# Low Volume vs High Volume / Training Less vs Training More



## Tall

Fight it out here...


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Damn im off on holidat tomoz, but when i get back i will put my 2p in


----------



## andyboro1466867929

no fight really IMO - do whichever works for you! just dont be afraid to give the other side a try too.

theres me comfortably positioned on the fence lol


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

andyboro said:


> no fight really IMO - do whichever works for you! just dont be afraid to give the other side a try too.


Thats it in a nutshell to be honest.

There is a big difference weather your assited or not to this argument also.


----------



## Guest

True, how can you fight it, whatever works for you. Personally i train when i want, i dont have any set days anymore or any set workouts.

My last traing night was last Wednesday, ill be training tonight. Its whatever works for you dude or how committed you wanna be and how much time you wanna spend in the gym.

i have a little girl and i never train on the nights i have her which is Tue, Thu, Sat & Sun so as you can see dont leave much left for training, but im more determined that i dont end up a slave to weights.


----------



## Tall

bulldozer said:


> Thats it in a nutshell to be honest.
> 
> There is a big difference weather your assited or not to this argument also.


Ja.

Assisted recovery time will make a huge difference. Maybe we need a Natty/Non-Natty view...?

Who's the biggest, baddest Natty on here...? 

I'm sure NeilR is/was training twice per week at the moment...


----------



## bodyworks

INTENSITY IS THE KEY. low volume/high volume doesn't matter , it's the intensity of a workout that matters.


----------



## Tall

Bodyworks said:


> INTENSITY IS THE KEY. low volume/high volume doesn't matter , it's the intensity of a workout that matters.


Very true.

But am I right in thinking you don't rate training twice per week?


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Bodyworks said:


> INTENSITY IS THE KEY. low volume/high volume doesn't matter , it's the intensity of a workout that matters.


Intensity is key i agree, but you cant train high volume and train intense.

You can rather train hard or you can train long, you cant do both


----------



## bodyworks

bulldozer said:


> Intensity is key i agree, but you cant train high volume and train intense.
> 
> You can rather train hard or you can train long, you cant do both


i beg to differ bulldozer. there's no reason volume training can't be every bit as intense as low volume heavy duty training.

the obvious camparison is ronnies style of training versus cutlers style.both very intense both very different.

intensity has nothing to do with the weight used it's how taxing it is on the target muscle.


----------



## Guest

Very true, BW, i always do drop sets after hitting max set and i do this on every muscle group.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Bodyworks said:


> i beg to differ bulldozer. there's no reason volume training can't be every bit as intense as low volume heavy duty training.
> 
> the obvious camparison is ronnies style of training versus cutlers style.both very intense both very different.
> 
> intensity has nothing to do with the weight used it's how taxing it is on the target muscle.


Ok how can i explain myself better.

We both agree that intensity IS KEY . But seem to disagree what intensity is !!?

I hate doing copy and paste jobs or single googling something but i feel it can explain it much better than me, so here you are. With my apologise's for being too lazy to try and explain my point myself 

Bodybuilding.com - Clayton South - Intensity: Do You Have It?


----------



## bodyworks

read that. don't agree with some of the points. i particularly like this part 'the shorter the workout the more intensity'.

i define intensity as how taxing a workout is on the muscle. if that takes 20 sets to achieve or 6 the end result is the same.

personally i do train with intense short workouts, but if you like, we can train together, we'll do 20 sets and you tell me afterwards if the workout was intense or not.


----------



## bodyworks

i think what you meant to say was that a high volume training is executed in a different style to low volume training. the weights will probably be smaller with high volume training or the rest between sets longer, but saying you can't train high volume and still have an intense workout i just don't agree with sorry.

as a side note, i'll say that 99.9% of people who claim to train with high intensity are full of sh*t.


----------



## Tall

Bodyworks said:


> as a side note, i'll say that 99.9% of people who claim to train with high intensity are full of sh*t.


PMSL.

Fairly sweeping statement there captain.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Bodyworks said:


> i think what you meant to say was that a high volume training is executed in a different style to low volume training. the weights will probably be smaller with high volume training or the rest between sets longer, but saying you can't train high volume and still have an intense workout i just don't agree with sorry.
> 
> as a side note, i'll say that 99.9% of people who claim to train with high intensity are full of sh*t.


Your obviously feel wiped out after doing a high volume workout still, but being wiped out doesnt make a workout intense, sorry mate. Thats not what intensity means.

Whats more intense?? A 100m sprint or a 26 mile Marathon ??

The answer is a 100m sprint. Its 10 seconds (or whatever) of absolute flat out effort, they dont hold back one bit.

A marathon is obviously paced out, as is a volume workout. i.e , why dont a marathon runner just run flat out for 26 miles. ?? Cos thats not possible. The same applies to a volume workout, they are done with lighter weights and not to 100% failure on each set, if they were you would hardly be able to do another set. Enter HIT .... high intensity training.

Even a 400m runner doesnt run flat out for the whole 400 m, they hold back a little and sprint the last part with 100 % effort.

Using the runners as an example was the best way i could try and explain my point. Im not saying after a high volume workout isnt taxing on the body/muscles. But you cant train with a high intensity (read that 100% effort) for a long period of time, it defies logic. (see my marathon/runners example)

Thats the best i can describe it mate.


----------



## bad old man

I'm no expert on the subject but, I just switched from a very high volume workout to to a much shorter much more intense one and the growth has been great. Not that that proves either point.

What I can say is with the high volume workout I would lift hard for an hour, lighter weights lots of sets and be feeling tired but good when I left the gym. With the new workout Very heavy weight with low reps I'm done in about 30 minutes and have to keep a trash can close to me because sometimes I feel the need to puke and usually have to sit down for a few minutes because I'm totaly gased to the point of passing out.

The first worlout I call high volume

The second I call high intensity


----------



## Neil R

Can't believe I've only just caught this thread!!

Yup. I'm still training 2 times a week, for 45-55mins per session. 

Its doing good for me. Before this though I spent the previous 18 months utilising higher volume. ie. - 4 days a week for 90mins a session.

As has been said, its about what works best for you, as an individual.


----------



## bodyworks

there seems to be a concensus that high volume training means holding something back for later. why should it ? my point of view in this arguement is kinda ironic as i am a huge advocate of low volume training but i concede that high volume can be just as taxing on the muscles. it's all dependent on how much effort is put into the training, like i said initially intensity is the key. if you can fatigue the muscle in 2 sets then do only 2 sets, if it takes 5 do 5. is anyone seriously telling me that after 6 sets on any bodypart it would be impossible to do any more ? i simply don't believe anyone trains that hard. neil is correct, do whatever works for you.

the most 'intense' training pro i've ever seen on video albeit, is definately tom platz. without a doubt. he was nuts. here's a typical leg workout of his. you decide, high intensity (believe me it is) or high volume, or maybe both ??

Tom Platz and his Leg Workout!!! - IronMagazine.com


----------



## Pikey1466867920

I agree with bodyworks here 100% most people who think they train intense don't, heavy weight low reps doesn't necessarily mean high intensity, and it tends to be a matter of perceived effort from a body building perspective.

Look at it like this what is more intense 1 set of 20 reps with 200K on the squat or 4 sets of 5 with 200K, the answer if you are able to both is the higher rep set as you don't have the rest periods.

From my weightlifting days we used to consider Power, intensity, volume, weight and speed. Power is a product of weight and speed and intensity is considered a product of weight and volume measured as tonnage divided by time period. We'd measure tonnage lifted in any one workout and macro cycle (training period) the tonnage lifted in a time period would be the intensity of the period as such heavy weights for low reps is only more intense if you have actually shifted more tonnage in total in the same time frame.

So jumping back to the squatting example both 200x4x5 and 200x20 have the same tonnage 4000Kg the high reps are more intense as it may take 10 minutes to perform the four sets and maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes to perform the latter.

The Eastern European Governments put a lot of effort into producing the worlds best strength athletes the books on such things as volume and intensity are amazingly detailed as there are complex algorithmic calculations to work optimum intensity, the idea being the closer to a meet you'd decrease intensity to allow greater weights to be lifted but I won't get into all that as it isn't relevant here&#8230;

Loads of people make the mistake that low reps and heavy weight means greater intensity, it doesn't its more complex than that.

For me fast paced workouts with slow cadence reps for a highish rep range work best although I will shift the weight faster to get a couple more reps etc&#8230; But you have to mix it up else go stale...


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Pikey said:


> So jumping back to the squatting example both 200x4x5 and 200x20 have the same tonnage 4000Kg the high reps are more intense as it may take 10 minutes to perform the four sets and maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes to perform the latter.


If your capable of squatting 200kg x 20 reps then 4 sets of 5 @ 200kg would be a piece of piss !! So its clear as day that the 20 reppers would be more intense.

I dont see how anyone can deny that volume and intensity go hand in hand. When the volume increase's, the intensity decrease's. It has nothing to do with rep range.

You simple CAN NOT give 100% intensity for a prolonged period of time. Take those 20 rep squats as an example again. so.......

few warm up sets etc, like normal, then

set 1 200kg x 20 reps (this was a personal best, an all out balls to the wall effort, it nearly killed you!)

If your capable of doing another set after that with anything near the same weight then you MUST have been holding back on the first set. Yes sure your be capable of lifting "some" weight after as BW pointed out, but if thats the measure of intensity why not simple do 10,000 sets with 10kg ?? That would equal 100,000kg total lifted, would that be more intense?

Answer, NO. As has been pointed out by BW intensity is key and i certainly agree. But and there is a but, i feel as tho the word "intensity" is being misunderstood.

Im not saying a high volume workout has NO intensity, im saying that intensity and volume work in balance with each other.

Look at the word "intense" outside of bodybuilding/weightlifting. What does it mean to you ?? To me it means a short period of time that was heated, adenaline was high, maybe a scary moment etc. You get the idea. Intense is never used to describe something that is slow and paced out, its a sudden rush, a burst of energy maybe. You get the idea.


----------



## Tall

Just to dive in here 

Everyone is basically talking about the same thing just some of the terms being used are 'red herrings' if you will.

A basic summary of intensity would be either: The most amount of 'work done' within a given period of time, or spinning it round - the least amount of rest within a given time.

High Volume / Low Volume is a 'red herring' - the volume doesn't matter, what DOES matter is how much work that is done within a given time.

Using the 20 rep squats example (and bear with me here...)

The 20rep squats (High Volume) as an EXERCISE are more intense than the 4x5.

This is because is takes less time to complete than the 4x5. (Please don't argue this point, just bear with me)

However if you removed the limit on the number of sets from the equation and reduced the rest period on the 4rep sets, by reducing the rest period we are increasing the intensity and if we continued to do more sets the intensity would increase.

What would result if you continued down that route is in theory the 4rep sets would be more intense over a longer period as you would be able to do more work that the 20reppers (assuming the person had to do 20reps each time he stood under the bar)

For example:

Our lifter may be able to do 2 x 20 rep sets over the course of an hour.

But he may be able to do 15 x 4 rep sets over the course of an hour.

But as an exercise the 20reppers are more intense due to the reduced rest periods.

Basically as I said at the start - we are all talking the same thing.

Pikeys post on page 2 was quality:



> From my weightlifting days we used to consider Power, intensity, volume, weight and speed. Power is a product of weight and speed and intensity is considered a product of weight and *volume measured as tonnage divided by time period*. We'd measure tonnage lifted in any one workout and macro cycle (training period) the *tonnage lifted in a time period would be the intensity of the period* as such heavy weights for low reps is only more intense if you have actually shifted more tonnage in total in the same time frame.


----------



## crazycal1

i dont think a set of 20 rep rest pause squats/deads makes a routine hi volume.

i do think that a hi volume hi frequency routine is more productive for AAS use and the genetically blessed and basically training suicide for nattys


----------



## Tall

crazycal1 said:


> i dont think a set of 20 rep rest pause squats/deads makes a routine hi volume.
> 
> i do think that a hi volume hi frequency routine is more productive for AAS use and the genetically blessed and basically training suicide for nattys


No but it could be said to be a high volume exercise as opposed to a high volume routine.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

To make a bold statement here, if your in the gym for an hour and a half and doing 8 to 12 sets a bodypart and doing maybe 2 or 3 bodyparts total....so 16 to 36 sets in one session then your training simple is not "intense" (IMO of course)

How can you do 8/12 sets with all out effort on one bodypart ?? You could'nt train with a "high" intensity even if you was doing a FBR hardly. (imo)

Bottom line is its all relative, intensity and volume are like a seasaw (sp)


----------



## Tall

mmmm....

Yes. and no.

Intensity is the most work done in the least time.

Its the time aspect which makes it intense (i.e. less rest)


----------



## Tall

Lifting 200kg in 1 rep (Low Volume) is more intense than lifting 1kg in 200reps (High Volume).

But thats in the pure physics sense (i.e. it adheres to the rules of physics but may not make much sense in the real word)

200reps at 1kg may use more energy than the single rep.

So the key is to get both the intensity and the volume correct for you as an individual.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

TallHeavyAndSkinny said:


> mmmm....
> 
> Yes. and no.
> 
> Intensity is the most work done in the least time.
> 
> Its the time aspect which makes it intense (i.e. less rest)


IMHO there are 3 ways to increase intensity.

1. increase the weight

2. do the same amount of work in a shorter time.

3. goto the point of failure and beyond...i.e rest pasue, drop sets etc.

Point 3 is a fine line tho, we are talking bodybuilding/weightlifting here. So stimulatation of the muscle not annilolation.

Increasing the amount of sets you do does NOT make a workout more intense because if you was working out intensely in the first place you would'nt be able to add a "productive" set anyway. Sure you could go down the rack or whatver blah blah blah, but we are talking "productive" training here.

Like i said all along, intensity and volume go hand in hand . One is relative to the other.


----------



## Tall

bulldozer said:


> IMHO there are 3 ways to increase intensity.
> 
> 1. increase the weight
> 
> 2. do the same amount of work in a shorter time.
> 
> 3. goto the point of failure and beyond...i.e rest pasue, drop sets etc.
> 
> Point 3 is a fine line tho, we are talking bodybuilding/weightlifting here. So stimulatation of the muscle not annilolation.
> 
> Increasing the amount of sets you do does NOT make a workout more intense because if you was working out intensely in the first place you would'nt be able to add a "productive" set anyway. Sure you could go down the rack or whatver blah blah blah, but we are talking "productive" training here.
> 
> Like i said all along, intensity and volume go hand in hand . One is relative to the other.


Yup those are just methods to achieving more intensity.

1 = more work in the same time, increasing intensity.

2 = same work, less time, increasing intensity.

3 = more work less time, increasing intensity.

Adding more sets *does* increase the intensity if the time element and the weight in the original sets stay the same as more work is done in the same time. But yes adding additional sets *doesn't* mean your original workout was intense.

As I said before - everyone is 'singing from the same hymn sheet' here but its the phrases around all of this which are adding unnecessary complexity.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

well anyhow to get back on subject, my 2 pence on the low volume VS high volume would be.

There is no right or wrong answer!!

You have to find a volume/intensity and frequency that works for YOU! .... not some dude in a magazine, or some big guy in the gym.

If your not getting progressively stronger on an almost weekly basis then chances are your doing too much and need to cut back. (presuming all other factors are in check, diet, sleep, rest, stress etc). Train to get STRONGER, not for a good pump or any of that old flannel.

There are IMO many factors which determin the type of training that would best suit you, age, recovery ability, stress, motivation levels, muscle fibre make up, diet, genetics, assisted or natural. The list is endless.

Most guys do better on low volume, high intensity, infrequent training. Most dont do so well on volume, but some do!! and there is no denying that most of the mass monsters about do train high volume.

So in a nut shell, find what works for YOU and have the courage to try new things!!


----------



## Tom84

Pikey said:


> I agree with bodyworks here 100% most people who think they train intense don't, heavy weight low reps doesn't necessarily mean high intensity, and it tends to be a matter of perceived effort from a body building perspective.
> 
> Look at it like this what is more intense 1 set of 20 reps with 200K on the squat or 4 sets of 5 with 200K, the answer if you are able to both is the higher rep set as you don't have the rest periods.
> 
> From my weightlifting days we used to consider Power, intensity, volume, weight and speed. Power is a product of weight and speed and intensity is considered a product of weight and volume measured as tonnage divided by time period. We'd measure tonnage lifted in any one workout and macro cycle (training period) the tonnage lifted in a time period would be the intensity of the period as such heavy weights for low reps is only more intense if you have actually shifted more tonnage in total in the same time frame.
> 
> So jumping back to the squatting example both 200x4x5 and 200x20 have the same tonnage 4000Kg the high reps are more intense as it may take 10 minutes to perform the four sets and maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes to perform the latter.
> 
> The Eastern European Governments put a lot of effort into producing the worlds best strength athletes the books on such things as volume and intensity are amazingly detailed as there are complex algorithmic calculations to work optimum intensity, the idea being the closer to a meet you'd decrease intensity to allow greater weights to be lifted but I won't get into all that as it isn't relevant here&#8230;
> 
> Loads of people make the mistake that low reps and heavy weight means greater intensity, it doesn't its more complex than that.
> 
> For me fast paced workouts with slow cadence reps for a highish rep range work best although I will shift the weight faster to get a couple more reps etc&#8230; But you have to mix it up else go stale...


great post


----------



## Tom84

bulldozer said:


> If your not getting progressively stronger on an almost weekly basis then chances are your doing too much and need to cut back. (presuming all other factors are in check, diet, sleep, rest, stress etc). Train to get STRONGER, not for a good pump or any of that old flannel.


Thats just not right plain and simple. 75% - 80% of strength gains come from your CNS adaptation in which previously dormant muscle fibres are recruited to contract and move the body. Only 20% comes from hypertrophy. Its entirely possible to become stronger without getting bigger.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Young Gun said:


> .Its entirely possible to become stronger without getting bigger.


Oh god not that old chestnut.

I take it your talking about a powerlifter, who is advanced already (and huge i might add) and keeps getting stronger without getting bigger. But how did he get that big in the first place tho ??

The guy probably already has the type of thickness that would blow most bodybuilders out the water, and is more than likely restricting calories to keep in his weight class.

Most powerlifters/ strongmen are monsters, pure and simple! They may carry around a bit of fat and may not have good rear delts or whatever but they have mountains of muscle. How did they get that way ?? Training for a pump ?? hmm......

I agree there training style's vary, lots of single and double probably isnt the quickest way to bet big. But show me a guy who can bench 400 lbs, squat 500 lbs and deadlift 600 lbs who isnt carrying around a huge amount of muscle. There may be one or 2 freaks around that can do that and still be relatively small, but for every freak you show me i can show you a thousand guys that are huge!

In the beggining strength training IS hypertrophy. When your handling monster poundages then train for hypertrophy. If your training for a good pump and not getting progressively stronger (unless your very advanced?) on an almost weekly basis then good luck to you mate


----------



## Pikey1466867920

Young Gun I couldn't agree more.

Train for strength and you get stronger and train for muscle growth to Bodybuild the two are no way the same. Only the very inexperienced will get stronger each week or month once your into it if you're up near your potential if you can put 10K on your total in an entire macro cycle your doing well

As a competitive Power lifter I could Squat 265K, bench 145K and deadlift 265K all at a bodyweight of under 67.5K these aren't my best gym lifts but my best lifts at that bodyweigth weight at 17 years old getting green lights at a meet. I didn't look anything like as muscular as I do today 15K heavier and I'm 3 week out from a show, in my current condition if I went for any of those weights I'd at best fail and at worse cause serious injury.

If you could train for muscle growth the same as you should train for strength gains I'd be as good a Bodybuilder as I was Powerlifter. 20 years of lifting and strength training taught me one thing for sure, it isn't bodybuilding, but it is a common misconception that it is&#8230; 3 years of Bodybuilding focused training has resulted in more muscle growth than the preceding 24 years of strength focused training!

But if people want to waste effort training for strength when they really want to get as much muscle as possible fine go for it, it just isn't the most efficent way of doing so and after a while maybe 20 years they may realise it...


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Im not saying train for "strength" per say, im saying you need to get progressivly stronger.

If your trying to tell me that you dont need to shift heavier weights in order to become bigger your basically saying that your weights never have to increase?

So joe bloggs comes along on his first day at the gym, squats 60kg for 10 reps. Not bad for a newbie!! So all he has to do is come to the gym, keep squatting his same old 60kg year in year out and he will be huge!? Sarcastic yes, but that is what your effectively saying here.

In order to become stronger/ bigger you have to challenge your muscles to ever increasing challenges, SIMPLE AS THAT. The overload principle in other words.

Whats the best way to achieve this?? Progressivly heavier weights.

I can not see how we are even arguing this point, or am i missing something here?


----------



## Pikey1466867920

Bulldozer I'm not arguing anything all though I am enjoying the livelly discussion on the thread.

Of course a bloke carrying 50lb of muscle over and above his non active weight is going to be stronger than if he wasn't and yep the first thing well all do more or less is 3 or 4 sets of 8 to ten reps on the basic exercises; bench, squat etc. I would say this is the novice period during this time you should all else being equal get stronger and bigger muscles. Then most of us hit a plateau.

At which point you tend to have an idea of what side of weights attracts - lifting or Bodybuilding or get pissed you don't look like Ronnie yet and pack it all in, for me at that stage I got a proper buzz out of getting PB on lifts and I was naturally gifted at Squatting and dead lifting so I was steered down that route - F me I'm rambling again...

As an intermediate most people will start on a split routine etc. All I'm saying that to improve you need to keep trying different things, I totally agree intensity is the key. At some point we find out what works best for us if you keep at it that is and are open to new ideas.

In my original post I was merely trying to offer an explanation of what intensity is when considered in a cyclical training program as a coach / strength athlete, which I think is directly transferable to bodybuilding. Just offering up some of what I've picked up - years ago I did a BAWLA coaching course and I've been obsessed with hard training since I was 13, always eager to learn...

Depending on what I'm trying to do, grow, gain harder condition, get stronger will have an impact on how I train, what I eat and even how much sleep etc.

There is no point anyone going in a gym to progress and giving it a half arsed go, we've all seen people reading a book on the recumbent bike etc and wondering why they don't look like Lance Armstrong .

Unfortunately the huge investment made by some governments into understanding the optimum approach to Strength training hasn't been replicated in Bodybuilding so we have to take information from where we can and learn.

My belief is you should vary; intensity, volume and weights, reps sets and exercises to keep progressing. It's also a good idea to record what you've done and what has worked.

I'm going on and someone will notice I'm on hear after lunch&#8230;.


----------



## Tall

^^^^ Pikey you are an asset to the board mate.


----------



## Tom84

'Train for strength and you get stronger and train for muscle growth to Bodybuild the two are no way the same'

Thats the whole point I was making. Training for strength and hypertrophy are not the same. Training for progressive strength is NOT the best way to bodybuild. I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not saying powerlifters are not strong, I'm saying 4/5 of strength increases some from CNS adaption. You should be checking your weight/BF ratio to measure progress not the weights your lifting.


----------



## Tom84

good thread though. Read effective strength training by Douglas Brooks its a great read


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Pikey said:


> Bulldozer I'm not arguing anything all though I am enjoying the livelly discussion on the thread.
> 
> Of course a bloke carrying 50lb of muscle over and above his non active weight is going to be stronger than if he wasn't and yep the first thing well all do more or less is 3 or 4 sets of 8 to ten reps on the basic exercises; bench, squat etc. I would say this is the novice period during this time you should all else being equal get stronger and bigger muscles. Then most of us hit a plateau.
> 
> At which point you tend to have an idea of what side of weights attracts - lifting or Bodybuilding or get pissed you don't look like Ronnie yet and pack it all in, for me at that stage I got a proper buzz out of getting PB on lifts and I was naturally gifted at Squatting and dead lifting so I was steered down that route - F me I'm rambling again...
> 
> As an intermediate most people will start on a split routine etc. All I'm saying that to improve you need to keep trying different things, I totally agree intensity is the key. At some point we find out what works best for us if you keep at it that is and are open to new ideas.
> 
> In my original post I was merely trying to offer an explanation of what intensity is when considered in a cyclical training program as a coach / strength athlete, which I think is directly transferable to bodybuilding. Just offering up some of what I've picked up - years ago I did a BAWLA coaching course and I've been obsessed with hard training since I was 13, always eager to learn...
> 
> Depending on what I'm trying to do, grow, gain harder condition, get stronger will have an impact on how I train, what I eat and even how much sleep etc.
> 
> There is no point anyone going in a gym to progress and giving it a half arsed go, we've all seen people reading a book on the recumbent bike etc and wondering why they don't look like Lance Armstrong .
> 
> Unfortunately the huge investment made by some governments into understanding the optimum approach to Strength training hasn't been replicated in Bodybuilding so we have to take information from where we can and learn.
> 
> My belief is you should vary; intensity, volume and weights, reps sets and exercises to keep progressing. It's also a good idea to record what you've done and what has worked.
> 
> I'm going on and someone will notice I'm on hear after lunch&#8230;.


Nice post dude. Many points in there which i was trying to raise.

Im with you on the varying of intensity also, you gotta incorporate some kinda periodization into your training or sooner or later its gonna go stale.


----------



## Neil R

Young Gun said:


> Thats just not right plain and simple. 75% - 80% of strength gains come from your CNS adaptation in which previously dormant muscle fibres are recruited to contract and move the body. Only 20% comes from hypertrophy. Its entirely possible to become stronger without getting bigger.


Surely this depends ENTIRELY on how experienced you are at training!!

For a newcomer to weights this would be true, as the physiological adaptive response is to work within its capabilities. Therefore it initially, becomes more efficient at lifting. i.e :- S.A.I.D; previously, your body had no demand on 100% of the muscle fibres and therefore didn't use them. Then you begin weight training and all of a sudden these previously unused muscle fibres are brought into play. ergo a strength increase without an accompanying level of muscular hypertrophy.

However, now consider people, such as myself for example, who have been training consistently for almost 20 years. Your statement falls apart here as their is no conceivable way that I could further increase the efficiency of muscle fibre usage, therefore, due to this the gains made would be from pure muscular hypertrophy.

Also, on the subject of training. There are certain universal laws that dictate the processes of hypertrophy, physiologically speaking.

Firstly, the law of overload. This is a principle of training that to progress you must increase the load on the muscle. This is pretty much common sense as you will NEVER get 20" arms if you curl the same 20lb dumbells you did when you first began training.

by increasing the overload on the muscle, you are, in fact, increasing the stress on the muscle fibres.

Stress, being defined in physics as "*Force per unit of cross sectional area*", as you are trying to increase the cross sectional area of the muscle, you must, naturally,and by definition, increase the force. This is a UNIVERSAL LAW!! So to become bigger you must become stronger, eventually.

However, no where does it state that this is to be done in one set of an exercise or in 5 sets. That choice comes down to the individual and their recouperative capabilities.

P.S :- I LOVE this thread, Its is making people think about their training. Mike Mentzer would be proud!


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Neil R said:


> .
> 
> Firstly, the law of overload. This is a principle of training that to progress you must increase the load on the muscle. This is pretty much common sense as you will NEVER get 20" arms if you curl the same 20lb dumbells you did when you first began training.
> 
> by increasing the overload on the muscle, you are, in fact, increasing the stress on the muscle fibres.
> 
> Stress, being defined in physics as "*Force per unit of cross sectional area*", as you are trying to increase the cross sectional area of the muscle, you must, naturally,and by definition, increase the force. This is a UNIVERSAL LAW!! So to become bigger you must become stronger, eventually.


Amen to that bro. I did mention the overload principle in an ealier post, but you described it way better


----------



## Tall

Neil R said:


> P.S :- I LOVE this thread, Its is making people think about their training. Mike Mentzer would be proud!


*In strolls THS to take the credit*

*takes a bow*

*drinks protein shake*

*heads off for a 90min massage*


----------



## Tom84

Neil R said:


> Surely this depends ENTIRELY on how experienced you are at training!!
> 
> For a newcomer to weights this would be true, as the physiological adaptive response is to work within its capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Neil R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is more relevant to newcomers the point is a more general one that strength training and Bodybuilding is different.
> 
> 
> 
> Neil R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore it initially, becomes more efficient at lifting. i.e :- S.A.I.D; previously, your body had no demand on 100% of the muscle fibres and therefore didn't use them. Then you begin weight training and all of a sudden these previously unused muscle fibres are brought into play. ergo a strength increase without an accompanying level of muscular hypertrophy.
> 
> 
> 
> Neil R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not technically true as obviously you have had demand on all of your muscle fibres through general life but your body learns to adapt to the strength overload you now place on it.
> 
> With the greatest respect in the world to you your observations about yourself are just not true. Chris Jenkins is far stronger than you on a strength to weight ratio. You could follow a strength training programme and your CNS would adapt far better. You would become stronger but your musclemass would increase far less than if you followed a bodybuilding programme.
> 
> In regards to training I agree, my point was far more that strength training is not the best way. Hence Pikeys observations and individuals like Chris Jenkins. I pointed out myself that strength focused training will result in increase muscle mass but progressive weight increase is a best a guide and at worse pretty irrelevant to bodybuilding progress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Neil R

> Thats not technically true as obviously you have had demand on all of your muscle fibres through general life but your body learns to adapt to the strength overload you now place on it.





> With the greatest respect in the world to you your observations about yourself are just not true. Chris Jenkins is far stronger than you on a strength to weight ratio. You could follow a strength training programme and your CNS would adapt far better. You would become stronger but your musclemass would increase far less than if you followed a bodybuilding programme.


You are not measuring like for like.

You are comparing a Powerlifter to a bodybuilder and the two are completely different entities, as i'm sure Chris will testify.

In powerlifting the aim is NOT to recruit as much muscle as possible to lift the weight, but to utilise biomechanical advantage as much as possible, hence the vastly differing techniques.Have a chat with the guys on

www.powerliftinguk.com they'll help shed some light!.

In bodybuilding the aim is to place the maximum strain on the target muscle, once this is achieved then an increase in strength results in an increased cross sectional area, i.e - Hypertrophy, in order for the muscle to survive the next workout.

Your body will only utilise the minimum number of muscle fibres neccessary to complete a task. (Huxleys all-or-none law). In general day to day life you do not place sufficient demand on your bodily resources to require it to recruit many muscle fibres, with reegular intense training you are constantly placing the demand that your body must adapt to. As you said initially it increases the neuromuscular efficiency, however, one this is at a maximum, the only ways to increase is through either (a) Increased muscle size, as dictated by physics, or ( B) an amendment to the technique utilised; as in powerlifting.



> In regards to training I agree, my point was far more that *strength training is not the best way*. Hence Pikeys observations and individuals like Chris Jenkins. *I pointed out myself that strength focused training will result in increase muscle mass* but progressive weight increase is a best a guide and at worse pretty irrelevant to bodybuilding progress


Not the best way...the only way!! (assuming exercise techmique is kept at a constant!) 

P.S - Great posts everyone - keep 'em coming


----------



## Neil R

One more thing. The definition of Intensity that was provided earlier is not actually true. The level of Intesity is defined more as the level of effort given to a task.

To use an example previously given i.e - 4x5rep squats or 1 x 20.

The 1 x 20 rep set (using the same weight), was given to be the more 'intense'. However, lets look at that 1 set. Which is the most intense REP?? The first one , that you go down and back up again quite quickly? maybe in 3-4 seconds; or the 20th that takes maybe 10-12 seconds to complete?? because its an all out balls-to-the-walls rep!

Obviously its the last rep because thats the one you terminate the set on, however, that is also the rep that takes the LONGEST TIME to complete, therefore duration not the most accurate measure of intensity. The last rep is the one you have to put the most EFFORT into to complete, and is therefore the most INTENSE.

Just thought i'd try clear that up


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Neil R said:


> One more thing. The definition of Intensity that was provided earlier is not actually true. The level of Intesity is defined more as the level of effort given to a task.
> 
> To use an example previously given i.e - 4x5rep squats or 1 x 20.
> 
> The 1 x 20 rep set (using the same weight), was given to be the more 'intense'. However, lets look at that 1 set. Which is the most intense REP?? The first one , that you go down and back up again quite quickly? maybe in 3-4 seconds; or the 20th that takes maybe 10-12 seconds to complete?? because its an all out balls-to-the-walls rep!
> 
> Obviously its the last rep because thats the one you terminate the set on, however, that is also the rep that takes the LONGEST TIME to complete, therefore duration not the most accurate measure of intensity. The last rep is the one you have to put the most EFFORT into to complete, and is therefore the most INTENSE.
> 
> Just thought i'd try clear that up


Yep you got me there dude. I agree with what your saying.

But........

Volume and intensity do still go hand in hand as i was saying all along lol


----------



## Tom84

bulldozer said:


> Yep you got me there dude. I agree with what your saying.
> 
> But........
> 
> Volume and intensity do still go hand in hand as i was saying all along lol


Thats really didn't back up your argument re - read it.


----------



## Tom84

I realise in day to day life your body uses the minimum muscle fibres necessary the wording of my previous post was poor. My point was that not all muscle fibres are dormant ie you said your body has no demand on 100% of its muscle fibres. The point is irrelevant though and I think we both generally understand the same concept.

I understand that powerlifting/bodybuilding is entirely different. But the basic point remains that at a strength to weight ratio a bodybuilder is weaker than a powerlifter. Though a large part of this is down to technique I think a good deal is down to CNS adaption as well. Progressive weight increase and overload is essential I do agree with this however when debating you tend to overstate your point of view 

My point is a more general one that essential for bodybuilding is not to measure strength increase in increments but to add musclemass and that often switching exercises and the varying different ways of training will work far better.

I also don't understand the point an increase in strength results in an increase in cross sectional area - hypertrophy.

Hypertrophy is the increase of the size of an organ or in a select area of the tissue. Muscular hypertrophy thus an increase in the size of skeletal muscle is dependant entirely on the type of training, the hypertrophy can occur through increased sarcoplasmic volume or increased contractile proteins.

Strength training typically produces a combination of the two different types of hypertrophy; contraction against 80-90% of the one repetition maximum for 2-8 repetitions causes myofibrillated hypertrophy to dominate (as in powerlifters, olympic lifters and strength athletes), while several repetitions (generally 8 - 12 or more) against a sub-maximal load facilitates mainly sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (professional bodybuilders).

Muscle hypertrophy due to strength training is not necessarily well correlated with gains in actual muscle strength: it is possible for muscles to grow larger without becoming much stronger sarcoplasmic hypertrophy predominant in bodybuilders and not strength atheletes facilitating this.

Hubal, MJ; Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, Gordon PM, Moyna NM, Pescatello LS, Visich PS, Zoeller RF, Seip RL, Clarkson PM (June 2005)


----------



## Tom84

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, is the process which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in contractile strength


----------



## crazycal1

ive got bigger as ive got stronger


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Young Gun said:


> Thats really didn't back up your argument re - read it.


HUH??

there is no argument mate, its common sense that you cant train intense and do it for a long period of time. I feel i have made my point 50 times over. If you cant see what i mean by now and by reading the link to BB.com that i posted ill just retire and let you get on with it lol


----------



## Tom84

The point was that the most intense rep in a squat set is the final rep which is actually the one that takes the longest. Time and intensity have no relation effort and intensity do. Its the maximum amount of EFFORT which results in maximum intensity.

To use your example of a 100m runner against a marathon as a measure of intensity your statement was pretty correct. However what if the 100m runner continues to run as fast as he can for a greater distance using his maximum effort. The intensity does not decrease.

You can do as many sets as you like in the gym and as long as you go to failure the intensity of each set is broadly the same. It isn't some absurd assumption that intensity in the gym is related to time that makes doing 500 sets not a good idea.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Young Gun said:


> To use your example of a 100m runner against a marathon as a measure of intensity your statement was pretty correct. However what if the 100m runner continues to run as fast as he can for a greater distance using his maximum effort. The intensity does not decrease.


Thats a contradiction, if your saying that the 100 m runner carries on makes it more intense then why isnt the marathon runner more intense to start off with ?? He is going further ??

We are talking productive training here, not arguing semantics. If the 100 metre runner ran his flat out for the first 100 metres and then continued to run the intensity would be lower. Because that 100 metres is representing a weight in this example, its basically a maximum weight that you can do say 10 reps with (or 10 seconds running). If thats your maximum weight then how can you continue afterwards?? You could only lower the weight and do more reps. Thats not what intensity is.

As i have said about fifty times now we are talking PRODUCTIVE training here, why not just keep doing set after set until you can only lift 1/2 kg. Is that intense??

Take my example once more. The marathon runner is representing a weight once again. Its obviously a light weight. Say 10kg, and squat it 1000 times. I would call that a marathon, is that intense ?? No. Is it productive .....No.

What build's muscle ?? Marathon's or sprint's ??

If you cant see that then please read this, cos i obviously cant explain it in a way that you can understand.

Bodybuilding.com - Clayton South - Intensity: Do You Have It?

Read it all, but if i could draw your attention to point 6 of the conclusion

Google around if you still need more evidence, lots of things saying the same thing.

EDIT: another google jobby for ya, it compares the two. high volume and high intensity because they are 2 opposite ends of the spectrum.

TESTOSTERONE NATION


----------



## Tom84

as the marathon runner doesn't exert maximum effort to begin with jesus its not rocket science. If a runner runs flat out his intensity only drops when stops running as fast as he can no matter the speed.

But as you said this is semantics and I really can't be arsed reading that article but point 6 is pathetic. The shorter the workout the more intense with no qualifications I'm sure you can see is wrong. However we have both posted far too much and the majority of people in one form or another have expressed there opinion.

For what its worth I train 4 times a week for around 40 mins. I just think that often on this board the people who shout the loudest undertrain and it needs to be balanced. But thats my last comment in the thread as I've said my piece.


----------



## bulldozer1466867928

Ok dude, no worries. You still dont understand the word intensity, but no skin off my nose 

Like i said all along you have to find a balance of intensity/volume and frequncy that works for YOU.


----------



## crazycal1

he who shouts loudest aint always right too!


----------



## Tall

crazycal1 said:


> he who shouts loudest aint always right too!


I think thats what YG was saying mate...


----------

