Also super interesting about the tightrope walking around an hour and twelve minutes in. Sort of the state of my training, doing a lot, doing it hard, and carrying around quite a lot of fatigue most of the time, but seeing hints of progress especially if that is allowed to dissipate occasionally.
I recently began using the sample hypertrophy plans in the 2nd Ed.. I observed that the intermediate plan was easily sustainable for me based on my overnight heart rate and heartrate variability. When doing the advanced plans over several cycles my morning heartrate didn't change much but my heartrate variability decreased and came back up during the deload week.
How do we square the deload research with the rest of the volume research? It seems to show equivalent gains with significantly less volume in one group, indicating fatigue management plays an important role. And yet, fatigue doesn't seems to hamper gains all the way up to 52 sets. What is the missing piece here?
1. Deload Research and Fatigue Management --Deload studies often show that periods of reduced intensity or volume can maintain, and in some cases even enhance, hypertrophy and strength gains. This underscores the importance of fatigue management, as excessive fatigue can impair recovery and performance, leading to suboptimal results. --The benefits of deloading suggest that accumulated fatigue, if left unchecked, might mask an individual’s true adaptive potential. Deloads allow for recovery and the expression of those adaptations. 2. High-Volume Studies and Lack of Fatigue Impact --Studies showing hypertrophy up to very high volumes (e.g., 30-52 sets per muscle group per week) indicate that as long as recovery resources are sufficient (nutrition, sleep, etc.), individuals can adapt to very high workloads without plateauing. --This doesn't necessarily contradict fatigue management principles. Instead, it suggests that individuals who tolerate high volumes may not accumulate maladaptive fatigue as quickly as those who benefit more from deloads or lower volumes. 3. The Missing Piece: Individual Recovery Capacity --The discrepancy likely stems from individual differences in: Recovery capacity: Genetics, lifestyle, nutrition, and sleep all influence how well one recovers from training. --Fatigue tolerance: Some lifters are better at managing fatigue, allowing them to sustain higher volumes without impairing performance or hypertrophy. --Adaptation timelines: Lifters with higher recovery capacity might not need frequent deloads, while those with lower capacity benefit from periodic reductions in workload. 4. Stimulus-to-Fatigue Ratio (SFR) --Deload studies suggest that maximizing the stimulus-to-fatigue ratio is crucial. Training approaches that prioritize effective sets with minimal fatigue (e.g., not always training to failure, lower volume with sufficient intensity) may produce results comparable to high-volume protocols while minimizing fatigue. --High-volume protocols, while effective, may accumulate unnecessary fatigue in many individuals, leading to a less efficient pathway to hypertrophy. 5. Study Designs and Contextual Factors --Population Differences: High-volume studies often involve well-trained individuals with higher recovery capacities, while deload studies might involve more general populations or lifters prone to overtraining. --Methodological Variance: Studies may differ in the metrics used to measure hypertrophy, the training protocols employed, and the population studied, all of which can influence outcomes. 6. Practical Application: Balancing Volume and Recovery --Auto-regulation: Adjusting training volume and intensity based on readiness and performance can help balance fatigue and hypertrophy. --Hybrid Approaches: Alternating periods of higher and lower volumes might capitalize on both the benefits of high volume and the recovery advantages of deloading. --Individualization: Training needs to be tailored to the lifter’s recovery capacity, goals, and current training state. Takeaway The missing piece seems to be the interplay of individual recovery capacities and the stimulus-to-fatigue ratio. High volumes can work if recovery resources match, but for many, intelligently managing fatigue through deloads or reduced volume may provide equivalent results more efficiently. This suggests a nuanced approach to programming is needed, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.
I’m still a bit confused on the table 2A the description column. Are you supposed to add that to minimum volume 4 sets or the volume within the tier row? For example, Is it referring to how many additional sets needed + minimum 4 sets to see further growth? For example 4 + 6 sets = 10 sets to see more measurable growth vs 4 sets. Or is it how many sets needed in addition to 5-10 range to see more growth (now 11-16 sets after adding the listed 6)?
The study you're referring to is "Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis" by Refalo et al., published in Sports Medicine in 2023. This research systematically reviewed and analyzed the impact of training to failure versus stopping short of failure on muscle hypertrophy. The study concluded that training to failure or stopping short of failure did not meaningfully influence the interaction between rest interval duration and muscle hypertrophy.
The study you're referring to is likely "The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength in Resistance-Trained Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" by Androulakis-Korakakis, Fisher, and Steele, published in Sports Medicine in 2020. This research examined the effects of performing a single set of 6 to 12 high-intensity repetitions with weight loads around 70% to 85% of the participants' one-repetition maximum (1RM), conducted 2 to 3 times per week over 8 to 12 weeks. The findings indicated that such a regimen can lead to increases in 1RM strength for exercises like the bench press and squat in men who engage in resistance training, though the strength gains were suboptimal compared to higher volume training protocols
Would be interesting to do a study where 2 groups did the exact same routine but at opposite times. So high volume for the first half for 1, then low for the first half and high for the second half for the second group. Then we could at least start to estimate the difference due to swelling.
Whom are they reffering to when speaking about muscle swelling? (As I understand, somebody must have made claims that a huge part of muscle growth in many/most/all of the studies are due to muscle swelling.)
@@wesrobinson7506 Thank you for the answer. I must say that it is hard to believe that Lyle and Sam Buckner would express such strong statement the way Eric makes it sound. (I'm not saying it is impossible that they made such statements. Just hard to believe knowing how they communicate.) I am not familiar with Paul Carter.
I Wonder how i should track bulgarian split squads or frontsquads, when i get heavier is this additional weight which means same reps and barweight=progress or is it even the opposite?
Dr. Helms was speaking my mind right from the get go. Less so regarding muscle swelling because i don't fully understand it, but moreso the about caution DDS podcasts take. Of course it's noble and understandable as scientists why DDS takes so much caution with claims and different perspectives, but as a listener I often finish 5 hours thinking what did I even learn? That's for me personally, at least. I think there's a level of balance in discussing findings which DDS is maybe too far on the "charitable" side.
counter argument: There's not low and high hypertrophy responders to increased volume. There's low and high swelling responders to high volume. Some people are jsut more resistant to swelling. Also, if you listen to the Longesvity Muscle podcast which interviews the top natural bodybuilders of the last several decades. A HUGE majority of them used low volume approaches. Also, you can't disregard the anecdotal evidence of the low volume coaches clients eg Fergerli and Carter etc. Their clients claiming increasd growth swtiching to their programming. I think it makes the most sense to start with very low volume and then just assess progress then add sets to test repsonse. Also, does it make sense to triple your volume if lets say you increase your quad circumfrance by one inch in 6 months with 18 sets if you could have gained that inch with 6 sets in 9 months.
Big Volume strikes again!
Also super interesting about the tightrope walking around an hour and twelve minutes in. Sort of the state of my training, doing a lot, doing it hard, and carrying around quite a lot of fatigue most of the time, but seeing hints of progress especially if that is allowed to dissipate occasionally.
Yes 3rd edition let's go!
This is going to be gold!
this is excellent and deserves more views than it has. i feel i understand the "muscle swelling" argument being less impactful than it is stated now.
I recently began using the sample hypertrophy plans in the 2nd Ed.. I observed that the intermediate plan was easily sustainable for me based on my overnight heart rate and heartrate variability. When doing the advanced plans over several cycles my morning heartrate didn't change much but my heartrate variability decreased and came back up during the deload week.
How do we square the deload research with the rest of the volume research? It seems to show equivalent gains with significantly less volume in one group, indicating fatigue management plays an important role. And yet, fatigue doesn't seems to hamper gains all the way up to 52 sets. What is the missing piece here?
Very important points, volume per week driving hypertrophy.... But pauses below a certain amount don't break this relationship?
1. Deload Research and Fatigue Management
--Deload studies often show that periods of reduced intensity or volume can maintain, and in some cases even enhance, hypertrophy and strength gains. This underscores the importance of fatigue management, as excessive fatigue can impair recovery and performance, leading to suboptimal results.
--The benefits of deloading suggest that accumulated fatigue, if left unchecked, might mask an individual’s true adaptive potential. Deloads allow for recovery and the expression of those adaptations.
2. High-Volume Studies and Lack of Fatigue Impact
--Studies showing hypertrophy up to very high volumes (e.g., 30-52 sets per muscle group per week) indicate that as long as recovery resources are sufficient (nutrition, sleep, etc.), individuals can adapt to very high workloads without plateauing.
--This doesn't necessarily contradict fatigue management principles. Instead, it suggests that individuals who tolerate high volumes may not accumulate maladaptive fatigue as quickly as those who benefit more from deloads or lower volumes.
3. The Missing Piece: Individual Recovery Capacity
--The discrepancy likely stems from individual differences in:
Recovery capacity: Genetics, lifestyle, nutrition, and sleep all influence how well one recovers from training.
--Fatigue tolerance: Some lifters are better at managing fatigue, allowing them to sustain higher volumes without impairing performance or hypertrophy.
--Adaptation timelines: Lifters with higher recovery capacity might not need frequent deloads, while those with lower capacity benefit from periodic reductions in workload.
4. Stimulus-to-Fatigue Ratio (SFR)
--Deload studies suggest that maximizing the stimulus-to-fatigue ratio is crucial. Training approaches that prioritize effective sets with minimal fatigue (e.g., not always training to failure, lower volume with sufficient intensity) may produce results comparable to high-volume protocols while minimizing fatigue.
--High-volume protocols, while effective, may accumulate unnecessary fatigue in many individuals, leading to a less efficient pathway to hypertrophy.
5. Study Designs and Contextual Factors
--Population Differences: High-volume studies often involve well-trained individuals with higher recovery capacities, while deload studies might involve more general populations or lifters prone to overtraining.
--Methodological Variance: Studies may differ in the metrics used to measure hypertrophy, the training protocols employed, and the population studied, all of which can influence outcomes.
6. Practical Application: Balancing Volume and Recovery
--Auto-regulation: Adjusting training volume and intensity based on readiness and performance can help balance fatigue and hypertrophy.
--Hybrid Approaches: Alternating periods of higher and lower volumes might capitalize on both the benefits of high volume and the recovery advantages of deloading.
--Individualization: Training needs to be tailored to the lifter’s recovery capacity, goals, and current training state.
Takeaway
The missing piece seems to be the interplay of individual recovery capacities and the stimulus-to-fatigue ratio. High volumes can work if recovery resources match, but for many, intelligently managing fatigue through deloads or reduced volume may provide equivalent results more efficiently. This suggests a nuanced approach to programming is needed, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.
42 sets It is then
I’m still a bit confused on the table 2A the description column. Are you supposed to add that to minimum volume 4 sets or the volume within the tier row?
For example, Is it referring to how many additional sets needed + minimum 4 sets to see further growth? For example 4 + 6 sets = 10 sets to see more measurable growth vs 4 sets.
Or is it how many sets needed in addition to 5-10 range to see more growth (now 11-16 sets after adding the listed 6)?
Can I have the reference for the recent Dr. Refalo's study cited in 20:35 ?
The study you're referring to is "Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis" by Refalo et al., published in Sports Medicine in 2023. This research systematically reviewed and analyzed the impact of training to failure versus stopping short of failure on muscle hypertrophy. The study concluded that training to failure or stopping short of failure did not meaningfully influence the interaction between rest interval duration and muscle hypertrophy.
Yes
Can anybody share the reference from Latella and colleagues for the 1 single set to failure study at 59:13? Thanks
Found it
pure.solent.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/32824694/Manuscript_Steele_et_al._Final_Clean_accepted.pdf
The study you're referring to is likely "The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength in Resistance-Trained Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" by Androulakis-Korakakis, Fisher, and Steele, published in Sports Medicine in 2020. This research examined the effects of performing a single set of 6 to 12 high-intensity repetitions with weight loads around 70% to 85% of the participants' one-repetition maximum (1RM), conducted 2 to 3 times per week over 8 to 12 weeks. The findings indicated that such a regimen can lead to increases in 1RM strength for exercises like the bench press and squat in men who engage in resistance training, though the strength gains were suboptimal compared to higher volume training protocols
Would be interesting to do a study where 2 groups did the exact same routine but at opposite times. So high volume for the first half for 1, then low for the first half and high for the second half for the second group. Then we could at least start to estimate the difference due to swelling.
Damn the intro music 🔥
Whom are they reffering to when speaking about muscle swelling? (As I understand, somebody must have made claims that a huge part of muscle growth in many/most/all of the studies are due to muscle swelling.)
I think Lyle McDonald, Dr. Sam Buckner and I think Paul Carter
In which time stamp are they talking about muscle swelling?
@@wesrobinson7506 Thank you for the answer. I must say that it is hard to believe that Lyle and Sam Buckner would express such strong statement the way Eric makes it sound. (I'm not saying it is impossible that they made such statements. Just hard to believe knowing how they communicate.)
I am not familiar with Paul Carter.
@@orestis_marinou 13:57
Or just start with their timestamp named "Critical Analysis of Volume Research" at 12:08
@@mufasaputasa3599 you are welcome, check out revive stronger volume video with Menno, Josh, Sam and Holly he goes into it there
I 100% guarantee that I am the fattest and most under-trained viewer that you have and I am keeping it that way daggummit
💀💀💀
You two are charitable to a fault 🏆
No 😎
😄
😂😂
The biggest limitation to these studies is that it was motivated by Big Volume.
😂👍
I Wonder how i should track bulgarian split squads or frontsquads, when i get heavier is this additional weight which means same reps and barweight=progress or is it even the opposite?
Scientist discovers training by feel after 10 years
I think the volume “research” is loaded with *uckery… imo.
Dr. Helms was speaking my mind right from the get go. Less so regarding muscle swelling because i don't fully understand it, but moreso the about caution DDS podcasts take. Of course it's noble and understandable as scientists why DDS takes so much caution with claims and different perspectives, but as a listener I often finish 5 hours thinking what did I even learn? That's for me personally, at least. I think there's a level of balance in discussing findings which DDS is maybe too far on the "charitable" side.
counter argument: There's not low and high hypertrophy responders to increased volume. There's low and high swelling responders to high volume. Some people are jsut more resistant to swelling.
Also, if you listen to the Longesvity Muscle podcast which interviews the top natural bodybuilders of the last several decades. A HUGE majority of them used low volume approaches. Also, you can't disregard the anecdotal evidence of the low volume coaches clients eg Fergerli and Carter etc. Their clients claiming increasd growth swtiching to their programming. I think it makes the most sense to start with very low volume and then just assess progress then add sets to test repsonse. Also, does it make sense to triple your volume if lets say you increase your quad circumfrance by one inch in 6 months with 18 sets if you could have gained that inch with 6 sets in 9 months.