@ovrclockd Counting volume as sets x reps x weight makes it a completely useless metric, if that’s how you define volume then to maximize volume you should take a really light weight and crank out hundreds or thousands of reps, that’s gonna give you way more “volume” than 8-10 reps with 3 times the weight
4 - 6 exercice per muscle by workout ?
- Thread starter solokwa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- natural bodybuilding
@hams I wouldn’t say it’s completely useless. I think if you’re training within recommended set and rep ranges for hypertrophy it’s pretty useful. If you take any metric to an extreme it’s going to break down. I don’t think anyone would take away the message they should do a thousand reps with 1lb dumbbells because thats just impractical
@ovrclockd I mentioned the extreme because it’s the most obvious example of the general trend.
If you say “more volume is better” that means you should use lower weight and higher reps, because on every single exercise if you divide the weight by X you’re going to be able to do way more than X times the reps; half the weight (divide by 2) you’re going to do way more than twice the reps, if 100 is your 1RM just going down to 80 (divide by 1.25) you’re gonna do way more than 1.25 reps, probably somewhere around 10. These are not extreme examples, but they still point to the exact same thing I stated in my original comment.
Using this definition of volume makes it completely useless because if you then say “maximize volume”, even if you add all these restrictions “only within this rep range” “only this number of sets” no matter how you’re narrowing it down what it will always boil down to is “do as little weight as you’re allowed by the other rules for as many reps as you’re allowed by the other rules for as many sets as you’re allowed by the other rules and go as far away from failure as you’re allowed by the other rules so you can get as many reps in on the next set. Who is that helping? The only thing it’s doing is telling people to train at the top of the recommended rep ranges with as little intensity as is recommended, now you’ve just removed the rep/intensity ranges and just have one flat number. That’s the one thing you’ve accomplished, and it’s not a good thing.
The only somewhat useful definition of volume I’ve heard is simply “number of working sets”, it’s barely useful as it’s really just shorthand for “number of working sets” but at least it isn’t counterproductive like weight x reps x sets
If you say “more volume is better” that means you should use lower weight and higher reps, because on every single exercise if you divide the weight by X you’re going to be able to do way more than X times the reps; half the weight (divide by 2) you’re going to do way more than twice the reps, if 100 is your 1RM just going down to 80 (divide by 1.25) you’re gonna do way more than 1.25 reps, probably somewhere around 10. These are not extreme examples, but they still point to the exact same thing I stated in my original comment.
Using this definition of volume makes it completely useless because if you then say “maximize volume”, even if you add all these restrictions “only within this rep range” “only this number of sets” no matter how you’re narrowing it down what it will always boil down to is “do as little weight as you’re allowed by the other rules for as many reps as you’re allowed by the other rules for as many sets as you’re allowed by the other rules and go as far away from failure as you’re allowed by the other rules so you can get as many reps in on the next set. Who is that helping? The only thing it’s doing is telling people to train at the top of the recommended rep ranges with as little intensity as is recommended, now you’ve just removed the rep/intensity ranges and just have one flat number. That’s the one thing you’ve accomplished, and it’s not a good thing.
The only somewhat useful definition of volume I’ve heard is simply “number of working sets”, it’s barely useful as it’s really just shorthand for “number of working sets” but at least it isn’t counterproductive like weight x reps x sets
claudiabrinkmann1566
New member
@becknps Recommended volume is 10-20 sets per week for hypertrophy
If you only train chest once a week you damn well need more than 6 sets
Now if you do chest twice a week, 6 sets per session is within the optimal hypertrophy range but probably some more is better
There is an over correction to the high volume trend of the early 2000s with super intense low volume programming which is kind of absurd for hypertrophy purposes
If you only train chest once a week you damn well need more than 6 sets
Now if you do chest twice a week, 6 sets per session is within the optimal hypertrophy range but probably some more is better
There is an over correction to the high volume trend of the early 2000s with super intense low volume programming which is kind of absurd for hypertrophy purposes
jpeltier17
New member
@jpeltier17 Surely you’re going to the gym for more than just your back, right? If you were doing for example a pull workout you could do what you just said, plus an exercise for rear delts and 1-2 exercises for biceps. That would take plenty of time and make the most out of your trip to the gym.
@fandoumi1 That is exactly what my pull day looks like but 5 sets of each. If it’s not overcrowded in the gym it takes just about an hour which doesn’t feel over the top
jpeltier17
New member
@fandoumi1 Hmmm, I guess you're right. I'd still prefer probably like at least 10 sets for back though, twice a week, personally.
sinnersavedbyfaith
New member
@jpeltier17 Typically like if you were doing a ppl you'd do back with biceps and then you can throw something else in like abs and traps as well. I typically do about 5-7 exercises per session for 3 sets each.
@jpeltier17 No, because the back has more muscles than just the lat and that's not a full back day LOL
@solokwa Yea doing 6 sets in a sessions if you’re hitting it twice per week (12 total sets weekly) is more than enough.
You see guys that are big doing high volume bc they’re on PEDs. My theory is that your nooby gains will run out after like 1-2 sometimes 3 years and most people start of doing high volume and since almost anything works during your initial training phase, they get confused why it’s no longer working. Then they hop on and say “see high volume does work!”
Everyone’s total volume for ideal growth is a bit different. But typically for me, I’ve found 6-14 working sets per week for most muscles is ample. For chest I only do 9 as my chest fatigues quickly and takes forever to recover.
You see guys that are big doing high volume bc they’re on PEDs. My theory is that your nooby gains will run out after like 1-2 sometimes 3 years and most people start of doing high volume and since almost anything works during your initial training phase, they get confused why it’s no longer working. Then they hop on and say “see high volume does work!”
Everyone’s total volume for ideal growth is a bit different. But typically for me, I’ve found 6-14 working sets per week for most muscles is ample. For chest I only do 9 as my chest fatigues quickly and takes forever to recover.
@solokwa I've always gone by the "Sets per Bodypart" section of this article. when designing my splits. These numbers are per workout once, twice, and three times per week.
Results may vary on many factors.
Results may vary on many factors.