You have to balance minimum effective volume for growth and maximum recoverable volume. More sets will net more results, up to a point. Recovery ability will dictate how much volume. How to tell? EXPERIMENT!
00:00 Intro 00:55 What's the Focus of This Study 01:03 Layne’s bias! 03:31 Clarifying Volume 04:38 What Was Examined in This Study 05:19 Findings 07:29 Correcting Some Misconceptions for Clear Understanding 08:50 How Does This Study Fit with Other Data 11:12 The Relationship Between Rest Time and Maximum Anabolic Set Number 12:09 Conclusion 17:20 Biolayne Workout Builder!! I'm a big fan of you Layne!! You've inspired me to discover my passion for nutrition, and I've even earned a certificate in the field.
Because fatigue and recovery isn't black and white. You don't have a HUD display with a scale "fatigue: 64%". What "fatigued" is to one person can be a normal day to someone else.
Exactly. I discovered this real quick when trying to practice the Mike Mentzer philosophy. I went in for a second set and after 2 reps I stopped and said f#!k this and stopped. I went so hard on my first set I literally couldn't perform a second set, therefore I achieved the set volume I needed. Just repeat it every few days whenever I'm not sore or just feeling good about whatever split I'm doing that day.
The average human with a full-time job, family/kids with dry cleaning to pick, laundry and house/yard cleaning, errands to do and kids to transport has about ONE free hour a day to do what THEY want/can do. 50 sets a week for A--ONE--body part/body area ain't happening. Wonder if many people will listen to this and think: "Why bother with any of it? I don't have TIME for all that.".
Can’t agree enough! As a young single man I did crazy volume, switching with high intensity, every program you can think of. In my 30s with kids and a demanding job? Push-pull split hitting each part 2x/week is my limit.
The question imo is: HOW MUCH more muscle thickness did people get from doing 50 sets instead of 10? Likely, there's significant diminishing returns when cranking up the volume over 10 sets a week. If I can make say, 70% of my optimal gains, with only 20% of the volume (10 instead of 50 sets), I'll do 20%. Way more efficient in terms of time investment. Time is limited in this life and most of us will never set foot on that stage. Also, you'll likely have a lower injury/ chronic inflammation risk and less nervous system taxation (being shitfaced for the next 12-24h) doing 10 sets a week. Random numbers: 5 times less work for, say, 70% of the gains: I'll take the deal.
Most of the audience might not have the time commitment to increase their volume and spend extra hours in the gym. I, for one, am going for 80% of the results with 20% of the volume using higher intensity.
Extra volume doesnt have to mean hours more in the gym. Do enough to maintain your strongest areas. ( chest 1 day a week vs 2 days) Now add the subtracted volume from your chest to your lagging muscle groups (legs, back) Now you are spending the same time in the gym while adding volume to a muscle group
@@WaywardbiscuitYeah, but that's not extra "total" volume. You're increasing the volume of certain body parts by the detriment of other muscle groups. If you want more total volume, you do have to spend more time in the gym. That or simply perform it faster. Either way, more total volume comes at a cost.
@@microondasletal But the amount of weekly volume needed to maintain muscle is much much lower than to build it initially. For most guys, I think hitting a muscle once per week will still maintain it roughly where it is. So it's not to "the detriment" of those muscles to decrease their volume a bit (or at least not majorly so)-they are just in maintenance while you focus on growing some other key muscles. I think Layne discussed this in another video on volume.
Im a VERY LOW volume HIT lifter; 1 hard set per body part per week. In the 1970's, I did 32 sets per body part per week. Ive had success with both approaches,...but something tells me the new research data is probably correct. That said, I would not today ever do 32 sets per week of Arms or Shoulders, as both Chest and Back training already hit the arms in so many ways. But for the larger muscle groups: Chest, Back, and Legs,....back to high volume is an interesting propositon. Thank you.
I know for me (natty, 60 years old, gym rat for decades), my muscles respond best to higher volumes. Unfortunately, my elbown and bicep tendons (which I destroyed while rockclimbing in my 20s and 30s) can't keep up with lots of continuous volume so I'm trying cycling between high and medium volumes every 6 or 8 weeks. So far, so good but we'll see.🤞🏼
Stay strong guys! When intensity increases volume and frequency has to go down. Why would junk volume far from failure trigger a response from your muscles? and if you do all sets to near musculature failure, it will create a too deep hole on you recovery ability. What most natural lifters fail to realise is not understanding that steroids are basically "recovery enhancers" and allow you to recover faster and train more frequently.
Why would volume and frequency need to go down when intensity increases? I have been doing 5 sets of 5 reps for both bench press, close grip bench press and deadlifts every 48 hours and I'm gaining literally 2.5kgs every workout for the last few weeks.
Ask Tom Platz , Lee Haney , Dorian Yates and Nick Walker what happened when all of them reduced the volume drastically. Is more volume is best, the why not , as a professional , workout 8 hours daily ??? The only way to grow is get the right stress and rest to let the grow process take place, either you are on PEDs or not . With PEDs, your body can handle more of everything but the basis are the same.
It’s really just about your goals. Maximizing health and longevity is a little bit different from maximizing strength performance and fitness (which requires more volume and intensity and carries a higher risk of injury). Theres nothing wrong with doing a lot of volume as long as you increase volume slowly, stay consistent, and prioritize recovery. I wish Dr Layne Norton explained his back injury in the video. I think deadlift training volume was part of the problem. I could be wrong though and I realize that anyone can get a back injury just from every day life. Another thing that should have been discussed is how much more strength or muscle size is actually achieved with increased volume. One figure showed a plateau beyond 6 sets in a training session if you have +2min of rest. I think the same is probably shown in other studies. I think training a muscle group once or twice a week for 3-6 sets each session is likely optimal for most people. This would probably avoid injury and get good results. And instead of adding training volume just do a mix of walking and Zone 2 cardio or a sport you like.
You can lift weights for your zone 2 cardio. It would certainly get your sets up, and help you recover from your heavy ass lifting. Me personally I would rather 30 minutes of heavy lifting every second day and do jobs at nearly zone 2 cardio for like 5hrs a day
From personal experience, when I try to do super high volume work, 90% of my sets are half assed because I’m subconsciously trying to save energy for the rest of the workout. When I do a mid-lower volume, I wreck myself and hit true failure more often. More of a mind issue than physical, but like he said, you gotta do what works for you
He actually didn't quite get it right. A .05 p value does not mean there's less than a 5 percent chance of the null hypothesis being true. It means there's less than a 5 percent chance that we observed the data we did given that the null hypothesis is true.
13:40 Actually for me its the other way around. I plan 4 hours per workout, but 1 of that is just travel time and it includes changing cloths, showering, and so, so probably about 2.5 hours pure training time. If I'd do just 60 minute sessions, I would still need to get to the gym and shower and such, so it would still take me 2.5 hours, but less than half of that time is actually productive. Also my gym is always crowded during normal hours, so working out also always affects my sleep schedule to some extend. That's why I'd rather have less but longer workouts per week and sometimes even 2 per weekend.
Just re-defining volume makes this video awesome. I was definitely in the sets x reps x weight camp. Number of "hard" sets makes much more sense to me. Thanks!
Thank you for these excellent educational videos! My main takeaway is that this study and the general trend in literature suggests that higher volume (i.e., more 'hard sets' near failure with 2 RIR) seems to be beneficial for both hypertrophy and strength, and may potentially be used as a variable for progressive overload with sufficient R&R.
Not to be the "soviet" guy, but the studied this a lot and it's a lot like what you said, it's not the high volume in a vacuum it's the increase in volume over time or progressive overload.
1) Person experience isn't bias, it's just personal experience. If higher sets/reps works for you then it works, simple as that - but that's only for you 2) Why are people still talking volume in regards to hypertrophy? Literally, the end goal should be hitting a muscle group 2-3x a week at least; with the end goal of each workout to be "pumped" THAT'S IT. All the sets and reps shit is worthless. I have had workouts where I needed more volume to reach the end point, other days when I didn't need as much. It varies with the exercise selection and how recovered you are. Yes doing more reps/sets increases the probability of you reached that pumped state, but in reality it's a function of weight x reps x mind body muscle connection (aka activation) = pump. The more you do an exercise the higher chance you have of building the mind/body muscle connection (this greatly diminishes if your focus is lifting the weights instead of feeling the muscle contract, and then extend out - very important). This is harder to do on squat (because the ego wants you to lift more) but easier on machines. Do the compound, finish on the machine 3) The stuff about strength makes perfect sense
Thank you Layne, for being a positive influence in the absolutely insane landscape of nutrition, especially in this day and age. Been following you since the early 2000's and you've only gotten better. Keep it up I think I've learned more from you than anyone else online, save for maybe John Jewett.
For me 12 sets per body part per week is enough, since I train very very hard, all if not almost all set to failure, with full range motion for 4-6 weeks, and 1 week for deloading, but maybe If I wasn't natural, I could workout even more, but yeah, depends on the person, diet, intensity, drugs, etc.. and what science says too. Best
I've made way more progress doing 1 rep sets with 90+ min rest between sets than I have on any high volume training program. That's me personally. The more volume I did the more injuries I started accumulating.
@libertyprime9307 yeah I figured as much. My joints just don't like volume no matter how high I go in reps. I've always heard that strength proceeds size so I've shifted my focus on strength and just accepted whatever incidental hypertrophy is gained along the way.
Great video. I’ve been training - competing and still power-lift at a high national level. My issues are: 1. Amount of time to train 2. Outside stressors 3. Amount of experience 4. Age 5. Genetics 6. Sleep 7. Diet I could keep going. High volume- high intensity are going to be incredibly variable from person to person. I could handle way more volume at 30, than I can at 58. Plus, my body has built up a response to specific training. Nobody has one exact answer. Also, the key is staying healthy and motivated. It’s impossible to do both consistently doing 52 hard sets. You mentioned this. But the psychological stress of reducing volume can play mind games. Finally, think about the time spect at the gym. If you’re hitting at the muscles, or even close to that with 30 plus sets, the time spent is excessive. In my personal bias, there is a huge carry over in the types of exercises done. Can somebody do 30 sets of bicep curl variations? Yes! But try doing 10 sets of heavy deadlifts - 10 sets of heavy rows - 10 sets of heavy pull-ups, etc.., The recovery for the average person would be contraindicated. Lastly, the experience of the lifter is huge. A beginner is generally weak. They are not usually handling high wreights. As the strength goes up, volume can’t be unlimited. I love a 10-20 range. set per week. But I’ve found that by going much higher, I break down.
I’ve always held that volume and intensity have a relationship. If my volume is lower my intensity needs to be higher, as in training to and through failure. It would make sense to me that If sets aren’t taken to that intensity that more would be better. This also seems to confirm the importance of progressive overload.
I'm glad this confirms what's been known for a long time and lots of people like to deny. I learned in high school that it takes 36 hours, so just less than two days for a muscle to recover so you can and should work it every other day. And that's what the science has always said, so this study just re-enforces what's been known for a long time. Then I come across all these know it alls at the gym who preach the once a week bullshit. Or the lazy guys who preach that you need 3 days of rest between every workout and basically stay in bed and eat junk in the meantime. The truth is that if you want results you need to work for them.
I just can't wrap my head around 50 hard sets a week right at the end, how the heck did these guys recover? 10 hard sets and I'm tender the next few days, these guys must have been doing double that!
"How many people can squat 3 plates legitimately below parallel? Probably less than 5% of the dudes that go [to your gym]." Awe ☺️ thanks, Layne. You really know how to lift a guy's spirits
Low volume, high intensity is the way. If people can do a stupid amount of sets, their intensity is dogshit, lots of junk volume just making you tired but not effective.
When I was working out regularly and had more free time, I was doing 25 sets for the big muscles and 20 for the smaller muscles, and trained all my muscles every other day. Upper body one day (push in the morning, pull in the evening) and lower body in the morning the next day, cardio in the evening. Then repeat. So certain weeks, upper got 4 training sessions that week, and lower body and cardio the next. In 2 months I would get probably 6 months worth of results. Oh, and I'd get like 9-10 hours of sleep a night, 5-6 meals a day plus a protein shake. No other supplements.
@@DuffCentral-dz8sv per workout. So chest was: 5 sets incline bench, 5 sets incline Flys, 5 sets flat bench, 5 sets flat Flys, 5 sets decline dumbbell presses. No machines. I hate that they throw off your center of gravity and it's hard to use machines when you're really short like me.
Agree. My volume is fairly high already. Lately I've been starting chest day with 10x10 flat bench, 5 sets of cable flyes, and 5 sets of incline press. But I only do this once every 4 days. I love the thought of this every other day with additional evening work. I have the time...
When cutting 3 sets on heavy compounds when bulking can increase it to 4-5 sets due to greater recovery . Small isolation movements you can do 4-5 even when cutting because they’re easier to recover from. Simple.
I appreciate you talking about age and effect on recovery; I've definitely felt my recovery drop in my late 40s. Was there any indication of what PEDs/supplements/diet was used in these studies?
I've never really understood the more sets the better mentality. Let's say that I can do 315 on the bench press for 5. How anything more than 3 sets is honestly gonna make the difference when all I'm gonna do is worsen my recovery? If I can't grow from 3x5 I won't from 6x5 too. It was never about volume, it was always about pushing for higher weight and perfecting the form over many years. Muscle growth is slow as hell anyways. And the whole exercise selection thing, hitting muscles from all angles. Bro, pick the best one (for you) from each movement pattern and stick for years. Any horizontal press will hit the whole chest, just get strong. Any OHP will hit the front and side delts. Any row will hit the upper back and rear delts and any vertical pull will hit the lats. Same for legs with squats, leg curls, RDLs and for arms curls and extensions. Stop overthinking it, just stay consistent. And it's funny because many ask, what is the least amount you can do to maintain? The same you usually do, brother. Just push slightly less, maybe leave 1-2 reps in the tank, don't eat as much. You can miss a workout here and there. But the volume doesn't matter. You can grow with 3 sets and you can grow with 8 as well. You can maintain with exactly the same. What will make the difference is the intensity and form.
My best gains have always been with lower volume, which when younger was difficult because I had the energy for more volume. Now high volume I just don’t recover and working out feels insanely draining with strength over time going down
I made a spreadsheet to track my volume, with the whole weight times reps times sets. What it does is takes the last workouts volume and find the next highest volume based on predefined desired weight, reps, and sets (so pullups, 0-40 additional pounds, reps, 6-12, sets, 3-6) Overall progress is slow but steady. I've doubled my total volume from when I was lifting heavy and actually feel sore the next day and need recovery.
I wonder if this study is actually saying more about the control group than the experimental group: An unchanging volume is not an efficient way to grow.
I was talking for hard sets as meaningful volume years back ,as high as you can hundle is the answer you test you record you proceed ,keep the pump keep high effort dont waste time between sets stay focus hit the muscle and leave
It’s philosophically mistaken to describe one’s lived experience - in this case, Layne Norton’s success in making leg gains through high volume training - as a “bias.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines bias as “an inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.” It gives the following example: “There was evidence of bias against foreign applicants.” If Norton’s legs grew as a consequence of high volume training, this constitutes an objective fact. Not a bias. No “research” or “study” can upend reality. It’s not as if a study revealing more muscle tissue growth doing fewer sets can possibly justify Layne Norton’s disbelief in the progress he made by training with high volume. If it did, it would call into question his ability to assess the very data that are closest to him, the data concerning his own experience of reality. It would show a “bias” toward the alleged finds of “research” and “study.”
Well, if Layne had an experience of high volume being great for his own growth, that is one valid data point, but it doesn't mean it's better for everyone-it's possible that some people would do worse with the same routine he had. And because Layne had the personal experience with it working well for him, he's going to be more primed to believe that would be the case for everyone. Everyone has a perspective of how the world works based on what happened to themselves personally in the past, but sometimes their perspectives are distorted. For example, someone who was bit by a dog as a child may be irrationally afraid of all dogs after that. That person's experience was real and valid, but the broader conclusion they draw is not accurate. So, I don't know if "bias" is technically the most accurate word to describe Layne's view on volume and gains, but I think it makes sense to disclose it as something that potentially could affect his interpretation of the other data (potentially "unfairly") if he's not being very careful.
@@Paul-yk7ds >>but it doesn’t mean it’s better for everyone>he’s going to be more primed to believe that would be the case for everyone>someone bitten by a dog may be irrationally afraid of all dogs
@@vinoveritaPhilosophy is always helpful in those discussions. Most people are philosophically naive, so they usually lack conceptual clarity and logical precision. They don't know that analytic philosophy is really important if you want to be a good scientist. They say that your personal experience is not actual evidence. They say that only scientific studies are actual evidence. But guess what? Those scientific studies are actually trying to measure the personal experiences of the participants. Personal experience is actual evidence. Actually, most of our beliefs are based on personal experiences. The only problem is that we need to know how to analyse the data that comes from personal experience.
@@izaiasdiniz3102 This is precisely right. Einstein said “the man of science is a poor philosopher.” This is often sadly the case, which is why objective philosophy can never be upended by scientific discoveries since it is philosophy that furnishes the fundamental concepts and logic upon which the sciences depend. It’s also why I am skeptical, not of the gathered scientific data, but the conclusions scientists draw from them. When it comes to making sense of matters, they are often no more equipped than the average person.
Over twelve weeks you can have as much volume as you want. By week 26 you’re in hospital, by week 200 you have arthritis, a broken this, a torn that…. Don’t listen to the high number sets people if you aren’t on steroids.
Meh, I just stick with the tried and true 5/3/1 program and usually run BBB for high volume. I’m in my 40s and deadlift 600 lbs and bench 350. Low volume high intensity combined with high volume low intensity always works best for me. I don’t even care if I get stronger at this point although I still am. I love volume sets because they are the most fun. I don’t care if it’s non optimal for growth.
Rather than increasing the number of sets to those high numbers, i would rather increase intensity. For example if you do 15 sets at 2rir, rather than going up to 20 sets you would mske the sets to faliure (which would be similar if not more effective reps). Obviously you wouldnt do this for all movements, but for most it would be significantly more time efficient
Hard sets is easy to understand. Recovery is not. My passion is weighted pullups - I did around 20 weekly hard sets + close to same amount of pushing exercises, many of those to failure for several years straight. There was progress - but I felt often tired and unmotivated. Then life intervened and I had no time to do so many. I dropped to 8 sets per week. I make just as much progress and feel much better. Thinking back, the quality of the 20 sets was not the same as the 8 I do now. 8 sets are probably on the low side for me and some undulation-periodization would make sense; to jump to 10 and 12 and even 15 sets for a few months, then back to 8. The funniest thing is that there have been periods of 4 sets per week for many months and I appear not to loose strength.
6:17 "Now what does that actually mean? That there's less than a 5% chance that the null hypothesis is true." Presumably, any statistician worth his degree was already cringing at that point, with the alleged "straight down the line statistical representation of that definition," not the later "lay purposes" one. P values measure the probability of the *results given the null hypothesis* (actually, results as or more "extreme" than the ones found), not that of the null hypothesis given the results. The "straight down the line statistical representation of that definition" describes quite exactly on the nose what they do *not* measure but are commonly imagined to by laymen.
I thought the fact that rest times greater than 2 minutes have so much influence on required training volume is very interesting and quite unexpected. This relationship is likely very different in isolation exercises compared to in hard compound exercises. Reps per set might also matter a ton. Doing compound exercises to 2RIR on 8RM for many sets with 2 minutes (or less) rests is much easier to do than the same with 20RM. I am not sure with what RM they trained in the study.
My biggest problem with high volume is if you're doing 56 sets per week you're spending two hours a week just resting. I got kids a house and a job, I ain't got time for that.
I think this goes as the saying "quality over quantity". Even when you can match quality sets (optimal exercise selection, perfect ROM, longer redt periods) by doing the opposite, it goes against efficiency. I like doing 2 sets very close to failure, but the quality as high as I can. This is not easy to recover from, but it is still within what I can recover from.
