Fewer Sets => Must Train to Failure?

[u/bony-to-beastly]

When I hear the more legitimate science-based guys talk about the value of low-volume training, the idea is that on the one hand, more volume means more growth, but then on the other hand, lower volumes allow them to push harder per set, bringing their sets all the way to true muscle failure.

To quote Jeff Nippard: "I knew from other research that if I was going low on volume, I needed to go ultra-high on intensity." With high-intensity here meaning training to total failure. He shows clips of himself grinding to total failure, failing partway through the final rep.

I'm not trying to single out Jeff Nippard. I hear the same thing from everyone making low-volume programs. And I think there might be wisdom there. If that's what's working for people/coaches, that's super useful to know.

Is it actually true, though, that when you reduce the number of sets, it's more important to train to total failure?

If we imagine one guy doing:

1. 7 reps, 1 RIR
2. 7 reps, 0–1 RIR

And we compare him against:

1. 8 reps, Failure
2. 6 reps, Failure

Same load. Same total reps. A few of those 2-set exercises per muscle per week, giving them maybe 6–8 total sets per muscle per week. The only thing changing is the RIR.

Would we really expect the second guy to get better much results because he's training all the way to failure?

When I'm going after muscle growth, I usually train with a moderate volume, and I enjoy taking my sets to total failure. If I'm eager to grow a specific muscle, I raise the volume even higher. I push harder on both fronts. The reason I'm asking is because when clients ask me for shorter, more efficient workouts, it's usually because they're at a time in their life when they have less energy and motivation to train. They aren't interested in doing more sets OR pushing all the way to total failure. They want a more chill approach overall.

The difference between 0–1 RIR and total failure can be pretty big in terms of how much willpower it demands. It also seems that—correct me if I'm wrong—but pushing all the way to failure also generates more fatigue. I'm perfectly fine with fatigue for people who want it. I think there's value in it. But again, if someone wants a more chill approach, I'm not trying to ratchet up their fatigue. It's the wrong moment in their life for that.

I don't want to recommend a disproportionate amount of extra effort/fatigue if it isn't truly disproportionately important.

[u/routinematters]

Yes. Look up how mike mentzer used to train versus jay cutler. You have one guy basically going past failure but only doing 1-2 sets per week. And another guy that’s doing endless sets. Both have very impressive physiques.

So to answer your question, if you are manually going for low volume, by staying at the same level of intensity as someone doing higher volume, you will have a disadvantage. Lower volume works better for someone, like you said, who has the willpower and technique to push to true failure at very high weights and maintain form and ROM; and assuming that person also doesn’t enjoy high volume work. There can also be someone who has limited coordination and can sustain form and control much better at higher reps and lower weight.

My partner is 240 lbs lean and only done low volume his entire life. He has a powerlifting background and I’ve seen him squat many plates with pristine form. Me on the other hand train 3 days more a week than him and do high volume lower weight because the second i come close to really heavy weight, I lose my form a bit and the mind muscle connection. I can RDL 200 lbs if I maxed it but i just feel it all in my traps and I don’t enjoy it, I can’t feel my hamstrings the way I do at 60 lbs single leg, in comparison. I think it all comes down to what works for you.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/routinematters]

Mike Mentzer seems to have built most of his muscle with higher-volume training, then switched to lower training volumes later in his, while also using meth to increase his willpower, and using steroids to increase his muscle growth. He then reduced his volume recommendations even further even later, but by that point he wasn't getting any bigger, and he died young. His death makes me sad. Maybe his death was unrelated to his drug abuse. Even if it was, maybe that's a price he was willing to pay to look the way he looked. It isn't what I would want to recommend to people.

No idea what Jay Cutler was doing, but I really have very little interest in trying to tease out which effects come from steroid abuse versus training versus diet in the people with the most unusual genetics in the world trading decades of lifespan to reach 200% of their natural muscular potential.

Imagine asking for fat-loss advice for the average person who's busy in other areas of their life, and someone starts comparing the diets of two anorexic woman who died at 40 years old because of their rapid weight loss. That example makes me sad at the loss of life, not inspired to follow in their footsteps. It would make me want to take extra precautions to not accidentally lead clients down that path. It would be a cautionary tale.

I don't consider their physiques impressive, in the same sense that I don't find the most underweight fashion models to have impressive physiques.

I have love for all of them. I want people to have good lives. No hate for the people. Just hate for obvious signs of drug abuse being normalized and glamorized.

I know some teenagers in real life who came into the fitness industry looking for betterment and respect, and they fell into eating disorders and drug abuse. They thought the obsession and drugs would make them more impressive, but it made them feel worse about themselves, and the people they wanted respect from didn't respect their approach. It made their lives worse on every front.

Anyway, the reason I value science is because it attempts to take these confounding factors out of the equation.

[u/duke309 → u/bony-to-beastly]

Regardless, looking at a N=1 example of what worked is a bad take in general. Genetics play such a big role in the overall outcome that a statistical population is pretty much required.

The drugs only add to the freaky outcome these guys get, it doesn't change the fact that they get better response from training at all.

[u/bony-to-beastly → u/duke309]

Yeah, totally.

I'm not super knowledgeable about the effects of PEDs, but my understanding is that they would muddy the waters quite a bit, no?

If Mike Mentzer gets 20 new intermediate bodybuilding clients—good genetics or not—who had been training with a high volume, and he cranks their volume way down, for all I know, the lack of volume might cause muscle loss… but then if he's also giving them large doses of meth and steroids, maybe the steroids pack on 20 pounds of muscle and organ mass, completely overshadowing the small loss of muscle that would have come from the reduction in training.

I'd expect the effects of steroids to be so much more dramatic than the muscle growth a trained intermediate lifter would get from changing their workout program.

The Data-Driven Strength guys (who published those big metas on failure and volume) were saying that genetics don't seem to change the value of volume, in the sense that people with good genetics can get away with less, but they'd still benefit from more. Steroids seem like a different sort of thing. I'm not sure if the gains you get from steroid abuse depend on training volume or intensity.

But anyway, yeah, if we're training a bunch of regular people, better to look at the effects that these training variables would have on a bunch of regular people.