Paul Carter on volume

[FuriousAngus]

While I do agree that some of the videos posted above (Brads, for example) definitely do not exemplify what a good set taken to failure looks like, bare in mind that the weaker you are, the less intense a set is going to look like. Curling 25s to failure when you're a weakling is very different from curling say 50s to failure. Same thing with Squatting 225 to failure vs Squatting (assuming same reps at different stages in training career) 405. 405 taken to failure is a LOT more intense. I actually really like Lyle's way of looking at it; if your reps start to slow down in speed you're approaching failure. If you get stuck half way through that's failure. Now, failing on a set of hammer curls looks VERY different from failing a set of 20 reps on the leg press.

 

[heavyhitter]

That doesn’t make sense. Intense is intense regardless of the weight. If 25s is all you can curl to failure in the 12 rep range and, and you do that in a dc rest pause set as hard as you fucking can, to failure each time, and tou get 12, and then 6, and then you fight and grind your way to 3-4 more, the fact that youre “weak” won’t matter. That set will have been hard as hell, and will be productive towards building muscle. Just like a larger guys 50 pound curls with the same intensity do for him

While I do agree that some of the videos posted above (Brads, for example) definitely do not exemplify what a good set taken to failure looks like, bare in mind that the weaker you are, the less intense a set is going to look like. Curling 25s to failure when you're a weakling is very different from curling say 50s to failure. Same thing with Squatting 225 to failure vs Squatting (assuming same reps at different stages in training career) 405. 405 taken to failure is a LOT more intense. I actually really like Lyle's way of looking at it; if your reps start to slow down in speed you're approaching failure. If you get stuck half way through that's failure. Now, failing on a set of hammer curls looks VERY different from failing a set of 20 reps on the leg press.

 

[xpoc]

You missed out the BIG one: genetics!

Agree. I was just hitting on the big 3 we can control. Now, when someone figures out a way to manipulate genetics, they will be filthy rich.

 

[maldorf]

That doesn’t make sense. Intense is intense regardless of the weight. If 25s is all you can curl to failure in the 12 rep range and, and you do that in a dc rest pause set as hard as you fucking can, to failure each time, and tou get 12, and then 6, and then you fight and grind your way to 3-4 more, the fact that youre “weak” won’t matter. That set will have been hard as hell, and will be productive towards building muscle. Just like a larger guys 50 pound curls with the same intensity do for him

What he said would only apply if it were the same guy in both comparisons. A guy does 30 reps of 225 to failure with 225 lbs, and then the next week he does a set of 8 with 495 lbs to failure. The set with 495 would be more intense.

 

[heavyhitter]

I dunno man. Depends on the context I guess. Me personally? I’d much rather hit failure or close to it on squats or leg press or another heavy movement in the 8 rep range. 225 for 30 reps to failure with a bar on your back is waaaaay more intense

What he said would only apply if it were the same guy in both comparisons. A guy does 30 reps of 225 to failure with 225 lbs, and then the next week he does a set of 8 with 495 lbs to failure. The set with 495 would be more intense.

 

[FuriousAngus]

That doesn’t make sense. Intense is intense regardless of the weight. If 25s is all you can curl to failure in the 12 rep range and, and you do that in a dc rest pause set as hard as you fucking can, to failure each time, and tou get 12, and then 6, and then you fight and grind your way to 3-4 more, the fact that youre “weak” won’t matter. That set will have been hard as hell, and will be productive towards building muscle. Just like a larger guys 50 pound curls with the same intensity do for him

I disagree. I know for a fact 405 feels WAY different on my back (and even in my legs) than 315, even when 315 was all I could do. The only thing that's different is my ability to push the weight regardless of how heavy it first feels. In my post I clearly was discussing how something looks, mainly. Does anything look intense when you're curling it with 14 inch arms? No matter how hard you scream and cry it just looks underwhelming. Now on the other hand take a look at a guy doing a heavy set of something but not even to failure and the set immediately looks more intense just because the guy has veins poping out everywehere and they let out a single grunt. If you can't move that muscle anymore, regardless of how it looks on the outside, you reached failure. Even if you're not breaking a sweat (and I never do when I hammer curl, yet my arms completely give out).

Again, you go to failure on arms and then go to failure on legs, can you tell me it's the same thing? No matter how intense you do your arms it will never come close to what you feel doing legs if you put in the same effort. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is possible to reach actual failure without looking (or even feeling) like you're about to have a heart attack.

 

[maldorf]

I dunno man. Depends on the context I guess. Me personally? I’d much rather hit failure or close to it on squats or leg press or another heavy movement in the 8 rep range. 225 for 30 reps to failure with a bar on your back is waaaaay more intense

Cardiowise yeah, but not on the muscles. Sure you get the lactic acid burn etc, but the next day who is going to be more sore? The heavier set is going to break down a lot more tissue.

 

[heavyhitter]

Cardiowise yeah, but not on the muscles. Sure you get the lactic acid burn etc, but the next day who is going to be more sore? The heavier set is going to break down a lot more tissue.

I absolutely get more sore from higher rep sets than I do from lower rep sets. Especially on legs. But when I say higher reps....that 15-20 rep set is hard as hell. I’m grinding and fighting for it. I have to fight fir a heavy set of 8 also, but it just never leaves me as sore. That said.....for most things I prefer reps in the 8-12 range

 

[maldorf]

I absolutely get more sore from higher rep sets than I do from lower rep sets. Especially on legs. But when I say higher reps....that 15-20 rep set is hard as hell. I’m grinding and fighting for it. I have to fight fir a heavy set of 8 also, but it just never leaves me as sore. That said.....for most things I prefer reps in the 8-12 range

I am just the opposite. I will be sore for 4 days or more after doing a heavy powerlifting type workout. If I do a high rep workout, 15 to 20 reps, I will be sore for maybe a day and then its gone. Both done to failure or very close. Sometimes going beyond failure with forced reps if someone is around to help.

 

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

I just have to post this funny IG clip here.

Instagram

www.instagram.com

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic lol. Some people are just pussies. You just know what "failure" looks like in his studies.

Then the Mentzer quote. "The average exercise scientist is a lazy dumb bastard". Got that right, Mike.

I can’t count the the times I thought I was close to failure or had hit failure and somehow grinded out 5 more reps. In fact it happens almost everytime I’m in the gym in every exercise.

He had quite a few reps left in him but look at him. He’s probably never done a hard set in his life. How can someone tell anyone about something they’ve never done? He gave up... on a lat pulldown. I couldn’t imagine him doing a bent over row or a hack squat.

On another note, I grew up looking up to Mentzer. I guess that affected my mindset in the gym.

 

[Elvia1023]

While I do agree that some of the videos posted above (Brads, for example) definitely do not exemplify what a good set taken to failure looks like, bare in mind that the weaker you are, the less intense a set is going to look like. Curling 25s to failure when you're a weakling is very different from curling say 50s to failure. Same thing with Squatting 225 to failure vs Squatting (assuming same reps at different stages in training career) 405. 405 taken to failure is a LOT more intense. I actually really like Lyle's way of looking at it; if your reps start to slow down in speed you're approaching failure. If you get stuck half way through that's failure. Now, failing on a set of hammer curls looks VERY different from failing a set of 20 reps on the leg press.

I completely disagree. Failure is failure. Yes a leg press or squat will take it more out of you than a hammer curl but that's besides the point. We can only comment on 1 particular set at a time and comparing weight or different movements between people is irrelevant. If someone fails that easily at lat pulldown what are they going to do with hack squats. Yes failing at 100lbs will most likely take it out of you less than 500lbs but again it's besides the point. Failure on 1 particular set/weight is failure and that's all you can do. It doesn't matter if it's a weak guy using 20's for bi-cep curls or a mutant curling 100lb db's. Yes if you fail on low weight you can recover faster and in 10 secs maybe do more reps and so on but again failure is failure. It doesn't matter how you look at it that set by Brad was pathetic in regards to it being to failure. It was nowhere near failure and he stopped after a little pain so that is very telling. It doesn't matter if he had 50lbs or 200lbs on the stack he gave up very easily and the whole point of failure is not giving up and actually going to muscular failure. He barely even struggled so that is obviously nowhere near true failure.

 

[Elvia1023]

I absolutely get more sore from higher rep sets than I do from lower rep sets. Especially on legs. But when I say higher reps....that 15-20 rep set is hard as hell. I’m grinding and fighting for it. I have to fight fir a heavy set of 8 also, but it just never leaves me as sore. That said.....for most things I prefer reps in the 8-12 range

Generally/scientifically speaking everyone gets more sore with higher reps. You don't really see that many training that way though. Just the effect high rep failure sets have on all muscle fibres and the cns in general are the main reasons why those sets make people more sore. As you know many go to true failure with low reps but I don't think it's the case with higher reps. Obviously I mean heavy and high reps. Most give up well before failure on a crazy high rep leg press set for example. It's rare to see someone just grinding out reps until they are completely gone. Many don't have the cardiovascular endurance to take high rep sets to muscular failure because their breathing gives up first.

 

[Elvia1023]

I disagree. I know for a fact 405 feels WAY different on my back (and even in my legs) than 315, even when 315 was all I could do. The only thing that's different is my ability to push the weight regardless of how heavy it first feels. In my post I clearly was discussing how something looks, mainly. Does anything look intense when you're curling it with 14 inch arms? No matter how hard you scream and cry it just looks underwhelming. Now on the other hand take a look at a guy doing a heavy set of something but not even to failure and the set immediately looks more intense just because the guy has veins poping out everywehere and they let out a single grunt. If you can't move that muscle anymore, regardless of how it looks on the outside, you reached failure. Even if you're not breaking a sweat (and I never do when I hammer curl, yet my arms completely give out).

Again, you go to failure on arms and then go to failure on legs, can you tell me it's the same thing? No matter how intense you do your arms it will never come close to what you feel doing legs if you put in the same effort. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is possible to reach actual failure without looking (or even feeling) like you're about to have a heart attack.

This is a different thing though and irrelevant in many ways. We are commenting on Brad's lat pulldown set. Yes leg and arm sets are different but failure is failure. No matter what exercise or weight you can see if someone has gone to failure or at least close to it. It doesn't matter if someone has 14 or 24 inch arms. It doesn't matter if it looks different because it's light or heavy weight. Of course some heavy weight squats for 15 reps will look more intense than some 20lb curls taken to failure at 32 reps but again it's besides the point. We are merely commenting on Brad's lat pulldown set and you use the argument he may have been close to failure because he is smaller etc and it looks different but it's totally off because he clearly no matter how you look at it just gave up early and if his life depended upon it he could have done many more reps.

 

[kastro]

This is the beauty of Scott's fortitude training.The program covers everything from volume,pump sets,progessive overload and deloads(intensive cruises).

 

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

I disagree. I know for a fact 405 feels WAY different on my back (and even in my legs) than 315, even when 315 was all I could do. The only thing that's different is my ability to push the weight regardless of how heavy it first feels. In my post I clearly was discussing how something looks, mainly. Does anything look intense when you're curling it with 14 inch arms? No matter how hard you scream and cry it just looks underwhelming. Now on the other hand take a look at a guy doing a heavy set of something but not even to failure and the set immediately looks more intense just because the guy has veins poping out everywehere and they let out a single grunt. If you can't move that muscle anymore, regardless of how it looks on the outside, you reached failure. Even if you're not breaking a sweat (and I never do when I hammer curl, yet my arms completely give out).

Again, you go to failure on arms and then go to failure on legs, can you tell me it's the same thing? No matter how intense you do your arms it will never come close to what you feel doing legs if you put in the same effort. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is possible to reach actual failure without looking (or even feeling) like you're about to have a heart attack.

You know what failure looks like? You’ll struggle hard to grind out the last few reps, then try for one more rep that you can barely move and strain with all your might but won’t be able to get a full rep. Then you do partials until you can’t move the weight. I don’t care what exercise it is you’re either pushing or pulling and failure is failure. He’s not even breathing that hard. He didn’t struggle or strain. His form didn’t give. His reps didn’t slow. There was no real had effort. You can see it.

 

[xpoc]

Cardiowise yeah, but not on the muscles. Sure you get the lactic acid burn etc, but the next day who is going to be more sore? The heavier set is going to break down a lot more tissue.

This is my conundrum with getting old. I am north of 50 so it would seem logical to train with a higher rep range, especially with squats and leg presses (save the joints). But, at the same time, I do believe those really intense high rep sets to failure (or close to) put a lot of stress on the heart. Heck, we even label those high rep sets "widow makers." I have lost 2 friends doing HIIT training. But, I still want to train hard and try to build muscle so I know I have to go hard. I believe the heavy 8-10 rep sets are less stressful on the heart...but at the same time harder on the joints. To synopsize: Getting old sucks lol

 

[maldorf]

This is my conundrum with getting old. I am north of 50 so it would seem logical to train with a higher rep range, especially with squats and leg presses (save the joints). But, at the same time, I do believe those really intense high rep sets to failure (or close to) put a lot of stress on the heart. Heck, we even label those high rep sets "widow makers." I have lost 2 friends doing HIIT training. But, I still want to train hard and try to build muscle so I know I have to go hard. I believe the heavy 8-10 rep sets are less stressful on the heart...but at the same time harder on the joints. To synopsize: Getting old sucks lol

Yes! I'm 51 with heart failure, so I had to give up high rep sets. I can't lift really heavy either. I usually stay in the 8 to 15 rep range now. I've also got a bad back and shoulder. I have to stay away from training to failure because of the strain on my heart.

 

[jeroendebleser]

You know what failure looks like? You’ll struggle hard to grind out the last few reps, then try for one more rep that you can barely move and strain with all your might but won’t be able to get a full rep. Then you do partials until you can’t move the weight. I don’t care what exercise it is you’re either pushing or pulling and failure is failure. He’s not even breathing that hard. He didn’t struggle or strain. His form didn’t give. His reps didn’t slow. There was no real had effort. You can see it.

There was no effort from rep 1... I'm surprised someone with a reputation to uphold would even videotape this kind of 'intensity'. Kind of kills all the credibility he had

 

[astrosfan123]

This is the beauty of Scott's fortitude training.The program covers everything from volume,pump sets,progessive overload and deloads(intensive cruises).

actually was watching some Dr Stevenson YouTube’s the other day. I had a stretch a long time ago where I did the training from the book and was considering just doing it again because it is pretty brutal lol.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

If your goal is to be a bodybuilder, accumulating tissue is paramount.

I’ve used my own version of RIR with great success. I’m also one of Dante’s last clients.

This has turned into a virtue signaling garbage thread. Training with max intensity is NOT the end all be all. There is a time and place for both.

I’m actual friends with Mike Israetal, Jared Feather, and Charly Joung. I’ve watched them train dozens and dozens of times over the years. All of these guys are crazy smart, all of them have beyond impressive muscle mass, and NONE of them are using as many drugs as people on this forum.
We’ve had deep discussions on all aspects training, diet, drugs, and life.

Do I agree with everything they say/do? No.

Do I agree with more than less? YES


Intensity and failure are NOT the reasons why people grow.

If you want hypertrophy, adhering to a LOGICAL STRATEGY OVER TIME is the way.

Their approach is undulating periodization with progressive overload and full range of motion. Eat the food, stay on course. Minimal to moderate gear.

Dante’s strategy was “blast and cruise”. Eat the food, stay on course. Minimal to moderate gear.

Commonality? Progressive overload, periodization, and food.

Both roads lead to the same destination.

Stop taking advice from over drugged forum dorks who NEVER post photos of how they look, blast all damn year, hide behind pseudonyms, use logical fallacies in their arguments, and point to people with good genetics as their examples.