Hey folks. Need Coaching? Enquiries here: docs.google.com/forms/d/15_F8NS9vWIZUGlPXv-jGeFO9vVCyEKUFTmwuJo3RHlA/viewform?edit_requested=true Want personalised advice but not ready for Coaching? View my non-coaching, one off bespoke services here: fazlifts.co.uk/collections/services All My Training Programs On Boostcamp. Use my code FAZLIFTS for a free 2 week premium trial: www.boostcamp.app/#fazlifts eBooks: fazlifts.co.uk/collections/e-books My Training Fundamentals Playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h
I'm totally a fan of the simple, "I'm not a RUclipsr" low production value videos, but I'm also a fan of seeing people take chances and growing. I'll be around here zoomer edits or otherwise 😂. At the end of the day, you're putting out great information and pulling from a deep well of experience in training yourself and others.
"Um ackshully, do your research. Dr. Mike Jizzraecel has a phd and he's bigger and stronger than Mike Mentzer and has a higher IQ than all other coaches. He has more willpower than just about everybody and can become an authority in any field in one year. So this obviously proves that 52 sets per week at 5 RIR for every body part is optimal. Science is real!"
20% down in performance due to inter-workout fatigue is just ridiculous... Few days ago I was tired and feeling bad, had one of the worst workout, but still was only 5~10% weaker than usual. To me, 20% decline due to fatigue just sounds like that your program doesn't consider recovery at all.
+ If that is actually the case for some reason, performance assessed at super-fatigued state cannot be a fair metric for one's strength. Strength must be compared at fully recovered, fresh status.
I had an argument with a “science based lifter” who said that things like lengthened partials, weighted stretch, training to failure, volume were all more important than progressive overload. That’s why I love strength standards 2 plate bench 3 plate squat 4 plate deadlift then a 3 plate bench 4 plate squat 5 plate deadlift. Iv done low volume lengthened partials, high volume etc had coaches just not focus on weight. What ultimately grew my chest- taking my bench from 95x10 to now 265x 5 paused- hoping to hit 315 this year for a few! There are outliers who are stronger than they look. However in real life at the gym I have personally never seen a dude squat 405 for reps AtG with small legs or bench 315 for reps with a small chest- given they’re at a decent bodyfat. That’s why I trust the classic programs more than these new science based stuff. Stronglifts modified version, 5/3/1 , Texas method , the wizard, the barbarian!
Same for me. The most important thing is just having great audio quality, followed by a decent camera for video. But there’s no need for edited effects to get the content across.
From my experience, it was all sarcoplasmic hypertrophy when I was on uber high volume with 30 plus sets per group a week. It’s water and acute swelling but it didn’t seem to really track long term with contractile tissue gains in my experience. I’m probably mid or later intermediate. When I slashed my volume and upped the intensity, I noticed that I got “smaller” acutely (less fluid retention in the muscles, so arms were technically smaller) but my strength got much better, and I started adding actual new contractile tissue notably faster. This is also the same issue with Creatine literature. A lot of the measurement methods can’t separate out intramuscular fluid retention and so the studies report that people gain all this “lean body mass” (you would tend to interpret that as muscle) when it’s just water. I suspect the same is going on here in the high volume literature.
Stuart McRobert and many others have been saying for years that excessive volume is unnecessary. Unfortunately they aren’t listened to because it doesn’t fit the current narrative of high volume and no one likes the simple answer of modest but hard training in progressive poundages .
You made some really really good points here Faz. I just passed my physiology exam and holy shit you’re on point! Keep doing what you’re doing and don’t stop speaking about this!
Hi Faz, TL;DR - Do you know why everything is growing except my arms, despite arm emphasis through extra frequency and volume? If you haven't already, do you think you could make a video/answer my question in a Q&A about plateauing on body measurements? My chest, shoulders, and legs all grow reasonably easily - I can add about three quarters of an inch every 4 months. However, my arms have been stuck at the same size for about 6 months, despite having more sets per week and more frequency dedicated to them, and training them first every session. I've been training for about 2 years and 4 months, so I doubt I'm just getting newbie gains everywhere except my arms. I have been bulking for about 4 months, but I don't store much fat on my legs at all (even +7kg I can't pinch any fat on them) so I don't think it's solely body fat adding to the measurements. I also don't store much fat on my arms - I can't pinch any fat on them either, even though my waist has increased by about 3 inches since the start of my bulk (a lot of that is gut contents). I've been doing everything else right: 190g protein per day at 185lbs bodyweight, between 250 and 400g carbs per day (depending on how fast my bodyweight was increasing - 400 was admittedly a mistake lol), and 60-100g fat per day; sleeping 7-9hrs on about 9/10 nights; and limiting alcohol consumption. Thank you.
Do 2-3 working sets for biceps and triceps, 2x a week each. For biceps I would suggest a machine preacher curl and any curl variation in which you’re staying in shoulder flexion (bayesian/face away cable curls for example). For triceps, I would suggest cuffed cross body cable extensions and machine dips. Get strong af at these with decent control and ROM in the 5-10 rep range, your arms will be much bigger after 6 months of doing this
Thanks for calling out high volume nonsense and examining it with critical lens. I was one of the people who fell for 'muh science' and over time it impacted my approach to training negatively. I got so burned out, it took all joy out of lifting and made me feel like a failure for not being able to sustain sheer number of sets per workout. It also degraded quality of my sets. I'm now relearning pushing hard, doing quality work and only adding volume when necessary.
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is one way that is my guess, but realistically I'd rather have long lasting real myofibrillar hypertrophy which is always gonna lead to a strength increase
HOLY dude I never even thought about fatigue masks performance that way, you make so much sense! if you're so unbelievably tired that you are having to use 25% less weight, it means NOTHING that you're going to failure, it's your fatigue failing you not the actual muscle. if you think of the muscle being capable of a certain weight X reps, and you're doing 75% of that you are objectively sandbagging HARD every single set you pushed to failure in that fatigued state, why would the muscle NEED to grow?! you're doing warmups that FEEL hard. wow dude thank you for this
Greg Doucette uses this in his training i believe.. Something like "if you train hard enough, and you have done 1 set, rested for around 3 minutes, do a 2nd set and have lost 10% (9 reps from a previous 10 or have lowered the weight 10% and cant match the reps in the first set) or more than your previous set you know you have trained hard enough, go to the next exercise or go home"
Great video Faz and break down of this topic.In my own experience as my strength increased I feel my size increased as well.we love you Faz and what you bring to the community not only about life but also about fitness.thank you!💪🏽
The editing is better here, I think. The message of the video is more digestible. Your point about Occam's Razor, though I agree with it, reminded me of a scene from House MD - "You tell me two people had sex to create this baby. I say one stork flew the baby to the parents in a basket. Which is simpler, your two or my one?"
I watch people like Mike Israetel quite a bit. First, just because someone says something or some study says something doesn't mean you have to do or change anything, which includes watching content from you. When the 52 sets of quads study came out, that seemed like a freakish amount of volume. Since I barely recover from 4 sets of squats twice a week, there's no need for me to increase my volume. Just because someone did something doesn't mean I have to react to that in any way. The training I do is consistent with science, but it's not super high volume, it's mostly not lengthened partials, I don't do random exercises I saw on TikTok, etc. It's a recoverable amount of volume done with full range of motion while controlling the weight close to failure that emphasizes the lengthened position of the muscle. That is backed by dozens of studies and meta-analyses. None of this is in conflict with what people like Renaissance Periodization claim as far I can think of. The connection between size and strength is well-correlated long term but since strength has a neurological component, the relationship is not trivial. I was not able to comprehend what the connection between discussing high volume is and the later discussion about strength vs. size. The channels I watch routinely discuss issues with ecological validity of studies and people like Menno Henselmans routinely discuss the connection between size and strength. Several recent high-profile hypertrophy studies are using in-subject design with well-trained lifters which is a positive trend that increases ecological validity that I hope continues. Overall I just found this video confusing because it doesn't actually discuss specific methodological issues with specific studies, which I'm sure exist and those critiques are indeed valid. Laughing for extended periods of time doesn't really help you make your point, although it does help people who already agree with you feel good about themselves.
If you're watching them for entertainment, fine. It can't be for useful content though and really that is all they should be for. When channels routinely peddle this sort of nonsense they do a disservice to viewers. A lot of the viewers are young and gullible.
Yeah still prefer the OG Faz style vids. Straight talk. No off putting camera zooms, music and stuff popping up the screen. It actually looks and feels more tacky. Your content is good enough with your knowledge and straight talk. Talking while showing training clips is cool. If trying to add more value then perhaps some more diet vids, I really enjoyed watching you cook and took alot from that.
One could try different approaches to see which works and which they enjoy, especially the latter since it increases the odds of doing it consistently. Some of this sounds like the reason why prescriptions come with usage labels - just because one does every X hours works great does not mean that doubling the dose will work better.
If people only knew how to interpret data that would see that while ever increasing volume produces very fractional increases it quickly hits a more plateau like curve at low to moderate volumes. I have not seen any research that attempts to quantify fatigue but I think it’s safe to say that fatigue goes up in a linear fashion with each additional set. There may be some nuances depending on demands of specific exercise but I’m speaking in generalities. Therefore the gap between gains and recovery demand becomes wider and wider. We are not just looking to recover to baseline before training again, we want to recover above baseline (supercompensation) before training a muscle again. It’s a simple concept that has been bastardized by the volume peddlers.
It feels to me like people genuinely forget what works. I bulked numerous times 30lbs or so over the course of 7/8months and then cut back down to being lean. Lifting mainly in the 3-8rep range, nothing fancy at all, and it's been like being on a natural cycle each time. You do get to a point of diminished returns but maybe after 5 or 6 cycles of this you will have a cracking physique
Experience trumps weak attempts at science Also, editing is way nicer this time, but there is still the strange background music that doesn’t really work with the video. I’d much rather it just be your voice
Hi Faz! I don’t have a mechanism, but one thing I was wondering was: what if their “absolute” strength had kept up with the muscle growth but the study design didn’t reflect that well. For example, were they using the same lifts throughout the duration of the study? How was “strength” being tested exactly? Also, your competing theory, which is quite reasonable, is muscle swelling. Do we know how much muscle swelling can contribute to temporary muscle size increases and should we expect it to continue increasing as we see in the studies? Probably, but it’s something I’m curious about that isn’t usually addressed.
I think you should listen to the "The Influence of Muscle Swelling" part of the "Volume and Hypertrophy: New Science Explained | S2E1" episode from Data Driven Strength. Brings up some solid counter-arguments imo!
Ok, I started laughing the same time you did. Early on, before I even realized there was fitness content that would apply to my situation, I used to pick up 5 lb dumbbells and do reps until I couldn't do reps anymore *because* my physical therapist at the time said based on my age I shouldn't lift more than 5 lbs, I was 59 at the time and my shoulders were absolute trash due to this. I did that for almost two years because I trusted my PT, I liked her, I thought she knew best because she had the education, right? I became tired of hurting and started doing my own research. I left the high frequency reps behind and started lifting heavier and keeping my reps at 15 or less. Pain gone, growth exploded. Critical thinking is crucial. Just because you like someone that doesn't mean what comes out of their mouth applies to you or that perhaps there's not another agenda. Views, sales, or just coming up with content. I had a brief flirtation with content creation. It's kinda Hell coming up with something new to talk about every week, imagine what that's like after a decade doing it. I always write too much. Great video Faz.
They could do a deload and retest their strength to see how much it increased post each phase of volume loading. That would be another way they could prove their research.
14:02 "If you are that tired, you will never deliver the stimulus you need to grow". Then why rest-pause method works? Given that you get even more tired before doing the additional reps.
A point that I’ve heard is, more volume does lead to more growth but it drops the more you do. Possibly because of fatigue, form breakdown, and increased risk of injury.
It all comes down to how you want to program and what trade-offs you're willing to make. Moderate to high volume can work if you're leaving reps in reserve and using decent form/technique. But, if you're taking sets to TRUE failure, with decent form, or even beyond failure (dropsets, partials, rest/pause, etc) then the extra volume is unnecessary IMO. In my experience, MY experience, the harder I push a set, the fewer sets I can do in order to recover and still progress. Always manage your recovery, too.
So basically, push yourself so god damn hard for 8 weeks and get 0.7 results compared to 0.2-0.4 and then quit training for 6 months because everything hurts, nah, id rather get my 0.2-0.4 a couple of times with 1/4th of the effort.
Wouldn't sarcoplasmic hypertrophy be the way your muscle could get physically larger without getting stronger? I don't really have a dog in the fight I do low volume high intensity stuff, but it would seem a muscle having myofibril hypertrophy would have to gain in strength because it is gaining more contractile tissue, but one increasing in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy wouldn't have any ability to produce more force. Now, I know sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is controversial, but you were asking for a how a muscle could be larger and not gain strength and it seems at least pleasurable that it exists.
calling it science based imo is the problem. because its not really science. its a shallow pool of quality scientific research that has gathered a very limited amount of conclusions to the point that we can't really use it like a mature scientific field. we've gathered a few good theories and conclusions about training but for the most part the research tells us that as long as you are working even moderately hard, resting well, eating enough, you will grow. personally i would like to see studies focused on going from intermediate to advanced programming. some people, who could be argued to be genetically gifted, are able to break through their intermediate phase but for others they get stuck and don't have significant gains for a long period of time. right now the research is focused on very basic things that we can reasonably assume are trivial which is honestly a waste.
Faz, as always appreciate your canal. Two questions regarding double progression. Is it OK to have ebbs and flows within range on the same weight, for example 6,6,6; 8,7,6 but then 7,6,6 or even 6,7,6 once again? Assuming sets are 7-8 RIR. And second question. Does failure to match lower limit of rep range means I have to deload?
Hahaha great video! I would like too offer an attempt at defending their points 👉 First of, I think the point they made is more "infinity volume is theoretically possible" not that it's optimal or practical. And to the point of "fatigue masks performance" this comes from cardio side of the sports science world, for 60+ years it's been the norm to overtrain with high volumes for a short period of time, then followed by a light week to supercompensate. So one would think it could also be applied for strength, but it would require like you mentioned in the other video, a little break before we measure progress in the studies. I think the argument could make theoretical sense if we imagined a scenario were an athlete was in a big calorie surplus, only trained one thing, lets say machine bench press. Then spread the volume out evenly over the week, keept the intensity at like 4rir for all sets and supplemented with strong stimulants to keep up performance. If we did this and then only adjusted set volume from week to week, would that stimulate growth? Because mechanical tension is being progressively overloaded 🤷♂️ and given a week of rest would the athlete supercompensate? Tldr, if we train with minimal intensity can we periodise volume ie sets to create a stimuli.
How can muscle size increase without an increase in strength? The first thought that came to my mind was "inflammation". I'm not even a scientist or work in any scientific fields.
Bingo, with the "muscle mass" increases they measured you would be competing in the mr olympia after 4 of these 8 week studies (0.74cm thickness increase x 4)
@@theREDdevilz22 You dont need to get stronger to make the fibers grow, you get stronger when the fibers has grown. I know there is alot of people thinking backwards here since it sounds easy and ive done it myself. If you had to get stronger to make a muscle grow, why dont you just load the bench press with 500 pounds and eventually you would have the muscles to bench 500 pounds? Because it cant work that way even if this is an extreme example. You cant do what you cant do, so you do a weight that you can do for the amount of reps your muscle can do, so that it gets thicker because it was hard, and then when your muscles have gotten thicker you can add more weight because the muscle can handle it.
@@dakkitoto3467 Your argument is strange. That is not what is being put forward. Let me assure you that getting incrementally stronger at bench press until you can press 500 lbs, fom and for reps, you will most definitely have the muscle to support this.
My first time watching it. just so I know I've got this right, fazlifts is saying increases in size, and results in increased strength. But to increase strength, size does not necessarily need to increase - as powerlifters aren't as big as bodybuilders but lift more. - Is this what Fazlifts is saying? If so, then why not, is just anatomy and skill/technque + maybe tendon strength that results in larger lifts from powerlifters compared to bodybuilders? sorry if I've misunderstood.
You can get stronger through pure neutral adaptions - the powerlifter who is smaller than the bodybuilder may lift more because he has “peaked” his strength by a lot of time doing 1-5 rep sets. However, if that powerlifter was even bigger, he’d be stronger than he currently is because gaining muscle also causes you be stronger. That’s the simplest way I can think to put it.
@@AppalachianAnglingAdventures, I kinda get it. so if you had a powerlifter and a bodybuilder the same size, height, etc, the powerlifter would be stronger because of the way they train. My question is, then, if both training types are around increasing muscle cross-sectional size, why would the powerlifter be stronger than the bodybuilder if they are the same size. maybe Im presuming that powerlifters train to increase corssetional size of muscle, but if they don't then how do they get stronger, i.e. strength isn't linked necessarily to increase in size, therefore is it just skill training(training motor paterns) or perhaps training explosive movements, therefore training something other than muscle building(muscle size increase) that causes increase in strength, if so then bodybuilders who train "for size" will naturally have increase in strength but its not as proportional to powerlifters because they train other things outside of just muscle size, like skill/nueral adaption to specific movements. etc. sorry if this make no sense lol, just trying to figure this stuff out. Btw thanks for answering my first q :)
@BobTheBuilderGuy Because lower reps (below 5, some would argue below 3) which powerlifters focus on because it’s specific to their sport, have a disproportionate increase in strength/neutral gains compared to the hypertrophy gains of 5 to 20 rep sets. That’s why you here people calling 5-20, 5-30 or other moderate to higher reps the “hypertrophy zone”. It’s just more efficient to grow muscle with moderate to high reps.
@BobTheBuilderGuy But powerlifters focus is not muscle size, it is primarily strength/neutral gains, so they focus on lower reps generally with hypertrophy work after their main work. Raise a bodybuilders 1rm on the bench press and they may not be bigger (because it’s a skill, neural gains) but put 10lbs of muscle on a powerlifter and they will have a better 1rm (once they/if they are proficient at doing 1 rep maxes with heavier weights).
In some of these guys defense they have said that in reality because of fatigue you wouldn’t actually program that much volume. That’s the only grace I will give them. Because the issue is these guys value outcomes over mechanisms in studies. As Chris Beardsley said “if you have to throw away years of physiological literature to make the outcome of a study or analysis work, it’s likely not a very good study or analysis. Once again, moral support contractile units, they’re just personality hires.
My new favorite is all the hybrid training content. It’s so ridiculous because no normal person can recover from all that cardio and intense weight training on a seemingly daily basis. My guess is most of these influencers hide a lot of injuries from their followers.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biomechanics and physiology, knows that the cross-sectional area of a muscle is closely related with the force production and strength of that muscle.
I also think the blanket recommendation of "do at least 10-20 sets a week per muscle" is doing more damage over time, especially when the study that recommendation stemmed from even counted fractional sets as a part of the volume they recommended
Agree. So many reddit comments parrot this range when they don't even know that those studies counted all muscle groups in an exercise as 1 set. Also, why not just ramp up your volume over your lifting career to find what works for you personally? These people are looking for shortcuts
This is the first of your vide 0:05 os I've seen and am watching with an open mind, but I just want to understand your points a little better Tribalism, yeah I agree, it exists. If you only look at one tree, you won't find a forest. The first point regards the counter argument of 1:1 strength v size, I also agree that you're correct, that that, as a counter-argument is flawed. The other 2 points I didn't really understand what you were trying to say. Whilst i do agree that studies measuring only 1 set of something are flawed for that very reason, I didn't understand what you're stance is regards training to failure. Are you saying not to because the studies are flawed? I understand the transfer from the lab to the gym may not be perfect but is that a reason to leave the gym with reps in the tank? The; fatigue masks performance thing, I don't understand. I didn't understand the point of that at all other than laughing. Are you trying to say if I'm fatigued, dont bother working out? That's basically how the final part came across to me perhaps in part because i am a first time viewer of your channel. Like I say not a rebuttal, per se, just watching, and don't think I understood clearly all that you were trying to get across.
My whole life has been in an educatory capacity of some sort or another, one truth that I've found to be undeniable is that people will only ever learn something new or an opposing view, when they're mentally ready. So I don't tend to force my opinion on anyone, either my clients or here on RUclips. I present my view and it's received as it is. As it stands the facts are that no-one has provided a reasonable or logical counter point to my view, and no one will because I am right. However plenty of people have gotten quite upset and made derogatory comments about me personally here and elsewhere and that further reinforces my point in the first paragraph here and that says a lot about the people commenting. People think they're ready to learn or even to debate, but they really they aren't so they tend to get dogmatic and offensive and then the mob mentality wins out and everyone piles in. Such is the internet. I've been around for long enough to know that these things come in circles, and the views that someone is derided for one day will be celebrated the next. So I try not to take things personally, even though people do like to make it personal. I don't know your real intentions here Aidan, only you know that. So if you are here to learn then carry on watching and trying to understand the content, that will be good for you. Take care.
I thought basement bodybuilding had an argument against it, because he was powerlifting at the start but then changed to bodybuilding and he got bigger but he wasn't as strong, but then there's the caveat of well, you went from powerlifting to bodybuilding.
He was not training the same lifts lol, not even close to the same standard or comparison. Ik exactly the vid you're talking about, where he struggles to bench 265 or 285 after not training it for a year or more, where he's lacking neural adaptations to the movement. Did you know he later benched 335 with a closer grip? Using powerlifting as the standard for strength output and comparing it to bodybuilding is very flawed
He got stronger on the lifts he changed to. His strict curl is certainly stronger now that he actually trains elbow flexion. That guy just lacked the discipline to have a strength oriented approach to bodybuilding. He cheated his form, picked lifts that were easier to progress on, etc. That was his problem and his fault; all other things equal, ensuring good form etc, a stronger muscle will eventually be a bigger muscle. Strength is a good indicator of progress
@@freehatespeech6804I don't even think using looser form or "easier" lifts is a problem from a growth perspective, it just means you just can't use different lifts you aren't training as a good measurement of progress. Like you said once he stared training them again his strength went up a lot, and that's what we would expect. All else being equal, strength is imo tge best measurement of progress. The issue is when you don't keep all else equal.
I like BB but I'm glad people are starting to notice he misunderstands progressive overload at times by saying it doesnt work because he didnt get bigger by getting stronger when all he did was just change technique to lift more thus not being true progressive overload.
@@theiceman7590 That's not what he says at all. He says that progressive overload is the outcome, not the driver, of hypertrophy. It's a chicken and egg debate.
I agree that we could use more discussion around the volume research. I've seen Borge and I think Lyle have a similar take on the volume research. I don't think I agree that the reason for the disagreement on the research is a marketing/financial bias. I could almost see that for guys like Dr Milo and Pak who are admittedly part of that bubble, but I don't think the rest of the guys from Stronger By Science, Mass, etc fit that bill. Seems like they genuinely believe that interpretation of the research, even though I could be wrong. I do think Eric Helm's current offseason is something that should be talked about more as a case study. He's gotten what seems close to 3lbs of muscle with respective strength gains by doing some very high volumes as a very advanced natty. To your credit, I emphasize that has come with strength gains. I think that when it comes to executing high volume programs (20+ sets/weekfor a muscle group, if you include fractional sets from compounds), with careful fatigue management, the Repeated Bout Effect can result in handling higher volumes than most people think. I tend to think that Chronic/Systemic fatigue is mostly psychological fatigue as time goes on and I do occasional training blocked with some pretty high volumes. Thanks again for bringing light to evidence based perspectives that don't always fit the common narratives we hear. Think we need more of this.
Eric Helms also said he would not recommend the vast majority of people do as much volume as he does, and he only does it because his needs are unusual, and he wishes he could make gains on lower volumes
@@oscare123 sure, but unless I'm misunderstanding the point of the video is to debate whether or not the dose response relationship with volume exists after 20+ sets/muscle/week . I don't think anyone in the evidence based space actively recommends these volumes to the average, or even advanced lifter.
Great video. Spot on arguments. Regarding the 1:1 relation argument between strength and muscle hypertrophy, we have to remember that most strength athletes ( powerlifting / Olympic lifting) are in specific weight classes, which means restriction in food calories to accomplish the desired body weight. Let's feed them more keeping the same workout stimulus and see what will happen....
Something that annoys me is how all exercise science gets lumped in with ‘Hypertrophy’ research (particularly with this group of researchers). It gives the whole field a bad name, even though so much of it is good. I don’t like lumping in exercise research on those with arthritis, cancer and diabetes. Exercise physiology has very little concern in the real world with making your biceps bigger 😂
Bingo Although a slight correction. Hypertrophy research is VERY different to exercise science and physiology Hypertrophy research appears to be the realm of internet celebrity researchers recently and it's a joke
Actually great video. Nothing matters more than results and there is no one cookie cutter answer to everything. Doing 40 sets per week sounds so impractical that even if the science was true behind it, it would most likely hinder growth than maximise it. I was obsessed as a novice lifter to fit the 10-20 set range, I thought if I could do 15 sets to be in the middle Ill be "optimal". Reducing the volume to 8-10 sets per muscle group is what exploded my gains strength and size wise. When progress stalls then I will up the volume, do what works not what sounds intelligent.
I think your mics voice clipping/noise reduction is too strong or doing something funny. I have found a great volume to be 2 to 3 very very hard working sets and 1 or 2 drop sets or back off sets as a maximum on a movement
You've mentioned it before but you're only really loyal to the results. I do think people forget that and focus on shit that in the long run really doesn't matter. We're all different, find what works for you, you're not getting that from a study. Dennis mentioned it below but I'm also a fan of the basic bitch video scheme. It could just be because I'm used to watching you like that though so do what you thinks right for your channel and it's growth.
Even in my early years of training when I heard that 10-20 sets per week was "optimal" I always ended up in the lower range. Even then sometimes I wasn't recovered since I didn't know anything about progression schemes and pushed everything close to failure.
Thank you for these words of wisdom. Why would anyone spend hours in the gym for some marginal gains (if that), people would be bored as fuck and gain a lot of chronic injuries.
I got bigger but weaker when entering bodybuilding from powerlifting. It ‘s actually very common. Strength is a skill and not practicing that skill you’ll lose it
But you're probably stronger in a shoulder press, bicep curl, back movements, maybe dumbells and chest press, maybe leg presses, ecc... You are not specifically stronger, but you are generally stronger
Cross sectional size can be increased via the muscle being more efficient at processing metabolites. It’s not as efficient though as it gaining force production that’s why we see minimal gains from more endurance type training even when progressive overload is present.
I largerly agree but not in every point. I have way more muscle mass than 20 years ago but i am weaker now at most lifts. Never did powerlifting. So muscles can get bigger and produce less force. The reason is aging. I‘m 55.
The circus contninues the clownshow. Now theyre gaslighting saying that we took them too seriously. This editing is way better, the pacing of the video matches the message.
Kudos on teaching how to to apply critical thinking, burden of proof requirements etc...rather than strictly rebuttals. Probably nobody knows but Curious what the upper limit on the would be on swelling as a % of the muscle. Because, let's say it was 10% (the number doesn't matter, just illustrating) - Because it would be pretty easy to show that on a longer term study, say double the number of weeks or months, 52 sets of leg extensions, or whatever won't have sustained growth. You'll just hit the threshold and cap out. And if you stop the study for a month, heal up and do it all again, it'll become pretty obvious that no matter what you change (load, reps, duration, frequency, etc...) you keep hitting that threshold. On the other hand, if it's pure tissue gain, then keep doing it for 2 years and grow and grow and grow right?
Right exactly. You know what it's like Andy people were trying to avoid the work even back in our day in the name of science. Same grift, different generation.
Agreed. I’m not always in line with Beardsley/Carter on recommendations but the weekly net stimulus model just made sense to me based on what I was seeing in practice. A while back I cut my volume on an upper/lower back to 4 sets per muscle (2 exercises, 2 sets each) and the gains came. For context, I’m 43 and I’ve trained solidly for a little over 20 years. Most people think volume should keep going up, I’ve found the inverse to be true as I’ve advanced.
Hey folks. Need Coaching? Enquiries here: docs.google.com/forms/d/15_F8NS9vWIZUGlPXv-jGeFO9vVCyEKUFTmwuJo3RHlA/viewform?edit_requested=true
Want personalised advice but not ready for Coaching? View my non-coaching, one off bespoke services here: fazlifts.co.uk/collections/services
All My Training Programs On Boostcamp. Use my code FAZLIFTS for a free 2 week premium trial: www.boostcamp.app/#fazlifts
eBooks: fazlifts.co.uk/collections/e-books
My Training Fundamentals Playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h
All feedback on editing from last video was read, appreciated and forwarded to my new editor.
I appreciate you folks, love you all.
I'm totally a fan of the simple, "I'm not a RUclipsr" low production value videos, but I'm also a fan of seeing people take chances and growing. I'll be around here zoomer edits or otherwise 😂. At the end of the day, you're putting out great information and pulling from a deep well of experience in training yourself and others.
Appreciate your support as always Dennis. Looking forward to your next video drop
"Um ackshully, do your research. Dr. Mike Jizzraecel has a phd and he's bigger and stronger than Mike Mentzer and has a higher IQ than all other coaches. He has more willpower than just about everybody and can become an authority in any field in one year. So this obviously proves that 52 sets per week at 5 RIR for every body part is optimal. Science is real!"
blue lobster
I'm more of a 100 sets at 10 RIR kind of guy
Mike Jewcel
your mic audio is clipping ,check your mic gain it may may be too high ,it causes the weird cutting thing when you talk and laugh
No, he is British. That's how they talk.
@@turul9392😂😂😂
As Mentzer said: what are you supposed to do to get bigger, get weaker?!
Basement bodybuilding lore
Editing on this one was very solid Mr editor man, didn’t mess up the flow of the video at all! Good work!
Cheers big dawg! I'll pass that along
20% down in performance due to inter-workout fatigue is just ridiculous... Few days ago I was tired and feeling bad, had one of the worst workout, but still was only 5~10% weaker than usual. To me, 20% decline due to fatigue just sounds like that your program doesn't consider recovery at all.
+ If that is actually the case for some reason, performance assessed at super-fatigued state cannot be a fair metric for one's strength. Strength must be compared at fully recovered, fresh status.
I think powerlifters are big in the muscles they train. Most of them have huge legs.
I had an argument with a “science based lifter” who said that things like lengthened partials, weighted stretch, training to failure, volume were all more important than progressive overload.
That’s why I love strength standards 2 plate bench 3 plate squat 4 plate deadlift then a 3 plate bench 4 plate squat 5 plate deadlift. Iv done low volume lengthened partials, high volume etc had coaches just not focus on weight. What ultimately grew my chest- taking my bench from 95x10 to now 265x 5 paused- hoping to hit 315 this year for a few!
There are outliers who are stronger than they look. However in real life at the gym I have personally never seen a dude squat 405 for reps AtG with small legs or bench 315 for reps with a small chest- given they’re at a decent bodyfat.
That’s why I trust the classic programs more than these new science based stuff. Stronglifts modified version, 5/3/1 , Texas method , the wizard, the barbarian!
Yep, some people will do anything but actually get big & strong.
So-called science based methods are a joke.
Mike Isratel is a joke. He shouldn't be giving anyone lifting or dueting advice.
I really don't see the need for edits at all(especially the silly visual ones), I enjoyed a man just talking truth to the camera. Cheers
Same for me. The most important thing is just having great audio quality, followed by a decent camera for video. But there’s no need for edited effects to get the content across.
I think it's fine to change it up.
I agree. @@ColeDano
From my experience, it was all sarcoplasmic hypertrophy when I was on uber high volume with 30 plus sets per group a week. It’s water and acute swelling but it didn’t seem to really track long term with contractile tissue gains in my experience. I’m probably mid or later intermediate. When I slashed my volume and upped the intensity, I noticed that I got “smaller” acutely (less fluid retention in the muscles, so arms were technically smaller) but my strength got much better, and I started adding actual new contractile tissue notably faster.
This is also the same issue with Creatine literature. A lot of the measurement methods can’t separate out intramuscular fluid retention and so the studies report that people gain all this “lean body mass” (you would tend to interpret that as muscle) when it’s just water. I suspect the same is going on here in the high volume literature.
I just switched from 16 weekly sets per muscle to 7. Gains are better than ever
Same
But wojack is life
Stuart McRobert and many others have been saying for years that excessive volume is unnecessary. Unfortunately they aren’t listened to because it doesn’t fit the current narrative of high volume and no one likes the simple answer of modest but hard training in progressive poundages .
Yes and no, McRobert got a lot wrong as well.
You made some really really good points here Faz. I just passed my physiology exam and holy shit you’re on point! Keep doing what you’re doing and don’t stop speaking about this!
I love when Faz just laughs for an extended period of time before he responds lol
Hi Faz,
TL;DR - Do you know why everything is growing except my arms, despite arm emphasis through extra frequency and volume?
If you haven't already, do you think you could make a video/answer my question in a Q&A about plateauing on body measurements?
My chest, shoulders, and legs all grow reasonably easily - I can add about three quarters of an inch every 4 months. However, my arms have been stuck at the same size for about 6 months, despite having more sets per week and more frequency dedicated to them, and training them first every session.
I've been training for about 2 years and 4 months, so I doubt I'm just getting newbie gains everywhere except my arms.
I have been bulking for about 4 months, but I don't store much fat on my legs at all (even +7kg I can't pinch any fat on them) so I don't think it's solely body fat adding to the measurements. I also don't store much fat on my arms - I can't pinch any fat on them either, even though my waist has increased by about 3 inches since the start of my bulk (a lot of that is gut contents).
I've been doing everything else right: 190g protein per day at 185lbs bodyweight, between 250 and 400g carbs per day (depending on how fast my bodyweight was increasing - 400 was admittedly a mistake lol), and 60-100g fat per day; sleeping 7-9hrs on about 9/10 nights; and limiting alcohol consumption.
Thank you.
Do 2-3 working sets for biceps and triceps, 2x a week each. For biceps I would suggest a machine preacher curl and any curl variation in which you’re staying in shoulder flexion (bayesian/face away cable curls for example). For triceps, I would suggest cuffed cross body cable extensions and machine dips. Get strong af at these with decent control and ROM in the 5-10 rep range, your arms will be much bigger after 6 months of doing this
Sign up for coaching or book a consultation
This is not the kind of individualized advice I'm going to give out in comments.
@ Understandable. Unfortunately I am a student with next to no disposable income, so no offence but I have to politely decline.
Thanks for calling out high volume nonsense and examining it with critical lens. I was one of the people who fell for 'muh science' and over time it impacted my approach to training negatively. I got so burned out, it took all joy out of lifting and made me feel like a failure for not being able to sustain sheer number of sets per workout.
It also degraded quality of my sets. I'm now relearning pushing hard, doing quality work and only adding volume when necessary.
12:08 when you see the science based lifter in the gym pass out on his 52nd set of lateral raises
he had just done 52 sets of illiac pull downs just before
sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is one way that is my guess, but realistically I'd rather have long lasting real myofibrillar hypertrophy which is always gonna lead to a strength increase
HOLY dude I never even thought about fatigue masks performance that way, you make so much sense! if you're so unbelievably tired that you are having to use 25% less weight, it means NOTHING that you're going to failure, it's your fatigue failing you not the actual muscle. if you think of the muscle being capable of a certain weight X reps, and you're doing 75% of that you are objectively sandbagging HARD every single set you pushed to failure in that fatigued state, why would the muscle NEED to grow?! you're doing warmups that FEEL hard. wow dude thank you for this
Greg Doucette uses this in his training i believe.. Something like "if you train hard enough, and you have done 1 set, rested for around 3 minutes, do a 2nd set and have lost 10% (9 reps from a previous 10 or have lowered the weight 10% and cant match the reps in the first set) or more than your previous set you know you have trained hard enough, go to the next exercise or go home"
Great video Faz and break down of this topic.In my own experience as my strength increased I feel my size increased as well.we love you Faz and what you bring to the community not only about life but also about fitness.thank you!💪🏽
The editing is better here, I think. The message of the video is more digestible.
Your point about Occam's Razor, though I agree with it, reminded me of a scene from House MD - "You tell me two people had sex to create this baby. I say one stork flew the baby to the parents in a basket. Which is simpler, your two or my one?"
I watch people like Mike Israetel quite a bit. First, just because someone says something or some study says something doesn't mean you have to do or change anything, which includes watching content from you. When the 52 sets of quads study came out, that seemed like a freakish amount of volume. Since I barely recover from 4 sets of squats twice a week, there's no need for me to increase my volume. Just because someone did something doesn't mean I have to react to that in any way. The training I do is consistent with science, but it's not super high volume, it's mostly not lengthened partials, I don't do random exercises I saw on TikTok, etc. It's a recoverable amount of volume done with full range of motion while controlling the weight close to failure that emphasizes the lengthened position of the muscle. That is backed by dozens of studies and meta-analyses. None of this is in conflict with what people like Renaissance Periodization claim as far I can think of. The connection between size and strength is well-correlated long term but since strength has a neurological component, the relationship is not trivial. I was not able to comprehend what the connection between discussing high volume is and the later discussion about strength vs. size. The channels I watch routinely discuss issues with ecological validity of studies and people like Menno Henselmans routinely discuss the connection between size and strength. Several recent high-profile hypertrophy studies are using in-subject design with well-trained lifters which is a positive trend that increases ecological validity that I hope continues. Overall I just found this video confusing because it doesn't actually discuss specific methodological issues with specific studies, which I'm sure exist and those critiques are indeed valid. Laughing for extended periods of time doesn't really help you make your point, although it does help people who already agree with you feel good about themselves.
If you're watching them for entertainment, fine. It can't be for useful content though and really that is all they should be for. When channels routinely peddle this sort of nonsense they do a disservice to viewers. A lot of the viewers are young and gullible.
Yeah still prefer the OG Faz style vids. Straight talk. No off putting camera zooms, music and stuff popping up the screen. It actually looks and feels more tacky. Your content is good enough with your knowledge and straight talk. Talking while showing training clips is cool. If trying to add more value then perhaps some more diet vids, I really enjoyed watching you cook and took alot from that.
I love this new video format faz
One could try different approaches to see which works and which they enjoy, especially the latter since it increases the odds of doing it consistently. Some of this sounds like the reason why prescriptions come with usage labels - just because one does every X hours works great does not mean that doubling the dose will work better.
13:50 this is a new Faz i love it 😂
Interesting talk. Just started lifting again two months ago and trophy to figure out my ideal effort per set in relation to volume.
If people only knew how to interpret data that would see that while ever increasing volume produces very fractional increases it quickly hits a more plateau like curve at low to moderate volumes. I have not seen any research that attempts to quantify fatigue but I think it’s safe to say that fatigue goes up in a linear fashion with each additional set. There may be some nuances depending on demands of specific exercise but I’m speaking in generalities. Therefore the gap between gains and recovery demand becomes wider and wider. We are not just looking to recover to baseline before training again, we want to recover above baseline (supercompensation) before training a muscle again. It’s a simple concept that has been bastardized by the volume peddlers.
It feels to me like people genuinely forget what works. I bulked numerous times 30lbs or so over the course of 7/8months and then cut back down to being lean. Lifting mainly in the 3-8rep range, nothing fancy at all, and it's been like being on a natural cycle each time. You do get to a point of diminished returns but maybe after 5 or 6 cycles of this you will have a cracking physique
Experience trumps weak attempts at science
Also, editing is way nicer this time, but there is still the strange background music that doesn’t really work with the video. I’d much rather it just be your voice
Hi Faz! I don’t have a mechanism, but one thing I was wondering was: what if their “absolute” strength had kept up with the muscle growth but the study design didn’t reflect that well. For example, were they using the same lifts throughout the duration of the study? How was “strength” being tested exactly? Also, your competing theory, which is quite reasonable, is muscle swelling. Do we know how much muscle swelling can contribute to temporary muscle size increases and should we expect it to continue increasing as we see in the studies? Probably, but it’s something I’m curious about that isn’t usually addressed.
Simplified for bewildered newcomers: Think 2 sets of serious focus and effort rather than 8 sets of mild discomfort
I think you should listen to the "The Influence of Muscle Swelling" part of the "Volume and Hypertrophy: New Science Explained | S2E1" episode from Data Driven Strength. Brings up some solid counter-arguments imo!
Ok, I started laughing the same time you did. Early on, before I even realized there was fitness content that would apply to my situation, I used to pick up 5 lb dumbbells and do reps until I couldn't do reps anymore *because* my physical therapist at the time said based on my age I shouldn't lift more than 5 lbs, I was 59 at the time and my shoulders were absolute trash due to this. I did that for almost two years because I trusted my PT, I liked her, I thought she knew best because she had the education, right? I became tired of hurting and started doing my own research. I left the high frequency reps behind and started lifting heavier and keeping my reps at 15 or less. Pain gone, growth exploded. Critical thinking is crucial. Just because you like someone that doesn't mean what comes out of their mouth applies to you or that perhaps there's not another agenda. Views, sales, or just coming up with content. I had a brief flirtation with content creation. It's kinda Hell coming up with something new to talk about every week, imagine what that's like after a decade doing it. I always write too much. Great video Faz.
The Lyle mcdonald approach of telling nay-sayers exactly how they can prove you wrong, I love it
No editing. I like your straight talk. Save your money.
nuh uh keep editing
I look at zero studies. It's nothing new and never will be. It's convoluted slop from nerds.
All you need is The Wizard. Plenty of volume if you push yourself in the gym.
Intensity and frequency!
They could do a deload and retest their strength to see how much it increased post each phase of volume loading. That would be another way they could prove their research.
14:02 "If you are that tired, you will never deliver the stimulus you need to grow". Then why rest-pause method works? Given that you get even more tired before doing the additional reps.
I remember “ cybernetics “ 😂
I actually bought the basic kit! I was 16. It cured me from following nonsense at least.
A point that I’ve heard is, more volume does lead to more growth but it drops the more you do. Possibly because of fatigue, form breakdown, and increased risk of injury.
If you can manage those things then you are good.
It all comes down to how you want to program and what trade-offs you're willing to make. Moderate to high volume can work if you're leaving reps in reserve and using decent form/technique. But, if you're taking sets to TRUE failure, with decent form, or even beyond failure (dropsets, partials, rest/pause, etc) then the extra volume is unnecessary IMO. In my experience, MY experience, the harder I push a set, the fewer sets I can do in order to recover and still progress. Always manage your recovery, too.
So basically, push yourself so god damn hard for 8 weeks and get 0.7 results compared to 0.2-0.4 and then quit training for 6 months because everything hurts, nah, id rather get my 0.2-0.4 a couple of times with 1/4th of the effort.
Wouldn't sarcoplasmic hypertrophy be the way your muscle could get physically larger without getting stronger? I don't really have a dog in the fight I do low volume high intensity stuff, but it would seem a muscle having myofibril hypertrophy would have to gain in strength because it is gaining more contractile tissue, but one increasing in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy wouldn't have any ability to produce more force. Now, I know sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is controversial, but you were asking for a how a muscle could be larger and not gain strength and it seems at least pleasurable that it exists.
I can finally stop trying to hit 104 sets per bodypart per week
Science based training seems like a marketing scheme to me
calling it science based imo is the problem. because its not really science. its a shallow pool of quality scientific research that has gathered a very limited amount of conclusions to the point that we can't really use it like a mature scientific field. we've gathered a few good theories and conclusions about training but for the most part the research tells us that as long as you are working even moderately hard, resting well, eating enough, you will grow.
personally i would like to see studies focused on going from intermediate to advanced programming. some people, who could be argued to be genetically gifted, are able to break through their intermediate phase but for others they get stuck and don't have significant gains for a long period of time. right now the research is focused on very basic things that we can reasonably assume are trivial which is honestly a waste.
@ChamplooMusashi the problem with that also is that flawed research continues to get circulated in meta-regressions
Science cringe lifting more like
@@thegoldfish123 a wise man once said "Science based lifting implies the existence of science cringe lifting"
they say science based as a marketing ploy
I want to see 100 triceps sets a week studies. 7 sets morning and night.
Faz, as always appreciate your canal. Two questions regarding double progression. Is it OK to have ebbs and flows within range on the same weight, for example 6,6,6; 8,7,6 but then 7,6,6 or even 6,7,6 once again? Assuming sets are 7-8 RIR.
And second question. Does failure to match lower limit of rep range means I have to deload?
Hahaha great video!
I would like too offer an attempt at defending their points 👉
First of, I think the point they made is more "infinity volume is theoretically possible" not that it's optimal or practical.
And to the point of "fatigue masks performance" this comes from cardio side of the sports science world, for 60+ years it's been the norm to overtrain with high volumes for a short period of time, then followed by a light week to supercompensate.
So one would think it could also be applied for strength, but it would require like you mentioned in the other video, a little break before we measure progress in the studies.
I think the argument could make theoretical sense if we imagined a scenario were an athlete was in a big calorie surplus, only trained one thing, lets say machine bench press. Then spread the volume out evenly over the week, keept the intensity at like 4rir for all sets and supplemented with strong stimulants to keep up performance. If we did this and then only adjusted set volume from week to week, would that stimulate growth? Because mechanical tension is being progressively overloaded 🤷♂️ and given a week of rest would the athlete supercompensate?
Tldr, if we train with minimal intensity can we periodise volume ie sets to create a stimuli.
How can muscle size increase without an increase in strength? The first thought that came to my mind was "inflammation". I'm not even a scientist or work in any scientific fields.
Bingo, with the "muscle mass" increases they measured you would be competing in the mr olympia after 4 of these 8 week studies (0.74cm thickness increase x 4)
If you’re down 20% then you’ve either already had a good workout, your recovery is off or you’re ill. #mikehasnotan
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy alone doesn’t make a muscle bigger. You need to get stronger to make the muscle fibres grow
Wrong
@ please explain
@@theREDdevilz22 You dont need to get stronger to make the fibers grow, you get stronger when the fibers has grown. I know there is alot of people thinking backwards here since it sounds easy and ive done it myself. If you had to get stronger to make a muscle grow, why dont you just load the bench press with 500 pounds and eventually you would have the muscles to bench 500 pounds? Because it cant work that way even if this is an extreme example. You cant do what you cant do, so you do a weight that you can do for the amount of reps your muscle can do, so that it gets thicker because it was hard, and then when your muscles have gotten thicker you can add more weight because the muscle can handle it.
@@fredericdarietto9546 Completely right. We live in the real world.
@@dakkitoto3467 Your argument is strange. That is not what is being put forward. Let me assure you that getting incrementally stronger at bench press until you can press 500 lbs, fom and for reps, you will most definitely have the muscle to support this.
Could the more muscle gains but same strenght gains come from fatigue build up ,meaning there would also be more strenght gains after a deload?
My first time watching it. just so I know I've got this right, fazlifts is saying increases in size, and results in increased strength. But to increase strength, size does not necessarily need to increase - as powerlifters aren't as big as bodybuilders but lift more. - Is this what Fazlifts is saying? If so, then why not, is just anatomy and skill/technque + maybe tendon strength that results in larger lifts from powerlifters compared to bodybuilders? sorry if I've misunderstood.
You can get stronger through pure neutral adaptions - the powerlifter who is smaller than the bodybuilder may lift more because he has “peaked” his strength by a lot of time doing 1-5 rep sets. However, if that powerlifter was even bigger, he’d be stronger than he currently is because gaining muscle also causes you be stronger. That’s the simplest way I can think to put it.
@@AppalachianAnglingAdventures, I kinda get it. so if you had a powerlifter and a bodybuilder the same size, height, etc, the powerlifter would be stronger because of the way they train.
My question is, then, if both training types are around increasing muscle cross-sectional size, why would the powerlifter be stronger than the bodybuilder if they are the same size. maybe Im presuming that powerlifters train to increase corssetional size of muscle, but if they don't then how do they get stronger, i.e. strength isn't linked necessarily to increase in size, therefore is it just skill training(training motor paterns) or perhaps training explosive movements, therefore training something other than muscle building(muscle size increase) that causes increase in strength, if so then bodybuilders who train "for size" will naturally have increase in strength but its not as proportional to powerlifters because they train other things outside of just muscle size, like skill/nueral adaption to specific movements. etc.
sorry if this make no sense lol, just trying to figure this stuff out. Btw thanks for answering my first q :)
@BobTheBuilderGuy Because lower reps (below 5, some would argue below 3) which powerlifters focus on because it’s specific to their sport, have a disproportionate increase in strength/neutral gains compared to the hypertrophy gains of 5 to 20 rep sets. That’s why you here people calling 5-20, 5-30 or other moderate to higher reps the “hypertrophy zone”. It’s just more efficient to grow muscle with moderate to high reps.
@BobTheBuilderGuy But powerlifters focus is not muscle size, it is primarily strength/neutral gains, so they focus on lower reps generally with hypertrophy work after their main work.
Raise a bodybuilders 1rm on the bench press and they may not be bigger (because it’s a skill, neural gains) but put 10lbs of muscle on a powerlifter and they will have a better 1rm (once they/if they are proficient at doing 1 rep maxes with heavier weights).
@@AppalachianAnglingAdventures thanks:).
Lyle Mcdonald was right again
In some of these guys defense they have said that in reality because of fatigue you wouldn’t actually program that much volume. That’s the only grace I will give them. Because the issue is these guys value outcomes over mechanisms in studies. As Chris Beardsley said “if you have to throw away years of physiological literature to make the outcome of a study or analysis work, it’s likely not a very good study or analysis. Once again, moral support contractile units, they’re just personality hires.
My new favorite is all the hybrid training content. It’s so ridiculous because no normal person can recover from all that cardio and intense weight training on a seemingly daily basis. My guess is most of these influencers hide a lot of injuries from their followers.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biomechanics and physiology, knows that the cross-sectional area of a muscle is closely related with the force production and strength of that muscle.
"Nah,, you don't get it! More contractile tissue doesn't equal more ability to contract..."
Geez, these people! BTW, which Greg? Knuckles?
See I know you're joking, but the wild thing is that's what some people actually think. This is what the fitness industry has become.
Nuckols.
I also think the blanket recommendation of "do at least 10-20 sets a week per muscle" is doing more damage over time, especially when the study that recommendation stemmed from even counted fractional sets as a part of the volume they recommended
Agree. So many reddit comments parrot this range when they don't even know that those studies counted all muscle groups in an exercise as 1 set.
Also, why not just ramp up your volume over your lifting career to find what works for you personally? These people are looking for shortcuts
@seawhales1000 looking at the average r/naturalbodybuilding comment section always amazes me 😭
@@sendwagon there should be mandatory credentials on that subreddit if you're gonna be posting
This is the first of your vide 0:05 os I've seen and am watching with an open mind, but I just want to understand your points a little better
Tribalism, yeah I agree, it exists. If you only look at one tree, you won't find a forest.
The first point regards the counter argument of 1:1 strength v size, I also agree that you're correct, that that, as a counter-argument is flawed.
The other 2 points I didn't really understand what you were trying to say.
Whilst i do agree that studies measuring only 1 set of something are flawed for that very reason, I didn't understand what you're stance is regards training to failure. Are you saying not to because the studies are flawed? I understand the transfer from the lab to the gym may not be perfect but is that a reason to leave the gym with reps in the tank?
The; fatigue masks performance thing, I don't understand. I didn't understand the point of that at all other than laughing. Are you trying to say if I'm fatigued, dont bother working out?
That's basically how the final part came across to me perhaps in part because i am a first time viewer of your channel.
Like I say not a rebuttal, per se, just watching, and don't think I understood clearly all that you were trying to get across.
My whole life has been in an educatory capacity of some sort or another, one truth that I've found to be undeniable is that people will only ever learn something new or an opposing view, when they're mentally ready.
So I don't tend to force my opinion on anyone, either my clients or here on RUclips. I present my view and it's received as it is. As it stands the facts are that no-one has provided a reasonable or logical counter point to my view, and no one will because I am right. However plenty of people have gotten quite upset and made derogatory comments about me personally here and elsewhere and that further reinforces my point in the first paragraph here and that says a lot about the people commenting.
People think they're ready to learn or even to debate, but they really they aren't so they tend to get dogmatic and offensive and then the mob mentality wins out and everyone piles in. Such is the internet. I've been around for long enough to know that these things come in circles, and the views that someone is derided for one day will be celebrated the next. So I try not to take things personally, even though people do like to make it personal.
I don't know your real intentions here Aidan, only you know that. So if you are here to learn then carry on watching and trying to understand the content, that will be good for you.
Take care.
I thought basement bodybuilding had an argument against it, because he was powerlifting at the start but then changed to bodybuilding and he got bigger but he wasn't as strong, but then there's the caveat of well, you went from powerlifting to bodybuilding.
He was not training the same lifts lol, not even close to the same standard or comparison. Ik exactly the vid you're talking about, where he struggles to bench 265 or 285 after not training it for a year or more, where he's lacking neural adaptations to the movement. Did you know he later benched 335 with a closer grip? Using powerlifting as the standard for strength output and comparing it to bodybuilding is very flawed
He got stronger on the lifts he changed to. His strict curl is certainly stronger now that he actually trains elbow flexion. That guy just lacked the discipline to have a strength oriented approach to bodybuilding. He cheated his form, picked lifts that were easier to progress on, etc. That was his problem and his fault; all other things equal, ensuring good form etc, a stronger muscle will eventually be a bigger muscle. Strength is a good indicator of progress
@@freehatespeech6804I don't even think using looser form or "easier" lifts is a problem from a growth perspective, it just means you just can't use different lifts you aren't training as a good measurement of progress. Like you said once he stared training them again his strength went up a lot, and that's what we would expect. All else being equal, strength is imo tge best measurement of progress. The issue is when you don't keep all else equal.
I like BB but I'm glad people are starting to notice he misunderstands progressive overload at times by saying it doesnt work because he didnt get bigger by getting stronger when all he did was just change technique to lift more thus not being true progressive overload.
@@theiceman7590 That's not what he says at all. He says that progressive overload is the outcome, not the driver, of hypertrophy. It's a chicken and egg debate.
So with 4 to 6 sets per muscle per week, what is your recommended RIR?
I agree that we could use more discussion around the volume research. I've seen Borge and I think Lyle have a similar take on the volume research.
I don't think I agree that the reason for the disagreement on the research is a marketing/financial bias. I could almost see that for guys like Dr Milo and Pak who are admittedly part of that bubble, but I don't think the rest of the guys from Stronger By Science, Mass, etc fit that bill. Seems like they genuinely believe that interpretation of the research, even though I could be wrong.
I do think Eric Helm's current offseason is something that should be talked about more as a case study. He's gotten what seems close to 3lbs of muscle with respective strength gains by doing some very high volumes as a very advanced natty. To your credit, I emphasize that has come with strength gains.
I think that when it comes to executing high volume programs (20+ sets/weekfor a muscle group, if you include fractional sets from compounds), with careful fatigue management, the Repeated Bout Effect can result in handling higher volumes than most people think. I tend to think that Chronic/Systemic fatigue is mostly psychological fatigue as time goes on and I do occasional training blocked with some pretty high volumes.
Thanks again for bringing light to evidence based perspectives that don't always fit the common narratives we hear. Think we need more of this.
High volume is 20+ sets per week not month. 20 sets per month is about 5 per week which is considered low volume these days
@@shane_rm1025 I meant to say per week, my bad.
Eric Helms also said he would not recommend the vast majority of people do as much volume as he does, and he only does it because his needs are unusual, and he wishes he could make gains on lower volumes
@@oscare123 sure, but unless I'm misunderstanding the point of the video is to debate whether or not the dose response relationship with volume exists after 20+ sets/muscle/week . I don't think anyone in the evidence based space actively recommends these volumes to the average, or even advanced lifter.
Great video. Spot on arguments. Regarding the 1:1 relation argument between strength and muscle hypertrophy, we have to remember that most strength athletes ( powerlifting / Olympic lifting) are in specific weight classes, which means restriction in food calories to accomplish the desired body weight. Let's feed them more keeping the same workout stimulus and see what will happen....
W editing 👍👍
Something that annoys me is how all exercise science gets lumped in with ‘Hypertrophy’ research (particularly with this group of researchers). It gives the whole field a bad name, even though so much of it is good. I don’t like lumping in exercise research on those with arthritis, cancer and diabetes. Exercise physiology has very little concern in the real world with making your biceps bigger 😂
Bingo
Although a slight correction. Hypertrophy research is VERY different to exercise science and physiology
Hypertrophy research appears to be the realm of internet celebrity researchers recently and it's a joke
Just to understand, are you saying that reverse pyramids don't work?
Faz be preachin'
Actually great video. Nothing matters more than results and there is no one cookie cutter answer to everything. Doing 40 sets per week sounds so impractical that even if the science was true behind it, it would most likely hinder growth than maximise it. I was obsessed as a novice lifter to fit the 10-20 set range, I thought if I could do 15 sets to be in the middle Ill be "optimal". Reducing the volume to 8-10 sets per muscle group is what exploded my gains strength and size wise. When progress stalls then I will up the volume, do what works not what sounds intelligent.
at 16:24 did he mean to say more growth without a corresponding increase in muscle strength?
I think so yea lol
I think your mics voice clipping/noise reduction is too strong or doing something funny. I have found a great volume to be 2 to 3 very very hard working sets and 1 or 2 drop sets or back off sets as a maximum on a movement
Great video. Look I understand everything you saying. Just fine 1:01 Every. Video. Is. ✅
I make my own science!
That's the problem fella. I think everyone else is too 🤣
@ who knew it was so easy to be science based 🤣🤣🤣
Keep fighting this fight. Science doesn’t belong to these nincompoops.
Hahaha angry wojak memes, I see the shade. Honestly a little ridiculous people with PhDs chose to disseminate info like that
You've mentioned it before but you're only really loyal to the results.
I do think people forget that and focus on shit that in the long run really doesn't matter.
We're all different, find what works for you, you're not getting that from a study.
Dennis mentioned it below but I'm also a fan of the basic bitch video scheme. It could just be because I'm used to watching you like that though so do what you thinks right for your channel and it's growth.
That last one is a joke but some people will believe anything!
Even in my early years of training when I heard that 10-20 sets per week was "optimal" I always ended up in the lower range. Even then sometimes I wasn't recovered since I didn't know anything about progression schemes and pushed everything close to failure.
I think its bucuse they want you frustrated and there for be a easier costymer to supplement and and more .
Really appreciate your perspective and willingness to call out the popular crowd!
You’re killing it keep it up! I started doing you jack intellectual program a while back and I’m having fun with it, I love the flexibility in it.
Thank you for these words of wisdom. Why would anyone spend hours in the gym for some marginal gains (if that), people would be bored as fuck and gain a lot of chronic injuries.
💪💪
I got bigger but weaker when entering bodybuilding from powerlifting. It ‘s actually very common. Strength is a skill and not practicing that skill you’ll lose it
But you're probably stronger in a shoulder press, bicep curl, back movements, maybe dumbells and chest press, maybe leg presses, ecc... You are not specifically stronger, but you are generally stronger
Bingo @@Sene03
Gonna change my 5x10 to 50x1. That way I get 50 sets, and 10x the growth. I am science based.
Cross sectional size can be increased via the muscle being more efficient at processing metabolites. It’s not as efficient though as it gaining force production that’s why we see minimal gains from more endurance type training even when progressive overload is present.
Great points. Thanks, Faz 🔥
Liked for Occam's Razor as a fellow computer scientist :)
I largerly agree but not in every point.
I have way more muscle mass than 20 years ago but i am weaker now at most lifts.
Never did powerlifting.
So muscles can get bigger and produce less force.
The reason is aging. I‘m 55.
The circus contninues the clownshow. Now theyre gaslighting saying that we took them too seriously.
This editing is way better, the pacing of the video matches the message.
Kudos on teaching how to to apply critical thinking, burden of proof requirements etc...rather than strictly rebuttals. Probably nobody knows but Curious what the upper limit on the would be on swelling as a % of the muscle. Because, let's say it was 10% (the number doesn't matter, just illustrating) - Because it would be pretty easy to show that on a longer term study, say double the number of weeks or months, 52 sets of leg extensions, or whatever won't have sustained growth. You'll just hit the threshold and cap out. And if you stop the study for a month, heal up and do it all again, it'll become pretty obvious that no matter what you change (load, reps, duration, frequency, etc...) you keep hitting that threshold. On the other hand, if it's pure tissue gain, then keep doing it for 2 years and grow and grow and grow right?
Right exactly. You know what it's like Andy people were trying to avoid the work even back in our day in the name of science.
Same grift, different generation.
Agreed. Follks should also check out Chris Beardsley if they are interested in some actual science to make better sense out of their training.
Agreed. I’m not always in line with Beardsley/Carter on recommendations but the weekly net stimulus model just made sense to me based on what I was seeing in practice. A while back I cut my volume on an upper/lower back to 4 sets per muscle (2 exercises, 2 sets each) and the gains came. For context, I’m 43 and I’ve trained solidly for a little over 20 years. Most people think volume should keep going up, I’ve found the inverse to be true as I’ve advanced.
There is a 1:1 relation ship of strength to size people are just too stupid to see it.
The stuck up nobody Dr Wolf is pissed at you ……😂😂😂