After 80 years of extensive research, we have finally concluded that, the more work you do, the more you get out of it. Incredible! who would have ever guessed?
To a certain extent I think, because the more you work the more damage on your muscles, but he said damage isn't really correlated right? So it's like more work = more gains until your muscles start breaking down?
That's how science work. Hypothesis> test >results. It may sound obvious but it needs support from replicable test. So being "funny" is not necessary here
To summarize my understanding of the hypertrophy requirements. For any given set, the closer that set gets to failure, the more muscle it will build. But that's only on a set vs set basis. When you factor in total volume either daily/weekly/monthly, volume becomes the overwhelming driver of growth. So... Assuming two identical individuals, each doing 1 set. Individual #1 stops his set short of failure while individual #2 goes to failure. Individual #2 will gain more muscle for that given set. But when you allow both individuals to train with multiple sets, the individual who accumulates the most volume will see the most muscle growth on average.
I'm confused how muscle damage is related to everything, because he said that muscle damage is not correlated or predictive of muscle growth (hypertrophy). Doesn't training the extra reps to failure damage the muscle more? And shouldn't that then not have any influence on growth?
@jakebrowning2373 we are hampered by the limitations of studies there, and likely a set to failure is more hypertrophic than 1 or 2 rir. I'm confused as to why you'd ask a question that as you already stated has an answer according to the research tho, increased muscle damage isn't correlated with increased gains. Seems like the consensus remains at the most volume you can do and recover from is optimal
@@jakebrowning2373training causes both growth and muscle damage, but muscle damage itself doesn't cause growth on its own. I can tell you nothing destroyed my quads like running a marathon, but it sure as shit didn't grow my legs.
@@jakebrowning2373 As davor said, muscle damage doesn't drive any growth. That's a myth. Muscle damage actually hinders growth as you have a maximum limits on the amount of growth your body can do (systemically and on a muscle by muscle basis) and any damage will use up some of this capacity. The ideal workout for size is one that stimulates maximum growth with minimal (or no) damage. Stimulus has to be balanced with local and systemic fatigue. You stimulate more growth with 4 sets to 3 RIR than 2 sets to failure, and the 3 RIR workout is likely going to leave you with more energy and less injury risk. As I understand it if you try to add 1 more set to the failure workout you might run into a localised energy deficiency where the motor units don't engage fully but they just run out of energy so you 'fail' but it only provides you the same or less stimulus as a 3RIR set anyway, and you've just increased your recovery time. Meanwhile you can probably do 6-8 sets of 3 RIR per session before running into similar problems thus adding way more stimulus. Of course this is all statistical - individual results will vary a lot. Some will get better stimulus going to failure, others will get their best stimulus at 4 RIR with tonnes of sets, still others grow easily with fairly low volume.
@@jakebrowning2373 from my experience less sets closer to failure will be more taxing on CNS and more volume farther from failure will be much more taxing on muscle recovery. it's basically about finding a sweet spot.
Higher volume may be optimal to get "100%" of potential gainz, but ill stick with lower volume, focus on progressing reps / weight on an exercise over time and not turn training into a full time job and burn out
Well said, no point going balls to the walls for 'optimisation' only to then fall off the wagon every few months negating all the extra work, wear and tear and just overall time and effort
Have been loving the content lately, Menno! Especially the way you challenge what I think we can refer to as "widespread beliefs" in current science-based fitness content.
Menno may be challenging beliefs. But he is no iconoclast. He is simply applying principles of higher thought thoroughly. It is troubling how this can estrange one from the herd. Let us hope that he is not exiled for corrupting the youth. Then again he is so mobile such that he may have already been.
Really helpful. Because I am more interested in hypertrophy vs. strength, beginning with tomorrow’s full body workout, I will increase the reps slightly and lower the weight slightly. Also, I think that it will prolong my joint health. Note, that I’m 76. Consequently, in my world, hypertrophy really means preventing/slowing sarcopenia.
I have been following Mennos evidence based information for a year now. My first year has seen such progress that some people refuse to believe I am natural. Is surprising how much muscle I built with much lighter weights than some others use. Less risk of injury and the ability to train higher volumes is what you get. Mennos full advice(which is advanced and would take weeks to cover.)on the subject has many complications and intricacies. BTW, I am related to Dorian. We have highlander genes for type 2 with heavy skeletons. So we build muscle well. Personally I attempted to do 1 set a workout. L, I got nowhere over approximately 10 months.
Heavy Skeletons, now Thats funny. Not really such a thing as heavy bones. Try to read up on that buddy, I’m sure your in for a surprise. The thought is sweet and fun tho. Heavy bones 😂
Well, if you're not on the same drugs Dorian took, then you won't get the same results. You also won't suffer the same joint and muscle damage like torn biceps, triceps, and pecs. Not being on drugs is a good thing. Also, Mike Mentzer lifted medium to high volume. He and his brother Ray mostly trained within the 8-12 range. How do I know? I met Ray when I first began lifting at 14 or 15. He told me those were what he and Mike employed. People who trained around Mike at Gold's like former Olympia winners I knew (I competed as well) told me the HIT training was a gimmick Arthur Jones paid Mike to push. 😊
@@mattzx003 no it won’t be twice as heavy. Of course there will be a difference between a tall and a low person. But it won’t be close to twice as heavy. What makes you think that? If bored you can read this publication. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231173/
Absolutely brilliant. Your lucid deconstruction of intensity vs volume, along with the graph of muscle fiber type recruited independent of each (which happens with both), really slammed it home for me. Please keep bringing us this kind of content, Menno.
Menno and Mike MVP's! Thanks for this. Something clicked in my brain after this video. It's not that hard, but what can be hard is to be patient and always having fatigue management in mind! You might not want to peak, for example, too much strenght even if you could because your joints will be endangered! It really is how I've been seeing my training lately. Deloads and training mesos and autoregulation after some good years of experience. That or having a great coach like you guys! Cheers
Excellent point you made in the middle about neural drive leading to short term strength gains, but volume and consequent size gains being necessary for long term strength gains. Volume is king.
Hoi Menno, ik doe het maar even in het Nederlands, mijn technische Engels schiet nog wel eens tekort :-). Maar goed, in eerste instantie leuk om ook eens een Nederlander op RUclips te zien, die zelfs door Dr Mike aan word bevolen :-) Ik ben inmiddels 60 en train nu 45 jaar, met wisselend succes, als 15 jarige begonnen als powerlifter, kwam ik er al snel achter dat ik daar nou niet perse grote armen van ging krijgen, wat natuurlijk een soort van jongensdroom is of zo. Na een jaar of 3 louter en alleen maar met vooral de grote 3 en wat schouderwerk te zijn bezig geweest, wilde ik wel wat meer, alleen was er toen nog vrij weinig kennis voor handen en moesten wij het doen met een af en toe over gewaaid tijdschrift uit Amerika, met veel volume achtige trainingen op de bro split manier, ook niet alles. Ik ben mijn eigen zoektocht begonnen naar een mix tussen kracht en hypertrofie en veel fouten gemaakt en veel geprobeerd. Ten eerste valt het mij op dat in veel studies, load op de bar word gezien als hoge intensiteit, terwijl het door Mentzer vooral anders is bedoeld, namelijk trainen tot negatief falen en dat is praktisch bijna niet te doen, dan moet je veelal met een spotter werken bovendien kan ik uit eigen ervaring zeggen, dat als je vaker per week trainen wilt, die vlieger niet op gaat. Overigens kan ik mij ook niet helemaal vinden in het feit dat er een directe correlatie is tussen kracht en grootte, in een bepaalde periode later in mijn trainingsjaren ben ik mij toch weer gaan toe leggen op de grote 3, de deadlift buiten beschouwing latende, daar was ik altijd al heel sterk in, heb ik vooral op aansturing gewerkt in die periode, dus vrijwel dagelijks squatten en benchen en zonder dat ik nou echt aan massa won werd ik wel veel beter en heb mijn bench naar 24o gekregen en mijn squat ( lowbar, parallel) op 345, alles als overtuigd naturall. Ik durf zelfs te beweren dat mijn been omvang in elk geval in die periode is afgenomen. Door de jaren heen heb ik van alles geprobeerd en rond mijn 40 ste heb ik min of meer gesteld dat progressie als in spier toename een spel is voor jonge dan wel nieuwe trainees. Door de jaren heen heb ik van alles geprobeerd, van AVG tot HIT en alles wat er tussen zit en mijn eigen bedenksels. Een van de dingen die voor mij als een paal boven water staat is adaptie, je lichaam past zich toch wel aan en om een trainingsprikkel te krijgen, is regelmatig veranderen echt wel een dingetje, als je nou onbeperkt door zou kunnen groeien dan zou dat wel los lopen denk ik, maar dat is helaas niet het geval, zonder troep in je lijf dan he. Een ander ding is de comfortzone en ik bedoel, de sport kiest de atleet of zoiets, ik denk dat je als marathonloper word geboren en zo ook als krachtsporter ( slow versus fast), voor mij geld dat ik vrijwel onbeperkt singels, dubbels en drietjes kan trainen op grofweg 90% van 1 RM met korte rusttijden en dat ook nog eens lang kan doen, maar dan gebeurt er vrijwel niets, behalve dan dat ik het erg leuk vind, ga ik echter boven de 10 reps zitten, wat ik bijna als cardio ervaar dan verrek ik van de pijn en dus is dat het gebied waar ik in trainen wil, dat levert mij wel degelijk iets op. Uiteindelijk is consistent zijn, schat ik zo in de belangrijkste voorwaarde voor progressie en vooral ook het leuk vinden en je lichaam leren kennen. Waar ik nou zo benieuwd naar ben is naar onderzoek voor oudere lifters en hoe te trainen, daar ben ik nog net helemaal uit. Een jaar of 4 terug ben ik ernstig ziek geworden en ik ben bijna 40 kg af gevallen en helaas veel spiermassa, sinds een maand of 18 ben ik weer volop aan het trainen, maar ik heb nog niet de weg gevonden om een deel van de verloren spiermassa en kracht terug te vinden, ik ben nu aan het experimenteren met hoge frequente trainingen, met een relatief lage intensiteit omdat ik ook nog kickboks en ik ben inmiddels wel weer 10 kg aangekomen, maar toch heb ik nog niet echt de formule gevonden, ik ben heel benieuwd of daar wat data van is en dan met name bij ervaren oudere trainees? In elk geval blijf ik je volgen!
A great way to train is what I call a compound stack, which can easily be clustered. So start with a light weight, use as warm-up and go till you feel the burn, rest 10s then go for a heavy weight (which you usually can do about 6 or 8 reps with) you wont be able to. You'll get around 3 reps..then rest 10s again and burn out with a medium weight until your bar speed is very low. Done move to next exercise. Dont have much time to exercise but this has been great and I've been injury free for first time in forever
At this point I do systematic drop sets for pretty much everything. Start off heavy, and continuously try to push the limit, and then just keep dropping by 10% each set, hit an AMRAP, 2-3-minute break, drop by 10% again, and so on. Find the exact amount of times you have to drop to where you just recover in time for your next workout and watch what happens to your strength and size.
Was man auch nie vergessen sollte : beim HIT Training wird ja nicht wirklich nur 1 oder 2 Sätze gemacht. Da sind ja Aufwärmsätze davor. Und wenn man sich einen Dorian beim Training ansieht, kann man sich gut vorstellen, dass dem seine Aufwärmsätze wahrscheinlich so hart sind wie die Arbeitssätte bei den meisten anderen. Ich fang zum Beispiel auch meistens mit 15 WH an. Nicht wirklich bis zum Versagen, aber schon so, dass man's spürt und nicht mehr viel mehr gehen würde. Dann Gewicht rauf und WH runter. 12, 10, dann runter auf 6 manchmal auch nochmals auf 3-4 (vor allem wenn ich Plateaus überwinden muss) und dann zum Schluss nochmal einen um die 10 rum. Zum Auspowern und um Volumen zu steigern. So, welche Sätze zählen da jetzt als Arbeits und welche als Aufwärmsätze ?
Now I have a question: Menno, if volume is much more important predictor for muscle mass comparing to going to failure, does it mean that I will gain more muscle doing, for example, 10 sets with 4 reps in the tank rather than doing 5 sets with 1 rep in the tank? Provided that I don't care about my session duration.
Excellent video, thanks! Did the 2 meta-analysis make sure to include only studies that tested true muscle-fiber growth (vs. swelling/pump/water retention)? I'm sometimes worried that higher volume primarily increases swelling/pump/water retention, which is then interpreted as hypertrophy.
I've read that increasing muscle force by doing things to increase motor unit recruitment like lifting the weight as fast as possible doesn't necessarily mean more mechanical tension because the faster speeds mean each single muscle fiber produce a lower magnitude of mechanical tension. I just wanted your thoughts on that ?@@menno.henselmans
Great video really appreciate your science backed approach. For advanced lifters reading this curious what ratio you do pure STRENGTH training vs high volume for hypertrophy? Would say every three months take 2-3 weeks out and focus purely on strength? One month per six etc? Or do you incorporate strength each week say start with a few sets of heavy 4-6 rep bench presses then do higher volume lighter sets to get the volume in and not hurt recovery?
The caveat with Dorian and Mentzer is that many don't understand the whole 1 set to failure, is an extended set with multiple intensification techniques that further increase TUT. Then consider multiple exercises per bodypart. Plus the warmup sets to get there.
Menno you think this might be the reason why sliding/changing rep range (possibly indirectly also changing your RIR, proximity to failure) after a while seems to be beneficial. (Like not always working in 6-8 your entire life but also sometimes go up to the 10-15 etc). Because intensity increases strength more and doing higher reps increases hypertrophy more. This would mean you first build more strength, then be able to use heavier loads then you use that same load but focus on increasing reps for a while to a higher rep range. Then repeat. This would result in a beneficial cycle of increasing strength to lift heavier, then increasing reps to hypertrophy more, to be able to lift heavier again at a lower rep range and repeat. Because i always wondered why cycling rep ranges in studies seemed to be beneficial. Do you agree or do you have another theory as to why rep range / RIR cycling might be beneficial?
Best explanation I've ever seen! 2 Q's please.. 1. Would it be best to separate strength training from size training to separate days, weeks, or cycles? Or does it work do them together with say a main strength lift followed by back off sets? I guess if you can recover ok, you can do them together, but as you get older it might be better to separate them? 2. Where in a workout schedule (within a workout, days, weeks, cycles) would be best to fit in some Isometric all out effort work? I don't know whether to do a max effort Isometric before or after a max lift, or in a separate workout or cycle. Many thanks. Writing this now, I just thought, maybe I could do a 3-4 week strength cycle followed by a 3-4 week Isometric & hypertrophy cycle with the Iso done first.
My understanding is to separate them in difference cycles. I once read advice that if someone is constantly hitting a plateau with a standard BB protocol and can't shift above a certain weight, is to do a strengh only cycle, then go back to your BB cycle, it may get you over the hump. Also changing it up reduces boredom.
From my experience 3-9 weekly sets of 5-10 reps until failure is more than enough in the long run to build muscle mass. These workouts have only effective reps in their vast majority, excluding the warmups. So we are talking of brief high intensity training without losing time. The advantage is strength and hypertrophy. Until science find something really breakthrough regarding training I will keep up with this regimen.
What about Børge Fagerli's statement that alot of the volume studies are flawed bevause they measure too vlose to the training program. So the volume groups will naturally have more swelling/oedema in the muscles close to the program. So he means that the measurement should be a couple of weeks after.
TL:DR After perfecting the movement i.e. neuro adaption has been exhausted but, want to continue increasing strength gains, size/weight has to increase and this can be done through hypertrophy. Recommends 10-30 sets per week regardless of goal i.e. strength (1-5reps)/ hypertrophy (1-30 reps) P.S nothing wrong with sound proofing the room
I think it is a GREAT mistake to equal "Intensity" in the studies, which is the load with "intensity" in the Mentzer/Yates HIT sense, which is in that case is "effort" or how close you are to total muscular failure you get and not the exercise science definition with intensity=load. The Mentzer/Yates type of intensity can be achieved at any rep range. In fact it is crucial that you are taking your high rep sets much closer to failure (maybe not total failure but in near to it) for the simple fact that the higher threshold motor units won't be recruited until the last couple of reps. That is something that Myoreps (which is very high rep based) take advantage of precisely. The problem is that most people think it is very hard to push themselves close to failure on high reps. I don't think you can be too confident about how close to failure you should train just reading these meta studies. Yes, going all out training for failure all the time is, of course, idiotic. It will lead to overreach problems, possible injuries and stagnation. But on a similar note, doing high-ish volume training all the time with, say, 3-4 reps to spare is also a one way ticket to stagnation. And to treat all muscles exactly the same and say that Quads should be trained with the same volume and "effort" (as in HIT intensity sense that is hinted on in the video here) as, say, biceps is probably very wrong. Yes, you didn't say that explicitly here, but I think that has to be taken into account. You will burn out totally if you go all out total failure for Quads with a very high volume. Or, another example, doing deadlifts in the same way with very high volume several times per week. For Biceps it is a different matter of actually where you are actually able to go beyond failure and do it several times a week for periods. The systemic load is simply totally different for the two cases! Then there is the problem with matching total volumes for different loads (intensities in the exercise science sense) when doing studies. For example when doing 6 sets of 5 reps you get the same total amount of reps as when doing 2 sets of 15 reps (leaving the total weight lifted out for the moment). For the 5 rep sets you get maximum recruitment for all the reps. But for the sets of 15 you get that only for maybe the last 5 reps of the sets. And that requires the last 5 reps to be completed (ie going to near failure). And if they don't control for that and just count the number of sets, then high rep will almost always win in practice since it then almost always will lead to much more total volume (in the sense of total number of reps. And also in the sense of total amount of weight in tons lifter per exercise/muscle group). The lower volume heavy sets will take a toll on the body in all kinds of manners if you try to equal the reps of even the total weight lifted. So it is probably that, in an average per session, it makes sense to balance the reps per set in a higher rep range in combination with not too many reps to spare (pretty close to failure but not all the time) that makes it possible to make sustainable gains in the long run. On average since, as you said, it makes total sense to, at times, do heavier sessions where you gain strength. But then we are into the "periodisation territory" which is almost impossible to study
I see volume as a surrogate of frequency. Yes i can cram more volume per session but this to me is pointless as the quality suffers greatly so: load and frequency (volume)
I think the importance of training volume is not covered in this video, only the range of repetitions. But training volume is also expressed in the number of sets and is very dependent on the chosen intensity, and at the same time it has a very strong influence on the amount of time needed for recovery before the next workout.
On volume...I have my own evidence on that subject. For a 5 month period, I decided I was going to deadlift a half million pounds. I never saw as much development in my body as I did after that period. I leveled up when I did that, and I'm still holding on to some of those gains from a few years back.
@@AmirLatypov it was cluster sets in random quantities. Usually 50 reps done within 30 minutes to equal roughly 15000 pounds. Most of the sets were 315.
Hi Menno! Hypothetical question. Let’s say I increase my bench press 5RM to 150kg in a) 5 years doing ‘low’ volume and b) in 2,5 years doing ‘high volume’. All else equal, would you speculate muscle growth at the end point to be the same? The training would be done in same rep ranges. Technique the same etc. What I mean is why wouldn’t I train with the lowest volume possible that still allows progress if I don’t have a timeframe in mind. I understand that I could ‘maximize’ gains and get them faster by doing more volume, but why should I? Hope you get my point. As always, I wish you all the best and I hope you find the time to answer.
Great video. i did get confused about the sets to failures point. You say that the edge given by doing a set to failure is getting more reps and thus more TUT. but then wouldn't that mean that TUT is the king and not volume? I mean, you can just as well regard sets as TUT. How do you decide then when TUT benefits and when it doesn't? (personally I would say, if the TUT is actually high effort). I also didn't understand the point of comparing training to failure with dynamic rep# and training with fixed rep# and dynamic tension. you can still get more reps in the second scheme if you take it to failure so that would still be of benefit.
TUT is only important when you keep tension constant, which means rep tempo and the weight have to be fixed. My recent video on training to failure explains the research on training to failure in much more detail.
I don't understand why training frequency doesn't matter, as you have stated in other videos. Wouldn't a muscle recieving stimulus once on Monday, once on Wednesday, and once on Friday be completely different than recieving stimulus 3 times on Monday, and then nothing for the rest of the week?
I wonder what Reps In Reserve value will give the best muscle grow? Without equating volume. Obviously RIR0 will do less sets in the long run, and RIR5 for example, will do more than others. But the RIR5 might be not enough to growth muscle, who knows?
I've been fortunate enough to train with national level bodybuilders in the past (enhanced and natural) and the training style was very similar with everyone I trained with. It was often around 4 sets of an exercise and around 4 exercises per body part. But out of these 16 or so sets, only the last 1 or maybe 2 on each exercise was challenging. So we're looking at 4-8 "work sets" per muscle. There were also often some drop sets or something thrown in, depending on the guy. This style seemed to work pretty well for everyone I met. Can it be that the number of total set, although many weren't close to failure, made up for the lack of total hard sets?
And that’s usually on a bro split another myth science guys push is high frequency which is pure garbage as well. Most elite pros the last 30 years use 4-8 hard sets a body part a session once every 6 to 8 days. Facts.
Hey man, Gr8 content...👍👍 I have an important question, Wot ar yor thorts on heavy Drop Sets : pic a w8 that u fail at 4 reps, quickly take off a little w8 and go to failure at 4 reps again & repeat one last time and now rest and then repeat. Do 3 - 4 sets of these. Wouldnt this style be working all fast & slow fibers but with high intensity.....??? Yor thorts ar important to me. Cheers man Erwin
One important question. Given that you say volume is most important. Is in this case better to reduce your rest intervals and increase the number of sets. Such that your total number of reps will be higher, even though the number of reps per set is less? I am asking because this is the opposite of what people say. They say having 2-3 minutes of rest is very important.
Very intriguing! I'm still confused however: Are you suggesting that moderate intensity workouts, (eg 4 RIR + high volume) > HIT workouts (failure + low volume in terms of hypertrophy? Is the benefit of intensity only related to number of reps?
"Is the benefit of intensity only related to number of reps?" Menno suggested that yes. More volume equates to more time under tension. I interpret this as mechanical tension having two characteristics, the DEGREE of tension and the AMOUNT of tension.
I believe the difference between these 2 schools of thought is variably specific to genetic disposition and inclination. It's hit and miss until medical science is able to analyze an individuals proclivity towards high volume of high intensity.
well explained video, thanks. I have a question on counting hard sets. When I use a downset as my last set to not fall under my desired rep range( -10%), is that still counting? And How Do I count myo rep sets as well as lengthened partial sets ( like for back, where every repetion is a lengthened partial for me ) Is the research unclear on how to count them?
thank you for answering. And I assume using only lengthened partials for rows and pulldowns are similar to normal straight sets and count 1:1@@menno.henselmans
I do have a question though. If the so-called hypertrophy zone is between 5 and 30 reps, what happens if you're lifting a weight that you know you can hit far more than 30 reps when you're fresh but can only get 10-15 because you're exhausted. Like in the case of a drop set with deadlifts. I might get all the way down to 135 and still feel a grind around the 15-rep spot if it's my 10th set. Yet if I was doing deadlifts with 135 fresh, it's like walking on the treadmill, it can seemingly go on forever.
Oh boy. So here's what I thought I knew till now: 1/ Hypertrophy requires a high perceived effort and exhausting as many muscle fibres as possible, ie going to or very close to failure. Whereas.. 2/ Focusing mainly on neurological strength without necessarily stimulating much hypertrophy requires lots of repeated efforts done very frequently, but always done while fresh and nowhere near to failure (so typically very low reps or just singles with a load you could do several more reps with) while focusing on skill and explosive power. This is the process Dr Pavel calls "greasing the groove." Now here you seem to be saying the opposite...hmmm..am I the only one to sometimes think that the more 'studies' we get, the more confused we become? Lol
Would you say that someone whose maximum recovery ability is 1 set @1-3RIR per muscle group twice a week, may benefit from reducing frequency in order to do more sets per week? Either in a DC style split, or even a bro split?
What if i do high intensity to failure with heavy weights, but do multiple sets? All to failure. Obviously as i fatigue ill be able to do less reps per set, but all to failure..
It works, but i get mentally fatigued in a few weeks (i mean real failure). So my recovery limit of muscles isn't the problem, but mentally i can't train. And with that i mean i get ill all the time.
I respectfully disagree through anecdotal evidence training Mike Mentzer style and lowering volume . It suits my lifestyle and recovery ability and the proof being I have never looked and felt better. For most of us regular ppl that arent competitive athletes I think shorter intense less frequent workouts are definitely the way to go.
Is there any credence to attempting to combine strength and hypertrophy sets in the same workout (particularly within the same exercise)? E.g. bench 3x3 and then 3x10-15?
So by that definition 3 sets of 3RIR would be better for muscle growth than 2 sets of 2RIR? Because 2 sets of 2RIR might be 2x9-8 so 17 total reps. VS 3 sets of 3RIR at 3x8-7-6 being 21 total reps. So more volume but less effective reps so to say.
I am very interested in strengthening connective tissue as well as muscle. Is there research on strengthen tendons and good ranges for putting joints under stress in a positive way?
Or, if strength is best practiced with 5 reps or less, what happens if you're tossing around your 10-15 rep max a few times and you become so fatigued that you can eventually only hit sets of 3-5, maybe after 5 or 6 sets. Does this suddenly become "strength work?"
Is there any research on hybrid athletes? Or are the variables so grand that the results were inconclusive. I train for triathlon and also do strength training 3 times a week. That being said I have a hard time to recover (mentally too) for a leg workout after a long run, same with for upper body after swimming 6h a week.
Do vid or intensity and volume landmarks for ST. I want to do that soon but I already trained HT for 2 years? What are your recommendations for best long term strength gains
2:40 wrong...when you get to failure,not with volume ,survival mode kicks in ,your muscle compensate with growth Nd more sugars stored next session after full recovery 2:40
Menno Bro. Can you pls explain in a more simpler way. Sometimes you get too technical and all of it goes over the head. Thanks, appreciate your guidance.
Golden 3 to build muscle and strenght: 1. Stimuli(Workout) 2. Diet to build and recovery 3. Rest Build a deload or complete rest week after every program for better reaction to stimuli and not let habituation take place(the body will see the workouts as a routine and work and wont or respond less). Try a totally different routine once in a while, i switch between bodybuilding , powerlifting and cardio endurance. I had my first powerlifting workout on monday after a rest week. Its a SBD powerlifting program with lots of volume in the first weeks, my muscle has been extreme sore and i needed to sleep more than normal. This muscle soreness will be less in later weeks in the program.
I have tried less sets and more sets and yeah more sets gave me bigger muscles but it was more of an inflammation big not actual tissue big. I’m finding that 2 sets a week to roughly failure is good enough for me but I’m a novice. I’m increasing strength no problem. No I’m not quite as big but like I said it wasn’t actual muscle tissue it was more just inflammation. I’m definitely bigger right now than i was 3 months ago even with inflammation.
Another question. With high intensity. Aiming for 4-10 reps to failure at a heavy weight. As you progress and grow both physically and strenghtwise, and then continuously increase the weight so that you stay within that 4-10 rep range as you grow and lift heavier to failure.. Would you continue to grow and get stronger at a steady rate? If you are doing one set to failure per muscle group but multiple exercises, say 4 different exercises for the same muscle group. Set of incline dumbell curls. Set of barbell curls. Set of standing dumbell curls. Set of hammer curls. Would this constitute multiple sets? Your only doing one set to failure per exercise, but essentially doing multiple sets for the same musvle group?
When will they actually do a study where the sets are taken to failure where the participants can't budge the weight off the stack? I'm interested in a 30 rep set with a weight the participant can only lift 10 times in the full range of motion, vs a set of 5 which you're saying on average has similar effect in muscle growth. It's just not making logical sense based on my understanding of stress and adaptation.
wow… great great video!! i have just this general doubt about “studies”: at the end… are really those studies good for someone who has been trained for several years, pushing harder and harderd? i mean they can the standard “dude” they find in the gym, and put them on a program for the study, but the intensity, the effort, the diet, the lifestyle of this person is way different from someone who’s very serious into training e bodybuilding!! For example: training to failure is not that much important! really?? is it true for everybody of just for the average guy in the gym?
Maybe those near their genetic ceiling may get benefit from going to failure on all sets, because it allows just a little bit more total work before the muscle is done when their muscles likely won't grow by doing any less.
I don't understand this. So it doesn't matter if you do sets of 5 reps or 30 reps for size? But it does matter how many sets you do? How does that make sense? I thought time under tension was important. Surely when you do 10 sets of 30 reps you have more time under tension than if you do 10 sets of 5 reps. Can anyone explain that to me?
He says progressive overload is possible due to a good program. If you don't have enough volume, you'll not improve, therefore won't be able to progress your numbers.
What this suggest is opposite to what powerlifters do and to what Dorian Yates ,mike mentaer did..Nd I do...I might test it out ,but I doubt it's practical,volume over intensity for growth in my exp intensity over volume if going failure or close,volume digs recovery inroad not survival mode stimulus to grow
![Can the body only absorb 20 g protein per meal? [Science]](/img/1.gif)
After 80 years of extensive research, we have finally concluded that, the more work you do, the more you get out of it. Incredible! who would have ever guessed?
To a certain extent I think, because the more you work the more damage on your muscles, but he said damage isn't really correlated right? So it's like more work = more gains until your muscles start breaking down?
Exactly. Marathon runners do a lot more work than sprinters and look how much more muscular they are
Define “work”. That’s the challenge.
That's how science work. Hypothesis> test >results.
It may sound obvious but it needs support from replicable test.
So being "funny" is not necessary here
😂😂😂😂
To summarize my understanding of the hypertrophy requirements. For any given set, the closer that set gets to failure, the more muscle it will build. But that's only on a set vs set basis. When you factor in total volume either daily/weekly/monthly, volume becomes the overwhelming driver of growth. So... Assuming two identical individuals, each doing 1 set. Individual #1 stops his set short of failure while individual #2 goes to failure. Individual #2 will gain more muscle for that given set. But when you allow both individuals to train with multiple sets, the individual who accumulates the most volume will see the most muscle growth on average.
I'm confused how muscle damage is related to everything, because he said that muscle damage is not correlated or predictive of muscle growth (hypertrophy). Doesn't training the extra reps to failure damage the muscle more? And shouldn't that then not have any influence on growth?
@jakebrowning2373 we are hampered by the limitations of studies there, and likely a set to failure is more hypertrophic than 1 or 2 rir. I'm confused as to why you'd ask a question that as you already stated has an answer according to the research tho, increased muscle damage isn't correlated with increased gains. Seems like the consensus remains at the most volume you can do and recover from is optimal
@@jakebrowning2373training causes both growth and muscle damage, but muscle damage itself doesn't cause growth on its own. I can tell you nothing destroyed my quads like running a marathon, but it sure as shit didn't grow my legs.
@@jakebrowning2373 As davor said, muscle damage doesn't drive any growth. That's a myth. Muscle damage actually hinders growth as you have a maximum limits on the amount of growth your body can do (systemically and on a muscle by muscle basis) and any damage will use up some of this capacity. The ideal workout for size is one that stimulates maximum growth with minimal (or no) damage. Stimulus has to be balanced with local and systemic fatigue. You stimulate more growth with 4 sets to 3 RIR than 2 sets to failure, and the 3 RIR workout is likely going to leave you with more energy and less injury risk. As I understand it if you try to add 1 more set to the failure workout you might run into a localised energy deficiency where the motor units don't engage fully but they just run out of energy so you 'fail' but it only provides you the same or less stimulus as a 3RIR set anyway, and you've just increased your recovery time. Meanwhile you can probably do 6-8 sets of 3 RIR per session before running into similar problems thus adding way more stimulus.
Of course this is all statistical - individual results will vary a lot. Some will get better stimulus going to failure, others will get their best stimulus at 4 RIR with tonnes of sets, still others grow easily with fairly low volume.
@@jakebrowning2373 from my experience less sets closer to failure will be more taxing on CNS and more volume farther from failure will be much more taxing on muscle recovery. it's basically about finding a sweet spot.
Higher volume may be optimal to get "100%" of potential gainz, but ill stick with lower volume, focus on progressing reps / weight on an exercise over time and not turn training into a full time job and burn out
Higher volume, focus on progressing reps/weight on an exercise over time. You will be surprised how fast you start to recover.
Good for you
Yeah, top set > back off set and thats it.
Well said, no point going balls to the walls for 'optimisation' only to then fall off the wagon every few months negating all the extra work, wear and tear and just overall time and effort
Wow, that explanation on recruitment of muscle fibres is quite eye opening. The graph helps a lot to grab the concept
Have been loving the content lately, Menno! Especially the way you challenge what I think we can refer to as "widespread beliefs" in current science-based fitness content.
Menno may be challenging beliefs. But he is no iconoclast. He is simply applying principles of higher thought thoroughly. It is troubling how this can estrange one from the herd. Let us hope that he is not exiled for corrupting the youth. Then again he is so mobile such that he may have already been.
16:27 16:27 80's
Really helpful. Because I am more interested in hypertrophy vs. strength, beginning with tomorrow’s full body workout, I will increase the reps slightly and lower the weight slightly. Also, I think that it will prolong my joint health. Note, that I’m 76. Consequently, in my world, hypertrophy really means preventing/slowing sarcopenia.
Lemon mertyl gets rid of sarcoopina, especially when you take it with trt and Tongkat Ali
You’re a legend for continuing to lift and study and advance… you’re kickong sarcopenias ass I’m sure!
Great information Menno. Simple yet descriptive.
I have been following Mennos evidence based information for a year now. My first year has seen such progress that some people refuse to believe I am natural. Is surprising how much muscle I built with much lighter weights than some others use. Less risk of injury and the ability to train higher volumes is what you get. Mennos full advice(which is advanced and would take weeks to cover.)on the subject has many complications and intricacies. BTW, I am related to Dorian. We have highlander genes for type 2 with heavy skeletons. So we build muscle well. Personally I attempted to do 1 set a workout. L, I got nowhere over approximately 10 months.
Heavy Skeletons, now Thats funny. Not really such a thing as heavy bones. Try to read up on that buddy, I’m sure your in for a surprise. The thought is sweet and fun tho. Heavy bones 😂
How you train?
Well, if you're not on the same drugs Dorian took, then you won't get the same results. You also won't suffer the same joint and muscle damage like torn biceps, triceps, and pecs. Not being on drugs is a good thing. Also, Mike Mentzer lifted medium to high volume. He and his brother Ray mostly trained within the 8-12 range. How do I know? I met Ray when I first began lifting at 14 or 15. He told me those were what he and Mike employed. People who trained around Mike at Gold's like former Olympia winners I knew (I competed as well) told me the HIT training was a gimmick Arthur Jones paid Mike to push. 😊
@@HowIsThat69
Larger bones are heavier. A 7 foot tall man's femur would be at least twice as heavy as a 5 foot tall man's femur.
@@mattzx003 no it won’t be twice as heavy. Of course there will be a difference between a tall and a low person. But it won’t be close to twice as heavy. What makes you think that? If bored you can read this publication.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231173/
I've been binge watching and I f love your videos and the value that you're contributing to mankind, doc.
At 71 I'm still learning. This video confirms my own experience, such as it is.
Get on trt
I really like this no-nonsense, data-based analysis. Well done, Menno.
Absolutely brilliant. Your lucid deconstruction of intensity vs volume, along with the graph of muscle fiber type recruited independent of each (which happens with both), really slammed it home for me. Please keep bringing us this kind of content, Menno.
Your channel turns out to be a very useful and logical subscription. Thank you for your clear presentations.
So refreshing to see evidence based information so well delivered, thank you Menno.
Menno and Mike MVP's! Thanks for this. Something clicked in my brain after this video. It's not that hard, but what can be hard is to be patient and always having fatigue management in mind! You might not want to peak, for example, too much strenght even if you could because your joints will be endangered! It really is how I've been seeing my training lately. Deloads and training mesos and autoregulation after some good years of experience. That or having a great coach like you guys! Cheers
Peak too soon and you'll end up like Al Bundy.
That really cleared a lot of haze. Thanks.
Excellent point you made in the middle about neural drive leading to short term strength gains, but volume and consequent size gains being necessary for long term strength gains. Volume is king.
Hoi Menno, ik doe het maar even in het Nederlands, mijn technische Engels schiet nog wel eens tekort :-). Maar goed, in eerste instantie leuk om ook eens een Nederlander op RUclips te zien, die zelfs door Dr Mike aan word bevolen :-) Ik ben inmiddels 60 en train nu 45 jaar, met wisselend succes, als 15 jarige begonnen als powerlifter, kwam ik er al snel achter dat ik daar nou niet perse grote armen van ging krijgen, wat natuurlijk een soort van jongensdroom is of zo. Na een jaar of 3 louter en alleen maar met vooral de grote 3 en wat schouderwerk te zijn bezig geweest, wilde ik wel wat meer, alleen was er toen nog vrij weinig kennis voor handen en moesten wij het doen met een af en toe over gewaaid tijdschrift uit Amerika, met veel volume achtige trainingen op de bro split manier, ook niet alles. Ik ben mijn eigen zoektocht begonnen naar een mix tussen kracht en hypertrofie en veel fouten gemaakt en veel geprobeerd. Ten eerste valt het mij op dat in veel studies, load op de bar word gezien als hoge intensiteit, terwijl het door Mentzer vooral anders is bedoeld, namelijk trainen tot negatief falen en dat is praktisch bijna niet te doen, dan moet je veelal met een spotter werken bovendien kan ik uit eigen ervaring zeggen, dat als je vaker per week trainen wilt, die vlieger niet op gaat. Overigens kan ik mij ook niet helemaal vinden in het feit dat er een directe correlatie is tussen kracht en grootte, in een bepaalde periode later in mijn trainingsjaren ben ik mij toch weer gaan toe leggen op de grote 3, de deadlift buiten beschouwing latende, daar was ik altijd al heel sterk in, heb ik vooral op aansturing gewerkt in die periode, dus vrijwel dagelijks squatten en benchen en zonder dat ik nou echt aan massa won werd ik wel veel beter en heb mijn bench naar 24o gekregen en mijn squat ( lowbar, parallel) op 345, alles als overtuigd naturall. Ik durf zelfs te beweren dat mijn been omvang in elk geval in die periode is afgenomen. Door de jaren heen heb ik van alles geprobeerd en rond mijn 40 ste heb ik min of meer gesteld dat progressie als in spier toename een spel is voor jonge dan wel nieuwe trainees. Door de jaren heen heb ik van alles geprobeerd, van AVG tot HIT en alles wat er tussen zit en mijn eigen bedenksels. Een van de dingen die voor mij als een paal boven water staat is adaptie, je lichaam past zich toch wel aan en om een trainingsprikkel te krijgen, is regelmatig veranderen echt wel een dingetje, als je nou onbeperkt door zou kunnen groeien dan zou dat wel los lopen denk ik, maar dat is helaas niet het geval, zonder troep in je lijf dan he. Een ander ding is de comfortzone en ik bedoel, de sport kiest de atleet of zoiets, ik denk dat je als marathonloper word geboren en zo ook als krachtsporter ( slow versus fast), voor mij geld dat ik vrijwel onbeperkt singels, dubbels en drietjes kan trainen op grofweg 90% van 1 RM met korte rusttijden en dat ook nog eens lang kan doen, maar dan gebeurt er vrijwel niets, behalve dan dat ik het erg leuk vind, ga ik echter boven de 10 reps zitten, wat ik bijna als cardio ervaar dan verrek ik van de pijn en dus is dat het gebied waar ik in trainen wil, dat levert mij wel degelijk iets op. Uiteindelijk is consistent zijn, schat ik zo in de belangrijkste voorwaarde voor progressie en vooral ook het leuk vinden en je lichaam leren kennen. Waar ik nou zo benieuwd naar ben is naar onderzoek voor oudere lifters en hoe te trainen, daar ben ik nog net helemaal uit. Een jaar of 4 terug ben ik ernstig ziek geworden en ik ben bijna 40 kg af gevallen en helaas veel spiermassa, sinds een maand of 18 ben ik weer volop aan het trainen, maar ik heb nog niet de weg gevonden om een deel van de verloren spiermassa en kracht terug te vinden, ik ben nu aan het experimenteren met hoge frequente trainingen, met een relatief lage intensiteit omdat ik ook nog kickboks en ik ben inmiddels wel weer 10 kg aangekomen, maar toch heb ik nog niet echt de formule gevonden, ik ben heel benieuwd of daar wat data van is en dan met name bij ervaren oudere trainees? In elk geval blijf ik je volgen!
This was excellent, thank you. Cleared up a few niggling questions for me.
careful with the word choice there, buddy. xD
@@johannesschmitz6370 I know you're not being serious.
good xd@@DoggieFosters
This has to be one of the most informative episodes I have seen on this subject. And I’ve been training on and off for 40 years!
very good video on the subject and I dont say that often.
Very good, clear, informative. Thanks!
A great way to train is what I call a compound stack, which can easily be clustered. So start with a light weight, use as warm-up and go till you feel the burn, rest 10s then go for a heavy weight (which you usually can do about 6 or 8 reps with) you wont be able to. You'll get around 3 reps..then rest 10s again and burn out with a medium weight until your bar speed is very low. Done move to next exercise. Dont have much time to exercise but this has been great and I've been injury free for first time in forever
At this point I do systematic drop sets for pretty much everything. Start off heavy, and continuously try to push the limit, and then just keep dropping by 10% each set, hit an AMRAP, 2-3-minute break, drop by 10% again, and so on. Find the exact amount of times you have to drop to where you just recover in time for your next workout and watch what happens to your strength and size.
Thank you. Well said and very informative
Was man auch nie vergessen sollte : beim HIT Training wird ja nicht wirklich nur 1 oder 2 Sätze gemacht. Da sind ja Aufwärmsätze davor. Und wenn man sich einen Dorian beim Training ansieht, kann man sich gut vorstellen, dass dem seine Aufwärmsätze wahrscheinlich so hart sind wie die Arbeitssätte bei den meisten anderen. Ich fang zum Beispiel auch meistens mit 15 WH an. Nicht wirklich bis zum Versagen, aber schon so, dass man's spürt und nicht mehr viel mehr gehen würde. Dann Gewicht rauf und WH runter. 12, 10, dann runter auf 6 manchmal auch nochmals auf 3-4 (vor allem wenn ich Plateaus überwinden muss) und dann zum Schluss nochmal einen um die 10 rum. Zum Auspowern und um Volumen zu steigern. So, welche Sätze zählen da jetzt als Arbeits und welche als Aufwärmsätze ?
Now I have a question: Menno, if volume is much more important predictor for muscle mass comparing to going to failure, does it mean that I will gain more muscle doing, for example, 10 sets with 4 reps in the tank rather than doing 5 sets with 1 rep in the tank? Provided that I don't care about my session duration.
Excellent video, thanks! Did the 2 meta-analysis make sure to include only studies that tested true muscle-fiber growth (vs. swelling/pump/water retention)? I'm sometimes worried that higher volume primarily increases swelling/pump/water retention, which is then interpreted as hypertrophy.
I'll do a post about that matter soon. It's a very interesting confounding variable.
I've read that increasing muscle force by doing things to increase motor unit recruitment like lifting the weight as fast as possible doesn't necessarily mean more mechanical tension because the faster speeds mean each single muscle fiber produce a lower magnitude of mechanical tension. I just wanted your thoughts on that ?@@menno.henselmans
Super interessante video! Bedankt Menno!
Great video really appreciate your science backed approach. For advanced lifters reading this curious what ratio you do pure STRENGTH training vs high volume for hypertrophy? Would say every three months take 2-3 weeks out and focus purely on strength? One month per six etc? Or do you incorporate strength each week say start with a few sets of heavy 4-6 rep bench presses then do higher volume lighter sets to get the volume in and not hurt recovery?
Big thanks Menno for your work
Super valuable content, thank you very much!
Absolutely awesome content! Thank you Menno!
Very important information, thank you.
Thnaks Menno for your work !!!!
The caveat with Dorian and Mentzer is that many don't understand the whole 1 set to failure, is an extended set with multiple intensification techniques that further increase TUT. Then consider multiple exercises per bodypart. Plus the warmup sets to get there.
I love your content. Your coaching and course helped me improve so much! That being said, please buy a proper mic! 🙂
Great information, thank you!
Menno you think this might be the reason why sliding/changing rep range (possibly indirectly also changing your RIR, proximity to failure) after a while seems to be beneficial. (Like not always working in 6-8 your entire life but also sometimes go up to the 10-15 etc). Because intensity increases strength more and doing higher reps increases hypertrophy more. This would mean you first build more strength, then be able to use heavier loads then you use that same load but focus on increasing reps for a while to a higher rep range. Then repeat. This would result in a beneficial cycle of increasing strength to lift heavier, then increasing reps to hypertrophy more, to be able to lift heavier again at a lower rep range and repeat. Because i always wondered why cycling rep ranges in studies seemed to be beneficial. Do you agree or do you have another theory as to why rep range / RIR cycling might be beneficial?
Best explanation I've ever seen! 2 Q's please..
1. Would it be best to separate strength training from size training to separate days, weeks, or cycles? Or does it work do them together with say a main strength lift followed by back off sets?
I guess if you can recover ok, you can do them together, but as you get older it might be better to separate them?
2. Where in a workout schedule (within a workout, days, weeks, cycles) would be best to fit in some Isometric all out effort work?
I don't know whether to do a max effort Isometric before or after a max lift, or in a separate workout or cycle. Many thanks.
Writing this now, I just thought, maybe I could do a 3-4 week strength cycle followed by a 3-4 week Isometric & hypertrophy cycle with the Iso done first.
My understanding is to separate them in difference cycles. I once read advice that if someone is constantly hitting a plateau with a standard BB protocol and can't shift above a certain weight, is to do a strengh only cycle, then go back to your BB cycle, it may get you over the hump. Also changing it up reduces boredom.
Succinct and solid as always, Menno, good work. Any news on the Cybernetic Fitness app, and where to find your podcast?
From my experience 3-9 weekly sets of 5-10 reps until failure is more than enough in the long run to build muscle mass. These workouts have only effective reps in their vast majority, excluding the warmups. So we are talking of brief high intensity training without losing time. The advantage is strength and hypertrophy. Until science find something really breakthrough regarding training I will keep up with this regimen.
What are your thoughts in greasing the groove for Hypertrophy?
Thank u very much for this unvaluable information
What about Børge Fagerli's statement that alot of the volume studies are flawed bevause they measure too vlose to the training program. So the volume groups will naturally have more swelling/oedema in the muscles close to the program. So he means that the measurement should be a couple of weeks after.
Will do a post about that soon.
Good question
TL:DR After perfecting the movement i.e. neuro adaption has been exhausted but, want to continue increasing strength gains, size/weight has to increase and this can be done through hypertrophy.
Recommends 10-30 sets per week regardless of goal i.e. strength (1-5reps)/ hypertrophy (1-30 reps)
P.S nothing wrong with sound proofing the room
I think it is a GREAT mistake to equal "Intensity" in the studies, which is the load with "intensity" in the Mentzer/Yates HIT sense, which is in that case is "effort" or how close you are to total muscular failure you get and not the exercise science definition with intensity=load.
The Mentzer/Yates type of intensity can be achieved at any rep range. In fact it is crucial that you are taking your high rep sets much closer to failure (maybe not total failure but in near to it) for the simple fact that the higher threshold motor units won't be recruited until the last couple of reps.
That is something that Myoreps (which is very high rep based) take advantage of precisely. The problem is that most people think it is very hard to push themselves close to failure on high reps.
I don't think you can be too confident about how close to failure you should train just reading these meta studies.
Yes, going all out training for failure all the time is, of course, idiotic. It will lead to overreach problems, possible injuries and stagnation.
But on a similar note, doing high-ish volume training all the time with, say, 3-4 reps to spare is also a one way ticket to stagnation.
And to treat all muscles exactly the same and say that Quads should be trained with the same volume and "effort" (as in HIT intensity sense that is hinted on in the video here) as, say, biceps is probably very wrong. Yes, you didn't say that explicitly here, but I think that has to be taken into account.
You will burn out totally if you go all out total failure for Quads with a very high volume.
Or, another example, doing deadlifts in the same way with very high volume several times per week.
For Biceps it is a different matter of actually where you are actually able to go beyond failure and do it several times a week for periods.
The systemic load is simply totally different for the two cases!
Then there is the problem with matching total volumes for different loads (intensities in the exercise science sense) when doing studies.
For example when doing 6 sets of 5 reps you get the same total amount of reps as when doing 2 sets of 15 reps (leaving the total weight lifted out for the moment).
For the 5 rep sets you get maximum recruitment for all the reps. But for the sets of 15 you get that only for maybe the last 5 reps of the sets.
And that requires the last 5 reps to be completed (ie going to near failure).
And if they don't control for that and just count the number of sets, then high rep will almost always win in practice since it then almost always will lead to much more total volume (in the sense of total number of reps. And also in the sense of total amount of weight in tons lifter per exercise/muscle group).
The lower volume heavy sets will take a toll on the body in all kinds of manners if you try to equal the reps of even the total weight lifted.
So it is probably that, in an average per session, it makes sense to balance the reps per set in a higher rep range in combination with not too many reps to spare (pretty close to failure but not all the time) that makes it possible to make sustainable gains in the long run.
On average since, as you said, it makes total sense to, at times, do heavier sessions where you gain strength.
But then we are into the "periodisation territory" which is almost impossible to study
I see volume as a surrogate of frequency. Yes i can cram more volume per session but this to me is pointless as the quality suffers greatly so: load and frequency (volume)
went from 3x100 kg bench to 5x 120 kg in 6 weeks. after 8 months out of the gym, but with alot of muscle memory
This guy is the Dutch Andrew Huberman. Great content. You can explain very clearly and coherently. Keep it coming
This guys is way more credible than huberman
That is not the compliment that you think it is.
@@jeffbisfreeAhaha, definitely.
I think the importance of training volume is not covered in this video, only the range of repetitions. But training volume is also expressed in the number of sets and is very dependent on the chosen intensity, and at the same time it has a very strong influence on the amount of time needed for recovery before the next workout.
On volume...I have my own evidence on that subject. For a 5 month period, I decided I was going to deadlift a half million pounds. I never saw as much development in my body as I did after that period. I leveled up when I did that, and I'm still holding on to some of those gains from a few years back.
That were multiple sets to failure or just some sets to achieve the volume?
@@AmirLatypov it was cluster sets in random quantities. Usually 50 reps done within 30 minutes to equal roughly 15000 pounds. Most of the sets were 315.
Great video, thanks.
Appreciate you dude
Hi Menno! Hypothetical question. Let’s say I increase my bench press 5RM to 150kg in a) 5 years doing ‘low’ volume and b) in 2,5 years doing ‘high volume’. All else equal, would you speculate muscle growth at the end point to be the same? The training would be done in same rep ranges. Technique the same etc. What I mean is why wouldn’t I train with the lowest volume possible that still allows progress if I don’t have a timeframe in mind. I understand that I could ‘maximize’ gains and get them faster by doing more volume, but why should I? Hope you get my point. As always, I wish you all the best and I hope you find the time to answer.
Not unlikely that the person with the higher volume will have better growth as he will have accumulated a lot more tonnage during a similar timeframe
Great video. i did get confused about the sets to failures point. You say that the edge given by doing a set to failure is getting more reps and thus more TUT. but then wouldn't that mean that TUT is the king and not volume? I mean, you can just as well regard sets as TUT. How do you decide then when TUT benefits and when it doesn't? (personally I would say, if the TUT is actually high effort). I also didn't understand the point of comparing training to failure with dynamic rep# and training with fixed rep# and dynamic tension. you can still get more reps in the second scheme if you take it to failure so that would still be of benefit.
TUT is only important when you keep tension constant, which means rep tempo and the weight have to be fixed. My recent video on training to failure explains the research on training to failure in much more detail.
Time (time under tension) and space (volume) are the same thing.
🙃
I don't understand why training frequency doesn't matter, as you have stated in other videos.
Wouldn't a muscle recieving stimulus once on Monday, once on Wednesday, and once on Friday be completely different than recieving stimulus 3 times on Monday, and then nothing for the rest of the week?
I wonder what Reps In Reserve value will give the best muscle grow? Without equating volume. Obviously RIR0 will do less sets in the long run, and RIR5 for example, will do more than others. But the RIR5 might be not enough to growth muscle, who knows?
I've been fortunate enough to train with national level bodybuilders in the past (enhanced and natural) and the training style was very similar with everyone I trained with. It was often around 4 sets of an exercise and around 4 exercises per body part. But out of these 16 or so sets, only the last 1 or maybe 2 on each exercise was challenging. So we're looking at 4-8 "work sets" per muscle. There were also often some drop sets or something thrown in, depending on the guy. This style seemed to work pretty well for everyone I met. Can it be that the number of total set, although many weren't close to failure, made up for the lack of total hard sets?
Thanks you Brian I’ve been saying that since post “1. Elite bodybuilders aren’t using high volume. Very few.
And that’s usually on a bro split another myth science guys push is high frequency which is pure garbage as well. Most elite pros the last 30 years use 4-8 hard sets a body part a session once every 6 to 8 days. Facts.
Sounds likely
If ppl are doing 20-30 sets perk week per muscle near 3-1 rir good luck recovering from that.
@@TheCramer1991 i have done that,to failure 😂
Yes, more science based content please
Well explained!
Hey man,
Gr8 content...👍👍
I have an important question,
Wot ar yor thorts on heavy Drop Sets : pic a w8 that u fail at 4 reps, quickly take off a little w8 and go to failure at 4 reps again & repeat one last time and now rest and then repeat. Do 3 - 4 sets of these.
Wouldnt this style be working all fast & slow fibers but with high intensity.....???
Yor thorts ar important to me.
Cheers man
Erwin
One important question. Given that you say volume is most important. Is in this case better to reduce your rest intervals and increase the number of sets. Such that your total number of reps will be higher, even though the number of reps per set is less?
I am asking because this is the opposite of what people say. They say having 2-3 minutes of rest is very important.
Menno is exceeding Jeff (who also has excellent science based info), and no gym pose. As a biologist this suits me!
Very intriguing! I'm still confused however: Are you suggesting that moderate intensity workouts, (eg 4 RIR + high volume) > HIT workouts (failure + low volume in terms of hypertrophy?
Is the benefit of intensity only related to number of reps?
"Is the benefit of intensity only related to number of reps?"
Menno suggested that yes. More volume equates to more time under tension.
I interpret this as mechanical tension having two characteristics, the DEGREE of tension and the AMOUNT of tension.
Menno is great man. ,
but i think "volume of work /training?" is tricky part mostly on older 50+ trainers
I believe the difference between these 2 schools of thought is variably specific to genetic disposition and inclination. It's hit and miss until medical science is able to analyze an individuals proclivity towards high volume of high intensity.
Awesomeness
well explained video, thanks.
I have a question on counting hard sets.
When I use a downset as my last set to not fall under my desired rep range( -10%), is that still counting? And How Do I count myo rep sets as well as lengthened partial sets ( like for back, where every repetion is a lengthened partial for me )
Is the research unclear on how to count them?
Reverse pyramids count as normal, yes. Myo-reps are tricky: see the recent post on my IG.
thank you for answering.
And I assume using only lengthened partials for rows and pulldowns are similar to normal straight sets and count 1:1@@menno.henselmans
I do have a question though. If the so-called hypertrophy zone is between 5 and 30 reps, what happens if you're lifting a weight that you know you can hit far more than 30 reps when you're fresh but can only get 10-15 because you're exhausted. Like in the case of a drop set with deadlifts. I might get all the way down to 135 and still feel a grind around the 15-rep spot if it's my 10th set. Yet if I was doing deadlifts with 135 fresh, it's like walking on the treadmill, it can seemingly go on forever.
Great video ❤
Oh boy. So here's what I thought I knew till now:
1/ Hypertrophy requires a high perceived effort and exhausting as many muscle fibres as possible, ie going to or very close to failure. Whereas..
2/ Focusing mainly on neurological strength without necessarily stimulating much hypertrophy requires lots of repeated efforts done very frequently, but always done while fresh and nowhere near to failure (so typically very low reps or just singles with a load you could do several more reps with) while focusing on skill and explosive power. This is the process Dr Pavel calls "greasing the groove."
Now here you seem to be saying the opposite...hmmm..am I the only one to sometimes think that the more 'studies' we get, the more confused we become? Lol
Would you say that someone whose maximum recovery ability is 1 set @1-3RIR per muscle group twice a week, may benefit from reducing frequency in order to do more sets per week? Either in a DC style split, or even a bro split?
What if i do high intensity to failure with heavy weights, but do multiple sets?
All to failure. Obviously as i fatigue ill be able to do less reps per set, but all to failure..
It works, but i get mentally fatigued in a few weeks (i mean real failure). So my recovery limit of muscles isn't the problem, but mentally i can't train. And with that i mean i get ill all the time.
I respectfully disagree through anecdotal evidence training Mike Mentzer style and lowering volume .
It suits my lifestyle and recovery ability and the proof being I have never looked and felt better. For most of us regular ppl that arent competitive athletes I think shorter intense less frequent workouts are definitely the way to go.
Is there any credence to attempting to combine strength and hypertrophy sets in the same workout (particularly within the same exercise)?
E.g. bench 3x3 and then 3x10-15?
So, can I simply do an extra set for each exercise and get more growth? So instead of three sets each time, do four sets?
So by that definition 3 sets of 3RIR would be better for muscle growth than 2 sets of 2RIR?
Because 2 sets of 2RIR might be 2x9-8 so 17 total reps. VS 3 sets of 3RIR at 3x8-7-6 being 21 total reps. So more volume but less effective reps so to say.
I am very interested in strengthening connective tissue as well as muscle. Is there research on strengthen tendons and good ranges for putting joints under stress in a positive way?
Or, if strength is best practiced with 5 reps or less, what happens if you're tossing around your 10-15 rep max a few times and you become so fatigued that you can eventually only hit sets of 3-5, maybe after 5 or 6 sets. Does this suddenly become "strength work?"
Is there any research on hybrid athletes? Or are the variables so grand that the results were inconclusive. I train for triathlon and also do strength training 3 times a week. That being said I have a hard time to recover (mentally too) for a leg workout after a long run, same with for upper body after swimming 6h a week.
Did anyone already say "Simply the best" ?
There's some solid a** questions in the comments. Amd I hope Menno address and answer them one way or another.
Do vid or intensity and volume landmarks for ST. I want to do that soon but I already trained HT for 2 years? What are your recommendations for best long term strength gains
2:40 wrong...when you get to failure,not with volume ,survival mode kicks in ,your muscle compensate with growth Nd more sugars stored next session after full recovery 2:40
What do you think of BFR for hypertrophy?
Very nice!
So am I right in interpreting muscle growth as emanating from total repetitions within 5 RIR? Would that be a theoretical way of measuring volume?
The DEXA scan w/ powerlifters thing is hilarious
Menno Bro. Can you pls explain in a more simpler way. Sometimes you get too technical and all of it goes over the head. Thanks, appreciate your guidance.
Golden 3 to build muscle and strenght:
1. Stimuli(Workout)
2. Diet to build and recovery
3. Rest
Build a deload or complete rest week after every program for better reaction to stimuli and not let habituation take place(the body will see the workouts as a routine and work and wont or respond less). Try a totally different routine once in a while, i switch between bodybuilding , powerlifting and cardio endurance.
I had my first powerlifting workout on monday after a rest week. Its a SBD powerlifting program with lots of volume in the first weeks, my muscle has been extreme sore and i needed to sleep more than normal. This muscle soreness will be less in later weeks in the program.
I have tried less sets and more sets and yeah more sets gave me bigger muscles but it was more of an inflammation big not actual tissue big. I’m finding that 2 sets a week to roughly failure is good enough for me but I’m a novice. I’m increasing strength no problem. No I’m not quite as big but like I said it wasn’t actual muscle tissue it was more just inflammation. I’m definitely bigger right now than i was 3 months ago even with inflammation.
Another question.
With high intensity. Aiming for 4-10 reps to failure at a heavy weight.
As you progress and grow both physically and strenghtwise, and then continuously increase the weight so that you stay within that 4-10 rep range as you grow and lift heavier to failure..
Would you continue to grow and get stronger at a steady rate?
If you are doing one set to failure per muscle group but multiple exercises, say 4 different exercises for the same muscle group.
Set of incline dumbell curls.
Set of barbell curls.
Set of standing dumbell curls.
Set of hammer curls.
Would this constitute multiple sets?
Your only doing one set to failure per exercise, but essentially doing multiple sets for the same musvle group?
When will they actually do a study where the sets are taken to failure where the participants can't budge the weight off the stack? I'm interested in a 30 rep set with a weight the participant can only lift 10 times in the full range of motion, vs a set of 5 which you're saying on average has similar effect in muscle growth. It's just not making logical sense based on my understanding of stress and adaptation.
Glad I read the comments. It saved me 20 minutes. 😂
wow… great great video!!
i have just this general doubt about “studies”: at the end… are really those studies good for someone who has been trained for several years, pushing harder and harderd? i mean they can the standard “dude” they find in the gym, and put them on a program for the study, but the intensity, the effort, the diet, the lifestyle of this person is way different from someone who’s very serious into training e bodybuilding!!
For example: training to failure is not that much important! really?? is it true for everybody of just for the average guy in the gym?
Yeah, for those big meta-analyses there are quite some studies on well-trained individuals.
Maybe those near their genetic ceiling may get benefit from going to failure on all sets, because it allows just a little bit more total work before the muscle is done when their muscles likely won't grow by doing any less.
For the algorithm.
I don't understand this. So it doesn't matter if you do sets of 5 reps or 30 reps for size? But it does matter how many sets you do? How does that make sense? I thought time under tension was important. Surely when you do 10 sets of 30 reps you have more time under tension than if you do 10 sets of 5 reps. Can anyone explain that to me?
Yet in another video you talked about progressive overload being more important than volume?
He says progressive overload is possible due to a good program. If you don't have enough volume, you'll not improve, therefore won't be able to progress your numbers.
What this suggest is opposite to what powerlifters do and to what Dorian Yates ,mike mentaer did..Nd I do...I might test it out ,but I doubt it's practical,volume over intensity for growth in my exp intensity over volume if going failure or close,volume digs recovery inroad not survival mode stimulus to grow