# Rant on recent hypertrophy volume recommendations



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Right so ive spoken about Mike israetel's MEV, MAV and MRV (minimum effective volume, maximum adaptive volume and maximum recoverable volume) and how i think it is daft, there is extensive writing on his part but essentially he has you titrate up your volume from 12 sets per muscle group all the way up to 20 sets per muscle group and then deload and repeat

now the whole circle jerk crew of schoenfield, israetel and helms are all preachers of higher frequency to accommodate this which i do agree with (the frequency only) as a natural and ideally as enhanced,

the more often you can squat in a week the more adaptation you've sparked in your lower body plus it leaves for more effective exercise selection due to being fresh neurologically each session or to put it simply you squat 3x per week relatively fresh vs say a leg day where you might do 3 sets of squats and then all your other volume in lesser effective exercises due to being mentally and physically fatigued from the first set, double whammy in training bang for buck; repeated stimulus and most effective stimulus (think squat vs leg extension)

I do think there are certain scenarios and phases where a lower frequency could be employed but that's a separate topic (feel free to quote me below if you want me to share my views on this)

that out the way my disagreement lies in their volume recommendations (namely brad schoenfield but they all follow suit) he recently put out a study which was poorly conducted as outlined by Lyle mcdonald in this video:






in this video lyle highlights all the issues which i dont want to list individually as I'm already writing a novel

my main issue lies again in the volume recommendations

up to 28-45 sets? i mean seriously this is fu**ing ridiculous

i often use the cup = muscle, liquid = stimulus of muscle protein synthesis analogy

your muscles are cups, training is liquid being poured into these cups (stimulus of MPS) once these cups are full (fully stimulated to adaptation) the only thing you are doing by adding further volume is burning calories, eating into recovery and increasing risk of overuse injury

in short lyle has summed this up, 10 - 20 sets per muscle group is ALL you need for maximal hypertrophy

anything beyond this is a waste of time and in most peoples cases (the reason i dislike mikes renaissance periodization) 20 sets is way too much with 10-15 being ample range

split this over 1-3 sessions (no less than 2 as a natural) and eat to recover with progressive overload in mind and youll grow as fast and as far as your genetics will allow

this is not strength training, you do not need to overreach, peak and deload to demonstrate a performance

to put it into perspective into quad aimed lower body sessions (assume there would be hamstring work and of course upper sessions during the week also)

10 sets per week

Monday *squat 4x6,* Thursday *squat 3x10 and leg press 3x10* = your 10 sets for quads over the week

30 sets per week

Monday *squat 5x5*, Wednesday *leg press 5x10, leg extensions 5x10*, Friday *front squat 5x10, lunges 5x10, *Sunday *squat 5x10 *= your 30 sets for quads over the week

the 30 - 45 set week recommendation is not only stupid for all levels of advancement but also over training and likely to cause injury hence I made a thread about this for any of those following these unquestioned until recently by Lyle gurus

EDIT - i got so caught up in mike isratel MRV of 20 sets i actually didnt put my point for writing this thread down which was Brad Schoenfelds study claiming upper levels of sets being in the 30 for upper body and 45 for lower body

now that i cant even be assed to write an example out of but just try to picture 45 sets spread across a week for a single muscle group and see why this is utterly absurd people trying to reinvent the wheel and it comes as no surprise that brad himself is a skinny w**ker

10 - 15 sets per muscle group, per week is plenty for hypertrophy in my opinion


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

Don't think I have ever done 20 sets on any body part in my whole life. 10 sets and I am usually to fcuked after that to do anything else.

Chest as an example I will do 5-6 sets of flat bench usually in the 6 rep range. 3-4 sets of incline for sets of 10. Progressive overload being the driving factor.

I could do more volume but the muscles have been worked and I would rather get home, eat and recover.


----------



## Matt6210 (Feb 15, 2018)

boutye911 said:


> Don't think I have ever done 20 sets on any body part in my whole life. 10 sets and I am usually to fcuked after that to do anything else.
> 
> Chest as an example I will do 5-6 sets of flat bench usually in the 6 rep range. 3-4 sets of incline for sets of 10. Progressive overload being the driving factor.
> 
> I could do more volume but the muscles have been worked and I would rather get home, eat and recover.


 I do 15 - 20 sets on every body part 6 days a week.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

boutye911 said:


> Don't think I have ever done 20 sets on any body part in my whole life. 10 sets and I am usually to fcuked after that to do anything else.
> 
> Chest as an example I will do 5-6 sets of flat bench usually in the 6 rep range. 3-4 sets of incline for sets of 10. Progressive overload being the driving factor.
> 
> I could do more volume but the muscles have been worked and I would rather get home, eat and recover.


 i ranted for ages and went off the original topic that sparked me to make the thread (brad schoenfelds 30-45! sets per muscle group)

but yes i agree thats why i wanted to make a thread

honestly 15 is really upper end for me on a body part split

say 4x8, 3x12 one day and then 2 days later the same = 14 sets total

ive no idea where these numbers are coming from


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Matt6210 said:


> I do 15 - 20 sets on every body part 6 days a week.


 imagine doubling both of those numbers

that is what this recent research is suggesting

45 sets! for your lower body


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Glad I'm not the only one that think these guys are a bunch of cu**s when it comes to all this volume bullshit.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

ILLBehaviour said:


> Glad I'm not the only one that think these guys are a bunch of cu**s when it comes to all this volume bullshit.


 lyle said it right

10 - 20 covers all ranges from acceptable to MAXIMAL volume and those that can recover from it

personally 15 is about my max unless there is a load of fluff in there

i honestly feel like im missing something from this 30 and 45 set recommendation, i dont even know how youd program it without 2 a days and high frequency


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

Matt6210 said:


> I do 15 - 20 sets on every body part 6 days a week.


 Jesus fella I would never make my way through that. Would have to half my weights. Although most of my time training has been for strength, competiting in strongman and the odd powerlifting meet.


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

swole troll said:


> i ranted for ages and went off the original topic that sparked me to make the thread (brad schoenfelds 30-45! sets per muscle group)
> 
> but yes i agree thats why i wanted to make a thread
> 
> ...


 Yea with higher frequency I could up the volume slightly but what % of 1rm are they using to do 45 sets. Waste of fcuking time in my opinion. Would be more effective putting some weight on the bar and doing a third of what he recommends.


----------



## Matt6210 (Feb 15, 2018)

boutye911 said:


> Jesus fella I would never make my way through that. Would have to half my weights. Although most of my time training has been for strength, competiting in strongman and the odd powerlifting meet.


 Yea I change order i do exercises from week to week, I like being in the gym tho tbh, do it in hour and half, train quite quickly with a pal.


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

Matt6210 said:


> Yea I change order i do exercises from week to week, I like being in the gym tho tbh, do it in hour and half, train quite quickly with a pal.


 If it works for you mate then fair play. I've spent my life in the gym so nowadays I want to be in and out. Doesn't help with the wife phoning saying there is 2 wee girls squealing the house down and where the fcuk am i at. :lol:


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

swole troll said:


> lyle said it right
> 
> 10 - 20 covers all ranges from acceptable to MAXIMAL volume and those that can recover from it
> 
> ...


 No doubt there'll be a load of young kids reading these studies and lapping it up.

I'm imagining a lot of ppl buying into it don't know how to train effectively , they will think if they do more sets it will mean more gains.


----------



## Fadi (Dec 14, 2010)

swole troll said:


> *Rant on recent hypertrophy volume recommendations*


 Brother, I hope you're well.

I couldn't agree with you more if I tried. These sports scientists are looking for that one critical element that simply doesn't exist; perfection.

You Sir, with certain others, have figured it all out, perhaps without even realising it. You've figured out that that elusive "Perfection ", is the ultimate enemy of "Good", period!

Back in the 70s, the "Austrian Oak" and his buddies, found what was and what is the "Good", and were intelligent enough to stop at that. Fast forward 30 - 40 years, and we see scientists busy looking for that Holy Grail of muscle building. You and others like minded, are basically screaming in frustration that simply says, "reinventing the wheel is not required fellows", we've been there done that...

A "set" is a three letter word, behind of which exists an ocean of variabilities. An Olympic weightlifter may do upwards of 45 sets on squats spread over 5 squat sessions per week (for example), yet a set may exist of no more than between 1 or 2 reps at a specific percentage of the lifter's 1RM.

My point above was that, a set is not just a set, there's more to it than that. So for a scientist to be throwing words around, relating to amount of sets done per week for muscle hypertrophy (without getting into the specifics), is not just irresponsible, but bloody well dangerous for some reading such information.

Any coach worth the name, would strive to have his lifter do the absolute minimum, on the road to achieving the absolute maximum in performance ... and *never* the other way around!

All power to you mate.


----------



## Henda83 (Mar 3, 2018)

swole troll said:


> it comes as no surprise that brad himself is a skinny w**ker


 Haha yes


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Henda83 said:


> Haha yes
> 
> View attachment 168475


 Looks like Christopher Walken's heroin addict brother


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

My biggest day is legs regarding volume.

Chest triceps - chest 9 sets triceps 6 sets

Back biceps - back 9 sets, biceps 6 sets

Shoulders - 15 sets

Legs - around 22 sets

May reduce leg volume slightly soon.


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

I work approximately 9 sets a body part per session. All body parts get twice a week. So that's approximately 18 per boys part but honestly I am not bloody counting.

Tell the likes of Dorian etc all this and they would laugh you out out of the place.

There is a place for volume it is not longer my preference so I choose to leave it out except legs sessions as my legs respond better to higher volume. Other than that I train how I enjoy and how I remain consistent, low volume heavy weight twice a week. I had a period of reading helms etc and I enjoyed it but I hate to say it but your looking at a load of science geeks telling us what works on perfect world or whatever and it's ridiculous.

My aim is progressive overload, so providing my lifts are going up and I am seeing results I am not geeking off over whether what i am doing is optimum.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Mayzini said:


> I work approximately 9 sets a body part per session. All body parts get twice a week. So that's approximately 18 per boys part but honestly I am not bloody counting.
> 
> Tell the likes of Dorian etc all this and they would laugh you out out of the place.
> 
> ...


 I honestly consider 20 sets per muscle group to be extremely high volume as it is

Personally around 16 sets tops does the job for me and for a muscle like delts, triceps or biceps I'll use about a third to half of that in terms of direct work (I consider all presses in part a delt and tricep exercise)

I get there is people that like to and do progress on the high end of Mike israetels renaissance training of 10 climbing up to 20 sets but I refuse to believe any one is making any extra measurable gains using 30 to 45 sets for a muscle group

In fact I'd argue that the extra sets would be hindering their gains

Lyle summed it up best when he said 10 - 20 sets for hypertrophy.

But like you I don't really consciously count, I'll program what I feel is enough then the proof is in the pudding and if it isn't or I don't feel it is after trialling it I'll adjust the volume accordingly


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

swole troll said:


> I honestly consider 20 sets per muscle group to be extremely high volume as it is
> 
> Personally around 16 sets tops does the job for me and for a muscle like delts, triceps or biceps I'll use about a third to half of that in terms of direct work (I consider all presses in part a delt and tricep exercise)
> 
> ...


 This like aas is people over complicating the process. I have been guilty of banging on what is best drug for this combining this that as the other when ultimately what worked for arnie and the likes on the 70's still would work wonders for most of us.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Mayzini said:


> This like aas is people over complicating the process. I have been guilty of banging on what is best drug for this combining this that as the other when ultimately what worked for arnie and the likes on the 70's still would work wonders for most of us.


 It's easily done

The biggest factor in all of this; training, diet, rest, drugs, supplements is consistency

People try to create these 'perfect' cycles and training routines when really there's no such thing and it's just a matter of slugging away for years on end with short, medium and long term goals and being adaptive with all variables on route to each


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

swole troll said:


> It's easily done
> 
> The biggest factor in all of this; training, diet, rest, drugs, supplements is consistency
> 
> People try to create these 'perfect' cycles and training routines when really there's no such thing and it's just a matter of slugging away for years on end with short, medium and long term goals and being adaptive with all variables on route to each


 So true it took 20 years of training trying all these different things reading eating all these diets, etc and the best result was and still is the routine and lifestyle I enjoyed the most as that's the one I stayed consistent with.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Shots fired @Ultrasonic you not going to defend your crownies?

It's not what you're doing, but the execution imo. up to 45 sets a week for a muscle group is ridiculous. I agree beyond those 20 sets, it's likely to be counterproductive.

I use the analogy of hammering a nail, some can hammer the nail in one or two blows, others may require 7 strikes.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Pancake' said:


> Shots fired @Ultrasonic you not going to defend your crownies?
> 
> It's not what you're doing, but the execution imo. up to 45 sets a week for a muscle group is ridiculous. I agree beyond those 20 sets, it's likely to be counterproductive.
> 
> I use the analogy of hammering a nail, some can hammer the nail in one or two blows, others may require 7 strikes.


 But no one requires 45 strikes...

I defy anyone to require more than

Bench x 5 sets

Incline x 5

Db bench x 3

Incline db bench x 3

Flies x 4

done in one or split between two sessions

If anyone requires more than that they're not pushing hard enough on the compounds or doing far too much fluff and isolation

Personally my average chest work will be 6 x a barbell bench

6 x a dumbbell bench

I might in a high volume phase add 6 x a fly also

Whether that's split twice per week or once per week this is ample for me and anything beyond this just feels like going through the motions, burning calories, eating into recovery and increasing risk of overuse injury


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

swole troll said:


> Whether that's split twice per week or once per week this is ample for me and anything beyond this just feels like going through the motions, burning calories, eating into recovery and increasing risk of overuse injury


 Yeah it's beating at a dead horse for sure. I lost interest in any of those nerds a long time ago, they're like a bunch of women with their hour long podcasts rambling utter sh1te about minor additional details.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

swole troll said:


> But no one requires 45 strikes...
> 
> I defy anyone to require more than
> 
> ...


 these are two points which everyone seems to overlook, recovery is so underrated and nothing hinders gains more than an injury.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

ILLBehaviour said:


> these are two points which everyone seems to overlook, recovery is so underrated and nothing hinders gains more than an injury.


 it really is

most people would be amazed at how much more theyd progress with less volume and more rest days.

you only have to look at some of the biggest and strongest guys to see the emphasis on recovery

dorian yates - one 'feeler' set then one set to all out failure, in total probably only about 10 sets for a body part then a full weeks rest

jordan peters - warms up to a single set to total failure, upper days hit all muscle groups with just 1 exercise each then they rest for 72 hours before the same again

dave palumbo - often spoke about doing high volume but then toward the end of his career doing 3 sets on incline, couple drop sets, some dumbbell machine press for 2 sets then 3 sets of flys

pete rubish - did an entire 12 week training block before pulling over 400kg doing just one upper session and one lower session per week

andrey malanichev - has a squat day, bench day and a deadlift day, just 3 training days per week

and before anyone chimes in with 'well theyre enhanced' yes they are! which means they recover at a far greater rate than naturals do...

honestly training advice these days is getting as gimmicky as weight loss quick fixes

its all just about consistency, there isnt really fa new to be learned


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

I rarely if ever go above 3 works sets. I repeat this as often as I can. Sometimes that's 3x per week. Other times it's less. Works for me. (And everyone else on earth that doesn't train with the intensity of a total ***).


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quick reply as I was tagged but I have NOT read the thread, just the first paragraph below, so apologies if I'm repeating what anyone else has already posted. (I'm busy with other stuff at the minute so I'm not getting into this.)



swole troll said:


> Right so ive spoken about Mike israetel's MEV, MAV and MRV (minimum effective volume, maximum adaptive volume and maximum recoverable volume) and how i think it is daft, there is extensive writing on his part but essentially he has you titrate up your volume from 12 sets per muscle group all the way up to 20 sets per muscle group and then deload and repeat


 This fundamentally misrepresents Mike Israetel's ideas. An absolutely fundamental part of his approach to volume is that this needs to optimised for the individual, with the MEV and MRV landmarks varying wildly between individuals and also for the same individual over the course of their training career. Mike discusses this in the following recent podcast, which will start at the relevant bit. (Do have a watch @swole troll as it's not a long section and I really do think you'll find you disagree with Mike a lot less than you think.)


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Quick reply as I was tagged but I have NOT read the thread, just the first paragraph below, so apologies if I'm repeating what anyone else has already posted. (I'm busy with other stuff at the minute so I'm not getting into this.)
> 
> This fundamentally misrepresents Mike Israetel's ideas. An absolutely fundamental part of his approach to volume is that this needs to optimised for the individual, with the MEV and MRV landmarks varying wildly between individuals and also for the same individual over the course of their training career. Mike discusses this in the following recent podcast, which will start at the relevant bit. (Do have a watch @swole troll as it's not a long section and I really do think you'll find you disagree with Mike a lot less than you think.)


 I'm not at a computer at the moment but I will watch this when I am later this evening.

Mike wasn't actually the intially intended target of my rant, i went on a bit of a tangent

The actual post was summarized by Lyle's video I linked in the OP

EDIT - so i have actually seen this, watched it the other night

mike talks about the MRV and MEV becoming very close the more advanced you get

as i said i went on a bit of a tangent and my main focus for this thread was brad schoenfeld latest study


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

It's all bollocks mate. 10-20 sets per muscle group per week is plenty. To get 40 sets out of my chest workout, I'd have to do 10x10 on all 4 exercises. Ludicrous. I've done like 24 sets on a muscle group doing Gironda 6x6 and I consider that to be very high volume.


----------



## Simon90 (Oct 28, 2017)

swole troll said:


> it really is
> 
> most people would be amazed at how much more theyd progress with less volume and more rest days.
> 
> ...


 Never made progress as fast till I switched over too JPs style of training. Best 5er I spent was on his subscription.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Simon90 said:


> Never made progress as fast till I switched over too JPs style of training. Best 5er I spent was on his subscription.


 hes made an ebook now

https://www.trainedbyjp.com/ebook/

wouldnt be a bad read at all but ill be f**ked if im parting with 50 quid for a digital copy of a book


----------



## Simon90 (Oct 28, 2017)

swole troll said:


> hes made an ebook now
> 
> https://www.trainedbyjp.com/ebook/
> 
> wouldnt be a bad read at all but ill be f**ked if im parting with 50 quid for a digital copy of a book


 Yeah mate I agree, Its abit s**t it being just an ebook, if it was a proper book I would get it.

Tbf that 79quid offer there isnt bad atall the book and lifetime subscription as there s some excellent information on there. Always good content being uploaded by all the guys there. But like you said I aint a fan of ebooks either.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Simon90 said:


> Yeah mate I agree, Its abit s**t it being just an ebook, if it was a proper book I would get it.
> 
> Tbf that 79quid offer there isnt bad atall the book and lifetime subscription as there s some excellent information on there. Always good content being uploaded by all the guys there. But like you said I aint a fan of ebooks either.


 thats worded quite sneaky

its not to his membership site its just for a forum section dedicated to his book


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

drwae said:


> What the f**k £50 for 26 pages?


 :lol: a fool and their money are easily parted mate.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

drwae said:


> What the f**k £50 for 26 pages?


 Just had a browse and basically says work all the rep ranges, go to failure and use rest pause and a logbook to track progress. Oh and do some stretchs too.

Underwhelming to say the least.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

drwae said:


> What the f**k £50 for 26 pages?


 probably a better investment in your long term gains than 12 units of gh per week :whistling:


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

ILLBehaviour said:


> Just had a browse and basically says work all the rep ranges, go to failure and use rest pause and a logbook to track progress. Oh and do some stretchs too.
> 
> Underwhelming to say the least.


 Glad i've read it,

certainly not worth 50 quid for what it is but its a closer program to what id run than 30 - 45 sets per muscle group


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Sorry guys no copyrighted ebook links allowed.


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> Sorry guys no copyrighted ebook links allowed.


 Sorry fella my mistake. :thumbup1:


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

I was underwhelmed by that ebook personally, the splits suggested was crap as well imo. he has two other templates, one on growing the other cutting, which I thought was much better than the ebook.


----------



## superpube (Feb 18, 2015)

boutye911 said:


> Sorry fella my mistake. :thumbup1:


 You're not sorry at all


----------



## Henda83 (Mar 3, 2018)

ILLBehaviour said:


> Just had a browse and basically says work all the rep ranges, go to failure and use rest pause and a logbook to track progress. Oh and do some stretchs too.
> 
> Underwhelming to say the least.


 So he's charging 50 quid for info Dante was putting out for free almost 20 year ago?


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Henda83 said:


> So he's charging 50 quid for info Dante was putting out for free almost 20 year ago?


 cycling for pennies still turns it up


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Henda83 said:


> So he's charging 50 quid for info Dante was putting out for free almost 20 year ago?


 Yep and he actually makes several references to DC training when talking about rest pause and extreme stretching. Definitely not worth £50.


----------



## Jack of blades (Apr 2, 2017)

I do squats 3x a week but if I was to do upto 20 sets of squats I'd be going backwards. Squats, 3x a week 4 main sets in a session at the most is the sweet spot for me


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I agree that the volume thing is being expanded way beyond what the data actually says.

What it shows us that when doing up to 10-20 sets (exact number variable between individual body parts and individual people) each set adds a decent amount of stimulus until you reach a point where additional sets still can grant benefit but, and this is the bit the volume gurus kind of gloss over, the additional benefit becomes barely significant per extra set. These additional sets however do incur a greater drain on the CNS and cause just as much (and possibly more) muscle damage as earlier sets, and this can be detrimental long term because it increases your need for more rest, tighter nutrition, and much lower frequency in order to recover.

To me the above is one big strike against large volumes per week every week. However, there are other ways to employ higher volume in a limit fashion that may be better.

One way is to select a single body part or muscle groups to train with high volume for a while whilst keeping everything else at normal volume levels. Do so for four to six weeks, or whatever your individual capacity allows, then switch the high volume focus to a different muscle or group of muscles. Kind of like doing one old school specialization routine after another for different body parts.

The other approach is mesocycling - a week of high volume, a week of low, continuously alternating. In theory this might not hurt you out and yet still allows the small extra adaptive benefit.

I do think there is some evidence suggesting that higher volume does create the highest hypertrophy stimulus - the problem though is that this 'physiologically ideal' form of training is impractical, fraught with overtraining and burnout risk, and very difficult to perform optimally on for more than a few sessions in a row. Yes you definitely can train to systematically build tolerance, but it's always going to lead you to being more drained overall.

So, even though it may be optimal in an abstract sense, what is actually practically optimal for most people who can't dedicate every second of every day to training, nutrition and optimal recovery practices because they have normal lives to live, is not going to be super high volume. Rather it's going to be as much volume to the highest frequency that they, as individuals, can perform longterm without burnout.

For most people IMO this is not going to be higher than 8-15 intense sets per muscle group per week, unless cycling the volume as per one of the suggestions above (or perhaps cycling it in a different way, there are many potential options).


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

swole troll said:


> But no one requires 45 strikes...
> 
> I defy anyone to require more than
> 
> ...


 Hi Swole, I agree with your points... Although I train slightly higher volume as it seems to work for me.

I do

Monday : Back 20 sets

Tuesday : Biceps 15 sets / Triceps 18 sets

Wednesday : Shoulders 16 sets

Thursday : Chest 20 Sets

Friday : Legs 20 sets


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

PhilJ56 said:


> Hi Swole, I agree with your points... Although I train slightly higher volume as it seems to work for me.
> 
> I do
> 
> ...


 Hi mate. Why those amounts of sets specifically? I've seen Jeff Nippard and Dr Mike Israetel recommend similar.


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

Endomorph84 said:


> Hi mate. Why those amounts of sets specifically? I've seen Jeff Nippard and Dr Mike Israetel recommend similar.


 It's just how my exercises pan out, for example my chest I try to hit everything, so 4 sets of barbell bench for overall mass and strength, 4 sets incline bench, 4 sets dips, 4 sets flies, 4 sets pullovers or cable flies for the centre line. I inherited Arnold's encyclopedia to bodybuilding from my dad years ago, it's only until the last year though that I've properly started reading through it... What's your take on that book? I base a lot of my training from that.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

PhilJ56 said:


> Hi Swole, I agree with your points... Although I train slightly higher volume as it seems to work for me.
> 
> I do
> 
> ...


 The example I listed in the post you quoted was for 20 sets of chest

"But no one requires 45 strikes...

I defy anyone to require more than

Bench x 5 sets

Incline x 5

Db bench x 3

Incline db bench x 3

Flies x 4 "

Personally I don't train at 20 sets, I prefer more bang for your buck excersises and typically will train as low as 6 sets per week up to around 16 sets per week max

Grow fine and my strength constantly climbs

I could throw in another 10 sets by way of fluff n pump but I get very little fulfilment from these lifts and believe they contribute very little to overall growth outside of a small amount of additional metabolic fatigue without further taxing cns

For example I'm in a higher volume higher rep phase for myself at the moment and my chest day is 3 sets of incline bench, 3 sets of dips, 3 sets of hammer strength bench and 3 sets of cable crossovers (finish with 4 sets of triceps)

I know if I threw in another set of 3 for chest (taking me to 15 sets total) I'd get no extra benefit just more wear and tear on the joints and pointless additional fatigue.

But as always the main thing is you are increasing total tonnage lifted per week / progressively overloading and if you are doing 25,35,45 sets and you enjoy it then carry on but I do feel more economic exercise selection could be used to lower the overall volume for the same pay out


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

PhilJ56 said:


> It's just how my exercises pan out, for example my chest I try to hit everything, so 4 sets of barbell bench for overall mass and strength, 4 sets incline bench, 4 sets dips, 4 sets flies, 4 sets pullovers or cable flies for the centre line. I inherited Arnold's encyclopedia to bodybuilding from my dad years ago, it's only until the last year though that I've properly started reading through it... What's your take on that book? I base a lot of my training from that.


 I have that myself mate, I remember reading it with my mate when I first started to train. I thought it was everything tbh because even then I knew Arnie had the greatest physique of all time, if you like the classic look. Plenty on here don't and just like mass monsters.

I've learnt that there's better and more efficient ways to train, Read Mike Mentzer's book if you can or watch DYs blood and guts series on Muscle & Strengths YouTube channel on how to train, apply those principles for 2 months and you'll see. That's what made me train that way.

No way am I saying what you're doing is wrong. But I believe that if you yourself or anybody else can do 4 sets of dips (especially) after 8 sets of flat and incline pressing you haven't train hard enough in the the first exercise, let alone the second.

Dips are 4th exercise in my push b session (which I done today) and I done 11 reps with bodyweight. On a Saturday I start my session with weighted dips and last Saturday I done 8 reps with 28kg on a dipping belt. Hopefully you can visualise how hard I think people should train.

Have you been training long mate? you seem very analytical.



PhilJ56 said:


> 4 sets pullovers or cable flies for the centre line


 Im not sure what to make of the above. Do you not think the centre line of the pecs is not going to be generic? Like you're either gonna have a deep separation or not.


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

swole troll said:


> The example I listed in the post you quoted was for 20 sets of chest
> 
> "But no one requires 45 strikes...
> 
> ...


 The only thing that I've got stuck on is bench press at the moment, haven't made progress since hitting 80kg. I'm taking this all in though, this is a learning curve for me


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

PhilJ56 said:


> The only thing that I've got stuck on is bench press at the moment, haven't made progress since hitting 80kg. I'm taking this all in though, this is a learning curve for me


 Lower volume

Up frequency

At 80kg you should be progressively overloading with 5s session by session with no issue provided you are eating to gain weight


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

Endomorph84 said:


> I have that myself mate, I remember reading it with my mate when I first started to train. I thought it was everything tbh because even then I knew Arnie had the greatest physique of all time, if you like the classic look. Plenty on here don't and just like mass monsters.
> 
> I've learnt that there's better and more efficient ways to train, Read Mike Mentzer's book if you can or watch DYs blood and guts series on Muscle & Strengths YouTube channel on how to train, apply those principles for 2 months and you'll see. That's what made me train that way.
> 
> ...


 I love the classic physique look, that's my goal in many years to come. These huge beasts with huge bloated guts in the open division doesn't look appealing at all.

Only been training properly since last September, still learning. That's why I joined UK-M to practice what others preach from the likes of yourself and Swole


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

swole troll said:


> Lower volume
> 
> Up frequency
> 
> At 80kg you should be progressively overloading with 5s session by session with no issue provided you are eating to gain weight


 Well currently I'm midway through a cut so I'm not expecting to be making progress, but this was when I was bulking I got stuck.


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

PhilJ56 said:


> I love the classic physique look, that's my goal in many years to come. These huge beasts with huge bloated guts in the open division doesn't look appealing at all.
> 
> Only been training properly since last September, still learning. That's why I joined UK-M to practice what others preach from the likes of yourself and Swole


 Nice mate. Welcome aboard!! Look into HIT training mate and give it a try, you won't look back.

I'm glad you like classic physique. I'm gonna be competing for the first time in the Classic Physique category next year. I'm very lucky IMO to have broad shoulders and a thin waste, some people just haven't got the genetics to have a decent V taper.


----------



## PhilJ56 (Jun 24, 2019)

Endomorph84 said:


> Nice mate. Welcome aboard!! Look into HIT training mate and give it a try, you won't look back.
> 
> I'm glad you like classic physique. I'm gonna be competing for the first time in the Classic Physique category next year. I'm very lucky IMO to have broad shoulders and a thin waste, some people just haven't got the genetics to have a decent V taper.


 Thanks, will do.

I'm a longgggg way from even thinking about competing yet. Von Moger is my inspiration, his physique is amazing.


----------



## Cronus (Jun 5, 2012)

swole troll said:


> The example I listed in the post you quoted was for 20 sets of chest
> 
> "But no one requires 45 strikes...
> 
> ...


 I read critics of this study a few times and I'm almost certain the study was not "recommending" 45 sets per week.

They were trying to find out the upper limit, or if there is one, for volume landmarks and suggests from the study, that for some people, they still grew more with even more volume e.g. 45 sets, albeit diminishing returns

I can't remember Brad saying people "need" to train with that much volume. Think it was also trying to emphasize volume is key, for hypertrophy, which I don't 100% agree with.

And I don't see the point of quoting Dorian Yates unless someone here looks like him or has same genetics, he is a huge outlier imho as on flip side you have Ronnie Coleman training 6 days a week with twice that volume of Dorian


----------



## Cronus (Jun 5, 2012)

To add I agree in general with recommendations in the thread. I do upper lower split and for example after first 6-7 sets of back that muscle is fried!!! I don't do anymore than 15 sets total per body part split over the week.

I don't think intensity is emphasized enough in study's or its not recorded accurately e.g. groups apparently* 4 sets of 8 to "failure"...........ermm not possible lol*


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Cronus said:


> I read critics of this study a few times and I'm almost certain the study was not "recommending" 45 sets per week.
> 
> They were trying to find out the upper limit, or if there is one, for volume landmarks and suggests from the study, that for some people, they still grew more with even more volume e.g. 45 sets, albeit diminishing returns
> 
> ...


 Where did I "quote Dorian Yates" ?

Legit question

This thread is fairly old for how much I post and get tagged in replies and tags

Regardless I put all my thoughts of brad and his methods itt same for Mike

I think most would agree 10-20 sets is ample

Ideally spread over 2 sessions per week


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

swole troll said:


> Where did I "quote Dorian Yates" ?


 Think he's referring to me mate.

Apologies for quoting DYs methods of training. I was unaware that you have to look like Dorian to train like Dorian.

Sorry again, you massive bulb.


----------



## boutye911 (Feb 10, 2013)

Cronus said:


> And I don't see the point of quoting Dorian Yates unless someone here looks like him or has same genetics, he is a huge outlier imho as on flip side you have Ronnie Coleman training 6 days a week with twice that volume of Dorian


 Don't see the point of quoting Ronnie Coleman then. If you don't look like him or have the same genetics then don't bother training like him.


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

boutye911 said:


> Don't see the point of quoting Ronnie Coleman then. If you don't look like him or have the same genetics then don't bother training like him.


 Priceless. Gutted I missed that lol!!


----------



## Chris Adams (Apr 5, 2018)

swole troll said:


> Right so ive spoken about Mike israetel's MEV, MAV and MRV (minimum effective volume, maximum adaptive volume and maximum recoverable volume) and how i think it is daft, there is extensive writing on his part but essentially he has you titrate up your volume from 12 sets per muscle group all the way up to 20 sets per muscle group and then deload and repeat
> 
> now the whole circle jerk crew of schoenfield, israetel and helms are all preachers of higher frequency to accommodate this which i do agree with (the frequency only) as a natural and ideally as enhanced,
> 
> ...


 There is a good, and very long thread on Paul Carters forum on T-Nation (Question to You Guys: What Do You THINK is the Main Driver for Muscle Growth?). He talks about this and agrees with you on volume and the study on volume study Brad did.

I'm seeing more people making high volume the priority over everything else. To do so many sets, they have to make every set so easy, and they never seem to make progress. One of the guys who trains like this, always comments on how big my legs are, and how good my squat is (nothing special, 200kg x 8), but still tells me I need to do more volume because of studies he's read despite the fact I'm more advanced than him and making faster progress. I will do around 10-12 sets a week on legs.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Chris Adams said:


> There is a good, and very long thread on Paul Carters forum on T-Nation (Question to You Guys: What Do You THINK is the Main Driver for Muscle Growth?). He talks about this and agrees with you on volume and the study on volume study Brad did.
> 
> I'm seeing more people making high volume the priority over everything else. To do so many sets, they have to make every set so easy, and they never seem to make progress. One of the guys who trains like this, always comments on how big my legs are, and how good my squat is (nothing special, 200kg x 8), but still tells me I need to do more volume because of studies he's read despite the fact I'm more advanced than him and making faster progress. I will do around 10-12 sets a week on legs.


 i cant remember everything i wrote ITT but i still firmly believe 99.9% of lifters will get ALL theyre going to get from their training doing 10-20 sets per body part per week

if they go to the lower end of that scale then more of those sets need to be close to (or to) failure

and yes it seems in vogue right now with guys like nippard and helms doing tons of volume with bullshit sets where they have 2-4 reps left in the tank

why wouldnt you want to simply use more weight and or get closer to failure (at least just 1 rep short of) and spend far less time in the gym doing a million sets of all these goofy exercise variations

i know people will say reduced risk of injury but to me thats such a boring way to train

taking 'higher' risk exercises out the equation 
id MUCH rather do 
leg press 3x8 balls to the fu**ing wall and maybe even an assist to save me on that final rep of the final set 
vs
leg extensions 3x10, weighted step ups 3x10 and goblet squats 3x10 all with 2-4 reps in the tank

and this is broscience af but i do believe youll build a thicker, denser muscle grinding out a really tough shock the system weight with fa in reserve (no more than 1 rep left in tank) than you will fluffing up with lighter weight and more volume with loads of reps in reserve

EDIT - thats not to say the higher rep fluff doesnt have its place but for me thats desert, the main course is leaving it all on the table with the compound lifts

for example my leg day is currently

squats 3x5 (for safety and recovery purposes none to true failure) 
leg press 3x6-10 this is 1 rep short of failure every set and the last rep of the last set is anyones guess if ill make it
leg extension 3x10-15 first 2 sets are 1 RIR last set is total grinding to a halt failure and even a few partials thrown in
leg curl 3x6-10 same as leg extensions 
barbell hip thrust 3x6-10 same as leg press

hit the compounds hard but spare the CNS and risk of injury going to true absolute failure then i actually use the isolations to hit failure which also makes them a much more intense movement without the cost to recovery and thus the ability to get more volume in


----------



## Endomorph84 (Jan 21, 2016)

swole troll said:


> why wouldnt you want to simply use more weight and or get closer to failure (at least just 1 rep short of) and spend far less time in the gym doing a million sets of all these goofy exercise variations


 :thumb


----------



## Chris Adams (Apr 5, 2018)

swole troll said:


> i cant remember everything i wrote ITT but i still firmly believe 99.9% of lifters will get ALL theyre going to get from their training doing 10-20 sets per body part per week
> 
> if they go to the lower end of that scale then more of those sets need to be close to (or to) failure
> 
> ...


 Agree with all of this


----------



## godsgifttoearth (Jul 28, 2009)

Endomorph84 said:


> :thumb





swole troll said:


> i cant remember everything i wrote ITT but i still firmly believe 99.9% of lifters will get ALL theyre going to get from their training doing 10-20 sets per body part per week
> 
> if they go to the lower end of that scale then more of those sets need to be close to (or to) failure
> 
> ...


 training to voluntary concentric failure takes longer to recover from. the closer you get to it, the longer the recovery is, so in theory, more sets with more in reserve will grant the same final stimulation but allow quicker recovery. the trade is longer in gym.

The whole thing is not fully proven yet and still has loads of research needed. I'm not a big fan of Lyle McDonald but I do side with his idea that ultimately we need to be aiming for meaningful mechanical stimulation, which would be reps using maximum voluntary contractions, so high threshold motor units are kicking in. more volume with less weight will actually probably end up in same useful reps to heavier weight less volume when using straight sets. we really need science to look at rest pause and myoreps as these techniques should result in a much higher proportion of reps being close to maximum voluntary contractions.


----------

