How are most of workout routines full of junk volume?

[godofreason]

Hello,

Recently I've been thinking of how is it possible there is so much training programs, very well evaluated by users, which are full of junk volume, too many exercises, too many sets per workout and overall volume? F.e. Kong routine, PHAT routine, Bullmastiff and many more. There is like 4 exercises per muscle group per workout session and all of them are like 4 and even more sets. You can easily get to 30 and more sets per body part per week.

Im just curious how are those programes best rated while its obvious there is way too much volume for most people?

 

[mrbrain]

@godofreason The entire online bodybuilding space has had an obsession with volume for the last few years.

The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way more recently. Likely part of the reason for the Mentzer resurgence. Stick around for long enough and you'll see this cycle repeat itself over and over.

 

[piecebypeace]

@mrbrain Agreed.

Personally, I'm between 10-15, usually 10. But they are quality. Seen better gains from it over 30+.

 

[asperd]

@mrbrain The obsession with volume has been around for decades. Because volume training was prevalent during Arnold and Mentzer's peaks. And Mentzer spoke out against it

 

[sakuramochi]

@godofreason High volumes work. As an individual, Higher volumes relative to your own INDIVIDUAL threshold for growth and recovery are better. What constitutes “high volume” for one is “low volume” to another and vice versa. Volume is not universal.

Your first mistake is thinking these extremely cookie cutter programs are going to nail volume to each individual every time.

Your second mistake is speaking for everyone with nothing to back it up (“obvious there is way too much volume for most people”). There is a reason a lot of people vouch for the programs despite their shortcomings - because high volumes or in fact anything pretty much works (maybe not the best, but good enough) as long as you put in the effort and consistency.

If these programs don’t work for you, then fine, make sure you do something that works best FOR YOU!

 

[cpf]

@sakuramochi Can’t emphasize this response enough. The program that works best for you is the one you can stick to and enjoy. Sooo many people here and everywhere on the internet sit and read and argue and analyze shit to death.

Get in the gym and lift weights and eat enough protein and do what you like to do (that moves you towards your goal) and it should all work out.

Are there maybe more optimal ways to get there? Probably, but if you don’t like them or they don’t fit your schedule or whatever then you inevitably won’t do them and won’t make progress

 

[clock17]

@sakuramochi Most people can’t execute high volume, properly. You do need to hold just a touch back from an intensity level that will burn you out if you don’t. And what I love about higher volume and/or frequency is that you literally get better at lifting. Better technique, better feel for how things should go that day, better idea of what works for you and what doesn’t when it comes to cadence, rom, rest time, exercise choice etc. I personally like to utilize all styles of training.

 

[mourningthedead]

@godofreason If you cant train intense enough safe card is going high volume. I had my best gains on high volume but the couple years later when i learned to push myself you can get away with less.

 

[eo4eo]

@mourningthedead Is there any actual negative repercussions outside of time wasting that comes with “junk volume” training, I basically have infinite spare time so I would happily spend 4 hours in the gym if it gave me max gainz, but can over training say “chest day” actually negatively effect my chest gainz? (Anyones input on this will help, I’d rather over train than be under training and losing Gainz)

 

[holyone]

@eo4eo More likely to get injured with more volume. Also, more volume means more time to recover and possibly more fatigue to deal with. Also, there's a point in which more volume can make your strength/muscle gains regress. But I think most people are not in danger of reaching the point where the amount of volume they do is detrimental.

 

[rijesusfreak]

@godofreason Each body responds differently. A big part of bodybuilding is self-knowledge of your own body and what works best for you.

I simply do not grow without high volume - and believe me, I’ve tried. Multiple times. I don’t get DOMs and I leave the gym feeling like it wasn’t enough work.

That’s why my workout is usually between 20-30 sets per workout. And I feel great. I enjoy it, im constantly hitting PRs, im growing and im recovering on time.

The only downside is time. But I just fix that by changing to a traditional bro split with shorter sessions when I don’t have the time, but with the same volume per muscle group.

Yet, when I tell people that on my back + biceps day I usually do 20 sets of back and 9 sets of biceps people always say that I’m doing junk volume and I should reduce the volume.

Disclosure: not on gear.

 

[len1973]

@rijesusfreak Same. I have no idea how someone can do an entire back day with 6 sets. GTFO here....and then they cant figure out why they aint growing. I dont even bother answering this shit anymore.

Idc that somebody on instagram who works out for a living who is on grams of test a week said to do three sets max/group/workout. And neithet should they.

 

[superdave7865]

@rijesusfreak What does ypur workout plan look like?

 

[guaguar]

@godofreason What makes you think that's junk volume? In recent years studies with that kind of volume have come out with positive outcomes for groups doing more volume.

 

[godofreason]

@guaguar well based on Eric Helms book and many more sources staying somewhere 5-7 or so sets per body part per workout and max 20sets per week per body part (not for everyone ofc) leads to best results. Spaming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing. Not even mentioning the fact that there is every body part trained once a week mostly

 

[guaguar]

@godofreason I have those books. The latest major update happened was published in 2019 and written in 2018.

"Recent years" is a pretty key part of my comment. Helms have even said that they're working on a 3rd edition because of how much the evidence have moved over the past 5 years.

If you subscribe to MASS, you'd see Helms have addressed most of the higher volume studies and endorsed that people should play with it to see how they respond to it.

 

[dawn16]

@godofreason “Spamming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing”- based on what? It depends on the body part, and the person. My pull sessions always have at least 4 different back exercises, with 3 sets on most. There are a number of different muscle groups in the back, and hitting different exercises and angles means you can do a ton of volume on it. There’s no arbitrary number of exercises that are impossible to recover from for everyone across the board, beyond just sheer insane and obvious numbers. It varies person to person. The case could be made for legs, or any other body part group. If you do more isolation exercises vs compound, you’ll definitely have more exercises per body part, especially if you care about seldom worked muscles (adductor, abductor, etc). The ability to recover isn’t an arbitrary thing at all.

 

[baker5]

@dawn16 I feel like people who have not done real high volume are those that say you can’t recover from it

 

[dawn16]

@baker5 I would agree

 

[rrob692326]

@godofreason I think the sum of intensity and volume is important as it is hard to speak of junk volume without talking about both. For me personally, i always do high intensity training as in 0 rir and 45 seconds between sets and i tried adding volume from 20 to 30 sets per body part per week, but this didn't work for me as i had difficulty lowering intensity as i'm used to this training style and it saves a lot of time. Back to 20 sets for most muscle groups and back to weekly gains. Don't know how the intensity of the high volume lovers is though. Just my 2c