In 2018 I averaged 745 sets per month. Big volume was in full swing and I was just doing way too much for my recovery capacity. Didn't make much progress that year. Was disappointed and confused.
Great to see you here Geoff. What is your take on Fazlifts? In terms of what he says and the information and opinions he shares. This videos has a lot of great points and insights but I want to be sure I’m not convincing myself to take a couple of steps away from pure science just because I don’t feel it will get me the best results because I like to get one rep away from true failure every set and only do 8-12 sets per body part a week, instead of the 3 RIR 20+sets that science suggests
I like just breaking a sweat on cardio and going right into a muscle group for 10-12sets of 10-12reps . Try to maintain 120-130bpm and hit each muscle as high as quality as possible every rep. Going for prs each week and training every other day until a extra break to recomp systemic stress. It isn’t set in stone though.
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y id say its both. you’d be surprised, works out to about 45-60sec between sets. Aiming 10 rep failure is still pretty heavy imo. been hitting prs weekly for about 6 months now
18:00 what I tell myself all the time is that something that is self evident to me, is not self evident to people who haven’t thought about this as much as I have. There was a fella reaching out once asking to clarify a double progression once, and bro was literally a doctor lol.
@@AbuZak14ehh, I don’t know about pinning that on any generation. I think the mentality is as old as time. We just have the internet which speeds it along
So, I'm a 64 y/o woman and started 6 years ago at the gym super morbidly obese with zero fitness knowledge. It's only with my own experience with higher reps/sets that resulted in negative outcomes to my joints that I began instead to focus on lower reps/sets and gradually increasing weight as I gradually dropped my body weight. My strength, since I've done that, has tripled in my estimation. Both my recovery and my endurance have greatly improved at lower reps/sets. Happy to have found your channel and enjoyed the video!
Thank you Ma'am, welcome to the channel and congratulations on your health journey. If you need help with anything feel free to ask under one of my videos.
Used to train 10-20 sets per muscle/week and was sick all the fucking time for multiple years. About two years ago dropped volume back to 4-10 sets/muscle/week. Started gaining strength so much again, less joint and tendon problems and havent been sick that much or so long times. Same for my gf and my friend. They dropped same time. So much better progress, better mental health, joint/tendon health etc. People should listen to their body and just train as hard as they can safely. 2-8 sets session 1-3x week per muscle is more than enough when doing high effort sets. With more frequency lower sets ofc.
I never tried the insane high volume on the account I have 4 kids, wife, full time career lol. These fitness influencers are so out of touch with the average guy or gal it’s crazy. I have just always done a full body 3x or an upper lower depending on time. Guys like Dr. Mike are so detached from reality
Another factor is tediousness. I rapidly lose interest after three sets, especially when they are 12 rep sets. Maximum of three exercises per muscle group.
Used to do between 15 and 20 sets per body part per week as suggested by many. I'm seeing and feeling more results now that volume has come down between 8 and 12. I'm starting to understand that quality work, less sets but very intense work really well for me. I believe if you're not progressing effectively tuning the volume down and nailing the intensity might be a great option. Ciao Faz!!
All good man also thanks to the fundaments you gave me!! I remember we tried a low volume block but at that time for some reason it didn't yield the results we were after. Having tried that approach later though seems to be working perfectly! Also joints and recovery feel much better. I think is important to give it a chance to different approaches that haven't work in the past but they might be the right thing for you at a different stage of your journey @Fazlifts
Have you considered that the lower volume and higher intensity is now benefiting you because you’ve got everything you could out of the high volume? You’ve most likely recovered more from the accumulation of volume and work capacity and seeing results again. But you will inevitably plateau, what next? Drop the volume down to 6-8 sets? Yep and you may keep progressing strength further and that will plateau. Where you will eventually need to recycle the structure back to higher volumes again. welcome to periodization
@@Biglenny-v9r Or.. or.. Intensity is what builds muscle and when you are not fucking around doing a bunch useless sets and actual hone down the quality of your sets, you'll see better progression. I trained up to 60 sets per body part when I first started training. Did that for 3 years straights. Bench was still 135x5 at the end. All that volume does nothing if it's trash. And the more sets, the higher the likelihood of the quality autoregulating so you don't wreck yourself. As for the "periodization" comment. It is absolutely possible to cycle volumes.. but it's not going to be a nonsensical amount of work. I myself have upped my volume recently and lowered the intensity accordingly, so instead of 6 sets 0 RIR for chest... I am now doing 9 sets 2-1 RIR... but there is no scenario in which I'm suddenly doing 20 sets with remotely any intensity. Intensity and volume are always inversed and subject to recovery. If you are a subject in a study doing 50 sets of leg curls and nothing else.. I'm sure you can train hard, and a lot, and recover... In the real work it just doesn't work like that.
It’s not just possible to cycle volumes, it’s necessary for advanced lifters. Only a genetic freak like yates can keep growing from the same stimulus over and over again. The Volume -> intensity-->volume cycle creates novel stimulus. Going from 6 sets to a slightly easier 9 sets isn’t what I’m talking about. These are the fundamentals in any good programming book. I’ve seen it way too many times where guys train high volume get gains, then plateau for a long time. Switch to low volume and make gains again thinking they found the answer until they hit a plateau again. I can’t think of 1 top competitive lifter who sticks to 6-9 sets through the year
I remember when I got serious into lifting. I did a PPL 2x a week. I spent 3-5 hours a day in the gym, except on Sundays. I hit every body part a total of 45-50 times a week. I was constantly having to take "deloads", and I say that in quotations because it was really just time off to recover from overuse injuries. The funny thing is- I only gained a lot of muscle when I was bulking and adding weight to the bar, just as you stated in this video. Most of the visual size went away quickly when I'd have to take time off from injuries. Fast forward to later in my training age, I noticed that using far less volume (10 sets a week per muscle) let's me be consistent, giv3s me the same strength gains, and the only thing missing is the cell swelling that goes away in one week anyways (when deloading/time off). So, all that time I was using extreme volume and getting injured, it was only to get the muscle inflamed and create an illusion of being more swole....but I wasn't more swole, I was just more swollen😅
thats wild, i do about 12 (6 every 4 days) sets doing ppl 5days per week. Sometimes i worry that is too much. Can't imagine that volume you were working with.
@JohnB-ws4ge yeah, but I did love the gym a lot. I was extremely passionate in my late 20s. It didn't bother me mentally, and I never felt overtrained, aside from the constant joint fatigue. Also, I was a competitive boxer for 6 years prior to that, so my work capacity was pretty insane.
So glad you mentioned Fisher and Steele. I was waiting to hear those names. They do science without the fanfare. It seems social media is awash with the high volume hypertrophy scientists who clearly are very good at marketing and promoting/citing each other.
Sometimes I wonder how much of the reaction video circle jerk that they do with one another is planned behind the scenes and which "beefs" are fake like wresting kayfabe. I remember three that I used to follow (before I got tired of their drama with one another) coming out with videos on the same topic in the same week.
From my own experience, my volume has gone down and my intensity and frequency have gone up as I've come to understand my body and programming better. Not that I believe low volume is the way to go but higher volume is simply not necessary, atm. The fact that Dr Mike said that you should train more than the pros is so absurd. I sometimes feel guys like Dr Mike have hurt the hypertrophy space more than helped it. I've recently started helping others program and have come across several people who were doing an absurd amount of volume (8 sets per exercise) because they were trying to hit that 20 sets per body part mark. And unsurprisingly, they also had joint problems. When I tried to explain to them that 1-3 sets per workout are plenty and that they will progress with 4-8 sets per body, especially as a beginner, they simply couldn't wrap their mind around how such "low volume" could result in progress.
I would love to know the secret to training with high volume while actually training hard, because my muscles are usually completely cooked after 4-8 sets for that muscle group in a training session.
For real. I do full body with big emphasis on arms. And on day where I do the most for my arms - 5 sets, 3 in the beginning, and 2 more towards the end of workout I already feel like my arms will fall of after those first 2-3 sets.
I fully believe that these science based gurus like Dr Mike (who has nearly fallen fully of the bandwagon) keep lifting as complicated as possible so their audience never leaves them.
I like to think he's got potential to be a force for good again. He's off the heavy drugs and he's 'made it' in terms of money from what I understand. I would like the old Mike back 💛
i see the evidence based figureheads making claims with appropriate nuance but clearly agree that the “lmao volume” has been repeated often enough, disproportionately to the caveats, so beginners with a poor grasp on the basics can conceivably get all messed up trying to write their own programs. and unless you grew up on old yt fitness or have one foot in something like powerlifting, ie. are looking out for the basics yeah it’s easy to take the absolute wrong things out of what people are saying.
If you've watched a handful of Dr Mike videos in entirety I don't understand how you could say it's complicated. He repeats over and over again, high effort and consistency are the most important things. Consistency can involve some details such as fatigue management etc.
Started training with a 'powerbuilding' science based approach with a heavy focus on super strict form which are really just buzzwords at this point and I've made some progress but my progress 2x-ed when I started 'egolifting'. By ego lifting I don't mean cutting ROM (half rep bench, quarter squats etc.) and maxing every day, just doing really intense and heavy sets being mindful to take the stimulus to fatigue ratio into account and to have proper recovery and it was a game changer. I sometimes rotate between a little bit more volume and intensity but I've found 3-8 reps to work really well with like 1 rep left in the tank. If you're doing real work it's hard to even fit in a bunch of sets, like just 3 intense sets of squats can really drain you.
A lot of good thoughts here Doron and things I recommend too. I think it's very wise to just 'try' some weights and almost force yourself into new territory. I used to do that a lot to bust through to new plateaus. Not so much anymore but when I was coming up for sure. I also still recommend cycling periods of higher intensity with higher volume. I have a video on that soon. Great thoughts brother.
People use "strict form" as a way to be lazy. They also have an ego attached to it. Strict form is not the end goal. A standard, safe ROM that hits the muscles effectively and that doesn't beat you up is the goal. You can do that in a million ways. Using some body english on the db laterals is a perfect example. Dr Mike says that you should basically do Lu Raises with slow negatives. That's the only proper form. But we all know that the lift is easiest at the bottom and hardest at the top, so why wouldn't I initiate with a small amount of swing just to help me at the top? It makes perfect sense.
I don't have a ton of experience but the conclusion I've drawn is consistency. I think you can absolutely focus in on a muscle, muscle group or exercise and see better results with specificity. Trying to do too much work without focus can absolutely lead to subpar results. Folks everywhere just can't tell every individual what they need to hear. The volume of information can be condensed tho. Hell I look forward to getting a coach one day but I'm getting there slowly with guys like you. Thanks!
Not even serge nubret did that much volume . 52 sets is crazy and I found it funny that they listed the rest times were around 3 mins per set at that point you may as well rent a room in the gym
And the biggest flaw on this 52 set study that influencers miss to clarify or point put (perhaps on purpose for more clicks) is that those sets were done without doing any other muscle group so the body can heal properly. More volume has more results but not in contexts of full body training (regardless the split or frequency)
@@sancamilobad But they all clarify exactly that. They all say that this study doesnt mean you should do that much volume, but rather that it supports the argument for specialization phases, where u just go all out on 1-2 muscles and keep the others on maintenance volume.
@@theiceman7590 yeah when I hear some of these number of sets claims I have to ask "does that include warm up sets" and if not then "at what threshold do we start counting the sets as working instead of warm up?" I get reminded of the "just one set" HIT people who ignore the several warmup sets that Mike and Dorian would do before that "just one set".
Goddamn this is very good Faz. I have a podcast very similar to this on the way… I’ve seen this in all the rugby players I work with… NONE of them have high volume at all, yet they all grow muscle. The sad part is none of them will really admit they were wrong the whole time.
Looking forward to seeing that TJ. Yep that's the thing whether it's the sunkcost fallacy or just stubbornness but very few admit they were wrong even when confronted with their own evidence. It's a weird fitness industry Stockholm syndrome of (lack of) gains.
Great video Faz! Your point about "no one is doing that in real life" is so true - I would bet that even those people telling us the results of the studies aren't doing that.
Baller video, Faz. (As always) For any comment section lurkers, here's my training trajectory the last year or so, specifically relating to volume:- Started out averaging 15-20 sets per muscle dropped it to 12-15, saw smoother progression dropped it to 10-12, saw smoother progression dropped it to 8-10, saw smoother progression And now, at present, I'm doing 3-4 sets a week for arms, and between 4 and 8 sets for the rest of the muscle groups. Progressing well, joints feeling good, etc etc...
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y Sure thing. I never really know what to say in terms of how long ive been training. I lifted for about 2 years around 2016-2018. barely made it out of the novice phase and never hit legs. Started lifting again 2 years ago and I'd say I'm now an intermediate. starting bodyweight was a pencil neck skinny fat 149lbs, I'm currently 178lbs and leaner.
I usually dont comment on Social Media, but here i have to. I follow RUclips fitness since quite some time, virtually all sides of it. This might be the best fitness video of the last 10 years. I wish everyone would watch it. Sports sience is highly inaccurate, and thats not by the scientist, but the severe individually differences. Nothing compared to nature sciences. I myself am aiming for a career in nutritional science, sports nutrition in particular. Wrote my bachelor thesis on the topic of the anabolic window. With the whole literature available right now, we cant say that it does nothing. Theres not a lot of direct research, the studies we have actually favor an positive effect of protein timing around the training (just like the old experienced guys preached…). Yet, the „consensus“ is, that Protein Timing doesnt matter. Thats based on a big meta analysis by? Schonfeld. His meta analysis + his review on this topic is what is always reffered to. If you have the time, look up that meta analysis yourself, what studies he actually compared. Most of them had them give carbs pre workout and protein post, or vice versa. They didnt compare protein timing. The metaanalysis is not good, yet is the scientific consensus that is preached. What i want to say is, the vast majority of researchers isnt on Social Media, what results in exactly what Faz says. Social Media is not even close to the whole scientific picture. Always factcheck what you hear. A lot of quality studies are free for watch, and the databases are available for everyone (Pubmed etc.). There you can find a whole lot of high, low, medium volume / frequency studies. Science is a beautiful, changing, dynamic sphere. Science on Social Media, for the most part, is as much of an iceberg as everything else in the internet.
Your points are valid and true. But I was hoping you were going to elaborate on the quality of the research. You said the high volume was bs but didn’t cite anything to the contrary. Maybe that’s in your other videos.
This video wasn't really about the research specifically, it was more about the overall message. For a closer look at the research look for my video called Hypertrophy Controversy. Thank you.
Top notch content as always from fazlifts, this mirrors my understanding ever since getting "serious" about training since the start of the year. Luckily I've always put a premium on progressive overload so my progress has been good, but I've definitely lost some time from over focusing on technique-cyborg-maxing, deep stretch/exaggerated ROM, and all that other nonsense. Just started a bulk again and my focus is purely on working close to failure and progressive overload with good form for medium to high reps, as a certain youtuber keeps mentioning. Excited to see where this goes 💪
Thank you Faz, I feel like a lot of people in this space are mostly thinking more is always better. I think the issue is most of the consumers of this content aren’t able to spend 7 to 10 hours in the gym per week to achieve those massive volumes, and it leaves us feeling defeated and like we aren’t doing anything at all for hypertrophy
3 sets on most exercises with 3-4 exercises per muscle group. 12 sets per workout per muscle group max. Certain exercises i will do 5-6 sets of a specific exercise, but those are like squats and doing 2 or 3 sets of different variations. Maybe 24 sets per week, and i am gaining.
I was a victim of this kind of videos “you dont need high volume” i always dial all the variables in. However, i was afraid of going higher volume because this kind of videos “too much volumes. Its just a trend” and i was getting no where for 2 years and eventually i got too frustrated only variable i didnt really change was “volume” so i ended up doing “inefficient high volume” and yes started finally making progress again. It’s probably i have unusual body type. So at the end, take everything as grain of salt and try on your body. But i just personally feel “damn youuu !!” Everytime when i see information like this “ you dont need high volume its all hype “ i want my 2 years back
I agree. But I feel this is all very dependent on the person. I also benefit from higher volume. Mike does actually suck because he used to spew BS. But, as he has learned…. He now recommends that people discover their own optimal volume. I will give him credit for that. But yeah, there was a ring of “researchers” that annoyingly said “the science says…” without experience. Now that they have experience, they’re coming to a realistic conclusion. Haha.
@@thunderkat5282 I strongly agree with everything you said no matter what science or bros say, at the end we have to find what work for our own bodies. but it is annoying how adequate volume change as we progress, but well i singed up for this !
I do understand your frustration but that's not really what this video is about. This is not an anti high volume video. There is a lot of nuance and advice in this video, which I realise is quite long. Best of luck to you.
What you will never learn in books or studies is "the principle of individuality". Maybe you're slow twitch fibers dominant. Maybe you have lower motor unit recruitment. Maybe less experience. Who knows. But some people can benefit from higher volumes. "To know where the line is, you must cross it".
@@owlperformance2147 i don’t like the fact that currently my body responds to high volumes because i have to spend so much time in the gym. Yeah individuality is the key. I probably happen to be this rare individual. I m speculating im slow twitch dominant. 1 I almost never get sore 2 my muscles recover very fast 3 when i was a kid i always did extremely well in long distance running And i have been training about 14 years now. Thank you for great contents. But i also do believe most people do better with moderate volume with adequate intensity and technique
I'm finding more and more as I continue my lifting journey that its all about hard sets, ideally on movements that are easy to progress over time with a decent ROM. Its kind of that simple haha. Case in point, during the pandemic when all I had to really target my lats were pullups, I got damn good at them and my lats exploded. These uber high volume studies simple can't have that many legit hard sets. Like, nobody can do 32 sets of hard squats in a session, let alone do it twice per week. When it comes to volume, sure, turning the dial up to 11 like back in the Golden Era where guys would do 2 sessions a day 2 hours each is fine, but that volume masks the lack of intensity and progressive overload
Your first two paragraphs were perfect and 100% facts, and I really hope others see it. The only thing I can add is to take at least a few days a week off to rest which will result in more gains and better workouts.
I’ve made wonderful progress training 2-3x per week with 2 sets close or all the way to concentric failure. Generally full body 3x per week. Just hit 10x495 on RDL last week which has been a huge improvement since starting training this way, and my physique is showing great improvement on low volume but high effort sets. Good video!
What a breath of fresh air! Spot on mate, spot on! My follow list has gotten so much less and will continue to be filled only with the likes of what you promote! Thank you! 🫶 P.S. That hoodie rocks!
Something Alex Bromley said that I resonated with a lot (not direct quote just paraphrasing) is instead of looking for the single best method for training, look at how so many different training styles have worked for different people and find your own. Like you said, I'm young and probably biased and I've followed the likes of Wolf and Mike and those guys for a while. I do like lengthened biased training mostly cause I find it's been effective at getting me stronger, bigger, and more mobile. It's also just fun. Still, I had no idea about the low volume training studies and they were interesting to hear about. Thanks faz
You know if it's working for you Duncan, do carry on. My comments here reflect more on a large subset (of every generation, not just this one) who over focus on the details without the fundamentals in place. For example all the lengthened partials in the world will amount to nothing if progressive overload isn't in play. These things can serve to detract rather than enhance.
@@Fazlifts That's a fair point especially with your experience. Only been lifting for 2 years myself but even I can see now the potential harm this could do to those who blindly follow this with say only two weeks of training experience
Too many people don't want to spend the time to experiment, especially those misled by the idea that there's a ticking "newbie gains clock" that started when they first touched a double and they need to be "optimal" right away.
Some interesting points, which it usually is when it comes to you Faz! But I do think you forgot one group that makes a lot of noise and promotes low volume... Mike Menzer crowd!!
Policy over personality. The best utility of a "great" personality is making people feel good and to buy whatever you're selling. It's definitely a good quality to have in a vacuum but you have to be able to separate such from the substance underneath.
Excellent video. If you step into the majority of commercial gyms, you will see average people doing what they have been prescribed. “More sets, more volume”, etc. The downside of that is the same people that follow that approach, look exactly the same year after year. However, when I see someone doing full body with low volume, sometimes only one working set, or upper lower with maybe 2 sets max, they look have some serious muscle and they look like they actually enjoy what they are doing. Progressive overload with good form will always prevail over 5 sets of garbage that will elicit, maybe a pump, at best. Rant over.
Influencers have been pushing optimal, optimal, optimal, ad nauseam. If you can get 70-80% effectiveness from the first hour, I wager 9 in 10 people will be content and not go for the 2nd hour.
Great video Faz! It's important to remember that the main goal of these influencers is to make money by creating a niche for themselves. I don't have a problem with science-based stuff per se, but I have a problem with the fact that all these minor things (the stretch, obsession on perfect form, MEV/MRV/WTF etc) seem to now be THE main things to worry about when training. I can only imagine what it's like to be a beginner and being bombarded by all this superfluous stuff! Also, in the end, all these guys built the majority of their size and strength by going hard on time-proven movements...and not by hammering some single-arm-lying-on-the-floor-lat-pullarounds... Cheers!
extremely well spoken as usual, excellent points and i’m on your side here. i still listen to the evidence based sphere in long form podcasts, i don’t see an issue with people chatting as nerds to other nerds trying to make a point out of academic curiosity. but obviously the effects will be much different when the youtuber/IG reel hat comes on and you know you are talking to noobs who aren’t grounded enough that you should probably assume they will take the information and run with it the worst way possible and all the caveating and nuances are not enough.
My best gains have been on low to medium volumes. Little higher volumes if I'm keeping slightly more RIR. Just hammering your sets with consistency and lots of solid effort is going to do a lot of work for you. How many people that go to the gym just don't push their sets hard enough? 🤔
honestly this volume bubble needs to pop. how is it that it's "8 to 14 sets per week" for novices, but then gets bumped up to 40+ for anyone above that? it ain't adding up
Progressive overload, training to failure with good technique and bulking are harder to advertise I guess. P.S. I'm glad you called out people saying "Science says this" especially when science is more effective at falsification rather than confirmation.
some people respond better to higher volumes and some perople respond better to lower volumes. The same person can respond to one or the other better at different times of their life. What should be a focus is learning how to troublehoot your own training. Borge Fergaleri probably does this the best for his clients as far as I can see
You’re right on as usual. All I can say is none of these guys have trained over 40 without drugs with that kind of volume that have any baseline of strength. I think it’s impossible for 98% of people
I’ve been watching a lot of Joe Bennett and Jordan Peters recently and i really resonate with their approach - start with one set per body part per session and see if you’re making progress. If not, see what’s stopping you from progressing.
Aren't you supposed to change your mind if you find evidence to the contrary? I'm not familiar with his history but changing your mind is actually a sign of being rational, and even humble
@@valerie.mccaffrey normally I would agree and being humble enough to change your mind, is a good sign. A few things to bear in mind: 1) Brad wouldn't have to walk it back, if he applied more caution to the findings of his own studies. He announced one of his studies on social media with "this study will blow current volume landmarks out of the door". His stance that more volume = better was highlighted with the extravagantly titled paper "The dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts?". That is not the attitude of somebody who is taking a reasoned approach to new data. 2) This is not exclusive to Brad but part of the 'evidence based schtick' is to poke fun at the bros for training practices which they suspect are wrong. When these same bros are proven to be right, because the original research was flawed ... well you can see how that comes across. The MPS data some 8 years ago where every 150lber on reddit pronounced the brosplit as 'stupid' was a prime example of this. That was also walked back. 3) Brad has openly admitted the problems with his studies, the fact that he has been the sole data tester in studies where there was no double blinding done. He has also been the topic of some discussion in a recent paper entitled amusingly "The dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: There are still doubts" where it was highlighted that for some reason Brads lab not only gets consistently positive but also consistently high outcomes from all his test subjects... Outside of the lab life happens and as we know, progress isn't linear but in Brad's lab it appears to be. I'll say no more on that one, and it could just be that Brad is an amazing Coach but it makes you wonder... So with all that said, yes it is great to change your mind based on the new evidence but perhaps one should approach this with a little more rigour.
I have a few points and would be interested in your take Faz (if you see this): - I've watched a lot of RP stuff over the years (not just since their popularity increase) - the vast majority of the time, they emphasise the importance of intensity over high volume - e.g in their muscle gain series, Mike states 3-10 sets per muscle per session for most people (I wouldn't call this crazy volume). Also, if you ever watch their training videos of other athletes, the volumes are not high, but the intensity is through the roof. Often their leg workouts are 10 sets or less for all leg muscles. - When these "52 set" type videos came out, I think these studies were used as clickbait more than anything. Anyone with any experience wouldn't take that seriously, and I think the idea is that if you need to focus on 1 muscle group, you can increase volume significantly, whilst maintaining other muscle group volumes. - The variance in volume between muscle groups can be crazy. I can see growth from 5 or 6 sets of quads per week, but for chest and side delts, 15-20 sets per week seems to work much better for me. - The obsession with slow eccentrics, stretch pauses, and lengthened partials is weird. I guess that is how they are trying to market themselves as different (and I like a controlled eccentric/ pause on some exercises). What annoys me, are these Jeff Nippard style exercise tier lists that are ranking the quality of exercises based on how good of a stretch it offers, and how it feels, and not how much stimulus and tension it offers. Case in point, ranking a single arm cable press around in the same class as the bench press, despite him admitting that the bench press is how he built his chest in the first place. Ludicrous!
1) I think you're being very generous here. Right now go and Google "rp volume landmarks". Like literally right now go do it and look at the top results, enough said. 2) You're missing the point here. I want you think about what I'm going to say here for a while before you reply back here. That research was performed on test subjects, results were recorded and the outcome which you are so ready to dismiss was the recommendation from that paper and that recommendation is so far removed from reality that we could easily dismiss it as ludicrous. Now the question is... what does that tell you about the validity of the research. How it was performed. How trustworthy these people are. Your willingness to dismiss research based on it being ludicrous is half right, but you're not thinking this all the way through. It has far reaching implications. 3) Yes 4) Agreed
Faz, let's have you bring out an effective abbreviated workout E-book lol. Also, a video on your thoughts JP's (Jordan Peter's) Full Body program, if you feel inclined to. Atb
I wouldn't mind releasing an abbreviated eBook and perhaps also a Powerbuilding eBook. I don't agree with it but if people are going to insist on doing it I'd rather they do it effectively. Jordan's stuff is generally very good but his views on progressive overload are very drug biased.
i highly recommend looking at the hierarchy of evidence in science. a single study is very weak evidence in the grand scheme of things and the level of scientific literacy in the general population is pretty poor. unfortunately, these "science" influencers take advantage of this. also u are absolutely right about the quality of the studies in exercise science compared to other fields. a lot of them in isolation are completely useless and the methodologies can be quite lacking imo in terms of gaining any practical insights. many of the studies when understood properly simply confirm what we have already learnt in lifting decades ago. i've seen some very bizarre takes from science based lifters (a science based lifter who is doing a PhD in exercise science recently just told me that the biceps take significantly longer to recover than the quads based on a single mechanistic study).
The "National Geographicification" of science: Laymen making very large claims about entire populations, based on small scale and contingent studies. However, in this case it's the bleedin' scientists that are doing it. The "volume dose" paper was a meta-analysis - supposedly at the very top of the pyramid - but it was still ballocks.
Whilst I think the pyramid of evidence is still relevant, you still need good study methodologies and a large abundance of evidence covering various cases before making broad claims. Unfortunately the quality of studies in exercise science for hypertrophy is pretty poor and lacks rigour when compared to other fields. For example I notice a lot of studies fail to consistently define what "failure" is where they even contradict their own definitions. I think a big part of the issue is that it is very difficult to get relevant samples but these science influencers have the hubris to suggest that these studies have any relevance. I think the bigger issue is the influencers versus the actual scientists themselves.
I also remember an old video of yours about the quality of the vocal science research. About the inflation that high volume causes and lasts longer which they don't take it into account correctly, that's what I remember at least. Would be interested about the other science guys, I might look it up on my own or you might have an old video about it.
I personally never bought into very high volume training, I think as a natural you benefit more from lower volume training and higher intensity. The volume will scale over time as you get stronger. I'm glad I'm not naturally very athletic, therefore lower volume styles emphasizing compounds with lower reps sat better with me. In hindsight I believe I came farther than I would've.
"You know who I am... and you know I'm right". Lyle McDonald 2024. No one on the "science based" side ever says the most relevant part to normal people: "The differences between the 10 set groups and the 50 set groups was measured in MM, not in Inches (and they are usually measured by ultrasound, the 21st century sports science equivalent of a bleedin' dowsers wand)". "Progressively heavier weights, in moderate rep ranges". It's is so simple, but not so profitable.
I think we as a community are too focused on optimisation which is not possible unless you have at least 5-10 years of experience under your belt. I have a pretty good physic and are stronger than most people at my weight. I just train progressively, eat according to my goals and sleep 8 hours a night. Talking about volume as much as you want, if you are not getting stronger in any shape or form, you will not grow period
Would love some input. I'm currently running an upper/lower split. Usually doing 3 sets of a compound lift, roughly 8-10 reps, then 2 sets of an isolation for that muscle group. IE: 3 sets of hack squats, followed by 2 sets of leg extensions, or 3 sets of bench and then 2 sets of flyes. Hitting both upper and lower 2x per week. Could I be better off doing 4 straight sets of the compound lift? I currently weight roughly 380lbs and trying to lose fat. Trying to get my volume to a place where I can get a good stimulus and not spend 2 hours in the gym.
If you're spending 2 hours in the gym that seems the immediate issue correct? The option to just do 4 sets of the compound lift would likely save you time and would likely lead to more progress on a lift that matters. So in this circumstance that seems sensible. Remember volume is only useful IF it allows for more weight on the bar in a bodybuilding rep range in good form.
@@Fazlifts I lowered my rest times and I'm usually out within 60-75 minutes lately, just wanted your input on if the sets of 3 then 2 or 4 straight would be more ideal 💪
A great tip Faz gave in another video is to split the 4-6 sets into distinct rep ranges. 1st 2 sets: 4-6 reps 2nd 2 sets: 8-12 reps They feel like completely different exercises, game changer, saves time not setting up/warming up a new exercise too.
@@Fazlifts i imagine itd also depend how much time it takes to get set up for an isolation vs doing more sets on the compound. eg it’s a nominal amount of time to do one feeler set of the isolation and get onto my work set within 3 mins of finishing the compound exercise. and doing more isolation will improve isolation strength which is probably valuable. but yeah 2 hours in the gym on an upper body day unless tacking on a ton of stepmill while cutting from a very high bodyweight feels generally suspect?
It's interesting isn't it, 2~6 Hard sets per session per exercise is about where I am able to progress. But when I'm only doing 2 hard sets I *feel* like I'm training wrong because of largely your intro, so I'll do a backoff set, then I'll do a drop set but I've told myself this mesocycle is for horsing weight as much your average pencil neck can horse, but I'm trying to let the Thick as Frick Horsecock IT'S A MINDSET mentality get in, it's working
I think so mang people focus on lifting real heavy weights, not realizing that it's better to focus on really working the muscles, and not so much on the numbers on the weights you are lifting. For instance, try doing bicep exercises for an hour using various machines and equipment. Next, do the same for triceps, etc. I believe that is what the fitness gurus mean by more volume.
@@The_Patbey Well it works for me . I feel kinda insulted you call it junk volume. So what do you lift junk heavy? Why not try it before you slam my methods.
@@The_Patbey If I'm working biceps, I would work out around 3 hours. Generally, that would be about 50 sets. In one set, I would do anywhere between 7 to 10 reps per set, and I'll rest around 40 seconds to a minute and continue the next set. The level of resistance can anywhere be from heavy to moderate. I don't lift ridiculously heavy, but none of it is easy. So ok let's hear your criticisms. Tell me why you consider it junk volume. Regardless of your opinion, I still think you should try what I've suggested earlier, but go ahead and crap on my methods.
I always did max 6-8 sets a week doing upper lower and when i looked at programs of people I couldnt believe how they can do like 20+ sets when if you do very intensely 3-5 sets on muscle on a session you will be cooked. I have the biggest number of sets right now for arms -11 because I really want to bring them up.
If you're literally THAT out of your depth, try some old Eric Bugenhagen advice: Pick one big compound lift and train it every day, seven days a week. Every session should start with a stretch and activation ritual, warm up sets, a heavy one or two rep max and then drop the weight down for one or two volume sets (5-8 rep sets) and that's it. Repeat every day, Monday to Sunday and then choose a different lift the next week (Ideally, upper body week 1, lower body week 2,back to upper week 3 etc.) You can't get lost if you're only giving yourself one thing to focus on.
I hope that's not true, but if it is here is my fundamentals playlist which has my views on key issues: Hypertrophy Fundamentals ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h As well as that I have 3 free programs to run on Boostcamp: www.boostcamp.app/#fazlifts If you're still stuck after all that free stuff, I have ebooks and there is coaching and consultations. Take care.
Volume is good but its not the messiah they paint it out to be. Maybe for a specialization phase you can do something akin to the bro phase many people went through of training and spamming just arms
I made a video critiquing Mike Israetel and Milo Wolf gushing about more volume because I have just been getting sick of this shit. More volume is extremely effective IF you can recover WITH high intensity. It’s just another lever like frequency there is no one answer but that doesn’t sell very well
52 sets is not high but insane volume lol. I train Mountaindog and Creeping Death 2 was the hardest program I ever did (the only I never fully recovered) and the maximum number of sets was 32 for back...
So im cutting, I train low volume, I’m losing weight and I’m gaining strength every week been lifting for almost 2 years, I was at 17% bf and I lost 2 more pounds again I’m gaining strength in the gym and in a calorie deficit and so I remeasured doing navy body calculator I always do and it says I’m still 17% bf is this because my lower body doesn’t get measured? I’ve noticed my legs has more striations
I have been following your berserker arm/delt specialization after i realised wizard was a bit problematic (would not want to wait for squats/bench and ended up doing the excercises not as described but based on what is available). I still consider myself evidence/science based. Do i progress in weight. Then i progress. How much volume? Train close to failure/or to failure cause i like it, get a controlled eccentric and explosive concentric and try to get at least 6-8 sets per week. More if i can handle it. Studies trying to find the upper limit of the inverted u curve is not for practical application. It is trying to prove/disprove a concept/theory. If anything, your berserker program has me in the 30+ sets for biceps if you count sets as they do in the literature. Also as I actually lurk in Lyle's fb group. I would think you would disagree with most of his opinions on a lot of things more than you would with stronger by science guys for example.
Policy over personality George. Always policy over personality. Of course I'm going to disagree with Lyle about some things, and I'll agree with Mike about some things. Avoid making this personal George.
@@Fazlifts fair point. I guess I am projecting here. Damn you keep your cool on youtube. oh and btw I Finally have good biceps :). Think Ill run berserker for afull year. Thanks and cheers!
Low volume high volume have both become cults. Faz has the best advice be loyal to results not the method. If it doesn’t help add weight on the bar discard it. I see a lot of “power builders” (dudes who run a powerlifting program but do bodybuilding accessory work) get bigger and better results than most training for hypertrophy. Why? Because they focus all lifts not just big 3 on getting stronger
@@The_Patbey I don't really keep up with fitness youtube tbh but last I checked mike was leaving everything at like a 3+ RIR and preplanning deloads. Wouldn't say that's the same. That isn't a diss to Mike, dudes a funny guy but we don't train the same that's for sure.
@@Davichiz No no, sorry, I didn't mean the whole training. Just the 'adjusting volume based on regeneration and soreness' aspect. And just on a side note, he usually does 1-2 RIR, not 3+. But yeah the preplanned deloads are just bullcrap
So the volume standards are wrong got it. Was hoping to get a volume recommendation at the end to replace it. Maybe I missed it. Just stinks because I’m well aware volume recommendations are too high what I want to know is what’s the correct volume
I see you're new to the channel Justin, welcome. This video wasn't just about volume, but I know it's a long one and does require some listening. You'll find most of my fundamentals including my volume recommendations in this playlist: Hypertrophy Fundamentals ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h
And if you watch israetel and other influencers, you’ll notice that their recommendations trend more towards golden era recommendations over time. I think studies on their advice over time prove this point. Haha
Everyone saying high volume lots of sets. But never what the reps would look like. 50 sets of 1?! 30 sets of 2. Thats all reasonable. But if you are telling me 50 sets of 20 hell no.
The next area that the “fitness industry” is going to transition into is programming relative intensity. Watch… you’ll see. It’s the right direction and I’m not a “researcher”, but I am intelligent enough to see it coming.
@@Fazliftsyes, but in any real way as far as programming is concerned? I have seen a couple attempts. Maybe less than 4. I’ve seen some people periodically or randomly modify RIR. But, I haven’t seen any really common discussion or approach regarding this. But maybe you have? I’d be interested. I have my own hypothesis on how to do it. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I think it could accelerate growth.
Mike just yesterday dropped a video advising "hard gainers". The conclusion? You recover quickly (citation not provided) so you have to do MORE volume. And if you see someone gaining with lower/moderate volume and without the cyborg form strictness, it's because they are easy gainers. So he sets up his preposition in a way that can't disproven. When it inevitably fails the trainees, they are convinced that it's because of genetics and the course action is to double down on the terrible practices.
In 2018 I averaged 745 sets per month. Big volume was in full swing and I was just doing way too much for my recovery capacity. Didn't make much progress that year. Was disappointed and confused.
Great to see you here Geoff. What is your take on Fazlifts? In terms of what he says and the information and opinions he shares. This videos has a lot of great points and insights but I want to be sure I’m not convincing myself to take a couple of steps away from pure science just because I don’t feel it will get me the best results because I like to get one rep away from true failure every set and only do 8-12 sets per body part a week, instead of the 3 RIR 20+sets that science suggests
I've been there too, joint pain was pretty much the only reward!
@@sancamilobadI prefer 10-15 sets a week very close to failure and it has been working great for me
💀💀💀💀
GVS X FazLifts video surely
I’m a simple man: full range of motion, progressive overload and cardio
Thank you.
@@gutsberserk2718 I'd say consistent ROM every workout is more important than the actual length. The length depends on so many factors anyway.
I like just breaking a sweat on cardio and going right into a muscle group for 10-12sets of 10-12reps . Try to maintain 120-130bpm and hit each muscle as high as quality as possible every rep. Going for prs each week and training every other day until a extra break to recomp systemic stress. It isn’t set in stone though.
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y id say its both. you’d be surprised, works out to about 45-60sec between sets. Aiming 10 rep failure is still pretty heavy imo. been hitting prs weekly for about 6 months now
@@martinnorberg7940💯
18:00 what I tell myself all the time is that something that is self evident to me, is not self evident to people who haven’t thought about this as much as I have.
There was a fella reaching out once asking to clarify a double progression once, and bro was literally a doctor lol.
Ahh bless him!
It's never a bad idea to ensure the fundamentals are down. I keep meaning to continue adding to my fundamental series myself.
“I want to make money but I don’t want to get the experience first” ahhhhh type of industry
That's Gen Z for anything!
I'm a millennial, my kids are Gen Alpha 😉
@@AbuZak14ehh, I don’t know about pinning that on any generation. I think the mentality is as old as time. We just have the internet which speeds it along
Lyle has always been right lol
Yep!
"You know who I am... and you know I'm right".
Progression overload ✅
Good form ✅
Medium to high rep ranges ✅
So, I'm a 64 y/o woman and started 6 years ago at the gym super morbidly obese with zero fitness knowledge. It's only with my own experience with higher reps/sets that resulted in negative outcomes to my joints that I began instead to focus on lower reps/sets and gradually increasing weight as I gradually dropped my body weight. My strength, since I've done that, has tripled in my estimation. Both my recovery and my endurance have greatly improved at lower reps/sets. Happy to have found your channel and enjoyed the video!
Thank you Ma'am, welcome to the channel and congratulations on your health journey. If you need help with anything feel free to ask under one of my videos.
@@Fazlifts you're so welcome and thank you, you are very kind.
Used to train 10-20 sets per muscle/week and was sick all the fucking time for multiple years. About two years ago dropped volume back to 4-10 sets/muscle/week. Started gaining strength so much again, less joint and tendon problems and havent been sick that much or so long times. Same for my gf and my friend. They dropped same time. So much better progress, better mental health, joint/tendon health etc. People should listen to their body and just train as hard as they can safely. 2-8 sets session 1-3x week per muscle is more than enough when doing high effort sets. With more frequency lower sets ofc.
100% also, taking a few days a week off will help. Time for rest and recovery is a must
Exercise flu is real!
I never tried the insane high volume on the account I have 4 kids, wife, full time career lol.
These fitness influencers are so out of touch with the average guy or gal it’s crazy. I have just always done a full body 3x or an upper lower depending on time. Guys like Dr. Mike are so detached from reality
Another factor is tediousness. I rapidly lose interest after three sets, especially when they are 12 rep sets. Maximum of three exercises per muscle group.
Used to do between 15 and 20 sets per body part per week as suggested by many. I'm seeing and feeling more results now that volume has come down between 8 and 12. I'm starting to understand that quality work, less sets but very intense work really well for me. I believe if you're not progressing effectively tuning the volume down and nailing the intensity might be a great option. Ciao Faz!!
Hello my friend! Good to hear from you!
Glad the training is still going well
All good man also thanks to the fundaments you gave me!! I remember we tried a low volume block but at that time for some reason it didn't yield the results we were after. Having tried that approach later though seems to be working perfectly! Also joints and recovery feel much better. I think is important to give it a chance to different approaches that haven't work in the past but they might be the right thing for you at a different stage of your journey @Fazlifts
Have you considered that the lower volume and higher intensity is now benefiting you because you’ve got everything you could out of the high volume? You’ve most likely recovered more from the accumulation of volume and work capacity and seeing results again. But you will inevitably plateau, what next? Drop the volume down to 6-8 sets? Yep and you may keep progressing strength further and that will plateau. Where you will eventually need to recycle the structure back to higher volumes again. welcome to periodization
@@Biglenny-v9r Or.. or.. Intensity is what builds muscle and when you are not fucking around doing a bunch useless sets and actual hone down the quality of your sets, you'll see better progression. I trained up to 60 sets per body part when I first started training. Did that for 3 years straights. Bench was still 135x5 at the end. All that volume does nothing if it's trash. And the more sets, the higher the likelihood of the quality autoregulating so you don't wreck yourself.
As for the "periodization" comment. It is absolutely possible to cycle volumes.. but it's not going to be a nonsensical amount of work. I myself have upped my volume recently and lowered the intensity accordingly, so instead of 6 sets 0 RIR for chest... I am now doing 9 sets 2-1 RIR... but there is no scenario in which I'm suddenly doing 20 sets with remotely any intensity.
Intensity and volume are always inversed and subject to recovery. If you are a subject in a study doing 50 sets of leg curls and nothing else.. I'm sure you can train hard, and a lot, and recover... In the real work it just doesn't work like that.
It’s not just possible to cycle volumes, it’s necessary for advanced lifters. Only a genetic freak like yates can keep growing from the same stimulus over and over again. The Volume -> intensity-->volume cycle creates novel stimulus. Going from 6 sets to a slightly easier 9 sets isn’t what I’m talking about. These are the fundamentals in any good programming book. I’ve seen it way too many times where guys train high volume get gains, then plateau for a long time. Switch to low volume and make gains again thinking they found the answer until they hit a plateau again. I can’t think of 1 top competitive lifter who sticks to 6-9 sets through the year
I remember when I got serious into lifting. I did a PPL 2x a week. I spent 3-5 hours a day in the gym, except on Sundays. I hit every body part a total of 45-50 times a week. I was constantly having to take "deloads", and I say that in quotations because it was really just time off to recover from overuse injuries. The funny thing is- I only gained a lot of muscle when I was bulking and adding weight to the bar, just as you stated in this video. Most of the visual size went away quickly when I'd have to take time off from injuries.
Fast forward to later in my training age, I noticed that using far less volume (10 sets a week per muscle) let's me be consistent, giv3s me the same strength gains, and the only thing missing is the cell swelling that goes away in one week anyways (when deloading/time off). So, all that time I was using extreme volume and getting injured, it was only to get the muscle inflamed and create an illusion of being more swole....but I wasn't more swole, I was just more swollen😅
thats wild, i do about 12 (6 every 4 days) sets doing ppl 5days per week. Sometimes i worry that is too much. Can't imagine that volume you were working with.
@JohnB-ws4ge yeah, but I did love the gym a lot. I was extremely passionate in my late 20s. It didn't bother me mentally, and I never felt overtrained, aside from the constant joint fatigue. Also, I was a competitive boxer for 6 years prior to that, so my work capacity was pretty insane.
So glad you mentioned Fisher and Steele. I was waiting to hear those names. They do science without the fanfare. It seems social media is awash with the high volume hypertrophy scientists who clearly are very good at marketing and promoting/citing each other.
James Steele is a gent. Had him on for a chat not too long ago.
Sometimes I wonder how much of the reaction video circle jerk that they do with one another is planned behind the scenes and which "beefs" are fake like wresting kayfabe. I remember three that I used to follow (before I got tired of their drama with one another) coming out with videos on the same topic in the same week.
From my own experience, my volume has gone down and my intensity and frequency have gone up as I've come to understand my body and programming better. Not that I believe low volume is the way to go but higher volume is simply not necessary, atm. The fact that Dr Mike said that you should train more than the pros is so absurd. I sometimes feel guys like Dr Mike have hurt the hypertrophy space more than helped it. I've recently started helping others program and have come across several people who were doing an absurd amount of volume (8 sets per exercise) because they were trying to hit that 20 sets per body part mark. And unsurprisingly, they also had joint problems. When I tried to explain to them that 1-3 sets per workout are plenty and that they will progress with 4-8 sets per body, especially as a beginner, they simply couldn't wrap their mind around how such "low volume" could result in progress.
Joint recovery really isn't talked about enough is it
@@barrybarnett731 nope
I would love to know the secret to training with high volume while actually training hard, because my muscles are usually completely cooked after 4-8 sets for that muscle group in a training session.
For real. I do full body with big emphasis on arms. And on day where I do the most for my arms - 5 sets, 3 in the beginning, and 2 more towards the end of workout I already feel like my arms will fall of after those first 2-3 sets.
"Social media should be used for entertainment, not evidence, not fact." - Relevant to every field these days.
I fully believe that these science based gurus like Dr Mike (who has nearly fallen fully of the bandwagon) keep lifting as complicated as possible so their audience never leaves them.
I like to think he's got potential to be a force for good again. He's off the heavy drugs and he's 'made it' in terms of money from what I understand.
I would like the old Mike back 💛
i see the evidence based figureheads making claims with appropriate nuance but clearly agree that the “lmao volume” has been repeated often enough, disproportionately to the caveats, so beginners with a poor grasp on the basics can conceivably get all messed up trying to write their own programs.
and unless you grew up on old yt fitness or have one foot in something like powerlifting, ie. are looking out for the basics yeah it’s easy to take the absolute wrong things out of what people are saying.
@@thegoldfish123 also known as the Athlean X method
@@chairmanlifts everything is nuanced but they all say the exact same thing. HMMMMM
If you've watched a handful of Dr Mike videos in entirety I don't understand how you could say it's complicated. He repeats over and over again, high effort and consistency are the most important things. Consistency can involve some details such as fatigue management etc.
Started training with a 'powerbuilding' science based approach with a heavy focus on super strict form which are really just buzzwords at this point and I've made some progress but my progress 2x-ed when I started 'egolifting'. By ego lifting I don't mean cutting ROM (half rep bench, quarter squats etc.) and maxing every day, just doing really intense and heavy sets being mindful to take the stimulus to fatigue ratio into account and to have proper recovery and it was a game changer. I sometimes rotate between a little bit more volume and intensity but I've found 3-8 reps to work really well with like 1 rep left in the tank. If you're doing real work it's hard to even fit in a bunch of sets, like just 3 intense sets of squats can really drain you.
A lot of good thoughts here Doron and things I recommend too. I think it's very wise to just 'try' some weights and almost force yourself into new territory. I used to do that a lot to bust through to new plateaus. Not so much anymore but when I was coming up for sure.
I also still recommend cycling periods of higher intensity with higher volume. I have a video on that soon.
Great thoughts brother.
People use "strict form" as a way to be lazy. They also have an ego attached to it. Strict form is not the end goal. A standard, safe ROM that hits the muscles effectively and that doesn't beat you up is the goal. You can do that in a million ways. Using some body english on the db laterals is a perfect example. Dr Mike says that you should basically do Lu Raises with slow negatives. That's the only proper form. But we all know that the lift is easiest at the bottom and hardest at the top, so why wouldn't I initiate with a small amount of swing just to help me at the top? It makes perfect sense.
I don't have a ton of experience but the conclusion I've drawn is consistency. I think you can absolutely focus in on a muscle, muscle group or exercise and see better results with specificity. Trying to do too much work without focus can absolutely lead to subpar results. Folks everywhere just can't tell every individual what they need to hear. The volume of information can be condensed tho. Hell I look forward to getting a coach one day but I'm getting there slowly with guys like you. Thanks!
You're very welcome!
Yep! One can get incredible results with only a very basic workout routine provided they train hard but not more than 3 or 4 days a week.
Not even serge nubret did that much volume . 52 sets is crazy and I found it funny that they listed the rest times were around 3 mins per set at that point you may as well rent a room in the gym
Serge the great, what a physique
A lot of pros did many ramp up sets. Their actual volume was way lower than some people believe
And the biggest flaw on this 52 set study that influencers miss to clarify or point put (perhaps on purpose for more clicks) is that those sets were done without doing any other muscle group so the body can heal properly. More volume has more results but not in contexts of full body training (regardless the split or frequency)
@@sancamilobad But they all clarify exactly that. They all say that this study doesnt mean you should do that much volume, but rather that it supports the argument for specialization phases, where u just go all out on 1-2 muscles and keep the others on maintenance volume.
@@theiceman7590 yeah when I hear some of these number of sets claims I have to ask "does that include warm up sets" and if not then "at what threshold do we start counting the sets as working instead of warm up?" I get reminded of the "just one set" HIT people who ignore the several warmup sets that Mike and Dorian would do before that "just one set".
Thank you teacher. You really do have the best info on social media. Your 1st 20 lbs of muscle vids converted me to your knowledge/ideology.
One of my favourite series. Glad you liked it.
Goddamn this is very good Faz. I have a podcast very similar to this on the way…
I’ve seen this in all the rugby players I work with… NONE of them have high volume at all, yet they all grow muscle. The sad part is none of them will really admit they were wrong the whole time.
Looking forward to seeing that TJ. Yep that's the thing whether it's the sunkcost fallacy or just stubbornness but very few admit they were wrong even when confronted with their own evidence.
It's a weird fitness industry Stockholm syndrome of (lack of) gains.
Great video Faz! Your point about "no one is doing that in real life" is so true - I would bet that even those people telling us the results of the studies aren't doing that.
Baller video, Faz. (As always)
For any comment section lurkers, here's my training trajectory the last year or so, specifically relating to volume:-
Started out averaging 15-20 sets per muscle
dropped it to 12-15, saw smoother progression
dropped it to 10-12, saw smoother progression
dropped it to 8-10, saw smoother progression
And now, at present, I'm doing 3-4 sets a week for arms, and between 4 and 8 sets for the rest of the muscle groups. Progressing well, joints feeling good, etc etc...
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y Sure thing. I never really know what to say in terms of how long ive been training. I lifted for about 2 years around 2016-2018. barely made it out of the novice phase and never hit legs. Started lifting again 2 years ago and I'd say I'm now an intermediate. starting bodyweight was a pencil neck skinny fat 149lbs, I'm currently 178lbs and leaner.
Height 5'8, to give the bodyweight some context
@user-nm3ug3zq1y he is yoked
@@Fazlifts Just tryna get like you, boss 😎
I usually dont comment on Social Media, but here i have to. I follow RUclips fitness since quite some time, virtually all sides of it. This might be the best fitness video of the last 10 years. I wish everyone would watch it. Sports sience is highly inaccurate, and thats not by the scientist, but the severe individually differences. Nothing compared to nature sciences. I myself am aiming for a career in nutritional science, sports nutrition in particular. Wrote my bachelor thesis on the topic of the anabolic window. With the whole literature available right now, we cant say that it does nothing. Theres not a lot of direct research, the studies we have actually favor an positive effect of protein timing around the training (just like the old experienced guys preached…). Yet, the „consensus“ is, that Protein Timing doesnt matter. Thats based on a big meta analysis by? Schonfeld. His meta analysis + his review on this topic is what is always reffered to. If you have the time, look up that meta analysis yourself, what studies he actually compared. Most of them had them give carbs pre workout and protein post, or vice versa. They didnt compare protein timing. The metaanalysis is not good, yet is the scientific consensus that is preached. What i want to say is, the vast majority of researchers isnt on Social Media, what results in exactly what Faz says. Social Media is not even close to the whole scientific picture. Always factcheck what you hear. A lot of quality studies are free for watch, and the databases are available for everyone (Pubmed etc.). There you can find a whole lot of high, low, medium volume / frequency studies. Science is a beautiful, changing, dynamic sphere. Science on Social Media, for the most part, is as much of an iceberg as everything else in the internet.
Thanks Faz, great info as always. I have been confused as a new lifter in the industry, still young and have a lot more to learn.
Your points are valid and true. But I was hoping you were going to elaborate on the quality of the research. You said the high volume was bs but didn’t cite anything to the contrary. Maybe that’s in your other videos.
This video wasn't really about the research specifically, it was more about the overall message.
For a closer look at the research look for my video called Hypertrophy Controversy. Thank you.
Great video Faz.Great points agree on a lot of these!Always keeping it real💪🏽
Faz, absolutely unleashing. Love it.
Top notch content as always from fazlifts, this mirrors my understanding ever since getting "serious" about training since the start of the year. Luckily I've always put a premium on progressive overload so my progress has been good, but I've definitely lost some time from over focusing on technique-cyborg-maxing, deep stretch/exaggerated ROM, and all that other nonsense. Just started a bulk again and my focus is purely on working close to failure and progressive overload with good form for medium to high reps, as a certain youtuber keeps mentioning. Excited to see where this goes 💪
Thank you Faz, I feel like a lot of people in this space are mostly thinking more is always better. I think the issue is most of the consumers of this content aren’t able to spend 7 to 10 hours in the gym per week to achieve those massive volumes, and it leaves us feeling defeated and like we aren’t doing anything at all for hypertrophy
love the shirt. on topic in a way
3 sets on most exercises with 3-4 exercises per muscle group. 12 sets per workout per muscle group max. Certain exercises i will do 5-6 sets of a specific exercise, but those are like squats and doing 2 or 3 sets of different variations. Maybe 24 sets per week, and i am gaining.
Another great video Faz
Ayyy Faz giving us lessons on Critical Thinking. Great vid, boss.
I was a victim of this kind of videos “you dont need high volume” i always dial all the variables in. However, i was afraid of going higher volume because this kind of videos “too much volumes. Its just a trend” and i was getting no where for 2 years and eventually i got too frustrated only variable i didnt really change was “volume” so i ended up doing “inefficient high volume” and yes started finally making progress again. It’s probably i have unusual body type. So at the end, take everything as grain of salt and try on your body.
But i just personally feel “damn youuu !!” Everytime when i see information like this “ you dont need high volume its all hype “ i want my 2 years back
I agree. But I feel this is all very dependent on the person. I also benefit from higher volume. Mike does actually suck because he used to spew BS. But, as he has learned…. He now recommends that people discover their own optimal volume. I will give him credit for that. But yeah, there was a ring of “researchers” that annoyingly said “the science says…” without experience. Now that they have experience, they’re coming to a realistic conclusion. Haha.
@@thunderkat5282 I strongly agree with everything you said
no matter what science or bros say, at the end we have to find what work for our own bodies.
but it is annoying how adequate volume change as we progress, but well
i singed up for this !
I do understand your frustration but that's not really what this video is about. This is not an anti high volume video.
There is a lot of nuance and advice in this video, which I realise is quite long.
Best of luck to you.
What you will never learn in books or studies is "the principle of individuality". Maybe you're slow twitch fibers dominant. Maybe you have lower motor unit recruitment. Maybe less experience. Who knows. But some people can benefit from higher volumes. "To know where the line is, you must cross it".
@@owlperformance2147 i don’t like the fact that currently my body responds to high volumes because i have to spend so much time in the gym. Yeah individuality is the key. I probably happen to be this rare individual. I m speculating im slow twitch dominant. 1
I almost never get sore
2 my muscles recover very fast
3 when i was a kid i always did extremely well in long distance running
And i have been training about 14 years now.
Thank you for great contents. But i also do believe most people do better with moderate volume with adequate intensity and technique
Fantastic video, thanks Faz!
I'm finding more and more as I continue my lifting journey that its all about hard sets, ideally on movements that are easy to progress over time with a decent ROM. Its kind of that simple haha.
Case in point, during the pandemic when all I had to really target my lats were pullups, I got damn good at them and my lats exploded.
These uber high volume studies simple can't have that many legit hard sets. Like, nobody can do 32 sets of hard squats in a session, let alone do it twice per week.
When it comes to volume, sure, turning the dial up to 11 like back in the Golden Era where guys would do 2 sessions a day 2 hours each is fine, but that volume masks the lack of intensity and progressive overload
Your first two paragraphs were perfect and 100% facts, and I really hope others see it. The only thing I can add is to take at least a few days a week off to rest which will result in more gains and better workouts.
I’ve made wonderful progress training 2-3x per week with 2 sets close or all the way to concentric failure. Generally full body 3x per week. Just hit 10x495 on RDL last week which has been a huge improvement since starting training this way, and my physique is showing great improvement on low volume but high effort sets.
Good video!
What a breath of fresh air! Spot on mate, spot on! My follow list has gotten so much less and will continue to be filled only with the likes of what you promote! Thank you! 🫶
P.S. That hoodie rocks!
Something Alex Bromley said that I resonated with a lot (not direct quote just paraphrasing) is instead of looking for the single best method for training, look at how so many different training styles have worked for different people and find your own.
Like you said, I'm young and probably biased and I've followed the likes of Wolf and Mike and those guys for a while. I do like lengthened biased training mostly cause I find it's been effective at getting me stronger, bigger, and more mobile. It's also just fun. Still, I had no idea about the low volume training studies and they were interesting to hear about. Thanks faz
You know if it's working for you Duncan, do carry on.
My comments here reflect more on a large subset (of every generation, not just this one) who over focus on the details without the fundamentals in place.
For example all the lengthened partials in the world will amount to nothing if progressive overload isn't in play.
These things can serve to detract rather than enhance.
@@Fazlifts That's a fair point especially with your experience. Only been lifting for 2 years myself but even I can see now the potential harm this could do to those who blindly follow this with say only two weeks of training experience
Too many people don't want to spend the time to experiment, especially those misled by the idea that there's a ticking "newbie gains clock" that started when they first touched a double and they need to be "optimal" right away.
Some interesting points, which it usually is when it comes to you Faz! But I do think you forgot one group that makes a lot of noise and promotes low volume... Mike Menzer crowd!!
Lol indeed, that would need a whole nother video 😉
Golden content as usual
Policy over personality.
The best utility of a "great" personality is making people feel good and to buy whatever you're selling. It's definitely a good quality to have in a vacuum but you have to be able to separate such from the substance underneath.
Great point!
You're right, there is value and utility in making others feel good about themselves.
Excellent video. If you step into the majority of commercial gyms, you will see average people doing what they have been prescribed. “More sets, more volume”, etc. The downside of that is the same people that follow that approach, look exactly the same year after year. However, when I see someone doing full body with low volume, sometimes only one working set, or upper lower with maybe 2 sets max, they look have some serious muscle and they look like they actually enjoy what they are doing. Progressive overload with good form will always prevail over 5 sets of garbage that will elicit, maybe a pump, at best. Rant over.
Influencers have been pushing optimal, optimal, optimal, ad nauseam. If you can get 70-80% effectiveness from the first hour, I wager 9 in 10 people will be content and not go for the 2nd hour.
@@gutsberserk2718 I'll see your 2nd hour and raise you a chicken breast & broccoli lunch, which takes 10 minutes.
@gutsberserk2718 if you can't interact with other commenter's without throwing insults, you're blocked.
Great video Faz! It's important to remember that the main goal of these influencers is to make money by creating a niche for themselves. I don't have a problem with science-based stuff per se, but I have a problem with the fact that all these minor things (the stretch, obsession on perfect form, MEV/MRV/WTF etc) seem to now be THE main things to worry about when training. I can only imagine what it's like to be a beginner and being bombarded by all this superfluous stuff!
Also, in the end, all these guys built the majority of their size and strength by going hard on time-proven movements...and not by hammering some single-arm-lying-on-the-floor-lat-pullarounds...
Cheers!
extremely well spoken as usual, excellent points and i’m on your side here.
i still listen to the evidence based sphere in long form podcasts, i don’t see an issue with people chatting as nerds to other nerds trying to make a point out of academic curiosity.
but obviously the effects will be much different when the youtuber/IG reel hat comes on and you know you are talking to noobs who aren’t grounded enough that you should probably assume they will take the information and run with it the worst way possible and all the caveating and nuances are not enough.
Thank you for the good content
My best gains have been on low to medium volumes. Little higher volumes if I'm keeping slightly more RIR. Just hammering your sets with consistency and lots of solid effort is going to do a lot of work for you. How many people that go to the gym just don't push their sets hard enough? 🤔
honestly this volume bubble needs to pop. how is it that it's "8 to 14 sets per week" for novices, but then gets bumped up to 40+ for anyone above that? it ain't adding up
Progressive overload, training to failure with good technique and bulking are harder to advertise I guess.
P.S. I'm glad you called out people saying "Science says this" especially when science is more effective at falsification rather than confirmation.
I dont know why but i subbed before one minute mark. Already sold on the content 😂
your videos are always good
some people respond better to higher volumes and some perople respond better to lower volumes. The same person can respond to one or the other better at different times of their life. What should be a focus is learning how to troublehoot your own training. Borge Fergaleri probably does this the best for his clients as far as I can see
Hell you can see different parts of your own body responding to different volumes. My chest and arms always needed more volume than my legs.
New sub. Thanks Faz
Welcome to the channel 😊
You’re right on as usual. All I can say is none of these guys have trained over 40 without drugs with that kind of volume that have any baseline of strength. I think it’s impossible for 98% of people
Aging is not for the faint of heart eh! Currently Friday evening and I'm looking forward to a lie in tomorrow 😂
I’m over 40 and I do it
I’ve been watching a lot of Joe Bennett and Jordan Peters recently and i really resonate with their approach - start with one set per body part per session and see if you’re making progress. If not, see what’s stopping you from progressing.
dr flipflop schoenfeld😂
Aren't you supposed to change your mind if you find evidence to the contrary? I'm not familiar with his history but changing your mind is actually a sign of being rational, and even humble
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y would like to see his fouled study to investigate this further
@@valerie.mccaffrey normally I would agree and being humble enough to change your mind, is a good sign. A few things to bear in mind:
1) Brad wouldn't have to walk it back, if he applied more caution to the findings of his own studies. He announced one of his studies on social media with "this study will blow current volume landmarks out of the door". His stance that more volume = better was highlighted with the extravagantly titled paper "The dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts?". That is not the attitude of somebody who is taking a reasoned approach to new data.
2) This is not exclusive to Brad but part of the 'evidence based schtick' is to poke fun at the bros for training practices which they suspect are wrong. When these same bros are proven to be right, because the original research was flawed ... well you can see how that comes across. The MPS data some 8 years ago where every 150lber on reddit pronounced the brosplit as 'stupid' was a prime example of this. That was also walked back.
3) Brad has openly admitted the problems with his studies, the fact that he has been the sole data tester in studies where there was no double blinding done. He has also been the topic of some discussion in a recent paper entitled amusingly "The dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: There are still doubts" where it was highlighted that for some reason Brads lab not only gets consistently positive but also consistently high outcomes from all his test subjects... Outside of the lab life happens and as we know, progress isn't linear but in Brad's lab it appears to be. I'll say no more on that one, and it could just be that Brad is an amazing Coach but it makes you wonder...
So with all that said, yes it is great to change your mind based on the new evidence but perhaps one should approach this with a little more rigour.
I have a few points and would be interested in your take Faz (if you see this):
- I've watched a lot of RP stuff over the years (not just since their popularity increase) - the vast majority of the time, they emphasise the importance of intensity over high volume - e.g in their muscle gain series, Mike states 3-10 sets per muscle per session for most people (I wouldn't call this crazy volume). Also, if you ever watch their training videos of other athletes, the volumes are not high, but the intensity is through the roof. Often their leg workouts are 10 sets or less for all leg muscles.
- When these "52 set" type videos came out, I think these studies were used as clickbait more than anything. Anyone with any experience wouldn't take that seriously, and I think the idea is that if you need to focus on 1 muscle group, you can increase volume significantly, whilst maintaining other muscle group volumes.
- The variance in volume between muscle groups can be crazy. I can see growth from 5 or 6 sets of quads per week, but for chest and side delts, 15-20 sets per week seems to work much better for me.
- The obsession with slow eccentrics, stretch pauses, and lengthened partials is weird. I guess that is how they are trying to market themselves as different (and I like a controlled eccentric/ pause on some exercises). What annoys me, are these Jeff Nippard style exercise tier lists that are ranking the quality of exercises based on how good of a stretch it offers, and how it feels, and not how much stimulus and tension it offers. Case in point, ranking a single arm cable press around in the same class as the bench press, despite him admitting that the bench press is how he built his chest in the first place. Ludicrous!
1) I think you're being very generous here. Right now go and Google "rp volume landmarks". Like literally right now go do it and look at the top results, enough said.
2) You're missing the point here.
I want you think about what I'm going to say here for a while before you reply back here. That research was performed on test subjects, results were recorded and the outcome which you are so ready to dismiss was the recommendation from that paper and that recommendation is so far removed from reality that we could easily dismiss it as ludicrous.
Now the question is... what does that tell you about the validity of the research. How it was performed. How trustworthy these people are.
Your willingness to dismiss research based on it being ludicrous is half right, but you're not thinking this all the way through. It has far reaching implications.
3) Yes
4) Agreed
Faz, let's have you bring out an effective abbreviated workout E-book lol. Also, a video on your thoughts JP's (Jordan Peter's) Full Body program, if you feel inclined to. Atb
I wouldn't mind releasing an abbreviated eBook and perhaps also a Powerbuilding eBook. I don't agree with it but if people are going to insist on doing it I'd rather they do it effectively.
Jordan's stuff is generally very good but his views on progressive overload are very drug biased.
2 sets per muscle 2 x week and I’m seeing progressive overload on a regular basis
You dont need much to get great gains. But could you get better gains if you went from 2 to 3? Have you tried it out yet?
i highly recommend looking at the hierarchy of evidence in science. a single study is very weak evidence in the grand scheme of things and the level of scientific literacy in the general population is pretty poor. unfortunately, these "science" influencers take advantage of this.
also u are absolutely right about the quality of the studies in exercise science compared to other fields. a lot of them in isolation are completely useless and the methodologies can be quite lacking imo in terms of gaining any practical insights. many of the studies when understood properly simply confirm what we have already learnt in lifting decades ago. i've seen some very bizarre takes from science based lifters (a science based lifter who is doing a PhD in exercise science recently just told me that the biceps take significantly longer to recover than the quads based on a single mechanistic study).
The "National Geographicification" of science: Laymen making very large claims about entire populations, based on small scale and contingent studies.
However, in this case it's the bleedin' scientists that are doing it. The "volume dose" paper was a meta-analysis - supposedly at the very top of the pyramid - but it was still ballocks.
Whilst I think the pyramid of evidence is still relevant, you still need good study methodologies and a large abundance of evidence covering various cases before making broad claims. Unfortunately the quality of studies in exercise science for hypertrophy is pretty poor and lacks rigour when compared to other fields. For example I notice a lot of studies fail to consistently define what "failure" is where they even contradict their own definitions. I think a big part of the issue is that it is very difficult to get relevant samples but these science influencers have the hubris to suggest that these studies have any relevance. I think the bigger issue is the influencers versus the actual scientists themselves.
Ha! Love the hoodie! LOL
I also remember an old video of yours about the quality of the vocal science research. About the inflation that high volume causes and lasts longer which they don't take it into account correctly, that's what I remember at least. Would be interested about the other science guys, I might look it up on my own or you might have an old video about it.
I personally never bought into very high volume training, I think as a natural you benefit more from lower volume training and higher intensity. The volume will scale over time as you get stronger.
I'm glad I'm not naturally very athletic, therefore lower volume styles emphasizing compounds with lower reps sat better with me. In hindsight I believe I came farther than I would've.
"You know who I am... and you know I'm right". Lyle McDonald 2024.
No one on the "science based" side ever says the most relevant part to normal people:
"The differences between the 10 set groups and the 50 set groups was measured in MM, not in Inches (and they are usually measured by ultrasound, the 21st century sports science equivalent of a bleedin' dowsers wand)". "Progressively heavier weights, in moderate rep ranges". It's is so simple, but not so profitable.
I think we as a community are too focused on optimisation which is not possible unless you have at least 5-10 years of experience under your belt.
I have a pretty good physic and are stronger than most people at my weight. I just train progressively, eat according to my goals and sleep 8 hours a night.
Talking about volume as much as you want, if you are not getting stronger in any shape or form, you will not grow period
Lyle has been saying this for more than 2 decades now
Would love some input. I'm currently running an upper/lower split. Usually doing 3 sets of a compound lift, roughly 8-10 reps, then 2 sets of an isolation for that muscle group. IE: 3 sets of hack squats, followed by 2 sets of leg extensions, or 3 sets of bench and then 2 sets of flyes. Hitting both upper and lower 2x per week.
Could I be better off doing 4 straight sets of the compound lift? I currently weight roughly 380lbs and trying to lose fat. Trying to get my volume to a place where I can get a good stimulus and not spend 2 hours in the gym.
If you're spending 2 hours in the gym that seems the immediate issue correct?
The option to just do 4 sets of the compound lift would likely save you time and would likely lead to more progress on a lift that matters. So in this circumstance that seems sensible.
Remember volume is only useful IF it allows for more weight on the bar in a bodybuilding rep range in good form.
@@Fazlifts I lowered my rest times and I'm usually out within 60-75 minutes lately, just wanted your input on if the sets of 3 then 2 or 4 straight would be more ideal 💪
Oh that's much a better time.
I think you'd likely be fine with the compound only thing. Good luck!
A great tip Faz gave in another video is to split the 4-6 sets into distinct rep ranges.
1st 2 sets: 4-6 reps
2nd 2 sets: 8-12 reps
They feel like completely different exercises, game changer, saves time not setting up/warming up a new exercise too.
@@Fazlifts
i imagine itd also depend how much time it takes to get set up for an isolation vs doing more sets on the compound.
eg it’s a nominal amount of time to do one feeler set of the isolation and get onto my work set within 3 mins of finishing the compound exercise.
and doing more isolation will improve isolation strength which is probably valuable.
but yeah 2 hours in the gym on an upper body day unless tacking on a ton of stepmill while cutting from a very high bodyweight feels generally suspect?
Nice hoodie.
I was doing 6 days a week was progressing but i felt like I was burning out after a year changed to every other day and muscle growth has improved
Wisdom and common sense and experience
It's interesting isn't it, 2~6 Hard sets per session per exercise is about where I am able to progress. But when I'm only doing 2 hard sets I *feel* like I'm training wrong because of largely your intro, so I'll do a backoff set, then I'll do a drop set but I've told myself this mesocycle is for horsing weight as much your average pencil neck can horse, but I'm trying to let the Thick as Frick Horsecock IT'S A MINDSET mentality get in, it's working
This one's a keeper
Good video
I think so mang people focus on lifting real heavy weights, not realizing that it's better to focus on really working the muscles, and not so much on the numbers on the weights you are lifting. For instance, try doing bicep exercises for an hour using various machines and equipment. Next, do the same for triceps, etc. I believe that is what the fitness gurus mean by more volume.
I cant tell if youre for real or not.
Noone means this when they talk about high volume. Thats just tons of junk volume
@@The_Patbey Well it works for me . I feel kinda insulted you call it junk volume. So what do you lift junk heavy? Why not try it before you slam my methods.
@@brianjones7900 but thats the official term for it
@@brianjones7900 actually, I should have asked this first, how many sets is 1 hour of biceps training for you? And how hard do you push them
@@The_Patbey If I'm working biceps, I would work out around 3 hours. Generally, that would be about 50 sets. In one set, I would do anywhere between 7 to 10 reps per set, and I'll rest around 40 seconds to a minute and continue the next set. The level of resistance can anywhere be from heavy to moderate. I don't lift ridiculously heavy, but none of it is easy. So ok let's hear your criticisms. Tell me why you consider it junk volume. Regardless of your opinion, I still think you should try what I've suggested earlier, but go ahead and crap on my methods.
I always did max 6-8 sets a week doing upper lower and when i looked at programs of people I couldnt believe how they can do like 20+ sets when if you do very intensely 3-5 sets on muscle on a session you will be cooked. I have the biggest number of sets right now for arms -11 because I really want to bring them up.
I am fucking toasted at 15 sets a week😂. But normally i would do 8-10sets
I can confidently say I am lost on how to train. I go to gym and I just stand there paralysed.
If you're literally THAT out of your depth, try some old Eric Bugenhagen advice: Pick one big compound lift and train it every day, seven days a week. Every session should start with a stretch and activation ritual, warm up sets, a heavy one or two rep max and then drop the weight down for one or two volume sets (5-8 rep sets) and that's it. Repeat every day, Monday to Sunday and then choose a different lift the next week (Ideally, upper body week 1, lower body week 2,back to upper week 3 etc.) You can't get lost if you're only giving yourself one thing to focus on.
I hope that's not true, but if it is here is my fundamentals playlist which has my views on key issues:
Hypertrophy Fundamentals
ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h
As well as that I have 3 free programs to run on Boostcamp:
www.boostcamp.app/#fazlifts
If you're still stuck after all that free stuff, I have ebooks and there is coaching and consultations.
Take care.
Diminishing returns man. 4-6 sets a week are enough for significant progress, so anything extra needs to be checked against its recovery cost.
More quality volume, and real progress overload is the driver of strength and hypertrophy.
Volume is good but its not the messiah they paint it out to be. Maybe for a specialization phase you can do something akin to the bro phase many people went through of training and spamming just arms
18:57 18:57 18:57 18:58 That is so true. I had enough now of fitness industry. Kinda had a life of ther shit. 19:24 19:24 19:25 So I. Now got hold of a powerlifting and rehab guy who I no. So I focus on rehab. And to get stronger with more mobility. So yes. I do the basic lifts. Now. With a few light. Days like arms. On top. Haven’t locked in my muscles yet and still have major tummy issues from the hospital attacks. So I won’t ever get any gains. With out the drugs at my age. So I decided to go down the road of. Rehab and better mobility only. And I do a few powerlifting exercises. Just to. Get some strength in. Look. I feel ok. I hope to go home to USA in a few months. And maybe have to go to Germany for more surgeries also. So until then. I Kinda. 23:05 Agree with Lyell. And I still only watch a few now on RUclips. Yea. Last year at kerikeri. Gyms was crazy. Kinda super toxic. The Path was for me to move town and change. My. Workouts. To rehab and a few powerlifting exercises also. So. Faz. This video. Was super helpful 24:47 24:47 24:47 24:48 24:48 24:48 24:48 24:48 24:48 24:49 24:49 24:49 24:49 24:49 24:49 24:49 24:50 24:50 24:50 24:50 24:50 24:50 24:51 24:51 24:51 24:51 24:51 24:51 24:51 24:52 24:52 24:52 24:52 24:52 24:53 24:53 24:53 24:53 24:53 24:53 24:54 24:54 24:54 24:54 24:54 24:54 24:54 24:55 24:55 24:55 24:55 24:56 24:56 24:56 24:56 24:57 24:57 24:57 24:57 24:57 24:57 24:58 24:58 24:58 24:59 24:59 24:59 25:00 25:00 25:01 25:01 25:01 that’s right. I don’t care about getting bigger at my age. Just want to move better and get stronger
I made a video critiquing Mike Israetel and Milo Wolf gushing about more volume because I have just been getting sick of this shit. More volume is extremely effective IF you can recover WITH high intensity. It’s just another lever like frequency there is no one answer but that doesn’t sell very well
52 sets is not high but insane volume lol. I train Mountaindog and Creeping Death 2 was the hardest program I ever did (the only I never fully recovered) and the maximum number of sets was 32 for back...
I just show up to workout. Nothing else. Just giving my 30-60min everyday.
I do less volume now from watching Mike Israetel. The crazy sets recomendations are for "specialization phases" which I do not agree with
So im cutting, I train low volume, I’m losing weight and I’m gaining strength every week been lifting for almost 2 years, I was at 17% bf and I lost 2 more pounds again I’m gaining strength in the gym and in a calorie deficit and so I remeasured doing navy body calculator I always do and it says I’m still 17% bf is this because my lower body doesn’t get measured? I’ve noticed my legs has more striations
I would trust your eyes and they mirror.
If you're very stuck message me on ig
I have been following your berserker arm/delt specialization after i realised wizard was a bit problematic (would not want to wait for squats/bench and ended up doing the excercises not as described but based on what is available).
I still consider myself evidence/science based. Do i progress in weight. Then i progress. How much volume? Train close to failure/or to failure cause i like it, get a controlled eccentric and explosive concentric and try to get at least 6-8 sets per week. More if i can handle it.
Studies trying to find the upper limit of the inverted u curve is not for practical application. It is trying to prove/disprove a concept/theory.
If anything, your berserker program has me in the 30+ sets for biceps if you count sets as they do in the literature.
Also as I actually lurk in Lyle's fb group. I would think you would disagree with most of his opinions on a lot of things more than you would with stronger by science guys for example.
Policy over personality George. Always policy over personality.
Of course I'm going to disagree with Lyle about some things, and I'll agree with Mike about some things. Avoid making this personal George.
@@Fazlifts fair point. I guess I am projecting here. Damn you keep your cool on youtube.
oh and btw I Finally have good biceps :). Think Ill run berserker for afull year. Thanks and cheers!
Low volume high volume have both become cults. Faz has the best advice be loyal to results not the method. If it doesn’t help add weight on the bar discard it. I see a lot of “power builders” (dudes who run a powerlifting program but do bodybuilding accessory work) get bigger and better results than most training for hypertrophy. Why? Because they focus all lifts not just big 3 on getting stronger
You have to wonder if the people falling for the high volume meme skipped their beginner 3x5 progression altogether.
@@user-nm3ug3zq1y while 3x5 and 5x5 got me a big initial increase in strength I saw no size gains like I did with regular high volume.
me lift weight till weight no move
me too sore lift weight ? me lift less
me feel stronk and fresh ? me lift more
zug zug
So just like Dr Mike recommends essentially. Its a great way to train
@@The_Patbey I don't really keep up with fitness youtube tbh but last I checked mike was leaving everything at like a 3+ RIR and preplanning deloads.
Wouldn't say that's the same. That isn't a diss to Mike, dudes a funny guy but we don't train the same that's for sure.
@@Davichiz No no, sorry, I didn't mean the whole training. Just the 'adjusting volume based on regeneration and soreness' aspect.
And just on a side note, he usually does 1-2 RIR, not 3+. But yeah the preplanned deloads are just bullcrap
@@The_Patbey ah alright fair enough!
So the volume standards are wrong got it. Was hoping to get a volume recommendation at the end to replace it. Maybe I missed it. Just stinks because I’m well aware volume recommendations are too high what I want to know is what’s the correct volume
I see you're new to the channel Justin, welcome. This video wasn't just about volume, but I know it's a long one and does require some listening.
You'll find most of my fundamentals including my volume recommendations in this playlist:
Hypertrophy Fundamentals
ruclips.net/p/PLcBzFSqsHKhs5muajYxG70uCcwGJ8IV3h
Solid
Is 2-4 sets per muscle per week too less. I barely progressed doing this even though I’m still relatively a beginner.
As a beginner you need more your are not strong enough to train low volume
Also check your frequency
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut...master the basics and remember there are no new fundamentals. FIND WHAT WORKS FOR YOU...
And if you watch israetel and other influencers, you’ll notice that their recommendations trend more towards golden era recommendations over time. I think studies on their advice over time prove this point. Haha
Everyone saying high volume lots of sets. But never what the reps would look like.
50 sets of 1?! 30 sets of 2. Thats all reasonable. But if you are telling me 50 sets of 20 hell no.
Noone recommends doing 50 sets. Not even close to it
The next area that the “fitness industry” is going to transition into is programming relative intensity. Watch… you’ll see. It’s the right direction and I’m not a “researcher”, but I am intelligent enough to see it coming.
Whats relative intensity?
That is somewhat being done already. Rir is essentially a relative intensity scale.
@@Fazliftsyes, but in any real way as far as programming is concerned? I have seen a couple attempts. Maybe less than 4. I’ve seen some people periodically or randomly modify RIR. But, I haven’t seen any really common discussion or approach regarding this. But maybe you have? I’d be interested. I have my own hypothesis on how to do it. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I think it could accelerate growth.
Mike just yesterday dropped a video advising "hard gainers". The conclusion? You recover quickly (citation not provided) so you have to do MORE volume. And if you see someone gaining with lower/moderate volume and without the cyborg form strictness, it's because they are easy gainers. So he sets up his preposition in a way that can't disproven. When it inevitably fails the trainees, they are convinced that it's because of genetics and the course action is to double down on the terrible practices.
Yeah, he's gone a bit wrong in the mind tank has Mike.