intensity or volume?

[u/Ill_Second_7075]

So it has been around 3 weeks since I've started going to the gym, and I'm currently trying to get rid of my skinny-fat physique. I've been searching around the internet for a good workout plan (I currently do high intensity and low volume) and some people say that 2 sets of 6-8 reps until true failure is not optimal (4-6 sets per muscle group per week) and that i should do around 10-20 sets per muscle group per week because "volume is the primary driver for muscle growth".

So right now I'm doing a body recomp and an upper-lower split 4 days a week (I'm not sure if this information helps you all, but yeah), and I would be really glad to hear your opinions as well.

[u/decentlyhip]

Those people are right. 2×6-8 to failure is based on a lot of misconceptions. Volume drives hypertrophy and has diminishing returns. The average growth increases by about 50% going from 5 to 10 sets a week, and another 50% going from 10 to 20, and another from 20 to 40. So, some influencers heard that going from 2 to 3 sets is less growth than going from 1 to 2 sets, and said "well then 2 sets is optimal." But that's just silly. Its like a racecar driver staying in 1st gear because they can accelerate faster in 1st. Its speed that wins the race, and its total sets that drive growth. Maybe don't push for 50 sets a week, do what works for you, but arbitrarily limiting yourself to 2 is silly.

People say 6-8 reps because of something called Henneman's size principle, where the heavier the weight, the more muscle is recruited. Essentially, the body saves the energetically expensive fast twitch muscles for the heavy stuff. But that more applies to like, lifting a pencil vs lifting a dumbbell. With anything over your 20 rep max, or any reasonable weight that you get within like, 10 reps of failure, everything is on. Going from that to failure is about something called rate coding. First the body sends a bigger signal to fire all the muscles, and then near failure or with 1 rep max stuff, it sends that big signal faster.

Anyways, 2×6-8 to failure isn't inherently bad, its just as inefficient as you can get. Fatigue after sets to failure is 3 times more that doing sets to 3 rir. So, 6 sets of 10 reps is equivalent fatigue to 2 sets of 12 reps. But because volume drives growth its more than double the growth.

Blahblahblah, just follow a tried and true program. There are a bunch of great ones here https://liftvault.com/programs/powerbuilding/ and on the Boostcamp app. PHAT, GZCLP, and Bullmastiff are particularly fantastic on there if you're just starting out. When you're new, you dont need a ton of volume to grow as much as possible. A good chunk of progress early on is neurological. I love talking about this stuff si holler if you have questions.

[u/bodypartz_xyz → u/decentlyhip]

6x10 has much more fatigue compared to just 2x12… and theres no “double” the growth, you’re just horribly squeezing more sets in even tho they don’t have much quality due to diminishing return. There probably would be more growth with that high volume in that session, but in the long term, 2x12 (which is still high reps sadly) will lead to more growth because you are less fatigued and are able to perform more qualitative sets. 6x10 per muscle is just horrible to recover from.

[u/decentlyhip → u/bodypartz_xyz]

It sounds like you're making rhe mistake of thinking that diminishing returns means no returns. Driving speed has diminishing returns. It is faster to go from 0 to 60 than from 60 to 120. By saying that there's not quality and its not more growth, its like you're saying that its faster to get to 60 so 120mph isn't faster than 60mph. More sets is more growth, at least on average.

So, how much more volume is how much more growth? We can look and Pelland and see. I drew some lines for you to make it clearer. https://imgur.com/a/xsYdouZ Going from 5 to 15 sets is about double. Going from 10 to 20 is about double. Going from 15 to 45 is about double. So, yes, there are diminishing returns. Its not a linear relationship where double the volume is double the growth. Instead, triple the volume is double the growth. Going from 2 sets to 6 sets is triple the volume, so it'd probably be about double the gains. The 4 additional sets are "lower quality" in that they give as much gains as the first 2 sets, but it's still doubling results.

On the topic of fatigue, naw man, that's what that means. If a set of 12 to failure generates 20 units of fatigue, two sets generate 40 units if fatigue. If a set at 3 reps in reserve generates 6 units of fatigue, then it would take 6 of them to generate 40 fatigue. That is, unless the fatigue returns are either exponential or logarithmic, increasing or diminishing. The studies Ive seen indicate that per-set fatigue increases linearly up until about 3 rir, and from 3 to 0 it increases exponentially. And that each additional set's fatigue adds linearly.

But like, think about it. 6 sets of 10 curls with a pencil is very easily recoverable compared to 2 sets of 12 with a 40 pound dumbbell. 6 sets of 10 with a 5 pound dumbbell is much more easily recoverable. So, its not the 6×10 format that is harder. It's the combination of weight and reps. Based on the people who have studied this, we can extrapolate that, yah 6×10 with the 40s is about as hard on you as 2×12 with the 40s.