Hey All! Happy Holidays! Here's the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HOUSEOFHYPERTROPHY Timestamps + Some more thoughts about failure definitions: 0:00 Intro 1:04 Part I: Overtraining & Fatigue 6:07 Part II: What About Gains? 11:18 Part III: Final Words In some of the studies noted, subjects trained to "volitional failure", such as the Bickel (6:15) paper. Technically, this suggests they stopped their reps when they volitionally could not continue, which may not neccessarily be true failure (when an individual cannot complete the concentric portion of a given repetition with a full range-of-motion without deviation from the prescribed form of the exercise). This is possibly a limitation, and I can't rule out the possibility that if these papers employed true failure, there results would be different. For instance, perhaps in the Bickel paper, the older adults would not have lost muscle with the 1/3rd and 1/9th condition if true failure was employed. But this is speculative, and there are some things to keep in mind. 1) Researchers often supervise the training sessions and encourage subjects to push hard, which conceivably can result in subjects' volitional failure being true failure. 2) When subjects are performing a low number of sets (such as the 1/3rd and 1/9th groups in the Bickel paper), they might be willing to push a lot harder and thus volitional failure may again be true failure. 3) Even if volitiional failure isn't true failure, as mentioned in the video, muscle growth seems to be similar between stopping 3-2 reps short of failure and training to failure. Indeed, papers in untrained and trained individuals find similar hypertrophy between training to volitional failure and momentary failure (volitional failure likely stopped 3-1 rep from failure). References: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29189407/ + pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33343066/ These papers finding similar hypertrophy between training to true failure and volitional failure did use multiple sets per exercise. One could argue if we're justing performing a single set per exercise, training to failure would be better than stopping short of failure. However, there's no study to date that has used high quality measures of muscle hypertrophy (ultrasound or MRI) to assess this. For argument sake, let's say when performing a single set on an exercise, training to failure is better. The main conclusions of this video certainly would not change. Even when subjects perform reps to true (momentary) failure, higher sets can still produce greater gains than fewer sets.
Thank you for your videos. Out of the many RU-vid shorts playing Mentzer audio clips, only one was Mike talking about a slow concentric lift, short pause, and then slower eccentric movement and how doing one set of 9 reps is like doing 27 reps when done Mentzer's way. Everyone critiquing Mentzer never talks about what seems to be a large focus on TUT (time under tension). There was also one RU-vidr (Pigmie?) who "Trained like Mentzer for 30 days" and found out he failed to follow Mentzer's TUT instructions (basically a 10ish second rep) while doing his working sets until the beginning of the third week of his 30 days. This RU-vidr also had a very unscientific looking-in-the-mirror way of measuring his lack of gains. What is your opinion or knowledge about this?
Pretty much. Once you have a foundation it's all here say. I've been at it 15 years and at this point honestly don't give a flying F what anyone says if it feels right and produces me results.
I guess that is one part. If you try to reach 20 sets each week it is maybe not sustainable in terms of time management and what you else have up in your life. So people drop out of the loop and miss some weeks of training. So in that case better maintain something lower, but keep it consistent. 9 to 12 sets but you never miss a week sure gives you better results in that case.
@@flyingturtlemonkeyindatrees well yes, theres principles though that you should still follow to get the best gains though like training hard and a good range of motion
Mentzer's approach has its upsides, mostly in the very general concepts: use your time efficiently, purge out junk volume, err on the side of lifting heavier/less, always go to failure, milk the eccentric portion of the workout, etc. Ultimately, I think there is a spectrum with intensity on one end and volume/frequency on the other. You need to find that sweet spot.
The goal is stimulate not annihilate man. Why milk it then you are destroyed and you can’t do the rest of the day yeh? Enough stimulus to drive adaptation. How do you know this? It’s by experimentation. It’s simple
I think volume without intensity, and intensity without volume are both, obviously, useless, you need a balance of both. Leaving 5 reps in the tank when you can only do 6 reps to failure ain't going to do anything.
Brilliant! intensity can be paired with volume or frequency but not both doing both leads to overtraining and if you choose not going to failure/intensity, you can do more volume more frequently
I am doing just that and i am finally having progress. I used to do 3 sets of 8-15 and did not went to complete failure. I did not progress after the new bee gains. Now i do one set 8-15 with a much heavier load than i could do with 3 sets and i go to absolute failure on the set. After that I do rest pause reps, milk the eccentric portion and end it with a static hold. I am doing this for 4-5 weeks now and I wait until I dont feel sore anymore or at minimum of 4 days and train again. And i am seeing good progress in strenght and hypertrophy. Its and experiment and until now it has been working much better than the 3 sets per excercise. BUT i will mention that with the 1 set plus the finishing I mentioned, i am giving my all. You could say do more sets and maybe that will work even better. But I dont have time for that.
This is misunderstanding of Mentzer philosophy. He didn't say you must do one set. He said you START with one set and see if it works, if it does you continue, if it does not then you change. Why are you starting with 4 sets? Why with 8 sets or 16 sets? Who set that number? And if more is better then why not 100 sets? Who decided you start with 16 sets!? You start with 1 hard set and get sufficient rest, 3-4 days if you are natural 1 day if you are on sauce. If you see that you are making progress with this protocol and progress is defined as either being stronger or bigger next time you lift, then this works for you. If you are not making progress then you start investigating why. Mentzer first thing to look at is are you lifting intensely enough? If not try that. If you are lifting with sufficient intensity, then try longer rest to ensure you are recovering. If that's not it, then add another set. It is a algorithm to find out what will work for YOU. Nobody knows what is going to take to trigger growth and the level of growth you desire for YOUR BODY. Its individual like height, intelligence etc. There is a large variability. This is a system to help you find for yourself what will work for YOU. Nobody can tell you that unless they are selling training programs that you buy and then make no progress.
@@drno62 He said many things but I have listened to everything that is available from Mentzer and read his books, and he said, only almighty can prescribe you with perfect volume and the best we can do is find out what works for each individual. This is the algorithm.
At this point ive been lifting over 25 years and have tried nearly every method. But what I do know is nearly everyone agrees that if you are lacking a specific muscle( even a muscle on a single leg compared to other leg) the solution has always been more volume.
@@orangepeeIIt’s definitely implied that the extra volume would be to that target muscle. Are you going out of your way to be dense? No offense. But are you just tryna argue?
Well, chest was my worst muscle group and I trained it the most, so your comment isnt necessarily correct. Once I did less I got stronger and bigger faster, while higher volume stalled my performance and eventually decreased it. But yes it is true, nearly everyone agrees that more is better, but that doesnt make it a fact.
I took up mentzer’s methodology, 30 minute workouts, 3-4 times a week, extremely high intensity with everything to failure, I can definitely say I’ve gotten bigger and stronger quicker compared to my 5-6 days a week, hour training session self
I'm glad to hear you're seeing gains! I know you're probably not implying this, but just in case: an individual experience of one case of "HIT training" being superior to another specific one case of higher volume (5-6 days per week you say) isn't unequivocal proof that for everyone, all variations of "higher" volumes suck. After all, we have some papers :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy that’s where I have kind of modified his methodology to have higher frequency, but a very highly similar level of intensity, over a short duration. I am trying to find the balance on how much “volume” is actually beneficial in terms of recovery, more or less.
Dorian was not a natural athlete. (neither was Mike) but he developed and explored much more into the philosophy over the 4 to 500 clients that were mostly natural that he trained over the years. The sample is too big to ignore. It can't not be insignificant
If you watch blood and guts, the first exercise is 3 sets - people say the warm up sets don't count, 😂😂😂, on the second exercise for the body part he did 2 sets, and each body part was trained twice a week. Can we be honest for once and say that's 10 pyramid sets, if you include a rest pause to "extend" EVERY rest pause of between 10 to 30 seconds that is an extra set (it was said Serge Nubret was so conditioned could rest just 10 to 20 seconds before doing another set)
I've been doing the HIT method 1 set to failure for the best part of a year, around 6/7 months roughly. I've gained approximately 12lbs of muscle in that time and lost about 30lbs of fat simultaneously. I'm now 220lbs, 13% bodyfat at 6ft. Up until I start this way of training I was already a 640lbs raw conventional deadlifter, almost 400lbs bencher (neutral grip) and almost 500lbs squatter meaning I was no newbie yet I saw more muscle gains and consistent strength gains using hit than I did using any other method. I don't pay much attention to studies that claim to test "1 set to failure" hypertrophy results since whenever i see actual available footage of what is considered "failure" it's laughable.
Post videos of yourself doing those exercises if you want to be taken seriously. You don't lose 30 lbs of fat and put 12 lbs of muscle simultaneously unless you're a beginner. With your alleged numbers on those lifts you were already an elite. So unless you decide to abuse PED's, that's unlikely the case.
@@Gohan9112 key words you used there, "unlikely the case". I wouldn't say it's impossible as I did it without PED'S. Me always having been naturally very strong and big all my life from early teens and deadlifting 500lbs+ my first time ever doing it (no belt, no straps, no chalk and terrible form) and benching 300lbs+ my first attempt at maxing never really having been into lifting before that, I wouldn't consider myself the norm in genetics. Being that I trained powerlifting style for some months to bump my numbers up to the numbers I mentioned in the original comment, once I switched to bodybuilding style and particularly HIT style my physique blew up. I ain't posting up nothing lol.
@Mantastic-ho3vm So...millions of people are lying? If you want to spend 12-20 hours per week in the gym, I hope you enjoy yourself; however, because no one is denying this works for you, you should be just as courteous to others. I do not see anyone telling you to post your physique. Dorian's photos are not good enough for you? This type of training obviously works for some people.
I dont think they're "wrong." you need multiple warmup sets though. I often work up with 3 sets as essentially warm ups and have 1 real, hard-working set where I empty the tank. The warm-up sets need to be relatively heavy, though, to get the muscles primed.
@@mikeskylark1594 warm up and warm up sets are essential.... especially with the more weight you use and the older you get. to say warm up sets are a waste of energy is to put your ignorance on full display.
I think what people miss is simply looking at your performance drops. If you think you were close to failure or you even did actual failure then you rest 3-5 minutes and you can still get the same or close to the same reps it shows you didn’t do enough yet. Your first set to failure should result in a roughly 10% drop on the intensity scale meaning 12 reps down to 8 etc. I find it takes 5-6 warm up sets to reach that point but it depends on the rep range and weight. Resting 30-60 seconds between. Empty bar x 10, 135 2x8-5, 180 x 3, 225 x 1 then the 225 for 10 set. If it’s a heavier exercise the jumps would scale to jumping 1 plate or so at a time With a traditional 3 sets where your first set of 10 is 2 RIR you can get an idea of how 2 sets of immediately jumping to 0 RIR or actual failure compared, 2 sets going all out is more stimulating
Mentzer was ahead of his time and extremely correct in comparison to his cohorts. That said, his level of paranoia around the consequences of an extra set were a bit exaggerated.
Don’t forget that mike menzer program is designed for nattys w/ an emphasis on recovery., I tried it and it works I reduce the volume and frequency of work out to 1 hard set and training only once per week
What he meant is 2 light sets and 1 set to fail. 2 warm ups sets (light weight) 1 working set. (Set to fail) heavy moderate set with perfect form and focus on negative movement.
how hard is his warmup? is like 3-5 RIR, if he count that as a "warmup" that's not 100% right because there's much studies says that you dont really have to go failure for maximize muscle gain but leave 3-5 in the tank are good.
A warm-up to Mike is literally the minimal you feel you need to feel warmed up. It shouldn't be much more than a couple of light reps just to get the blood flowing.
I like to think of the first two "warm up" sets as more "feeler" sets, to work out roughly the maximum amount of weight you can use on your all out final set.
It's incredible that most people only talk about the single set to failure, but almost no one talks about the first two warm-up sessions☠️ (great video by the way)
There are so many variables to take into account, simple example. Every "fitness NPC" these days eats most likely meat and chicken, with an ammount of hormones that was just unreal in Mentzer era. Thats just one variable that can alter everything. I´ve went from 5 days to 3 days and even my relatives asked me if i started to take something to get bigger. I guess everybody is different and at the end we still have to do a lot of experimenting with our ourselves.
I am going to be very nice. There are very few hormones that survive in the stomach, those that do have 1/2 efficiency erased by the liver. Mike Mentzer was a gear user.
Going from 5 days to 3 days training but eating the same amount of food would make you bigger as less energy is used when removing training days. It can have its benefits for sure.
After 20 years of training, for me, it's become apparent to me that in 99% of cases overtraining= undernutrition. I can tired, feel lower hormone responses and cns burnout if I skimp on food , even just a little. I'm riding the line of sustain hard so it becomes obvious. Feels like a hangover all day, in the body and the head. I can skip rest days for a while if I eat enough. But let's see what the research says...
Low volume, high frequency, and focusing on breaking prs on everything for reps of 3-12 has seemed to work best for me. The idea of a natural taking 4+ days off from the gym is laughable. I can’t see anyone squatting 405 for reps squatting once every two weeks and even in those cases they are leaving a lot of gaines on the table.
I think that having different reps range for each set is better than splitting up rep ranges on different days. So instead of having: one day with 3 heavy strenght sets (1-3 reps), one day with 3 medium weight Rep sets (8-12) and a day with 3 high rep sets (20-30); mixing the sets each day (1 set heavy, 1 set medium and 1set light) gives better results. Heavy sets gives great strenght but less muscle gain, so combining it with higher reps gives best of both.
Point is that the 2 things are not mutually exclusive. Volume sets the hormonal tone of what the body needs on constant basis and regulates nutrition partitioning. Volume signals that the body will be used often with hard regimen. On the other side super compensation applies as a consequence of life threatening situations. It is possible that volume and intensity have to be applied in ways we still have not clear. Maybe substantial volume not to failure coupled by infrequent failure workouts is the solution. Only tests will ever prove it.
This is the thing that needs to be said: it's not volume vs. intensity. It's both. Obviously, there are trade-offs. You have to find the point between the two extremes, or maybe even change your approach (to favor one end of the spectrum more than the other) every so often.
@@nates5703 I agree in principle but I think we all became so tribalist that there is really no one trying to manipulate this on purpose and to test it in different ways. There is a lot we may need to understand.
I think the human body is a resilient organism that needs time to adapt at what you throw at it. I also have seen in my own experience that you can see progress with the higher volume stuff but the gains are short lived and typically when you are weaker as a beginner or early intermediate. When you become actually strong for your bodyweight (bench pressing 1.5x your bodyweight, squatting 2x bodyweight, and deadlifting 2.5x bodyweight) if you don’t train properly you will stall.
What i realy learned from Mike is the importance of rest days. If i do on monday for example my OHP, i love it, with 6 to 10 working sets, i have to take rest till thurthday, maybe friday and so on. My training week is 10 to 12/13 days long, not 7, and it works good for me. But i have to say, that i am 58 years old and i always doing nightshift, so recovery is the most important question for me. I often read about people in my age or older, they going 4-5 days per week to the gym, respekt, but for me absoloutly impossible!
Training one day on and 3 days off is ridiculous . Absolutely ridiculous . Show me one successful competitive pro , National level or even amateur bodybuilder that trained twice a week .
@@josephohrablo4866 they are on stteroids and recovery enhancing substances, so unless you are doing the same you should not take training advice from these competitive bodybuilders.
True and other things he said were that most of his clients made gains with one or two sets per body part. He also said to start at one set, and if you do see results, add a set until you do...
Your videos are fantastic-rich in detail and enhanced with helpful visuals. Although sometimes the information can be overwhelming, I find that pausing the video helps me grasp everything better. As someone who enjoys exercising for muscle and strength gains, but with no ambitions in competitive bodybuilding or strength sports, I've been particularly interested in your discussions about individual differences in muscle hypertrophy. You've covered topics from rep ranges to training frequency extensively. My question centres on the most effective ways to track progress in muscle hypertrophy. I know that I can use a measuring tape and mirror for assessments, but I'm aware these methods can be subjective. Mood can skew perception, and it's not always easy to tell muscle gain from fat and I can measure in a different point every time. To gain more precise insights, I've thought about training each side of my body differently, observing size differences to evaluate the effectiveness of various methods. This asymmetrical approach seems like it could provide clearer comparisons, but I'm hesitant to proceed without guidance. Could you recommend more objective measurements and their ideal frequency? Also, how can I determine which training method suits me best? I understand that consistency and enjoyment are critical for sustained progress, but I'm keen to optimize my approach within these constraints.
please find a study that includes systemic recovery as in: central nervous system recovery(how it varies from individual to individual), total protein intake per gram of kg within sessions, bone adaptation (soft tisue). I could go on but you are miles away from mentzer
CNS fatigue shouldn't set in unless you are lifting near 1rm every day. If sleep, stress electrolyte and hydration status are managed, it should be fine. When fatigue is high, just deload.
Awesome video in an era when people think that working less leads to more gains and working more is dumb. Yes, I am team "work smart" but I am also team "work hard". Dont think that shortcuts will give u The best results.
I've switched to the 3x5 routine to see if more weight & less reps equals hit for gains. I'll do 5 or so different kinds of exercises for a certain muscle group, so still 15 sets a session but with bigger weight, lower sets. Training a single muscle group 1 to 2 times per week. I've learned 3 things. 1) My 5 rep max per set is wayyy higher than I thought it would be. 2) I have seen considerable progress in strength and appearance, exceeding my expectations. 3) Full recovery is slightly longer but my time in the gym feels more productive.
Have you experimented with it? If so could you please outline your program and duration. The concept intrigues me but my tendons and joints disagree lol
i'd like to see that as well. i remember recently reading some studies about how grip training (holding the gripper devices, like captains of crush, isometrically, for 2 minutes at a time) actually reduces blood pressure more than regular bodybuilding style resistance training using compound movements, and reduces blood pressure more than cardio. it'd be interesting to see house of hypertrophy take a stab at interpreting that research: like why does training forearms reduce blood pressure more than squats, bench, and deadlift? and it wasn't just a temporary decrease in blood pressure, it reduced blood pressure for several weeks after training. most studies find like 10 point drop for forearm training, 5 point drop for cardio, and only a 3 point drop for tradtional resistance training.
After overtraining like a fool , taking multiple sets to failure, being VERY exhausted I started HIT. My muscles exploded, and I thought it was from HIT, but it was actually from the rest period (between HIT training) Needless to say, I started losing muscle after 2-3 months. I started a 5-6 day/week program , with RIR of course, and deloading every 2 months. I am steadily gaining finally.
This is a classic example of what people say when they first try HIT because they inadvertently discovered the concept of deloading. Glad you found the right path mate
@@blueeyed5074 They are. I was too, same as you. Wish I'd had access to the breadth of knowledge we have right now back then. But hey, I'm just glad to be learning.
Overtraining is not the same thing as not taking adequate breaks in between sets. You can train a LOT without "overtraining", but pretty much all available science suggests you should take reasonable breaks in between sets.
@@BigDome1 I was talking more about - chest 6 sets on monday all of them to failure, again on Tuesday all of them to failure, you will eventually have to drop the weight and stop gaining. The curse of beginners who don't know how to train :P
It would be ashort video, but information detail on rest would be great. ie: how much sleep do you need to recover from lifting. I've seen a review of a paper that shows you can lose muscle/strength if you're only getting 4 hrs compared o 7+. In the words of Arnold, 'Just sleep faster!'
Effort (reps in reserve) are suspiciously missing in most of this high volume discussion. High volume resistance training requires you to maintain more reps in reserve per set. Most people could not deal with the insane levels of effort that are required to accurately fulfill Mentzer's protocol. It's not about 'over training' in the classic sense, it's about systemic fatigue that high volumes can accumulate within each workout, thereby reducing the ability to fully activate all muscle fibers during each rep for maximum effort.
Indeed, having data that assessed the claims made is always helpful! Thank you for your support this year by the way, have a great rest of the year and have an excellent next year :)
I don't get why people find it so hard to overtrain, I have experienced this many times myself, probably it's a question of how much you're eating (for me: not enough) and what else you do in your day (stress, cardio, physical job etc). So it's highly individual
Same here. I spent years overtraining because I actually give it my all in every work out. But every fucking fitness influencer I watched at the time all said the same thing : "Overtraining is a myth". Well how come I could only keep going for 3 months at a time before my gains hit a hard wall and my everyday energy plummeted? And now that I'm doing 2 days a week with max intensity, I recover great and have not hit any plateaus yet.
8:40 These are such unfair comparisons... OF COURSE 3 sets of flat bench press produces greater CHEST muscle gains than 1 set of flat bench press... BUT! 1 set of flat bench press, followed by 1 set of dips, followed by 1 set of incline bench press produces BETTER chest muscle gains than just 3 sets of flat bench press. FOR SURE! So Mentzer is completelly RIGHT, when total volume is matched. MORE angle variety is WAY better than LESS angle variety!
But what about 2 sets of each of those movemenst, heck dare I say 3 sets! (it doesn't neccessarily have to be shoved all into one weekly workout either)
@@HouseofHypertrophyIf your entire training AND split is organized around MAXIMUM angle variety (with each 1 set exercise to failure) you've done the OPTIMUM whole-body-all-muscle-fiber hypertrophy work! Best bang for your buck!
I think that people have taken the reality of diminishing marginal returns to the extreme. I think that you can accept that more sets are better and at the same time accept that maybe optimal isn't a good idea for everyone and you don't "need" optimal. Lastly, this is sort of random, but what are your thoughts on high volume RT and mortality data? The consensus I've heard is that the subjects are older, hence the health risk, but is there any short term evidence in younger populations and health or life-long higher volumes? I don't think it’s unhealthy, but it's kinda sad to think there's no extra health benefit to higher volumes 🥲.
I forgot what study mentions this, but when going from 12 sets to 24 or 28 sets (yes the higher set group saw more gains) but it was more marginal than going from 5-8 sets to 9-12 sets. Also, as sets increase the loads tend to decrease (and loads are important, for hypertrophy 30% to 85% of your 1RM) like that infamous 52 set study (where the loads dramatically decreased), and all the sets aren't usually taken to failure as well.
Prioritizing intensity and recovery over volume and frequency works for me, even on a cut. I do 3 sets instead of 1, but I only lift 1-2 times a week, and not full body.
I have used 12-15 sets per body part, Mentzer's 1-2 sets per body part; however, I have found 3-4 sets to be my sweet spot and what I make the most gains from. This is also what Dorian Yates settled on.
Dorian Yates only does 1 working set to failure, the first 1-2 are for warm up only. There are several videos of him training other youtubers etc recently like Mike Thurston
The funnier thing is that those 2 sets were actually warmups. He literally advices to do "2 warmup sets with lighter weight NOT to failure and then do 1 workset to failure", so...
To me it's more important to feel a level of hypertrophy, know when to stop and when to load up. Every session is different, we all have fitness and strength cycles, non optimal diet or sleep etc. Obviously, number of reps and weight can be pointless if it does not realize hypertrophy. Again, to me it's most important to know when a muscle has had enough stress - not too little & not too much. Compound lifts are really problematic due to compensation. How best to know what level of overall fatigue would maximize growth (regardless of mass/volume). Just a thought - great content!
I started working out again this year after not training heavy for a few years. I have been doing just push and pull once a week with 8 to 12k steps a day. For my workouts I have been doing a progressive failure of each group using 3 to five sets for each exercise. The one difference is that I keep my reps in the 5 to 7 second range with eccentric focus, and I make sure to go to failure on the last set every time. Time will tell, but I don't start to feel soreness for 24hs and I don't feel recovered until 72hs after. Want to push it into a alternating rotation every third day next.
I’ve been doing his ideal program for a few months now and my weights keep going up. I’ve also been losing fat at the same time. So no big calorie surplus or anything for me yet.
posting this as a top-level comment (previously it was a reply to a comment here) in hopes you will see it: i remember recently reading some studies about how grip training (holding the gripper devices, like captains of crush, isometrically, for 2 minutes at a time) actually reduces blood pressure more than regular bodybuilding style resistance training using compound movements, and reduces blood pressure more than cardio. it'd be interesting to see house of hypertrophy take a stab at interpreting that research: like why does training forearms reduce blood pressure more than squats, bench, and deadlift? and it wasn't just a temporary decrease in blood pressure, it reduced blood pressure for several weeks after training. most studies find like 10 point drop for forearm training, 5 point drop for cardio, and only a 3 point drop for traditional resistance training. is there something special about isometric forearm holds that reduces blood pressure?
Too many graphics. When i focus on his voice i miss the stats being flashed by me..when i try to grasp whats shown he rattles off a bunch of info...idk. I burn out on these vids really fast
Really cool!! This subject make me wonder the way we think about volume being detached from the resting time between sets, I learned with you how importante this detail can be
If this is true, why does my strength/performance drop after doing these higher volumes that are supposedly more optimal. Now the answer will propably be "its individual" well if its individual there is no point in giving these ranges that arent even on the right range. Many advanced natural atheletes who train hard can also attest to what Im saying. If you are truly training to failure you just cant recover well from anything over 12 sets and can easily still gain muscle doing 4 sets per week. Menzer was extremist doing just one set, I dont doupt it doesnt work but it for sure isnt optimal for most people, Dorian Yates was more on the right track.
You can only really do HIT low volume or High volume low intensity. Overreaching, is very easy for me if I start doing high intensity and high volume at same time. Doesn't take me long to start feeling like crap.
@@foxdogs1st Yes same, what kind of volumes are you doing then, or what do you define as HIT? I find 10 sets is the absolute max for myself, anything more and I start to get symptoms of overtraining even other than just stall in performance.
@@joojotin HIT to me is trying at least one set to all out failure RPE 10, maybe adding extended reps to that set if only do one set. This doesn't include warmup sets.
@@joojotin if I'm doing a higher volume like 5 or more sets, I'm definitely not hitting failure. My workout change in volume and intensity. I do full-body 3x a week. But, basically if I'm doing more volume/sets intensity drops. If I'm doing failure 1-2 working sets. And the 2nd set is typically just to check that I hit failure. If I'm right. When you do more then one set to failure, my sets will look like this 6 reps, 4 reps, 1 rep. -example of 3 sets to failure. The first set I did the most work see. If I keep doing this I will burn out in a week or 2. Better for me to do higher frequency low volume high intensity.
Notwithstanding these studies findings, diet and supplementation as well as sleep/recovery MUST play a huge role in how quickly you adapt, DOMS etc. Correct ennervation for maximal contraction, i.e. skill work, is also important and that's rarely achievable through single efforts unless for higher reps when failure comes as result more of fatigue products in muscle.
I always looked the best when doing the most. Only when doing a cut does anything seem to suffer. Again too much emphasis is put on training stimulus and not enough on caloric surplus or deficit
Ive Always done higher volume and frequency training (often training each muscle 3-5 Times a Week 10+ sets per workout) than most other people I know and I am natural benching 315 for 8-10 reps and Strict military pressing 225 for 3-5 reps as working sets. Think it worked out fine so far!
But how can we draw this comparison when there is no measurement for intensity/failure. Mentzer suggested performing reps very slowly in order to achieve maximum intensity muscular contractions. I challenge everyone to do just one set of any exercise with a 4 second concentric, 2 second hold and 4 second ecentric until you can not move the weight anymore. You will notice that the set lasts more than 1,5 minutes and it is very fatiguing and can not be compared to a regular set to failure. Also we can never measure in a study if people even go to failure. A lot of studys are performed on untrained individuals that might confuse failure with minor discomfort. That being said, great video as always.
The notion that slower rep tempos build more muscle (or that longer set durations in general are superior) is not the case - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XB9477odyBw.html:
When Training like Mentzer with 1 Set , then its not like 1 normal Set. You do it like "super slow" and to max. possible Failure. Is this considered in the studies or they just cut from 3 normal sets to 1 normal sets?
I’ve found 3 sets of 5 reps compound lifts 3x/week o be ideal no overtraining. I don’t want to risk heavier weights at less sets & less reps. Seems too risky.
Why do chickens have chicken legs.. because they walk on them every day.. Why do chickens have such big chest muscles.. they only use them in a short range of motion??
A Mike Mentzer set (or Dorian Yates working set) does much more for stimulating muscle growth than 3 or even 4 sets of the average lifter, you don't need many of those. 1 per exercise to be precise. What many people (and indeed most researchers in this field) call a set is nothing more than a half-arsed warm-up set that does close to fuck all for actual muscle growth, no wonder they think you need tons of volume (and look like shit)
Good discussion. Like keto dieters, the HIT folks know everything. You can't tell them anything because they follow the sacred scrolls of diet or weight-training. It's almost a truism to say that some methods of diet and exercise work better for some and not for others simply because people are variable. I suspect HIT is liked because it's a time saver. Don't want to be in the gym for an hour or more? Just do one failure set for each muscle. On the other hand, some people like being in the gym for an hour or more. Some of them like doing a heavy volume bro-split while others prefer push-pull splits. An intermediate lifter should learn all of these methods and will eventually become an advanced lifter who can choose whatever methods are optimal.
If you’re normally doing 2 exercises at 3x10ish for a given muscle group, try removing a set and adding another exercise so it would be 3 exercises at 2x10ish. You get the same volume and can push A LOT harder on each exercise and get that little extra variation in there. It’s been working wonders for my pull-ups, OHP and dips but I’ll always love multiple sets for rows
A single set in literature implies one single approach to failure. What do the results say for a single set with multiple approaches to failure via methods like rest pause?
1 - Mike didn't say "1 set" he said "1 set to failure" in Mike's workout he usually do 3 sets, 2 of them are warmup and pre exhausting sets that everybody do, and he only push the last set to failure, so the set mike talking about is the last failure set, and he said you don't need to do 2 sets to failure because it will not trigger more muscle growth, and if it does, is does not worth the effort and the recovery time and the risk of injury because the different in muscle growth will be so minimal. 2 - Also mike have some techniques that he uses for that one set, like rest pauses and do eccentric after you fatigue the muscle, so basically this one set is a complete fatigue and stimulus for the muscle. 3 - These studies who are training people with low muscle mass to begin with, they don't need much rest time since they don't have a great muscle mass to recover, but if they keep training with high volume in long term they will reach a plateau in size and strength gains and we've seen it all the time. Mikes method is for more advance lifters not for newbies. 4 - Most of there studies measure quad gains. Legs in general favor more volume as Arthur Jones said legs are designer for endurance and they get a better response when trained with higher volume, he even suggested incredible high number of repetition for the legs. So these studies kind of proved his theory.
"One set is all you should do" is taken out of context, Meltzer usually incorporated pre-exhauaet set. The amount of effort is also at maximum, sometimes beyond. I don't think most really push to the limit, especially men and women under 40- generally. Also, Meltzer used special "meds" anything would work under those conditions... I find that 2-4 real sets per week perfect
The problem is that a lot of people can't go the intensity mentzer preaches in his books. If you would truly follow his way you definitely would not do another set because you would be utterly exhausted. It's not just about one set.
Î often forget what a niche topic muscle growth is in the scientific community. To me it's fascinating how many things are still not explored in depth.
Absolutely love your work. Just a suggestion: if u cud slow down with ur narration speed just a lil bit, wud let me not miss out on one point before you jump onto the next. With the detailed researched content, every point you give in the video seems essential enough to miss out on.
Hey bro, not sure if you are aware of this but you can actually do that yourself. In the top of your screen when you tap it there will be a little settings icon. Tap it and it will give you an option to adjust playback speed
you can do 20 sets and not overtrain, you can do 2 sets and overtrain, all who understand how anaerobic exercise works (biomechanics involved) can find through trial and error, the balance for achieving their personalized goals for adaptation to stimulus. These videos are super interesting, but our minds do the interpretation and this is why you get conflicting on surface comments and phrases. Most comments are true, but not THE TRUTH, not on purpose, but rather due to the complexity of the subject. I said it before and I will say it again. If you want, you can focus on what Mike said and you will see results, since Mike takes, less is more(regarding time spent in the gym) approach, there is a plethora of individuals, I would argue the majority will see positive results regarding building muscle mass that with the most fashionable way they wouldn t for the simple reason, they wouldn t stick to it. People do not want to spent time and money in the short term, but they want to spent time over the course of their life span maintaining a progressive overload routine. whoever believes those internet gurus and subjective meta analysis that brings different results based on who is funding or orchestrating it .
I suffered from extreme insomnia until I started mike mentzers philosophy, now I'm getting a solid 8 hours a night so I fairly sure i was overtraining.
I do not think there have been a single weight training study that discovered over-training happening to a individual. It only happens in people that do extreme cardiovascular exercises like ultra marathon running. I believe this is also where the myth occurred that cardio burns muscle. Whereas it is actually the extreme demands of ultra marathon running for example like running 50 miles every single day that over-trained their legs specifically. Also, Congrats on 200K+ Subs, I knew you would blow up it was just a matter of time!
Thank you my friend for the kind words! If we're considering overtraining as a performance decrease for multiple months, indeed there are no studies that show this. Yet, there aren't many studies that have actually done a follow up for this long either. But we do have papers finding a performance decrease up to 2-8 weeks after training, such as this paper which involved subjects performing 10 sets of 1RM daily - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7808252/
It is definitely a thing in weight training, but it takes a LOT of volume and intensity and weight to get there. At 45 years old I live a relaxed lifestyle very minimal stress and sleep well. Ive always trained with high intensity. ie every set is to at least failure and many beyond with rest pause, drop sets, and forced negatives, I also train that way with volume. For myself Ive found 16 working sets per muscle group average per week lifting that way seems to be my baseline. In that I can train that way indefinitely and recover well. However if I push that volume further at that same intensity and frequency it will usually be after as little as one to two weeks and my joints are aching, my muscles are taking longer to recover and im having trouble sleeping. My cns feels fried in that I can physically feel it as jittery (kinda like restless leg syndrome but full body) as well as stomach issues and in general feeling really run down, then loss in strength follows ie overtraining. Overtraining is very real but it takes a hell of a lot of work to get there, so it's not really something most people ever have to worry about
Because the definition of overtraining is not clear. If we define it in layman terms that performance stops or decreases then we have plenty of evidenceof that happening. Yet that isnt the definition of overtraining in science.
Quite agree. The form of marathon and ultra-marathon runners falls off a cliff after a certain time. Wife of a marathon running friend who I believe was ranked as the UK number 1 ultra runner at one time, 100 mile plus runs. Within a short space of time, she completely lost that endurance ability and was struggling with 10 mile runs. There was a top Kenyan or Ethiopian runner I remember reading about. World champion. Had really difficult race and fell down the rankings. A lot of these runners now limit the amount grueling races in difficult conditions. London marathon is a walk in the park for them but in other weather conditions, it takes a lot out of them.
Let us remember that scientific research often deviates from what is seen in practice. Is Mike Mentzer right or wrong? We do not know. But I can say that 8/14 sets per muscle is extremely optimal for my hypertrophy. I train until I fail to complete the movement and for me that is failure.
Mike Mentzer the goat i disagree on some factors as many people tend to bypass mikes first warm-ups. (TuT) then 1 set to failure 😂. You have to read his book.
I don’t believe you can ultimately classify Mentzer’s approach as one set. If you define a set as “to failure” and then do any sort of forced rep after you go to failure, then every forced rep is essentially another set to failure. It’s just single rep set. I think that’s why so many people see results using his method. And it still lines up with the studies showing more sets equal more results. He’s was just doing one multi-rep set and several single rep sets, ultimately getting the total per week that the studies shown here are saying you need for growth.
I do a warmup set and then a set to all out failure and a little beyond usually twice per week, and this data frequently shows that even if this isn't optimal it gets you quite a bit of the way there with very little time involved and I see improvements which is good enough for me.
Pretty sure the 52 set study showed hypertrophy was similar to the 26 set group but slightly higher strength gains. Either way, it's insane how many people underestimate the body's capacity for recovery, as if there are people who don't do manual labor every day for a living. It's like they intentionally want limitations.
