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

[NGL34]

Decent article here on the dilemma.

Can You Build Muscle With Light Weights and High Reps?

What builds the most muscle? Should you do high rep, low weight training? Or are high weights with low reps the way to go?

muscleevo.net

If you want a condense version of the article, basically 5-15 reps was the best range based on a few study they examined for muscle hypertrophy of both types of muscle fibers.

 

[Matsuo Munefusa]

The analogy of say .. swimmers.. doing high volume and not being big is not accurate for a few reasons. Most that swimmers arent Coming close to failure and arent under much of a load.. so yes endurance athletes etc arent going to be big etc..
That being said on the flip side it's very difficult to go to failure on numerous sets and get much volume. So which is best?
I have a tendency to error on going to failure and doing less volume.. its " feels right"... but it's also very draining on the cns and is not the healthiest way long term.. it also requires longer rest periods between sets etc
If I'm being totally honest I'd say most will have better long term gains stopping a rep short of failure and doing more volume .. now will I do that ? Probably not .. I have awful ADD and need to get in and out lol

LATS, what do you think would happen if you put a swimmer on 1 gram of steroids a week and upped their calories to 5-7k/day (to account for all their calories burned in pool)? Do you think they would get big then?

I doubt any swimmers put down 1g steroids a week like we do casually in this community. And I doubt they eat like we do either.

 

[Kaladryn]

What???? Exercise science has backed Dorian

You mean Dorian Yates? lol

I'm an expert on Dorian's training and the origins of his theories. Everything comes from Arthur Jones and to a lesser extent the evolution of these theories that Menzer developed. None of this is "exercise science" in the modern sense, they are theorists, aka bro-scientists.

 

[beastmode121]

your sweet spot should be the workouts you enjoy and convenient to your day and schedule.
You can’t do volume and intensity.. you’ll burn out quick.
when I reach to the 6th exercise I’m losing my pump. Charles glass said it best, when you reach your max pump; there’s nothing else you can do, and it’s time to stop.

 

[jeroendebleser]

your sweet spot should be the workouts you enjoy and convenient to your day and schedule.
You can’t do volume and intensity.. you’ll burn out quick.
when I reach to the 6th exercise I’m losing my pump. Charles glass said it best, when you reach your max pump; there’s nothing else you can do, and it’s time to stop.

I also use the pump as a gauge, I think it's a good indicator. It may be 'bro' but whatever.

 

[neuropump85]

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?

Great question. While volume response to training is a factor, we must also consider fiber type and distribution throughout the human body. For example, the deltoids respond very well to moderate to higher repetitions with light to moderate weights. Doing 4 sets of shoulder presses for 15 repetitions with 100lbs would likely work much (for hypertrophy)better than doing 4 sets of eight with 200lbs, not to mention the cumulative damage to the rotator cuff and stress on the AC joints with heavier weights over time. This switch can really crank up hypertrophy.
Conversely, doing sets of 5-8 reps with chest presses can create a great response as they have a higher concentration of fast twitch fibers, whereas the deltoids have a greater distribution of the slower and intermediate twitch fibers (functionally designed to do repetitive tasks with the upper extremities all day long).
This was a big foundational theory from Mentzer and Yates in years past that has stuck with me.
Let's don't forget intensity, the cornerstone for hormonal stimulus that promotes muscle growth. You can get some serious pumps and growth with focused, intense 35-45 minute workouts.
Sweet spot? I guess we just have to keep distilling research and personal responses to find that balance with your genetics, body type, diet and supplementation regime (which often varies for the savvy bodybuilders looking for change)
Just my two cents.

 

[Itachi]

32 sets per week, for how many weeks can you do that, progressively?

I can see it trump the lower volume programs on a 1 week basis (as in the study if I read it right). I’m doubting it will trump those lower volume programs in the long run.

Let’s say you train 8 weeks progressively Before deloading and start at week 1 with 32 sets to failure,imo You are losing a very easy applicable strategy to progress (increasing volume). Your sleep and rest will have to be perfect to recover from 32 sets to failure while increasing the weights over the 8 week periode.


how long are you guys training progressively before deloading?

In that study the subjects ran the 32 set per week program for 8 weeks. So it works for at least 8 weeks it seems. I understand what you're saying though and wonder the same. The subjects in the group were trained, college aged men. I would personally like to know what their volume was before hand. Like for example, if they were training low volume beforehand, maybe they can handle 8 weeks of higher volume? Also important to note (lol), the guy reviewing the study has doubts about them really going to muscular failure each set.
I really love this topic because I am always looking to optimize all the tenants of bodybuilding. So far in what I've gathered, one of the definitive claims I've seen is that training a muscle twice a week provides better results than training it once per week when volume is equal.

 

[jeroendebleser]

In that study the subjects ran the 32 set per week program for 8 weeks. So it works for at least 8 weeks it seems. I understand what you're saying though and wonder the same. The subjects in the group were trained, college aged men. I would personally like to know what their volume was before hand. Like for example, if they were training low volume beforehand, maybe they can handle 8 weeks of higher volume? Also important to note (lol), the guy reviewing the study has doubts about them really going to muscular failure each set.
I really love this topic because I am always looking to optimize all the tenants of bodybuilding. So far in what I've gathered, one of the definitive claims I've seen is that training a muscle twice a week provides better results than training it once per week when volume is equal.

I have my doubts about them going to true failure as well, especially considering they only rested for 1 minute in between sets. How can you do a set of squats (or leg presses or...) to failure and then after only one minute of rest do it again? Even with decreasing weights, this seems very unlikely to happen. If they really did do it, those guys were machines to say the least.

 

[maldorf]

I have my doubts about them going to true failure as well, especially considering they only rested for 1 minute in between sets. How can you do a set of squats (or leg presses or...) to failure and then after only one minute of rest do it again? Even with decreasing weights, this seems very unlikely to happen. If they really did do it, those guys were machines to say the least.

Well, it can be done but like you say they would have to drop the weight quite a bit between each set and then you are dropping intensity. Id take intensity over volume.

 

[URODA]

I think people that are arguing against the volume theory are likely not understanding the research pertaining to volume only being more effective when taken to minimum or no repetitions remaining to be done. Intensity does not only equal to heavy load the research proving that type 2a and 2b fibers get recruited even when training at lower load but taken to extreme fatigue lending them to take over type 1 fibers by which way you recruit both optimally. Apparently you wouldn't be able to perform 30 sets of chest in one workout and have enough intensity throughout hence why the reasoning behind higher frequency training (2 and 3 times per week per body part) would be more beneficial than once. Ronnie did train each body part twice going by the material available on how he trained and you would likely reach a 20 sets per week volume doing that way. Youtube got a great explanation of John and Brad on muscle supercompensation training and the idea behind extremely high volume work for limited period of time per each body part and changing to the next month to month or any length you think would be optimal to your own ability to recover and gain

 

[alfresco]

I have my doubts about them going to true failure as well, especially considering they only rested for 1 minute in between sets. How can you do a set of squats (or leg presses or...) to failure and then after only one minute of rest do it again? Even with decreasing weights, this seems very unlikely to happen. If they really did do it, those guys were machines to say the least.

My opinion.

There is 'failure' and then there is "failure". If you go you real failure you will not want
to do another set. If you haven't vomited after a set of strict standing barbell curls, then
you have not worked hard enough. Most people working to so called failure are nothing
but a collection of facial expressions, fake noises, dropped weights or falling to the floor
feigning great pain and total failure.

Example.

I once knew a man who did very little in the way of exercise but got spectacular results.
You would not know it by looking at him that he was working hard. Very controlled,
strict movements. He was quiet, his face was calm, devoid of any facial expression
except extreme concentration. But you could see his muscle pumping up, grinding out
rep after rep to failure. Then partial movements until the bar would not budge, literally
dropped from his hands. Then on to the next exercise. No talking, just total focus.
He walked the talk.

 

[jeroendebleser]

I think people that are arguing against the volume theory are likely not understanding the research pertaining to volume only being more effective when taken to minimum or no repetitions remaining to be done. Intensity does not only equal to heavy load the research proving that type 2a and 2b fibers get recruited even when training at lower load but taken to extreme fatigue lending them to take over type 1 fibers by which way you recruit both optimally. Apparently you wouldn't be able to perform 30 sets of chest in one workout and have enough intensity throughout hence why the reasoning behind higher frequency training (2 and 3 times per week per body part) would be more beneficial than once. Ronnie did train each body part twice going by the material available on how he trained and you would likely reach a 20 sets per week volume doing that way. Youtube got a great explanation of John and Brad on muscle supercompensation training and the idea behind extremely high volume work for limited period of time per each body part and changing to the next month to month or any length you think would be optimal to your own ability to recover and gain

Great post mate!

 

[andishehhank]

I haven't trained regularly in a couple years but I remember when I was basically an intermediate lifter, I was just messing around with 1-2 plate squats for like 30 minutes a day and I gained 20 pounds in 2 weeks. For this reason I would probably try something like it again.

 

[LATS]

LATS, what do you think would happen if you put a swimmer on 1 gram of steroids a week and upped their calories to 5-7k/day (to account for all their calories burned in pool)? Do you think they would get big then?

I doubt any swimmers put down 1g steroids a week like we do casually in this community. And I doubt they eat like we do either.

Sorry my friend.. i never saw this post.. yes if swimmers took a gram of gear and ate like a bodybuikder as well they woukd get result.. but the results woukd be almost strict from the supra amounts of hormone and increase in macros.. the " training " in regardz to the low intensity high volume work woukd add to the stimulus at least for a bit.. of course individual genetics woukd have to be taken into account.. but weeks later without added intensity the swimmer woukd just be pounding gear and calories and the intensity and progressive load or lack thereof from the swimming woukd fail to bring much more tissue.. even high volume needs intensity...

 

[td]

@homonunculus addresses training volume, intensity, frequency and how those relate to the exercise science literature in the latest Muscle Mind podcast.

 

[alfresco]

Sorry my friend.. i never saw this post.. yes if swimmers took a gram of gear and ate like a bodybuikder as well they woukd get result.. but the results woukd be almost strict from the supra amounts of hormone and increase in macros.. the " training " in regardz to the low intensity high volume work woukd add to the stimulus at least for a bit.. of course individual genetics woukd have to be taken into account.. but weeks later without added intensity the swimmer woukd just be pounding gear and calories and the intensity and progressive load or lack thereof from the swimming woukd fail to bring much more tissue.. even high volume needs intensity...

Wasn't it some of the Olympic Chinese women swimmers were caught using steroids?
Don't recalled if they fared better (times) then the rest of the pack but the rest of pack
could have been on steroids too so this may be a mute point.

 

[td]

Wasn't it some of the Olympic Chinese women swimmers were caught using steroids?
Don't recalled if they fared better (times) then the rest of the pack but the rest of pack
could have been on steroids too so this may be a mute point.

Yes, both the Chinese and the east German female programs have had doping positives.

Yes, both programs had much success.

 

[LATS]

Yes they were caught.. the reasoning behind the steriod routines was recovery.. they weren't any " bigger" really than the other teams.. but the Germans determined that the gear woukd help muscle recovery and therefore more training sessions.. it did work in that regard

 

[Kaladryn]

Yes, both the Chinese and the east German female programs have had doping positives.

Yes, both programs had much success.

This is true of every country.

 

[maldorf]

Wasn't it some of the Olympic Chinese women swimmers were caught using steroids?
Don't recalled if they fared better (times) then the rest of the pack but the rest of pack
could have been on steroids too so this may be a mute point.

I think the big thing is that the steroids greatly increase the rate of recovery after training sessions. So in swimming this will allow them to train harder and more often. I think if you tested swimmers strength lifting weights ,steroid users wouldn't be greatly stronger than non users. Just a guess. The users would have better endurance because they were able to train longer and more often because of increased recovery rate.