You don't need Volume Phases!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- In this video, I want to explain why pure volume phases are probably not worth your time. There are better concepts that you can use!
Here is the link to my strength programming course:
kingofweighted...
Tbh....to me It's a new knowledge.... Thnx man❤
Micha Loves the sound or velcro , Probably also love the sound of scraping fingernails down a chalkboard.
in all seriousness though , great Video .
bbbut Micha, Kali Muscle said he who does the most reps will look the best
Different juice 🧃, different rules
Bro still think kali muscle tells truth in 2024 💀
Difference in goals between streetlifting and bodybuilding.
@@mamizu2nuh uh
Hey Micha!
A very interesting approach you've showed here. It will change a lot in the programming of my street lifting plans.
At the beginning you've mentioned this modern idea of how to approach street lifting training differently -
do you have access to the scientific research that is the foundation for this approach?
I'm really interested in the scientific part of this theory.
Thanks in advance :)
We now just know better how hypertrophy works and that it works independently of the rep range and doesn’t need high reps ✔️
A basic search on pmid will give you some meta analysis on this topic 👊🏻
@@MichaSchulz thanks! 😁
Do you think people with long arms use different pulling technique than people with short arms? If so I would like to see a video about it,you already did on for pushing and it really help!
I will think about a video!
Very interesting and logic.
I have second week of my new plan and right now I’m going to apply this rules for next 7 weeks.
Let’s see 💪🏻
How would you train the weighted muscle up? As it depends heavily on practice and explosiveness. I suppose it would follow a different approach
Yep that’s correct, will soon share some thoughts!
@@MichaSchulz great, thank you!
dont you think that this type of training might end in a plateau because of monotone training style ? I think that a variety of rep ranges might be better in a longterm run
You can vary enough with load and variations to avoid diminishing return. Also the most athletes won’t reach enough progressive training time without interferences to reach this point anyway from my experience
Add which % are the back-off sets?
there is no fixed percentage. You decide based on prefatigue, rep range etc.
I seem to be too stupid to find some playlist for the programming series videos in the right order...? :p
There is no right order concept, it grew over time
@@MichaSchulz Ok thanks! A little confusing because in one video it says "2nd video of the program series"
Yes it was the second one published regarding programming 😁🤝
In 2 rows of new school
What's the rpe of 1 st row or single sets
And what's the rpe of 2nd row?
A lot of different methods would work. Typically you would scale the rpe of a top set in rpe, like 6 to 9 and make the backoff as a fixed percentage of that top set
@@MichaSchulz love u man
I struggle with organising accessory work in my training since i do 5x5 for pull ups and dips, and a different profram for deadlifts. Just doing this including warm up takes nearly an hour
Should i include a whole separate session for accessories and isolation?
Do less sets and superset if possible if you are running of time
Hey micha what do you think about having a heavy/intensity day and light l/volume day in an upper lower split❤❤
Can work
@@MichaSchulz aight thanks ❤️❤️
There are different ways to skin a cat. I believe your method is not superior, it's just different.
Sure, you will keep your strength adaptations year-round but at what cost? High intensity creates high fatigue, which you could spend on extra hypertrophy work. With an "old-school approach" you're dedicating yourself fully to purely hypertrophy-type training which will obviously be more effective. And when the time comes to focus on strength building or peaking, you will very quickly regain the adaptations you've developed before.
Also, Volume Phases are not only about hypertrophy but also about refining your technique, improving work capacity and conditioning the joints, which all of them are done most effectively with higher repetitions.
It's basically a debate whether focusing all in on different phases of training is superior to e.g. focusing 80% on volume phase and 20% on maintains adaptations from strength phase (as shown in your video). The former will let you benefit more from current phase but it will require you to spend extra time on regaining lost adaptations. Meanwhile the latter will take a bit more time to get the same gains but you can then jump straight into the next different phase.
In the end, both approaches have their ups and down. However your method seems quite interesting and I'm willing to try it out in the future :)
First of all, thanks for jumping into a productive discussion, appreciate it!
All of your named benefits will be possible in a more specific way in the „new school system“ or however we want to call it.
Technique improvements don’t work better on high ranges. They work good on lower relative intensities that allow to focus. Here lower ranges would be more specific and allow better technical adaptations.
Higher reps closer to failure create more fatigue than lower reps, at least on a CNS level. Very important consideration.
I agree that passive structure fatigue is a topic here, but that can be easily regulated with proper load management. Doesn’t need exclusively high reps. I would argue that frequent jumps into high intensity coming from lower ones is at least theoretically more risky. But also here it’s about load management.
Increasing working capacity needs no high reps phases. A few sets on a secondary day will do the job just fine.
Higher ranges don’t build more muscle.
Higher ranges don’t condition joints more.
Progressive loading over time does this.
So exclusive phases don’t offer the benefits you name. It can be fully achieved while still keeping a decent amount of specificity. 💪🏻
One more thing: the main reason I would use an oldschool approach is because of pure preference. Theoretical benefits offer nothing if the athlete is not enjoying the training. In that case a inferior system would become superior as it fits the emotional needs of the athlete better.
What about volume? Isnt volume that also helps build muscle with intensity? We are loosing some volume in this case
Can you specify your question and define what you mean with volume?
@@MichaSchulz in the scheme that you gave we have same sets but less reps
Reps alone don’t define stimulus 👍🏻
@@MichaSchulz yes you are right. Less reps but higher weight. So its even higher volume. My bad. Thank you so much
This is false. Alot of individuals need more volume. Why arent we stopping to put everyone into the same box.
1. Yes, there are always exceptions, mentioned that at least 2x in the video
2. if you benefit from higher volume, it still would be inferior to skip higher intensity, I am not talking about high and low volume, but exclusive „high rep“ phases
1st