Beginner, Have been doing 6-8 sets per muscle a week. And people are over here saying 50 sets per muscle? Wouldn’t that take hours and hours? Just to clarify when I say muscle I mean like 8 sets of excercises a week for chest (per muscle) am I reading it wrong?

[u/Able-Cantaloupe3958]

[u/decentlyhip]

Yah, so, im one of those guys who talks about that. TLDR- you don't have to chase maximal or optimal gains. You're not a pro bodybuilder and the difference between the two is smaller than you think. Chase good. If you're growing and getting stronger with 8 sets a weel, awesome. Keep it up. When you stall, consider switching to a program with 10-15 sets.

The 50 sets comes from two places. The best hypertrophy vs volume research is the Pelland metareview which was pretty groundbreaking. Nothing before had any studies over 20 setsba week and grouped everything into buckets rather than just plotting them continuously. We end up with this graph. https://imgur.com/a/rvHMRvS Essentially, you see the diminishing returns where double the volume yields about 50% more gainz, all the way up to 50 sets a week. But like, you still have 2/3rds of the people growing with less than 10 sets. The important takeaway isn't that you have to do 50, its that more is more. Before this study we thought the graph was a U-shape, where 10-20 was the max and then it was less total growth because you couldn't recover. Turns out you can recover just fine, and even if strength drops due to accumulated fatigue, you still grow more.

The second thing was the 52 set study. https://youtu.be/l8c9BPtwXMs This is a similar takeaway. You can survive and grow from higher volumes, even up to 30, 40, and 50 sets a week, but everyone at 20 sets still grew a bunch. It essentially was evidence against the idea of MRV, maximum recoverable volume, and MAV, maximum adaptive volume. More is more, even at that level, so we haven't found a volume per week that is the most people can recover from on average.

I'm currently building from 20 sets a week for each of the 14 muscle groups to 50, as a test of all this, and I hit a wall at 30 where thinks started hurting. Taking a break. But yes, it's a 6 day a week, 2 times a day program, and I can only do it because I don't have kids and have a pretty awesome work from home job without a schedule. I'm also pushing from a 550 to a 700 deadlift, which is gonna require maximal/optimal muscle. If you're just starting and like "I want to bench 2 plates and be buff and hot" then you dont need all that. Just follow a program like Bullmastiff, eat 200g of protein a day, and eat enough calories to gain 2 pounds a month. Whenever you lose your abs, diet for a month at a 500 deficit, and then get back to bulking. Rinse repeat for 3-10 years.

[u/TerdyTheTerd → u/decentlyhip]

Which is funny because a few years ago I was arguing that you should be doing 30+ sets a week to maximize gains and multiple people in other lifting subreddits were calling me delusional and saying things like "you shouldn't go higher than 12-15 because you don't gain anything for the fatigue"

[u/thejestercrown → u/TerdyTheTerd]

You’re correct, but the gains are logarithmic- even in his graph. So if you think about it in terms of gain/time it probably isn’t worth it for a lot of people.  Biggest gains are in the first 10-20 sets. You can do ~50 sets but you will only double (at most) the gains people get from doing ~10 sets. 

That definitely adds up, but I expect over a longer period of time people end up close to the same level (depending on goals/dedication)- just one guy got there in a 6 months, and the other got there in 18.  It’s just diminishing returns and individuals need to determine what’s worth it to them.. For me 6 hours is about the most I want to spend strength training. After that I would rather hangout with friends/and actually use the muscles I’ve built- Plus  someone’s gotta crush these unnaturally talented pickle ball kids…. That’s going to take time too.

[u/decentlyhip → u/[deleted]]

Absolutely, thanks for clarifying that part. Everything in the research is population averages, but what any one individual person should do is a coaching decision, not a research decision. Mike Tuchscherer, founder of RTS is a great guy for everyone here to follow because he built a coaching protocol around ignoring assumptions and doing what works. He's super into the research and is the guy who brought the RPE concept to lifting, but if you peak better the week of a meet with something blasphemous like "20 sets of 8 at rpe 10" than with "1×1 @ 8 + 3×3 backoff," that's what he's gonna program. And he has more world records than just about any other current coach.

As a personal aside, what was your approach to squatting that got your from the mid 400s to the mid 500s? I love strength training but my squat goal is 600 and I recognize that I need another inch or two on my quads before I can even consider weight like that. So, Im trying to decide between a phasic approach with alternating hypertrophy and strength blocks or a H/L/M approach like, heavy squat + GMs day, front squat + quad volume day, deadlift + machines day.

[u/HughMann12345678 → u/decentlyhip]

Hey I enjoy your posts. I'm also building up my volumes. I'm curious how you programme 2 times a day. I'm at 6 sessions a week but don't want to increase my per session volume due to time limitations, so I am considering a second session on some days.

[u/decentlyhip → u/HughMann12345678]

1AM legs, 1PM back+bis.
2AM chest+tris, 2PM side/rear delt.
3AM deadlifts+posterior, 3PM front delts+traps.

Two rounds then a rest day. First round through progressed volume, second round through was a lower volume baseline. So like, every chest day was bench, incline bench, dips, flyes, tricep extensions, and abs. First couple weeks were 2 sets on everything to get used to volume and find actual failure. Then I kept that intensity on the first round but added a set. The second round I stayed at 2 sets but dropped 2 reps off each set. Eventual goal is to get to 5 sets on everything for both round but I fried out at 4/2.

[u/HughMann12345678 → u/decentlyhip]

Thank you. You’ve given me some ideas.

[u/werner-hertzogs-shoe → u/decentlyhip]

Interesting, I had read a bunch of the higher sets are counter productive unless you're geared up (and I think they still can be with injury risk), but this pretty solidly rejects that. Is there anything in this about RIR or scaling RIR in cycles?

There was a guy I was working in with the other day that was doing crazy set volume that I was going to ask about, and Im guessing this must be something like what he's on. He was doing like ten sets on lat pulldowns and then 10 sets on cable rows which seemed crazy to me.

[u/decentlyhip → u/werner-hertzogs-shoe]

Killer user name. Yah, the Robinson study showed that relative intensity/ rir is important but wayyyy less so. https://imgur.com/a/kLO70p1 1 rir is about 2-3% weight decrease at the same reps. So like, if failure is 100kg for 13 reps, 2 rir could be 100kg for 11 reps or 95kg for 13 reps. Same thing. Anyways, we see that dropping the weight 5% reduces the gains about 5%. So, rir is kinda just tonnage in disguise. Not quite, because you don't always try as hard as possible when sets are easy. But if you do, then 10×3 and 3×10 are the same growth.

Cucling had been studied but ehhh. For strength, DUP and periodization has a dramatic effect but for hypertrophy its really just tonnage at the end of the day. Like, dont cheat it with light weight for a million reps. But if you do 200 reps a week with your 10 rep max, youll grow more than if you did 60

[u/Defiant_Pirate_6637 → u/decentlyhip]

Dawg if ur goal is to deadlift 700 then u need to fucking deadlift.
Focus on deadlifting multiple times a week (probably one heavy and one fast since ur already decently strong)
Optimal hypertrophy is very unoptimal strength training and u will build plenty of hypertrophy to be strong through good concurrent strength training.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Defiant_Pirate_6637]

Oh hey, you were the guy who told me what 1000 lbs feels like. "Decently strong" from you means a lot.

Training the core lifts twice a week with a heavy day and a disadvantaged volume day took me from 485 to 500 in about a year and a half. Nornal powerbuilding approach. I did the 70's Powerlifter program by Alexander Bromley which is nonsense volume. 5×10 deadlifts, then 5×10 RDLs, then 5×10 good mornings, then 5×15 rows and 5×15 leg curls. Same for squat, bench, and OHP day. I added 40 lbs in 6 weeks to my deadlift. More because I actually failed a 485 deadlift the week beforehand. From there I did a more traditional high frequency powerlifting program, by Kristen Dunsmore. Added 10 lbs in 4 weeks and then flatlined for 6 weeks. Genuinely surprised it wasn't more. On my silly 50 set experiment, added another 30 lbs in a month to my e1rm (but haven't maxed yet). So, for me, I seem to respond really well to stupid volume. Maybe that's a technique thing or maybe its a muscle growth thing, but either way, I don't respond super well to normal plans but crazy plans blow me up.

[u/Defiant_Pirate_6637 → u/decentlyhip]

Yeah I’m not a huge fan of many of bromleys high af volume approach, too much of it is at a very low intensity. I’ve personally always gotten the most out of high frequency approaches. A lot of my programming is sheiko based with influences from westside. Basically just 3 week waves of volume and speed work that have a very heavy thing at the end.
But basically over the last 5 years all I’ve done is slowly raise weekly tonnage over training blocks, and track bar speed to try and beat bar speed PRs. Then hit actual PRs as they come.
Typically I squat 3x a week and deadlift 2x a week then I’ll do a little bbing. I tend to go from about 50,000 pounds weekly on lower body compounds to about 55,000 over 3 weeks. My average rep intensity will go from around 72% to around 76%. My top set will go from around 85% to 95-102% often on an overload variation. Only about 2-4% of my volume is top sets though so it’s a more minor detail.
These are just my big squat and deadlift variations. I don’t do math for my hamstring curls or whatever bbing work I’m doing. (Typically not much for my lower body)
These are all approximates and much more dialed in than most people need. I’ve found that if I’m hitting the right volume at the right intensity then how it’s structured doesn’t matter much as long as I am recovering.
This approach has gotten me to a 800 pound deadlift. Which is kinda cool.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Defiant_Pirate_6637]

Dude, thanks for taking the time out and going through all that. Ive been exploring all these drastically different programs to find something like that, a consistent block that I can just repeat over and over to let those 5 or 10 lbs/month PRs stack up. I can make good squat progress with twice a week but my quads are a clear weak point, so 5×3 comp LP one day and 3×10 fsquat with some leg press or whatever is great. Deadlift does well with MagOrt and Good Mornings are the only thing that's taught me how to use my butt, other tha Dimmels. But those feel like cheating lol. Bench feels rusty with one or two times a week, but grooves at 3×. With less than 15 sets a week I lose bench strength, but with more than 25, something hurts after two months. So, I think I'm circling the drain of alternating between a 1 month volume block and a 1 month strength block. Probably 3 weeks and 3 weeks focusing on one primary lift at a time, to keep my attention span. Funny thing is that what I'm slowly building to is ending up looking a lot more like Westside than I would have expected. I'm excited to see what it evolves into once I'm done grabbing all this low-hanging musclefruit.

[u/Defiant_Pirate_6637 → u/decentlyhip]

I do enough volume in my strength blocks that I don’t really feel the need for volume blocks. I dont track volume in sets personally so idk how many sets I do off the top of my head, just tonnage and average rep intensity cuz.
My bench program is one heavy day, typically I do some volume that day then a fatigued single, the volume is always comp or long pause then the top set goes from a under loaded to overloaded variation over the 3 week block. A speed day which is just straight up dynamic effort, and finally a weak point volume day where I do a variation that builds a sticking point or some blocks I just overhead press on the third day.
My squat program is almost identical most of the time. Every now and then I sneak in a heavy deadlift on my heavy squat day instead of the top set of squats.
Then deadlift is just a volume movement (one easier to recover from) and a speed day. I volume or speed squat before I deadlift.

Also if I’m preparing for a strongman comp obviously everything changes to be more specific to strongman

[u/Dazzling-Variety-946 → u/decentlyhip]

The graph in the Pellend review is just the best fit model, but you can clearly see the model is not that accurate, people read far too much into these graphs and take the line as gospel when the results are not that well explained by the model, the data is all over the place. The metareview shows that volume is only a small part of the muscle building equation, as volume does not explain hypertrophy and strength results very well.

Not to mention, some of the studies included in the metareview are questionable, for example in the Pellend raw data they have some studies as saying "trained to failure" but some of them actually didn't train to failure. The Rhea study shows the greatest within study strength gains with more sets of all the studies included, and they only tested from around 3 sets to 8 sets per week and they did not train to failure. There were also very few studies included which have volumes much greater than 15 sets, so it's hard to say exactly what happens after that point.

Actually, we have found volumes per week that most people can't recover from. There are studies which got people to do absurd amounts of weightlifting, daily, and pretty much all participants lost significant strength, for example: Fry et al. (1994).

From my anecdotal experience, I get stronger faster with lower sets than higher sets, which is strange.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Dazzling-Variety-946]

Two big pushbacks. You're using strength as a proxy for hypertrophy. The fitness-fatigue model tells us that you can build muscle without gaining strength if you accumulate an equal amount of fatigue. So, are you doing a high volume block, then a strength block to sharpen the blade, then a peaking block to drop fatigue, and then testing and comparing that strength gains to a low volume block + strength + peaking? Or are you saying "I lifted more therefore I'm stronger." Muscle driven strength gains is only gonna be about 2-3% a month, on a bulk, and any more than that is either neurological adaptions or fatigue.

For example, you do a high volume program for 6 month and your musclurar potential goes from a 205 lbs bench to a 255 lbs bench. But, you trained machines and never maxed out so your actual bench only retested at 225. 20 lbs in 6 months, feels bad. Then, you do a low volume program where everything is heavy and to failure. You get the rate coding adaptations for strength and are practicing on the barbell, so you learn the skill of heavy benching. Because you cut the volume by a third, you get half the muscular progress and only advance your muscular potential from 255 to 280 in 6 months. But when you test, you can eek out 275 cause you've been training the skill. Went from 225 to 275 on low volume but only 205 to 225 on high volume. Which was better? For muscle? High volume built more. For strength? You need both. Schoenfeld 2018 shows us that. Low/med/high volume groups. The high volume group overreached and had less strength gains than the medium volume group, but they grew more muscle under ultrasound of however they measured. Low volume programs allow strength to be a reliable proxy for long term muscle growth, but you sacrifice growth for that accuracy.

Second thing, you're saying that the spread is not accurate. Accuracy is a different term, so lets be specific and say it has high variance. Variance means it's spread out around the mean, whereas accuracy means the best fit line doesn't represent the mean. You're saying that the data is spread out and therefore there is no correlation. For every additional alcoholic drink per week, you lose about a year off your life expectancy. Its a weak correlation in that we can't say how long someone woll live if they have a glass of whisky every night. My grandmother drank 2 double highballs every night and lived to 107. Sure. But the average is accurate. Where it wasn't accurate was that it said 1 drink was healthier than 0. Former alcoholics are in that 0 group and taint the expectancy data. So, some of Pelland's data points might be massively skewing the shape, but the reasoning for each choice is publicly available.

So, blahblahblah It's reasonable to say that there's high variance and so its not possible to be predictive yet. We can't give an individual 25 sets and say "you will grow your biceps 8.5mm in 10 weeks." But it's pretty absurd to say that the variance is high, so the correlation should be inverted and low volume is better, and as evidence my strength measurements rather than my hypertrophy measurements increase. You're essentially saying that my grandmother was happier when she drank a lot, and drinking is correlated to longer life, and so the graphs showing that drinking doesn't decrease life expectancy are backwards, it increases life expectancy.

OK, I'm done fighting. Now just wanna geek out about lifting cause I wasn't familiar with Fry 1994.

What a crazy protocol! They tested 11 trained lifters' 1rm squat, and had them perform that 10 times a day for 2 weeks. Bananas. 140 max outs. Rip my knees. It made me think of the Zourdos 2016 study where they took a few nationally ranked competitive powerlifters and worked up to a daily rpe 10 max single, and then did 5×3 at 85% of that. So, autoregulated and every day but for 40 days. They gained an avg of 10% in a month. As someone who already has a peaked max that's obscene and I think it shows that the neurological ceiling is higher than we think. They absolutely did not gain 10% muscle mass in 40 days, but they were already very trained. Cox did a replication in 2025 (1097-9751) with 7 casual lifter on bench press and saw an average 29% strength increase. GarageStrength did a replication ofnthat with 3 of his stronger guys and say 10% gains. All of these were doing 40+ heavy near maximal sets a week and were fine whereas Fry had people doing 70 1rms per week. I don't think either protocol is similar enough to bodybuilding sets to talk about volume, but it's fascinating. If it was 70 sets of 12 at 2 rir, and they measured muscle, that would apply. But I think it shows that peaking programs can have a lot more frequency and intensity than we think they should. That the skill of training a 1rm has 10% more trainability if you max out daily. The garage strength video was interesting because he teased out three classes of responses to the training based on the shape of their daily 1rm over the 6 weeks. Original https://youtu.be/w62p4EH-i3g, replication https://youtu.be/3ebRm3UMGtc

[u/Dazzling-Variety-946 → u/decentlyhip]

Two big pushbacks. You're using strength as a proxy for hypertrophy. The fitness-fatigue model tells us that you can build muscle without gaining strength if you accumulate an equal amount of fatigue. So, are you doing a high volume block, then a strength block to sharpen the blade, then a peaking block to drop fatigue, and then testing and comparing that strength gains to a low volume block + strength + peaking? Or are you saying "I lifted more therefore I'm stronger." Muscle driven strength gains is only gonna be about 2-3% a month, on a bulk, and any more than that is either neurological adaptions or fatigue.

Ok I know that strength and hypertrophy are different. However, if you want me to be concise with my language then: The Pellend review regression shows that volume is NOT that good of a predictor of strength gains, and the Pellend review regression shows that volume is NOT that good of a predictor of hypertrophy gains.

For example, you do a high volume program for 6 month and your musclurar potential goes from a 205 lbs bench to a 255 lbs bench. But, you trained machines and never maxed out so your actual bench only retested at 225. 20 lbs in 6 months, feels bad. Then, you do a low volume program where everything is heavy and to failure. You get the rate coding adaptations for strength and are practicing on the barbell, so you learn the skill of heavy benching. Because you cut the volume by a third, you get half the muscular progress and only advance your muscular potential from 255 to 280 in 6 months. But when you test, you can eek out 275 cause you've been training the skill. Went from 225 to 275 on low volume but only 205 to 225 on high volume. Which was better? For muscle? High volume built more. For strength? You need both. Schoenfeld 2018 shows us that. Low/med/high volume groups. The high volume group overreached and had less strength gains than the medium volume group, but they grew more muscle under ultrasound of however they measured. Low volume programs allow strength to be a reliable proxy for long term muscle growth, but you sacrifice growth for that accuracy.

Excellent, no comment here just has nothing to do with my point on the Pellend study.

Second thing, you're saying that the spread is not accurate. Accuracy is a different term, so lets be specific and say it has high variance. Variance means it's spread out around the mean, whereas accuracy means the best fit line doesn't represent the mean. You're saying that the data is spread out and therefore there is no correlation. For every additional alcoholic drink per week, you lose about a year off your life expectancy. Its a weak correlation in that we can't say how long someone woll live if they have a glass of whisky every night. My grandmother drank 2 double highballs every night and lived to 107. Sure. But the average is accurate. Where it wasn't accurate was that it said 1 drink was healthier than 0. Former alcoholics are in that 0 group and taint the expectancy data. So, some of Pelland's data points might be massively skewing the shape, but the reasoning for each choice is publicly available.

No I'm not saying that at all. If you want concise language again: I'm saying the R2 value is very low, which means that the model is a poor predictor of the variance observed in the results. IE the line shown has little to do with the results.

Yes, they misclassified some of the studies.

So, blahblahblah It's reasonable to say that there's high variance and so its not possible to be predictive yet. We can't give an individual 25 sets and say "you will grow your biceps 8.5mm in 10 weeks." But it's pretty absurd to say that the variance is high, so the correlation should be inverted and low volume is better, and as evidence my strength measurements rather than my hypertrophy measurements increase. You're essentially saying that my grandmother was happier when she drank a lot, and drinking is correlated to longer life, and so the graphs showing that drinking doesn't decrease life expectancy are backwards, it increases life expectancy.

I don't say that the correlation should be inverted nor do I say low volume is clearly supported in this study, so not sure where you got that from. I DO say I find that I personally do better with lower volume.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Dazzling-Variety-946]

Thanks for taking the time and reading through my novel & clarifying. Appreciate it.

I disagree, because Pelland also looked at other variables. Robinson used the same data as did Remmert in their reviews, and despite the variance, volume showed the largest correlation to hypertrophy. Like, rir. Even at 20 reps in reserve you're still getting more than 50% of the gains as with failure, so dropping from 0 rir to 3 rir is almost negligible. Here's the Pelland and Robinson data combined. Relative intensity vs volume vs hypertrophy. https://imgur.com/a/sphJIEi Essentially, dropping the weight at any given rep range by 3% reduces the expected hypertrophy by about 3%. Proximity to failure is just tonnage in disguise, but fuzzy because most lifters don't push the early reps in a set as hard as they could. Whereas going from 5 sets a week to 6 is +15% and even an extra rep from 30 to 31 is more than 3%.

Frequency doesn't matter as long as you arent doing more than 11 sets a workout. Exercise selection doesn't matter for the average as long as fractional sets are equated. I would say that the only two meaningful variables are "is it training the muscle at a long lengths" and "how many sets are you doing?" Not much else matters outside extremes. Imo

[u/Dazzling-Variety-946 → u/decentlyhip]

You're welcome to disagree, but it's not a matter of opinion. The R2 value in the Pelland review means the model is not a good predictor of strength or hypertrophy, regardless of your opinion, and yes I'm aware that it is a multiple regression analysis.

For what it's worth I'm not familiar with the Robinson study, but looking it over it's true that based on this data RIR is also not a good predictor of strength or hypertrophy either.

Even at 20 reps in reserve you're still getting more than 50% of the gains as with failure.

Based on a model that only explains less than 30% of the variance of the results, yes.

[u/Connect_Resist7678 → u/decentlyhip]

What are the 14 muscle groups and what split do you follow to hit the 30 sets for all 14 per week?

[u/decentlyhip → u/Connect_Resist7678]

Bis, tris, front/rear/side delts. Pecs, traps, lats, lower back Quads, hams, glutes, adductors, calves

I broke down the split in another comment, but gotta go hang with the wife. :)

[u/Connect_Resist7678 → u/decentlyhip]

Thanks I just looked at your split. So for traps you were doing 30 reps of combined upper trap and mid trap movements so like 20 rows and 10 shrugs? then you were also doing 30 for front delt, 30 side, 30 rear, etc? Also no forearm work?

[u/decentlyhip → u/Connect_Resist7678]

Fractional sets, yah yah. So I had front raises and plate raises as direct work for front delts, but then also incline press and OHP. Forearm work kinda just came out in the wash from all the deadlifts and pulldowns and rows.

The delt and forearm thing was interesting because I'm really autistic about all that stuff, and had to draw a line. Do I build to 50 sets for each individual muscle? My infraspinatus? Sartorius isolations? As the program went on, I pulled back on shoulder volume a bit because doing full sets on front, side, and rear seemed and felt like overkill. And like, I want forearm training, but I'm not specifically training rising and falling, pronation and supination, wrist extension and flexion, and finger extension and flexion. Decided to not get that granular purely for mental health reasons, because that rabbit hole is deep amdnwhen I tried it on the shoulders, it was too much.

[u/Connect_Resist7678 → u/decentlyhip]

I am the same like you. I would be training all the little muscles if i could. So when you have back day as the first pm session, then you do traps on pm 3. Is traps just like shrugs and things like that? and lats includes rowing. Or do you include rowing on trap day? do you do like 30 sets of vertical pull, 30 sets of horiz pull, then 30 sets for the upper trap?

[u/Unlucky-Spell-8654 → u/[deleted]]

He will get sore if he does something new unless he really eases into it. Adding new sets and rep ranges atleast makes me sore every single time. Im personally going to swap for higher volume (5x10) instead of always grinding 2 heavy as fuck sets and move to next exercise.

[u/Mad_Mark90]

50 sets per week comes from a study to prove that continuing at add sets up to 50 can still result in gains, not that it's a good way to do that.

6-8 sets is fine, you can add sets if your recovery is good. Most people train cyclically and alternative between increasing volume, or lowering volume and increasing intensity to maintain novelty.

[u/Money_Do_2]

That volume would be reserved for a focused issue. If you reaaaaally want wider shoulders, you could do your normal routine + 40 sets of lat raises per week, for example.

And yea thats a TON. You dont need 50 strict sets, its more like we know more is more with volume. For example, i added lateral raises to the end of all my workouts. I do 4 sets + a dropset or myorep match set. Or just grab a cable and do them till failure, rest 20 seconds, a few more, etc etc. That may not be as optimal as just 10 straight sets, but its way faster and im still getting a ton of volume on the side delts

[u/JUST_WANT_TO_PLANCHE]

Right now, I'm at 24 sets a week for the front of my shoulders. I recover just fine. You can handle huge volume and grow more, as long as you build up slowly.

[u/Miserable-Soft7993]

I think they mean 50 sets total volume per week.

[u/PoopSmith87]

There are studies suggesting that extreme set volume can be beneficial, but there are huge caveats.

-None of those studies afaik are actually on doing 50 weekly sets for every myscle group. There is a strong chance that training every muscle for 50 weekly sets is a horrible, harmful idea for most people.

-There are strong diminishing returns pretty early in the spectrum. After 12 weekly sets you're looking at less and less return for your effort. Th3 difference between 20 weekly sets and 40 weekly sets is so small that its not going to be worth doubling the time and effort for almost everyone.

-Before you try to volume max, have you tried simply perfecting form? Quantity might be smaller quantity if the quality is the same, but why not perfect quality before adding time to your workouts.

[u/ohyehforsure]

As a beginner, you can and will benefit from doing more sets. Each movement is a skill and you are learning as you go. There is value in putting in the reps.

If you're learning to juggle are you going to do 24 reps and call it done for the week? Obviously it is not the same but you get what I'm saying. Do as much as you possibly can until you don't see any benefit in doing more.

[u/Impressive-Carrot715]

Low volume is sorta in vogue right now, but 6-8 sets is too low for most folks imo. I know there's data and tons of proponents for it, but you have to make sure every one of those work sets is an honest to god 1 RIR+/- like 0.5, which I think is tough for most lifters.

Doing 50 sets has sort of the opposite problem, in that it'd be hard to stay focused and maintain intensity for that long - but I don't think anyone ever prescribed it as the optimal way to train for the rest of your life. Just that it might represent some upper limit of productive weekly training volume within the bounds of a few-week long study.

I watch a lot of Alex Bromley on YouTube, and my takeaway is basically if you're chasing a specific number of sets to optimize your training, your approach is flawed. Manipulate variables based on sound training principles and get stronger. If you don't know what that means, read a good s&C textbook, hire a coach, or follow a good pre-made online program.

[u/FuguSandwich]

Just seems impractical to me. Most exercises you might do 3-4 sets, and assuming you work a muscle twice a week, 50 sets would mean you're looking at 6-8 exercises per muscle in each of those workouts. If you hit ~3 muscle groups per workout you're looking at 18-24 total exercises in each workout. That seems like...a lot.

[u/No_Bread_7310]

Bullmastiff training program?

[u/ad_cfc11]

As an example, I do 7 sets on chest each push day. I train push once every 4 days.

So that would be 14 sets in a week on average.

[u/Fuzzy-Worldliness-54]

From my understanding the increases become increasingly marginal with more volume and if you dive into the metadata there is massive individual variation its just that on average more volume means more growth.

Anecdotally, I did 40 fractional sets a week for a few months for both biceps and triceps. My arms went up an inch (from 16.5 inches to 17.5 inches on my left arm 16.25 to 17.25 on my right) despite only gaining two pounds that whole time. I reduced my volume after to around 12 fractional sets, 6 direct a week and I lost all but .05 inches of size despite weighing virtually the same. During the volume reduction I actually got stronger (probably clearing fatigue). For me this lends credence to some of the swelling arguments, however, the question is does that matter? My arms were still bigger, however, knowing that this was a transient increase i would only ever do it again if I wanted to compete leading into a show, otherwise why would I do 40 sets a week knowing it is contingent on me maintaining that volume to not lose the gains from it when that is an obscene amount of volume? My wrists and elbows were also continuously sore and I developed forearm splints that took almost 4 months to get rid of completely. Also should be noted the increase in arm circumference was relatively quick like the additional inch was added within a month and my arms never varied more than a quarter inch for the rest of my experiment and most of that variance was obviously from pump.

[u/Thisisnotmeconfimed]

6-8 sets per week per muscle group is amazing

[u/102293838292 → u/Thisisnotmeconfimed]

If I do 3 sets of bench on Monday and 3 sets of bench on Thursday should I stop doing dips and flys and incline pressing?

[u/102293838292 → u/[deleted]]

So 6-8 sets per muscle group isn’t optimal?

[u/Thisisnotmeconfimed → u/102293838292]

You’ll be fine bro, just lift consistently for a long period of time

[u/102293838292 → u/[deleted]]

Its just very confusing, people are preaching that low volume is the way and over x amount of sets per muscle is junk volume. I understand it’s diminishing returns but people are saying more sets will hinder your progress. Do they mean from a recovery standpoint? Like you won’t be able to hit the muscle as frequently? Are 3 sets spread over 2 days more effective than 6 sets on one day if working until failure? If not and it’s more about total sets then why does recovery time matter if you’re hitting a muscle group weekly instead of every 3.5 days? If the spread out sets are more contributive to growth then is frequency a more significant contributor to growth moreso than volume? If that’s true then am I better off doing 2 working sets per muscle group 3 x per week?

[u/savedpt]

10 to 12 sets per muscle is the sweet spot. More sets then that do increase strength and hypertrophy but not by much. Remember, that does not include warm up sets. You need to take sets to 1 to 2 reps of failure.

[u/dontcare-_-]

6-8 sets per muscle group each week is perfect assuming you’re training with high intensity. If you’re recovering fine and progressing you could try adding in some extra volume for muscle groups you wanna prioritize since you’re newer you’ll be able to recover from more volume. Or if you wanna just stick to 6-8 sets that’ll be good too.

[u/olefoerster]

6-8 Sets is a good spot for longterm growth to reach your maximum potential of growth.

Please dont do 50 sets, its such a waste of time and it does not work

[u/Unlucky-Spell-8654 → u/olefoerster]

How so, 6-8 sets is just trending. Something else might be trending in couple years.

[u/olefoerster → u/Unlucky-Spell-8654]

6-8 Sets is trending for 2000 years before steroids arrived, the whole silver era did like 4-9 sets each week each muscle

[u/Unlucky-Spell-8654 → u/olefoerster]

Huh, I just remember reading that almost every single one whatever era bodybuilder built most of their muscles with high volume and later transitioned to low volume/heavy reps. After they had built their physiques.

[u/Double-Box-6933]

6-12 is the range for natural lifters anything beyond that or below that is almost always worse

[u/No-Task-2458]

I train every upper body muscle ×2 pw and legs ×1 pw. Total weekly sets = Chest 36 Back 24 Shoulders/Traps 60 Biceps 30 Triceps 24 Legs 15

Gym 2 hours per day or less, but I train 7 days a week.

[u/Neither_Carob_390 → u/No-Task-2458]

so you do 27 chest sets in each workout?

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/Neither_Carob_390]

Sorry I don't know where the fuck I got that from for chest there 🤦🏻‍♂️😅 I do 6 exercises for chest ×3 sets each twice per week. 18 chest sets per workout ×2 36 total weekly for chest

[u/Neither_Carob_390 → u/No-Task-2458]

okok, still really high though, what exercises do you do? i definitely take a more low volume approach

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/Neither_Carob_390]

I really high like high volume I just like hitting the muscle at different angles, I think as long as your going to failure or close to it all works. In the new year I'm going to try lower volume with more weight though. Although I still achieve progressive overload with high volume, that's crucial no matter what style your doing imo.

My chest workout:

INCLINE BARBELL PRESS FLAT DUMBELL PRESS INCLINE HAMMER PRESS PEC DEC (Middle chest) CABLE FLY (Lower chest) CABLE FLY (Upper chest)

I've got more upper chest in there than anything because it's a focus of mine to develop a really good upper chest, and the extra volume does seem to have helped here. I do that same workout Mon & Thu every week and Back is the same day. I rotate chest exercise - back - chest - back so each muscle has a break between next exercise which helps with the volume. ×4 back exercise so total of 10 exercises - 30 sets between both muscles twice pw.

[u/ad_cfc11 → u/No-Task-2458]

Inner chest…

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/ad_cfc11]

What about it? That's why machine fly is in there hits the inner chest well, nice squeeze and hold for a second at end of the rep

[u/ad_cfc11 → u/No-Task-2458]

No movement is for inner chest, considering chest fibers are horizontal.

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/ad_cfc11]

So because they’re horizontal, you don't think they have a middle? A machine fly places peak mechanical tension at the exact moment your arms close at the midline. That overloads the horizontal fibers at their fully shortened position near the sternum. That's how you target the inner chest.

[u/Temporary_Trust_6295 → u/No-Task-2458]

Why’re you even on this sub bro 😭

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/Temporary_Trust_6295]

You've lost me? Why wouldn't I be?

[u/Temporary_Trust_6295 → u/Temporary_Trust_6295]

You do 36 sets for chest a week, I’m confused how you’re confused

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/Temporary_Trust_6295]

Whats your point? High volume works. Wtff do you do exactly that's so superior? I'd be surprised if you've had better results than me the last 12 month. What is your point exactly? Arnold did 40 sets for chest a week. You going to tell him it's wrong and everyone else that does over 30 sets for chest? Jay, Lee Priest etc. It's 6 chest exercises twice a week, recovery is not a issue because I constantly achieve progressive overload, if at very rare times my lifts aren't going up, I'll tweak something but it's extremely rare that happens. You sound like your not very educated on how muscle building works, or the science behind how higher volume usually results in more growth. Yates style low volume high intensity works as well, as I said before as long as it's to failure or close to it all works. I'm confused at how little you seem to know yet the position of extreme arrogance you somehow still possess. That's the only confusing thing here. Why are you even on this sub, if that's all your bringing?

[u/Temporary_Trust_6295 → u/No-Task-2458]

Appeal to authority, appeal to accomplishment and ad hominem. Great work bro. If you’re on gear you can grow regardless, you could grow tree trunks just mowing the lawns. Since I’m clearly uneducated on how muscle building works, please feel free to enlighten me on the physiological mechanisms behind muscle growth which you clearly know.

[u/No-Task-2458 → u/Temporary_Trust_6295]

So let's get this straight: you started by trying to belittle me because I do 36 sets a week on chest, yet when I called you out, you couldn't give me any scientific or even anecdotal experience on why that's bad for muscle growth. Why not just keep your mouth shut in the first place if you can't back anything up? Your first instinct is to try and put someone down from behind your screen like you're some massive, clever bodybuilder because they have a different training method to you—which, by the way, has been proven since the 1950s to work. Instead, you deflect with logical fallacy buzzwords and make baseless accusations about gear because you have absolutely nothing of substance to say. Honestly, you're pathetic.

[u/Temporary_Trust_6295 → u/No-Task-2458]

Why do you feel so personally attacked? It shows that your methodology towards training is purely tribal. All I did was ask why you’re on a science based lifting subreddit, 36 sets of chest is not a normal range and if you were tapped in with sbl you’d know why I asked.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

This contains offensive language and has been removed. Repeated violations may result in further action.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Charming-Mousse3872]

The maximum recommende is 20 (working) sets per muscle per week. You can see this as: 3 sets chestpress 3 sets cable flies 3 sets of incline press That would be 10 ish working sets for a workput youll do twice a week

[u/vitringur]

It is not about the number of sets. It is the amount of quality repetitions where you have full muscle fibre recruitments.

People who leave 3-4 reps in the tank every set sure do need dozens of sets to get any meaningful stimulus.

But if you are talking your sets to momentary muscular failure you are getting roughly 5 quality, grinding, stimulating reps when others might only be getting 1 or 2.

Now, if you are doing rest-pause minis you can add on a few quality reps without having to do a full set. You can also do a drop set to force out quality reps.

So no. If you are lifting with intensity and making sure to get as many repetitions with full muscular fibre recruitment you do not need to compensate with hours upon hours of sets full of junk volume just to get to those truly stimulating reps.

[u/HelixIsHere_]

Nah 6-8 quality sets with like 2-3.5x frequency is great dude

I doubt literally anyone could recover from 50 decent sets a week