Mike Israetel- opinions on his “volume markers for training”

[thebigbus]

love his stuff, and have been using RP-style templates for about a year. Gives you goals each week of your meso, progressing from minimum to near maximum - deload, then repeat with new numbers. It's simple and I like simple. It's helped me be ok with pushing volumes higher on certain bodyparts than I ever previously did. And using his MRV concepts I've also been able to realize certain bodyparts (for ME) CAN'T handle as much volume (Hamstrings for example).

(lateral and rear delts 4x/week - they've exploded)

There are many roads to Dublin, and I think Mike's concepts are a great road.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I totally understand Mike's point (MA) but I'm still on the fence about him.
I've seen him get into pissing matches with TOO many people. And for a guy who has never been in shape before, he talks a big game. But once again, he is not a COACH per say, he's a training dude.

Either way, he seems to think it's his high volume way or no way at all. Fails to consider something like Jordan Peters, DC or Dr. Scott's stuff MIGHT WORK. If you've been around long enough, and maybe he hasn't, you know that you can skin this weird BBing cat in multiple ways. He doesnt understand that yet.

I have read 99% of his stuff though and I like his mini diet book and RP templates. IMO, his books are great when one is just getting into understanding the BBing diet and needs a good foundation.

 

[MR. BMJ]

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but he's been in the business for a while and has yet to coach anyone remotely accomplished and has never looked particularly great. AFAIK he's sold hundreds of templates and coached a lot of clients. Yes, he's clearly a smart guy, but are his methods informed by science actually producing results? Seems like the answer is no...

Meadows or DC's methods may not be as scientific, but they've got hundreds of IFBB pros between the two of them.

I mean I'd love to be wrong if someone has an example of someone he's coached that's done well in competitive bbing, until then I'm going to take his recommendations with a grain of salt.

You don't know what you are talking about, Meadows has given him great praise, and he has written for Meadows site IIRC. There are countless reviews by people who use his (actually it's a team) methods.

His methods work, just like DC's and others....more than one way to get to your goal.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

You don't know what you are talking about, Meadows has given him great praise, and he has written for Meadows site IIRC. There are countless reviews by people who use his (actually it's a team) methods.

His methods work, just like DC's and others....more than one way to get to your goal.

I get that. Meadows and a couple other big name guys like his stuff. He and Brad Schoe talk the same game.

But just to be fair, Mike doesnt have "methods" and neither does Brad. They are fairly high volume guys and rest on literature.

I think that for the average gym goer, Mikes templates and diets work freaking great. And honestly, his templates/guides and all that are not for us...they are for the guy who goes from eat sandwiches at lunch to understanding what a macro is.

 

[Swifto]

Progessive overload.

Surplus cals.

Get stronger across multiple rep ranges.

 

[RoyHobbs]

Always appreciated programs like DC, Yates HIT, milos Sarcev early/low volume program, skip hills training style , fortitude from what I read. Steve Shaw etc.

Idk if I would lump Skip Hill into the likes of DC, Dr Scott, Dorian and Milos lol. He has his skiploading methods but isn't exactly known as a training guru.

Also, I agree with both sides of this debate. Mike doesn't have the successful client resume that JM, DC, Dr Scott, JP, etc do. However that also doesn't mean he isn't right. However I know besides BJJ he is also a bodybuilding focused guy and while he is certainly more muscular than the average guy given the amount and frequency he runs Id expect him to have a much more accomplished physique. BUT, maybe that was the past and he has changed focus to coaching and BJJ.

I think guys like JM, DC and Dr Scott are the best. They combine real science with practical experience/application and constantly look to evolve.

 

[tornquad201]

high volume

John Defendis believes in high volume doing on average 35-45 sets per bodypart and those don't count warm ups so it seems it does work

 

[XstarchildX]

Progessive overload.

Surplus cals.

Get stronger across multiple rep ranges.

Honestly, this about sums up progress in the gym. Each "method" can work to some degree, some better than others. How better depends on the individual.

Train hard.

Improve.

Eat in a surplus.

Recover.

= make progress.

 

[OutToLunch]

Idk if I would lump Skip Hill into the likes of DC, Dr Scott, Dorian and Milos lol. He has his skiploading methods but isn't exactly known as a training guru.



Also, I agree with both sides of this debate. Mike doesn't have the successful client resume that JM, DC, Dr Scott, JP, etc do. However that also doesn't mean he isn't right. However I know besides BJJ he is also a bodybuilding focused guy and while he is certainly more muscular than the average guy given the amount and frequency he runs Id expect him to have a much more accomplished physique. BUT, maybe that was the past and he has changed focus to coaching and BJJ.



I think guys like JM, DC and Dr Scott are the best. They combine real science with practical experience/application and constantly look to evolve.

I personally like skips training style and approach. Very straightforward and easy to understand.

 

[hilly2008]

John Defendis believes in high volume doing on average 35-45 sets per bodypart and those don't count warm ups so it seems it does work

Honestly in my opinion any one that can do 30-40 sets are not doing what I would class as work sets.

It’s just impossible in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thethinker48]

RPE is the defining factor here.

Higher Volume with failure and beyond is practically impossible here. But building up volume over periods keeping nervous system stress at bay to induce a state of overreaching which when backed off from can be very beneficial.

This is where intuition is key; nobody can teach you this stuff, it takes years and years to figure out how your body reacts to the given stimuli and then you make adjustments from there.

This is another scale that has to be balanced properly, just like the diet, the drugs, the health, the sleep...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[thethinker48]

Honestly in my opinion any one that can do 30-40 sets are not doing what I would class as work sets.

It’s just impossible in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah and even if you are the kind of psycho who can, it's not doing you any service.

It's like me trying to bang my head against the wall for hours a day to prepare for a fight against Mike tyson.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[G-FLUX]

Big fan of Mike Israetel! But people need to calm down and understand what he's saying...these are volume recommendations and even he says there is huge variability from person to person and volume changes based on intensity levels set. Nothing is set in stone. He provides guidelines like any GOOD professional does.

 

[tornquad201]

Honestly in my opinion any one that can do 30-40 sets are not doing what I would class as work sets.

It’s just impossible in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how do you define a working set

 

[Elvia1023]

Coaches have been learning, copying and putting their twist on training for decades now. These days the industry is so saturated and some seem desperate to get their name out there. People naming exercises after themselves etc. It's all been done before. Regan Grimes is an example with his Grimey Curls like no one has ever curled a plate before. But if you have the following it sticks and in 10 years time they will probably been known as Grimey curls. The same with all these training styles. It's not rocket science and everyone likes different things.

Swifto's post sums it up perfectly for me. Progressive overload in different rep ranges. Generally I believe a low volume high frequency training style is an excellent approach for many. For a natural I would add in more recovery and I think an eod system is generally very good. But there is no right/wrong answer as everyone is different and there are many variables. I believe in rotating from a higher volume approach to a lower volume and visa versa. Training should evolve and be changed according to the response of the individual. Nothing is set in stone. If you want to train 6 days per week go for it.

The previous post about what is considered a working set is an important factor. Many (me included) use the term "working set" for complete failure sets. Whereas many others use it for hard sets but it doesn't necessarily mean you have gone to complete failure. I suppose looking at the word "working" the later makes more sense as the muscle is still working hard. I train approx 2 hours for many of my workouts and if I was going on my working set definition I do approx 6-15 working sets now if I go by the later then you are talking approx 30-40 sets.

I also love low volume training in regards of results. Warm up effectively then bang out quick sets and go to complete failure using a few different exercises/angles/grips etc. Hit the muscle very hard but enable faster recovery due to lower overall volume. However I personally love training so for most of the year prefer to stay in the gym longer. Not necesaarily for results but just because as I mentioned I love training and enjoy pushing my body over 2-3 hours.

If this guys training suits you then it's good. I don't know how he carries himself. TOO55 stated it's a bit like it's his way or no way which is never the best for coaches imo. Some guys simply don't suit certain training so you have to be flexible in order to get the best results for them. But if all he is doing is putting out training programs then that's fine by me. If you like the look of them try them if not don't bother. There are 1000 trainers on IG with programs so just use one of theirs instead or even better make up your own to suit your own body.

 

[LATS]

Big fan of Mike Israetel! But people need to calm down and understand what he's saying...these are volume recommendations and even he says there is huge variability from person to person and volume changes based on intensity levels set. Nothing is set in stone. He provides guidelines like any GOOD professional does.

Very true.. he has recommendations in regards to volume to,shoot for.. I personally can't do the volume he recommends shootings or.. Id get bored and I don't recover for crap.. But if you take his basic guidelines and modify them to suit your recovery I think you'll be surprised..

.im a fortitude type of guy.. But with some modifications for me.. I don't think scott will scream and yell im dojng it wrong as long as the basic tenets are followed.. Same for Mike..

 

[hilly2008]

how do you define a working set

A set were im working hard on improving on what I have done previously to produce a stress to the body has to adapt.

Reaching failure - sometimes pushing past sometimes not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lou]

I think its key to know what he exactly recommends and the specifics. I have discussed with him many times and don’t agree with some of his interpretations (mainly because the science at this point is equivocal and in a subject like muscle hypertrophy, will always be).

Overall, he agrees with the fact that to build significant amounts of muscle mass you have to get progressively stronger over time. However, he thinks that one should also progress in volume (as in number of “hard” sets) and periodize it. So basically, he thinks that:

- You should progress in load AND volume.
- You should not train to failure.
- Increasing the amount of total work (ie. Volume load) via volume (how many sets you perform) is as important as peak load (how much weight you can lift for reps).
- Intensity/load is not critical

Clearly, because he trains with very submaximal loads, not to failure, more volume can be performed. This would not work when training to failure, with accentuated eccentrics, etc.

Additionally , the number of optimal sets is a range, not a fixed value, and changes over time (depending on lifestyle circumstances, etc.).

Im a science guy myself and lean more towards a JP/fortitude/DC style of training.







Critical analysis on the science of muscle building and body recomposition: www.p70s6k.com

 

[thebigbus]

I would also add, Mike is trying to reach a more general audience, most of whom are likely natties.

I think naturals could do quite well on his methods (ie, not going to failure, etc), vs those of us who are not natural.

Recovery is severely curtailed when hitting failure on compound lifts.

 

[FK86]

how do you define a working set

Depends on the training style. A working set in the style of high intensity I would define as one that is taken to failure. However, Danny Padilla was known for doing 5 sets of 12 with the same weight. So his working sets are whatever he's using 5 x 12 with. Once he could get 5 x 12 he'd add weight to the bar. Two different approaches that utilize progressive overload as its foundation.