3-4 exercises 3-4 sets each 3 times a week in a PPL routine. There are a lot of quite complex muscle groups and hitting them with 3-4 exercises is not crazy at all. If you do a PPL with 3x/w you still get full 72h rest for the muscle groups. Exercise selection and a healthy lifestyle are key.
The problem I see with this study, is "intensity". I assume they all did the same amount of intensity, and anyone who really knows how to train hard, knows you can't train hard (absolute failure or very close) and train long. So it would be interesting to see what 3 sets to failure per week vrs 9 sets to non failure (3-5) reps left, would show. I'm a hard gainer, a lot of volume even if each set was kept 3-5 reps from failure would quickly deplete my CNS, but I have in the past responded well to 1-4 sets to failure or close, using progressive overload, trying to add weight or reps every week.
I agree it is not possible to do 30-40 sets per week to failure or close to failure, maybe only if you decrease a lot the weight after each set… So in those study the subjects have to train with a relatively lower intensity of effort and/or lighter loads. If they really trained very hard on every set they would not see strength increase but loss in performances due to fatigue. So it would be interesting to see something like 3 high intensity sets versus 12 sets with moderate intensity.
@@vvlaunay I've seen a lot of people saying that doing muscle failure, then lowering the weight, and going to muscle failure and, rinse and repeat until you get to no weight and that's when they finish and claim they got massive gains from it. I'm not sure if that's healthy or safe. It doesn't seem that safe because its so extreme, you know? Any weigh ins on this would be appreciated! 🥰
@@poketcg1592 you don't have to go down to literally no weight. you can just go down 3 to 4 increments and call it if you feel like you're overexerting yourself. Just like everything, it depends on how hard you're exerting and how you're feeling.
00:05 More sets per week lead to more muscle growth 02:51 9-12 weekly sets may be ideal for beginners, but more may benefit trained individuals 05:38 Performing between 30-45 weekly sets for a muscle group is beneficial for muscle hypertrophy. 08:20 12-18 weekly sets may be sufficient for building muscle 11:05 Rest intervals impact muscle hypertrophy 13:47 Performing 15-16 sets per muscle group each session may be within the potential limit for shorter rest intervals. 16:37 Optimal weekly sets for muscle hypertrophy 19:05 Increasing the number of sets can help enhance muscle growth and may aid low responders. 21:26 Modestly increasing weekly sets by 20% may benefit muscle growth. 24:10 Rest intervals and weekly sets affect muscle hypertrophy. Crafted by Merlin AI.
hoh- this was a great video. it reassures what i have always found in my journey, everyone responds differently, and for me, less is best. frequency beats intensity, but intensity does great if no more than 2x per week. 3x with a lil less intensity works great. i always stayed within the 10-20 sets total per week. if going to concentric failure, i found that no more than 1-2 sets per exercise while keeping the total sets per week no more than 20 and no more than about 5 exercises per 2 sessions, then again, i always stuck with all compound movements. i have always played around with different scenarios, however, the once a week thing isn't good, got to have 2-3 sessions at least, pending on how you slice the pie so to speak. i'm on the ecto side so high volume always killed me no matter the load along with shorter rest intervals. lifting IS subjective to the individual, another note, age has a lot to do with it as well, great job hoh.
I could be an example of an outlier. I am 54 with nearly 6 years of consistent training. If I do 6 to 8 hard sets (0-1 rep away from positive failure) on any body part I am physically very sore for 4 days. I need a minimum of 5 days for the soreness to not affect the following session. This was also true when I trained consistently through my 20s and 30s. I am quite muscular (200 pounds at 5' 7" when fairly lean, 180 pounds shredded) on 6-8 sets per week per muscle group with 3 minute rest. I have tried high frequency and higher weekly sets in the past and my performance was stale, I frequently inflamed tendons, and repeated bout effect did not occur. I seem to be one of the outliers often seen in studies.
I am 59, and discovered last year that my progress was better (PPL) when at least 5 days lapsed before the same workout was attempted again. (Every few weeks, I throw in an extra rest day, and a reduced volume/reduced intensity week, AKA a deload)
@@Andre87191 No stack. I am on Dr. prescribed TRT, 200mg/week. So it is pharmacy test and not "mystery" juice. I am too old for added risk of compounds. Simply having test at the top of the band is adequate with effort, rest, and diet in place. And patience!
Dude you are on a consistent cycle. 200 mg a week is not trt. With that amount of testosterone, it doesn't matter what you do in the gym, you are going to do better did anyone else not on juice@@robertspence7766
What's happening, as demonstrated by the Longo study, is the case for effective reps. As the study showed, the group with the longer rest intervals showed greater gains than the 3 set 1 minute rest group. But then comparing the long rest intervals (3 minutes) group to the 1 minute rest interval group but with more sets had equal gains. What's happening is that there were more effective reps in the long rest group and also by the 4-5 set group. So long as the effective reps increase there will be an increase in hypertrophy up until a certain point (which seems to be individualistic).
I wanted to address further technical points here. Specifically around the precise definition of "sets", as well as if both compound and isolation exercises should truly count towards the weekly set count of a muscle group. Firstly, we defined a "set" as a bout of repetitions between 8-12, performed 3 or fewer repetitions from the point of failure, as this was what all the research we looked at in this video used a set. However, technically, we could perhaps extend this definition to repetitions between 5 and 35, performed 3 or fewer repetitions from the point of failure. This is because the research indicates repetitions between 5 and 35 (when performed 3 or fewer repetitions from failure) are similarly effective for building muscle, with all other training variables equal. However, there is a reason why it might not be sensible to include reps as higher than 20 in this definition. Higher repetitions (20+), performed 3 or fewer repetitions from failure, seem to potentially be meaningfully more fatiguing and require longer recovery durations than lower repetitions (
@@frog6054 Goal dependent. 3 Rep sets can build muscle if the rest is short and the weight selection is proper. or you shorten rest to build muscle endurance with higher reps lower weight. All in the goal
There is no optimal set volume anyway. Its only optimal for the moment. Changing around the big three, Intesnsity Frequency and Volume will always change the most effective set volume for the given moment. The science and study for optimum is bs, its fleeting and varied, as it should be if continued progression is the goal.
I tried 6 sets of 10 with on average 4 exorcises per day, for 2 weeks because a phd dude on youtube said it was the best T boosting method. But in reality it was depleting my T levels and my drive crashed totally, so now I am back on 4 sets with 4-6 repetitions with max load to fail, and my T and drive is back 💪🏼
Awesome video, I lowered my sets over the past year and have seen some good gains. Not sure if they were better or worse than when I did more. I do wonder how to count sets for the upper back vs LATS as I have come to learn different movements work each area better. I usually split them up into 2 separate muscle groups.
Interesting! and yep, counting sets for any muscle group can be a bit tricky at times, but I definitely think seperating the upper back and lats can be perfectly justified.
working the lats will work the upper back and its the same for the upper back it works lats with it sou cant really seperat them .. correct meif i'm wrong plz ❤
@@aymenazouz9065 You will probably get better results with some form of pull down for the lats and some form of row for the rhomboids, but yes there is overlap
1:15 Can you make a video of all the different compound lifts that hit multiple muscles? That would be great for organising a workout plan that hits every muscle with 10 - 20 sets per week.
too many variables and uncertainties.. Wish I could teleport to 50yrs in the future when we hopefully have a the data, studies, and information we need to know all we need to know about growing muscle effectively
How I interpret the research is you either train to failure with less volume or you train near failure with higher volume. I think what would be of more value is to determine a way to objectively determine when you have recovered optimally to return for another session.
Great video as usual...but my concern with this approach is that most of these (many!) sets are junk volume... How about using a rest-pause approach and being done with it?
In that case, you should probably find a channel called "house of strength" and watch that instead. That said, strength training is a bit more simple and better understood in the scientific literature. Caloric surplus, 3-6 sets of an exercise per session with 85-95% of 1 rep max in the 2-5 rep range with 3-5 minutes of rest between sets of multi joint exercises repeated in sessions of roughly 2-3 times per week. Due to fatigue and recovery times, only a handful of these multi joint exercises should be performed per session, paying attention to overall individual fatigue and increasing injury risk as the fatigue rises.
Just be careful with the search for some optimum garbage. It will change regularly to maintain progression. The science and studies get a lot right, but they also get a lot wrong.
How should I count the rest time if I superset chest and back for example? If my bench press set lasts 1 minute does that count as rest time between my lat pulldowns sets and vice-versa?
i absolutely love your channel, most of my time is spend on watching stuff related to the gym and your videos are informative as well aa fun to watch, the animation is lovely. I was planning on starting youtube channel as well , any tips?
Thank you for your kind words, they mean a lot to me! My advice is to go for it! I'd say make content you're passionate and have fun. Be consistent but patient also (depending on your goals) :)
Strengthening muscles before muscle hypertrophy also relies on the fact that ligaments have to be strengthened first to avoid injury. Is there research on the best ways of strengthening ligaments prior to muscle strength or concurrently?
We are all different in many ways... the key is to try several methods and over time you will hone in what works best for the type of results you are looking for... there are so many variables when it comes to making gains.. i have been at this for 50 years and i still am always trying to zero in on what produces the best results i want... of coarse being much older now my training etc has to be different than many years ago... the key is love to workout and stay healthy...
More like the methodology in these studies is just bad and limited. Volume limits are individual but if we could get actual advanced lifters for these studies who rest for 3-5 minutes, we only count a set as an exercise that highly stimulates the muscle, and each set has a similar RIR/RPE then we could see how many is optimal. But of course we don’t need a literal study we can just use ourselves and see what’s optimal over time based on how fast our lifts are going up. I’m thinking about this bc originally I was of the mindset that there’s a fast diminishing return on doing more than 12-15 sets, I based that on watching naturals on this platform not just studies. And that since you have to deload more from too many sets you’d make more progress holding back similar to RIR on sets. But now I’m wondering if we should not be worried about recovery as much and more about stacking up high quality volume. Similar to the stimulus difference between doing a set of 10 at 0 RIR vs set of 10 5 RIR. We like to think of things as progression slows down the further you go but another way of looking at it is we reach a point where progressive overload becomes less practical if that makes sense. It seems to be more the case that whenever you can’t progressively overload that’s when you start to have slow progression
This makes the most sense. A constant number of weekly sets leading to optimal growth forever seems unlikely. Since hypertrophy is a form of adaptation, it is only natural that an individual's work capacity go up the more he trains. Therefore, he would need more and more weekly sets, up to a maximum. That maximum would probably be the maximum amount of protein synthesis that you body can produce, and any more adaptation than that would not be possible since the amount of protein synthesis required to maintain the muscle would be equal or higher than the amount to grow new muscle. That would indicate your genetic cap
Additioning More sets or frequency for natural lifters gradually results in fatigue. I found bro split with max 15 sets per body part works good. Training quads and hams separately is good to add muscle. Arms doesn't need much so train them once
First sentence... Sometimes, not always, depends on recovery first. For continued progression manipulation of the big three will HAVE to happen Volume Frequency Intensity, for all natural speaking. There is no set optimal way that stays that way...natural.
Total volume of weight lifted is very important. When comparing different set, rep and rest intervals. Look at the total volume of weight lifted. You generally get more volume with lighter weights. Shorter rest intervals can increase volume per unit of time, an example being number of sets performed in 30 minutes. Diet, job, sleep and general stress would also be important variables that are often not considered.
I'm currently doing an upper/lower body routine, both routines include 6 exercises (3 sets per exercise), I've seen some results but....would it be better if I do 4 exercises for both routines (5 or 6 sets per exercise)? Nice video btw =)
Depends on what the exercises are. In general, a good degree of exercise variety is helpful for maximizing the growth across the regions of a muscle, so performing 3 sets of 6 different exercises is probably better than performing 5-6 sets of 4 exercises. Of course, there likely comes a point where too much exercise variety is bad. For instance, performing 10 different exercises with 1 set each might be excessive variation that comprises that amount of training volume (sets) you can achieve with each exercise. Hopefully this makes sense, let me know if there are any problems or midunderstandings :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for your reply, I appreciate!. When it comes to the exercises, I do the overhead press, bench press (sometimes I do an additional set but instead of bench press, I do push ups), Biceps curl, Triceps dip, barbell row and barbell shrugs. Lower body: back squat, Bulgarian squats (using 10lb plates in both hands), deadlift, plank (I do 1:10) and barbell calf raises Last not but least, I'm currently lifting 20KG in all barbell exercises
That sounds totally fine :) I probably would not reduce the number of exercises you perform, as those exercises all collectively do a good job at stimulating most of regions of your muscle groups. A few things though, you could potentially see addition benefit if you add in some vertical pulling exercise (pull-up, chin-up, or lat pulldown), this will more highly train the lats (although the barbell row does hit the lats, vertical pulling exercises likely do a better job, barbell rows are mainly great at hitting the mid back region). Also, you could add in a leg extension or reverse nordic curl, either of these exercises will train the rectus femoris (squats or bulgarian split squats do not highly train this muscle). Hope this helps!
@@HouseofHypertrophy I forgot to mention that I work out at home 😅I've been saving up money to buy a pull up bar, that's why meanwhile I'm doing the barbell row, I'm aware of the great benefits of doing pull ups and chin ups, I hope I can get it for the next month so that I can switch exercises. For the lower body routine, I'm gonna add the reverse Nordic curl c: Once again, thank you for helping me, I was a bit confused about the whole thing, I appreciate it, hope you have a good day! :)
in the schoenfeld meta analysis RESULTS: 10/15 studies showed no significant difference between high and low volume. PARTICIPANTS: most of the studies involved untrained individuals. 12/15 were untrained, 2 were resistance trained and 1 was recreationally trained. 2 of the studies that involved trained individuals found no significant differences between both groups. DURATION: most of the studies involved 10-12weeks. 1x6weeks. 3x10weeks. 2x11weeks. 5x12weeks. 1x14weeks. 2x20weeks. 1x6months. the study that lasted the longest found significantly greater increase in muscle thickness in favor of more volume. it involved recreationally trained individuals also, i dont know why it says 30, 18, 6 weekly sets for the high, med and low volume respectively when they were doing 5, 3, 1 set/s per exercise 3x per week. shouldnt it be 15, 9, 3 instead?
I’ve been lifting for about 3 years now. I’ve had a lacking chest for quite some time using mainly Dumbell presses. I injured my left wrist a week ago and now I can only really do cable flys with some modified push-ups for my chest. Since the injury I started doing sets of seated cable flys (15-25 rep range and 1-3 reps from failure along with a 2-3 min rest bt each set) (with different angles) and finishing it with a few sets of modified push-ups to failure. I’m currently doing about 30-35 sets for chest per week across 3 days that are non consecutive. The mind muscle connection has been really good so far and I’m planning on sticking to this and see if my chest will finally grow. I’ll be updating this comment in the near future cheers 🎉
@@twentytwo138 I broke my knee (patella) while playing basketball. I had surgery on the knee for the second time within a year. I haven’t been to the gym much since but I will be able to soon
10:30 how do you even do another leg press with the same RPE without drastically dropping weights each set with just 1 min intervals? Basically all these 40 plus sets studies are doing sets that aren’t are people actually lift in real life. Let’s compare doing 4 sets of heavy compound exercises like squats 5 sets a session and 3 days a week with 3-5 mins rest interval and RPE of 7-8; versus 10 sets of squats with 1 min rest interval and dropping the weights each time to keep it in the 7-8 RPE range. You’re he’s in the same workout time for both. And I think the results would be they probably do the same for hypertrophy. And that’s a much more practical approach to programming to whatever hypothetical scenarios these researchers thought of.
If each additional weekly set is associated with 0.37% increase in muscle size, does is it means that performing 10 weekly sets per muscle group will only provide additional 3% growth over 2 weekly sets?
Blah blah blah sets. Are they 45 1 rep sets or 9 5 rep sets each week? Are the sets at 25% 1RM or 90% 1RM? Lots of talk with nothing said. Congrats on your click bait video.
I do 3 sets, twice a week, of bench press and I have more progress than doing more sets, but I rest longer between sets and I train to or very close to failure
At 08:30 that’s horrible study design. Resting 2 mins between compound exercises for quads, ie some kind of squats, is just not enough. You would just introduce a bunch of fatigue while limiting the volume you can do. So you heavily impact recovery and of course the results would show that 24 sets being inferior. Let’s have some proper rest period and test the results again?
I feel like these studies massively lack because they don't cover if they did more sets at the same weight, did they lower the weight to gain more sets. I figure they probably lowered the weight. but it isn't clear which changes a lot. were they pushing all those sets near failure. is failure not actually needed and you just need volume? I don't know why studies always leave out and just ditch information like that. when those are things that could make or break the results
What I‘m missing in this video an the research is the age. How old where the persons in the studies? I would expect that a 20 year old person would need less rest time than a 30 year old. And same for 40 years old.
There is only a certain amount of sets per session I can do before neurological fatigue sets in. Longer rest will alow one to lift more. The overall load shouldn't matter if muscle is growing based on a stress adaption. Most believe only the last most difficult reps matter. By resting longer it will possibility take longer to get to those last reps. Doing a higher number of sets per exercise doesn't necessarily mean they are quality. With compounds it could be harder to stress the muscle because many muscles are being used. This is why Heavier loads could be better or increasing volume. Isolation are directly targeting a muscle with max effectiveness. My dig. 😀
I don't think it's super uncommon, but how's other factors outside the gym (sleep, nutrition, stress levels, etc.). If all these are good and you're still stuggling, I'd say reduce the volume and in the future you should be able to handle volume increase :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Hi thanks for the response. I may have a mild form of myopathy(still waiting for some tests) as at one point I had a spike in my creatine kinase levels without doing intense exercise. But I asked because maybe I could just be below average with my exercise tolerance, a lot of fitness info seems to recommend that 8 to 10 sets range for beginners so obviously the average beginner should be able to do that, but I haven't found a lot of info on what is an average amount that untrained people can do. I am currently doing around 6 sets a week of pushups, pullups and squats. If I do more the DOMS I get takes more than 3 or 4 days to fade and I slip up with my consistency. (But maybe if I can stay consistent with this for long enough DOMS won't be such a problem).
sorry I have a question actually.. from these findings, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF SHORT REST INTERVALS? Would you not want to preserve your joints, use less volume, and longer rest intervals, achieve the same results...?
Haha, yeah. It's certainly more efficient to use longer rests. However, for individuals wanting to perhaps weight train in a way to build endurance, shorter rests could be more favorable with higher volumes :)
@@HouseofHypertrophythe mindset, the placebo experiment proved it. My own experience, I gain more at home than going to the gym and I look better than when I went to the gym. My mindset this time was different. Doing it for my wife and kids, mother and father, instead of for looking good. I'm an animal now when I get started. Great work as always Bro!
Understanding abt the set range, but how about the number of repetition mate? Is it ok if I'm just do a variety range of rep range? maybe this week w/ 50% mx load, this week w/ 80% mx load, and the other wk w/ 30% mx load?
Technically, what you've described (50%1RM one week, 80% the next, and 30% after) could work, as after all, loads betwewen 30% to 85% one-rep max likely produce similar hypertrophy. However, most people tend to vary their rep ranges within a weekly schedule (for example, 80%1RM on monday, 50%1RM on wedneday, and 30%1RM on Friday), doing this probably makes tracking workouts a little simpler and easier. Overall though, you don't neccessarily have to vary rep ranges if you don't want to. The current research seems to show that sticking with one rep range is similarly effective to varying rep ranges. I have a playlist around rep ranges on the channel, check it out if you like (this includes a video detailing the research on varying rep ranges for hypertrophy): th-cam.com/video/jQ-JcDrztj8/w-d-xo.html
Whatever the answer is the Pareto Principle (80/20) tells us the value of the 1st set is the most and the value of the last set will be the least. Let’s pretend that the maximum amount of sets was 100. 20 sets would give you 80% of max results and even better just 4 sets could give you 64% of max results. The catch is those sets that are executed really need to be being done effectively no more than 2 reps to failure and if you’re going on the lower end should be drop/supersets.
This is advice to get you to 97-99 percentile. (Not professional athletes or competition bodybuilders) They need to do the marginal sets to get the diminishing return.
İ am doing minimalist workouts i wonder which one takes less time in gym 2-3 min rest ,1 or less min workout with some supersets or not 12-18 weekly set Or 1 min rest 1 or less min workout with some superset or not 30-45 sets
As always, thanks for the great video. I would contest that these studies demonstrate a preferred rep range for a muscle group. Instead, it sounds like the studies had participants finding the ideal sets for a given exercise. So, yes, it's probably unnecessary to exceed 18 sets of flat bench press in a week, but does it follow that flat bench, flies, incline barbell, decline dumbell, dips, push-ups, etc should all be limited to a combined 18 sets, since they target the same muscle group? Given how these exercises work different parts of the muscle, I would be surprised if that was the case. This seems to be the more interesting question, since most of us don't just repeat the same exercise 9 times in a session twice a week.
This is a point I've been thinking about over the previous month, I plan to make an updated video with this info in it at some point. Great stuff dude!
Great job breaking all if this down. Most of these studies all include low training age participants, so there’s little to no studies around serious trainees with 10 plus years of experience. I’m highlighting people who know what they’re doing in the gym. The trainees with 1-3 years of experience are still within that stage of rapid growth regardless of training volume. Meaning they have more room for less than ideal training volume, whether too many sets or too few. As long as progressive overload is applied, that’s really all that matters. Less is more when weight training more often than not when ensuring solid form and progressive overload. Every serious trainee must track every set and rep.
@@coachingconfidant2785 you'd have to go back to Steve Reeves for pre steroid days. The 60's on have been ever escalating doses of steroids and other drugs.
@@stevewise1656 Well i've actually been thinking about Steve Reeves after this video, and interestingly looks like he did very low volume. Almost like Mike mentzer 1 set style because he did 9-12 sets a week which is the lower part of the moderate side, but he only rested 60 seconds making those sets less effective according to the video, so it was more like 3-6 stimulating sets a week per muscle
Great video! Thanks for sharing all of this to the community, love your channel! In my experience (I'm 37 y.o. and train since the age of 23) I found more gains in strenght and size with this current routine, hybrid wegihts/calishtenics based with 4-6 sets of compound movements 2 times per week: each set is a drop set and the last two reps of the last set are isometric holds near failure, 2-3 rest minutes. I experimented routines with high volume and short rest periods but my body did not respond the way it does now. Science studies give a great general overview but at the end each person is different and respond differently. Age, level of daily stress, nutrition and sleep quality are huge factors and they are strictly individual.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I have pretty much been binge watching your videos the last few days, really enjoying the channel and the quality of information! This is the first video I kind of disagree with, actually 2 things in particular; Evidently, my comment isn't intended as a form of criticism or arrogance, rather to simply share some of my viewpoints and disagreements and hopefully receive feedback from you too as I love to learn. *My 2 points* *1* *"In a compound exercise like the bench press, the chest, deltoids and triceps are prime movers."* ... The triceps are not stimulated as much during a compound lift such as the bench press as with an isolation exercise for the triceps such as the skull crusher. From what I understand the hypertrophy from the bench press for the triceps brachii is only half the hypertrophy you get from a triceps exercise. The deltoids are activated a lot but only the anterior head, a lot of men want to grow the medial head of the deltoid. The anterior deltoid gets a lot of work anyway with all the upperbody push exercises. For these reasons I would not count the bench press as a set for the shoulders and the triceps. *2* *"Performing 9 or more weekly sets for a muscle group produced more hypertrophy than fewer than 9 weekly sets."* ... Performing 9 or even up to 12 sets as a beginner seems quite a lot. That is; if sets are taken close to failure (1-2 RIR). The real reason, I believe, that this (recommended) volume may be so high is because the relative intensity is perhaps too low, they may be leaving more reps in reserve than they think they are. *More in depth* *1* *Muscle activation with a compound lift* Any compound lift requires activation of more than one muscle, the question is to which extent and also what the result in hypertrophy is for the primary and secondary movers. paulogentil.com/pdf/Varying%20the%20Order%20of%20Combinations%20of%20Single-%20and%20MultiJoint%20Exercises%20Differentially%20Affects%20Resistance%20Training%20Adaptations.pdf One relatively small study looked at the increase in strength and hypertrophy for the pectoralis major and the triceps brachii with 4 different programs: - lying barbell triceps press (like a skull crusher) - barbell bench press - lying barbell triceps press + barbell bench press - barbell bench press + lying barbell triceps press Results: 1 - Strength 1RM for the bench significantly increased in all programs which included the barbell bench press, but not the lying barbell triceps press. 1RM for the tricep press significantly increased in all programs which included the lying barbell triceps press , but not the bench press. 2 - Cross sectional area For the pectoralis major the bench press group had a 9,1% increase whereas the tricep press group saw a 0,8% decrease! For the triceps brachii the tricep press group had a 9,5% increase whereas the bench press group saw a 4,8% increase. Meaning the hypertrophy for the triceps brachii with a triceps exercise was double that of the group doing only bench press. Interestingly; the group doing bench press + tricep press saw even greater hypertrophy for both the triceps brachii and the pectoralis major. Also; the order of the exercises seemed to matter in favor of the group starting with the bench press (compound) and then doing the tricep press (isolation). This, to me at least, makes a compelling argument for not counting the triceps activation during a set of bench press (and likely other compund lifts as well) as an entire set for the triceps brachii. It also seems that it's optimal to start with a compound exercise and then perform an isolation exercise, which is what many people intuitively do as well. *2* *9 to 12 weekly sets per bodypart (musclegroup?) for beginners.* Problem 1: what most would call failure is actually far from failure There's a video of Brad Schoenfeld (the researcher of the meta-analysis) performing a set of lat pulldowns "to failure". th-cam.com/video/QUMaaOHQ-rs/w-d-xo.html Set starts at 1:38 It doesn't take a well trained eye to spot that this is far from failure, my best estimate is that he could have done at least 2 more reps in that set. He isn't the first well respected researcher to make this mistake either. Mike Israetel, from Renaissance Periodization, had a heated 'debate' let's say with Lyle Mcdonnald about training to failure. Mike Israetel is well known for his reps in reserve strategy and Lyle claimed that Mike was severely underestimating how many reps he had in reserve and that, when Mike claims it's a 0 or 1 RIR set, he actually isn't even close to that, more like 2, 3 or more reps in reserve. th-cam.com/video/CXfCY-hqTjQ/w-d-xo.html At 1:26 Mike starts a set of leg curls, he claims this is 0-1 RIR, after the set he said "You could have done 80 trillion more! Hey Lyle Mcdonnald Fuck you!" th-cam.com/video/Xli6B-Msz_w/w-d-xo.html Lyle again called him out on this and honestly, he is absolutely right... I wonder, if these are the men making reps in reserve recommendations or volume based on a specific RIR intensity...how much less volume should one do if they are actually training close to failure unlike they are? In another video you reviewed a study in which participants had similar results with sets taken 5 reps from failure but adding 2 or 3 extra sets. Is it reasonable to suggest that; - If sets are really taken close to failure, 9 to 12 sets is too much to recover from, at least for beginners - In that case 6 to 10 sets per bodypart per week would be similar for hypertrophy (about 1 set less per bodypart per session). Problem 2: What even is failure? It seems to me that, as Brad was unable to fully contract his back muscles and as the range of motion started to decrease, he called this 'failure'. Some say failure is a synonym for technical failure, some say it is complete failure. It seems hard to define, let alone program or predict. Problem 3: Beginners? As you get more experienced you may be able to spot your 2 RIR for example (eventhough Mike Israetel despite years of lifting clearly is way off). However beginners do not have this experience I suppose this means they are leaving more reps in the tank even than more experienced individuals. Also; if we are defining failure as 'technical' failure then this point surely comes quicker for beginners as their technique may break down earlier and they aren't experienced with the fatigue or the sensations from lifting closer to failure. *Just some of my thoughts, I realize it's a long comment though. If you do read it and agree or disagree with some of the points made, please consider telling me about it!*
For bigger muscle bellies (currently chest and upper back/lats) i can specialize on exactly 2 of them consistently, and see great gains doing 8 sets to failure each week With that i found i can work on improving 2 smaller groups of muscles (biceps and shoulders currently) at 4 sets per week to failure and recover well inbetween sessions. I am considering adding in a 5th day of training to increase volume to 10 sets for the larger muscles per week and 5 sets for the smaller mucles per week all to failure. I have to be careful when adding volume because the fatigue from adding in too much forced me into a deload week last time. Fatigue is hard to adequatly predict When adding volume.
Doesn’t set “quality vs quantity” matter too? For example, consider this set of 20 reps with load X: 1) Reps 1-5: Slow up (concentric) and down (eccentric) slow 2) Reps 6-10: Normal speed up, normal speed down 3) Reps 11-15: Explode up, normal speed down 4) Reps 16-20: Normal speed up, down slow This set incorporates isometrics and explosiveness, taxing the muscles in more ways than normally done. Now consider the same load x and the same # of reps (20), but all reps are done with normal speed up and down. What would you expect the difference in result to be? Also, now consider 4 sets of 5 reps (still 20 reps total) with the same load X, and also done the typical way: 1) Reps 1-5: Normal speed up, normal speed down 2) Rest 2 minutes 3) Repeat 3 more times Would this necessarily be superior to the first 20 rep set above? It’s basically the question of one hard set vs 4 easier sets.
Ultimately, proximity to failure is what matters. If you're getting to or close to failure, that's the most important thing. Varying rep tempo and stuff in this context does not seem to matter: th-cam.com/video/XB9477odyBw/w-d-xo.html
Can we just call BS on a group doing 45 sets of quads per week over 3 sessions (15 per session). There’s no way they were going close enough to failure so they needed all that volume for effective growth. Plus the other 2 groups were probably training at the same intensity therefore skewing results. I don’t know anyone that can reasonably do 45 sets for legs per week with decent RPE.
"We know that beginners have the most muscle damage and experience the longest muscle durations." "It will take a heavily muscled 20 inch arm far longer to recover from the trauma of a high intensity workout, than a beginner, with a more moderate intensity and a 14 inch arm."----- 6X Mr.Olympia Dorian Yates. I agree 9--12 sets per week for a beginner may be good if he/she is doing 3 sets maximum, 3 times a week. If a beginner tried to follow a routine where they were blasting there muscle groups once a week for 9--12 sets, that may be too much of an overload locally AND for the entire body's system. In short, they would probably burn out quickly.
So what I gathered is that 10 sets per muscle with 3 minute rests between per workout spread across 3-4 days per week giving you around 35 sets per week is optimal.
Every Body is different, every Day is different, every Age is different, the stress-levels do matter a lot, as there are so many other details, no one can ever see in a study - that said... Unless you are not a Pro-Lifter, a Pro-Lifter or living in the Gym, there is no tip that kne can follow ... Learn to train like you want...
The correct answer is do as much as you can until you’re deloading more than every 8 weeks. The studies aren’t based on advanced/elite lifters who can bench 315-405 under 190 pounds with a pause, OHP 185 250 from the chest, 300 total pull up for reps, 450-500 squat to depth, 550-600 deadlift. Progression gets slow because progressive overload stales. 15 sets deloading every 8 weeks would be 682.5 sets vs 12 sets with 0 deloads being only 624 for example. 18 sets deloading every 6 weeks is 780 yearly sets. Natural Hypertrophy pushes this narrative that deloads are a sign of bad programming but that’s wrong. Deloading means you’re pushing hard enough. If you can go year round or more than 6-8 weeks without deloading you need to train more. You’ll find the limit to what you can do without resting the muscle more than 1-3 days depending on how you want to split it up and how often you’ll have to deload will be based around that
Just now finding my sets are way different then everything in this study. 18 sets!? I'm in for 2 warm ups, 4-5 working sets, and 3 alternate sets. Bench for example: 2 warm up sets flay bench. 4-5 working sets, 3 sets incline. 10 total lol. Trained individual, 25 yeas. Per week
So actualy doing less sets (8-12 sets) and rest longer (2-3 minutes) actually help more muscle growth but same result as doing more sets but rest shorter?
I’m surprised you didn’t hypothesize RIR… no way you’re doing 45 weekly sets with sets that are 1-2 RIR… so I think that was a key component of these studies left out. We need that info
My problem with all these studies is, as far as i can tell, none of them compare volume when rest periods are kept at >3 mins. Perhaps some combination of 1) Increasing rest period between sets and 2) Lowering proximity to failure we can get away with siginificantly fewer weekly sets?
Great video! I think the best thing is to constantly mix it up and have a balanced workout. Make your body adapt to all kinds of muscle usage. Sometimes do a short rest, sometimes do a long rest. Sometimes lift heavy weights with less reps, sometimes lift lighter weights with more reps. Sometimes lift slowly and steadily, sometimes go explosive and fast. The body needs to be ready for all situations, you don't want to get used to the same workout routine all the time. For example, if you always lift slow and steady with long rests, in real life you may need to use explosive energy without rest but your muscles wouldn't be used to it.
I'd like to know what happen for the first 2 research if instead of performing both compound and isolation exercises, only isolation exercises was done.
huh, so interesting, me with my simple thinking, i thought if i take less rest between sets that is more efficient since its more tiring for me. yet it turns out if you want less sets you have to rest more O.o amazing how our body works.. great video dude, at the middle i was so afraid coz i complitely lost, but witht the end every question cleared out! very nice job! :)
Man, your videos are gold! Are you working in academia? It would be interesting to see academic research testing the hypotheses that you made in this video.
Great video. Many years ago with 1 1/2 year experience i got a schedule from the gym owner for 16 sets per muscle group, twice a week. So 32 weekly sets. I had short rest intervals. Can't remember how long a workout took. I burned out pretty quickly. Regarding the studies, I wonder how many sets the subjects did for other body parts. Did the 32 weekly set group that for all body parts? Otherwise, its more a schedule for bringing up a specific body part.
Interesting to hear, I also think 30+sets will probably be too excessive. In the studies, they did train most of their muscles with 32 weekly sets, not all of them though :)
I find it very special that advanced athletes with more years of experience still make so much progress in such a short time during the test. In my world, this means only one thing: they haven't gone out of their way in terms of dedication and consistency over those years. I therefore doubt the reliability of such tests.
One thing I've always debated with myself on is how much of a difference 3x5 vs 5x5 truly makes. Am still torn to this day. LOL **Sometimes I'll be loving 5x5 and then other times I think that three sets causes adequate stimulus with the extra two sets being redundant junk volume. 🤔
Haha, yeah I know what you're saying. Both will probably work well, it's possible the extra 2 sets help (particularly in more trained folks), but if you're getting good gains with 3x5, that's fine. You can always increase to 5x5 in the future if you plateau :)
You know all this stuff. I have to chuckle. Many many moon's ago my training partner and I used a 4 day split. Monday shoulders, back and biceps, Tuesday chest, legs and triceps. Of course, calves and a little abs were a given. Now the chuckle. We honestly did at least 20+ sets YES! 20 + sets per body part per session! Truly. We walked from the gym trembling and if we didn't ache the following day we felt cheated. With no steroids or enhancements ( apart from some basic protein powder ) results were amazing. I was in my late teens then around the late sixties. My training partner and big brother from another mother was 10 years my senior and his gains and strength although really good were not as great. ( Genetics? ) Probably. My point? No internet no studies no talk of overtraining or central nervous system. See, we were ignorant to scientific studies etc. There was no one to tell us we couldn't or shouldn't do it. We just lived and breathed it and soldiered on. Then Steroids made their ugly appearance, making ridiculously over sized and equally ugly bodies, only impressed by the gullible. I kinda lost interest after a while. Comparing these drug fuelled monsters with the likes of the great Steve Reeves left me deflated. I could have gone the steroid route I had the potential but did I really want to be like I was wearing a space suit. Anyway, just shows one what one is capable of with a little ignorance but a burning desire. love, peace and best wishes to all.
What’s really sad is Steve reeves was most likely on some sort of steroids. Unless it’s just a coincidence that he died from the no 1 cancer that steroids give you.
How do you do 45 sets per week for a muscle group and recover from that without gear?
I wonder about this too
Junk volume
3-4 exercises 3-4 sets each 3 times a week in a PPL routine. There are a lot of quite complex muscle groups and hitting them with 3-4 exercises is not crazy at all. If you do a PPL with 3x/w you still get full 72h rest for the muscle groups. Exercise selection and a healthy lifestyle are key.
The problem I see with this study, is "intensity". I assume they all did the same amount of intensity, and anyone who really knows how to train hard, knows you can't train hard (absolute failure or very close) and train long. So it would be interesting to see what 3 sets to failure per week vrs 9 sets to non failure (3-5) reps left, would show. I'm a hard gainer, a lot of volume even if each set was kept 3-5 reps from failure would quickly deplete my CNS, but I have in the past responded well to 1-4 sets to failure or close, using progressive overload, trying to add weight or reps every week.
I definitely see what you're saying!
I agree it is not possible to do 30-40 sets per week to failure or close to failure, maybe only if you decrease a lot the weight after each set… So in those study the subjects have to train with a relatively lower intensity of effort and/or lighter loads. If they really trained very hard on every set they would not see strength increase but loss in performances due to fatigue. So it would be interesting to see something like 3 high intensity sets versus 12 sets with moderate intensity.
@@vvlaunay I've seen a lot of people saying that doing muscle failure, then lowering the weight, and going to muscle failure and, rinse and repeat until you get to no weight and that's when they finish and claim they got massive gains from it. I'm not sure if that's healthy or safe. It doesn't seem that safe because its so extreme, you know? Any weigh ins on this would be appreciated! 🥰
@@poketcg1592 you don't have to go down to literally no weight. you can just go down 3 to 4 increments and call it if you feel like you're overexerting yourself. Just like everything, it depends on how hard you're exerting and how you're feeling.
@@jayfeather2451 Thats true, thank you :)
00:05 More sets per week lead to more muscle growth
02:51 9-12 weekly sets may be ideal for beginners, but more may benefit trained individuals
05:38 Performing between 30-45 weekly sets for a muscle group is beneficial for muscle hypertrophy.
08:20 12-18 weekly sets may be sufficient for building muscle
11:05 Rest intervals impact muscle hypertrophy
13:47 Performing 15-16 sets per muscle group each session may be within the potential limit for shorter rest intervals.
16:37 Optimal weekly sets for muscle hypertrophy
19:05 Increasing the number of sets can help enhance muscle growth and may aid low responders.
21:26 Modestly increasing weekly sets by 20% may benefit muscle growth.
24:10 Rest intervals and weekly sets affect muscle hypertrophy.
Crafted by Merlin AI.
Perfect timing, was just looking something to listen to.
Haha, awesome to hear. Thank you for the support! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy thats what you deserve! :)
hoh- this was a great video. it reassures what i have always found in my journey, everyone responds differently, and for me, less is best. frequency beats intensity, but intensity does great if no more than 2x per week. 3x with a lil less intensity works great. i always stayed within the 10-20 sets total per week. if going to concentric failure, i found that no more than 1-2 sets per exercise while keeping the total sets per week no more than 20 and no more than about 5 exercises per 2 sessions, then again, i always stuck with all compound movements. i have always played around with different scenarios, however, the once a week thing isn't good, got to have 2-3 sessions at least, pending on how you slice the pie so to speak. i'm on the ecto side so high volume always killed me no matter the load along with shorter rest intervals. lifting IS subjective to the individual, another note, age has a lot to do with it as well, great job hoh.
Some very interesting and relevant points, thank you for your comment!
I could be an example of an outlier. I am 54 with nearly 6 years of consistent training. If I do 6 to 8 hard sets (0-1 rep away from positive failure) on any body part I am physically very sore for 4 days. I need a minimum of 5 days for the soreness to not affect the following session. This was also true when I trained consistently through my 20s and 30s. I am quite muscular (200 pounds at 5' 7" when fairly lean, 180 pounds shredded) on 6-8 sets per week per muscle group with 3 minute rest. I have tried high frequency and higher weekly sets in the past and my performance was stale, I frequently inflamed tendons, and repeated bout effect did not occur. I seem to be one of the outliers often seen in studies.
Very interesting to hear, and yeah, there are bound to be individuals such as yourself out there! :)
I am 59, and discovered last year that my progress was better (PPL) when at least 5 days lapsed before the same workout was attempted again. (Every few weeks, I throw in an extra rest day, and a reduced volume/reduced intensity week, AKA a deload)
Whats your stack?
@@Andre87191 No stack. I am on Dr. prescribed TRT, 200mg/week. So it is pharmacy test and not "mystery" juice. I am too old for added risk of compounds. Simply having test at the top of the band is adequate with effort, rest, and diet in place. And patience!
Dude you are on a consistent cycle. 200 mg a week is not trt. With that amount of testosterone, it doesn't matter what you do in the gym, you are going to do better did anyone else not on juice@@robertspence7766
What's happening, as demonstrated by the Longo study, is the case for effective reps.
As the study showed, the group with the longer rest intervals showed greater gains than the 3 set 1 minute rest group.
But then comparing the long rest intervals (3 minutes) group to the 1 minute rest interval group but with more sets had equal gains.
What's happening is that there were more effective reps in the long rest group and also by the 4-5 set group.
So long as the effective reps increase there will be an increase in hypertrophy up until a certain point (which seems to be individualistic).
I wanted to address further technical points here. Specifically around the precise definition of "sets", as well as if both compound and isolation exercises should truly count towards the weekly set count of a muscle group.
Firstly, we defined a "set" as a bout of repetitions between 8-12, performed 3 or fewer repetitions from the point of failure, as this was what all the research we looked at in this video used a set.
However, technically, we could perhaps extend this definition to repetitions between 5 and 35, performed 3 or fewer repetitions from the point of failure. This is because the research indicates repetitions between 5 and 35 (when performed 3 or fewer repetitions from failure) are similarly effective for building muscle, with all other training variables equal.
However, there is a reason why it might not be sensible to include reps as higher than 20 in this definition. Higher repetitions (20+), performed 3 or fewer repetitions from failure, seem to potentially be meaningfully more fatiguing and require longer recovery durations than lower repetitions (
So, that also mean our body can adapt to shorter rest interval as well, thus making the short rest interval as effective as longer rest?
@@frog6054 Goal dependent. 3 Rep sets can build muscle if the rest is short and the weight selection is proper. or you shorten rest to build muscle endurance with higher reps lower weight. All in the goal
There is no optimal set volume anyway. Its only optimal for the moment. Changing around the big three, Intesnsity Frequency and Volume will always change the most effective set volume for the given moment. The science and study for optimum is bs, its fleeting and varied, as it should be if continued progression is the goal.
God bless u
Drinking game: take a shot of Jack whenever he says, “moreover “!
I tried 6 sets of 10 with on average 4 exorcises per day, for 2 weeks because a phd dude on youtube said it was the best T boosting method.
But in reality it was depleting my T levels and my drive crashed totally, so now I am back on 4 sets with 4-6 repetitions with max load to fail, and my T and drive is back 💪🏼
Interesting to hear that
We’re you training before this schedule? Jumping right into 5-6 sets of 10 is a fair amount volume for those not used to it.
Try one set balls deep
Same thing bro, but I do 6-8 reps with 4-5 sets depending on a muscle group I'm training
I like that idea. And you're still doing an average of 4 exercises? Thanks.
Awesome video, I lowered my sets over the past year and have seen some good gains. Not sure if they were better or worse than when I did more. I do wonder how to count sets for the upper back vs LATS as I have come to learn different movements work each area better. I usually split them up into 2 separate muscle groups.
Interesting! and yep, counting sets for any muscle group can be a bit tricky at times, but I definitely think seperating the upper back and lats can be perfectly justified.
Be sure your back and chest (push/pull) sets are even or a few more for the back to keep your posture.
working the lats will work the upper back and its the same for the upper back it works lats with it sou cant really seperat them .. correct meif i'm wrong plz ❤
@@aymenazouz9065 You will probably get better results with some form of pull down for the lats and some form of row for the rhomboids, but yes there is overlap
1:15 Can you make a video of all the different compound lifts that hit multiple muscles? That would be great for organising a workout plan that hits every muscle with 10 - 20 sets per week.
I'm planning to make a series on developing each muscle group, so these videos will contain informatin on exercise selection :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Nice! I'm looking forward to it!
too many variables and uncertainties.. Wish I could teleport to 50yrs in the future when we hopefully have a the data, studies, and information we need to know all we need to know about growing muscle effectively
hoh- from my experience, and this study backs it up, i always knew that a longer rest interval worked better, especially for me.
Awesome to hear :)
Thank u blessed soul ⚘🌷🌹🌹🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️ infinite health n blessings to 7 n all ur loved ones⚘🌷🌹🌹🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
This not being standard English, where is this accent from
UK
How I interpret the research is you either train to failure with less volume or you train near failure with higher volume.
I think what would be of more value is to determine a way to objectively determine when you have recovered optimally to return for another session.
Great video as usual...but my concern with this approach is that most of these (many!) sets are junk volume... How about using a rest-pause approach and being done with it?
I feel like 90% of youtube is concerned about hypertrophy. I couldn't care less. I am only intetested in strength gain with minimum of weight gain.
In that case, you should probably find a channel called "house of strength" and watch that instead. That said, strength training is a bit more simple and better understood in the scientific literature. Caloric surplus, 3-6 sets of an exercise per session with 85-95% of 1 rep max in the 2-5 rep range with 3-5 minutes of rest between sets of multi joint exercises repeated in sessions of roughly 2-3 times per week. Due to fatigue and recovery times, only a handful of these multi joint exercises should be performed per session, paying attention to overall individual fatigue and increasing injury risk as the fatigue rises.
Why? Isn’t strength through hypertropy good enough?
@@zyxwfish Check out Anatoly and you find your answer.
How big is the bicep involvement in training the brachialis with hammer curls? Do hammer curls count as bicep sets?
I started watching your videos a few days. I am loving the analisys you do, it helps guiding my training and understanding hypertrophy science based
Welcome, and thank you so much for your kind words!!!
Just be careful with the search for some optimum garbage. It will change regularly to maintain progression. The science and studies get a lot right, but they also get a lot wrong.
How should I count the rest time if I superset chest and back for example? If my bench press set lasts 1 minute does that count as rest time between my lat pulldowns sets and vice-versa?
Yes
i absolutely love your channel, most of my time is spend on watching stuff related to the gym and your videos are informative as well aa fun to watch, the animation is lovely. I was planning on starting youtube channel as well , any tips?
Thank you for your kind words, they mean a lot to me!
My advice is to go for it! I'd say make content you're passionate and have fun. Be consistent but patient also (depending on your goals) :)
Strengthening muscles before muscle hypertrophy also relies on the fact that ligaments have to be strengthened first to avoid injury.
Is there research on the best ways of strengthening ligaments prior to muscle strength or concurrently?
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any research on that matter
Can you do bulgarian split squat vs back squat (science based). Like results after 12 week something like that.
Yep, at some point, I should make a video on this :)
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DEFINE MUSCLE GROUP! Is the bicep a muscle group? Tris?
We are all different in many ways... the key is to try several methods and over time you will hone in what works best for the type of results you are looking for... there are so many variables when it comes to making gains.. i have been at this for 50 years and i still am always trying to zero in on what produces the best results i want... of coarse being much older now my training etc has to be different than many years ago... the key is love to workout and stay healthy...
Awesome stuff :)
More like the methodology in these studies is just bad and limited. Volume limits are individual but if we could get actual advanced lifters for these studies who rest for 3-5 minutes, we only count a set as an exercise that highly stimulates the muscle, and each set has a similar RIR/RPE then we could see how many is optimal. But of course we don’t need a literal study we can just use ourselves and see what’s optimal over time based on how fast our lifts are going up. I’m thinking about this bc originally I was of the mindset that there’s a fast diminishing return on doing more than 12-15 sets, I based that on watching naturals on this platform not just studies. And that since you have to deload more from too many sets you’d make more progress holding back similar to RIR on sets. But now I’m wondering if we should not be worried about recovery as much and more about stacking up high quality volume. Similar to the stimulus difference between doing a set of 10 at 0 RIR vs set of 10 5 RIR. We like to think of things as progression slows down the further you go but another way of looking at it is we reach a point where progressive overload becomes less practical if that makes sense. It seems to be more the case that whenever you can’t progressively overload that’s when you start to have slow progression
This makes the most sense. A constant number of weekly sets leading to optimal growth forever seems unlikely. Since hypertrophy is a form of adaptation, it is only natural that an individual's work capacity go up the more he trains. Therefore, he would need more and more weekly sets, up to a maximum. That maximum would probably be the maximum amount of protein synthesis that you body can produce, and any more adaptation than that would not be possible since the amount of protein synthesis required to maintain the muscle would be equal or higher than the amount to grow new muscle. That would indicate your genetic cap
Agree!
Additioning More sets or frequency for natural lifters gradually results in fatigue. I found bro split with max 15 sets per body part works good. Training quads and hams separately is good to add muscle. Arms doesn't need much so train them once
I can still your small asf and weak asf
First sentence... Sometimes, not always, depends on recovery first. For continued progression manipulation of the big three will HAVE to happen Volume Frequency Intensity, for all natural speaking. There is no set optimal way that stays that way...natural.
Not as if arms are not getting work during bench, dips, military presses, pull-ups, etc..
The amazing work of this channel will help tons of people. For years.
Congratulations.
Thank you my friend, that's very kind of you!
Total volume of weight lifted is very important. When comparing different set, rep and rest intervals. Look at the total volume of weight lifted. You generally get more volume with lighter weights. Shorter rest intervals can increase volume per unit of time, an example being number of sets performed in 30 minutes.
Diet, job, sleep and general stress would also be important variables that are often not considered.
Total volume of weight doesnt matter
@@fijifiji1093
studies show volume does matter. It has to matter. You either have to lift heavier or more reps to get a training effect.
I'm currently doing an upper/lower body routine, both routines include 6 exercises (3 sets per exercise), I've seen some results but....would it be better if I do 4 exercises for both routines (5 or 6 sets per exercise)? Nice video btw =)
Depends on what the exercises are. In general, a good degree of exercise variety is helpful for maximizing the growth across the regions of a muscle, so performing 3 sets of 6 different exercises is probably better than performing 5-6 sets of 4 exercises. Of course, there likely comes a point where too much exercise variety is bad. For instance, performing 10 different exercises with 1 set each might be excessive variation that comprises that amount of training volume (sets) you can achieve with each exercise. Hopefully this makes sense, let me know if there are any problems or midunderstandings :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for your reply, I appreciate!. When it comes to the exercises, I do the overhead press, bench press (sometimes I do an additional set but instead of bench press, I do push ups), Biceps curl, Triceps dip, barbell row and barbell shrugs.
Lower body: back squat, Bulgarian squats (using 10lb plates in both hands), deadlift, plank (I do 1:10) and barbell calf raises
Last not but least, I'm currently lifting 20KG in all barbell exercises
That sounds totally fine :) I probably would not reduce the number of exercises you perform, as those exercises all collectively do a good job at stimulating most of regions of your muscle groups. A few things though, you could potentially see addition benefit if you add in some vertical pulling exercise (pull-up, chin-up, or lat pulldown), this will more highly train the lats (although the barbell row does hit the lats, vertical pulling exercises likely do a better job, barbell rows are mainly great at hitting the mid back region). Also, you could add in a leg extension or reverse nordic curl, either of these exercises will train the rectus femoris (squats or bulgarian split squats do not highly train this muscle). Hope this helps!
@@HouseofHypertrophy I forgot to mention that I work out at home 😅I've been saving up money to buy a pull up bar, that's why meanwhile I'm doing the barbell row, I'm aware of the great benefits of doing pull ups and chin ups, I hope I can get it for the next month so that I can switch exercises. For the lower body routine, I'm gonna add the reverse Nordic curl c:
Once again, thank you for helping me, I was a bit confused about the whole thing, I appreciate it, hope you have a good day! :)
Great to hear! Have an awesome day as well :)
in the schoenfeld meta analysis
RESULTS: 10/15 studies showed no significant difference between high and low volume.
PARTICIPANTS: most of the studies involved untrained individuals. 12/15 were untrained, 2 were resistance trained and 1 was recreationally trained.
2 of the studies that involved trained individuals found no significant differences between both groups.
DURATION: most of the studies involved 10-12weeks.
1x6weeks. 3x10weeks. 2x11weeks. 5x12weeks. 1x14weeks. 2x20weeks. 1x6months.
the study that lasted the longest found significantly greater increase in muscle thickness in favor of more volume. it involved recreationally trained individuals
also, i dont know why it says 30, 18, 6 weekly sets for the high, med and low volume respectively when they were doing 5, 3, 1 set/s per exercise 3x per week. shouldnt it be 15, 9, 3 instead?
I’ve been lifting for about 3 years now. I’ve had a lacking chest for quite some time using mainly Dumbell presses. I injured my left wrist a week ago and now I can only really do cable flys with some modified push-ups for my chest.
Since the injury I started doing sets of seated cable flys (15-25 rep range and 1-3 reps from failure along with a 2-3 min rest bt each set) (with different angles) and finishing it with a few sets of modified push-ups to failure. I’m currently doing about 30-35 sets for chest per week across 3 days that are non consecutive. The mind muscle connection has been really good so far and I’m planning on sticking to this and see if my chest will finally grow.
I’ll be updating this comment in the near future cheers 🎉
Very interesting, I wish you continued gains!
Any updates 10 months later?
@@twentytwo138 I broke my knee (patella) while playing basketball. I had surgery on the knee for the second time within a year. I haven’t been to the gym much since but I will be able to soon
10:30 how do you even do another leg press with the same RPE without drastically dropping weights each set with just 1 min intervals? Basically all these 40 plus sets studies are doing sets that aren’t are people actually lift in real life. Let’s compare doing 4 sets of heavy compound exercises like squats 5 sets a session and 3 days a week with 3-5 mins rest interval and RPE of 7-8; versus 10 sets of squats with 1 min rest interval and dropping the weights each time to keep it in the 7-8 RPE range. You’re he’s in the same workout time for both. And I think the results would be they probably do the same for hypertrophy. And that’s a much more practical approach to programming to whatever hypothetical scenarios these researchers thought of.
If each additional weekly set is associated with 0.37% increase in muscle size, does is it means that performing 10 weekly sets per muscle group will only provide additional 3% growth over 2 weekly sets?
Blah blah blah sets. Are they 45 1 rep sets or 9 5 rep sets each week? Are the sets at 25% 1RM or 90% 1RM? Lots of talk with nothing said. Congrats on your click bait video.
I do 3 sets, twice a week, of bench press and I have more progress than doing more sets, but I rest longer between sets and I train to or very close to failure
Great stuff, wish you continued gainz!
At 08:30 that’s horrible study design. Resting 2 mins between compound exercises for quads, ie some kind of squats, is just not enough. You would just introduce a bunch of fatigue while limiting the volume you can do. So you heavily impact recovery and of course the results would show that 24 sets being inferior. Let’s have some proper rest period and test the results again?
I feel like these studies massively lack because they don't cover if they did more sets at the same weight, did they lower the weight to gain more sets. I figure they probably lowered the weight. but it isn't clear which changes a lot. were they pushing all those sets near failure. is failure not actually needed and you just need volume? I don't know why studies always leave out and just ditch information like that. when those are things that could make or break the results
What I‘m missing in this video an the research is the age. How old where the persons in the studies?
I would expect that a 20 year old person would need less rest time than a 30 year old. And same for 40 years old.
There is only a certain amount of sets per session I can do before neurological fatigue sets in. Longer rest will alow one to lift more. The overall load shouldn't matter if muscle is growing based on a stress adaption. Most believe only the last most difficult reps matter. By resting longer it will possibility take longer to get to those last reps. Doing a higher number of sets per exercise doesn't necessarily mean they are quality. With compounds it could be harder to stress the muscle because many muscles are being used. This is why Heavier loads could be better or increasing volume. Isolation are directly targeting a muscle with max effectiveness. My dig. 😀
Very interesting, I see what you're saying :)
Is it normal to struggle to recover from 8 to 9 weekly sets as a beginner?
I don't think it's super uncommon, but how's other factors outside the gym (sleep, nutrition, stress levels, etc.). If all these are good and you're still stuggling, I'd say reduce the volume and in the future you should be able to handle volume increase :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Hi thanks for the response. I may have a mild form of myopathy(still waiting for some tests) as at one point I had a spike in my creatine kinase levels without doing intense exercise. But I asked because maybe I could just be below average with my exercise tolerance, a lot of fitness info seems to recommend that 8 to 10 sets range for beginners so obviously the average beginner should be able to do that, but I haven't found a lot of info on what is an average amount that untrained people can do. I am currently doing around 6 sets a week of pushups, pullups and squats. If I do more the DOMS I get takes more than 3 or 4 days to fade and I slip up with my consistency. (But maybe if I can stay consistent with this for long enough DOMS won't be such a problem).
sorry I have a question actually.. from these findings,
WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF SHORT REST INTERVALS?
Would you not want to preserve your joints, use less volume, and longer rest intervals, achieve the same results...?
Haha, yeah. It's certainly more efficient to use longer rests. However, for individuals wanting to perhaps weight train in a way to build endurance, shorter rests could be more favorable with higher volumes :)
I cracked it. There is one underlying factor.
What do you mean ?
@@HouseofHypertrophythe mindset, the placebo experiment proved it. My own experience, I gain more at home than going to the gym and I look better than when I went to the gym. My mindset this time was different. Doing it for my wife and kids, mother and father, instead of for looking good. I'm an animal now when I get started. Great work as always Bro!
i'm baack 💯❤❤ thank u as always for this gold standard content
could we do 30-45 weekly sets with longer rest intervals (2-4 mins)?
Understanding abt the set range, but how about the number of repetition mate? Is it ok if I'm just do a variety range of rep range? maybe this week w/ 50% mx load, this week w/ 80% mx load, and the other wk w/ 30% mx load?
Technically, what you've described (50%1RM one week, 80% the next, and 30% after) could work, as after all, loads betwewen 30% to 85% one-rep max likely produce similar hypertrophy. However, most people tend to vary their rep ranges within a weekly schedule (for example, 80%1RM on monday, 50%1RM on wedneday, and 30%1RM on Friday), doing this probably makes tracking workouts a little simpler and easier. Overall though, you don't neccessarily have to vary rep ranges if you don't want to. The current research seems to show that sticking with one rep range is similarly effective to varying rep ranges. I have a playlist around rep ranges on the channel, check it out if you like (this includes a video detailing the research on varying rep ranges for hypertrophy): th-cam.com/video/jQ-JcDrztj8/w-d-xo.html
However......
Within subject sounds elegant but it is not. People have stronger sides and sides which grow easier than the other.
Wooow thats a lot of sets, i thought muscles needed 48 - 72 hours of rest to grow
Please add pounds of weight also for each body part region.
Whatever the answer is the Pareto Principle (80/20) tells us the value of the 1st set is the most and the value of the last set will be the least.
Let’s pretend that the maximum amount of sets was 100.
20 sets would give you 80% of max results and even better just 4 sets could give you 64% of max results.
The catch is those sets that are executed really need to be being done effectively no more than 2 reps to failure and if you’re going on the lower end should be drop/supersets.
This is advice to get you to 97-99 percentile. (Not professional athletes or competition bodybuilders) They need to do the marginal sets to get the diminishing return.
Hey can I talk with you on instagram?
Yep: instagram.com/houseofhypertrophy/
Your Videos are Great Man !
Thank you :)
İ am doing minimalist workouts i wonder which one takes less time in gym
2-3 min rest ,1 or less min workout with some supersets or not 12-18 weekly set
Or
1 min rest 1 or less min workout with some superset or not 30-45 sets
One set is all you need to failure without drugs . As jones said " you can bring an elephant down with one properly placed shot " .
No it is not and the sentence isn't related to hypertrophy nor applicable
@@yoendlesss That's exactly why he made the analogy to relate it to building muscle .
@@biblebill6206 Then apply it if you really think one set is enough, you do you🤡
As always, thanks for the great video. I would contest that these studies demonstrate a preferred rep range for a muscle group. Instead, it sounds like the studies had participants finding the ideal sets for a given exercise. So, yes, it's probably unnecessary to exceed 18 sets of flat bench press in a week, but does it follow that flat bench, flies, incline barbell, decline dumbell, dips, push-ups, etc should all be limited to a combined 18 sets, since they target the same muscle group? Given how these exercises work different parts of the muscle, I would be surprised if that was the case. This seems to be the more interesting question, since most of us don't just repeat the same exercise 9 times in a session twice a week.
This is a point I've been thinking about over the previous month, I plan to make an updated video with this info in it at some point. Great stuff dude!
15 sets per group is krazy.
Great job breaking all if this down. Most of these studies all include low training age participants, so there’s little to no studies around serious trainees with 10 plus years of experience. I’m highlighting people who know what they’re doing in the gym. The trainees with 1-3 years of experience are still within that stage of rapid growth regardless of training volume. Meaning they have more room for less than ideal training volume, whether too many sets or too few. As long as progressive overload is applied, that’s really all that matters. Less is more when weight training more often than not when ensuring solid form and progressive overload. Every serious trainee must track every set and rep.
Very true :)
12 sets per week is probably around the best. If you look at the old school contest winning pre steroid bodybuilders they did around 9-12
@@coachingconfidant2785 you'd have to go back to Steve Reeves for pre steroid days. The 60's on have been ever escalating doses of steroids and other drugs.
@@stevewise1656 Well i've actually been thinking about Steve Reeves after this video, and interestingly looks like he did very low volume. Almost like Mike mentzer 1 set style because he did 9-12 sets a week which is the lower part of the moderate side, but he only rested 60 seconds making those sets less effective according to the video, so it was more like 3-6 stimulating sets a week per muscle
Great video! Thanks for sharing all of this to the community, love your channel!
In my experience (I'm 37 y.o. and train since the age of 23) I found more gains in strenght and size with this current routine, hybrid wegihts/calishtenics based with 4-6 sets of compound movements 2 times per week: each set is a drop set and the last two reps of the last set are isometric holds near failure, 2-3 rest minutes.
I experimented routines with high volume and short rest periods but my body did not respond the way it does now.
Science studies give a great general overview but at the end each person is different and respond differently.
Age, level of daily stress, nutrition and sleep quality are huge factors and they are strictly individual.
Thank YOU for the kind words! and I think you make excellent points!
@@HouseofHypertrophy
I have pretty much been binge watching your videos the last few days, really enjoying the channel and the quality of information!
This is the first video I kind of disagree with, actually 2 things in particular;
Evidently, my comment isn't intended as a form of criticism or arrogance, rather to simply share some of my viewpoints and disagreements and hopefully receive feedback from you too as I love to learn.
*My 2 points*
*1*
*"In a compound exercise like the bench press, the chest, deltoids and triceps are prime movers."*
...
The triceps are not stimulated as much during a compound lift such as the bench press as with an isolation exercise for the triceps such as the skull crusher. From what I understand the hypertrophy from the bench press for the triceps brachii is only half the hypertrophy you get from a triceps exercise.
The deltoids are activated a lot but only the anterior head, a lot of men want to grow the medial head of the deltoid. The anterior deltoid gets a lot of work anyway with all the upperbody push exercises.
For these reasons I would not count the bench press as a set for the shoulders and the triceps.
*2*
*"Performing 9 or more weekly sets for a muscle group produced more hypertrophy than fewer than 9 weekly sets."*
...
Performing 9 or even up to 12 sets as a beginner seems quite a lot. That is; if sets are taken close to failure (1-2 RIR).
The real reason, I believe, that this (recommended) volume may be so high is because the relative intensity is perhaps too low, they may be leaving more reps in reserve than they think they are.
*More in depth*
*1*
*Muscle activation with a compound lift*
Any compound lift requires activation of more than one muscle, the question is to which extent and also what the result in hypertrophy is for the primary and secondary movers.
paulogentil.com/pdf/Varying%20the%20Order%20of%20Combinations%20of%20Single-%20and%20MultiJoint%20Exercises%20Differentially%20Affects%20Resistance%20Training%20Adaptations.pdf
One relatively small study looked at the increase in strength and hypertrophy for the pectoralis major and the triceps brachii with 4 different programs:
- lying barbell triceps press (like a skull crusher)
- barbell bench press
- lying barbell triceps press + barbell bench press
- barbell bench press + lying barbell triceps press
Results:
1 - Strength
1RM for the bench significantly increased in all programs which included the barbell bench press, but not the lying barbell triceps press.
1RM for the tricep press significantly increased in all programs which included the lying barbell triceps press , but not the bench press.
2 - Cross sectional area
For the pectoralis major the bench press group had a 9,1% increase whereas the tricep press group saw a 0,8% decrease!
For the triceps brachii the tricep press group had a 9,5% increase whereas the bench press group saw a 4,8% increase.
Meaning the hypertrophy for the triceps brachii with a triceps exercise was double that of the group doing only bench press.
Interestingly; the group doing bench press + tricep press saw even greater hypertrophy for both the triceps brachii and the pectoralis major.
Also; the order of the exercises seemed to matter in favor of the group starting with the bench press (compound) and then doing the tricep press (isolation).
This, to me at least, makes a compelling argument for not counting the triceps activation during a set of bench press (and likely other compund lifts as well) as an entire set for the triceps brachii. It also seems that it's optimal to start with a compound exercise and then perform an isolation exercise, which is what many people intuitively do as well.
*2*
*9 to 12 weekly sets per bodypart (musclegroup?) for beginners.*
Problem 1: what most would call failure is actually far from failure
There's a video of Brad Schoenfeld (the researcher of the meta-analysis) performing a set of lat pulldowns "to failure".
th-cam.com/video/QUMaaOHQ-rs/w-d-xo.html
Set starts at 1:38
It doesn't take a well trained eye to spot that this is far from failure, my best estimate is that he could have done at least 2 more reps in that set.
He isn't the first well respected researcher to make this mistake either.
Mike Israetel, from Renaissance Periodization, had a heated 'debate' let's say with Lyle Mcdonnald about training to failure.
Mike Israetel is well known for his reps in reserve strategy and Lyle claimed that Mike was severely underestimating how many reps he had in reserve and that, when Mike claims it's a 0 or 1 RIR set, he actually isn't even close to that, more like 2, 3 or more reps in reserve.
th-cam.com/video/CXfCY-hqTjQ/w-d-xo.html
At 1:26 Mike starts a set of leg curls, he claims this is 0-1 RIR, after the set he said "You could have done 80 trillion more! Hey Lyle Mcdonnald Fuck you!"
th-cam.com/video/Xli6B-Msz_w/w-d-xo.html
Lyle again called him out on this and honestly, he is absolutely right...
I wonder, if these are the men making reps in reserve recommendations or volume based on a specific RIR intensity...how much less volume should one do if they are actually training close to failure unlike they are?
In another video you reviewed a study in which participants had similar results with sets taken 5 reps from failure but adding 2 or 3 extra sets. Is it reasonable to suggest that;
- If sets are really taken close to failure, 9 to 12 sets is too much to recover from, at least for beginners
- In that case 6 to 10 sets per bodypart per week would be similar for hypertrophy (about 1 set less per bodypart per session).
Problem 2: What even is failure?
It seems to me that, as Brad was unable to fully contract his back muscles and as the range of motion started to decrease, he called this 'failure'.
Some say failure is a synonym for technical failure, some say it is complete failure.
It seems hard to define, let alone program or predict.
Problem 3: Beginners?
As you get more experienced you may be able to spot your 2 RIR for example (eventhough Mike Israetel despite years of lifting clearly is way off).
However beginners do not have this experience I suppose this means they are leaving more reps in the tank even than more experienced individuals.
Also; if we are defining failure as 'technical' failure then this point surely comes quicker for beginners as their technique may break down earlier and they aren't experienced with the fatigue or the sensations from lifting closer to failure.
*Just some of my thoughts, I realize it's a long comment though. If you do read it and agree or disagree with some of the points made, please consider telling me about it!*
This is a nonsense video in that it didn't take intensity into account at all.
Good work, thanks for sharing 💪🏼
Thank you my friend! :)
Man your content is so much quality.
Thank you so much dude, that's very kind of you :)
High intensity is better mate fuck the volume.
For bigger muscle bellies (currently chest and upper back/lats) i can specialize on exactly 2 of them consistently, and see great gains doing 8 sets to failure each week With that i found i can work on improving 2 smaller groups of muscles (biceps and shoulders currently) at 4 sets per week to failure and recover well inbetween sessions. I am considering adding in a 5th day of training to increase volume to 10 sets for the larger muscles per week and 5 sets for the smaller mucles per week all to failure. I have to be careful when adding volume because the fatigue from adding in too much forced me into a deload week last time. Fatigue is hard to adequatly predict When adding volume.
Doesn’t set “quality vs quantity” matter too?
For example, consider this set of 20 reps with load X:
1) Reps 1-5: Slow up (concentric) and down (eccentric) slow
2) Reps 6-10: Normal speed up, normal speed down
3) Reps 11-15: Explode up, normal speed down
4) Reps 16-20: Normal speed up, down slow
This set incorporates isometrics and explosiveness, taxing the muscles in more ways than normally done.
Now consider the same load x and the same # of reps (20), but all reps are done with normal speed up and down.
What would you expect the difference in result to be?
Also, now consider 4 sets of 5 reps (still 20 reps total) with the same load X, and also done the typical way:
1) Reps 1-5: Normal speed up, normal speed down
2) Rest 2 minutes
3) Repeat 3 more times
Would this necessarily be superior to the first 20 rep set above? It’s basically the question of one hard set vs 4 easier sets.
Ultimately, proximity to failure is what matters. If you're getting to or close to failure, that's the most important thing. Varying rep tempo and stuff in this context does not seem to matter: th-cam.com/video/XB9477odyBw/w-d-xo.html
Can we just call BS on a group doing 45 sets of quads per week over 3 sessions (15 per session). There’s no way they were going close enough to failure so they needed all that volume for effective growth. Plus the other 2 groups were probably training at the same intensity therefore skewing results. I don’t know anyone that can reasonably do 45 sets for legs per week with decent RPE.
"We know that beginners have the most muscle damage and experience the longest muscle durations."
"It will take a heavily muscled 20 inch arm far longer to recover from the trauma of a high intensity workout, than a beginner, with a more moderate intensity and a 14 inch arm."----- 6X Mr.Olympia Dorian Yates.
I agree 9--12 sets per week for a beginner may be good if he/she is doing 3 sets maximum, 3 times a week.
If a beginner tried to follow a routine where they were blasting there muscle groups once a week for 9--12 sets, that may be too much of an overload locally AND for the entire body's system. In short, they would probably burn out quickly.
I love the way you say however
Also never asked for a like or a sub - what a beast, I give you both
So what I gathered is that 10 sets per muscle with 3 minute rests between per workout spread across 3-4 days per week giving you around 35 sets per week is optimal.
9-12 sets is way to low. Hard to imagine. Would be impossible to separate on more than 1 day. It’s basically 3 exercises per muscle group.
Every Body is different, every Day is different, every Age is different, the stress-levels do matter a lot, as there are so many other details, no one can ever see in a study - that said... Unless you are not a Pro-Lifter, a Pro-Lifter or living in the Gym, there is no tip that kne can follow ... Learn to train like you want...
The correct answer is do as much as you can until you’re deloading more than every 8 weeks. The studies aren’t based on advanced/elite lifters who can bench 315-405 under 190 pounds with a pause, OHP 185 250 from the chest, 300 total pull up for reps, 450-500 squat to depth, 550-600 deadlift. Progression gets slow because progressive overload stales. 15 sets deloading every 8 weeks would be 682.5 sets vs 12 sets with 0 deloads being only 624 for example. 18 sets deloading every 6 weeks is 780 yearly sets. Natural Hypertrophy pushes this narrative that deloads are a sign of bad programming but that’s wrong. Deloading means you’re pushing hard enough. If you can go year round or more than 6-8 weeks without deloading you need to train more. You’ll find the limit to what you can do without resting the muscle more than 1-3 days depending on how you want to split it up and how often you’ll have to deload will be based around that
Just now finding my sets are way different then everything in this study. 18 sets!? I'm in for 2 warm ups, 4-5 working sets, and 3 alternate sets.
Bench for example: 2 warm up sets flay bench. 4-5 working sets, 3 sets incline. 10 total lol.
Trained individual, 25 yeas. Per week
So actualy doing less sets (8-12 sets) and rest longer (2-3 minutes) actually help more muscle growth but same result as doing more sets but rest shorter?
I’m surprised you didn’t hypothesize RIR… no way you’re doing 45 weekly sets with sets that are 1-2 RIR… so I think that was a key component of these studies left out. We need that info
One! Warm up the muscle/ muscles and do as many reps as humanly possible! Do it 2-4 times more, rest 78 hours, do it again! Not rocket science!
My problem with all these studies is, as far as i can tell, none of them compare volume when rest periods are kept at >3 mins. Perhaps some combination of
1) Increasing rest period between sets and
2) Lowering proximity to failure
we can get away with siginificantly fewer weekly sets?
Great video! I think the best thing is to constantly mix it up and have a balanced workout. Make your body adapt to all kinds of muscle usage. Sometimes do a short rest, sometimes do a long rest. Sometimes lift heavy weights with less reps, sometimes lift lighter weights with more reps. Sometimes lift slowly and steadily, sometimes go explosive and fast. The body needs to be ready for all situations, you don't want to get used to the same workout routine all the time. For example, if you always lift slow and steady with long rests, in real life you may need to use explosive energy without rest but your muscles wouldn't be used to it.
what about for strength?,is 1 enough?
For many untrained folks, 1 set can certainly increase strength across numerous weeks :)
I'd like to know what happen for the first 2 research if instead of performing both compound and isolation exercises, only isolation exercises was done.
huh, so interesting, me with my simple thinking, i thought if i take less rest between sets that is more efficient since its more tiring for me. yet it turns out if you want less sets you have to rest more O.o amazing how our body works..
great video dude, at the middle i was so afraid coz i complitely lost, but witht the end every question cleared out! very nice job! :)
This dosent account for intensity though if your doing a Dorian Yates workout style anything over ten sets a week would be too much
Man, your videos are gold! Are you working in academia? It would be interesting to see academic research testing the hypotheses that you made in this video.
Anyonea peogram that has 30+ sters?
Great video. Many years ago with 1 1/2 year experience i got a schedule from the gym owner for 16 sets per muscle group, twice a week. So 32 weekly sets. I had short rest intervals. Can't remember how long a workout took. I burned out pretty quickly. Regarding the studies, I wonder how many sets the subjects did for other body parts. Did the 32 weekly set group that for all body parts? Otherwise, its more a schedule for bringing up a specific body part.
Interesting to hear, I also think 30+sets will probably be too excessive. In the studies, they did train most of their muscles with 32 weekly sets, not all of them though :)
Muscle dependant imo. 30 sets per week for back. 24 sets per for chest I have found its perfect.
Every person is different because of body types. One mode of training doesn't fit all...
So no studies for one HIT set per week?
Hey, I appreciate the work in presenting the information in your videos! Great work, new sub.
Welcome, thank you for your kind words :)
I find it very special that advanced athletes with more years of experience still make so much progress in such a short time during the test.
In my world, this means only one thing: they haven't gone out of their way in terms of dedication and consistency over those years. I therefore doubt the reliability of such tests.
One thing I've always debated with myself on is how much of a difference 3x5 vs 5x5 truly makes. Am still torn to this day. LOL
**Sometimes I'll be loving 5x5 and then other times I think that three sets causes adequate stimulus with the extra two sets being redundant junk volume. 🤔
Haha, yeah I know what you're saying. Both will probably work well, it's possible the extra 2 sets help (particularly in more trained folks), but if you're getting good gains with 3x5, that's fine. You can always increase to 5x5 in the future if you plateau :)
Should I do 14ish sets total of abs or 14 sets for upper and lower abs = 28?
You mean conkee east London accent
You know all this stuff. I have to chuckle. Many many moon's ago my training partner and I used a 4 day split. Monday shoulders, back and biceps, Tuesday chest, legs and triceps. Of course, calves and a little abs were a given. Now the chuckle. We honestly did at least 20+ sets YES! 20 + sets per body part per session! Truly. We walked from the gym trembling and if we didn't ache the following day we felt cheated. With no steroids or enhancements ( apart from some basic protein powder ) results were amazing. I was in my late teens then around the late sixties. My training partner and big brother from another mother was 10 years my senior and his gains and strength although really good were not as great. ( Genetics? ) Probably. My point? No internet no studies no talk of overtraining or central nervous system. See, we were ignorant to scientific studies etc. There was no one to tell us we couldn't or shouldn't do it. We just lived and breathed it and soldiered on. Then Steroids made their ugly appearance, making ridiculously over sized and equally ugly bodies, only impressed by the gullible. I kinda lost interest after a while. Comparing these drug fuelled monsters with the likes of the great Steve Reeves left me deflated. I could have gone the steroid route I had the potential but did I really want to be like I was wearing a space suit. Anyway, just shows one what one is capable of with a little ignorance but a burning desire. love, peace and best wishes to all.
and yet the great Steve Reeves Achieved his physique with only 12 sets per week per muscle. Ahead of his time
What’s really sad is Steve reeves was most likely on some sort of steroids. Unless it’s just a coincidence that he died from the no 1 cancer that steroids give you.
That's right, in the gym for 12 hours a day....every day..
How many reps in the set?
Another good one, keep it up lad.
Thank you, I'll do my best! :)
+@@HouseofHypertrophy