So then, 10-20 sets is not wrong. The diminishing return you mentioned is more pronounced after 20 sets. Your consensus is the same as the one in the meta-analysis. That said, 10-20 sets is a large interval because the intensity of training differs from person to person, even in those studies claiming that RIR is the same for all participants. Plus, other factors like genetics come into play. Stick to 10 to 20 sets, fellas.
You're not wrong. Adding more volume is beneficial as long as you can recover. But the more you increase the volume, the more difficult it becomes to stick to that volume for extended periods. Keep in mind that the studies conducted on high volume do not exceed 6 to 8 weeks. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what would happen after that time frame if you consistently perform very high-volume training. You will most likely not be able to handle it and will require more frequent deload periods than normal. Additionally, you are less likely to adhere to such high-volume training in the long term because more volume means more time spent in the gym and less time for other aspects of your life. Unless you are a full-time bodybuilder, chasing higher volume simply because diminishing returns are still "returns" is not a wise decision.
Not quite. For one Josh mentioned that from the more recent minimum effective dose research, people can now include even just 4 sets as a worthwhile recommendation if it suits them. It can go from 4 to whatever they want. It's just that moderate volume outcomes have the most certainty in their effectiveness thus far. Also, 11-18 is the range they use for "Moderate effectiveness" in the supplementary material for their paper.
8-12 sets is my max. The standard of 10-20 sets is wrong on many levels which are elucidated in the video. The meta analysis doesn't exactly factor in intensity much nor does it factor in a full training regimen. Most studies are done on one muscle group, and if you're lucky, a couple compounds. These studies are also primarily done on college age males for a very short amount of time, so the most athletic gender at their most athletic peak for a minimum of time. Context matters, and doing something like 10-20 hard sets for multiple muscle groups a week for years on end is going to destroy most people that have to work for a living. There are no high quality studies which is why the logical recommendation is however much you can do consistently. It doesn't matter how much science says is optimal. No one lives an optimal life unless they have some sort of illness around their body image or fitness.
It's not that it's wrong in practice, they're just saying it's wrong to give a specific recommendation that doesn't take into account that you can see results either less than 10 sets and that it's not a matter of staying within 10-20 sets, but balancing set volume with other factors. If you were going to put a number on it I'd say it's more like 4-40, with the more you can handle the better.
the essential "problem" is that volume doesnt exist by itself. There is also intensity and frequency. 0-4 RIR is a HUGE range. For someone who sort of lives around 0-2 RIR, a 4 RIR set just feels silly and non existent. I try to stay around 1-2 RIR with great form and even 10 sets per week per bodypart would mega crush me. A young guy who half ass concentrates and leaves 4 reps in the tank is probably about the only one who can handle the upper end of the "suggested" range weve all heard about for the last decade. Even at that he thinks his 4RIR set is "balls to the wall". Whatevs. To say anything along the lines of "more is better as long as it doesnt start to become detrimental" is problematic too because even at best the process is soooooooo slow. Its not THAT easy to know if one is really making gains. Is he making gains at all? What about for each bodypart?? Is he making gains this week but setting himself up to crash in 2 weeks?? It gets complicated. I have been all over the map in the years ive been lifting. I think in the end one has to focus on progressive overload while keeping the volume a bit conservative overall. The whole "optimizing" thing is where I think most people go wrong.
When we say "until it starts working against you," that is not the same as "the point at which you see less progress." We would agree that would be almost impossible to accurately assess. "Working against you" is related to what you can recover from, sustainability, time availability, balancing multiple goals, potential return on investment, etc, as mentioned around 4:07.
I agree completely. While I cant fault the research, it seems really solid - I just cant get it to match reality. I know both pro natural BB'ers and national team powerlifters, and have trained with them for years. Nobody has ever done this much volume, and there is no way they could. Maybe some of the guys Ive seen run Sheiko bench programs get near the 30-40+ set volume, but Ive never met anyone that ran Sheiko to failure on all sets. Like Milo suggests, 25+ sets to failure for all muscle groups? No way man.
@@sebastianbechpetersen858 thats funny because I did a sheiko bench program way back when and made massive gains on bench. But when u look at it, its a lot of sets but is very low intensity.
@@sebastianbechpetersen858 It is possible (25+ to failure for all muscle groups) just depends how you program your split and recovery / lifestyle. as well as exercise selection and general work capacity, so not possible for everyone, but possible for some
This is highly individual. I get the best results from 6-8 sets per major group, 3-4 sets for minor groups. 1-2 sets per group taken to failure. At a 1x/weekly frequency. Some people need 12+ sets per group split over 2 workouts per week. Try both. You’ll know if high volume is not for you. Your body will just feel like it’s breaking down. And don’t fight the outcome, go with what works, not what sounds like it works.
I have literally come to the exact same conclusion as you. After about 6-8 sets my muscle is absolutely fried. Bench press- one heavy set 4-6 reps Incline bench-3 sets to failure 6-12 reps Flyes-3 sets to failure 6-12 reps Thats 7 working sets and usually im completely out of gas before i even get to the final set of flyes. I could not even imagine doing 13 more sets after, theres no way they would be productive
@@justbrowsing8675 I know im not the dude you were asking but what i do is for my first set i use a weight i can hit for around 12 reps, then i do 2 more sets of max reps with that same weight.
I think the 10 set per muscle per week minimum recommendation came from a study that showed that not only was there a big increase from lower volumes at that point but that people who had been non-responders began to respond at about 10 sets per muscle per week.
6 working sets of hamstrings per week is more than a enough for me. 7 sets of quads- can barely recover. 8 sets a chest is pushing it for me. 12 sets of back is pushing it. Everyone recovers differently. Also I’m a shift worker and my sleep is less than ideal. Lot of variables. I train close to if not to failure, so there is another factor. 10-20 seems crazy to me
More than 20 sets a week for each body part would be wild. These studies don’t seem to take into account people are looking to train all muscles multiple times a week.
Exactly. And some studies count compound movements towards a group. So biceps can get to 20+ if you count literally every row or vertical pull set to it. I’ve seen that with tricep studies. Leads to a big miscommunication imo in practice if 8 chest sets end up all counting to triceps too. Very very different vs 8 more sets of cable tricep push downs.
Do squats count as fractional hamstring sets ? Deadlifts fractional quad set? Is there a list available of what certain exercises were counted as volume for?
When low/moderate/high volumes are mentioned in the video, I'm using those terms very loosely. Ultimately, dose-response modeling aims to describe the "best fit" relationship between two variables. In this case, the variable of set volume is just a tool to estimate the dose. For example, a more effective exercise could enhance the "dose" from each set. The reason I point this is out is because I view the job of a scientist as informing the nature of the dose-response relationship from relevant studies, as oppsosed to saying that a certain volume range is best. For what it's worth though, model uncertainty becomes quite high around 25+ fractional sets. In fact, any comparison between 30 fractional weekly sets and a volume greater than 30 fractional weekly sets would not longer be "meaningful" by some standards. This is demonstrated in this supplementary file: osf.io/2c3bt
@@datadrivenstrengththank you for your response! I do appreciate how In the paper you share the tables and use terminology such as “efficient”. And it makes sense as terms as dose. A medication can have a greater effectiveness at a higher level but it can come with a cost of other side effects. That gives readers an idea what best for their situation to guide their programming decisions. If I want the most “bang for the buck” 5-10 sets seems to be the most efficient for the greatest return, but if I have more time during this week or few months and have the ability to ramp up the volume then it’s likely that will induce more hypertrophy. Thank you for all you guys do!
It's why I'll never give volume recommendations. I'll always say for best results do as much volume with intensity as you can recover from and stay with consistently, as what that volume looks like in terms of sets will be different for different people based on many variables. lifestyle being one of if not the biggest. And that's without even getting into how not all volume is the same depending on load? excercise selection? etc
This conversation they're having is kinda why scientists are so hard to listen to. Instead of hedging, be bold enough to make a claim and get to the point.
You can’t lol. Simply because of the almost-limitless amount of contextual variables and limitations that can/can’t be considered within the trials. It’s more like “It looks that it’s likely this is the case” vs “This is the case”. Again, because it’s always possible one of those contextual variables could invalidate the finding you are attempting to infer from the study.
5-minute video over 5-hour podcast is like when you reduce your volume and increase intensity - works great! Thank you guys
So then, 10-20 sets is not wrong. The diminishing return you mentioned is more pronounced after 20 sets. Your consensus is the same as the one in the meta-analysis. That said, 10-20 sets is a large interval because the intensity of training differs from person to person, even in those studies claiming that RIR is the same for all participants. Plus, other factors like genetics come into play. Stick to 10 to 20 sets, fellas.
Diminishing returns is still better than no returns or am I wrong?
You're not wrong. Adding more volume is beneficial as long as you can recover. But the more you increase the volume, the more difficult it becomes to stick to that volume for extended periods. Keep in mind that the studies conducted on high volume do not exceed 6 to 8 weeks. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what would happen after that time frame if you consistently perform very high-volume training. You will most likely not be able to handle it and will require more frequent deload periods than normal. Additionally, you are less likely to adhere to such high-volume training in the long term because more volume means more time spent in the gym and less time for other aspects of your life. Unless you are a full-time bodybuilder, chasing higher volume simply because diminishing returns are still "returns" is not a wise decision.
Not quite. For one Josh mentioned that from the more recent minimum effective dose research, people can now include even just 4 sets as a worthwhile recommendation if it suits them. It can go from 4 to whatever they want. It's just that moderate volume outcomes have the most certainty in their effectiveness thus far. Also, 11-18 is the range they use for "Moderate effectiveness" in the supplementary material for their paper.
8-12 sets is my max. The standard of 10-20 sets is wrong on many levels which are elucidated in the video. The meta analysis doesn't exactly factor in intensity much nor does it factor in a full training regimen. Most studies are done on one muscle group, and if you're lucky, a couple compounds. These studies are also primarily done on college age males for a very short amount of time, so the most athletic gender at their most athletic peak for a minimum of time. Context matters, and doing something like 10-20 hard sets for multiple muscle groups a week for years on end is going to destroy most people that have to work for a living. There are no high quality studies which is why the logical recommendation is however much you can do consistently. It doesn't matter how much science says is optimal. No one lives an optimal life unless they have some sort of illness around their body image or fitness.
It's not that it's wrong in practice, they're just saying it's wrong to give a specific recommendation that doesn't take into account that you can see results either less than 10 sets and that it's not a matter of staying within 10-20 sets, but balancing set volume with other factors.
If you were going to put a number on it I'd say it's more like 4-40, with the more you can handle the better.
the essential "problem" is that volume doesnt exist by itself. There is also intensity and frequency. 0-4 RIR is a HUGE range. For someone who sort of lives around 0-2 RIR, a 4 RIR set just feels silly and non existent. I try to stay around 1-2 RIR with great form and even 10 sets per week per bodypart would mega crush me.
A young guy who half ass concentrates and leaves 4 reps in the tank is probably about the only one who can handle the upper end of the "suggested" range weve all heard about for the last decade. Even at that he thinks his 4RIR set is "balls to the wall". Whatevs.
To say anything along the lines of "more is better as long as it doesnt start to become detrimental" is problematic too because even at best the process is soooooooo slow. Its not THAT easy to know if one is really making gains. Is he making gains at all? What about for each bodypart?? Is he making gains this week but setting himself up to crash in 2 weeks?? It gets complicated.
I have been all over the map in the years ive been lifting. I think in the end one has to focus on progressive overload while keeping the volume a bit conservative overall. The whole "optimizing" thing is where I think most people go wrong.
When we say "until it starts working against you," that is not the same as "the point at which you see less progress." We would agree that would be almost impossible to accurately assess.
"Working against you" is related to what you can recover from, sustainability, time availability, balancing multiple goals, potential return on investment, etc, as mentioned around 4:07.
I agree completely. While I cant fault the research, it seems really solid - I just cant get it to match reality. I know both pro natural BB'ers and national team powerlifters, and have trained with them for years. Nobody has ever done this much volume, and there is no way they could.
Maybe some of the guys Ive seen run Sheiko bench programs get near the 30-40+ set volume, but Ive never met anyone that ran Sheiko to failure on all sets. Like Milo suggests, 25+ sets to failure for all muscle groups? No way man.
@@sebastianbechpetersen858 thats funny because I did a sheiko bench program way back when and made massive gains on bench. But when u look at it, its a lot of sets but is very low intensity.
@@sebastianbechpetersen858 It is possible (25+ to failure for all muscle groups) just depends how you program your split and recovery / lifestyle. as well as exercise selection and general work capacity, so not possible for everyone, but possible for some
Here from Dr. Wolf - glad I found your channel.
Same!
This is highly individual. I get the best results from 6-8 sets per major group, 3-4 sets for minor groups. 1-2 sets per group taken to failure. At a 1x/weekly frequency.
Some people need 12+ sets per group split over 2 workouts per week.
Try both. You’ll know if high volume is not for you. Your body will just feel like it’s breaking down. And don’t fight the outcome, go with what works, not what sounds like it works.
I have literally come to the exact same conclusion as you. After about 6-8 sets my muscle is absolutely fried.
Bench press- one heavy set 4-6 reps
Incline bench-3 sets to failure 6-12 reps
Flyes-3 sets to failure 6-12 reps
Thats 7 working sets and usually im completely out of gas before i even get to the final set of flyes. I could not even imagine doing 13 more sets after, theres no way they would be productive
I’m going to try this. How many reps do you typically do on arms?
@@justbrowsing8675
I know im not the dude you were asking but what i do is for my first set i use a weight i can hit for around 12 reps, then i do 2 more sets of max reps with that same weight.
I think the 10 set per muscle per week minimum recommendation came from a study that showed that not only was there a big increase from lower volumes at that point but that people who had been non-responders began to respond at about 10 sets per muscle per week.
6 working sets of hamstrings per week is more than a enough for me. 7 sets of quads- can barely recover. 8 sets a chest is pushing it for me. 12 sets of back is pushing it.
Everyone recovers differently. Also I’m a shift worker and my sleep is less than ideal. Lot of variables. I train close to if not to failure, so there is another factor. 10-20 seems crazy to me
More than 20 sets a week for each body part would be wild. These studies don’t seem to take into account people are looking to train all muscles multiple times a week.
You have to be smart and reduce volume for the parts you aren't to bothered about and increase for the lagging parts or the ones you want to focus on.
Exactly. And some studies count compound movements towards a group. So biceps can get to 20+ if you count literally every row or vertical pull set to it. I’ve seen that with tricep studies. Leads to a big miscommunication imo in practice if 8 chest sets end up all counting to triceps too. Very very different vs 8 more sets of cable tricep push downs.
Do squats count as fractional hamstring sets ? Deadlifts fractional quad set? Is there a list available of what certain exercises were counted as volume for?
What would define low versus medium versus high volumes?
I vaguely remember Schonfeld mentioning medium volume being about 75-125 weekly total working sets
When low/moderate/high volumes are mentioned in the video, I'm using those terms very loosely.
Ultimately, dose-response modeling aims to describe the "best fit" relationship between two variables. In this case, the variable of set volume is just a tool to estimate the dose. For example, a more effective exercise could enhance the "dose" from each set.
The reason I point this is out is because I view the job of a scientist as informing the nature of the dose-response relationship from relevant studies, as oppsosed to saying that a certain volume range is best.
For what it's worth though, model uncertainty becomes quite high around 25+ fractional sets. In fact, any comparison between 30 fractional weekly sets and a volume greater than 30 fractional weekly sets would not longer be "meaningful" by some standards. This is demonstrated in this supplementary file: osf.io/2c3bt
@@datadrivenstrengththank you for your response! I do appreciate how In the paper you share the tables and use terminology such as “efficient”. And it makes sense as terms as dose. A medication can have a greater effectiveness at a higher level but it can come with a cost of other side effects.
That gives readers an idea what best for their situation to guide their programming decisions. If I want the most “bang for the buck” 5-10 sets seems to be the most efficient for the greatest return, but if I have more time during this week or few months and have the ability to ramp up the volume then it’s likely that will induce more hypertrophy.
Thank you for all you guys do!
It's why I'll never give volume recommendations.
I'll always say for best results do as much volume with intensity as you can recover from and stay with consistently, as what that volume looks like in terms of sets will be different for different people based on many variables. lifestyle being one of if not the biggest.
And that's without even getting into how not all volume is the same depending on load? excercise selection? etc
6-8 sets for the win. If youre going to failure of course. No need for more than that.
This conversation they're having is kinda why scientists are so hard to listen to. Instead of hedging, be bold enough to make a claim and get to the point.
You can’t lol.
Simply because of the almost-limitless amount of contextual variables and limitations that can/can’t be considered within the trials.
It’s more like “It looks that it’s likely this is the case” vs “This is the case”.
Again, because it’s always possible one of those contextual variables could invalidate the finding you are attempting to infer from the study.