I love being able to see all this research unfold. How involved Milo and Pak are in the scene and the incredible wisdom of Brad. It makes me happy. Thanks for platforming these conversations, Steve
Wow! It’s a pleasure to see all the three doctors together in one video. They’re certainly one of my favorite trio! Dr. Brad, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Pak are three of the most prominent figures in the fitness community. I’ve learned plenty from them and I rely heavily on their knowledge. Their research has helped me tremendously! It’s an honor to listen to them. It’s really awesome to know their views on many lifting topics especially on volume as there’s a lot of debate on it. Outstanding video and highly insightful and informative discussion. Really loved watching it thoroughly from start to finish. Absolutely fantastic work. Thank you so much! All these quality conversations are very much appreciated and I’m truly grateful and indebted to all you guys for all the helpful knowledge and wisdom you share with us. Big props to you guys! 🙏💪👍
Such an awesome episode, and as other comments have mentioned such an underrated channel. Thank you for what u do to for the community. I wish some people would come on and do roundtables on these heated topics like volume and stretch mediated hypertrophy and not stick in their echo chambers. But big respect to the ones who do come on and take dissenting opinions.
Im getting dangerously close to 40, and after many years of high intensity, low volume training I am finding high volume very enjoyable, because... nothing hurts anymore! I got to heavyweight class doing low volume, but it became unsustainable and I started dreading my workouts due to various niggles and training log anxiety.
@@adamek9750 no. Depending on the exercise I do 4-5 sets and I try to select a weight to fail on the last one at a given rep range or close enough. But at this point I am so pumped I can't use the weights I used before. I had to reduce loads by about 30% from high intensity, low volume approach. And I don't know if it's novelty or what, but I've been training like that for about 6 months now and my quads and arms are their biggest ever in circumference
It all goes back to the famous quote from the world renowned exercise scientist Dr. Broseph “Lift heavy schnitzel, and eatith thy Protein to get the gainz!”
Brad makes the suggestion that people who question the muscle growth as potential swelling or damage “have an agenda” or some kind of bias. This is an unfortunate view….studies that examine swelling don’t use anywhere near this protocol. In addition, the Demas paper suggested that they could not conclude (with confidence) that there was muscle growth until the 10 or 12 week time point. They believed that that had meaningful swelling at the 3 week time point. Considering that this protocol is much more severe….swelling is a really reasonable hypothesis.
I'm a bit late to this episode, but I'm finally starting to get a decent idea of what that 52 sets at maximum actually meant. I'm doing Milo's free 3x week powerlifting program and I started at the minimum volume with accessories: 35 sets a week, 2 sets per exercise (excluding top singles for main lifts) and the maximum recommendation would be 5 per exercise. As direct + indirect volume for legs, let's say quads, it would be 14 sets per week so about half. Now if I did only one times a week upperbody at maintenance, I could surely double the leg volume, and then I could also consider upping the volume due to getting used to training and I'd already be up there at 30-40 sets per week. I was doing 3 per exercise when I was doing hypertrophy and had some isolations as well. You just never really count your full weekly set volume to have a reasonable comparison. When I was doing Greg Nuckols' free powerlifting program, it had 6 sets for squats per session for example. So in fact the 52 sets at top sounds like a really reasonable weekly volume when I consider that I seem to have always been a really low volume guy, finding increasing sets difficult and knowing what some serious experienced trainers do. And my calculation was just individual sets, it was not counting for any specific muscle, there's a lot of compounds in that powerlifting program and you could say the big 3 + overhead press (potentially even snatch when weightlifting) can count for so many muscles as direct or indirect work, let alone the accessories being indirect volume. Which is how they count the volume in research to my understanding, for the muscle in question. Also this is talking purely about seeing more muscle growth. I think what's far more common to people is that their strength levels start taking a hit, perhaps performance in general, and they just feel like they're being crushed, they don't want to hit the gym anymore and they don't even want to see the weight. Like the last week of a mesocycle where you push your numbers and maybe volumes too, is usually the one where you feel like everything that week is like pushing a big rock off your chest and you just want to stay lying down. It doesn't feel at all like you weren't growing more muscle and doing good job at building strength as well. It just feels like you can't keep going like that. Maybe this also contributes to the fact how Schoenfeld quoted the participants saying they don't need additional deload at the end of the study, they were doing that one muscle group as focus and somewhat maintaining the rest and building up that volume for some weeks which probably prolongs their mesocycle length before feeling the need to deload. And I think a ton of people misunderstood this about the volume studies, they thought it was 52 direct sets and normal training on top of that (perhaps they didn't even count how many sets of volume they would be doing as total weekly volume if they counted everything or if they counted all the direct and indirect work). I was confused like that myself when I first heard about it, I was thinking 52 sets of squats per week and normal training. And that it was answering the question of if you can train with 52 direct sets per week sustainably, that it was like a suggestion to apply in training instead of just answering the question of if you can see a stop in muscle growth from more volume.
I really would love to see, how this higher volume approaches work in the context of concurrent training (maybe something like 10 h of easy cardio/week in addition to the hypertrophy work).
Volume which I assume is sets x reps x weight. I'm curious what volume /given cycle would look like. For 2 weeks 4 weeks and so on. I find referring to sets a bit hard to digest conceptually. As far as I'm aware the correlation between volume and muscle growth has been shown. So it seems to me it supports a already held consensus. Although increasing sets on a cycle defiantly seems like an interesting idea. A program that attempts to reduce sets on one group long enough to increase sensitivity while increasing sets on another group for hypertrophy. Are there any studies on the minimum reduction to increase sensitivity .
Right now we don't have sufficient evidence to say you need to volume cycle & that there is a re-sensitisation effect, but there is some mechanistic rationale and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. - Steve
A mate of mine from the gym, actually just told me yesterday that a new study had come out that showed that 6 sets a week is maxing out the hypertrophy. 🤯 Me, I’m doing around 20-25 🤷♂️
As a natty, when you hit plateau after 2-3 years of training there is sometimes nothing you can do, you cannot add any more weights and you already used all the intensity techniques. You start training 1 body part twice a week and bulk, but after that you can't do anymore, you can only add volume for body parts. Of course about you do that there comes a day you can't add anymore volume.
This makes no sense, you still progress, just more slowly. Honestly I only noticed stagnation while following RP training and implementing deloads. Now I use evolving rep ranges, never plateau, never deload, always train.
72 HRs. You can do 48 as long as your fully recover, but the problem is, for how long??? Sooner or later you will burn out working the same muscle every 48. (72) is the sweet spot. Once in a while you can do 48. @christopherhall7216
that's way too overly reductionist and doesn't even touch on volume like this conversation does. If it was that simple, we would all have the muscle mass of advanced bodybuilders
I don't know what level your in, but why don't you try it out. Hit every muscle every 72HR's. I like to start by doing, 2 warm up sets with VERY light weight close to failure. Example.. (30 reps set 1) ( 25 reps set 2) Both close to failure and 3 heavy sets per body part. You can put a body part or 2 on maintenance by doing just one set to failure per a particular muscle until the next workout. There are a few ways to pull this off. @@Guyfr0mcr0wd
48 works too, but only for a short time. How long can you keep up working a muscle HARD 3 times per week? You will burn in 2 months at best..@@TravisH-nm9fy
man 52 sets legs, taken close to failure? How can you survive this? 🫣 I mean im already done mentally and fatigue wise after 3 sets of Hack Squats and maybe 3 sets of leg extensions 😄
They don't, the users perception of failure is incorrect. There's no way the entire cohort of participants all did that successfully. The body knows 100% (failure) or 0% (dead still) as calculating RIR is impossible as it's a moving metric. Brad uses noobs to train, even the ones he posted about on socials were gym noobs that couldn't go to muscular failure if they tried, or it would be to a much lesser degree
@@carnivore-muscle i couldn't believe it also. I do ppl 2 times in about 9 days and honestly its always on the edge of getting too much. And it only has 10 sets of legs a week but its a mental battle
@@Yeahhoee yeah I'm of the same mind. I'm all about the minimum effective dose in regards to training. I'm currently doing 3-4 sessions per week totalling 17-22 sets for the whole body. I go HAM on every set with a time under tension of up to 120 seconds. Safe, less wear and tear, and easier to quantify and autoregulate. If I'm weak in a session, I know next time to recover harder 😎💪🏼
This is such an underrated channel. Should be so much bigger.
I guess it doesn't hit the search algorithm .
I appreciate that a lot, comments like this help, as do thumbs up & any shares & of course subs :) - Steve
Agreed
Not underrated by me 😂. But yes it deserves more subs no Q
Thank you for having us, Steve!
Thank you! - Steve
Nice, a whole hour and a half. Great saturday to be alive
Hells yea- Steve
I love being able to see all this research unfold. How involved Milo and Pak are in the scene and the incredible wisdom of Brad. It makes me happy. Thanks for platforming these conversations, Steve
Glad you enjoyed it! - Steve
Wow! It’s a pleasure to see all the three doctors together in one video. They’re certainly one of my favorite trio! Dr. Brad, Dr. Wolf and Dr. Pak are three of the most prominent figures in the fitness community. I’ve learned plenty from them and I rely heavily on their knowledge. Their research has helped me tremendously! It’s an honor to listen to them. It’s really awesome to know their views on many lifting topics especially on volume as there’s a lot of debate on it. Outstanding video and highly insightful and informative discussion. Really loved watching it thoroughly from start to finish. Absolutely fantastic work. Thank you so much! All these quality conversations are very much appreciated and I’m truly grateful and indebted to all you guys for all the helpful knowledge and wisdom you share with us. Big props to you guys! 🙏💪👍
Thank you my dude for tuning in! - Steve
Man right in time for my post deload phase! lets dig into it, thanks Steve
Enjoy! - Steve
A dream roundtable. Thank you.
You got it - Steve
Such an awesome episode, and as other comments have mentioned such an underrated channel. Thank you for what u do to for the community. I wish some people would come on and do roundtables on these heated topics like volume and stretch mediated hypertrophy and not stick in their echo chambers. But big respect to the ones who do come on and take dissenting opinions.
Much appreciated! - Steve
thanks for putting this together Steve. Very level headed conversation, that nicely tempers all the BS that was going around over this study.
Glad to hear this Cole - Steve
so much collective knowledge here! thanks for sharing!
Hope you enjoyed it - Steve
Im getting dangerously close to 40, and after many years of high intensity, low volume training I am finding high volume very enjoyable, because...
nothing hurts anymore!
I got to heavyweight class doing low volume, but it became unsustainable and I started dreading my workouts due to various niggles and training log anxiety.
Does it mean that all your sets are far away from failure?
@@adamek9750 no. Depending on the exercise I do 4-5 sets and I try to select a weight to fail on the last one at a given rep range or close enough. But at this point I am so pumped I can't use the weights I used before.
I had to reduce loads by about 30% from high intensity, low volume approach.
And I don't know if it's novelty or what, but I've been training like that for about 6 months now and my quads and arms are their biggest ever in circumference
@@naskrajuciszy could you provide us with an example day in the program? Briefly
Four experts having a chat. Awesome!!!
Thanks for tuning in and commenting as always Richard! - Steve
Aaah yess, another quality round table!❤
Thanks for tuning in - Steve
"As always" best host and guests in the industry
Too kind, thanks so much - Steve
So well done, this was amazing.
Thank you
It all goes back to the famous quote from the world renowned exercise scientist Dr. Broseph “Lift heavy schnitzel, and eatith thy Protein to get the gainz!”
Haha!
💪💥💪💥 supahset!!!
Brad makes the suggestion that people who question the muscle growth as potential swelling or damage “have an agenda” or some kind of bias. This is an unfortunate view….studies that examine swelling don’t use anywhere near this protocol.
In addition, the Demas paper suggested that they could not conclude (with confidence) that there was muscle growth until the 10 or 12 week time point. They believed that that had meaningful swelling at the 3 week time point. Considering that this protocol is much more severe….swelling is a really reasonable hypothesis.
I agree it’s a completely valid criticism. I honestly don’t fully trust Brad to be completely honest
I'm a bit late to this episode, but I'm finally starting to get a decent idea of what that 52 sets at maximum actually meant. I'm doing Milo's free 3x week powerlifting program and I started at the minimum volume with accessories: 35 sets a week, 2 sets per exercise (excluding top singles for main lifts) and the maximum recommendation would be 5 per exercise. As direct + indirect volume for legs, let's say quads, it would be 14 sets per week so about half. Now if I did only one times a week upperbody at maintenance, I could surely double the leg volume, and then I could also consider upping the volume due to getting used to training and I'd already be up there at 30-40 sets per week. I was doing 3 per exercise when I was doing hypertrophy and had some isolations as well. You just never really count your full weekly set volume to have a reasonable comparison. When I was doing Greg Nuckols' free powerlifting program, it had 6 sets for squats per session for example. So in fact the 52 sets at top sounds like a really reasonable weekly volume when I consider that I seem to have always been a really low volume guy, finding increasing sets difficult and knowing what some serious experienced trainers do. And my calculation was just individual sets, it was not counting for any specific muscle, there's a lot of compounds in that powerlifting program and you could say the big 3 + overhead press (potentially even snatch when weightlifting) can count for so many muscles as direct or indirect work, let alone the accessories being indirect volume. Which is how they count the volume in research to my understanding, for the muscle in question.
Also this is talking purely about seeing more muscle growth. I think what's far more common to people is that their strength levels start taking a hit, perhaps performance in general, and they just feel like they're being crushed, they don't want to hit the gym anymore and they don't even want to see the weight. Like the last week of a mesocycle where you push your numbers and maybe volumes too, is usually the one where you feel like everything that week is like pushing a big rock off your chest and you just want to stay lying down. It doesn't feel at all like you weren't growing more muscle and doing good job at building strength as well. It just feels like you can't keep going like that. Maybe this also contributes to the fact how Schoenfeld quoted the participants saying they don't need additional deload at the end of the study, they were doing that one muscle group as focus and somewhat maintaining the rest and building up that volume for some weeks which probably prolongs their mesocycle length before feeling the need to deload. And I think a ton of people misunderstood this about the volume studies, they thought it was 52 direct sets and normal training on top of that (perhaps they didn't even count how many sets of volume they would be doing as total weekly volume if they counted everything or if they counted all the direct and indirect work). I was confused like that myself when I first heard about it, I was thinking 52 sets of squats per week and normal training. And that it was answering the question of if you can train with 52 direct sets per week sustainably, that it was like a suggestion to apply in training instead of just answering the question of if you can see a stop in muscle growth from more volume.
great podcast steve !
Thanks! - Steve
I really would love to see, how this higher volume approaches work in the context of concurrent training (maybe something like 10 h of easy cardio/week in addition to the hypertrophy work).
19:21 19:21 19:21 19:21 Great points here. Around this mark.
Surplus training 2 minutes, Deficit training 1 minute, Maintenance 1 1/2 minutes rest between sets, always timed to be compared with last workout.
Yes FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
Volume which I assume is sets x reps x weight. I'm curious what volume /given cycle would look like. For 2 weeks 4 weeks and so on. I find referring to sets a bit hard to digest conceptually. As far as I'm aware the correlation between volume and muscle growth has been shown. So it seems to me it supports a already held consensus. Although increasing sets on a cycle defiantly seems like an interesting idea. A program that attempts to reduce sets on one group long enough to increase sensitivity while increasing sets on another group for hypertrophy. Are there any studies on the minimum reduction to increase sensitivity .
Right now we don't have sufficient evidence to say you need to volume cycle & that there is a re-sensitisation effect, but there is some mechanistic rationale and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. - Steve
A mate of mine from the gym, actually just told me yesterday that a new study had come out that showed that 6 sets a week is maxing out the hypertrophy. 🤯
Me, I’m doing around 20-25 🤷♂️
Can someone just confirm Pak and Milo are not conjoined twins and in fact two different people?
Links to other videos?
What means Washout Periode?
It was 2 weeks of I believe no training to remove the impact of previous volume. - Steve
As a natty, when you hit plateau after 2-3 years of training there is sometimes nothing you can do, you cannot add any more weights and you already used all the intensity techniques. You start training 1 body part twice a week and bulk, but after that you can't do anymore, you can only add volume for body parts. Of course about you do that there comes a day you can't add anymore volume.
What the hell are you talking about, 2-3 years?
This makes no sense, you still progress, just more slowly. Honestly I only noticed stagnation while following RP training and implementing deloads. Now I use evolving rep ranges, never plateau, never deload, always train.
It takes 2-3 years to even learn how to lift optimally. What are u on broo
You serious?
@@jackryan5766 I guess after 2-3 years, from what this guy is saying. You hit a plateau. He must not be training very hard. I don’t understand.
What a waste, not calling their podcast The Wolf Pak.
Dude you're onto something - Steve
😂😂 why didn't we all see this
That's what we wanted to call it but there's the WolfPak bag brand :/
Do this High Volume Training "Study" for a Full Year and then tell me how that's working for you. This Brad S. weekend studies are silly.
Nobody can do more than 2-3 sets of squats to failure. Period. If you're doing 20-30 sets you're wanking one off
What a strange thing to say. - Steve
@@ReviveStronger Only strange if you don't like facts.
@@ReviveStrongerhe's very correct
@@ReviveStronger learn how to train first. No, actually tell brad to learn how to train first. Then he can start doing research.
Hit ANY muscle you want to Grow , every 72HRs. The End
72 HRs. You can do 48 as long as your fully recover, but the problem is, for how long??? Sooner or later you will burn out working the same muscle every 48. (72) is the sweet spot. Once in a while you can do 48. @christopherhall7216
that's way too overly reductionist and doesn't even touch on volume like this conversation does. If it was that simple, we would all have the muscle mass of advanced bodybuilders
I don't know what level your in, but why don't you try it out. Hit every muscle every 72HR's. I like to start by doing, 2 warm up sets with VERY light weight close to failure. Example.. (30 reps set 1) ( 25 reps set 2) Both close to failure and 3 heavy sets per body part. You can put a body part or 2 on maintenance by doing just one set to failure per a particular muscle until the next workout. There are a few ways to pull this off. @@Guyfr0mcr0wd
Every 48 hours*
48 works too, but only for a short time. How long can you keep up working a muscle HARD 3 times per week? You will burn in 2 months at best..@@TravisH-nm9fy
man 52 sets legs, taken close to failure? How can you survive this? 🫣
I mean im already done mentally and fatigue wise after 3 sets of Hack Squats and maybe 3 sets of leg extensions 😄
They don't, the users perception of failure is incorrect. There's no way the entire cohort of participants all did that successfully. The body knows 100% (failure) or 0% (dead still) as calculating RIR is impossible as it's a moving metric. Brad uses noobs to train, even the ones he posted about on socials were gym noobs that couldn't go to muscular failure if they tried, or it would be to a much lesser degree
@@carnivore-muscle i couldn't believe it also. I do ppl 2 times in about 9 days and honestly its always on the edge of getting too much. And it only has 10 sets of legs a week but its a mental battle
@@Yeahhoee yeah I'm of the same mind. I'm all about the minimum effective dose in regards to training. I'm currently doing 3-4 sessions per week totalling 17-22 sets for the whole body. I go HAM on every set with a time under tension of up to 120 seconds. Safe, less wear and tear, and easier to quantify and autoregulate. If I'm weak in a session, I know next time to recover harder 😎💪🏼
@@carnivore-musclemaybe its because im not 20 anymore, who knows 😂 you cant simply throw around stuff anymore
@@carnivore-muscle Did you listen to the podcast?