• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
esquel
YMSGIF210x65-Banner
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

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

jozifp103

Active member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
208
So you hear that volume is key to growth. In the case of lifting weights volume would be measured: [average weight lifted] x [total reps]. So based on this theory lifting 100 lbs for 30 total reps should be about as effective for muscle growth as lifting 200 lbs for 15 reps or 50 lbs for 60 reps.

I don't think volume is the only factor when stimulating muscle growth. I think there is a point where the weights are just too light to stimulate growth despite the overall volume being the same.

For example, let's say you typically curl 30 lb dumbells for 3 sets of 10. That's 30 lbs x 30 total reps which gives you a total volume of 900. This workout seems effective as the weight is adequate to stress the muscle into growth.

Now let's say you instead curl 5 lb dumbells for 5 sets of 36. That's 5 lbs x 180 total reps which also equals a volume of 900. Now are you going to see real bicep growth lifting 5 lbs? I seriously doubt it. So if one example contradicts the theory, then the entire volume theory must be bunk altogether.

So what's the answer? Where's the sweet spot between weight and reps? Has anyone found their sweet spot?
 
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

Exercise Science has concluded so for the most part from everything I've read throughout the years. Not that I personally agree with it, I agree with you guys that intensity is the most important parameter by far. But science mostly disagrees with us.
 
As far as the OP's question about having found the sweet spot: I've found training body parts 1-2x/week (I prefer once a week but I'm a very weak recoverer) with 3-4 exercises (per week) done in a pyramiding fashion working up to one all out set of 6-12 (or up to 20 reps on legs) reps to work best. Basically how almost all of the Pro's train. It can't be a coincidence that almost everyone does it this way. It's also what the infamous gh15 advises in his bible.
 
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.
 
There is no true reciprocity in weight lifting.

Have I found my sweet spot?

Yes. But like things in life it is a bit amorphic,
it changes. Anything and everything works
to some degree. Just depends what my goals
are.

At my age, just being healthy and free of
injuries make me very happy. I am very
fortunate I can eat anything and everything,
and still be fairly lean . . . but not as much
as I would like, am not willing to change
my lifestyle (which is what it would take) to
get another row of abs.

No more chasing numbers or size. Been there,
done that. And having been there, the rewards
were never in proportion to the effort extended.

Having spent no small amount of time, money
and energy into achieving many goals, oddly
enough, when I achieved them there was always
a certain amount of emptiness when I got ‘there’,
never quite felt like I thought would feel.

I’m rambling again. Sorry.

Don’t overthink all this stuff. Experiment and
find what works for you and be consistent.
 
Anecdotally there seems to be something to the classic 6-12 rep range emphasizing volume and intensity.

If its not just volume, it certainly isnt just weight lifted or powerlifters would be more muscular than bodybuilders.
 
You miss defined volume, weight times reps is working volume. Volume is the total summation of work done during a set period of time. Working volume is less important to muscle growth as total volume in theory.

Also the points about dropping the weight or about how working volume for load X is greater than Y despite a lower load is a moot point. Hypertrophy is only met with a threshold load that is typically about 60% of 1rm.

Anecdotally there seems to be something to the classic 6-12 rep range emphasizing volume and intensity.

If its not just volume, it certainly isnt just weight lifted or powerlifters would be more muscular than bodybuilders.

I doubt you'll find any 6-12 set as intense as a Max effort double or triple. Most power lifters and weight lifters are more jacked than "bodybuilders" these days, especially in the areas of frequent use. Dan Greens nearly as jacked as Jay Cutler.
 
If I lifted like a power lifter, id be on my way to a wheel chair. I have no more business lifting like that than I do playing tennis. Structurally I am not built for either.

There may be a better way but Ive managed to build a physique I never would have thought possible. I must be hitting that 60 percent threshold.


You miss defined volume, weight times reps is working volume. Volume is the total summation of work done during a set period of time. Working volume is less important to muscle growth as total volume in theory.

Also the points about dropping the weight or about how working volume for load X is greater than Y despite a lower load is a moot point. Hypertrophy is only met with a threshold load that is typically about 60% of 1rm.



I doubt you'll find any 6-12 set as intense as a Max effort double or triple. Most power lifters and weight lifters are more jacked than "bodybuilders" these days, especially in the areas of frequent use. Dan Greens nearly as jacked as Jay Cutler.
 
Most newer science shows volume should be better defined at “sets to failure or almost failure”

When a set is taken to failure, rep range means less for hypertrophy.

So if you go from 8 to 16 “work sets” a week, it should equate to more growth assuming you can recover
 
I think you can use the analogy of sprinter vs long distance runner. Distance runner has a much greater exercise volume but has small leg muscles. Sprinters have thick legs and train low volume as far as distance run. Then you get into the whole fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers training.
sprintervsrunner%2B%25282%2529.jpg
 
Most newer science shows volume should be better defined at “sets to failure or almost failure”

When a set is taken to failure, rep range means less for hypertrophy.

So if you go from 8 to 16 “work sets” a week, it should equate to more growth assuming you can recover
The big thing for strength is the total volume spent training at a high % of max 1RPM.
 
I would say that volume may be more important. While intensity is a key factor as well. If a person does a volume workout and is adding more weight continuously. Verses say doing 1 very intense set and adding weight continuously. I would think the volume would usually prevail. Arthur Jones pushed the 1 set theory and his athletes did well be they grew most of their muscle before switching to his technique.
 
I think you can use the analogy of sprinter vs long distance runner. Distance runner has a much greater exercise volume but has small leg muscles. Sprinters have thick legs and train low volume as far as distance run. Then you get into the whole fast vs slow twitch muscle fibers training.
sprintervsrunner%2B%25282%2529.jpg
Distance runner legs are under very little load as the really don't bend at the knee or hip much. When I look at 10,000 meter speed skaters I would call that an endurance event and they move their legs more and have pretty good development too. But carrying more weight is just a detriment to an endurance athlete so they would not want the extra muscle as it would not help them any.
 
I would say that volume may be more important. While intensity is a key factor as well. If a person does a volume workout and is adding more weight continuously. Verses say doing 1 very intense set and adding weight continuously. I would think the volume would usually prevail. Arthur Jones pushed the 1 set theory and his athletes did well be they grew most of their muscle before switching to his technique.

I agree with volume still being a huge factor. You may grow with high intensity and low volume, but that doesn't mean that you're training at your optimal capacity and that you can't benefit from adding more. This is where good old experimentation comes into play. Maximum recoverable volume should really be your end goal; i.e. training as intensely and often as you can with as much volume as you can before hitting the fine line between making maximum gains and diminishing returns. Several factors obviously play into this, the usual suspects: genetics, diet, gear and how you respond to all of those variables.
 
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 agree with volume still being a huge factor. You may grow with high intensity and low volume, but that doesn't mean that you're training at your optimal capacity and that you can't benefit from adding more. This is where good old experimentation comes into play. Maximum recoverable volume should really be your end goal; i.e. training as intensely and often as you can with as much volume as you can before hitting the fine line between making maximum gains and diminishing returns. Several factors obviously play into this, the usual suspects: genetics, diet, gear and how you respond to all of those variables.
Yeah. You can play with taking less rest days from the gym and so increase the frequency of training. That's another way to increase volume. Then the obvious way of adding in more sets with heavy weight. I believe that adding in an extra set of an exercise is going to produce more growth than just adding more reps to your other sets.
 

Staff online

  • rAJJIN
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member

Forum statistics

Total page views
558,049,085
Threads
135,757
Messages
2,768,643
Members
160,342
Latest member
bg15351
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
yourmuscleshop210x131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top