Quads 3x/week?

[Baphomet36]

Progressive overload is more important than volume

 

[Baphomet36]

Literally all of these studies are talking about each set being either to failure or up to 4 reps in reserve (0-4 RIR). How much harder do you go than that? I need to know how you are training.

Done with you...

Do you understand the issues and the limitations with those studies? If you’re done with me then stfu.

 

[1234trew]

There’s many ways to chase the log book. More reps, sets, tut, decrease rest periods.
It also doesn’t have to be low reps.
Could be 20-30 reps.
Do you think these types of progression will definitely lead to injury?

Yes I do, if you keep increasing the intensity at some point it will lead to injury - just no way around it. It will catch up at some point. This is a young mans game. Just have to take your foot off the gas at some point and find a happy medium. Are you really going to keep increasing muscle size after a certain age or are you using your body up for the sake of chasing a log book and feeding an ego?

 

[alfresco]

When you ask your body to do something that it is incapable of doing, that is the signal for adaption. And your body adapts by getting stronger / bigger.

It’s like crying for help. Once you have the rescuers attention, more cries for help are meaningless.

 

[Flex500]

Effort is literally how close you are to failure which is those hard sets which are needed for growth.
Effort has nothing to do with volume
Do you understand the limitations with those studies?
I agree I won’t spend another second arguing with someone who doesn’t know how to read a study

Respectfully, most of those studies show folks lifting with quite a bit of effort and many experts in the field (including ones who practice what they preach) discuss the important of effort and balancing it with volume.

It seems the low vs high volume debate goes sideways at this juncture. I’m not sure why but can only figure it’s dogma attached to one or the other.

Isn’t the correct answer that for each person it’s a dance between the two? I’m doing about as close to old school HIT as you can get right now and really if I wanted to grow I’d pull the volume lever…not a lot because of the effort put in I simply could not add much (ie high degree of mechanical tension) but a little so volume would drive my progress. But it wouldn’t without a high degree of mechanical tension.

I lean towards more of a HIT mindset so tend to probably think like yourself.

I mean heck some of my best strength and size gains we’re doing 10x3 programs and adding in a small amount of accessories in the 12-20 rep range.

It’s an interesting discussion but I think most experts and folks in practice would tell you effort/tension and volume are the two factors that you contort to drive growth.

 

[Flex500]

Progressive overload is more important than volume

Could one argue that volume could be the tool/variable used to progressively overload?

Some of my favorite results were doing 7x3 sets and then each week pushing it to get to 10x3. Once I could to 10x3 I upped the weight and went back to 7x3. I was going nowhere near failure but adding weekly volume for a few weeks, then decreasing volume but adding weight and then back to adding volume and doing that over and over and over. It was hard, but nothing like the HIT type workouts I do now. Sets of three with 80% of your 1RM are hard and heavy but not in the ballpark of failure training. Heck I’d say RPE 6/7 compared to my current 9/10.

But I grew…and got stronger due to progressively overloading but not at all in the manner, or with the lever, I pull now using HIT.

 

[Joltan]

The definition of progressive overload literally is adding more volume...

Total volume = Weight x Reps x Sets

So you are progressively increasing volume. Please explain to me 'progressive overload is more important to volume' when they are both the same thing?

 

[Joltan]

If you still think that high volume (i.e., 2-3x+ per week) is not superior to low volume (i.e., 1x per week)... here is a good compilation of data/studies.

If you really want to understand the most optimal way to train - it's worth the time to read through all of this, and even all of the studies as well.

It is not even a debate any more... these are facts that have been proven many-many times over.

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based Bible

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based BibleThe Volume Bible was originally published in my Research Review where I keep you up to date every month with the latest research on muscle gain and fat loss. Click here to learn more. For some more free sample content

weightology.net

 

[Wonton]

If you still think that high volume (i.e., 2-3x+ per week) is not superior to low volume (i.e., 1x per week)... here is a good compilation of data/studies.

If you really want to understand the most optimal way to train - it's worth the time to read through all of this, and even all of the studies as well.

It is not even a debate any more... these are facts that have been proven many-many times over.

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based Bible

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based BibleThe Volume Bible was originally published in my Research Review where I keep you up to date every month with the latest research on muscle gain and fat loss. Click here to learn more. For some more free sample content

weightology.net

well written article thanks -

 

[Baphomet36]

The definition of progressive overload literally is adding more volume...

Total volume = Weight x Reps x Sets

So you are progressively increasing volume. Please explain to me 'progressive overload is more important to volume' when they are both the same thing?

Progressive overload is this increasing weight or reps over time. It’s literally getting stronger.
Not fuck all to do with adding sets

Adding sets is called progressive volume load.
But I’m the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about right?

 

[Baphomet36]

Why does a muscle grow?
An adaptation to mechanical tension.
What is mechanical tension?
The muscle fibers experience a pulling force when they are trying to shorten but are resisted in doing so. The force increases as the shortening velocity decreases.
This is when the muscles experience high degrees of MT.
This happens only as you approach failure.

Over time in order to keep mechanical tension constant you must add weight or reps.

Adding sets doesn’t do this.

You should let your effort dictate your volume. Not let your volume dictate your effort.

Nothing wrong with high volume, it’s worked for tons of people.
Low volume has too.

But let’s not put volume (working sets) on a pedestal

 

[Capin]

If your busting your balls there's no way you can train legs 2 or 3 times per week! When I was at my strongest I trained legs every 10 days it's all about recovery not frequency.

 

[Baphomet36]

Let’s look at it logically in the real world outside of a vacuum with biases and uncontrolled variables.
We’ve got monsters who did high volume and monsters who did low volume.
But we don’t have any monsters who didn’t get strong as fuck over time.
You’re not as big as the amount or sets you do.
You’re as big as the amount of weight you can move and the amount of food and drugs you can utilize.

None of those studies are done on people who are actually well trained and who are trying to get as big and lean as possible.
They’re done on gen pop and maybe college athletes.
Most if not all of the participants don’t even have the skill developed to properly hit failure or to properly train hard. Let alone know how many rir they have.
There’s way too many limitations.
Of course the more sets they do the more they’ll grow.
They need more to get effective reps.

 

[Sixfoottwo]

If you still think that high volume (i.e., 2-3x+ per week) is not superior to low volume (i.e., 1x per week)... here is a good compilation of data/studies.

If you really want to understand the most optimal way to train - it's worth the time to read through all of this, and even all of the studies as well.

It is not even a debate any more... these are facts that have been proven many-many times over.

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based Bible

Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based BibleThe Volume Bible was originally published in my Research Review where I keep you up to date every month with the latest research on muscle gain and fat loss. Click here to learn more. For some more free sample content

weightology.net

You say volume but don't you mean frequency? One can train a muscle 3 times a week but use low volume. Just as one can do it once a week but with high volume.

 

[plane]

I personally don't believe you are training with very high intensity if you can train your legs 3x a week, I just don't see it. Even on a good amount of AAS (gram or under for alot of the low dosers here) and some GH everyday - I don't see it happening lol. If you have the train legs like a girl approach - sure, which will ultimately still develop your legs. It is entirely up to you how you want to split up your work over the week.

 

[Sixfoottwo]

Everyone that says you can't train with intensity and hit legs 3 times a week should understand that if you hit legs 3 times a week most people would use a whole lot less volume per session. So where you normally would do 1 session of I don't know, 12 sets, you now do 3 sessions of 4 sets or whatever number you like.

 

[Flex500]

I personally don't believe you are training with very high intensity if you can train your legs 3x a week, I just don't see it. Even on a good amount of AAS (gram or under for alot of the low dosers here) and some GH everyday - I don't see it happening lol. If you have the train legs like a girl approach - sure, which will ultimately still develop your legs. It is entirely up to you how you want to split up your work over the week.

Frame “train legs” differently though. What if it was 3-4 total hard sets for legs. You still have to balance volume so you’d radically reduce the daily volume.

 

[Joltan]

You say volume but don't you mean frequency? One can train a muscle 3 times a week but use low volume. Just as one can do it once a week but with high volume.

No, I mean volume. See the link I posted if interested in learning more.

Frequency has been shown NOT to matter when volume is equated. HOWEVER, research has shown diminishing returns after 6-8 sets in one session. So, if you are doing more than 8 total sets per body part in a week, then it is beneficial to increase the frequency because it becomes much more effective split out throughout the week. For example, if you do 24 sets per week - it is MUCH more effective to split this over 3x per week.

 

[Joltan]

If your busting your balls there's no way you can train legs 2 or 3 times per week! When I was at my strongest I trained legs every 10 days it's all about recovery not frequency.

That may be true for some people... But if you 'bust' your balls, you are likely doing a lot of junk sets. What research shows it that it is much more effective to spread the volume out throughout the week if you are doing over 8 sets/body part in weekly volume. See chart in the post directly above.

And I agree recovery is very important - however, full muscle protein synthesis peaks and starts declining after 5 hours - and then is nearly gone at 29 hours. For highly trained individuals, it is much faster.

 

[luki7788]

That may be true for some people... But if you 'bust' your balls, you are likely doing a lot of junk sets. What research shows it that it is much more effective to spread the volume out throughout the week if you are doing over 8 sets/body part in weekly volume. See chart in the post directly above.

And I agree recovery is very important - however, full muscle protein synthesis peaks and starts declining after 5 hours - and then is nearly gone at 29 hours. For highly trained individuals, it is much faster.

View attachment 164153

this chart is for natural people, so we take steroids to have increased protein synthesis 24/7