Paul Carter on volume

[N.L....M.....]

Paul Carter is someone I’ve always respected who knows the science but also common sense and breaks it down for the average person.

 

[USMuscle9403]

Yep, seems like common sense to me! The volume debate is silly, imo

 

[N.L....M.....]

Yep, seems like common sense to me! The volume debate is silly, imo

People looking for the perfect number of sets don’t understand that it’s meaningless without context. I’m all for information but too much information can be detrimental. It’s like someone who hasn’t learned how to how to count to 10 but trying to learn calculus.

 

[11111]

Yep, seems like common sense to me! The volume debate is silly,

agreed. i think a big problem for why a lot of guys don't progress is that although they may "think" they are, they're not actually training to failure. say on a hack squat for example, the average gym rat will go to what they think is "failure," when in reality they left 3-5 (sometimes even more) reps in the tank.

have heard dusty hanshaw talk about this often where he'll have new clients send him videos of their sets, and oftentimes he's blown away by how many true reps they leave in the tank. and looking around most gyms, i tend to agree with him.

 

[Reno911]

I understand what he's saying and he's got a good track recored but there have been TONS of great physiques and a lot of muscle built over the decades from high volume training far from failure.

He states that "there's not amount of volume that will create enough stimulus to grow muscle". IMO I think that's a pretty planet statement that doesn't apply to all. At 47, I feel I train very hard still but keep a few RIR and make up for it with increased volume. Unless your joints are totally bulletproof your training will need to switch to a higher volume approach as you age. After 30+ years of training the body (for most) cannot handle the high loading to failure training.

 

[maldorf]

agreed. i think a big problem for why a lot of guys don't progress is that although they may "think" they are, they're not actually training to failure. say on a hack squat for example, the average gym rat will go to what they think is "failure," when in reality they left 3-5 (sometimes even more) reps in the tank.

have heard dusty hanshaw talk about this often where he'll have new clients send him videos of their sets, and oftentimes he's blown away by how many true reps they leave in the tank. and looking around most gyms, i tend to agree with him.

Exactly. When I had John Parillo training us he would usually push us past failure to the point where we were doing forced reps. We would have a guy on either side of us pulling us up doing belt squats. When I went to failure and beyond the growth came faster. Strength jumped up a crazy amount. When you train alone you cannot do that, but you can do things like drop sets that really add some good stress. Nothing though IMO stimulates growth like going to failure and beyond doing forced reps.

 

[N.L....M.....]

I understand what he's saying and he's got a good track recored but there have been TONS of great physiques and a lot of muscle built over the decades from high volume training far from failure.

He states that "there's not amount of volume that will create enough stimulus to grow muscle". IMO I think that's a pretty planet statement that doesn't apply to all. At 47, I feel I train very hard still but keep a few RIR and make up for it with increased volume. Unless your joints are totally bulletproof your training will need to switch to a higher volume approach as you age. After 30+ years of training the body (for most) cannot handle the high loading to failure training.

If you read everything he says it absolutely applies. For example if you do sets with 2lb dumbbells going nowhere close to failure then no amount of volume will stimulate growth. You can’t make up for subpar effort by trying to increase volume. You might exhaust yourself but you’re not going to grow. He didn’t dismiss volume training. The effective reps are the ones that count. If you’re going nowhere close to failure how many effective reps are you actually doing? You might be able to maintain doing pump sets but you won’t be providing the muscle with stimulus to grow. No great physique has been BUILT with low effort training. Name one. Jay said he didn’t train to failure but then he clarified what he meant by failure. He still went to technical failure not absolute failure.

 

[danieltx]

I agree with his general principles, good simplification. Many years ago I watched a video of Jay Cutler doing a chest workout leading up to an Olympia and he said that rather than sets, reps, etc., he was looking to get a certain feeling in the muscle - that's always stuck with me. It took me years to actually understand that but optimal training really is about totally fatiguing the muscle with as little work as possible.

 

[USMuscle9403]

Exactly. When I had John Parillo training us he would usually push us past failure to the point where we were doing forced reps. We would have a guy on either side of us pulling us up doing belt squats. When I went to failure and beyond the growth came faster. Strength jumped up a crazy amount. When you train alone you cannot do that, but you can do things like drop sets that really add some good stress. Nothing though IMO stimulates growth like going to failure and beyond doing forced reps.

My typical progression at the end of a set includes, after the third rest pause set, forced reps, then negatives, then go into partials and possibly a static at the end. If your muscle fibers are still capable of firing, you're not done yet

 

[heavyhitter]

I agree with his general principles, good simplification. Many years ago I watched a video of Jay Cutler doing a chest workout leading up to an Olympia and he said that rather than sets, reps, etc., he was looking to get a certain feeling in the muscle - that's always stuck with me. It took me years to actually understand that but optimal training really is about totally fatiguing the muscle with as little work as possible.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s why I’m such a fan of rest pause. 2 rest pause sets and a straight set for most body parts with super high intensity is usually plenty stimulation for me. I do my rest pause the dc way with parties and a static hold at the end of each set as well

 

[xpoc]

I enjoy most of his articles and he is one of my go to guys when I want to further educate myself on hypertrophy. Lately, he has been super focused on glute isolation and exercise mechanics. He has of late been a supporter of a "bro split" style split (one bodypart per week) as long as the weekly volume is the same. For example: Chest on monday for 12 sets is equally effective as chest on Monday for 6 sets and chest on Thursday for another 6 sets. He has backed that with studies. Some of his earlier articles professed the benefits of higher frequency (Push/pull/legs the ultimate split) for example. And I know he was inspired by Dante Trudel who is also a higher frequency proponent. Fellow TNation author Christian Thibs professes the benefit of hitting a bodypart up to 3x per week and Paul has publicly disagreed with Thibs on that stance. Agree or disagree, his articles are very thought provoking and backed by science.

 

[lookslikesausage]

I enjoy most of his articles and he is one of my go to guys when I want to further educate myself on hypertrophy. Lately, he has been super focused on glute isolation and exercise mechanics. He has of late been a supporter of a "bro split" style split (one bodypart per week) as long as the weekly volume is the same. For example: Chest on monday for 12 sets is equally effective as chest on Monday for 6 sets and chest on Thursday for another 6 sets. He has backed that with studies. Some of his earlier articles professed the benefits of higher frequency (Push/pull/legs the ultimate split) for example. And I know he was inspired by Dante Trudel who is also a higher frequency proponent. Fellow TNation author Christian Thibs professes the benefit of hitting a bodypart up to 3x per week and Paul has publicly disagreed with Thibs on that stance. Agree or disagree, his articles are very thought provoking and backed by science.

I like Christian Thibaudeau a lot too. Also like Paul. For me what's also interesting is that both were proteges of Charles Poliquin. He was probably my favorite of all time. Even though some of his writings were questionable, a lot of his info on training was excellent. He was a volume guy and was not a fan of training to failure fwiw. Hated Mike Mentzer but was friends w/Dorian.

 

[Reno911]

No great physique has been BUILT with low effort training. Name one.

I'm not going to name one as that's not what I said. I don't think you understood what I said in my post.

 

[b-boy]

I'm not going to name one as that's not what I said. I don't think you understood what I said in my post.

He CLEARLY didn't understand your post! I did

 

[N.L....M.....]

I'm not going to name one as that's not what I said. I don't think you understood what I said in my post.

You said tons of great physiques have been built with high volume far from failure training. I understood your post. I don’t think you understood mine. Failure is high effort. The further from failure you go the lower the effort. Far from failure implies low effort. What great physiques were built with low effort, high volume training?

 

[N.L....M.....]

He CLEARLY didn't understand your post! I did

Please explain.

 

[Reno911]

Far from failure implies low effort. What great physiques were built with low effort, high volume training?

3-4 RIR would be considered far from failure as 3-4 isn't even close to failure but will certainly yield results. If a guy can incline a set of 315 to total failure at 15 reps are you saying he won't build muscle by doing a bunch of volume with 315 for sets of 12?? For instance 8 sets of 12 vs. a few sets of total failure to 15. I don't buy it.

Neither of my posts have said anything about "low effort" training.

 

[N.L....M.....]

3-4 RIR would be considered far from failure as 3-4 isn't even close to failure but will certainly yield results. If a guy can incline a set of 315 to total failure at 15 reps are you saying he won't build muscle by doing a bunch of volume with 315 for sets of 12?? For instance 8 sets of 12 vs. a few sets of total failure to 15. I don't buy it.

Neither of my posts have said anything about "low effort" training.

3 reps shy isn’t far from failure. I didn’t say that but “far from failure” sounds like low effort. Do you not understand what effort is in regards to lifting weights or training? I never said and Paul Carter never said you have to hit failure but you do have to get close in order have effective reps. Meadows says about an rpe of 8 is where you hit effective reps and I agree with him. You didn’t understand or fully what I posted from Paul Carter. So we agree with eachother and it sounds like you agree with what Paul said but didn’t read and just stuck with a preconceived notion of what he was saying about volume.

 

[Reno911]

3 reps shy isn’t far from failure. I didn’t say that but “far from failure” sounds like low effort. Do you not understand what effort is in regards to lifting weights or training? I never said and Paul Carter never said you have to hit failure but you do have to get close in order have effective reps. Meadows says about an rpe of 8 is where you hit effective reps and I agree with him. You didn’t understand or fully what I posted from Paul Carter. So we agree with eachother and it sounds like you agree with what Paul said but didn’t read and just stuck with a preconceived notion of what he was saying about volume.

How long have you been training?

 

[N.L....M.....]

How long have you been training?

I’m 36. Since I was 18. You?