I've been doing less sets lately cause I haven't had much time, it's great to see that what time that I DO put in training, will still go towards building strength and muscle. This channel truly is underrated, thank you for always putting out the right information!
this BETTER blow up soon because this is useful af. Its nice to know the things that can maximally improve gains while also not being necessary to see growth if you cant be bothered with the extra effort
@@FlowHighPerformance1 what about with multiple sessions per day, or doing another sport? How would that affect it and things like systemic fatigue for example?
@@FlowHighPerformance1 what if you do like 7 exercises per day, upper lower split for example, how many sets per exercise would be good and would it work? Or is it too many so the sets will be too few?
volume includes intensity. it isnt just total number of reps. the primary unit of measuring volume, tonnage, is just the total number of lbs you lift. 5 reps at 200 lbs is the same tonnage as 10 reps at 100 lbs. volume = frequency x intensity. the challenge is that once you've done as many heavy reps as you can for the week, you'll have to do lighter reps to maximize your tonnage for the week. but you have to be able to recover, and your ability to recover from a given tonnage won't necessarily equal your ability to lift a given tonnage for a given time period. so it's best to gradually, intentionally increase your tonnage in small increments, whether through frequency (total reps) or intensity (weight used for each rep). just try to increase your tonnage per week over time and you will gradually get bigger, stronger, and better at recovering without backsliding due to a lack of recovery. whether thats through high rep low weight or low rep high weight depends on your specific goals, but increasing your tonnage over time is progress in either case. obviously this is only one aspect of training and it wont make your training biomechanically well rounded or sport/activity specific. but in any case, for strength and hypertrophy, tonnage is the equivalent of "total calories".
Greetings from the US. I'm a new subscriber. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I appreciate you taking the time to share this information. It is helpful to an average fitness enthusiast such as myself.
I’d love to see a series similar to this regarding muscle strength. It seems like muscle growth is very lenient so these types of analyses and videos could be more relevant for strength training
Great video! I saw it already mentioned in the comments, but I would also be really interested in a closer look at HIT and the "one set is all you need" approach.
That would be great! I’ve switched to 4-5 sets per muscle to failure aeach muscle 1 x week. This was due to the latest research from Paul Carter and Chris Beardsley
Great video, mate! So a few questions - - How much time are we looking at per week for full body hypertrophy? - How important is Time Under Tension here? - How often should we change up the exercises performed?
1. Time depends on many different variables. Most notably, total weekly volume 2. time under tension probably doesnt have a DIRECT effect of volume. It is more a result of rep ranges and tempo. Check out this video for more info ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0K1ZSPoR378.html 3. This video should answer your last question ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5bbLRB0GLYk.html
Thanks mate! I really appreciate the reply. Could you ballpark the time per week?? Haha How about changing exercises performed for reducing the chance of overuse injuries? Anything on increasing the ROM during the eccentric phase in regards to improved hypertrophy?
To simplify things hit 2-4 exercises per muscle group, more for those isolated less for those active in compound movements, reps between 8-12 and 65-75 1RM and accumulate around 20 total sets per week preferably divided up into 2-3 sessions each.
Very good video: Basically I knew everything that was said, but it summarises all these insights in a very focused, well-structured, clearly understandable and relatively short way. ("Very good" from a German is high praise ;-) )
Word of advice, don't worry about how many sets you're doing.... The majority of people don't train hard enough for this to even matter. High volume training is for steroid users. If you're natural just learn how to go all out in a set first. Those who are willing to fight through the pain and make a set worth while will always see the most gains regardless of all these nerdy parameters. In other words you'll see more gains from doing one set where you truly go all out rather than doing three wimpy sets. If you can do more than one set like that, then by all means, go for it! But learn the basics first. Training isn't really a smart man's game just do the work.
I made the mistake going all out high volume barely seen muscle growth over months until I focused more on protein and 1 high quality set per body part per week, seen way more muscle growth and definition than I’ve ever had in my 26 years of living and now starting to work up towards 2 sets per muscle per week. The key is to usually use drop sets and or rest pause sets each time to make sure I push myself to absolute failure.
I havent seen any solid evidence or rationale suggesting that you can 'waste' newbie gains. I think you ultimate 'genetic potential' is the same regardless 👍
How is volume quantified when compound movements are considered? For example the bench press, which is traditionally classfied and used as chest exercise but also recruits the delts and the triceps. Does a set of bench only counts as one set for chest, or it counts as one set for chest/triceps/delts/, or none of those and actually counted as one set for the major muscle(the chest) and a variable adjustment (like half set) for the triceps and delts?
I personally prefer to only count DIRECT sets. So a bench press would be considered just as a chest exercise. Sure the delts and triceps will get some indirect training, but probably arent MAXIMALLY stressed - assuming you are lifting with a technique that aims to train the chest. Check out this video for more detail ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-caPcbOzAy2s.html
Personally one set works best for me, but I take it to failure, rest a few seconds then do a few more reps with partial reps at the end. I'd then rest 3-4 days before weight training again. This works best for me, what works for you could be completely opposite. Do what is best for you, your body, your time availability.
more volume = longer recovery time and most people i know took a break because of joint stress, i did too early on when i just packed up the volume because more is better, right? it really wasnt. i do fewer sets now - around 8-10 per week split into 2 workouts but i also do isometrics as supplement, hold them in a position where the targeted msucle is weak, and been having better results over past 4 months but i do sets until failure in the 15-30 rep range. i think if you go for 8-12 rep range you definitely need more sets per week but fewer if you go 15-30 and despite sets being longer ultimately your workout becomes shorter because you save up off rest time
So, 20 sets for triceps, 20 sets for biceps, 20 sets for delts, 20 sets for lats , 20 sets for pecs, 20 sets for traps, 20 sets for lower back, 20 sets for quads, 20 sets for hamstrimgs, 20 sets for calfs - - that's 200 sets a week to work the whole body! Who has got that kind of time????
Without having benefit of studies, this confirms what I had said (when I was saying) that smaller volume more frequently is superior to a large volume less frequently. And, I believe that for two reasons. Well, three reasons if you count the amount of time you want to spend in the gym per workout. First, with fewer sets you can perform better per set in consideration of mental and physical fatigue. And, secondly, it is my opinion that supercompensation isn't significantly greater with a higher volume workout but the deficit is i.e. the need for more recovery time. This assumes that both workouts are progressive in terms of reps per weight or weight per reps. The reason I believe that is because I lifted in prison and was in and out frequently. When I would go back I would do a progressive warm-up, up to one work set, with each work set being better than the previous workout's one work set. Then, one time I went back and wouldn't have been been able to lift at all if I didn't join a crew, a crew whose leader (purely by virtue of the fact that he had be on the bench the longest but didn't really know what he was doing) and was compelled to do his high volume thing. Well, my progress would have been far better if I would have been able to do my low volume more frequent method. Also, I have run a bench many times, and had witnessed the progress of my lower volume routines relative to the "more is is better" philosophy used by other crews. Beginners on my crews always wanted to do more, and countless times I said, "It doesn't matter how much you do, it only matters that you make progress on the exercises that you do do"The trick is in maintaining that progress, you know avoiding the plateau. And that is why I developed a conjugate method before I knew that there was such a thing. The impetus for the ideation was watching a sitcom in which the dude was attempting to improve his ping-pong playing skills by using spoons as paddles. That is a common practice method of becoming better at an activity by engaging in one that is similar to but more difficult than that which is sought to be improved upon. I called it 'Sub-Optimal Position Training.' What I referred to there is what I call the "seems easier effect." There may be some small amount of benefit from that but, certainly, the primary benefit, using Louis Simmon's terminology, is to "avoid the plateau and bring up weaknesses." After the ideation a lot of learning, thinking, and experimenting on unwitting inmates took place. The experiments were an astounding success, primarily due to two highly versatile and effective rep schemes that I created. Both employ a strategy of doing an exercise with a degree of muscular fatigue then, over subsequent workouts, reducing the amount of fatigue under which the exercise is done to realize a strength gain from having done it with the greater amount. Here's a brief explanation of one of them: Say, for example, you do a 3RM close stance squat (C), followed by a 4RM wide stance (W), then a 5RM box squat (B). The next time you are going to start with W×3, then B×4, and finish with C×5. Since last time you did W and B with some muscular fatigue, you are going to do better this time. And whatever exercises you choose should be new or not recently done, so you can expect a gain effect from that. Let's say the dude did W at 315×4. To determine what weight he would need to use to achieve a higher 1RM estimate, at 3 reps which is better than the previous week's 4RM, you would perform this calculation to derive what the equivalent is: 315(34/33)=324.5 If, in fact, the newness factor is present, I would have him do 335×3. You would do the same to determine the weight for B×4. Since you did C with no fatigue and now you are going to do it with some, achieving the equivalent is a gain. To determine what weight to use, assuming he did 295×3, you would perform this calculation: 295(33/35)=278.1 I would advise 275. So, barring some sort of a time restraint, you would do that as long as you are making progress. On a separate day we would do compensatory acceleration training or one of my progressive pyramids, (which, by the way, are far more strategically reasoned than anything I have ever seen......and I have Googled it) using your competition style squat, your mass builder (if that's your objective) or both. What I was using to determine what weight to use was derived from the Epley formula. It doesn't matter if it is 100% accurate at predicting you 1RM, although it is close. What matters is that it serves as a convenient means of measuring progress. I have simplified w(.033r+1)=1RM to this: 2 reps: w(32/30) 3 reps: w(33/30) 4 reps: w(34/30) Ect..................... I keep posting shit like this in hopes that someday, someone, will realize that I may have something of value to say on the subject. I believe I do, but I have done a lot of time, so there is the possibility that I am crazy..................
The research would also tend to agree with you. The same weekly volume performed across multiple smaller sessions tends to result in slightly superior muscle growth compared with performing the same total volume in fewer larger sessions 👍
Hi, thank you so much for this interesting video! My question is, how to plan the rest days? Because as far as i know, for muscle grow we need to give time to rest the muscles. Or can we hit the gym 7 days in a week?
I tend to go upon the point of either i can no longer perform the action without hurting other muscle group or the target muscle can no longer feel anything
Hey I’m a big fan of your channel and was curious if you would do a video talking about what body fat percentage is best for performance. I’m currently training for my first powerlifting meet and am around 15 percent body fat but am in the middle of two different weight classes. Is it better for me to loose bfp and drop weight? Or gain bfp and max out the class I’m in? Which would result in higher lifts?
Very informative vid. Regarding the info around the 7:00 mark, just to confirm this volume allocation distribution is purely for time constraint purposes, correct? Meaning that if we assume I have enough time to dedicate into a workout plan that targets Back, Biceps, Chest, Triceps, and Shoulders throughout the week, I can train each of ALL those groups 20 sets a week? Instead of only 15 sets for some, and 10 (or 5) sets for others.
Correct. This is mostly for time constraint purposes, as well as joint stress & systemic fatigue limitations (if that is relevant). If you have the time and physical capability, you can definitely train all muscles with high volumes 💪
If we periodise volume what do we do once we achieve a max level? For example, if I’m increasing sets over 16 weeks from 12 through to 20, what do we do once we hit 20 sets? Do we resensitize like Mike suggests or just go back down to 12? I know you have a lot of videos on this topic but they seem a bit older now, are there any you still stand by?
I generally recommend not periodizing volume in that way. Check out this video for more info ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Nv87a11-Ig.html
@@FlowHighPerformance1 yes thank you, I watched this video (was great) I meant more across multiple mesocycles with an auto regulated approach, more so than volume ramps week to week. I too would keep volume static for a particular meso. I understand i said 16 weeks (4x4 week mesos) but can be longer
Apologies I misunderstood your original question. In that case I would stay at whatever volume you find works best for you in terms of the hypertrophy stimulus and what works practically. Then you can adjust volume over time based on your lifestyle constraints. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that a re-sensitisation period is beneficial 👍
@@FlowHighPerformance1 thanks Peter! While I do agree with you that there’s just not enough science to back resensitization, we can understand that many of the principles we understand are what drives our belief in this phase (adaptive resistance and changes in habitual volume) (though it’s true, that doesn’t always work in our favour when the science comes out) however, it does seem that there is little downside to resensitization phases at 1/3 the volume, at the very worst we are maintaining muscle and recovering from volume. Sorry I know I’m getting into a debate you didn’t ask for, but this is a good watch too: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vl1Q3dzW0h0.html theoretical still though
i disagree with 1 point - frequency does matter. for example 15 sets of chest in 1 day, 7 of those sets will be junk volume because you can't train very hard for 15 sets. if you split that into 2 days, all sets will be hard sets, no junk volume - this does matter
frequency does matter, but probably not that much. Even if your load/reps drop, the hypertrophic stimulus appears to still be similar (if you are still training close to failure). This is supported by evidence showing that drop sets, rest pause and pre-fatigue training tend to result in similar growth compared with traditional training - despite training is a highly fatigued state 👍
1 big mistake in your interpretation is that frequency makes no difference. Doing 1x5h fullbody workout per week will give you much lower results than doing 5x1h workouts per week (fullbody or split does not matter). Frequency makes the difference, you just have to find the sweet spot, for most people, this is between 2 - 4 times per week depending on muscle groups.
Yes, if you take an extreme example, frequency can have a larger influence on muscle growth. However, I was referring to how many times you train each MUSCLE per week, not the number SESSIONS per week 👍
Nope, I think the higher frequency approach would yield greater muscle growth - but not much more. Also, I generally recommend that if you are training a muscle group with more than 10 sets in a single session, it is usually worth increasing frequency 👍
I like to think that quality of sets matter more, for example if you do 4-6 high quality sets keeping 0-1 RIR for each set in each session (assuming training a muscle group 2 times a week) , I don't think if you push yourself close to failure in every set you'll have enough strength to do 9-10+ sets of each muscle group per session because you also have to perform exercises for another muscle group also like triceps if you are doing chest and shoulders also (I don't do whole shoulders with chest and triceps because I give my all in covering those muscle groups only and I just do lateral raises with chest and triceps). Pushing myself hard dong just 4-6 sets of triceps and chest takes everything out of me.
Good question. Hard to say, but I like to count number of 'hard sets' - meaning sets that approach failure. Although even a set taken quite far from failure can still produce some growth - especially in novices 👍
If I do back do I count sets also for biceps? same with chest and triceps? Does 3 sets of barbell row is also 3 sets for biceps? or its maybe 50% for biceps? How do I count it? Can't imagine doing same amount of sets for smaller part like biceps next to chest or even back sets
@@FlowHighPerformance1 But you understand if I do minimum 10 sets for back and 10 sets for biceps I will have in theory much more sets for biceps and it might be overloaded?
@@FlowHighPerformance1 yes, but I mostly train my upper body at the gym, and only a little bit of my legs. Because I do get 30000-50000 steps per day on my workdays including some up the stairs
I have a question. If on Monday, I train my chest with 3 different exercises: bench press, inclined press, and declined cable fly, each one targeting the 3 different parts of the chest, and for each exercise, I do 6 sets of 8 repetitions. And I repeat this same routine on Thursday (that is twice a week), does that mean I'm actually doing a total of 36 sets per week? Or, since they are different parts of the chest, should I count them separately, resulting in 12 sets for the upper part, 12 sets for the middle part, and 12 sets for the lower part?
What about the optimal amount of sets *per session*? Should I do lesser sets (4-6 sets) but with higher intensity (0-1 RIR) in return, or more sets (8-10 sets) and lesser intensity (3-5 RIR)? I guess it still comes down to amount of total sets in the week, but technically you could still lift 6 sets for 2 days/sessions with 0-1 RIR right? Still hitting the low end of 12 total weekly sets Just perplexed at this and would love your expert input 😅 thank you!
Yep, total weekly sets is most important. As a general rule, if you are training a muscle with >10 sets in a single session, you would probably benefit from splitting this volume across more sessions 👍
@@FlowHighPerformance1 Alright thanks! I still have a few questions but I think I kinda worked it out a bit (lowering weights sacrificing strength gains but working back up, more sets spread out into more frequency is better than more sets in just 1 or 2 sessions) But then does that mean the studies disproved HIT training, and that volume is king for muscle growth? I know that everyone has a different reaction to the same stimulus and I've been trying each workout regimen, I just want to know the most optimal way to lift weights in the gym for muscle growth!
The different studies you refer to were done on people with 1:30 min rest between sets, so it's not really relevant to draw conclusions like that. A lower volume could be done with more rest between sets.
An active job is going to affect recovery. I work in a manufacturing warehouse and I’m on my feet moving all day lifting 25 pound jugs. It’s well over 100 degrees right now. No way I could still do high volume workouts and still recover so I prefer lower volume with high intensity
I wouldn't say it adds frequency it terms of a hypertrophy stimulus. However, it can influence time availability and recovery capacity so this might influence your overall training volume 👍
I do 24 sets for the chest a week for the back 18 for the shoulders 18 and for the front I do 24 but it's a small muscle so I think I'll do 18 and the back 28 is that ok?
Bro I follow a 4 day split + Sunday of so it makes a 9 day split and I do 6 sets per session per muscle so total 12 sets in 9 days is it enough or should I do mote
I only diet and do low intensity cardio my main goal is to lose weight but not muscle should I train my muscles as well or is doing low cardio only ok?
In my gym, everyone say he is training at his limits and hard AF. But you can see only 5% go really on his limits. If this is a thing in studies, then of course the high volume is "better" because the p***ys reach closer to the limit. IDK if this fits to people who train really hard.
Correct, if you are referring to properly-performed exercise. 1 bout per exercise, with at least 1 week between meaningful loading of any given muscle (i.e. minimal volume), will produce the same long-term results as any higher-volume program. Most "exercise studies" don't involve properly-performed exercise, so can be thrown out as junk science.
What i believe is Volume is subjective if u training till failure on every set that means intensity is high so u can only do low volume,... So basically 14 sets for a natural individual falls in the highest spectrum.. We should only do volume that we can recover from and keep progressing in the gym Very few people are genetically desined to recover from high volume Low volume high intensity is the best way to go... If in a 3 weeks time period the current weight that we are using doesn't increase by atleast 2.5 kg or 5kg(micro progression) or the rep target goes on a decline that means we aint recovering well in that case we need to reduce the volume to 12 sets or maybe 10 sets... The aim should be always in progressive overload
I have only trained 3-4 sets of each leg muscle my whole life and my legs are fking rocksolid. I stared doing that on all muscle groups and grew bigger and stronger, weird.
True. However, I would say that movement is beneficial as dynamic contractions generally result in superior muscle growth compared with isometric training 👍
@@FlowHighPerformance1 The opposite of dynamic is static. Properly-performed static exercise produces 100% hypertrophy and strength stimulus in the target muscles. 100% stimulus cannot be exceeded. There is no stimulus benefit to movement during exercise, though movement might help in tracking progress.
Doing more volume AND training closer to failure are both going be beneficial for muscle growth. Check out this video for more info ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qqjVO7fa1hI.html
Any source for growth in strength and power per muscle group per week? Im looking at bang for buck? Theres so many phases of strength, power and general hypertrophy.
Start with minimalist volume and slowly crank up more sets until you reach diminishing returns. You've now found the optimum amount of sets balanced with whatever level of intensity you're using. You know you do too much volume when your progress slows down or even halts and regresses. Instead of deloading, decrease frequency by one day. Say you train everything 3x a week, train everything twice a week and from twice a week once every 4 to 5 to 6 days back to once a week frequency. You're not overtraining and you don't need deloads if you allow enough days to recover. The body only has a limiter recovery ability and in order to progress past an advanced stage, less volume and frequency are logically the answer.
