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
Love the new style with the infographics and images, but the video was too jittery, cutting in and out, cuts all over the place, making the audio also sound horrible. No hate, just some constructive criticism.
I don't enjoy the occasional mono colored frames that seem to be inserted occasionally (it's pretty jarring). Also the downside of stringing all the clips together in rapid succession is that it can take out the dramatic pauses which are quite useful for emphasizing information.
Idk if it’s just me but the pace also seems way faster. I kind of like the occasional silence/pauses because it lets you really absorb what’s being said
@@MrYokyScapeI agree. I appreciate that Faz is attempting to boost his production quality, but the constant fast cuts with no room to breathe takes away his from his authenticity.
I get that there's a trend towards more jumpcut-y, hyperstimulating/hyperentertaining content nowadays, but honestly I preferred when your videos were just you talking, maybe with some training footage on the side of the screen. IMO, too much editing detracts from the message you're trying to get across. Don't get me wrong, I still liked the video and learned from it, but the editing was just a bit of a distraction for me.
The issue here isn't the editing and effects per say, but rather the pacing. You cant digest the message because there are 0 breaks. Even in hyperedited videos by people like MrBeast there are breaks, but not here. These effects are high quality and look good, but his editor needs to leave some breathing room between takes.
@@BusterBossJR I agree. Re. the pacing, it doesn't seem very even now that you mention it. The rhythm of the graphics and the length of the clips is slightly mismatched imo.
@@ed_lifts Yep. And in real conversations you don't have continous speech coming at you with no breaks, that's also why commas exist lol. None the less I think he's trying a good thing and it will likely be fixed.
Love the flaming and the callouts. Burning garbage is a surefire way to get rid of it. -Posting this from a hospital bed due to an epileptic seizure from the jump cuts
"isnt the truth what we are about". Nah, I really dont think most of the science based community is about the "truth" and more about obtaining studies that support their message if they can do so through a mechanism that seems believable.
Right. Want a PhD, then you must do studies. Good or bad. Then once you get the PhD, the universities require funding and papers. Old saying -- Publish or Perish !
Totally agree. I attempted Layne Norton's PH3 twice. Both times, I got injured with different injuries. Ridiculously high volume program. Overuse injuries are probably the most common at least for me. Once I backed down the volume and focused on the form... Boom!! strength and size gains.
I find typically do 6-9 sets per muscle group per session. Every 4-5 days depending on how i feel. Works well. More volume just gives me injuries and niggles
If it works for you, no qualms from here. For me, I saw better gains when I reduced my volume to just 4-6 sets per week for a muscle. Something even as low as 2 sets can work well. However you have to train to failure or atleast very close (0-1 RIR).
I did 24 sets for triceps (including presses) as a beginner. I messed my elbow and had to rehab it for half a year. Granted, my diet and sleep was not on point. However, I can confidently say that high (relative to my training stage) volume kept me a beginner. I noted that I pushed my sets fairly hard (compared to the average beginner/early intermediate)
Nice to see you tying new things out on the channel bro nice editing. The writing and images can help cement what your saying at times. The camera keeps flickering tho not sure what's going on there. The music could also be off-putting for some. Also to much editing can take away from your raw simple branding that the channel has been built upon, which I'd still like to see. I'm sure you'll be looking at the feedback and adjusting accordingly keep up the great work dude 👍
Good vid Faz 👍 very thought provoking. Had to listen back a couple of times to make sure I fully understood (was having a slow moment 😅) but your argument makes perfect sense now 🔥
Well said. Also I have never, until now, met an athlete that kept growing over the years of training using the same weight on the bar that used to as a beginner.
I’d like to see you talk with Sika Strength about this. While I agree with the majority of the content they produce, I do think there volume recommendations are flawed. I think it would be interesting to see a discussion by two intelligent creators that have different viewpoints.
@@movestattoo4561 They definitely are proponents for higher volume. On many occasions they have talked about volume being king for hypertrophy. I agree with 95% of there stuff, I just think they’re a bit misinformed on how to train for hypertrophy
@@BigChungus553 oh okay, I remember them saying that volume being king for hypertrophy (and I obviously disagree) but then later heard them saying something about high volume and saying that doing 5 sets would be high volume so I’m a bit confused about their actual recommendations. They have great content anyways.
@@movestattoo4561As someone interested in both circles, it is likely in the context of barbell work and strength progression. For example, a 5x8-10 on squats and romanian deadlifts in a single session would be plenty sufficient
As someone who I think is an intermediate lifter, with my best lift being a 280 bench press at 180 bw after 2.5 years of lifting, I have only been doing 8-15 sets per muscle group a week with 3 full body workouts and am still seeing progress. My background before this was distance running so I really started from 0. I doubt my training is “optimal”, but my advice would be to do the least amount of sets needed to see noticeable progress and to tweak form/intensity/exercise selection when staling out, then to increase set volume if all else fails.
Hey Fazlifts, great video! I have a question about the tactician. As far as I know, you are supposed to select 3 variations, but only 2 are selected in the training plans. When do I do the 3rd? Thank you very much!
Swelling is a great point. Remember the One Day Specialization plan that gave like an inch of growth after 12-24 arm workouts over a 12 hour day (or whatever? It worked. For a couple days you looked like Adonis. I call it the "Im going to the club tonight and won't be going home alone plan" 60% of the time, it works every time
Haha right, I remember that. That was the inspiration for Rich Piana's all day arm workout i believe. It's a classic grift. Hilarious thing is, it's now being used as the basis for instagram-hypertrophy research studies!
For large muscle groups like quads, chest, max I've been able to do for any length of time is 12-15 sets. Honestly though, I didn't see better progress so why bother? I do a lot for the back, but that's traps, lats, erectors, rear delts, etc.
if i had to guess, greg’s idea is 8 week study strength gains on newer exercises are so disproportionately neural that changes in hypertrophy, let alone any masked by accumulated fatigue, may not necessarily be able to contribute enough to be statistically significant differences. i read the article and he points to neither energy deficits or going past 1.5g/kg protein to affect strength changes in either direction which suggests less that “they are doing nothing for growth” but rather “noobs just learning to bench press will gain practically the same lbs on the bar”. which im sure i dont agree 100% with specific assertions and dont think volume should be cranked infinitely but at least its not a misunderstanding of physiological mechanisms.
Again I say this multiple times in the video... That only accounts for disproportionate strength, which is the OPPOSITE of what the study shows which is disproportionate SIZE The argument you're using here, which is what Greg also said, is arguing for the opposite relationship to the one it's defending
@ to reword, you are describing the relationship between strength and size accurately. and i do believe edema is likely and usually end up around 10 sets per week. - but let’s say increasing to 20 caused more growth. the strength data “should” reflect that but this effect might not pass statistical significance tests if it’s being greatly overshadowed by the neural gains of a novice learning to bench press, the extra hypertrophy being marginal, and fatigue masking performance.
@ end of the day i imagine we both do more moderate volumes but practicality/fatigue management/injury risk/asymptotically diminishing returns feel more compelling than “well studies dont show strength increases past 8 sets over an 8 week study”. also a showerthought that many powerlifters do “volume blocks” which seem to have a “delayed” payoff to strength
@@justasquatspecialist we're not just talking 20 here, we're talking 50+ and there was NO flattening of the line at all. It was just straight linear into oblivion. So no, occams razor the simplest explanation works here. It is swelling and taking measurements too early. Logically you know I'm right I think you're bending over backwards irrationally defending the study, when you know full well what you're suggesting simply doesn't happen in reality
@ yes i agree that extreme volumes don’t make sense. i just wanted to see greg’s argument from whatever angle made the most sense. which it might for reasonably high volumes and lifters in the timeframe of one study. but as he says in the article, within your own training it’d make sense to use strength as a much closer proxy.
This is something that has bugged me forever with S&C. The argument that "you have strong skinny people, therefore people that bigger dont necessarily get stronger"... who? Who grows muscle without getting stronger? Not a higher powerlifting total, but actually stronger? NOBODY that's who. It must be even more frustrating for you as a physique coach
Exactly! People just assume the relationship works both ways, when it doesn't! But they can come to that conclusion when they ignore all the physiological data and the basics of how muscle is built I'd love to believe Greg has just been ignorant on this topic, because the alternative is much worse.
Can you please tell me if this is a good workout for beginner (I’m 30m, 6ft, 120lbs). Mon and Fri 3 sets inverted ring rows (can add weight for progression) 3 sets push ups (can add weight for progression) 3 sets DB goblet squats 2 supersets bi/tri/side delt Wed 3 sets chin ups (can add weight for progression) 3 sets incline DB bench press 3 sets DB goblet squats Thank you
I'm used to jump cuts, but I'm finding these jump cuts kind of distracting and actually making it harder to pay attention to what you're saying. I'll come back the video later to finish it because I'm genuinely interested in the topic. Hopefully I can focus better on a second watch/listen.
Yo faz, hope you're good mate, just wondering if you know in what video you talked about progression markers and criteria, i've been searching for it for ages now can't remember which one b=mentioned it in, any help would be much appreciated cheers mate have a class day! and enjoy your cardio
The last few videos have had a really distracting flicker, even before this new style one with all the edits. I like Faz’s content and can understand taking risks and experimenting here and there. Just leaving feedback as the video quality has gone down a bit recently.
Doin but if this at present over the two weeks. Basically no. Supplements. And. Just. Maintenance training. And just. Let the body settle So great video great timing ⏱️
Because strength can be built without a corresponding increase in size. But actual muscle size cannot be built without a corresponding increase in strength. Do you understand this now Billy? The relationship only works one way
I think Greg definetly has a bias towards high volume because he preached volume is king for such a long time. The hypertrophy data we have is absolute bs in many regards. Muscle swelling beeing misinterpreted as actual myofibrilar hypertrophy and studies with short rest periods and low proximity to failure even more shifting the dose response relationship in favour of volume and different hypertrophy labs measuring completely different effect sizes for a 8 week duration with some labs measuring a multiple of what we would commonly except over 8 weeks. 5-8rm strength in advanced lifters is by far the best proxy we current have for actual myofibrilar hypertrophy.
You could have done better here, Faz. This is what Greg wrote in the same reddit thread that you pulled the quote at 4:00 from: " So, I do actually think that changes in strength are decently reflective of hypertrophy, but only in specific circumstances (which just so happen to be the specific circumstances that would be most relevant to most serious trainees): If training status is already fairly high If you're assessing strength in exercises you're already quite skilled with If your approach to training remains fairly consistent (for example, if you always do sets of 8-12, and you get stronger for sets of 8-12, you're probably gaining muscle. But, if you always do sets of 8-12, you test your 1RM, then you run a peaking block with sets of 2-5 reps and that boosts your 1RM, I don't think that this increase in your 1RM tells you much about hypertrophy) If you're assessing strength changes over a reasonably long time scale (strength changes over one year should be more indicative than changes over 6 months, which should be more indicative than changes over 3 months, which should be more indicative than changes over 1 month, etc.). But, notably, it's very rare for a study to meet all of those criteria. Many studies use untrained or recreationally trained subjects, exercises the subjects may be unfamiliar with (or, even if they're familiar with the exercise at a high level, the study may require technique changes. For example, if you're a bodybuilder who tends to squat above parallel, a study may require you to squat below parallel. You'll get some pretty robust "strength gains" just from familiarizing yourself with below-parallel squats, regardless of the muscle growth you experience), training interventions that differ in meaningful ways from the ways the subjects were training before the study, and fairly short training interventions lasting around 8-12 weeks, on average. So, I think it's simultaneously the case that: On an individual level, strength changes can be (and often are) a pretty good indicator of hypertrophy Due to the characteristics of the studies that tend to be published, strength changes reported in the literature are typically a fairly poor indicator of hypertrophy at a group level within and between studies."
Yeah you've written this quite confidently here "You could have done better here, Faz" and quite rudely actually, but your argument is still just as vague as Greg's initial argument. The characteristics of the studies are that they are hypertrophy studies. We're not discussing strength studies here, and if you have an issue with the criteria then you're entitled to that but the data are what the data are. So your point is easily dismissed. If you do make a reply here, first of all ensure it's a more well thought out reply and secondly do so in a more respectful way than your initial statement here. I'll overlook that once because you're probably quite brave behind your keyboard. I'll even make it easy for you; all you need to do is tell me how we can get myofibrullar growth without a concomittant increase in strength. This is the same thing I said to Greg in the video. Just tell me, what is the physiological basis for muscle fibers becoming thicker and larger but there being no increase in strength. I'll save everyone the wait, you won't be able to because there simply is NO basis for that to happen ever, period. You come in here and you think you're cooking. You're not going to cook, because you're not even in the kitchen at this point.
@@Fazlifts Well you're right. My comment was rather rude and didn't give you much to engage with. So I would like to apologize for that. I definitely had kind of a kneejerk reaction here and the "you could have done better here" was my initial reaction towards your video because I had the impression that you argued against a position that Greg doesn't hold. On top of that it felt disingenious to reduce his reasoning to that one sentence from the beginning of a several paragraph long comment which also is only one of several equally long comments within that same thread. But that's all feeling and impression. I read the article and the reddit thread when it was still new, so my memory might be a bit hazy. I'll review this video, watch the new one - which brought me back here, youtube notifications for comments are awfull - and skim over the article aswell as the explanations on reddit and get back to you with something more substantial if my points of contention still stand. Anyways, I was out of line and hope you can accept my apology.
Excellent vid. I can accept outliers, those natural's who seem to do incredible volume (from my perspective) and have an amazing physique (GVS), and those natural's who run a very abbreviated program and again have amazing results. What always struck was a push to exploit insecurity, which for a natural who is more committed is there to a greater degree than those who take the steroid road, for a natural has to make the most of what THEIR body is capable of. I have tried higher volume (for me, lol, would be low for some), drawn both by the promise of results, and as well, a legitimate enjoyment of training. But all I got for my efforts was fatigue and injury. So, I returned to simple basics, 4 - 5 very hard sets (to failure) drinking in a lot of rest in between sets so as to maximize performance on each set. My strength progressed, and I got some size. Am not the biggest guy. But compared to the non-lifting population there is a massive difference. Too, on an unrelated note, good to see you experimenting with different video editing formats, looking forward to your growth in this area as you arrive at what you consider best for your message. Aesthetic matters (not just with the body) - and while there are the puritans who insist that you must just sit in front of a camera and talk for it is only the info that matters, they fail to recognize that there are other audiences out there without such sensibilities, and at the end of the day, if you want the message you cherish to reach the widest possible market (and it needs to), then there is nothing to be lost by experimenting with alternative formats.
keeping me sane faz cheers. Ya really making sure to just continue with my plan (that works for me) without fear of not doing enough volume. I will say that my OHP has stalled around 70kg (4 sets of 4-6, 2x per week) for a while now, I am quite tall 6'3/193cm and 24 but lifting since 15, so still very early in my game - not saying as a crutch just reflecting on my frame, body mechanics and that I clearly have a lot of progression left to go. I feel like I'm getting something out of staying at this weight but is sitting at the same weight for 3 ish months a sign I need to change something or keep grinding? (my form and intensity are good btw) Big fan and would love your thoughts! Edit: I run full body 3x a week, I'm doing my masters so cannot fit more days in at the moment. Have debated pulling volume lever but alongside the isolation work i do for shoulders, I am skeptical about my recovery in that situation (I do behind the neck OHP on the smith).
Isn't failure proximity showing us the opposite relation to the one you are a supporter of? As far as I know, training closer to failure is better for hypertrophy, but in studies showing that it also has no impact on strength - training on low RPE is not worse for it than training all out. If more growth always equals more strength, shouldn't it be shown there too?
You’re right, like how could a muscle grow and not get more efficient at producing force? Like why would it grow at that point? Just adding sarcomeres for aesthetics?
Yeah totally, it was a weird counter-argument he used. He said you can get stronger without getting proportionately larger, so it must work the other way. Very strange way of defending his bias. I do think that's why he got angry about it, he was wrong and too invested to admit it.
@ you’d have to argue that the additional contractile units or whatever added was for a different function other than producing more force. The additional sarcomeres are just chilling? Moral support. How would a bicep grow and not more efficient at bending the elbow? Unless Greg thinks that at some point the muscle fibers would get better at handling more sets and preventing damage?
@@finnianfanning3136 well that's the thing, he didn't even attempt to offer a physiological explanation He seemed to offer quite a vague sentiment, just that 'the relationship isn't clear' and stuff like that.
@@Fazlifts Eric Helms also said something similar on Data Driven Strenght podcast. Now I wasn’t listening properly so can’t remember but he was very dismissive of swelling claims.
I think the issue is that these guys don't actually consider the physiological data, or really any of the greater exercise science field. So that gives them a very narrow view. They're only looking at the very small instagram-hypertrophy community and their research data, not the wider field I think this is very often why some of their studies just leave everyone scratching their heads, because they don't make any sense. They're not grounded in the greater body of evidence we have.
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
Love the new style with the infographics and images, but the video was too jittery, cutting in and out, cuts all over the place, making the audio also sound horrible. No hate, just some constructive criticism.
I think he is doing this on his own and this is his first time doing so. Yeah what you said is valid nonetheless.
I don't enjoy the occasional mono colored frames that seem to be inserted occasionally (it's pretty jarring). Also the downside of stringing all the clips together in rapid succession is that it can take out the dramatic pauses which are quite useful for emphasizing information.
Idk if it’s just me but the pace also seems way faster. I kind of like the occasional silence/pauses because it lets you really absorb what’s being said
yeah for someone like me with motion sickness , it makes harder to watch
@@MrYokyScapeI agree. I appreciate that Faz is attempting to boost his production quality, but the constant fast cuts with no room to breathe takes away his from his authenticity.
I get that there's a trend towards more jumpcut-y, hyperstimulating/hyperentertaining content nowadays, but honestly I preferred when your videos were just you talking, maybe with some training footage on the side of the screen. IMO, too much editing detracts from the message you're trying to get across. Don't get me wrong, I still liked the video and learned from it, but the editing was just a bit of a distraction for me.
The flickering during the close-ups was driving me nuts, I could listen but couldn't watch anymore.
The issue here isn't the editing and effects per say, but rather the pacing. You cant digest the message because there are 0 breaks. Even in hyperedited videos by people like MrBeast there are breaks, but not here. These effects are high quality and look good, but his editor needs to leave some breathing room between takes.
@@BusterBossJR I agree.
Re. the pacing, it doesn't seem very even now that you mention it. The rhythm of the graphics and the length of the clips is slightly mismatched imo.
@@ed_lifts Yep. And in real conversations you don't have continous speech coming at you with no breaks, that's also why commas exist lol. None the less I think he's trying a good thing and it will likely be fixed.
Agreed
Love the flaming and the callouts. Burning garbage is a surefire way to get rid of it.
-Posting this from a hospital bed due to an epileptic seizure from the jump cuts
Get well soon, brother 🙏
Nice bringing in more editing. But I'd say make the logo a lot smaller than what it currently is.
Logo has been subject to muscle swelling, it'll subside after 2 weeks
Was pretty cool to see GVS discussing lower volumes in a similar context that you've been discussing for quite some time 💪
The Wizard guys….im telling you. Just buy the damn e-book you won’t regret it.
I concur
Yep phenomenal routine.
The added visuals are nice, but the cuts are pretty annoying, no need to overdo editing.
"isnt the truth what we are about".
Nah, I really dont think most of the science based community is about the "truth" and more about obtaining studies that support their message if they can do so through a mechanism that seems believable.
Right. Want a PhD, then you must do studies. Good or bad. Then once you get the PhD, the universities require funding and papers. Old saying -- Publish or Perish !
anybody see a green flicker in the video or is it just me
I see it too. It's a black flicker for me.
Totally agree. I attempted Layne Norton's PH3 twice. Both times, I got injured with different injuries. Ridiculously high volume program. Overuse injuries are probably the most common at least for me. Once I backed down the volume and focused on the form... Boom!! strength and size gains.
I find typically do 6-9 sets per muscle group per session. Every 4-5 days depending on how i feel. Works well. More volume just gives me injuries and niggles
If it works for you, no qualms from here. For me, I saw better gains when I reduced my volume to just 4-6 sets per week for a muscle. Something even as low as 2 sets can work well. However you have to train to failure or atleast very close (0-1 RIR).
Yea most people who reference studies in there videos don’t look at any of the details with any nuance. I appreciate you doin so very knowledgeable
New subscriber been loving the videos, but leave the music out please!
I did 24 sets for triceps (including presses) as a beginner. I messed my elbow and had to rehab it for half a year. Granted, my diet and sleep was not on point. However, I can confidently say that high (relative to my training stage) volume kept me a beginner. I noted that I pushed my sets fairly hard (compared to the average beginner/early intermediate)
Digging the more fast paced style of editing! You can slow down just a bit but I like this style in general
Feedback has been shared with the new editor 😂
Coach significantly improved the editing quality and thought we won't notice 🔥🔥
Nice to see you tying new things out on the channel bro nice editing. The writing and images can help cement what your saying at times.
The camera keeps flickering tho not sure what's going on there. The music could also be off-putting for some. Also to much editing can take away from your raw simple branding that the channel has been built upon, which I'd still like to see. I'm sure you'll be looking at the feedback and adjusting accordingly keep up the great work dude 👍
Good vid Faz 👍 very thought provoking.
Had to listen back a couple of times to make sure I fully understood (was having a slow moment 😅) but your argument makes perfect sense now 🔥
Like what have done with this video, needs a bit of fine tuning but you still got your message across.
Well said. Also I have never, until now, met an athlete that kept growing over the years of training using the same weight on the bar that used to as a beginner.
I kept adding sets and now i do 500 sets for my calves, no wonder my workout lasts 2 days,rhabdo💀
I did so many calf raises my ankle broke, immediately popped a tape measure around and it showed a 300% increase in size
Take THAT low volume losers
I’d like to see you talk with Sika Strength about this. While I agree with the majority of the content they produce, I do think there volume recommendations are flawed. I think it would be interesting to see a discussion by two intelligent creators that have different viewpoints.
Do they recommend high volume? I remember them talking about it and they said something like 5x10 to them is high volume.
Never heard of him until today, I had a very brief glance through his RUclips page and he seems to have a good vibe.
@@movestattoo4561 They definitely are proponents for higher volume. On many occasions they have talked about volume being king for hypertrophy. I agree with 95% of there stuff, I just think they’re a bit misinformed on how to train for hypertrophy
@@BigChungus553 oh okay, I remember them saying that volume being king for hypertrophy (and I obviously disagree) but then later heard them saying something about high volume and saying that doing 5 sets would be high volume so I’m a bit confused about their actual recommendations. They have great content anyways.
@@movestattoo4561As someone interested in both circles, it is likely in the context of barbell work and strength progression. For example, a 5x8-10 on squats and romanian deadlifts in a single session would be plenty sufficient
The editing on this man, actual tears hahahha.
As someone who I think is an intermediate lifter, with my best lift being a 280 bench press at 180 bw after 2.5 years of lifting, I have only been doing 8-15 sets per muscle group a week with 3 full body workouts and am still seeing progress. My background before this was distance running so I really started from 0. I doubt my training is “optimal”, but my advice would be to do the least amount of sets needed to see noticeable progress and to tweak form/intensity/exercise selection when staling out, then to increase set volume if all else fails.
editing is stellar today! i am getting flashes on my screen though
The new editing is top notch 👌👌
I cannot do high volume to begin with because I have a job.
I love u but the flickerong makes me eyes hurt. Cannot stand this.
Hey Fazlifts, great video! I have a question about the tactician. As far as I know, you are supposed to select 3 variations, but only 2 are selected in the training plans. When do I do the 3rd? Thank you very much!
Great! This also explains that people in studies gain 5%ish in just 2 months on average.
Swelling is a great point.
Remember the One Day Specialization plan that gave like an inch of growth after 12-24 arm workouts over a 12 hour day (or whatever?
It worked. For a couple days you looked like Adonis. I call it the "Im going to the club tonight and won't be going home alone plan"
60% of the time, it works every time
Haha right, I remember that. That was the inspiration for Rich Piana's all day arm workout i believe. It's a classic grift.
Hilarious thing is, it's now being used as the basis for instagram-hypertrophy research studies!
For large muscle groups like quads, chest, max I've been able to do for any length of time is 12-15 sets. Honestly though, I didn't see better progress so why bother? I do a lot for the back, but that's traps, lats, erectors, rear delts, etc.
Please never edit your videos like this again
if i had to guess, greg’s idea is 8 week study strength gains on newer exercises are so disproportionately neural that changes in hypertrophy, let alone any masked by accumulated fatigue, may not necessarily be able to contribute enough to be statistically significant differences. i read the article and he points to neither energy deficits or going past 1.5g/kg protein to affect strength changes in either direction which suggests less that “they are doing nothing for growth” but rather “noobs just learning to bench press will gain practically the same lbs on the bar”.
which im sure i dont agree 100% with specific assertions and dont think volume should be cranked infinitely but at least its not a misunderstanding of physiological mechanisms.
Again I say this multiple times in the video... That only accounts for disproportionate strength, which is the OPPOSITE of what the study shows which is disproportionate SIZE
The argument you're using here, which is what Greg also said, is arguing for the opposite relationship to the one it's defending
@
to reword, you are describing the relationship between strength and size accurately. and i do believe edema is likely and usually end up around 10 sets per week.
-
but let’s say increasing to 20 caused more growth. the strength data “should” reflect that but this effect might not pass statistical significance tests if it’s being greatly overshadowed by the neural gains of a novice learning to bench press, the extra hypertrophy being marginal, and fatigue masking performance.
@
end of the day i imagine we both do more moderate volumes but practicality/fatigue management/injury risk/asymptotically diminishing returns feel more compelling than “well studies dont show strength increases past 8 sets over an 8 week study”.
also a showerthought that many powerlifters do “volume blocks” which seem to have a “delayed” payoff to strength
@@justasquatspecialist we're not just talking 20 here, we're talking 50+ and there was NO flattening of the line at all. It was just straight linear into oblivion. So no, occams razor the simplest explanation works here. It is swelling and taking measurements too early.
Logically you know I'm right
I think you're bending over backwards irrationally defending the study, when you know full well what you're suggesting simply doesn't happen in reality
@ yes i agree that extreme volumes don’t make sense. i just wanted to see greg’s argument from whatever angle made the most sense. which it might for reasonably high volumes and lifters in the timeframe of one study.
but as he says in the article, within your own training it’d make sense to use strength as a much closer proxy.
This is something that has bugged me forever with S&C.
The argument that "you have strong skinny people, therefore people that bigger dont necessarily get stronger"... who? Who grows muscle without getting stronger? Not a higher powerlifting total, but actually stronger? NOBODY that's who.
It must be even more frustrating for you as a physique coach
Exactly! People just assume the relationship works both ways, when it doesn't! But they can come to that conclusion when they ignore all the physiological data and the basics of how muscle is built
I'd love to believe Greg has just been ignorant on this topic, because the alternative is much worse.
great video Faz!!
Is it coincidence that Fazlifts and gvs decided to upload a video about training volume at the same time
Great point about muscle swelling. I haven’t heard anyone else talk about that.
Can you please tell me if this is a good workout for beginner (I’m 30m, 6ft, 120lbs).
Mon and Fri
3 sets inverted ring rows (can add weight for progression)
3 sets push ups (can add weight for progression)
3 sets DB goblet squats
2 supersets bi/tri/side delt
Wed
3 sets chin ups (can add weight for progression)
3 sets incline DB bench press
3 sets DB goblet squats
Thank you
I'm used to jump cuts, but I'm finding these jump cuts kind of distracting and actually making it harder to pay attention to what you're saying. I'll come back the video later to finish it because I'm genuinely interested in the topic. Hopefully I can focus better on a second watch/listen.
Yo faz, hope you're good mate, just wondering if you know in what video you talked about progression markers and criteria, i've been searching for it for ages now can't remember which one b=mentioned it in, any help would be much appreciated cheers mate have a class day! and enjoy your cardio
This? I had it bookmarked ruclips.net/video/FkMlKpiE7gc/видео.html
The last few videos have had a really distracting flicker, even before this new style one with all the edits. I like Faz’s content and can understand taking risks and experimenting here and there. Just leaving feedback as the video quality has gone down a bit recently.
Doin but if this at present over the two weeks. Basically no. Supplements. And. Just. Maintenance training. And just. Let the body settle So great video great timing ⏱️
Informative Video but the Music in the background is a bit distracting.
How come power lifters have more strength than bodybuilders with comparably larger muscles?
Because strength can be built without a corresponding increase in size.
But actual muscle size cannot be built without a corresponding increase in strength.
Do you understand this now Billy? The relationship only works one way
Faz with an intro and editing???!!!
love your stuff. but the new editing is too fast. unwatchable for me.
I think Greg definetly has a bias towards high volume because he preached volume is king for such a long time. The hypertrophy data we have is absolute bs in many regards. Muscle swelling beeing misinterpreted as actual myofibrilar hypertrophy and studies with short rest periods and low proximity to failure even more shifting the dose response relationship in favour of volume and different hypertrophy labs measuring completely different effect sizes for a 8 week duration with some labs measuring a multiple of what we would commonly except over 8 weeks. 5-8rm strength in advanced lifters is by far the best proxy we current have for actual myofibrilar hypertrophy.
Well stated
Love your channel mate but the editing on this video sucks, thought i was having an epileptic fit with missing time 😂😂
You could have done better here, Faz. This is what Greg wrote in the same reddit thread that you pulled the quote at 4:00 from:
" So, I do actually think that changes in strength are decently reflective of hypertrophy, but only in specific circumstances (which just so happen to be the specific circumstances that would be most relevant to most serious trainees):
If training status is already fairly high
If you're assessing strength in exercises you're already quite skilled with
If your approach to training remains fairly consistent (for example, if you always do sets of 8-12, and you get stronger for sets of 8-12, you're probably gaining muscle. But, if you always do sets of 8-12, you test your 1RM, then you run a peaking block with sets of 2-5 reps and that boosts your 1RM, I don't think that this increase in your 1RM tells you much about hypertrophy)
If you're assessing strength changes over a reasonably long time scale (strength changes over one year should be more indicative than changes over 6 months, which should be more indicative than changes over 3 months, which should be more indicative than changes over 1 month, etc.).
But, notably, it's very rare for a study to meet all of those criteria. Many studies use untrained or recreationally trained subjects, exercises the subjects may be unfamiliar with (or, even if they're familiar with the exercise at a high level, the study may require technique changes. For example, if you're a bodybuilder who tends to squat above parallel, a study may require you to squat below parallel. You'll get some pretty robust "strength gains" just from familiarizing yourself with below-parallel squats, regardless of the muscle growth you experience), training interventions that differ in meaningful ways from the ways the subjects were training before the study, and fairly short training interventions lasting around 8-12 weeks, on average.
So, I think it's simultaneously the case that:
On an individual level, strength changes can be (and often are) a pretty good indicator of hypertrophy
Due to the characteristics of the studies that tend to be published, strength changes reported in the literature are typically a fairly poor indicator of hypertrophy at a group level within and between studies."
Yeah you've written this quite confidently here "You could have done better here, Faz" and quite rudely actually, but your argument is still just as vague as Greg's initial argument.
The characteristics of the studies are that they are hypertrophy studies. We're not discussing strength studies here, and if you have an issue with the criteria then you're entitled to that but the data are what the data are.
So your point is easily dismissed.
If you do make a reply here, first of all ensure it's a more well thought out reply and secondly do so in a more respectful way than your initial statement here. I'll overlook that once because you're probably quite brave behind your keyboard.
I'll even make it easy for you; all you need to do is tell me how we can get myofibrullar growth without a concomittant increase in strength. This is the same thing I said to Greg in the video. Just tell me, what is the physiological basis for muscle fibers becoming thicker and larger but there being no increase in strength.
I'll save everyone the wait, you won't be able to because there simply is NO basis for that to happen ever, period.
You come in here and you think you're cooking. You're not going to cook, because you're not even in the kitchen at this point.
@@Fazlifts Well you're right. My comment was rather rude and didn't give you much to engage with. So I would like to apologize for that.
I definitely had kind of a kneejerk reaction here and the "you could have done better here" was my initial reaction towards your video because I had the impression that you argued against a position that Greg doesn't hold. On top of that it felt disingenious to reduce his reasoning to that one sentence from the beginning of a several paragraph long comment which also is only one of several equally long comments within that same thread.
But that's all feeling and impression. I read the article and the reddit thread when it was still new, so my memory might be a bit hazy. I'll review this video, watch the new one - which brought me back here, youtube notifications for comments are awfull - and skim over the article aswell as the explanations on reddit and get back to you with something more substantial if my points of contention still stand.
Anyways, I was out of line and hope you can accept my apology.
Good quality, Faz, but it almsot seems a bit jumpy
Excellent vid. I can accept outliers, those natural's who seem to do incredible volume (from my perspective) and have an amazing physique (GVS), and those natural's who run a very abbreviated program and again have amazing results. What always struck was a push to exploit insecurity, which for a natural who is more committed is there to a greater degree than those who take the steroid road, for a natural has to make the most of what THEIR body is capable of.
I have tried higher volume (for me, lol, would be low for some), drawn both by the promise of results, and as well, a legitimate enjoyment of training. But all I got for my efforts was fatigue and injury. So, I returned to simple basics, 4 - 5 very hard sets (to failure) drinking in a lot of rest in between sets so as to maximize performance on each set. My strength progressed, and I got some size. Am not the biggest guy. But compared to the non-lifting population there is a massive difference.
Too, on an unrelated note, good to see you experimenting with different video editing formats, looking forward to your growth in this area as you arrive at what you consider best for your message. Aesthetic matters (not just with the body) - and while there are the puritans who insist that you must just sit in front of a camera and talk for it is only the info that matters, they fail to recognize that there are other audiences out there without such sensibilities, and at the end of the day, if you want the message you cherish to reach the widest possible market (and it needs to), then there is nothing to be lost by experimenting with alternative formats.
Thanks for the encouragement
Prefer the old format. For me I watch your videos because of your no bullshit no smoke and mirrors format. Too much going on in this for me.
Faz is the man
Great video
Love your videos Faz but the music, graphics and constant jumping around was too distracting. Prefer your normal style.
keeping me sane faz cheers. Ya really making sure to just continue with my plan (that works for me) without fear of not doing enough volume.
I will say that my OHP has stalled around 70kg (4 sets of 4-6, 2x per week) for a while now, I am quite tall 6'3/193cm and 24 but lifting since 15, so still very early in my game - not saying as a crutch just reflecting on my frame, body mechanics and that I clearly have a lot of progression left to go. I feel like I'm getting something out of staying at this weight but is sitting at the same weight for 3 ish months a sign I need to change something or keep grinding? (my form and intensity are good btw) Big fan and would love your thoughts!
Edit: I run full body 3x a week, I'm doing my masters so cannot fit more days in at the moment. Have debated pulling volume lever but alongside the isolation work i do for shoulders, I am skeptical about my recovery in that situation (I do behind the neck OHP on the smith).
I'd need to do a consultation with you and dig into your whole routine
the words are cutting through like a knife
Isn't failure proximity showing us the opposite relation to the one you are a supporter of? As far as I know, training closer to failure is better for hypertrophy, but in studies showing that it also has no impact on strength - training on low RPE is not worse for it than training all out. If more growth always equals more strength, shouldn't it be shown there too?
You guys aren't even trying now
@Fazlifts could you tell me what am I getting wrong, because I am really curious about your thoughts on the matter? Thanks in advance
Video quality is just absolutely fantastic 🔥
You’re right, like how could a muscle grow and not get more efficient at producing force? Like why would it grow at that point? Just adding sarcomeres for aesthetics?
Yeah totally, it was a weird counter-argument he used.
He said you can get stronger without getting proportionately larger, so it must work the other way. Very strange way of defending his bias. I do think that's why he got angry about it, he was wrong and too invested to admit it.
@ you’d have to argue that the additional contractile units or whatever added was for a different function other than producing more force. The additional sarcomeres are just chilling? Moral support. How would a bicep grow and not more efficient at bending the elbow? Unless Greg thinks that at some point the muscle fibers would get better at handling more sets and preventing damage?
@@finnianfanning3136 well that's the thing, he didn't even attempt to offer a physiological explanation
He seemed to offer quite a vague sentiment, just that 'the relationship isn't clear' and stuff like that.
@@Fazlifts Eric Helms also said something similar on Data Driven Strenght podcast. Now I wasn’t listening properly so can’t remember but he was very dismissive of swelling claims.
I think the issue is that these guys don't actually consider the physiological data, or really any of the greater exercise science field. So that gives them a very narrow view. They're only looking at the very small instagram-hypertrophy community and their research data, not the wider field
I think this is very often why some of their studies just leave everyone scratching their heads, because they don't make any sense. They're not grounded in the greater body of evidence we have.