- 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?
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?