When I was in my 20s and had plenty of time, I could do an insane amount of volume. As a 45yr old with a job and commute, hobbies and friends/family... I'm lucky to get into the gym 3x a week. Good news, you can make gains on 3x a week
@@serban2139 I have moved from 3x5s and 3 days a week to lighter weights, 8 reps and lifting 3 out of every 4 days. Not only am I growing but I am not nearly as zapped all the time recovering from heavy compound lifts. Im old tho (52).
This is only because they include 0 frequency and 0 volume in the curve fitting. I personally downloaded the Data and fit different models. For volumes above 2 sets per week, volume don't matter for strength gain and is very marginal for hypertrophy (likely due to inflamation).
I wish I could go back to my young self 25 years ago and tell him 1. Not to increase the weight by more than 2.5lbs in a week. 2. Not to do more weight than I can do 10 reps with. 15 would be better. 3. When things hurt in a bad way, work out why, and stop doing them. 4. Never sacrifice form for more weight.
1. Why? 2. Why? 3. Valid. 4. Valid but don’t sacrifice weight at the expense of form. That is, you shouldn’t compromise your technique just to add more weight but you shouldn’t compromise your weight in the pursuit of “perfect technique” (whatever that is).
At 40 I do the same thing for several reasons. I mountain bike on the weekends and push myself hard, so I do my split mon-wed/thur and have a few days to recover before hitting the trails. Still getting gains and have enough room for active recovery days and plenty of other cardio.
Yeah I find my arms can only handle an arm day. I know technically my arms are being trained every upper body day, but without isolation it’s not much of anything I can trash my shoulders 3 times a week no problem. Same with traps and lats . Other than that 2 times a week seems like the sweet spot
7:41 That point is something that helped me figure out why it’s been an uphill struggle to hit the numbers I used to hit when I weighed an extra 66lbs.
As a 45ish male with kids and full time job, I am currently doing only 3 workouts per two weeks, Monday - Friday - Wednesday, so i have 4-5 days of recovery. I make sure the workouts are HARD, mostly compound, no bullshit, full body split. My diet is clean with lots of Protein. I also run twice a week. Good gains and shredded, feeling better than when i was 30
Yeah I cut down on workouts and doing 2 times a week low volume but I go hard. Fail, real fail. Mike menzer style. Im stronger, more apetite, sleep better, recover well, more energy both on workouts and overall in life. I think less is more
40 year old here who hadn't lifted weights seriously since 4 years in my 20s. After trying several programs and splits the last year, I eventually landed on 3x fullbody workouts Mon/Wed/Fri. For me it's best compromise. Steady gainst in strength, noticeable better looking physique, best overall wellness, no injuries.
about training volume for hypertrophy, lee priest always said "the more sets i did the more i grew, if u want a bodypart to grow u need to punish it", i guess he was onto something
@@spurzo-thespiralspacewolf8916 nope, im taking steroids and i assure u i cant train longer or more than i used to when natural, its practically the same but i get better pumps and gain a bit more muscle than fat when bulking compared to natty, and thats pretty much it
@@watchdog163 Nope, wrong again! They act like a multiplier and elevate your genetic limit. However, 0 multiplied by 100 is still 0. I recommend you listen to the ones who have actually tried them, like myself, instead of making these random claims. Someone who gets roided but doesn't train will look like a cyclist (at best), not like a bodybuilder.
I'm doing 8 hard sets for my chest per week, and I'm progressing very well, but I cannot imagine someone doing 43 weekly sets for the chest, it's near impossible if you train hard
chest, i do 28 sets to failure weekly. (12sets every 3days=12x(0.33*7)=28) its possible. Maybe im lucky with recovering fast, i dunno. Slow build up to this tho. I feel like i need this volume. natty intermediate
Why is the target rep count never mentioned? For instance, 16 sets of 10 or more reps, will have you lift way more overall tonnage than 16 sets of 2 reps. Same number of sets, but not same amount of accumulated fatigue. Also, what level of intensity are we talking about? And were the study subjects people who could just train, eat and sleep, or people with a more normal life? Personally, I think you need a reasonable volume, that allows you to put out serious effort, and then recover. If you can't seriously cook a muscle group with say 3 to 6 'live' sets, then you're loafing.
Fatigue and growth stimulations are both surprisingly similar between 10 and 30 rep sets. Slightly different muscle fiber types are stimulated but overall not a significant difference. Also a slight difference in fatigue but not significant.
"tonnage" is a poor way to measure training volume. Most sources agree at this point that "number of hard sets," regardless of rep range between 5 and 30, is the best way to count volume. Tonnage is basically irrelevant...otherwise quarter rep leg pressing 900 would be better than atg squatting 400, but thats far from true.
My problem with "hard sets" is that one week 8 reps on ex. 100kg is 1-2 rir, but next week it could be that 7 reps at 100kg is 1-2 due to other factors. Do they equal as much growth since both sets are "hard sets" regardless of the week before had me lifting 100kg more?
It's interesting that squats of all exercises benefit from higher volumes. Could it be because people don't tend to take them as close to failure as many other exercises because of the risks? Muscular failure also seems impossible to reach with squats.
My guess is that we don't bring our quads as close to failure as we could because of other muscles becoming fatigued. Why? Holding a 200lb+ barbell on your back and loading your spine isn't easy. I'm looking into belt squats for this reason and many people who switch to it from regular squats seem to swear by the difference it makes. There are risks of going to failure on squats ofc, but I feel like with a proper power rack setup, that should be a non-issue. Well maybe 1-2RIR so you can place the barbell on the power rack with a degree of control, lol.
@jonathansamaroo5777 I agree. Especially if you have a gym buddy you trust as a spotter to take the weight when you cant get out of the hole. I work so much harder when I know I have a partner as a safety net, but it's hard to keep consistent training partners around
@@jonathansamaroo5777belt squats are fascinating tbh. Raised platform, weights, floor under weights so if you do fail all the weight vanishes from you and you can unclip.
@@jonathansamaroo5777 Yeah I never liked barbell squats for that reason. No need to load the spine like that, when you can shorten the kinetic chain. I'm looking into using the trap bar for Squats instead, as the belt squats require too much other equipment for home.
@@SteveJonesOwnsDSP If you have a cable setup at home, maybe something like this can work? ruclips.net/video/t-L3--tUqDA/видео.html Looking to build something similar myself.
Many of these studies don't take into account the 'overlap' effect of training. For example when doing a press exercise for pecs you're indirectly also involving the front delts and triceps. Or if doing a reverse grip row you are indirectly involving the biceps. So, for this reason I don't do train my tri's and bi's and shoulders more than once per week as they are actually being trained twice per week if you include the indirect 'overlap' training effect. This has worked very well for me having been a long time lifter now for (40 years) 💪😉
They don't take into account, but he does talk about fractional sets/reps being counted (this exact concept) in the first couple minutes of the video and talks about the effect this has.
I notice from the graph that even with 20 to 25 sets per week there are still a couple of non-responders with zero muscle growth, whereas with more sets , going into the 30s, there are no non-responders and everyone got good muscle growth.
At that point if you are a normal person that has an hour to an hour and a half 5 days a week (cuz we have a life) you might think about specialization periods. Ie. 3x upper body days, intemixed with 2x lower body. In which you will hit you chest lets say, for 10 sets 3 x a week to minimize fatigue 80% RIR of 2 and the rest to failure . Rest of muscle groups you do idk 8 sets per session so you get good gainz. Rotate the specialization muscle group every so often and boom in 2 years you are Jay Cutler. @@andrewfierce
@@andrewfierce with some muscles it's easier than others, because remember in the studies they count secondary muscles used in compound exercises towards the total number for the week. So bench presses include shoulders and triceps, rows include shoulders and biceps. So if you're doing a lot of bench presses and rows you don't have to do that much direct shoulder and arm work to hit 30 total sets. Also a lot of times they're only focusing on certain muscles in the study, not doing over 30 sets for all your muscles in a week... But still, yeah, I can't even imagine doing that much volume for several different muscle groups a week.
According to my analysis, these are the most important factors: The meta-analysis fails to account for number of post-workout showers per week. I've found that 3 is the limit. Beyond this, my hair and skin become dry, and I end up spending even more time in front of the mirror. In a post-workout state, and depleted, this is a bad thing that often makes me consider swapping bodybuilding for badminton. The studies also don't account for crucial ratios. I don't mean stimulus to fatigue. I mean numbers of video selfie takers to regular training bros. This ratio gets worse the more frequently you train, with amateur Steven Spielberg types putting their tripod close to wherever I go. Often, these are girls filming their hip-thrust enhanced backsides, which despite their rage, I am not looking at. Increasingly, men are filming themselves too. I presume they want to get big on socials, not actually get big. Set durations should be short, up to around 8 or 10 reps. Beyond this, the chances of people banging into me goes up dramatically. Also, long sets increase the chance of someone asking whether I'm using a piece of equipment that I surely can't be using at the same time. I usually lose all my focus at this point, and the cortisol elevation I experience is likely to weaken my gains, even if Brad Showcracker PhD thinks test and cortisol have nothing to do with muscles. In terms of numbers of sets, I've found 3 is optimal. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. 2 to 3 is a 50% jump. Beyond 3 sets, and I risk being asked "How many?" from those who don't fear my current level of muscular development to leave me alone. Being asked "how many?" is a maths problem I don't enjoy when using the body. With regards to exercise selection, I generally prefer free weights. It's not because they're better, smoother, or used by Arnold. It's because machines and cables are almost always the first choice of people who like to occupy them without using them. At worst, if you use free weights, there's always something close to the thing you want. Yes, a jump in dumbbells sometimes could force my side raises to go from excellent to Branch Warren style, but that's rare. Free weights, don't wait. As for full-body versus bro-split, I prefer full body. Now, I am a bro, and indeed wrote Diary of a Gym Bro (now available at all bad book stores), but splits leave me feeling incomplete. It's like wrestling with the bald-headed champ on PornHub, and stopping short of the full bout. Body part splits leave way too much in the tank. A full body workout is thorough, and if non-gym people ruin my week, my routine order isn't taken out of sync. And that's a good reminder, I generally have learned to just love training. I do it for joy now. So what if people say we should pay attention to stretch mediated hypertrophy, RIR, mTor and myostatin? Why should I take creatine? 20,000 peer-review studies maybe, but I don't see the difference in the real world, or even when I use my microscope. We should enjoy training, do it for fun. We're already better than the 99% of the population who never train. I say pick the exercises you love, enjoy the pump even if the geeks say it does nothing. Kick the tripods of those filming videos by the dumbbell rack, and talking of rack, enjoy the journey of gradually getting to the heavy end, the big dumbbells that no none uses. Forget science. Just get in the gym and lift. Freddy Fox - good arms, but still no visible brachialis. Thanks mum, thanks dad.
thanks Menno for the amazing content. what's the take on training whilst still not recovered? using the analogy of being like doing a 5th set after 4 where there is muscle damage but you can still provide the stimulus for the muscle to grow.
You generally don't want to do that long term, as it would be overreaching/overtraining, but people recover a lot more quickly than they think generally.
How intensely did they train in the studies? (how hard did they try?) Did they go to failure every set, if they trained a body part three times a week? Or did the scientists just observe them doing whatever they did, with inevitable peaks and troughs in effort, like most decent bodybuilders do? Using powetlifters and weightlifters as anecdotal evidence that great frequency brings great results proves this issue, by example : it is WELL KNOWN that weightlifters don't train to failure very often at all, and their low rep lifts are extremely periodised. Is the assumption the same, with bodybuilders : they are doing straightforward sets with rest periods, and not going to failure, or hardly ever, or say half the time, or occasionally, some weeks, hardly at all or not at all? That would be normal. These are fundamental questions. My concern is this :whilst this is all useful and practical and factually correct, if the training errs away from 100 per cent intensity, it's used as an argument as to why you shouldnt have a regime where you rest a body part worked by only 4 sets, for a rest period of 8-14 days, on a year-round basis. In other words claiming it's not enough volume, based on scientific evidence. But as I've explained above, it's not on a like for like basis if the low volume regime involves unequivocally maximum intensity, whereas the evidence from the studies isn't vigilant regarding intensity. Or it mixes intensity quotas as it clearly does if the weightlifting and powetlifting examples have any place here. I don't prefer low frequency, low volume, high intensity training over the other method, but I do think it's a mistake to ignore the intensity factor as an incredibly important variable.
Do these studies take into account the intensity of the sets and the rest between sets? For example, it seems logical to me that 10 weekly sets per muscle group to failure and with 3 minutes of rest in between would have a much greater effect on hypertrophy and strength than 46 sets not to muscle failure with, say, only 1 minute of rest. Also seems pretty impossible to me that anyone can recover from 46 weekly sets per muscle group if they are to or close to failure every time. Finally, if there is a clear correlation between strength and muscle growth. Wouldn't the strength studies then be a better representation of effective muscle growth and the muscle growth studies more likely be a case of edema due to overtraining being misinterpreted as actual muscle growth?
@@radezzientertainment501but if it's between getting constant gains with less sets or blast volume and get injured or quit for a while, you'd get better results with less. Do the most you can live with.
We need a 12 month study - all muscle groups. I’m willing to bet that nothing beats 3 hard sets per muscle group 3x per week (9 sets per muscle group per week divided in 3 sessions). 4-8 reps per set (1-2 RIR / 8-9 RPE). 2-3 min rest intervals. You can’t beat this for long term growth stimulus and recoverability.
Completely agree. 43 sets is nonsense most people training with good intensity at 1RIR can barely recover from 6 sets a week training a muscle every other day, let alone over 7x that. I can't find any mention of delaying muscle growth measuring to account for swelling.
In my mid 50s i ve come to realize that you realy need a relatively low training volume to maintain muscle mass.I say maintain because after a certain age maintaining IS gaining .Less is more in most cases.Training 3x weekly is more than sufficient.30 minutes per session 2 to 4 excersises,2 to 4 sets in the 20-30 rep range to failure is the best approach.Recovery is a priority.Avoiding injury is the most important factor.
I cannot fathom how 43 sets per muscle group is even slightly recoverable, there is just no way. Doing a full body split every other day training every muscle 1 set per exercise for example is hard enough to recover from in of itself, and that can be as little as 5 sets per muscle group sometimes less. These studies that measure muscle growth in high volume participants must not account for edema as I cannot see how increase volume TEN FOLD is gonna allow more gains, they can't be recovering properly unless they're leaving like 4 reps in the tank each set.
With a low intensity, that is possible. What is indeed impossible is going to actual failure or close while doing 30 to 40 sets. 99% of people in those studies are extremely off on what real failure looks like. Any real failure training on leg day will make you feel like vomiting. Same when doing deadlifts and even rows. You know they aren't going to failure when in most studies they're making them rest less than 5 minutes on "failure" sets of squats, deadlifts and leg press. Tom Platz all roided up and completely adapted to squatting had to rest 10 minutes lying on the floor with a wet towel on his face in order to recover and even then he was fcked up for more than a week. Noone gets to tell me that somehow a random newbie can actually go to failure on squats, be ready to go within the next 2/3 minutes and do it again in 3 days to hit that frequency of 2 days. I swear that this is such a joke that I don't know how there aren't more people pointing this out.
How come strength plateaus after 4-6 sets, but muscle growth doesn't? Isn't it kind of impossible to build muscle without gaining strength(/progressive overload)?
@@elliot3876 he won't. If the science hucksters admit they have no idea if the current methods of measuring hypertrophy actually measure hypertrophy then the entire pyramid scheme would crumble. Just lift and have fun man
@@jp2135744 finally someone with brain people gain 1 inches from bs like FST 7 because they caused so much damage and edema and it showed growth in measurement 4 to 8 stes per week divided in session is going to be best for long terms growth
Do you think there is any credence to the idea that Chris Beardsly and Paul Carter put forth, that these high volume studies are actually just showing increased swelling of the muscle from more damage? The main argument against this would be the repeated bout effect, but in the 52 sets study they increased the volume every week or two weeks (dont remember), so according to them that would negate that effect. There is also the idea that swelling would be gone after a just a few days, but they claim that simply isnt always the case, and edema can still be there after 10 days. You would expect 52 sets to cause alot of swelling and for it to last longer, and according to them swelling can increase and decrease somewhat unpredictably anyways. Im planning to test this myself, doing 4 weeks with their lower volume recommendations (12 sets a week biceps and triceps), and then measuring every day for 10 days afterwards, then doing it again with 30 sets for biceps and triceps a week, and measuring the same way.
My father did a 3 day split,1 day off when he was my age, and he was jacked. I’m giving this a shot with his volume. We are nearly the exact same, lookalike, same body type.
66 YO, i put a power rack in my living room. standing desk, resistance bands, isometrics, I workout all day long, about 10m minutes a hour on average...
The volume study has 3 mistakes in its design 1. Edemas are a big confounder, because they take 7 days to disappear, however, measurements took place 3 days after training on average. 2. For most sets, rest times was below 2 minutes, making these sets more myoreps than full sets. 3. Most studies included in the meta-analysis were for a single muscle group, where decentngrowth until 30 sets is indeed possible. However, it confounds results of studies with more muscle groups trained.
Thats what you get from this dude Menno man, most of these so called scientist dont know to interpert data. They just look at the graph and talk, its amazing how much misinformation is spread.
For those of you feeling fatigued doing PPL 2x a week, trust, do Upper Lower 2x a week, same volume, same frequency, so little fatigue and way less time in the gym.
So it's better to do eg 12 sets per muscle group per week split over two sessions, rather than doing those 12 sets in one session? So if total weekly volume remains the same, it's still better to split that volume into 2 or 3 sessions?
"Volume" seems to be number of sets in the youtube fitness science community. However, there is also the number that represents the sum of reps times the weights used per set, which is also called "volume" in exercise science. The difference between is super important. The latter is what is recommended to be raised 5% from workout to workout for steady and sustainable progression, whereas the former (number of sets) arguably doesn't matter as long as the total aimed volume is met. There is a massive confusion going on right now, and it seems that only me, a lonely keyboard warrior for terminological justice, is fighting the battle on the right side against everyone else.
Main takeaway for me is: train as often and with as many sets as you can recover from. But obviously work up to it. In my case this means currently training 2-3 times per week with 3-6 sets per muscle group per training session. On weekends when I have more time, I can train longer and do a 60 minute full body training session. During the week I might only be able to do a 30 to 45 minute workout (either a full body workout with one exercise per muscle group or an upper / lower split with 2 exercises per muscle group). Still better than nothing and enough to be able to make strength gains (though slowly) at the age of 37 with work and family obligations.
Great video - has there been any study about estimated maximum time or duration (including cardio and/or just weight lifting) for EACH workout for maximum hypertrophy and/or before there is a decrease in hypertrophy?
I find it surprising that there is no proven ceiling to muscle growth in terms of training volume. The regression never peaks and there's upside even at 43 sets per muscle group per week. I don't think the differences between groups are statistically significant, knowing the limit of the function is approaching faster & faster as sets go up, but that nonetheless is interesting know-how, esp. given that I was assuming a dummy variable would kick in at some point to reduce growth in the regression output.
So arnold was right, right? High Volume, High Frequency. I think he did like 40-50 sets per week for something like chest? Its interesting how its going full circle
I don't really understand the 'minimum effective dose', for who is it. As an intermediate/advanced lifter I'm for sure not making any gains on 4 sets, I need double that.
You are probably going to make gains. But not at a rate that you are used to /would like to. I use 30+~ sets for biceps. Would I grow with 4? Well... Would I notice in a time frame that's reasonable or would I just do 4-8 more out of fear of missing out? I know I would do more
@@georgesarreas5509 well I don’t know what term of progress is expected with that low volume. I have tried it, and I just stall multiple weeks in a row doing this approach
@@theiceman7590well I always trained low volume 6-8 sets until I reached advanced strength levels. After that I stalled doing this volume. I don’t see how dropping volume lower than that will help me progress
You're missing recovery capacity, and there's more than one way to achieve hypertrophy. Achieving muscle size doesn't necessarily mean doing maximum sets.
Do you think joint tendon and all the other important stuff adapted and recover better and you have lower injury risk with lower frequency and higher reps?
I can't recover from 6 sets per muscle group per week, and somehow these people allegedly went to "failure" on 25 sets per week and saw crazy gains. How is that explained? It makes no sense to me. You can't recover from that.
If I do 6 sets per week in one session, I will feel REALLY sore and not recovered, but if I gradually bump up the volume and frequency, I now get next to no soreness doing 30 sets spread across 3 sessions. I also recover enough between sessions to at a minimum maintain performance, which will normally skyrocket after an auto-regulatory deload. My intensity remains the same regardless of volume. If you’re only doing 6-sets a week, it could be argued that this is then always a novel stimulus, as you’re not doing enough for your body to adapt to it. Have you tried maybe 3 sets, 3 times a week, and then adding sets from there. Perhaps you’re just a real outlier.
brother I do 30sets per muscle and I train to failure and I can recover well high volume doesn't work for everyone and ur genetics isn't the same as me or as the people in the study so experiment with urself and see what works for you and what doesn't
How many reps do you do in those sets? Are these 6 sets per one exercise or more? A year ago I thought the same that I am not able to recover from 6 sets per week but now I do 6 sets per training (!!!) as natural guy without any supplement! My typical chest routine is 3 sets of bench + 3 sets of flyes. And I repeat it 3x time per week. Easily recover. Just start with little, eg 2 sets of bench press, 1 set of flyes, see how your body adapts. Set your target rep per set. For me it's 8 cuz I feel better with moderate weight. Once you can do all 8 reps per your 2 bench and 1 flyes set, add another set with the same weight. This way you master the weight and your body adapts without rush. Only after you hit 8 reps across three sets per exercise you can increase weight a bit!
Because they don't train to failure. Most people, even advanced, don't know what that is. I've kinda gotten close to that since I started doing HIT occasionally after 10 years of training, and that's when I realized I was much stronger than I thought! My chest press machine skyrocketed in a matter of 3 months from 120kg to 160 for 10 reps, my low row from 120 to 170kg for 13 reps, shrugs from 100kg to 200kg for 30 reps, hip thrust from 100kg to 220kg for 25 reps... Bigger than ever, but I didn't grow the proportionate amount of muscle compared to such jumps in strength levels. I just realized I was constantly overtraining myself and tried to see things differently. Only then I could actually push beyond what I already thought was failure. I might add that the mind's a real b*tch and, if you know you have 2/3/4 extra sets to do, you won't perform the same on the first one and you'll convince yourself that 10 reps meant failure even when you could have done waaay more than you initially thought. 6 sets to true muscular failure is something not everyone can recover from if you're giving it your all. These studies have no credibility whatsoever. I'll go even further and claim that the way they're designing the studies is wrong from the get go. They always claim that "training to failure doesn't provide any extra benefit from going RIR 2/3" but we forget that every single study has variables (total volume, rest between sets, amount of protein intake...) that favour the group NOT going to "failure". If you only did 6 sets per week and rested more than 5 minutes between sets, there's absolutely no way that the RIR 2/3 group would win with such variables. If they upped the rest between sets, reduced the total amount of sets and increased protein intake beyond the usual recommendation, the studies would show veeeery different results. We're just lying to ourselves at this point. We need different designs with actual advanced athletes who know how to train to failure.
can someone suggest a muscle gain hypertrophy beginner program for 40 year old naturals that takes all what he says into account? I appreciate every tipp and help. Thank you
what about reps per set?..is that not a major driver..so when we say 15 sets per week to be done how many reps are we talking abt wrt sets for muscle group?
How do I manage my hypertrophy training volume with other exercise that’s not specifically hypertrophy related. Like for example I currently do 4 day UL split but I also do reformer Pilates with my girlfriend. Especially since they’re beginner classes I doubt they’re stimulating much growth for me but would cause a small amount of damage to recover from. I’m currently trying to have a rest day either side of the classes while seeing if it affects progress in the gym overtime. Maybe I could adjust as I go.
Considering that "long rest approach" suppocse i do 3 sets of barbell row, squats & bench press x2 a week. Will i get more hypertrophy if i do ×3 a week BUT doing 2 sets of each in the morning & 2 more sets in the SAME afternoon?
In your opinion, if I were to do 30 sets of chest in a given week, is it better to do 10x10x10 spread across the week for optimal rest, or 6 sets 5 times a week?
I'd love a dedicated 1x / month for 50+ lifters. I'm 54 & the limiting factor is recovery, so other details matter whereas for kids, "more helps more." Not your demo, but maybe more supply of videos would stimulate demand.
No, not enough. You need 9 to 12 sets per muscle group each week. You don't need to directly hit the muscle to count that into the sets per week. For instance bench press will activate your front delts.
Actually, off the top of my head, Radaelli et al. was 6 months and Enes et al. was 12 weeks. Some of the studies were in well-trained lifters. But yes, care should be taken with the extreme volume findings to extrapolate that to everyone. Commute, full-time job, kids, sleep deprivation and energy deficit are all big factors in my view, for example.
@@Jane_Friday lol, hard to construct a 20 year study that would be applicable to you. Especially since it would take 20 years to complete and not be considered valid until other 20 year validation studies were completed that backed up the research.
I've read in other sources that when you're cutting, you shouldn't cut volume. Maintain the volume the got you your gains. Your volume may drop off a bit closer to the end of the cut, or depending on how aggressive you go. Beware that if you cut too fast you'd probably end up losing muscle too.
After neural adaptations are over, all increases in strength are the result of muscle growth, aka the more progressive overload, the more muscle growth, if thats at 5 sets per week rather than 10-20 sets there is literally no reason to do more...
Another huge problem is that they only train a couple of muscle groups. They don't train all the muscle groups with 10-20 sets... I'll stop listening to research until I see some real world training
Thanks, Menno, your comment about breaking away from body parts split made me want to go back to upper lower split! It makes sense when you say that you essentially have days of recovery between sets later in the week
Last meso, running arm specialization, I hit 24 sets of biceps and 26 sets of triceps. Divided to 3 different sessions for each muscle group. Recovery was still fine. Caveat to that is, that chest and back volume was at maintenance, 4 sets per week for both. Total sets per body was around around 100 to 140sets per week. Start/end of meso. For me it's not practical to hit more than 8-9 sets per workout 3x week. Though who knows if I would do even better doing around 10 sets per muscle 4x week. Those previous volumes were still recoverable and good progress was made with weight and reps.
That's likely going to depend on the person and the shape their in.. The older we get the slower the recovery is.. as we start to produce less gh as the year click off.
@@jonathansamaroo5777 I'm gonna keep going for 7 weeks more and then I'll do an ultrasound for muscle thickness to get somewhat of an accurate measurement. (I have one by my work) Flexed arm circumference has gone up 3cm measured with a tape, for me, that's good progress. Also weights and reps have steadily moved up so that's another indicator that something is going right. Edit: this is in 10 weeks. So arms went from flexed 40cm cold to flexed 43cm cold, after a week of deloading so swelling had a chance to somewhat diminish.
43 sets for muscle growth? Again, the flaw was pointed out before. It's too short term I argue this : over the course of a year, 4 sets vs 20, 4 sets wins. Even if you did all 20 sets maximum intensity. Why? Because muscles pump up for the whole week, on 20 sets a week. You are genuinely bigger. So say you started in January, and on April 2nd the 20 set guy is bigger than the four set guy. He's more pumped. August - Now the four set guy catches up. Because he's GROWING MORE. So the high volume guy copies the low set guy. Now to early October. The high set guy who swapped to four sets is even smaller. He's lost his pump weight. He can either continue with 4 sets and catch up, or add sets and add that 'volume Dependent' size . We need long term studies. It seems obvious to me that high volume makes you bigger but that doesn't mean continuous growth after 6 months. And you're reliant on the volume (especially if you've essentially been training too much to progress)
I dislike how you made sure to take time to say that you personally know people that are doing studies which makes them more legit while simultaneously casting a negative light on peer review. It's not a perfect process but one that is integral to the act of science. Personal connections are the lowest form of evidence.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
When I was in my 20s and had plenty of time, I could do an insane amount of volume. As a 45yr old with a job and commute, hobbies and friends/family... I'm lucky to get into the gym 3x a week. Good news, you can make gains on 3x a week
I've done both high and low volume, I can't say its much of a difference as long as progressive overload is there.
@@serban2139 The video is literally Menno's commenting on a paper that analyzes the effect of volume on strength and hypertrophy gains.
@@SolntsaSvet i replied to that guy up there unless a bot then FECK
Moral of the story is don’t have friends and family
@@serban2139 I have moved from 3x5s and 3 days a week to lighter weights, 8 reps and lifting 3 out of every 4 days. Not only am I growing but I am not nearly as zapped all the time recovering from heavy compound lifts. Im old tho (52).
Thanks Menno, your sane, sober approach always resonates
amazing intro
working out fullbody 3 times a week, 3 sets for every muscle per session has been the most bang for your buck for me
I tried it but struggle to finish the training
@@learntoswim2777 I only do 3 compound exercises, the rest is isolation exercises. It makes it easy to finish the training
This is only because they include 0 frequency and 0 volume in the curve fitting. I personally downloaded the Data and fit different models. For volumes above 2 sets per week, volume don't matter for strength gain and is very marginal for hypertrophy (likely due to inflamation).
You sound much better here as your voice doesn't end in a high pitch as it used to. Keep it up, great work.
I wish I could go back to my young self 25 years ago and tell him
1. Not to increase the weight by more than 2.5lbs in a week.
2. Not to do more weight than I can do 10 reps with. 15 would be better.
3. When things hurt in a bad way, work out why, and stop doing them.
4. Never sacrifice form for more weight.
So you were regarded and still are
Travel 25 years back just to spread bs 😂😂
apart from 3 everything you said sounds like a pencilneck thing to say.
1. Why?
2. Why?
3. Valid.
4. Valid but don’t sacrifice weight at the expense of form. That is, you shouldn’t compromise your technique just to add more weight but you shouldn’t compromise your weight in the pursuit of “perfect technique” (whatever that is).
As a 45 year old i found higher frequency harder to recover from. But a bro split gave me the best gains and lots of recovery.
Even though I'm not your age. I find the lower-frequency approach seems to be easier on the joints and tendons as well.
38 and I’ve just discovered the same thing.
At 40 I do the same thing for several reasons. I mountain bike on the weekends and push myself hard, so I do my split mon-wed/thur and have a few days to recover before hitting the trails. Still getting gains and have enough room for active recovery days and plenty of other cardio.
@@m.j.5681 I think the high frequency push is for people who don't move heavy weight.
Yeah I find my arms can only handle an arm day. I know technically my arms are being trained every upper body day, but without isolation it’s not much of anything I can trash my shoulders 3 times a week no problem. Same with traps and lats . Other than that 2 times a week seems like the sweet spot
7:41 That point is something that helped me figure out why it’s been an uphill struggle to hit the numbers I used to hit when I weighed an extra 66lbs.
As a 45ish male with kids and full time job, I am currently doing only 3 workouts per two weeks, Monday - Friday - Wednesday, so i have 4-5 days of recovery. I make sure the workouts are HARD, mostly compound, no bullshit, full body split. My diet is clean with lots of Protein. I also run twice a week. Good gains and shredded, feeling better than when i was 30
What days do you run on?
Keep up the good work!
Yeah I cut down on workouts and doing 2 times a week low volume but I go hard. Fail, real fail. Mike menzer style. Im stronger, more apetite, sleep better, recover well, more energy both on workouts and overall in life. I think less is more
40 year old here who hadn't lifted weights seriously since 4 years in my 20s. After trying several programs and splits the last year, I eventually landed on 3x fullbody workouts Mon/Wed/Fri. For me it's best compromise. Steady gainst in strength, noticeable better looking physique, best overall wellness, no injuries.
Same here. Vary # sets, weight and rep schemes. Same primary barbell exercises with various auxiliary lifts
about training volume for hypertrophy, lee priest always said "the more sets i did the more i grew, if u want a bodypart to grow u need to punish it", i guess he was onto something
Drugs allow you to train anyway you want
@@spurzo-thespiralspacewolf8916 nope, im taking steroids and i assure u i cant train longer or more than i used to when natural, its practically the same but i get better pumps and gain a bit more muscle than fat when bulking compared to natty, and thats pretty much it
@@spurzo-thespiralspacewolf8916 They really don't...
@@microondasletal
You can just sit around and still grow muscles if you're on roids.
@@watchdog163 Nope, wrong again! They act like a multiplier and elevate your genetic limit. However, 0 multiplied by 100 is still 0. I recommend you listen to the ones who have actually tried them, like myself, instead of making these random claims. Someone who gets roided but doesn't train will look like a cyclist (at best), not like a bodybuilder.
I'm doing 8 hard sets for my chest per week, and I'm progressing very well, but I cannot imagine someone doing 43 weekly sets for the chest, it's near impossible if you train hard
Exactly, the most I can do is, 9-12
true
chest, i do 28 sets to failure weekly. (12sets every 3days=12x(0.33*7)=28) its possible. Maybe im lucky with recovering fast, i dunno. Slow build up to this tho. I feel like i need this volume. natty intermediate
@ How much are you resting between the sets?
3 sets of chest in the AM and PM every day gets 42. Add 1 more set. Super easy
Why is the target rep count never mentioned? For instance, 16 sets of 10 or more reps, will have you lift way more overall tonnage than 16 sets of 2 reps. Same number of sets, but not same amount of accumulated fatigue. Also, what level of intensity are we talking about? And were the study subjects people who could just train, eat and sleep, or people with a more normal life?
Personally, I think you need a reasonable volume, that allows you to put out serious effort, and then recover. If you can't seriously cook a muscle group with say 3 to 6 'live' sets, then you're loafing.
Fatigue and growth stimulations are both surprisingly similar between 10 and 30 rep sets. Slightly different muscle fiber types are stimulated but overall not a significant difference. Also a slight difference in fatigue but not significant.
"tonnage" is a poor way to measure training volume. Most sources agree at this point that "number of hard sets," regardless of rep range between 5 and 30, is the best way to count volume.
Tonnage is basically irrelevant...otherwise quarter rep leg pressing 900 would be better than atg squatting 400, but thats far from true.
My problem with "hard sets" is that one week 8 reps on ex. 100kg is 1-2 rir, but next week it could be that 7 reps at 100kg is 1-2 due to other factors. Do they equal as much growth since both sets are "hard sets" regardless of the week before had me lifting 100kg more?
Great video, and thank you for doing it. Very helpful to put a high level summary out; it is hard to keep track of all the minutiae out there.
It's interesting that squats of all exercises benefit from higher volumes. Could it be because people don't tend to take them as close to failure as many other exercises because of the risks? Muscular failure also seems impossible to reach with squats.
My guess is that we don't bring our quads as close to failure as we could because of other muscles becoming fatigued. Why? Holding a 200lb+ barbell on your back and loading your spine isn't easy. I'm looking into belt squats for this reason and many people who switch to it from regular squats seem to swear by the difference it makes.
There are risks of going to failure on squats ofc, but I feel like with a proper power rack setup, that should be a non-issue. Well maybe 1-2RIR so you can place the barbell on the power rack with a degree of control, lol.
@jonathansamaroo5777 I agree. Especially if you have a gym buddy you trust as a spotter to take the weight when you cant get out of the hole. I work so much harder when I know I have a partner as a safety net, but it's hard to keep consistent training partners around
@@jonathansamaroo5777belt squats are fascinating tbh. Raised platform, weights, floor under weights so if you do fail all the weight vanishes from you and you can unclip.
@@jonathansamaroo5777 Yeah I never liked barbell squats for that reason. No need to load the spine like that, when you can shorten the kinetic chain. I'm looking into using the trap bar for Squats instead, as the belt squats require too much other equipment for home.
@@SteveJonesOwnsDSP If you have a cable setup at home, maybe something like this can work?
ruclips.net/video/t-L3--tUqDA/видео.html
Looking to build something similar myself.
Many of these studies don't take into account the 'overlap' effect of training. For example when doing a press exercise for pecs you're indirectly also involving the front delts and triceps. Or if doing a reverse grip row you are indirectly involving the biceps. So, for this reason I don't do train my tri's and bi's and shoulders more than once per week as they are actually being trained twice per week if you include the indirect 'overlap' training effect. This has worked very well for me having been a long time lifter now for (40 years) 💪😉
They don't take into account, but he does talk about fractional sets/reps being counted (this exact concept) in the first couple minutes of the video and talks about the effect this has.
My biggest issue right now is wanting to get bigger but not getting enough good sleep to recover well and getting older.
Were they really doing 43+ sets per muscle per week? Or was it like the Enes quad volume study where they only trained a portion of the body?
I notice from the graph that even with 20 to 25 sets per week there are still a couple of non-responders with zero muscle growth, whereas with more sets , going into the 30s, there are no non-responders and everyone got good muscle growth.
Damn, didn’t realise I had been covertly included in the 20-25 set group
how would you even program 30 sets per week per body part?
At that point if you are a normal person that has an hour to an hour and a half 5 days a week (cuz we have a life) you might think about specialization periods. Ie.
3x upper body days, intemixed with 2x lower body.
In which you will hit you chest lets say, for 10 sets 3 x a week to minimize fatigue 80% RIR of 2 and the rest to failure .
Rest of muscle groups you do idk 8 sets per session so you get good gainz.
Rotate the specialization muscle group every so often and boom in 2 years you are Jay Cutler.
@@andrewfierce
@@andrewfierce with some muscles it's easier than others, because remember in the studies they count secondary muscles used in compound exercises towards the total number for the week. So bench presses include shoulders and triceps, rows include shoulders and biceps. So if you're doing a lot of bench presses and rows you don't have to do that much direct shoulder and arm work to hit 30 total sets. Also a lot of times they're only focusing on certain muscles in the study, not doing over 30 sets for all your muscles in a week... But still, yeah, I can't even imagine doing that much volume for several different muscle groups a week.
@@andrewfierce I don't defend such crazy numbers, but what's so hard about it apart from the time requirements?
awesome summary of what seems to be a great study! very relevant and informative :)
According to my analysis, these are the most important factors:
The meta-analysis fails to account for number of post-workout showers per week. I've found that 3 is the limit. Beyond this, my hair and skin become dry, and I end up spending even more time in front of the mirror. In a post-workout state, and depleted, this is a bad thing that often makes me consider swapping bodybuilding for badminton.
The studies also don't account for crucial ratios. I don't mean stimulus to fatigue. I mean numbers of video selfie takers to regular training bros. This ratio gets worse the more frequently you train, with amateur Steven Spielberg types putting their tripod close to wherever I go. Often, these are girls filming their hip-thrust enhanced backsides, which despite their rage, I am not looking at. Increasingly, men are filming themselves too. I presume they want to get big on socials, not actually get big.
Set durations should be short, up to around 8 or 10 reps. Beyond this, the chances of people banging into me goes up dramatically. Also, long sets increase the chance of someone asking whether I'm using a piece of equipment that I surely can't be using at the same time. I usually lose all my focus at this point, and the cortisol elevation I experience is likely to weaken my gains, even if Brad Showcracker PhD thinks test and cortisol have nothing to do with muscles.
In terms of numbers of sets, I've found 3 is optimal. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. 2 to 3 is a 50% jump. Beyond 3 sets, and I risk being asked "How many?" from those who don't fear my current level of muscular development to leave me alone. Being asked "how many?" is a maths problem I don't enjoy when using the body.
With regards to exercise selection, I generally prefer free weights. It's not because they're better, smoother, or used by Arnold. It's because machines and cables are almost always the first choice of people who like to occupy them without using them. At worst, if you use free weights, there's always something close to the thing you want. Yes, a jump in dumbbells sometimes could force my side raises to go from excellent to Branch Warren style, but that's rare. Free weights, don't wait.
As for full-body versus bro-split, I prefer full body. Now, I am a bro, and indeed wrote Diary of a Gym Bro (now available at all bad book stores), but splits leave me feeling incomplete. It's like wrestling with the bald-headed champ on PornHub, and stopping short of the full bout. Body part splits leave way too much in the tank. A full body workout is thorough, and if non-gym people ruin my week, my routine order isn't taken out of sync.
And that's a good reminder, I generally have learned to just love training. I do it for joy now. So what if people say we should pay attention to stretch mediated hypertrophy, RIR, mTor and myostatin? Why should I take creatine? 20,000 peer-review studies maybe, but I don't see the difference in the real world, or even when I use my microscope. We should enjoy training, do it for fun. We're already better than the 99% of the population who never train. I say pick the exercises you love, enjoy the pump even if the geeks say it does nothing. Kick the tripods of those filming videos by the dumbbell rack, and talking of rack, enjoy the journey of gradually getting to the heavy end, the big dumbbells that no none uses. Forget science. Just get in the gym and lift.
Freddy Fox - good arms, but still no visible brachialis. Thanks mum, thanks dad.
thanks Menno for the amazing content.
what's the take on training whilst still not recovered? using the analogy of being like doing a 5th set after 4 where there is muscle damage but you can still provide the stimulus for the muscle to grow.
You generally don't want to do that long term, as it would be overreaching/overtraining, but people recover a lot more quickly than they think generally.
Super well explained! Fantastic info!
10:10 that thing about 40+ sets, are they all rpe9-10 sets?
How intensely did they train in the studies? (how hard did they try?)
Did they go to failure every set, if they trained a body part three times a week? Or did the scientists just observe them doing whatever they did, with inevitable peaks and troughs in effort, like most decent bodybuilders do?
Using powetlifters and weightlifters as anecdotal evidence that great frequency brings great results proves this issue, by example : it is WELL KNOWN that weightlifters don't train to failure very often at all, and their low rep lifts are extremely periodised. Is the assumption the same, with bodybuilders : they are doing straightforward sets with rest periods, and not going to failure, or hardly ever, or say half the time, or occasionally, some weeks, hardly at all or not at all? That would be normal.
These are fundamental questions. My concern is this :whilst this is all useful and practical and factually correct, if the training errs away from 100 per cent intensity, it's used as an argument as to why you shouldnt have a regime where you rest a body part worked by only 4 sets, for a rest period of 8-14 days, on a year-round basis. In other words claiming it's not enough volume, based on scientific evidence. But as I've explained above, it's not on a like for like basis if the low volume regime involves unequivocally maximum intensity, whereas the evidence from the studies isn't vigilant regarding intensity. Or it mixes intensity quotas as it clearly does if the weightlifting and powetlifting examples have any place here.
I don't prefer low frequency, low volume, high intensity training over the other method, but I do think it's a mistake to ignore the intensity factor as an incredibly important variable.
Do these studies take into account the intensity of the sets and the rest between sets? For example, it seems logical to me that 10 weekly sets per muscle group to failure and with 3 minutes of rest in between would have a much greater effect on hypertrophy and strength than 46 sets not to muscle failure with, say, only 1 minute of rest.
Also seems pretty impossible to me that anyone can recover from 46 weekly sets per muscle group if they are to or close to failure every time.
Finally, if there is a clear correlation between strength and muscle growth. Wouldn't the strength studies then be a better representation of effective muscle growth and the muscle growth studies more likely be a case of edema due to overtraining being misinterpreted as actual muscle growth?
So would it be fair to say that maximising muscle growth comes from the highest amount of recoverable volume?
yes, but with diminishing returns.
seems like if you can recover with more volume, it is better to do more volume
@@radezzientertainment501but if it's between getting constant gains with less sets or blast volume and get injured or quit for a while, you'd get better results with less. Do the most you can live with.
As a natural practitioner of H.I.T. high intensity training, I can say that I wouldn't train any other way. 💪😆👊
Fantastic info and summary.
We need a 12 month study - all muscle groups. I’m willing to bet that nothing beats 3 hard sets per muscle group 3x per week (9 sets per muscle group per week divided in 3 sessions). 4-8 reps per set (1-2 RIR / 8-9 RPE). 2-3 min rest intervals. You can’t beat this for long term growth stimulus and recoverability.
Completely agree. 43 sets is nonsense most people training with good intensity at 1RIR can barely recover from 6 sets a week training a muscle every other day, let alone over 7x that. I can't find any mention of delaying muscle growth measuring to account for swelling.
In my mid 50s i ve come to realize that you realy need a relatively low training volume to maintain muscle mass.I say maintain because after a certain age maintaining IS gaining .Less is more in most cases.Training 3x weekly is more than sufficient.30 minutes per session 2 to 4 excersises,2 to 4 sets in the 20-30 rep range to failure is the best approach.Recovery is a priority.Avoiding injury is the most important factor.
That 5 second intro is so funny lol
I cannot fathom how 43 sets per muscle group is even slightly recoverable, there is just no way. Doing a full body split every other day training every muscle 1 set per exercise for example is hard enough to recover from in of itself, and that can be as little as 5 sets per muscle group sometimes less. These studies that measure muscle growth in high volume participants must not account for edema as I cannot see how increase volume TEN FOLD is gonna allow more gains, they can't be recovering properly unless they're leaving like 4 reps in the tank each set.
isnt more more and volume just edema muscle swelling? no way people doing 30-40 sets didnt regress, that is simply not possible
With a low intensity, that is possible. What is indeed impossible is going to actual failure or close while doing 30 to 40 sets. 99% of people in those studies are extremely off on what real failure looks like. Any real failure training on leg day will make you feel like vomiting. Same when doing deadlifts and even rows.
You know they aren't going to failure when in most studies they're making them rest less than 5 minutes on "failure" sets of squats, deadlifts and leg press. Tom Platz all roided up and completely adapted to squatting had to rest 10 minutes lying on the floor with a wet towel on his face in order to recover and even then he was fcked up for more than a week. Noone gets to tell me that somehow a random newbie can actually go to failure on squats, be ready to go within the next 2/3 minutes and do it again in 3 days to hit that frequency of 2 days. I swear that this is such a joke that I don't know how there aren't more people pointing this out.
How come strength plateaus after 4-6 sets, but muscle growth doesn't? Isn't it kind of impossible to build muscle without gaining strength(/progressive overload)?
Because hypertrophy studies are measuring edema lol. The more sets you do the more swelling of the muscle you have.
Great comments ^ hope Menno replies
@@elliot3876 he won't. If the science hucksters admit they have no idea if the current methods of measuring hypertrophy actually measure hypertrophy then the entire pyramid scheme would crumble. Just lift and have fun man
@@jp2135744 finally someone with brain people gain 1 inches from bs like FST 7 because they caused so much damage and edema and it showed growth in measurement 4 to 8 stes per week divided in session is going to be best for long terms growth
They did actually do subanalyses of trained versus untrained, check out the supplementary details under 'moderator analysis'
Super Content! Danke dafür!
Do you think there is any credence to the idea that Chris Beardsly and Paul Carter put forth, that these high volume studies are actually just showing increased swelling of the muscle from more damage? The main argument against this would be the repeated bout effect, but in the 52 sets study they increased the volume every week or two weeks (dont remember), so according to them that would negate that effect.
There is also the idea that swelling would be gone after a just a few days, but they claim that simply isnt always the case, and edema can still be there after 10 days. You would expect 52 sets to cause alot of swelling and for it to last longer, and according to them swelling can increase and decrease somewhat unpredictably anyways.
Im planning to test this myself, doing 4 weeks with their lower volume recommendations (12 sets a week biceps and triceps), and then measuring every day for 10 days afterwards, then doing it again with 30 sets for biceps and triceps a week, and measuring the same way.
Not much. I did a review about this literature on my IG.
@ will look for it
My father did a 3 day split,1 day off when he was my age, and he was jacked. I’m giving this a shot with his volume. We are nearly the exact same, lookalike, same body type.
66 YO, i put a power rack in my living room. standing desk, resistance bands, isometrics, I workout all day long, about 10m minutes a hour on average...
What about edema?? Are they actually measuring muscle growth at such high volumes? How are they ruling out edema?
You should add in an age variable for those of us who aren’t as young as we once were.
The volume study has 3 mistakes in its design
1. Edemas are a big confounder, because they take 7 days to disappear, however, measurements took place 3 days after training on average.
2. For most sets, rest times was below 2 minutes, making these sets more myoreps than full sets.
3. Most studies included in the meta-analysis were for a single muscle group, where decentngrowth until 30 sets is indeed possible. However, it confounds results of studies with more muscle groups trained.
Rest time under 2 mins does Not make it myoreps
Thats what you get from this dude Menno man, most of these so called scientist dont know to interpert data. They just look at the graph and talk, its amazing how much misinformation is spread.
@@bobobonboniere2197 depends how close you are to matching previous set performance.
@@kappakd True, but in Most exercises (except for compounds) 60-120 secs Pause should be Enough to revocer
@@bobobonboniere2197agreed 100% - original commenter is crazy for this one
For those of you feeling fatigued doing PPL 2x a week, trust, do Upper Lower 2x a week, same volume, same frequency, so little fatigue and way less time in the gym.
So it's better to do eg 12 sets per muscle group per week split over two sessions, rather than doing those 12 sets in one session? So if total weekly volume remains the same, it's still better to split that volume into 2 or 3 sessions?
"Volume" seems to be number of sets in the youtube fitness science community. However, there is also the number that represents the sum of reps times the weights used per set, which is also called "volume" in exercise science. The difference between is super important. The latter is what is recommended to be raised 5% from workout to workout for steady and sustainable progression, whereas the former (number of sets) arguably doesn't matter as long as the total aimed volume is met. There is a massive confusion going on right now, and it seems that only me, a lonely keyboard warrior for terminological justice, is fighting the battle on the right side against everyone else.
Main takeaway for me is: train as often and with as many sets as you can recover from. But obviously work up to it.
In my case this means currently training 2-3 times per week with 3-6 sets per muscle group per training session. On weekends when I have more time, I can train longer and do a 60 minute full body training session. During the week I might only be able to do a 30 to 45 minute workout (either a full body workout with one exercise per muscle group or an upper / lower split with 2 exercises per muscle group). Still better than nothing and enough to be able to make strength gains (though slowly) at the age of 37 with work and family obligations.
Great video - has there been any study about estimated maximum time or duration (including cardio and/or just weight lifting) for EACH workout for maximum hypertrophy and/or before there is a decrease in hypertrophy?
Muscle grow....from 4 to 43 sets per muscle group per week !!! I choose 4 sets in brutal intensity over failure with rest pause sets!
I find it surprising that there is no proven ceiling to muscle growth in terms of training volume. The regression never peaks and there's upside even at 43 sets per muscle group per week. I don't think the differences between groups are statistically significant, knowing the limit of the function is approaching faster & faster as sets go up, but that nonetheless is interesting know-how, esp. given that I was assuming a dummy variable would kick in at some point to reduce growth in the regression output.
So with that being said we gotta train 7 days a week because with 6 sets per muscle group per session will equate to the 42-43 sets a week 😅
haha 6 sets of squats 7 days in a row :D :D lets go
@ 😂😂😅
So arnold was right, right? High Volume, High Frequency. I think he did like 40-50 sets per week for something like chest? Its interesting how its going full circle
I’d like to see how to optimize the lean bulk next! It’s soo difficult to establish maintenance as a beginner and feel like I keep screwing up
You shouldn't try lean bulk as a beginner. Just eat.
If you're already fat it won't help you. Eat to stay in a healthy 15% body fat range as you gain muscle weight. Something like that. @@robbertag808
Yup gotta eat big to get big
@@danielyeary148 Eat big to get FAT.
Eat to stay in a healthy body fat range as you gain weight from muscle weight..
@@mikafoxx2717 if you've always been on the skinny side like me then you need to eat a lot, no way around it
I don't really understand the 'minimum effective dose', for who is it.
As an intermediate/advanced lifter I'm for sure not making any gains on 4 sets, I need double that.
You are probably going to make gains. But not at a rate that you are used to /would like to.
I use 30+~ sets for biceps. Would I grow with 4? Well... Would I notice in a time frame that's reasonable or would I just do 4-8 more out of fear of missing out? I know I would do more
Have you watched Dr. Pak's videos? HIs research is on that very topic.
@@georgesarreas5509 well I don’t know what term of progress is expected with that low volume. I have tried it, and I just stall multiple weeks in a row doing this approach
Really? I went from double digit sets to like 4 and got better gains
@@theiceman7590well I always trained low volume 6-8 sets until I reached advanced strength levels. After that I stalled doing this volume. I don’t see how dropping volume lower than that will help me progress
What i dont get is if muscle size and strength is correlated then why doesnt doing the maximum sets for muscle growth increase strength??
You're missing recovery capacity, and there's more than one way to achieve hypertrophy. Achieving muscle size doesn't necessarily mean doing maximum sets.
@@TurnOntheBrightLights.clearly according to data though the more sets the more muscle growth
@Ossa9 Yes, but again, you can only train when you can recover. As many sets as your recovery and time/life allows.
When counting exercises for a muscle group how would you count long lengthened movements vs short emphasized movements?
Since volume is key for hypertrophy would it be beneficial to stop the sets at 3 RIR instead of going to failure and add another set ??
How can I separate 43 sets per muscle on 5 days if I have to train 6 sets per muscle per day I don't understand
What if I train 14 days a week?
You'd see a 200% increase in gains. It's scientific!
I wonder how 10 sets close to failure would stand up to 20 sets of 3-4 reps in reserve to failure?
Define close to failure. 2, 1, or 0?
43 working sets right?
Do you think joint tendon and all the other important stuff adapted and recover better and you have lower injury risk with lower frequency and higher reps?
Thank you
For strength volume, what constituted a ‘strength set’? E.g. was it say ‘less that 6 reps at above 85%’?
Was the higher volume group training just as hard as the lower volume groups (43 sets to muscular failure?)
so using a full body split 3x per week is one of the best approaches to make healthy gains!
I completely agree regarding peer review 😢
We know there is an intervened U because at a certain point you have to just get rhabdo and they cannot be good for gains
Yeah, there has to be, but these data suggest the descending limb occurs much later than commonly believed.
6:51 I like how Menno says the word 'epitome'
Well he's Dutch and not a native English speaker.
How much protein do you need in a cut if you dont do any strenght training?
For max 6 sets per muscle group per day, are we saying back is a muscle group, or traps/lats separate?
Back is a muscle group yes.
I can't recover from 6 sets per muscle group per week, and somehow these people allegedly went to "failure" on 25 sets per week and saw crazy gains. How is that explained? It makes no sense to me. You can't recover from that.
If I do 6 sets per week in one session, I will feel REALLY sore and not recovered, but if I gradually bump up the volume and frequency, I now get next to no soreness doing 30 sets spread across 3 sessions. I also recover enough between sessions to at a minimum maintain performance, which will normally skyrocket after an auto-regulatory deload. My intensity remains the same regardless of volume. If you’re only doing 6-sets a week, it could be argued that this is then always a novel stimulus, as you’re not doing enough for your body to adapt to it. Have you tried maybe 3 sets, 3 times a week, and then adding sets from there. Perhaps you’re just a real outlier.
brother I do 30sets per muscle and I train to failure and I can recover well high volume doesn't work for everyone and ur genetics isn't the same as me or as the people in the study so experiment with urself and see what works for you and what doesn't
How many reps do you do in those sets? Are these 6 sets per one exercise or more? A year ago I thought the same that I am not able to recover from 6 sets per week but now I do 6 sets per training (!!!) as natural guy without any supplement! My typical chest routine is 3 sets of bench + 3 sets of flyes. And I repeat it 3x time per week. Easily recover.
Just start with little, eg 2 sets of bench press, 1 set of flyes, see how your body adapts. Set your target rep per set. For me it's 8 cuz I feel better with moderate weight. Once you can do all 8 reps per your 2 bench and 1 flyes set, add another set with the same weight. This way you master the weight and your body adapts without rush. Only after you hit 8 reps across three sets per exercise you can increase weight a bit!
Because they don't train to failure. Most people, even advanced, don't know what that is. I've kinda gotten close to that since I started doing HIT occasionally after 10 years of training, and that's when I realized I was much stronger than I thought! My chest press machine skyrocketed in a matter of 3 months from 120kg to 160 for 10 reps, my low row from 120 to 170kg for 13 reps, shrugs from 100kg to 200kg for 30 reps, hip thrust from 100kg to 220kg for 25 reps... Bigger than ever, but I didn't grow the proportionate amount of muscle compared to such jumps in strength levels. I just realized I was constantly overtraining myself and tried to see things differently. Only then I could actually push beyond what I already thought was failure.
I might add that the mind's a real b*tch and, if you know you have 2/3/4 extra sets to do, you won't perform the same on the first one and you'll convince yourself that 10 reps meant failure even when you could have done waaay more than you initially thought. 6 sets to true muscular failure is something not everyone can recover from if you're giving it your all. These studies have no credibility whatsoever.
I'll go even further and claim that the way they're designing the studies is wrong from the get go. They always claim that "training to failure doesn't provide any extra benefit from going RIR 2/3" but we forget that every single study has variables (total volume, rest between sets, amount of protein intake...) that favour the group NOT going to "failure". If you only did 6 sets per week and rested more than 5 minutes between sets, there's absolutely no way that the RIR 2/3 group would win with such variables. If they upped the rest between sets, reduced the total amount of sets and increased protein intake beyond the usual recommendation, the studies would show veeeery different results. We're just lying to ourselves at this point. We need different designs with actual advanced athletes who know how to train to failure.
@@DragonballG.Did you grow better from this high Volume after youre soreness is gone?
can someone suggest a muscle gain hypertrophy beginner program for 40 year old naturals that takes all what he says into account? I appreciate every tipp and help. Thank you
what about reps per set?..is that not a major driver..so when we say 15 sets per week to be done how many reps are we talking abt wrt sets for muscle group?
How do I manage my hypertrophy training volume with other exercise that’s not specifically hypertrophy related. Like for example I currently do 4 day UL split but I also do reformer Pilates with my girlfriend. Especially since they’re beginner classes I doubt they’re stimulating much growth for me but would cause a small amount of damage to recover from. I’m currently trying to have a rest day either side of the classes while seeing if it affects progress in the gym overtime. Maybe I could adjust as I go.
Considering that "long rest approach" suppocse i do 3 sets of barbell row, squats & bench press x2 a week. Will i get more hypertrophy if i do ×3 a week BUT doing 2 sets of each in the morning & 2 more sets in the SAME afternoon?
Do you think there is an inverse relationship between volume and intensity?
Absolutely
In your opinion, if I were to do 30 sets of chest in a given week, is it better to do 10x10x10 spread across the week for optimal rest, or 6 sets 5 times a week?
however you can do more reps within sets is best I think, different people have different recovery needs I suggest try both
Why not 5 sets 6 times a week?
seems like a case where you have to try both and see how you recover best
Diminishing gains are still better than less gains I’ll take it.
So push pull legs for the growth
upper lower
@@CassetteMelody lower then upper
@@cleanslate2247 lower might create more CNS fatigue than upper so a rest day after is beneficial for a lot of people, mostly just preference though.
@@PWEST - I was just poking fun at the above poster who said upper lower. you have a good point though
@@cleanslate2247 ahh ok gotcha lol, feeling slow today
I'd love a dedicated 1x / month for 50+ lifters. I'm 54 & the limiting factor is recovery, so other details matter whereas for kids, "more helps more." Not your demo, but maybe more supply of videos would stimulate demand.
I train 2x a week like Mike Mentzer. It works the best for natural lifters.
So how many sets and reps should I do? If I do 3 sets per muscle group with 4-6 reps 2x a week is that enough?
No, not enough. You need 9 to 12 sets per muscle group each week. You don't need to directly hit the muscle to count that into the sets per week. For instance bench press will activate your front delts.
Magnificent ❤😊
"certainly better than the instagram comments on a study" Menno's learning a lot from Dr Mike apparently xD
Remember guys...NONE of these studies lasted more than 10 weeks, and they were young novice lifters.
Actually, off the top of my head, Radaelli et al. was 6 months and Enes et al. was 12 weeks. Some of the studies were in well-trained lifters. But yes, care should be taken with the extreme volume findings to extrapolate that to everyone. Commute, full-time job, kids, sleep deprivation and energy deficit are all big factors in my view, for example.
@@menno.henselmans 3 month, even 12 month is still not much. Things change a lot, after 20 years of training, looking into the next 20 years.
@@Jane_Friday lol, hard to construct a 20 year study that would be applicable to you. Especially since it would take 20 years to complete and not be considered valid until other 20 year validation studies were completed that backed up the research.
@@Jane_Fridaygood luck trying to find a muscle building study that’s over couple years.
It’s always reviewer #2 🤦
SHOULD I PERFORM MORE VOLUME ON A AGGRESSIVE CUT???
I've read in other sources that when you're cutting, you shouldn't cut volume. Maintain the volume the got you your gains. Your volume may drop off a bit closer to the end of the cut, or depending on how aggressive you go. Beware that if you cut too fast you'd probably end up losing muscle too.
@@jonathansamaroo5777 will increasing volume in that case be better??
He said that you shouldn't because of your recovery capacity. Just perform a good amount of volume and intensity but not excessive.
Training stays the same or return to base volume
goal is maintain your strength on all your lifts
like the others said I believe your goal is to maintain strength and volume as best you can
After neural adaptations are over, all increases in strength are the result of muscle growth, aka the more progressive overload, the more muscle growth, if thats at 5 sets per week rather than 10-20 sets there is literally no reason to do more...
It’s not just neural adaption, there can be improvements in technique and increase tendon stiffness for example that play factors on force output
Another huge problem is that they only train a couple of muscle groups. They don't train all the muscle groups with 10-20 sets... I'll stop listening to research until I see some real world training
Brilliant
Thanks, Menno, your comment about breaking away from body parts split made me want to go back to upper lower split! It makes sense when you say that you essentially have days of recovery between sets later in the week
43sets... is that really recoverable?
Last meso, running arm specialization, I hit 24 sets of biceps and 26 sets of triceps. Divided to 3 different sessions for each muscle group. Recovery was still fine.
Caveat to that is, that chest and back volume was at maintenance, 4 sets per week for both.
Total sets per body was around around 100 to 140sets per week. Start/end of meso.
For me it's not practical to hit more than 8-9 sets per workout 3x week. Though who knows if I would do even better doing around 10 sets per muscle 4x week.
Those previous volumes were still recoverable and good progress was made with weight and reps.
Forgot to mention that training week was 8 days long. So total volume was a little lower per week.
That's likely going to depend on the person and the shape their in.. The older we get the slower the recovery is.. as we start to produce less gh as the year click off.
@@hak116 What sort of results did you get from that arm specialization phase with that volume?
@@jonathansamaroo5777 I'm gonna keep going for 7 weeks more and then I'll do an ultrasound for muscle thickness to get somewhat of an accurate measurement. (I have one by my work)
Flexed arm circumference has gone up 3cm measured with a tape, for me, that's good progress. Also weights and reps have steadily moved up so that's another indicator that something is going right.
Edit: this is in 10 weeks. So arms went from flexed 40cm cold to flexed 43cm cold, after a week of deloading so swelling had a chance to somewhat diminish.
I am a volume addict
Chris Beardsley and Paul Carter would disagree.
thanks
43 sets for muscle growth?
Again, the flaw was pointed out before. It's too short term
I argue this : over the course of a year, 4 sets vs 20, 4 sets wins. Even if you did all 20 sets maximum intensity. Why? Because muscles pump up for the whole week, on 20 sets a week. You are genuinely bigger. So say you started in January, and on April 2nd the 20 set guy is bigger than the four set guy. He's more pumped. August - Now the four set guy catches up. Because he's GROWING MORE. So the high volume guy copies the low set guy. Now to early October. The high set guy who swapped to four sets is even smaller. He's lost his pump weight. He can either continue with 4 sets and catch up, or add sets and add that 'volume Dependent' size .
We need long term studies. It seems obvious to me that high volume makes you bigger but that doesn't mean continuous growth after 6 months. And you're reliant on the volume (especially if you've essentially been training too much to progress)
I dislike how you made sure to take time to say that you personally know people that are doing studies which makes them more legit while simultaneously casting a negative light on peer review. It's not a perfect process but one that is integral to the act of science. Personal connections are the lowest form of evidence.
The answer to the title question: ⚙️💉
noted
Eat clen, tren hard, believe in your syringe, avoid dbol-itating injuries, masteron the basics, anavar give up
blackpilled
Genetics > Gear. But still valid.
gear doesnt make that much of a difference, if u weren't natty u would know
If you don't go to gym you will minimise your chance of getting shoulder injury