs and back and forth who had amazing progress.

 

[iron lifter]

it amazes me how we can make such a simple sport so complicated. the math for bodybuilding has been figured out since early 90s lol. nothing has changed. what worked than will work today. perhaps the only thing we know maybe more is how to take precaution regarding health and blood work. not that they didn't know back than but perhaps only a select few knew what to look for etc. but now with social media its alot more available to the masses which is a good thing.

as far as drugs, work out routines, diets nothing has changed in last 30 years.

 

[grizzly978]

Keep it simple, I do high volume and do a few sets or super set and just go until it’s about to fail.
Yates is a good one to watch, he is so intense that there is no way you aren’t going to grow training that way…..

 

[jeroendebleser]

I trained low volume HIT for some years. This january i went back to RIR Training with high volume and I gotta say I get pretty much the same results with high volume and not going to failure than with HIT. Problem for me with going to failure in every set is that I feel destroyed after. Its just not doable for me when working full time job, having a family, pets and soon to be a father. I get the same results with a lot more volume, higher frequency, staying at 1-2 RIR and feeling good after 1,5-2 hours in the gym and not like conplete dogshit. Not saying it is for everyone, hell no, I honestly wish I was made for lower volume, going to failure more often and so on but my body and my life just do not feel right with it. People just have to find out what works for them in their life. As always, its good to know science but its better to try it for yourself.

All very true. Training-wise it's all about finding what works for you or as I like to say: to make sure you're not doing anything that DOESN'T work for you...

Because everything that does work for you gives basically the same results like you already said.

 

[qbkilla]

it amazes me how we can make such a simple sport so complicated. the math for bodybuilding has been figured out since early 90s lol. nothing has changed. what worked than will work today. perhaps the only thing we know maybe more is how to take precaution regarding health and blood work. not that they didn't know back than but perhaps only a select few knew what to look for etc. but now with social media its alot more available to the masses which is a good thing.

as far as drugs, work out routines, diets nothing has changed in last 30 years.

I agree with this I can't stand to listen to Mikes podcasts and the stronger by science podcasts talking for 2 hours about reps In reserve and daily undulating periodization lol. But I do like having simple parameters. For example, it seems most agree that a bro split isn't hitting a muscle often enough, no one trains 7 days a week, 15 sets for a body part in a single session is time wasted, etc.

I think the science guys would come off better if they are able to get their main points across without thinking we care about the Minor details or the studies, it's too much info to care to listen to.

Weight, reps, sets is all the math needed.

 

[Flex500]

I'll agree. The individual sets are shorter, but if there's more of them then the total at the end will end up being greater. One of my favourite set/rep schemes is 8x3.

Yeah I know I got really into 8x3 and really 10x3 for quite a while and go back to it here and there. Even pushed it to 15x3 for a while but that became no so productive lol.

 

[junker]

Way way over complicated. You don’t need a effin Phd to build muscle.

It really comes down to time under tension. Around 30 seconds per set, give or take, seems best for hypertrophy.

Time Brads training videos, he knows what he is doing. Same with Emeric.

time under what kind of tension? tension 40 percent of max? tension 80 percent of max?
i can do 2 minutes curling a 5 pound db....not so much with an 80.

 

[Fastlifeo]

Training shouldn’t have to be over complicated with all this science non sense . It’s very simple train hard eat the right amount of food get good rest . Simple

 

[xpoc]

I agree on the science part. Nowadays all the sudden skullcrushers don't hit the long head of triceps, lat pull downs aren't for lats no more and so on. Sure I believe the science says so but what about the gazillion of amazing physiques that have been build doing just those things that now according to science don't work..

This is a great post and captures a lot of what I struggle with. I am always looking for more effective or efficient hypertrophy methods. And lately I have seen a HUGE push of really big guys following the recommendations of Coach Kassem from N1. He seems to be accepted as the subject matter expert on planes of movement and the best way to isolate individual muscles. Many of his vids show his recommended exercises and now I am seeing it play out in the gym. I will paint with a broad brush but it seems most involve cables. Most are unilateral. I tried some of them and I was literally using 10-20 lbs tops on the cable station so I am not even sure how a female could even complete them as the stack is too heavy. My conundrum is this: Based on some of his posts, one could believe that to train the triceps optimally you need to isolate each individual head using 3 different exercises, one arm at a time on a cable station. So loading is limited (although I understand that it is relative to the movement/angles etc). But, that is in contrast to what we have seen from proven coaches such as DC (heavy slag iron using reverse grip smith for triceps for example). It is in contrast to Phil Hernon who attributed his triceps development to dips. And I could go on and on. But, it does seem like the new trend is toward isolation exercises. And if you are isolating each muscle and even the muscles that make up the muscle group (each head of the triceps or biceps for example) then I suppose volume HAS to increase.

 

[BLang]

I think the science guys would come off better if they are able to get their main points across without thinking we care about the Minor details or the studies, it's too much info to care to listen to.

If their science wasn't flawed, that would be help too.

 

[juggy38]

Everything works for a little while, then it doesn’t. Novel stimulus is important after stagnation.

And I do believe the science guys have hit some jewels in their efforts.

Like leaving one rep in the tank instead of going to absofuckinglute failure does save the CNS some drastic fatigue. So don’t do that shit exercise 1 set 1 of the day. Save it for later. But think of this….Dante always prescribed the widowmaker quad set right before you walked out the door.

We know these things. They are just selling it to new minds

 

[Elvia1023]

Meh , I think moderate volume is best . Everyone argues high or low volume , but no one mentioned the in between. Usually one main intensity technique or failure set out of 3-4 . This is what works for me. Volume is just a tool really but intensity works best. Frequency seems to work better when getting in more volume.

Warm up / set 1 - 10-12 , 2 reps short of failure/ set 2(heavier) 8 reps , not failing/ set 3 - rest / pause, a dropset, failure, etc

That's the thing though. If you were to calculate everyone's volume on here I bet most would come out as moderate volume. Of course many venture higher and some lower but people really overcomplicate the crap out of this stuff. Again most of the people who do overcomplicate the crap out of this stuff have never taken a set of squats or leg press to true failure. Now I am not stating true failure is even essential (another subject) but I see guys go on about RIR etc and they often stop 3+ reps short of complete failure on the working set especially on leg exercises. An example in my gym out of 100 people on the hack squat I would say no more than 10 go to complete failure. Probably about 35-40% aren't even putting 50% effort in.

Another observation I have made over the years and whilst there are many exceptions most of the bodybuilders people look at and think wow when compared to forum/scientific talk on training volume train high volume. The science guys would think they are overtraining but these guys look better than everyone else and it's not just because of genetics it's application. Although there has been a definite shift in recent years and as Xpoc posted people are copying a lot of the science guys from IG in regards to movement patterns and training sequence and volume so less are going in and destroying them selves using every machine possible and more are very calculated in their approach.

As I posted last time I would recommend people rotate volume (common sense) and trying everything and seeing what they prefer. It's not even just a case of what they prefer because changing through the year and rotating volume, frequency and even intensity can have very positive effects.

 

[alfresco]

time under what kind of tension? tension 40 percent of max? tension 80 percent of max?
i can do 2 minutes curling a 5 pound db....not so much with an 80.

Take a look at Brad’s or Emeric’s training videos. That speed / tempo seems about right to me and you can’t argue the results I think they clock in around 20 - 30 seconds per set last time I timed it. Very controlled movements. Exceptional mind body connection.

I have no clue about percentage of max. I don’t swim in those waters.

Hope this helps.

 

[Alzadosghost]

Just sounds like another full of shit “guru” giving overcomplicated information just to hear themselves talk and sound intelligent to fool the millennials into believing there is some scientific approach that builds more muscle than good old fashioned hard work and dilligance. I’m sick of hearing opinions of these gurus thst have never actually even built an exceptional physique themselves as proof of their advanced bullshit techniques. I’m not impressed seeing a bunch of numbers on a fucking graph. Proof is in the pictures not a chart with a bunch of mathematical equations.

 

[Biggerp73]

0 for MV is stupid and wrong

 

[xpoc]

My training partner and I are in the gym for 1.5 hours irregardless what split we're doing.
Honestly we both just love being in the gym. Our volume is ridiculous and we should probably
cut back considering our age but we seem to eat enough to recover so...
I'm a science guy by trade but when it comes to training I give everything I have at the gym.
We call it "gymdorphins". 3-4 days w/o training and we're both in withdrawal!

I got caught up into the euphoria of simply being in the gym, moving iron and getting a pump. Then I read an article (forget where) that essentially said if your goal is to merely exercise for the sake of exercising, knock yourself out. But if your goal is hypertrophy and to look better, the additional volume is actually detrimental to your goal. The quote that stuck with me was, "just because you can train 2 hours per day, every day does not mean you should." So I cut back to 4x per week with weights but upped my cardio to 2-3x per week to compensate from gym withdrawal.

 

[cal]

I agree with this I can't stand to listen to Mikes podcasts and the stronger by science podcasts talking for 2 hours about reps In reserve and daily undulating periodization lol. But I do like having simple parameters. For example, it seems most agree that a bro split isn't hitting a muscle often enough, no one trains 7 days a week, 15 sets for a body part in a single session is time wasted, etc.

I think the science guys would come off better if they are able to get their main points across without thinking we care about the Minor details or the studies, it's too much info to care to listen to.

Weight, reps, sets is all the math needed.

The stronger by science ppl spend alot of time overanaylzing and look awful.