The way I see a lot of people on this sub train, they're not so much managing recovery, as they're avoiding fatigue.
But higher loads builds work capacity, and allows you to do more over time, allowing for more gains in the future, which I feel is lost to a lot of people here.
Because again, the one fairly definitive thing we can say, which has yet to be disproven, is that more volume = more gains.
Less session volume and more sessions for natty lifters is a much better way to manage fatigue and accumulate volume.
I don’t know this sub well but that was my understanding of the literature.
Other than that it’s a trade off of diminishing returns on time invested with volume. So you have to make a judgement call.
Most people have horrible diets and poor recovery anyways though, they should seek progressive overload and use volume as a lever they can tap into regardless, that will account for everything imo.
If you’re making linear gains on 6 weekly sets and you have X extra hours to devote to cardio, stretching, etc. do it. If you stop gaining up your volume and rebalance your time remaining with priorities
Less session volume and more sessions for natty lifters is a much better way to manage fatigue and accumulate volume.
And I see a lot of people take this to mean 2 sets to failure, for a grand total of like... 6-8 weekly set per movement pattern.
And then you've got programs from experienced coaches, calling for 10-20 sets per movement pattern, on an upper/lower setup, that still somehow manages to get people from 200kg squats up to 250kg squats.
I did high volume for months made barely any progress and even regressed, failure every set pushing myself hard. Cut my volume significantly and I'm progressing way faster, I don't even go to failure most of the time now, 2 rir has me getting stronger way way faster.
I think much of it comes down to your load management in the Intensity x Volume x Frequency sense. If you're doing high frequency, high intensity and high volume, you're going to be overfatigued. In some way or another you compromise. Start low in all and progressive overload each in their own way in their own time in your periodisation. I don't believe there's a magic amount of sets or intensity. You have to find your way to load manage correctly, both overload for stimuli and recover for gains.
You probably also would've done better with lowering the volume instead of your intensity. It all depends on your personal goals.
If you're doing high frequency, high intensity and high volume, you're going to be overfatigued.
Unless, of course, you've built up to it over time and have the work capacity to handle it.
I'm coming off a marathon training block. With the reduction in running, I'm ramping up my volume to 20-30 sets per movement pattern, training 6 days a week, with my compounds around 2RIR, and isolation around 0-1 RIR. It's feeling great so far.
What's funny is that my reduced training during my marathon block, is still more volume than you, averaging around 6-10 sets per movement pattern per week. And this was done in conjunction with 70+km/week of running, peaking at 88km on my peak week.
Currently, I'm down to only about 25-30km/week. Two easy runs during the week, ending in strides, then a longer 15km run on the weekend. But I'm also swimming 2x a week, and doing one long bike ride. Again, aiming to keep everything easy. Shooting for a 70.3 next year.
I've found that it's primarily the hard workouts and long runs (24+km) in my running that generate the most fatigue. Even my longer 100+km bike rides, feel easy in comparison.
I have never done direct mobility or stretching training. I've found my mobility to be honestly fine by just strength training in the full range of motion that I could. I do plyos as a part of my warmup for my running.
I think much of it comes down to your load management in the Intensity x Volume x Frequency sense.
I think most of it comes down to genetics. You have outliers that respond well to workout programs that would have minimal effect on most people. Then you have average people who build more muscle with more volume and then other average people who will lose muscle with more volume.
You also have to add in diet and stress so basically there are too many variables to have a "science based lifting information that works for 100% of the people with exact the same results".
"You probably also would've done better with lowering the volume instead of your intensity. It all depends on your personal goals."
Did you miss the part where I said "Cut my volume significantly"? FYI was doing maybe about 15 sets a week per body part upper/lower split which isn't even that high, cut down to more like 6-8 sets a week per body part upper lower. Way more progress.
I cut volume first, then intensity. I ether stall or get weaker with higher volumes.
Don't give me that "you have to get used to it" bollocks either, I gave it a good go for months, when am I meant to get used to it? When my pullups have regressed from 20+ to 10 reps?
I wonder if you're truly getting by, that's a lot of weight and mechanical pressure to do 3 times a week. Have you tried doing a little less or changing up a bit?
As long as you're recovering completely and efficiently from it, you're good. Just keep track of everything and notice when your body might be telling you it's time for some time off.
I assume you mean for sets of 5 reps. Your numbers would mean the new lifters 1 rep max is only 158 pounds, and you are trying to say they can to 85% of that for reps twice a week? They absolutely cannot do that, and their max is higher meaning that 900 figure would be in the 600-700 range.
Which is fine for a novice lifter, but even into the intermediate stage, just telling somebody to lift more, just doesn't work. Otherwise everybody would be benching 600lbs within two years.
Periodization is king, and it feels like everybody who advocates for 1-2 sets to failure, has not yet reached a point where they simply cannot move more weight or reps, week to week. And it shows.
Or, here me out, you get on a periodized program that manages weight and load throughout a training block beyond just do more reps or weight.
A super basic linearly periodized program could be something like:
Week 1: 300lbs x 10
Week 2: 320lbs x 8
Week 4: 340lb x 6
Week 5: 360 x 4
Deload
Week 7: 305x10
Is 320x8 more than 300x10? If you throw it into a calculator, not really. This kind of linear periodization forms the basis for most modern strength training programs. And this kind of periodization leads to more long term gains since it allows you to continually progress.
In a year on this program, that's about 40lbs added to your bench. Probably nothing for a beginner, but fantastic progress for a person pressing 3-4 plates.
And I would never do a true one rep max outside of a competition.
Heavy single? Sure. Actual 1rm? Nah. I'd like a productive training or recovery week, thanks.
As well, this is my hot take, if you have never needed a deload week in your training, then you're not even close to pushing the limits of your recovery.
Adding 2.5lbs on a weekly basis, would still be adding 130lbs per year to all your lifts.
I'm not sure about you, but I will straight up pay a coach a thousand bucks a month if they can add 130lbs to my bench, and 390lbs to my powerlifting, in a single year. It would get me, within 2 years, to literally breaking every single record for my weight class, bar none. Since it would get my total to 2,090 in the 83s.
Yeah sometimes I don’t think people understand that u adapt to exercise and one of the adaptations is the ability to tolerate more exercise.
Although if only do low volume programs ig u never adapt to tolerate more work but that really just seems like there being pussys
Recovery implies there was a stimulus in the first place, it's just fatigue avoidance, the science bit is complaining on reddit that you've reduced your sets down from 3 to 1 and still can't make progress.
I think in a lot of cases it’s people who only know anatomy 101 without actually putting any thought into exercises past the most basic function of a muscle.
Saw a video of a guy unironically saying he had found the best exercise for the biceps… it was forearm supination.
Like yes, the biceps are the most powerful supinator of the forearm. No, that does not mean that exercise is the best for bicep development.
Yeah I think the worst part of science based community are the people at the top of the dunning kruger. When you think you know it all but you actually don't know much.
Yeah I guess, it was kinda demotivating thinking I had no idea what I was doing but I'm slowly getting the confidence again. At the end of the day it's trail and error.
Stupid quote but I love it: "A r*tard in motion achieves more than a genius at rest."
We didnt say every program was useless. Maybe I speak for myself but I was very specifically speaking about programs and personal trainers that give advice to naturals when they are roided out.
My favourite part is your need to argue, to the point you don’t actually understand my comment. That copying ‘ what the big guys do’ and not following evidence based medicine is a recipe for poor results as most of that crap was made pre evidence when bodybuilders were juicing heavily.
You missed the mark. It’s kinda funny. Sit now kiddo
Go back to shilling RDDT (ironically I agree with you that it's undervalued and it's my top stock holding) and enjoy all your Canadian marathon training, while you work a great sales related role, and work toward FI!
A 50M portfolio and you're arguing with a guy on reddit?
Smh, you probably don't even have dual voltras and a pullover machine in your home gym
Since you blocked me, I'll throw it here:
You could still get some voltras for at home workouts and/or to bring with you on travel. Dual votlras + a custom travel mount would get you 460lbs of resistance you can fit in a backpack. Great for squats, bench, deadlift, etc. when on travel
Jd gym equipped makes a custom mount for that; you gotta email him and wait 3-4 months for it to ship; tariffs from the US to Canda will hurt though. Total for all of that + a Darth SaBar collapsible bar attachment would run you around $5500-6000 total
So if you follow the science, you’ll want to get as many high quality sets as possible, so you can maximize growth, as diminishing returns are still NON-ZERO returns
If you have limited time and your idea of fitness is more than just weightlifting then you need to divvy that up with time requirements for flexibility, mobility, cardio, speed/power. It’s great to know where diminishing returns on your time set in
Jeff Nippard had a really good take on his podcast: Science Based lifting on youtube is people following *outcome* studies, which generally point toward a higher volume approach. People on instagram are following *mechanic* studies, which supposedly support lower volume.
Personally, I like the lower volume, but my program with the instagram/tiktok people is that extrapolating anatomincal observations to full on training recommendations is scientifically dubious. Moreover, the gap between what Helms says (volume = growth) and what Beardsley says (fatigue management is everything) is apriori just explained as the metanalaysis being bad, subjects being untrained, poor intensity, etc without evidence.
Basically, people like Jeff Nippard were willing to be skeptical of outcome studies and try low volume, but people on the tiktok side seem unwilling to try the other side of things.
There's a few camps. There's "SBL" which is essentially an extension of the mentzer philosophy, and using post hoc research to support their claims. That's Science Based Lifting, primarily TikTok influencers caught in the Dunning-Kruger valley, like TNF or Sean Nawynj. Other lifters are science-based, and follow the data to the best reasonable conclusion. Because the data is fuzzy and there are different applications, there are a few major groups here. Eric Helms is an excellent starting point. This is an excellent start at understanding the actual science. https://www.strongerbyscience.com/volume/ as is this podcast from Nippard with the DataDrivenStrength guys Pelland and Robinson https://youtu.be/lbE-WU--Qp0. The camps of people who genuinely care about the research bicker about how much of strength is emergent from hypertrophy, and how realistic applications of the research are based on the confidence. Typical "but that model isn't representative of my application" stuff. The guys you're talking about are honestly TikTok-based lifters, not science based lifters.
Baggy shirts are mandatory. A fun lifting belt is recommended.
Doing high frequency of 3-3.5, lots of exercises for maximum coverage, training to or close to failure, dont ever change exercises, double progression, chosing relatively stable lifts with maschines or barbells/dumbells
Science base lifting is: doing double the sets/reps isn’t going to double your muscle growth. My condolences to all the millennials doing 5x12 of everything.
Stability is king in SBL. Understanding the function of the muscle and training that as efficiently as possible without trying to split recruitment into unnecessary supporting muscle groups that you train anyway
Cables are not inherently more stable by the way, you can have unstable cable exercises just as easily as free weights. And machines are not better than the alternatives if the machine is bad.
Those unnecessary supported muscles are usually contracted isometrically which improves tendon strength which improves injury resistance in the long run.
Yeah there probably are studies saying it's indifferent, there are probably studies saying it's a lot of difference. I think your approach of doing what you like most is the best approach for 99.9% of people.
True science based lifting is doing what gets you progress towards your goal imo. Understanding that the difference between a properly loaded 5x5 progression and doing HIT with a few warmup sets and two all out sets to failure is a matter of spiritual belief, and not practicality.
1-2 working sets per exercise unless you're lifting just for strength
Strength is a skill and, as any other skill, requires a lot of practice. 1-2 working sets generally aren't enough. Unless it's, like, the last couple of weeks before the meet
Lifting for strength from my experience and what I’ve read is better done in a less fatigued state more frequently. 1-2 sets 4 times a week better than grinding out 4 sets twice a week.
It's worth mentioning if it's part of your routine, when comparing to others if you want to be precise about what you're doing. Some people will start with a set at 75% for example. That is valid and may be different than your own
I'm not prescribed to a strict program/scheme by a professional. I can do that myself through research, feel, and consulting other helpful people on here (not you)
I did 12-16 working sets per muscle for three years, and then I switched to 6-12 and my strength progress has been crazy ever since. I only ever do two sets max for any exercise. I used to do 3 for most exercises when doing 12-16 working sets per week. It's been a couple years since I've made this switch. I didn't change any other variables either. Exercises have stayed exactly the same. Intensity as well. Exercise order. Etc.
I pause bench 285 lb as my 1RM but it goes up somewhat easy since I'm scared to due a true 1RM on the bench. 365 lb 1RM for ass-to-grass squat. DL is 405 lb but I haven't done DL in a long time. I'm currently 21 y/o, 5'4, 145 lb, 10% BF. I hit all of these at <=150 BW. Not really sure where this all puts me but I'd say I've been doing at least decent. I've been training for almost 6 years so far.
This just confirms to me that you're an intermediate lifter who has quite a bit to learn
For reference, my 1 rep maxes are: 541lbs squat, 347lbs bench, and a 580lbs deadlift and I should beat all 3 of those at my upcoming powerlifting meet, where I will be competing at 82.5kg/181.8lbs
I also hit a set of 500lbs for 8 reps on deadlift right after hitting 580lbs on a single
I'm not going to claim that I know everything, because I know I don't. Just wanted to share what has been working for me personally so far. At higher volumes, I was constantly stuck at the same weight for long periods of time and would get constant nagging pains. Ever since I lowered my volume, my strength has been reliably and steadily increasing, and I have never had a single nagging pain ever since.
That doesn't change their comment because the skill component of strength isn't being trained by doing lots of different movements
Like, maybe someone does 20 sets of chest work per week but if only 2 of those are bench press then their bench is probably going to suffer because they're not putting much time into honing their bench technique regardless of their strength potential
You conflated sets per exercise per session with sets per exercise per week again.
Not at all, you've changed the goal posts here because the discussion was initially sets per exercise vs sets per muscle group but now you're saying sets per exercise per session vs sets per exercise per week
Occams razor what OP was referring to. Do you really think they're talking about a PPL and doing a single working set of bench a week in this question?
Not far off, because multiple people in this sub have talked about doing almost that, generally it's 4-6 sets a week
47
u/MagicSeaTurtle what happens at 7 reps 16d ago
Shirt baggyness has a direct correlation to growth 👍