Видео

you're measuring fluid in the musle. its quit obvious. Its why your shrink after 10 days of no training and then gain in all back in 10 day. EVERY study is flawed

great episode !! need that measurment roundtable now XD

It would be interesting to collect training log data from meticulous trainees and look for patterns over time. Many variables can't be controlled, of course, but if lifters claim to adhere to certain practices, and the logs and spot checking support those claims, we could gain some insight into how training principles play out in reality.

great content as always. a question i’ve been wondering: does your volume meta data support the concept of hard sets equivalency for volume?

Would be interesting to know if he (Dr. Sam Buckner) made continous progress, in terms of load/rep increases, during those four years when he trained his biceps but didn't saw an increase in size. Did someone ask him that?

Thanks again for having me on! Enjoyed the discussion and appreciate y’all’s insight on this topic. Chill point round-table coming soon.

Just what i need, 2 more hours of volumen discusion.

I don’t understand how, in these studies, participants manage to avoid getting weaker when training with such high volume. Over my 10+ years of training experience, I’ve tried doing more than 20 sets per week, but I always ended up getting weaker-fewer reps with the same weight from session to session. How do the participants in these studies come out of this positively? Is it just me? Am I the only one who can’t recover properly? Ok I know this is strength but it correlates with hypertrophy.

I have a million other discussion points after this. For Zac and Josh, what do you guys think about drawing from other research to boost the strength of the "outcome-focused" argument? I tend to think physiology is physiology and a lot of the questions we have in resistance training we can find hints of an answer in the cardiovascular training data. A lot of Sam’s suspicions about resistance training physiology are very different from what cardiovascular outcomes suggest about that physiology. Like your muscles stopping to adapt after 3-4 sets of the same stimulus doesn’t seem to play out with the heart. The question of rate of improvement vs higher peaks is also a little clearer as well as how volume and effort play together, potentially explaining the variance in outcomes when studying them separately. Obviously I’m not suggesting we just take cardiovascular training research and assume it generalizes to resistance training, it’s just a lot of arguments about resistance training seem to have baked-in assumptions about what can and cannot be true and I think cardiovascular data can open our minds a little bit.

What would be an interesting study design for strength and growth correlations, with total volume equated: Group 1. Strength training Group 2. Hypertrophy training Group 3. Power building group- adding singles or high load training with majority of program as hypertrophy Test 1RM and 5 or 8RM in all groups. Technically if RM load (whether that be 1RM, 8 RM) increased in groups, doesn’t that equate to strength gains?

How much less muscle growth do you get comaring 10-12 ish sets and 30+ sets. Percentage wise?

Do strength volume and frequency for powerlifting pls

Love that intro song. 👍👍👍

Josh, Zac, Sam, thank you!! All these conversations help tremendously to give insights for strength and hypertrophy.

Let’s go baby! Volume talks and a Friday work day distraction 👌

8:30 it would be cool if you guys broke down exactly what we are seeing here, for those of us that aren’t familiar with ultrasounds

I actually have much better mind-muscle connection doing shortened partials instead of lengthened partials. If you start with the shortest range of motion 7-8 reps, do 1-2 reps at fullest range possible slow, then do 1-2 iso-holds negatives, your muscle will be annihilated

Bro metrics & the pump for the win

16:00 Do you guys not think that this maintenance research is a great counterpoint to the accusations of edema being a massive confounding variable in the volume research? If swelling is the reason why high volumes are shown to cause higher increases in muscle size, why is the opposite effect not seen when you cut volume by 1/3 - 1/9 following a high volume phase? Does the swelling just hang around forever until you stop training completely? Doubt

Insanely underrated channel

Science rules. This weird fitness science is not really science. Either you do real science not bothering what „arrives on the ground“ or you do no science at all.

Elbow tendinitis, low back pain, and sleep are my markers of recovery.

Eager for the strength and volume data

But Dr. mikes app is telling me more 8 sets of preacher curl

As it’s been said, it just depends on the individual and their own variables. I’m 45 and can’t manage more than 3 sets per workout at 8-9rpe for chest. I then can only repeat this until Thu/Fri same week, so 6, maybe 8, total sets per week for that particular muscle group alone.

I’m beginning to think that lack of sleep, poor nutrition, stress, poor exercise selection or program design, and RIR management is a bigger limiter to volume tolerance than we give credit. I can see why it’s so hard to give a “one size fits all” prescription to sets per week because there are so many variables that can impact individual recovery and tolerance. For me 6-15 maybe 18 seems to be my sweet spot but I have to be careful with keeping a few reps in the tank for pushing 15-18 sets per week otherwise I’ll strain a pec again 😂

that 11-18 sets per week is still the magic zone IMO but the commentary you've done on the study has been very good at breaking that biased view to be more open to the idea that under the right conditions there is meaningful responses from taking a muscle to hell and back.

Do you not think that some of this comes down to how well conditioned someone is, along with how someone is mentally programmed.

Yes 3rd edition let's go!

Very Low Intensity / Very High Frequency training inquiry: Lets say I work from home and there is a park in front of my house. I work for 50 min and then take a break, go to the park and do a set of chin ups, many reps shy from failure (Depending on the exercise). I repeat this process many times with different excercises. My idea is that by stimulating the muscles a bit but many times through the day, the total stimulus would be the same. And by doing just 1 set I can stave off the fatigue. Any thoughts?

Great discussion guys, enjoyed the video! It’s great to see more in depth discussions being had on the dose response relationship to hypertrophy.

can train example arms monday, legs , thursday, push or pull wnedesday amd thursday pull, friday legs again amd saturaday upper?

Bros werent wrong! They liked annihilating their body parts and therefore "bro spilts" are totally legit.

Paging Paul Carter and Chris Beardsley 😂

So essentially what the video is saying is to do 2 sets of each exercise per week minimum, then everything after that is 100% of the work for only 33% of the results compared to the first 2 sets?

If lifting twice a week on Monday and Thursday, should I do full body both days, or split in half 50/50 on both days?

If lifting twice a week on Monday and Thursday, should I do full body both days, or split in half 50/50 on both days?

If lifting twice a week on Monday and Thursday, should I do full body both days? Or split the body and do one specifici exercise per week?

I’m still a bit confused on the table 2A the description column. Are you supposed to add that to minimum volume 4 sets or the volume within the tier row? For example, Is it referring to how many additional sets needed + minimum 4 sets to see further growth? For example 4 + 6 sets = 10 sets to see more measurable growth vs 4 sets. Or is it how many sets needed in addition to 5-10 range to see more growth (now 11-16 sets after adding the listed 6)?

I am swelling in response to this video

So is the effect on muscle protein synthesis from resistance training not even that relevant for long term hypertrophy, at least for trained individuals since we see a sharp decline of MPS just a couple of hours after the training session (Damas study)? Wouldn't that mean higher frequency is better for trained lifters because we would stimulate MPS more often after it's already back to almost baseline when using a higher frequency program?

Twitching for the guys to get to the strength side of the volume and frequency research!! 🙏

Main takeaway: I really wanna try that isokinetic device now

When i Stopp Training for example high Volume arm Training or reduce IT Just do Some Sets of pull ups and presses, for an week= the real growth without swelling?

I Wonder If at a advanced Stage you have to priotize a muscle group with more Volume intensity maybe even frequency and put all other on maintainece. And If a dirty Bulk maybe Work If you train more, that there IS a benefit which only Show with Training more

This frequency for hypertrophy stuff seems to be the part of these meta regressions with a lot of questions remaining. Questions I still want answered are: - What then is the effect of within session volume? For example 4 weekly sets is the minimum effective dose, and Frequency doesn't appear to play a drastically important factor. So if I trained Biceps 1x/wk with 4 sets of 2x/wk with 2 sets, due to the ~90% probability that more frequency is at leat slightly better would the x2 frequency option be best? Or is there something to drilling into that higher efficiency level on a single day that makes it all net equal? - How does this match up with the volume research? Even if we just look at the intermediate efficiency of volume, you'd be hard pressed to find people that can adequately perform up to 18 sets on a given muscle in one session with appropriate execution and proximity to failure. I'm applying logical inference and not data, but it seems that would necessarily require higher frequency to yield that benefit. - I hate the term 'junk volume.' But there was certainly a lot of talk over the last few years of a within session threshold of ~5-6 sets on a given muscle. The volume data set and 'diminishing returns' idea may correlate that it's not 'junk volume' but you just have to do a lot more to see more benefit. But if that is true, why would stopping at a 'high efficiency' level of volume within session, recovering for 48-72 hours and hitting another 'high efficiency' level of volume not lead to greater results?

Really confused why so many people in these comments are blowing up saying 'no one can do that volume! I can barely do more than 6 sets per muscle per week!' And the study literally has 5-10 sets as the highest efficacy lol

Frequency allows you to go more and more is better in eveyr endeavor 🙌

Also super interesting about the tightrope walking around an hour and twelve minutes in. Sort of the state of my training, doing a lot, doing it hard, and carrying around quite a lot of fatigue most of the time, but seeing hints of progress especially if that is allowed to dissipate occasionally.

Big Volume strikes again!