http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
So if I understand correctly, more volume = more hypertrophy (to a point, obviously recovery is a factor)
I know it says in that link it is not useful to think of volume as setsxrepxweight... But to my knowledge that is still what volume is, right??
So if I can lift 185x5 or 155x10, am I getting significantly more hypertrophy with the latter (moving a total of 1550lb instead of 925lb, thus doing more total work)??
If that is the case, should I just do one or two sets at my 5rm to get a strength response, then do two or three sets at 10rm for the higher total volume??
what happens if i do 185x5 for 2 sets and the third set i can't even do 155x10? why is my endurance so shit?
>>36250310
Sleep more, stop doing a low carb diet if you're on one, drink coffee before you go to the gym
>>36250310
Cause you don't even lift, faggot.
>>36250321
Nah I think his muscular endurance is just shit..
>>36250361
i've been lifting for 2 weeks, when do i get to the point where i can do 3+ sets without collapsing? I'm not even out of breath, my muscles just stop working, and by the time I get to my second exercise I feel like I am only lifting half of what i'd do if i had started with the second exercise first
>>36250393
Rest between sets longer.
>>36250032
the problem with hypertrophy is that no one is sure yet what physiological processes cause it - they have some working theories, but nothing conclusive yet.
but what people do know is that mechanical stress - which is sometimes interpreted as "volume" - does cause increase in muscle mass. however, there need s to be a threshold % of 1 RM, usually stated as over 60% to trigger it. so if you can backfill your sessions with extra "volume" with reps done with >60%, and you can ramp this up over a curse of weeks, then you should be fine.
>>36250578
This sounds like pure broscience, but I guess that is why I came here.
How come Eugenia sandow built a glorious natty body with 100's of reps of baby weight?
How come those studies say hypertrophy is the same for 35 rep as 8 reps when controlling for total volume?
Anything more than 13 reps (aka less than 60% 1rm) doesn't build muscle?
Sounds like horseshit 2bh fampai
>>36250621
Eugene**
>>36250621
Calm down. It's fuzzy logic with this stuff. Nothing is set in stone, but to get consistent results over the long term - which people liek yourself rarely ever do - the consensus tends to favor weight over 60%.
But if that upsets you, fair enough. It's up to you to figure this out, and if you can do it curling and pressing 10lb weights, good luck to you.
>>36250728
I am calm.
Calmly saying that sounds like horseshit broscience.
Now don't get me wrong I train for strength too. I am just looking to get a deeper understanding so I know what the fuck I am even trying to do.
Dorian Yates said failure at 6-8.
Eugen sandow says to start with 50 rep sets, adding 5 reps per workout.
They both got amazing results.
I am justying to figure out if it call comes down to the total work done (as in lb moved per training session) or what.
I mean, there has to be SOME metric by which to gauge an effective workout (regarding hypertrophy), right?
>>36250821
your broscience-o-meter is faulty. you're obviosuly not that experienced, so what you think or do not think is broscience is irrelevant at best, flawed at worst.
as i already said, it is mechanical work that seems to produce hypertrophy. how you do that work is where things get interesting. most people who have had real world success in growing muscle tissue seem to favor work done above a certain threshold. where that lies is fuzzy, but, again, most people tend to think this lies somewhere >60% (or thereabouts).
this threshold is probably higher for experienced lifters more so than it is for novices. so for you, you might get away with reps above 50%, but after a while this will become stale. there's a reaosn why the top body builders are also pretty storng guys too - they have to be, to be continually improving.
you'll figure this out in time. then you'll look back on this exchange, smile, and think what a real idiot you must've been to be arging this point.
>>36250883
>I'm right because I say I am
Convincing argument
Care to provide any evidence, citations or logical arguments as to why?
Also, how was eugen so jacked doing 75 reps of babyweight presses.
Clearly there is a point where you are doing enough work to shock the muscle into growing, even with light weight.
>>36251075
Sandow was a strongman, he didnt only lift with light weights. you're being naive to think he got the results he did because he "only" used light weights. this isnt true.
the best way to find out what's right for yourself is to test different approaches. i guarantee that you wont make consistent gains using weights in the less than 60% range over time.
lessons are best learned with your own experience. i'm not going to convince you any other way - you seem wedded to the idea that you can build appreciable amounts of muscle with very low %ages of weight. try it and see.
>>36250821
>>I am justying to figure out if it call comes down to the total work done (as in lb moved per training session) or what.
the article figured it out for you. intensity is what matters.
>>36251350
Really? Because that article seemed to suggest volume is all that matters.
I was just try to grasp how one measures "volume"
>>36251304
I am not trying low % of weight.
Read the op, fuckface, I am talking about 2x5 followed by a volume set of 10 reps or so...
This isn't high rep stuff..
I am just saying you sound wrong and dumb because people can and have gotten amazing results with lighter rep stuff.
Hence I don't really take your input with more than a grain of salt until you provide evidence, or at least a reasonable argument
>>36251544
>>Really? Because that article seemed to suggest volume is all that matters.
hitting a specific % of your 1rm requires a specific amount of intensity. you cannot bullshit your way to working with 80% of your 1rm unless you aren't anywhere near your 1rm.
>>36251544
Then why don't people get huge from manual labor, marathon running etc. The volume is massive, but the intensity is too low.
>>36251544
no, you're still missing something. the author says that for hypertrophy you need to go within a couple reps of failure to achieve hypertrophy, regardless of whether that is a couple pf reps short of failure on a 30-rep set, or a couple of reps short of failure on a 6-rep set.
where i dont agree with the article author - or the study authors - is that:
"Different rep ranges seem to have the exact same effect on hypertrophy."
this isn;t true over time. the studies weren't structured to test this effect over time, so they couldnt say anything about it. just doing 30 rep sets forever wont continue to build muscle. any lifter with a few years under their belt can tell you this.
>>36251610
Because the volume is really not that massive.
Just like you don't get jacked from standing up instead of sitting down.
But none of this answers my Initial question of whether 10rm at 155 is better than 5rm at 185 for purposes of hypertrophy
Also sprinters can build mass.
>>36251635
replying to my own post here, but i've just realized that the OP hasn't got any idea of what weight training is about. literally liek trying to explain the Reynolds number to a wasp.
>>36251658
>>Also sprinters can build mass.
intensity. max effort.
>>36251659
>but i've just realized that the OP hasn't got any idea of what weight training is about. literally liek trying to explain the Reynolds number to a wasp.
pretty much
>>36251635
How though?
You are still increasing the weight to achieve the same rep range, and this achieving progressive overload....
>>36251659
3deep5me..
No but seriously if you were so educated you could give me a scientifically literate response instead of your magic rule of
>gotta be over 60%, bro
Which as far as I can tell isn't even relevant to the fundamental question I am asking, or supported by any actual data
>>36251658
Yeah it is though. There's way more total volume in a marathon or in a day of furniture moving than in an intermediate powerlifting workout. Intensity (%1rm) matters, g nuckols wouldn't deny it either.
>>36251665
You get max effort regardless of rep range, though (but not from shit like manual labor)
>>36251658
Sprinting is low volume extremely high intensity. Plus they generally lift heavy and fast.
>>36251696
You have either never lifted or never moved furniture.
That is like saying standing up burns as many calories as sprinting
>>36250032
The new school of though seems to be that tonnage isn't as much a measure of volume as number of 'hard' sets, which is obviously a little bit subjective/arbitrary.
>>36251699
Yeah but you can't get within 1 or 2 reps of failure without some intensity. On the other hand you do get close to failure doing manual labor but it's isometric.
>>36251723
Just sets?
So a ""hard"" set of 185 x 5 is the same as 155 x 10 ?
Do rep ranges then not matter except for strength vs endurance effects?
>>36251696
>There's way more total volume in a marathon or in a day of furniture moving than in an intermediate powerlifting workout.
exactly.
to answer the other point:
>>36251668
>You are still increasing the weight to achieve the same rep range, and this achieving progressive overload...
the studies don't mention increasing the weight. they only say that to generate muscle growth you need to go within a few reps of failure ON ANY given rep range you care to do.
progressive overload implies motor learning, which is an adaptation to strength training. their discussion of hypertrophy doesnt address motor learning in this respect.
but this is where we come back to the same point: no one who has ever gained appreciable amounts of muscle over the mid- to long-term time frames has done so only using low % weight ranges.
>>36251742
Roughly and yes, that seems to probably be the case
>>36251720
I'm a furniture mover and I lift. If you're running flights of stairs (NYC, no elevators) the total volume is huge. Running a marathon ain't exactly standing still either.
>>36251731
>close to failure
>doing manual labor.
Yeah, pushing around wheelbarrows or shoveling dirt or nailing boards together really pushes me close to my physical capacity....
..the fuck bro??
Morbidly obese people who are too weak to deadlift 2pl8 do manual labor all the time..
It is not exhaustive to be mildly active for an 8 hour shit (minus 45 mins lunch)
>>36251720
Sprinting doesn't burn that many calories and burning calories is the opposite of building muscle. I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point.
>>36251742
Yeah but you increase strength easier with lower reps. Over time that means increase in volume. Someone doing 315x10 is going to be bigger than someone doing 155x10, guaranteed.
>>36251744
>the studies don't mention increasing the weight. they only say that to generate muscle growth you need to go within a few reps of failure ON ANY given rep range you care to do.
Right, and to maintain going to failure at the same rep range, you need to increase the weight
>>36251756
Moving 10lb boxes is to powerlifting
As standing still is to sprinting
My apologies you are too uneducated to understand the concept of comparative analogies
>>36251761
Ok... I do manual labor for a living and I am at 335/255/435 at 185lbs. I'm not the strongest guy around but I'm not obese either. I get pushed to failure all the time at work - but it doesn't build any muscle. Why? It's generally isometric strength and the intensity is too low.
As soon as I started doing basic 5x5 (lowish volume) lifting I blew up from progressive overload of intensity.
>>36251799
I did manual labor before I lifted, back when I was 245lb and type ii obese..
Shit was not even close to pushing me to failure.
..what do you do for work?
>>36251792
No that's correct: it prices that intensity matters.
I move boxes all day up and down the stairs.
The total volume is massive.
But my hypertrophy gains come from 5x5 once or twice a week. Relatively low volume.
>>36251816
*proves
>>36251816
Volume is setsxrepsxweight
Doesn't matter how many setsxreps because anything times 0 is 0
>>36251799
>I get pushed to failure all the time at work - but it doesn't build any muscle.
Sure it does
>>36251780
>Right, and to maintain going to failure at the same rep range, you need to increase the weight
no. this is where you're still thinking like a novice. once you're out of your first 12 months of training, strnegth increases only come from directed strength training work (which is a topic in and of itself), not just from turning up to do your lifts.
so, doing 17 reps with a 20-rep failure weight won't make you stronger. you'll still only be able to do 20 reps with the same weight.
so what happens then? you stagnate. then you need to re-stimulate the muscle building process, which, if you speak to anyone who's been doing thiss long enough, will tell you that you need to you your %s. this is why Arnold and others actually became so strong - because they to, to keep on building muscle.
>>36251834
Ok say an average box is 20 lbs. Wood furniture is more. A stand up piano is maybe 300lbs, steel drawing table maybe 350. Additionally, your bodyweight is getting carried up flights of stairs. Intensity is not zero. It's like deadlifting 135lbs all day. It's easy but not zero. You'll never hypertrophy from it. Thus proving volume without intensity doesn't produce hypertrophy.
>>36251849
A little. Nothing compared to lifting weights.
>>36251850
You can progressive overload without strength training (though not while maintaining rep range), but I see your point....
So now my question is this.
If you do 1 heavy set 3-5rm for strength response...
Is there any reason/benefit to then lower the rest of the work sets to a 10rm?
Would that help hypertrophy or impede strength progression?
>>36251863
Right, but assuming sufficient intensity, more volume = more hypertrophy, correct?
>>36251882
Less likelihood of injury, easy to get close to failure with a rough 8RM than a rough 3RM. If you go for a heavy triple and get two but don't have a third in you, that's the end of the set. If you go for ten, you might be able to grind out twelve. Which is where I think the origin of the whole 8-12 for hypertrophy thing lies.
>>36251882
>Is there any reason/benefit to then lower the rest of the work sets to a 10rm?
yes, doing that is fine - that is what I said in my very first post on this thread. backfill with volume. but you got upset because i said with weights >60%, even though i also said this figure was vague and subject to fuzzy logic i.e. dependent on your current trainign status and needs.
training in various rep ranges to hit strength and volume goals is fine. many people have a high% day, then mid% day , then a low% day, but you can structure it however you want.
>>36251888
Sort of, but only in theory. Read what g nuckols recommends. He's a smart guy. You need some dedicated strength work and you need volume. If all your volume is low intensity it wont drive strength (this is a problem with, eg, 531 BBB where the volume is coming from 50%1rm). On the other hand, high intensity volume (10x3 at 85%) is hard as fuck on your body long term. So you need to do both at different periods of time to keep volume high while driving strength but also letting your joints recover.
>>36251882
By the way a real 10rm is probably about %70…definitely high enough intensity for hypertrophy purposes. You just get into trouble if you rely too heavily on 15-25 rep sets for volume. These ranges are OK for isolation and prehab movements. Not for compounds.
I've done body weight squats for a few weeks, 40 rep sets and a minute rest, made decent leg gains, bigger quads etc, the final reps were challenging as fuck, the point is try it, if it works great, if it doesn't change it. Nothing is universal.
>>36250032
The simplest way to think of it is this:
Volume = the heaviest weight you lift for the most reps
The two parts of that phrase have to be kept in mind together. Lifting only the heaviest weight will increase your strength, lifting for the highest amount of reps will increase your muscular endurance, but that middle ground is where you find Hypertrophy.
Any heavier and you'd have to drop reps, any more reps and you'd have to drop weight.
