Видео

Only question this raises for me is, if the average minimum dose for response is 5-10 fractional sets per week per muscle, how did mike mentzer students reportedly make good gains with like max. 3 sets per 20 days in his “ideal routine” or whatever it was called. I cant rly tell how its possible other than they actually either didnt train that way or didnt make gains and it seems theres too many people reporting for it to be likely. Shits weird lowk.

Really want to see how these studies are impacted by calorie consumption

How did they define meaningful in their analysis?

"Less stress" Meanwhile im looking out the window trying to figure out what tf that noise was that im pretty sure i heard Edit: ya, what he said in the middle of the video

*yawn* Studies continue to be useless

Lol. Not only do these studies have multiple short-commings, but the volume dosage is all case by case basis. Everyone's life style / age etc is different. It behooves you to just take scientific recommendations at face value and to not experiment for yourself. How much stress can you handle while still recovering to get the adaptation desired. True self reflection or a great coach is that's required to figure this out.

How about you do the minimal weekly dose for hypertrophy + the minimal weekly dose for strenght? So can we get the best from both worlds?

So if you rest and eat adequately, is there no such thing as overtraining?

5 HOURS to listen about the study!?!? naaaah. I'll stick to the minimum effective dose, which is this video.

Just curious why you're wearing the nasal strips in your vids recently? I use them for sleep and noticed it helped a lot with snoring (my wife noticed).

Mmmmmno! 52 sets per muscle, per week!!! (insert Dr Pak lifting a static exercise bike)

Jerry Brainum is right. He been at this for 60 years. These guys are punks

This literally sent me to sleep

Why don’t the datadrivenstrength guys look like they lift

5-3-1 ftw?

Great

For muscle gains you get pretty much the same results with less weight and more reps vs more weight and less reps. I’m going to save my joints and go with less weight and more reps…..even though I don’t care about how much muscle I gain, even if I’ve gained 4 pounds of muscle in 4.5 months. If I can bench press 75 pounds (dumbbells) I’d do 55-60 pounds instead.

So more is still more. Especially as a low-responder (like me) I think you must be at least at 12 sets per week per muscle. Well, at least it's what I am trying after being on a plateau for too long.

what's that patch people wearing on their nose?

What happend to your face dr pak?

so mike mentzer is always right?

Dr. Pak friendly ah. On everything!

Hey Dr. Pak, when discussing the efficiency table and noting additional sets to see growth… are you talking about 6 or 8.5 additional sets from minimum effective volume (4 sets) or is it relative to what volume was completed before? I’m a bit confused on the baseline level that Table 2A refers to in the right sided column

Dr. Pak, are your tibialis anterior gains on point?

Why is this sht not settled yet? It's not like there are that many variables.

What about progressive overload? How you gonna progress on unlimited sets, I think the person who progresses their lifts more is going to have a better physique in most cases (if natural)

Add volume with circuits 👍, your welcome...

Mike Mentzer was right! .

What I miss in these volume studies is the interference of doing these super high volumes for multiple bodyparts. To me it makes sense that when training mainly one bodypart that you can absolutely crush that muscle and make better results the more you do. But once you do that for a lot of muscle groups I feel like recovery has to hinder us at a certain point.

Hey doc, on preacher curls because the biceps are shortened at the shoulder, would using a hammer or reverse grip make it a better lift for brachialis and brachioradialis rather than the biceps? Maybe a incline curl / behind the back cable curl would be more suitable for the biceps?

But what are "meaningful" gains? Everyone uses that term but I think it says nothing.

‘Just lift the weights’. smdh Because nobody has time constraints or other limitations? Seriously - where does, for example, an intermediate lifter go from his current position? Just lift the weights? Okay - doing more sets or reps or both? If more sets, more high rep sets? More low rep sets? If more reps, how many more reps? Maybe just more TUT? Closer to failure? Beyond failure with rest/pause? Multiple failure with drop sets? Slow eccentrics? Focus on lengthened partials? Mimic powerlifters? Mimic bodybuilders? Do CrossFit (okay, always no)? Circuit training? Compounds or isolated first? There are many reasons someone might have that require them to be as efficient as possible with their workouts while wanting to maximize gains, so for just one example, what if the only possible options for working out are two consecutive days, i.e., Sat/Sun, because of 10-15 hour workdays? What’s the best consecutive day, once/week split - upper body one day, lower body next day? Anterior then posterior? Left side then right side? All upper & lower body push day then all upper & lower body pull day? In theory, and even motivationally, ‘just lift the weights’ is a great philosophy and mindset. In reality, and especially in this example, NO one wants to work harder than they have to when time is limited and another 50-70 hour week is next on the schedule.

This might explain why calisthenics athletes are so jacked. Most of them are doing high frequency high volume

Thank you dr. Pak for blessing us with free game.

Yeee do low volum and stay small 😉 arnold and tousend of Bodybuilder go to the gym 3/4 hours for nothing 😂

Didn’t know TimtheTatMan did workout videos 😅😅

... What does it says on the bottom half of that pink T-shirt ?

Would be good if you can explain exponentiated ratio and how to interpret them in this context.

We need to start having an engineers take on this, translated/communicated for us by a marketing specialist approach….science and knowledge is good, but implementation for desired result and clear communication of such is much need. These convos focus too much on the “what we think we know”….need more “here’s what you can do/how to use it”. Please keep up the great work….this comment is just my opinion on what breaking from “fitness nerd” through to “mainstream fitness audience” would take.

Thats why olivia reeves is doing 4-10sets per week bc high volume is best. (For strenght😉) Brad schoenfeldt lab gets always double amount of gain vs rest of the world any lab. He is that good.. Or somebody should ask some guestions..? nobody in that "evidence base community" will not do that.. 2.7 low volume, 4.7 moderate volume and high 4.8% and results was somehow "high volume is best." That goes to in error marginal calculation mistake etc... 52 sets, trust me bro. Brad.

Maybe it was about the volume we made along the way

Is high volume for a few muscle groups really that worth it though? Especially if youre training a big muscle with 40+ sets and everything else is on the backburner, maybe your legs grow a milimetre faster, but the rest of your body slows to a crawl in terms of progression. Speaking of progression, ive tried the 25, 20, even 15 sets and ive always grown faster in terms of strength in hypertrophy specific exercises with as little as 4-6 direct sets a week

It'd be super cool to have some insights on volume vs calorie intake. I.E. is it worth doing any more volume than MEV when in a deficit or does the growth slow down so much it's a waste of time?

This video is clearly misinformation. We all know what we truly need. 52 sets of lengthened partials!!

How many minutes before another study that says something diff??

And then Mr. Intensity Variable shows up and throws a wrench into all of these studies results...........

I recently cut my volume in half and upped the weight. I haven't been doing it long enough to gather any data, but the nice thing is my workouts take ~half the time. I will see in the next 12 weeks or so if it is effective for me.

counting indirect work as half a set is hella generous

Marty Gallagher is good example that for maximum strength you don’t need lots of volume necessarily

Along All right was mentzer mike guess i