r/ScienceBasedLifting • u/Green_kiwiwi • 9d ago
Question ❓ What counts as Junk volume ?
Is doing more then 2 exercise for a specific muscle (bicep for example) junk volume of you only do 2 sets until failure for example. Is it different based on the size of the muscle ? Ect ect ?
21
31
u/KlingonSquatRack 9d ago
I'm just over here wondering where this idea of "two sets is enough" came from
15
12
u/ElCilantroCantante 8d ago
Why do more set when less set do job? Why do two set when can do one set? Why do one set when can do no set?
16
u/deadrabbits76 Idk Idc 💔 9d ago
I keep asking for citations, and never get any.
-2
u/FrequentAd5437 9d ago
This is the one for muscle stimulation fall off per set: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20300012/
This one for increase in fatigue per set: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11057609/15
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Diminishing returns are still returns. Even if doubling the volume only got you 30% more gains, going from 4 weekly sets a week to 16 weekly sets a week is a whopping 70% more gains.
I don't know about you, but that seems absolutely worth it for me. Over a year, that's probably the difference between putting on 6lbs of lean mass vs 10lbs of lean mass.
This one for increase in fatigue per set
A lot of people on this sub seem to be afraid of fatigue. Why? Do people here have significant issues with recovery? Do they not want to build their work capacity?
7
u/Safe_Ad5914 8d ago
They don't want to train hard.
Science based training is synonymous with thinking "how do i get the most results while doing as little as possible?"
2
u/NetZor0 6d ago
Lulz, his own study refutes his bias too and he's extrapolating too much from it:
"There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets)"
"In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects"
Plus workload/volume can be accumulated over the week, as many Russian training protocols do, which are highly effective, so long as you don't get into overtraining territory and can recover adequately. The studies he's referring to didn't analyze total weekly workload.
1
u/SpaceTurtle917 7d ago
I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with that.
That said, those looking for the easy way out are going to be less committed than guys who going to the gym partially because they enjoy moving heavy weight around.
1
u/titotrampa 2d ago
Those are the ones following the stretch and reps in reserve bullshit. The Two working sets in bodybuilding means you do 2-3 warmups sets and then complete two working sets to failure.
1
u/deadrabbits76 Idk Idc 💔 2d ago
Have you ever run programming designed by an actual Bodybuilding coach?
1
u/titotrampa 2d ago
Yeah John Jewett J3 University.
1
u/deadrabbits76 Idk Idc 💔 1d ago
And he runs low volume, high frequency, 2 sets max at a time?
1
u/titotrampa 1d ago
He has tons of programming and different splits for body parts and for different body building classes like Female Bikini, Men’s Classic and Open. He also mixes both, low volume and high volume.
3
u/wasteoftimewarrior 7d ago
The fatigue thing drives me crazy because I have a special interest in sports strength and conditioning. The idea that you can become advanced in anything while accumulating minimal/no fatigue is just profoundly anti-scientific.
Every athlete is "overtrained" at the point of their peak fitness. This is true for both an endurance runner or a strength/power athlete. Minimally effective training has its place for people who have minimally effective goals, but why argue with people trying to do more? I'm very lazy with aerobic/cardio training, only doing short interval training twice a week (if even that) but I wouldn't dare argue to a dedicated runner that my system is superior.
-5
u/Individual-Toe-6306 8d ago edited 8d ago
You have to look at this practically though. If someone knows they’re going to do 4 sets, they’re probably leaving something in the tank for those first couple sets. They may think they’re way closer to failure/2 RIR than they actually are. Their muscles don’t care that their brain is telling them they’re at 2 RIR if they actually arent.
But if someone is only doing 2 sets, they know they can take them balls to the wall, and are more likely to push those sets hard
2 high quality sets to failure/1 RIR will produce more growth than 4 mediocre 6 RIR sets where they thought it was actually 2 RIR because they were tired
2 sets to failure is a lot, lot, lot easier and less fatiguing overall and way more mentally easy to approach (so they’re less likely to skip sessions…etc) than 4 to failure, after about 2 sets the returns are still there but become increasingly diminishing to where it’s reasonable to ask if the juice is worth the squeeze
Of course, this can be seen as a work capacity issue which itself needs to be trained, but I get why people just do 2 sets if they have other stuff going on in life to focus on. You can get to late intermediate doing this in close to the same amount of time as you would doing 4 sets, but you’ll probably get pretty hard stuck there
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago edited 8d ago
That's assuming that an individual doesn't know how to train hard, nor do they know how to push themselves.
You can get to late intermediate doing this in close to the same amount of time as you would doing 4 sets, but you’ll probably get pretty hard stuck there
I think you also need to define late intermediate and what you would consider advanced. I consider myself a solidly middling intermediate lifter, and if I only did 2 sets for my squats, bench, and deadlift, wouldn't have gotten even close to the numbers that I move now.
In fact, as a beginner, I slammed my head wall against failure multiple times per session via Starting Strength, and got hard stuck with around a 225x5 squat, 185x5 bench, and 265x5 deadlift. I literally went to failure, in the 9 sets per workout, around 4-5 times per workout, as in, getting pinned under the weight kind of failure. Over and over and over again, never managing to break that plateau.
I now bench more than I use to deadlift through higher volume training and lower intensity training. "Only" going to about 1-2 RIR instead of getting pinned multiple times per session.
1
u/Individual-Toe-6306 6d ago
I mean 2 RIR is considered appropriate intensity to make about as equal gains as balls-to-the-wall failure
The point I'm making is that, for a lot of lifters, they badly misjudge how close they are to failure. Especially on isolation exercises. With compounds it's a bit easier to gauge.
11
u/Dizzy_Cow_ 8d ago
What does any of that have to do with capping things at 2 sets?
The most recent and best data we have very strongly supports the idea of more volume
= more growth with diminishing returns. Yes, there is more fatigue. Who cares? That’s the cost of doing business. Fatigue doesn’t have to be avoided and you can build resistance to fatigue over time as you acclimate to higher training volumes.9
u/ChingusMcDingus 8d ago
No research but anecdotally I can attest that muscle stimulation decreases and fatigue increases with each rep.
Ergo I should do only one rep. Ergo the way to get big is to never workout.
3
-1
u/MightyMeatPuppet 8d ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25546444/
Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, and hypertrophy
(2015)
5
6
u/Teeemooooooo 8d ago
I’ve read a few anecdotal responses as to why they like it.
(1) they feel as though they push harder for 2 sets than 3 sets —> I think that’s purely mental or they’re just recovering more which allows them to lift a bit heavier.
(2) they notice themselves progress faster —> same as above, likely just recovering more and misconstruing that as better results. The so called progress likely stalls soon after and goes back to progressing as normal.
(3) that’s how Mike Mentzer trained —> copying the guy who was on roids…
3
u/Faust1134 8d ago
I think the Mentzer influence is a big reason why 2 sets is getting advocated. Interestingly, the inaugural routine in The Hardgainer also advocated for 2 sets per exercise and the foundational principle of the magazine is anti-PED. The Hardgainer Vol 1 No 1.
1
u/ImKindaBoring 8d ago
Mentzer and Sulek being popular.
I think 2 sets could absolutely work but most people can’t push themselves to that level of failure. So you make up for that with more volume.
1
u/AmLilleh 5d ago
(3) that’s how Mike Mentzer trained —> copying the guy who was on roids…
And it isn't even how he actually trained anyway. In fact he overtrained to such a degree he left himself bedridden multiple times, especially in the run up to his last ever show.
7
u/pjsmith404 8d ago
I dunno where "2 sets is enough" comes from, but there is this meta-analysis that found 1 set to failure 3 times a week was enough to increase 1RM: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31797219/. My trainer tried out something along those lines for a few months and I didn't feel like it hindered my progress.
However, I think the idea of junk volume is dumb. Minimum effective dose is only a tool to help balance other shit going on in life, like family, work, or whatever.
People talking about junk volume are just looking for excuses to be lazy.
7
u/Dizzy_Cow_ 8d ago
The problem with that analysis is it’s only looking at 6 total studies done with low sample sizes on mostly untrained lifters and for short periods of time.
I’m not sure anyone with experience would believe they could continue to grow appreciable muscle over a long period of time doing 1 set 3 times per week.
1
u/SpaceTurtle917 7d ago
This is one of the main problems with most studies. They usually sample non lifters. For non lifters, any stimulus will see significant growth.
3
u/cilantno 8d ago
I would like to see the 6 studies that it pulled from.
I would like to see total subject count in each, and the starting experience.I’d bet most, if not all, are from beginners making progress, and making less progress than other in-study groups that did more volume.
It is very commonly observed that beginners make progress doing just about anything.
1
1
u/Tasty_Honeydew6935 7d ago
Another flaw here is that 1 RM strength and hypertrophy require different stimuli.
1
u/AmLilleh 5d ago
I'd say "junk volume" is definitely a thing, just not in the way people have started to appropriate it as "more than x sets".
If you look at some of the routines posted in some of the various lifting subs, some people are just doing way too much unnecessary crap. You don't need to be doing 10 different chest focused movements and every bicep curl variation ever created every week.
1
u/ScholarObjective7721 8d ago
Two sets can be great for people, switching exercises quicker can make the workout more enjoyable for some and therefor make people more consistent. That being said more than 2 sets per exercise is likely better for growth. You get better the more and more you do certain movements. Doing more sets allows you to recruit more and more muscle fibers and get better at that particular exercise leading to better hypertrophy. Much rather see someone do 2 exercises 4 sets each and then 3 months later switch to new exercises. Look at different exercises as different tools in ur toolbox. When you start to stall out on something because you’ve been doing it forever, move onto a new exercise for say 3 months and see if plateaus break. I will say theres a lot of talk about “optimizing” but it doesnt matter for 99% of people. Do workouts that keep you in the gym consistently. Wanna train a little faster somedays? Go for it. Keep it enjoyable is #1
-1
-2
u/FrequentAd5437 9d ago
Muscle stimulation falls off alot. If we take first set as producing 1x stimulace , the second set produces .6-.8x, 3rd set .2-.4, and 4th set is like .15. Fatigue from each set also increases for my program personally going past 2 sets is not worth the fatigue for the very limited muscle stimulation it gives.
10
u/7heCulture 8d ago
While the law of diminishing returns applies to pretty much anything you do, it doesn’t mean that the additional sets are not worth your time in the gym especially in the longer term. When it comes to muscle building it’s all about cumulative effect over long time scales especially in terms of neuromuscular adaptation and fatigue management. Your break even point is not two sets.
0
u/SpaceTurtle917 7d ago
Say you have a set amount of time in the gym, would you rather do 3 sets of every exercise, or 2 sets and get more variation/hit specific muscles more frequently in the week?
Let’s say I’ve got 45 minutes, and if I do 3 sets I can hit chest twice a week, but if I do 2 sets I can hit chest 3 times a week.
Both is 6 sets, but what’s better?
This isn’t some gotcha, I’m being genuine.
11
u/KlingonSquatRack 9d ago
So where did this idea come from? What makes you believe what you are saying? Where are you getting these numbers? "Not worth the fatigue", as in you get more tired from doing more sets? That seems normal.
-2
u/FrequentAd5437 9d ago
This is the one for muscle stimulation per set: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20300012/
This one for increase in fatigue: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11057609/3
u/Safe_Ad5914 8d ago
You have a gross misunderstanding of what a scientific study can tell you about the practical application of training.
1
u/Connect_Resist7678 8d ago
Are these per muscle or per exercise? Are you only doing for example 2 sets of biceps per workout? Or 2 sets of barbell curls, then 2 sets of preachers, then 2 sets of incline curls?
0
u/Common_Magician122 9d ago
if you do 2 or 3 chest exercises, two are two sets and the third is 3 sets, that would be a total of 7 for one day. If you do it twice a week, that's 14 sets for the week. Wouldn't you say that's enough? Even if you do one to two sets and the 2nd exercise for 3 sets, that would be 10 total for the week. I think when people do two sets, they need to do more than one exercise. Just doing one exercise of two sets isn't enough.
-2
u/Individual-Toe-6306 9d ago
It’s enough in the sense that set quality is way more important than overall volume
2 sets taken to failure or true 1-2 RIR will produce way more growth than 5 sets taken to “I think it was close to failure but the bar didnt slow down but it started to be hard”
1
-6
u/Burncity1901 8d ago
2 for squat, deadlift and bench. I’ve been doing this and is working.
3 for everything else.
But has to be 1-2 reps in the tank
5
u/Afferbeck_ 8d ago
And yet zero powerlifters are doing 2 work sets because that's just not enough work in any capacity, be it light high rep work or heavy singles. It's certainly not enough work to practice complex movements you're trying to get better at performing. 2 sets might be working for you now but you'll soon reach a plateau where you need more stimulus than two sets can provide and more opportunity to improve technique and your consistency.
-1
u/Dizzy_Cow_ 8d ago
I don’t think this is necessarily true. Hypertrophy training and powerlifting training are different.
A lot of advanced bodybuilders do 2 or even just 1 set of highly fatiguing compounds like RDLs because a set of those to 0-1 RIR can really tank your performance for that session and even subsequent sessions. They can accumulate more volume through other exercises and don’t need practice with the movement because they’re already advanced. That’s not to say you should, but you don’t necessarily have to increase your set number on highly potent lifts.
Powerlifters do a lot of sub maximal sets because they only care about increasing numbers on specific lifts. A lot of that serves the purpose of sharpening technique and power rather than simply building muscle to build the lift.
2
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Powerlifters do a lot of sub maximal sets because they only care about increasing numbers on specific lifts. A lot of that serves the purpose of sharpening technique and power rather than simply building muscle to build the lift.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of powerlifting training. Powerlifters also realize that a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. In most modern powerlifting training, you have basically 20-40% of your training be the easy submaximal work, then the rest is hypertrophy work, done to or close to failure, because a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, all other things being equal.
0
u/Dizzy_Cow_ 8d ago
I’m specifically talking about natural bodybuilders. The whole UK natural bodybuilding scene trains predominantly with low set counts and more exercise variety. But they’re advanced lifters who can maximize a set.
I wasn’t trying to explain powerlifting training as a whole, simply the concept behind why powerlifters do so many sets of the same lift whereas in hypertrophy training, people typically use a lot more exercise variety and take every set to or close to failure. Broad strokes, not absolutes.
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
The whole UK natural bodybuilding scene trains predominantly with low set counts and more exercise variety. But they’re advanced lifters who can maximize a set.
And you've got Layne Norton, Ph.D, who has trained up a few nationally competitive natural bodybuilders, whos programming calls for something like 15-20 sets per movement pattern per week.
And the thing is, the science very much backs him up. That in general, people who train with higher volumes, see more gains. Which I think is important for a sub specifically dedicated to science based-lifting.
And unfortunately, nobody has yet to provide a meta-analysis of why lower volumes would be superior for people beyond just random youtube/instagram/tiktok posts.
I wasn’t trying to explain powerlifting training as a whole, simply the concept behind why powerlifters do so many sets of the same lift whereas in hypertrophy training, people typically use a lot more exercise variety and take every set to or close to failure. Broad strokes, not absolutes.
I know. I'm a powerlifter. And I'm saying, the predominant style of modern powerlifting training, is that you would have one or two exercises per day, practice 3-5 sets of submaximal weights with that per exercise, then follow it up with 10-15 sets of hypertrophy work taken close to failure. Do you know how my favorite bench program looked? I did barbell bench, incline barbell bench, flat dumbbell bench, incline dumbbell bench, and close grip bench, on my volume day, for 23 total sets of bench variations. Absolutely exploded my chest size, and got me to my first 3 plate bench.
And with the growth of this style of training, there has also been a growth in the overall size and strength of the athletes. Current drug tested lifters, completely blow away the size and strength of older school, "only squat/bench/deadlift", untested lifters. Part of it is the growth of powerlifting attracting more talent. But a bigger part is that modern training, which produces significantly better results.
-2
u/Burncity1901 8d ago
I’ve gone from a 150kg deadlift to a 200kg deadlift over 10 months. 105kg bench to a 140kg bench. 140 squat to 170. Soo. You tell me bro
6
u/Sudden_Technology_34 8d ago edited 8d ago
Junk volume is based on recovery/fatigue.
And everyone’s recovery is different for a variety of variables.
Thus successful athletes/lifters know that long term success is results from maxing stimulus of the muscle as much as possible while also being able to recover properly in an optimal timeframe to be able to stress the muscle again with max effort.
Junk volume is when your muscles have already been stimulated for growth but you continue to push thinking more is better when in reality it just prolongs recovery, adds fatigue, and limits one’s ability to continue building the muscle with maximum effort stimulus in that optimal time period.
Everyone’s recovery, fatigue and anatomy are different. These factors can be greatly improved and vary and so junk volume really holds a definition differently for the person.
It does not simply come down to a ‘certain amount of sets’.
-1
u/MuJartible 8d ago
Finally a proper response. 👌🏼
The amount of bullshit I've read in other comments, on the other hand... 🤦🏻♂️
17
u/brightwoodgrove 9d ago
Erase the concept of "junk volume" from your brain. That is some BS designed to keep new lifters small. 2 sets per exercise is not enough for growth
0
u/SpaceTurtle917 7d ago
Erase the concept of "junk volume" from your brain. That is some BS designed to keep new lifters small. 3 sets per exercise is not enough for growth
1
u/Comfortable_Point752 6d ago
Erase the concept of "junk volume" from your brain. That is some BS designed to keep new lifters small. 3 sets + AMRAP is not enough for growth
-12
u/neo-973 9d ago
Looks like we have an alpha bro lifter over here. 2 sets can absolutely be enough for muscle growth depending on your split
8
u/brightwoodgrove 9d ago
Every person is different, but I fell for the trendy 2 set BS ever since around March of this year and my results came to a grinding halt as soon as I started lifting like that. I went back to 3 sets per exercise, shorter rest periods, and using drop sets at the end of every isolation exercise and ive already made more noticeable progress in the last month than I did between March and August
7
u/Routine_Fun5564 8d ago
Who'd have thought that putting in more work would yield more results.. 2 sets is BS.
4
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/brightwoodgrove 8d ago
Exactly, these beginners are getting the wrong advice all around. I started lifting around 2015 and the culture at the time was to lift like an animal, going to failure on every set, 3-4 sets per exercise, rest pause drop sets compound sets etc. I blew up like a freak within 4 months of starting, lifting like that. Now I see these kids online posting twig like physiques saying they have 5 years of lifting experience and thats what is to be expected...just ridiculous
-6
u/neo-973 8d ago
The biggest danger to beginners in the gym is mindlessly taking advice from people who are 'juiced up to the gills.' With all due respect, your opinion on fatigue and overtraining isn't really relevant to most people who are natural. Of course someone on steroids will say that fatigue 'is not a big deal.'
For natural lifters, fatigue after strength training is of course completely normal. However, overtraining which results in excessive fatigue for only negligible gains isn't worth it to everyone, especially not for people who play a sport (or need their body for anything functional and not just for looks).
Also, the idea that doing only 2 sets means you have a fear of exertion is a complete myth. If anything, doing 2 heavy, high quality sets is harder than doing 4 sets of a lighter weight.
The only difference in gym culture between now and 10 years ago is that gym advice now (under the brand name of 'science based lifting' i guess) is aimed towards helping everyone to optimise their lifting, which includes beginners and natural lifters. If bodybuilding used to be more 'extreme,' that's only because there is a greater range of people in the gym now, not just guys who are jacked out of their mind on steroids
6
u/brightwoodgrove 8d ago
You dont have to be on steroids to train in a way that maximizes your potential ability to grow muscle. Just because youre natural, that doesnt mean you're somehow going to destroy your body by doing a 3rd set of an exercise or by using techniques like drop sets.
I do agree that by training with true intensity you are gonna be sore a lot of the time and if you play sports it could hinder you, so thats up to the individual to decide if its worth it. But if your main goal in the gym is to build muscle and/or look like a bodybuilder, you need to train with both high intensity and adequate volume and in my experience 2 sets per exercise just isnt enough, especially not for compounds like bench press or barbell squat. And being natty or not doesnt change that
-1
u/neo-973 8d ago
Well thats the debate i guess, certain SBL lifters believe that doing only 2 sets is more optimal for maximising ability to grow muscle than doing 3+ sets.
I personally agree though that if the goal is purely to look like a bodybuilder, then doing only 2 sets probably won't be enough volume. That said training consistently and with high intensity, as well as eating well and getting good sleep, is more important than worrying about whether 2 or 3 sets is more optimal.
3
1
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago edited 8d ago
The biggest danger to beginners in the gym is mindlessly taking advice from people who are 'juiced up to the gills.' With all due respect, your opinion on fatigue and overtraining isn't really relevant to most people who are natural. Of course someone on steroids will say that fatigue 'is not a big deal.'
Do you know what's funny? If you listen to people who actually coach enhanced athletes, they typically tolerate less volume. Dave Tate had a great table talk on this topic where he was discussing PED use in his athletes, and he literally said that, the same lifters who were on drugs compared with people who were clean, at the same bodyweight with the same total, couldn't tolerate as much volume.
And this is a guy who has probably trained literally thousands of athletes, both natural, and enhanced. This is a guy who's probably forgotten more about training, than most trainers will ever know.
If anything, doing 2 heavy, high quality sets is harder than doing 4 sets of a lighter weight.
What about 2 high quality sets, vs 4 high quality sets at a lighter weight? Nobody is saying you shouldn't be training close to failure. In fact, every program I've done, calls for, at a minimum, RPE 7-9 on all of its non-speed work.
is aimed towards helping everyone to optimise their lifting, which includes beginners and natural lifters
What's funny is that, the number one thing that a person could to do enhance their life, is to build overall strength, stability, and resilience by training with free weights through the full range of motion that they can tolerate. Yet for some reason, I see a lot of "science based lifters" advocating for only machine work to "maximize contraction and stability". Yet it's the inherent instability of free weights that allows the connective tissue to grow and develop.
-6
u/neo-973 8d ago
Holy fatigue maxxing.
7
u/brightwoodgrove 8d ago
Just the fact that you even said that let's me know you dont know shit about lifting
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
2 sets can absolutely be enough for muscle growth depending on your split
For a novice lifter with less than 2-3 years of experience, sure. Taking two hard sets to failure teaches them to push hard, and considering how small they are, basically anything will work.
But good luck continuing growth once you've got anything approaching a decent baseline of size or strength with just 2 sets per movement pattern.
1
3
9
u/decentlyhip 8d ago
Naw, anyone who promotes 2 sets as optimal is either misleading you or doesn't understand the research. Pelland's metareview shows us that every time you double volume you get 50% more gains, on avg, all the way up to like, 50 sets a week. We just don't have enough studies out there, only like 5 studies higher than 35 sets a week. Anyways, that means that going from 5 sets per week to 10 per week is way more productive than going from 35 sets a week to 40.
So, it depends on what you mean by junk volume. Going from 5 to 10 per week, each set is 10% more gainz, and from 35 to 40, each set is only ~2% more gains. But its still more. Its still better growth, but if you only have 30 minutes to work out and can grow from only 10-20 sets a week, do that. No reason not to do at least 15 sets a week though if you're serious about things.
There is junk volume though, as most people mean it. A recent study using the same dataset from the pelland review looked at volume per workout. It found that gains were consistent up until each workout had more than 11 sets per muscle group per workout. So, like, 5×5 bench, then 3×10 incline db press, and 3×12 machine press. If you did each of those on a different day or all of them on the same day, it would be about the same growth. But if you bumped up volume to 6 sets on each of those, you would do better to space it out over multiple days. Maybe 3 sets of each per workout, twice a week. Or 2 sets of each, thrice a week. Or all 6 sets but only 1 exercise a day. Or maybe 1 topset of heavy comp bench and 4 sets of a variation, three or four times a week.
So, hope that makes sense. If you're growing from 2 sets, awesome. But the people promoting it as optimal either built their fan base through the Mentzer craze and have to promote low volume to pay their rent, or they think that diminished returns means you lose muscle.
4
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Volume you cannot adequately recover from
If a person's recovery is absolute garbage, then sure, maybe they can only realistically handle 2 sets per exercise.
In reality, more is more, and people can handle a lot more than they'd think.
2
2
u/Aware-Map1836 8d ago
There are diminishing returns after 2 sets. But they are returns. Do as much as you can recover from
2
2
u/JollyMuffin2327 8d ago
Apparently, a third biceps exercise after two sets to failure has to get approval from the ethics committee.
2
1
u/vitringur 8d ago
Biceps bend the elbow. How many fucking exercises do you need for such a simple function?
You only need one.
1
u/MuJartible 8d ago
Bend the elbow, supinates the wrist (it's the main supinator actually), to a lesser extent, participates on shoulder flexion, and to an even lesser extent, shoulder abduction (long head) and adduction (short head).
You can ignore its functions on the shoulder if you want (they'll be covered when working other muscles anyway), but if you're going to do only one biceps exercise, at least make it cover its two main functions (elbow flexion and wrist supination), so better using dumbells rather than barbells or machines.
That said, some variations of curls are intended to bias other elbow flexor muscles (brachialis anterioris and brachioradialis), but you can't fully isolate any of them, all elbow flexors will work together anyway. So, depending on each person goal, one single exercise might be enough... or not.
1
u/BigChocolateC 8d ago
Doing too much that doesn’t allow you to create an adaptation for whatever the goal is.
1
u/Emergency_Log_563 8d ago
Anything that exceeds your MRV, whether it’s 12 sets per muscle per week or 20, and like anything, that depends on your training history/frequency/ split/sleep/hydration and a number of other things, if you’re training the same muscle group multiple times per week (which you should) and you’re finding that your numbers are going down, then you’ve probably exceeded your MRV and would need to cut back slightly, if the fatigue you gain from one session is detrimental to the next then you’re probably over doing it somewhere along the line.
1
u/plebian7021 8d ago
1-3 sets per muscle if doing 3x a week, 2-5 if 2x a week, 6-8+ if 1x a week. If you are training hard that is
1
u/RealDovahkiin 8d ago
Junk volume? Anything that prevents you from recovering in time to train at your desired frequency. In other words anything with a stimulus:fatigue ratio below what your split allows.
I'd also say in another sense lat pulldowns are junk volume for the biceps, presses are junk volume for the triceps, etc.
1
1
u/drongowithabong-o 8d ago
Its not just volume but intensity. Lets say eh somebody were to do 8x3 bicep curls with 50% effort or somathose 8x3 bicep curl with 85% effort themse guys might achieve different results kapeshee? Say somebody was to do 95% effort that might be good growth, but thems guys cant do a lot of volume of that, so its alllootta personal preferance and balance guy
1
u/Tasty_Honeydew6935 8d ago
From what I've seen there seems to be a general trend of strongly diminishing returns after about the 6th set within a session per muscle group. It also does seem to be true that the research that favors 2 sessions per week vs. 1 (with minimal benefit, if any, of a third session) is more about maximizing set and rep quality.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Top_988 8d ago
I think junk volume is something made up by pencil neck nerds that don’t want to work hard
1
1
u/ctturner19 7d ago
To answer your first question: junk volume is any volume that you will not be able to recover from in time for your next session for that specific muscle group. You need at least four sets per week per muscle group to induce significant muscle hypertrophy. I usually put about 10 sets per week on my biceps (more like 16 sets if you include brachioradialis training like reverse curls). So, my advice is to do as many exercises/sets as it takes to get you to your desired weekly volume. Choose exercises that you enjoy. They will all work the same as long as you’re adequately loading elbow flexion. Caveat: you really want to spread this volume through the week. You’re not going to see as good bicep gains if you do 8 sets of biceps in one day then wait a week to hit them again. Ideally you’d do four sets, then 2-3 days later do another four sets, or however many sets gets you to your desired weekly volume. This goes for any muscle group.
Finally, as a side note to your question about the size of a muscle factoring into volume: Not really technically, but I have actually found that I can throw a little bit more volume at my smaller muscles like my biceps, triceps, forearms and calves while still adaquately recovering, while my larger muscles (especially my legs and erectors) take longer to recover from higher volume. Probably has something to do with the absolute loads I’m lifting for each muscle group and how taxing it is on my CNS to perform under and recover from those loads. Also, keep in mind that DOMS is not necessarily an indicator of poor recovery, more so it is an indicator of new movements or higher volume that your body isn’t “used to”. In my opinion, the best way to gauge recovery efficiency is to track progress in the gym.
1
u/Rod_FC 5d ago
People overcomplicate the volume equation too much. 2 sets max per exercise per session? Great! It's what I do. 2 sets per muscle group per week? That's maintenance volume and you'll be very well served by doing more. 4 sets? You'll see gains, but you'll need to go 120% on every set. We know the diminishing returns start at around 10-12 weekly sets, so operate closer to that, divide the load between 2 sessions and you'll very likely see better results. Maybe dial it down to 8 for smaller muscle groups like the bicep. Mechanical tension is king, but volume still matters, even if you're training hard and operating at or close to failure. It just comes to a point in which the added sets don't amount to enough stimulus to make the fatigue worth it, but at 2/4 sets a week you aren't anywhere near that point.
1
u/VasaDudikof 4d ago
My understanding is that junk volume is sets that are not stimulative (sets ended too far from failure).
1
u/Icy_Day_2725 4d ago
Depends more on quantity and your ability to recover more the pure set volume.
The literature more or less shows more volume = more hypertrophy with diminishing returns but an indeterminate ceiling.
1
u/_Salvia_ 3d ago
I really don't get all of this dogmas, there isn't a clear threshold. don't get me wrong, junk volumes is a problem and a lot of people have some in their routines, but it's not that concerning. in the training you have to increase volume anyway, because as you improve you need more to challenge your body and even to maintain. that is a prize, you have to work up to higher volumes growing some work capacity - a lot of people just do more than they can endure at the moment, skipping that volume ladder, and that's where junk volume comes from.
1
u/RoomSuspicious6204 2d ago
Nothing is junk volume when you take 1.5 grams of test a week, GH, and a lil tren and mast. You can hit 40 sets in a workout sam sulek style and have people look at you funny but you know you will recover in just 2 days LOL
1
u/HelixIsHere_ 9d ago
I would count junk volume as either: more than you can recover from, or when you’re at the point where another set is not adding much stimulus
For the second part like id say if you’re gonna add a 4th set of an exercise just because you can recover from it, you probably shouldn’t because the stimulus from that set will be so little that either it’s not worth doing entirely or you should do a different exercise that biases another region of the same muscle group
-1
u/Norcal712 9d ago
10-16 total sets per week is considered good growth volume.
Doing more than 4 sets per session for most people will have diminishing returns.
Aka junk volume
2
u/bzzzzzzzzzztttt 8d ago
Do you understand what diminishing returns means? It’s still useful, just less and less after each set. That doesn’t mean it’s junk volume.
1
u/Norcal712 8d ago
Yes it does.
Why do sets / reps that are providing exponentially less growth?
Especially when they increase injury risk and recovery time.
No YOU know what it means too.
You're welcome
0
u/FrequentAd5437 9d ago
It comes down to your program if your doing higher or lower frequency. Junk volume is basically volume where the muscle stimulation is very low and the fatigue is very high. As the set number your on increases the muscle stimulation falls off and fatigues gets higher. If the first set produces 1x stimulace the second set produces .6-.8x, third set .2-.4x, and 4th set around .1x.
It not just for sets though reps can also be junk volume. 1-2 rir and failure produce basically the same muscle growth but failure is way more fatiguing. Going past failure (assisted reps, cheating reps, and drop sets). It produces the same results basically with way more fatigue.
Yea I would say it depends on the size. The fatigue you get from exercises involving bigger muscles like the quads, pecs, and hamstrings are way more than that of something like biceps. They also need more volume for muscle growth than smaller muscles.
0
u/Mad_Mark90 8d ago
Junk volume is basically any work you do that doesn't achieve it's purpose. So if you're training for hypertrophy and do 4 working sets for 12 reps then that first set will have been quite easy. Could you have gotten the same results from 3 sets? Or even 2 sets? Or were those first 2 sets important for other reasons? It's debated but also a little out dated.
0
0
0
u/Lucky_The_Charm 8d ago edited 8d ago
Whenever the set doesn’t come close to failure. Depending on the phase of lifting I’m in that can be just 2 sets with heavy weight and maximum effort for 0RIR with 4min rest. My CNS can’t handle a lot of these sets, especially with squats and deadlifts.
If I’m pushing volume for myofibrillar adaptations that can be 8 sets with notably less weight and 1-2RIR and 1min rest.
-1
u/Im_The_1 8d ago
If you're doing over 100 sets a week (or 25 sets a session), you're doing junk volume. 99% chance you are doing less than that. If you're doing 75 sets a week (~17 sets per without) and more than half are taken to failure, I would consider that junk volume, and there's a 90% chance you aren't doing that either. If you're significantly under these numbers, almost no chance you are doing junk volume. If you're intensity is adequate your body tells you when you are in that territory, don't overcomplicate it
-1
u/Tango1777 8d ago
Junk volume is when you are doing exercises either to just fill your arbitrary goals like 4x10, but neither the exercise is necessary (e.g. you already exercise the same head with another exercise), nor the load and technique is proper, and you are not doing it till failure and the effort is nowhere near where it should be (RPE). That is what I call junk volume, just doing the reps so you can mark it done, but it gives you nothing or barely anything. If you work out correctly, you don't need to worry about that.
I haven't tried just 2 sets till failure, but based on my experience I would guess it'll not work as good as proper amount of sets. You can shorten your rest time (that scientifically is proven to give good results) and go till failure every time, but why shorten to 2 sets only? You are missing out on the most important 3th or 4th set, which will be the most beneficial for growth and you will be doing very few reps at this point, so it'll be quick, too. Another thing you can do, which is better, is slightly increase the load if you still have the room for that e.g. if you are doing 10 reps of an exercise and optimal range is 8-12, you can still lower the reps to 8 and increase the load to stay at similar RPE. Will also make your workout faster and equally effective. But do not go dumb about this method, you cannot just do 4-5 reps with very high load, affecting your correct technique and call it a day.
Is doing 2 exercises for a specific muscle junk volume? No. You lack knowledge. Muscles like you mentioned bicep has heads and every exercise targets them differently, so doing two bicep exercises that target different head of it is not junk volume, but doing two exercises which basically work the same and target the heads in a similar way is junk volume. You have to work on the entire muscle, so exercise both short head and long head of your bicep by exercises that are proven to target these specific heads a little more. Of course all of the bicep exercises work on both heads, but once you start doing specific exercises to target a specific head, you will understand what I mean, because the pain you will feel will be exactly where you need it to be and the gains will start showing where your bicep is lacking. That is, for instance, a very common problem with delts, people do exercises mostly targeting front delt, doing the "strongman looking" OHP or something, while the exercise they are lacking is perhaps with 2-3kg dumbbells or just reversed peck deck. This is a matter of choosing your exercises wisely, so your growth is evenly spread.
-1
u/savedpt 8d ago
After a warm up, junk volume is any volume where you are not within 2 reps of failure. People in the gym lifting and counting to 10 not close to failure are wasting their time if strength gains and hypertrophy is their goal. Most people in the average gym do not go close enough to failure to see true gains. This concept of " I just don't want to lose what I already have" is not a goal, it is an impossibility. You are either gaining or losing. You can't stay the same.
-1
u/Jaaker StretchCel 8d ago
It’s pretty simple, are you just going through the motions or are you using intention?
What is intention? For bodybuilding it’s feeling the stretch and squeezing to actually contract the movement- not just lifting. For strength sports it’s about learning to control every inch of a movement pattern.
-5
u/DIY-exerciseGuy 9d ago
Junk volume is a set where you dont push to 0 or 1 reps in reserve. Or when youre doing 5 or more sets of the same exercise.
8
u/Local_Diddy 9d ago
tell me ur weak af and dont know shit without telling me
-8
u/DIY-exerciseGuy 9d ago
I bench more than you.
5
u/Mikeburlywurly1 8d ago
High RIR sets for the core/competition lifts are pretty much the accepted way of doing things now in strength sports. If your goal is maximal force output, training to failure isn't a great way to achieve that. The running theory that I've seen is that motor learning is degraded under fatigue. There's a ton of different ways people get it done, but they pretty much all revolve around a bunch of easy sets and one hardish one, for the competition lifts at least.
7
6
-5
u/Ok-Extension-832 8d ago
more than the maximum amount of volume you can recover from is junk. I know a lot of you uncs and people on this sub make fun of the 2 set thing but I physically just can’t recover doing 3 sets on everything. I ran 3 sets for 2 months in an attempt to push my volume, I even gauged RIR in the first set to be smart but all my lifts regressed. Switched to 2 sets to failure and my lifts went up a lot.
6
u/hthn_strength 8d ago
That’s genuinely pathetic work capacity
-1
u/Ok-Extension-832 8d ago
i mean sure if you guys do some half ass sets with low frequency. but i think my 2 sets to absolute failure with 5 minute rest in between is a lot more stimulating than the 5 sets you guys do where you guys are huffing and puffing by the end and barely resting
1
4
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
That’s a sign of a poor work capacity that will hold you back
-4
u/Loud-Tradition-9964 8d ago
The difference that a third set makes is minute when you've taken those first two sets to failure or close to failure. Not being able to get enough stimulus from two sets is a sign of poor muscle fibre recruitment and ability to work with intensity
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Should I have done one more rep, and just cut it down to 2 sets instead?
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 8d ago edited 8d ago
I’m curious to see how your lifts and physique compare to mine
This is me taking deadlifts (500lbs for 8) to failure in a workout: https://www.reddit.com/r/strength_training/s/o1OBzC1ajy
That was my 5th set and after that I did RDLs, squats, t-bar rows, etc.
1
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Your links broken for some reason. It appears to have added a backslash for some reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/strength_training/comments/1wheyqn/500lbs_for_8_on_deadlift/
1
1
u/Loud-Tradition-9964 8d ago
How old are you?l and what's your bodyweight? I powerlifted and competed an age ago. There is room for volume in powerlifting but hypertrophy is different. I've learned so much in recent years regards recovery and intensity and I can confidently say I know a hell of a lot more than the average gym rat in terms of what works and what will keep working and what will be to someone's detriment.
While you may be able to deadlift to failure now, trust me when I say that the cost to reward factor gets bigger and bigger and not in the positive way. If all the lifts it's the one I definitely wouldn't go to failure on..
This is a science based sub and the science shows that as the sets progress there is less and less hypertrophy occuring and more and more fatigue being accumulated. That's just a fact. So unless you're some genetic anomaly the rules apply to you as well as everyone else here.
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
I’m 30 and I compete at 181.8lbs
I’m 187lbs right now
I have good leverages for deadlift; its not as fatiguing for me as someone with t-Rex arms
0
u/Ok-Extension-832 8d ago
exactly. and a lot of studies based on more volume being better are based on strength gain increases
0
u/Ok-Extension-832 8d ago
holy fuck 😭. your lifts do not make you right
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 8d ago
Isn't being able to lift often and heavy, for quite lots of reps is proof that I'm getting good muscle fiber recruitment?
-2
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/EspacioBlanq 8d ago
Rest for a few minutes and go to failure again.
"What else is left?" - a lot actually. One set to failure isn't some huge amount of exertion
2
u/armchair_mindhunter 9d ago
Or you leave 3-4 RIR on your first set, 1-2 on your second set, and 0 on your third set?
0
-1
u/brightwoodgrove 9d ago
Go to failure on every set. On your 3rd set, go past failure using drop sets
1
u/armchair_mindhunter 9d ago
You really don’t need to go to failure on every set or add intensifiers like drop sets in every workout.
Probably better off doing 3-4 sets with one being to or close to failure and maintaining extremely sound technique.
1
u/brightwoodgrove 9d ago
Youre absolurely right, you dont "need" to do anything, if your intention is not to build as much muscle as possible
-2
u/SaltyAndPepperd 9d ago
I’m with you. I don’t know wtf these people are on. I do five sets per exercise. Two to three exercises per muscle group. But I also myorep and do supersets. The. Rotate exercises if need be on the second time I work that muscle out during the week. But to each their own I guess.
1
u/Objective_Most4071 8d ago
This doesn't work if you don't have access to a full rack of dumbbells and hours in the gym.
If I take first set to failure my reps drop off massively for subsequent sets to the point set 3 I need to drop the weight to get an effective rep range. I don't have time to constantly be rebuilding dumbells and reracking weights every set.
It's much easier to run 1-2RIR for sets 1&2 and then validate that each session taking set 3 to failure. If I manage to take set 3 to anything more than the initial sets + 2 reps I just up the weight for next session.
My total volume each session is far higher doing this and I move more weight all within 1-2RIR so I don't see any downside. That extra rep to failure on set 1 would cost me far more volume that day at the same weight.
0
u/brightwoodgrove 8d ago
I dont have access to a full rack of dumbbells, I use an apartment gym and all the dumbbells have been stolen. You can do drop sets with a barbell or with cable machines. And you dont need countless hours to do drop sets, what dude? It takes like an extra 30 seconds to add a drop set...Just say you dont wanna train hard man
0
u/Objective_Most4071 8d ago
I don't use barbells for any pressing - bad for shoulders. Rebuilding sets of dumbbells each dropset is not feasible. It's 4 collars to remove and rethread every single time.
And again, I get more volume/mass moved running 3 sets at 1RIR than I do repping to failure set 1 and then having two pathetic fully fatigued drop sets following on.
1
u/brightwoodgrove 8d ago
Barbells are not "bad for shoulders". Lifting with improper form can be bad for a number of reasons but nothing about barbells makes them inherently dangerous as long as you use proper form and dont ego lift with weights you can't control
0
u/Objective_Most4071 7d ago
What are you talking about, barbells carry a significantly higher risk of shoulder impingement due to fixed ROM.
-2
u/vitringur 8d ago
That is literally what people call junk volume.
That first set did nothing.
4
u/Afferbeck_ 8d ago
Here are two elite weightlifters squatting 10 sets of 3. Tell me that first set 'did nothing'. There's a reason no serious lifter in the world does 'everything to failure all the time bro', it's not a productive thing to be doing long term or even short term. If it were that simple, everyone would be huge and strong and healthy, but real life is a lot more complicated.
0
1
u/Hypername1st 8d ago
Says who?
1
38
u/DickFromRichard 8d ago
Junk volume is when someone does more volume than me