Time and time again the guys adding the most LBM/density are the ones focused on moving big loads (regardless of rep range)

[nattyz]

@trumpeter2 The lighting is also quite different between the two pictures. Good lighting can add more muscle than steroids.

 

[marisela]

@trumpeter2 Yeah, 13lbs over more than 3 years is not a while lot of progress even if you are a lean, natural bodybuilder

 

[chandler50]

@fender75

It's amazing to me how popular some of the "evidence based" guys are on reddit, while they are entirely peripheral amongst very successful competitors.

TIL Eric Helms and Alberto Nunez are not successful competitors.

On a side note, I would not say what they teach is high volume at all. But it goes against the narrative presented here, so you probably don't count them.

 

[jacobsonofjohn]

@fender75 Sounds similar to doggcrapp which is a great program

 

[dawn16]

@fender75 Ehhh. It depends. I have a hypothesis that you stop growing after a while of low volume, high intensity training and you're likely going to benefit from more conventional parameters.

Meaning, a novice lifter is going to make more gains bringing his bench from 45lbs to 225lbs in 6 months of lifting than he would if he worked up to 135lbs.

But after that point, getting his bench up to 275 may not benefit him more than performing 225lbs for reps.

Fast twitch type 2 fibers have a greater growth potential than slow twitch. But there is probably a limit on how much of it you can grow. So after a point it makes sense to work on the other fiber types.

Maybe cycle in dedicated strength work for 8-12 weeks between conventional hypertrophy stuff is an optimal way to get the best of both worlds.

 

[dawn16]

@fender75 So less frequent but more intense sessions? As in getting closer to failure or training with weights that are at least 80% of 1rm?

 

[ilovepaydays]

@fender75 I was actually just thinking about this today after feeling how my body has felt the last few weeks as I've been ramping up my sets and as I have been listening to more and more top bodybuilders talk on their philosophy. More often than not(from what I have been hearing), they only count 1-2 working sets per exercise so they can truly go all out and hit actual failure. Density and heavy weight go hand and hand, so the increased load using intensity techniques as opposed to increased volume may be the more beneficial approach.

 

[ckp737]

@fender75 I’ve been waiting for a post like this to come on this sub to see what everyone’s opinion was, I’ve always followed Eric helms and all the evidence based people, and you look at aj it goes against everything they say lol soon as gyms open up in uk I’m changing my training

 

[carabu]

@fender75 Reading through the comments in OPs post, it just feels like people misunderstanding the recommendations of coaches.
RP was included in there for the idea of not going too hard, but have you ever seen the aftermath of some of Mike's leg days? Him and his training partners are often throwing up after sets of hack squats. Not exactly sure that's a "low intensity" approach.

There was a really good video with Meadow's and Nippard where they both said intensity comes first. You can't half ass a bunch of sets and think doing a lot of that will make any difference. You need to be within spitting distance of failure on a set for it to count, at least in terms of hypertrophy.

I saw someone say awhile back, which I really liked... For Hypertrophy, sets of 5-25 reps work, as long as it's done within 2 reps of failure. So that set "counts" if it meets that criteria. Anything else is a warm up set or junk volume. You likely want as many sets in a week to fall into that category as possible. Knowing that going to true failure destroys your ability to perform additional sets at a high intensity, you likely only do 1 true set in a workout (or even week) that gets in that 10 RPE range. This allows more work to be done in the 2-3 reps from failure range.

 

[sirender]

@fender75 Don’t swing the other way completely. Do your assistance exercises, variations, and conditioning work too.

 

[christiansites]

@fender75 I’d have to agree with you. John Meadows has been known to have brutally intense training regiments and people pay him thousands of dollars to be a client of his. The big guys train intensely and there’s no way around that if you want to grow if you ask me.

 

[carabu]

@christiansites You know that John is often seen as a high volume guy, right?

 

[christiansites]

@carabu Ok, Dante emphasizes lower volume. The point is progressing with weight and training intensely .

 

[dawn16]

@fender75 Mike Metzger took this to its illogical extreme near the end of his career. Hey may have been onto something. A lot of people thought he was not.

 

[dawn16]

Well he did take it too far. Towards the end he was recommending 1-2 sets every 14 days.

Now looking at his earlier reccomendations and the early reccomendations of Arthur Jones, those routines were quite good.

Around 9 total sets a week, training 2 - 3 x per week

 

[becknps]

@dawn16 Those early routines were also what both of them used to build on their own physiques - we know they worked. The later routines they published were just them theorizing way past their prime and we never actually saw someone gain success with them.

 

[azznerak]

@fender75 All I gotta say is more mass moves more mass brahhhh

 

[natey12]

@fender75 When you're training different rep ranges to or close to failure, you're training different types of muscle fibers. If you train with lower reps, you will grow your type 2 muscle fibers more. If you train with higher reps, you'll grow your type 1 muscle fibers more. Type 2 muscle fibers have vastly more hypertrophic potential than type 1 fibers, which is why people who train with low rep sets (NOT to be confused with low volume, which would mean a low amount of weekly sets per my definition of volume) will have bigger muscles. That being said, you can grow your type 2 muscle fibers by doing some higher rep sets, although they will not cause as much growth. Additionally, there is something to be said about RPE, but really only in the context of preventing excessive fatigue too early in a given mesocycle.