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

[fender75]

Ive made posts about this before but it seems time and time again the guys who are adding the most LBM/density to their physique are the ones focused on moving big loads in their training (regardless of rep range). AJ Morris' recent post is a perfect example, and it confuses me b/c his style (which many at the elite level have) goes against conventional wisdom here. He even stated he reduced volume/frequency (he trains things under 2x/wk) to put forth more energy into his lifts focused on beating previous numbers. Here is a post he made yesterday he talks about why you should train with less volume.

I mentioned this a month ago in a daily discussion thread and got the following replies from people observing the same:

/@bluebirdsong

I've been paying closer attention to the British scene lately. People like Jordan Peters and the Muscle Mentors. I've noticed that the people that train in their style (lower volume, high intensity) look A LOT better than the people that use the RPE/RIR/Renaissance Periodization style. (Including both natural and enhanced bodybuilders) I'm not 100% sure if it means that their style of training is better, it's just something that I've noticed.

/@leelah

I honestly believe there is something just missing in the research that will be uncovered in the coming years. There isn't a single top level level bodybuilder, natural or enhanced, that doesn't train like that that I can find. Volume and frequency varies quite a bit, but all of the cream of the crop guys train very intensely, every session. Brad Schoenfeld recently said something alone the same lines, that there is just something to it that isn't showing up. 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.

/@cj_muze25

I've started training similar to Jordan Peters' and AJ's style a few months ago (low volume, high intensity) and I am having the best gains in my life. I am honestly regretting the time I've wasted listening to people like Israetel and doing their stupid high volume programs with RPEs and RIRs and other stupid fluff.

Ive noticed the same exact trend across my 12 year training career. Anecdotal but I feel I spin my wheels a little more (no changes in physique when I next cut down) when my focus is on pushing volumes up through a meso, strict reps, max ROM mindset during each exercise, etc. This results in feeling more run down during sessions and just trying to get through them (cant give it my 100%), using lighter loads, and not increasing loads at a meaningful rate. (For example being stagnant around 2-2.5 plate RDLs rather than building that puppy up to 3.5-4 plates). Obviously my physiques portential rate of gain has decreased across my training career but there are 2 years that really stand out to me above the rest where my physique/LBM felt like it jumped up faster and looked better than normal. Year 5 and year 8. Both of those years I had this style. Volumes on the lower side, focused on using heavier loads

Just wanted to create a discussion on this topic and would love your opinion!

 

[j3r3m3]

@fender75 The importance of moving loads "regardless of rep range" makes this a fairly uninteresting observation. The person squatting 315 for 25 reps will have bigger legs than the person squatting 225 for 25 reps. However, normally "moving big loads" in the context of hypertrophy relates to using heavy weight in lower rep ranges. That's when the discussion becomes interesting.

 

[fender75]

@j3r3m3 I know what youre saying but Id actually argue the opposite. I feel that topic has been beaten to death and most of us are unanimously of the same opinion on it. However if what youre saying is correct (more load for the same amount of reps = more muscle) then that should be the focus. If youre doing 225lbsx8 RDL, put all your effort into building that puppy up to 375x8. Dont get too caught up in adding volume and all that extra noise that will just limit potential and take away from what you can put into beating those PRs. Id say exercise execution included. Obv you still want good form with control but being overly strict/robotic, overly focused on max ROM for a leg press or something, no UMPH, etc can really take away from loads and the progression of them I feel.

 

[dawn16]

@j3r3m3 I'm not sure what you mean by it becoming interesting. Can you expand?

 

[j3r3m3]

@dawn16 When one starts considering the trade-offs of training in low vs moderate-to-high rep ranges, there's a discussion to be had in terms of where one should concentrate the bulk of one's volume for hypertrophy. Factors like stress on joints/connective tissue, ease of measuring proximity to failure, peripheral / cardiovascular fatigue becoming limiting factors, etc can come into play.

Generally hypertrophy can occur across all rep-ranges, but heavy loads (meaning in a lower rep range) tend to stress joints/connective tissues more, making it harder to perform the same volume if most of one's work is done in those ranges. However, it's very easy to measure proximity to failure in lower rep ranges, as they're within a few reps of failure by definition, and cardiovascular fatigue is less likely to be a factor.

Another consideration is that *strength* in lower rep ranges is more likely to involve neuromuscular adaptations / skill in a particular movement and is therefore less strongly correlated with hypertrophy, which is why training for strength in and of itself (as measured by a 1RM, as in powerlifting) generally isn't the best way to achieve hypertrophy.

However, the observation that "those moving heavier loads *regardless of rep range* tend to be bigger" removes all of that context and basically just says "more muscular people also tend to be stronger." That much is obvious, *especially* if we're comparing strength in moderate-to-high rep ranges where factors like neuromuscular adaptations and skill in a movement are less of a factor, and differences in strength correlate much more closely to differences in hypertrophy.

If one is successful in adding muscle mass, strength naturally follows (maybe not in terms of a 1RM if one doesn't specifically practice it / peak appropriately, but certainly in the rep ranges one trains). If one isn't getting stronger over time in the rep ranges they're training, they most likely aren't getting bigger.

All else being equal, someone performing RDLs for sets of 8 x 225 lbs will be smaller than the one performing sets of 8 x 375; assuming that all of the sets of 8 x 225 are remotely close to failure (i.e. within 1-5 reps), it's unlikely that person could perform a set of 8 x 375, and needs to add sufficient muscle mass to get to the point where they can move that weight. The question is which style of training best achieves the hypertrophy that makes one bigger and brings the lifter closer to being able to perform sets of 8 x 375.

At this point, I should also add that another definition of "moving heavy loads" is relative intensity, i.e. training closer to failure. One approach is to take the majority of one's sets to failure, another is to stay a few reps shy of failure but accumulate more volume. For instance, perhaps one can squat an AMRAP set to failure at 8 x 335, but on subsequent sets their reps drop off to 4 due to fatigue, and then 3. However, if they keep the weight slightly lower (say, 315) and stay 1-2 reps shy of failure, they may be able to perform 3 sets of 8 (perhaps they're 2 reps shy of failure on the first set, and 0-1 reps shy of failure on the last set).

The question then becomes which style of training will yield greater results, training with 20 more lbs on the bar vs getting 9 more reps. One also has to consider the greater injury risk going to true failure with heavy loads versus leaving a few reps in the tank and avoiding failure.

 

[betelo995]

@j3r3m3 225 lbs is 102.15 kg

 

[justin017878]

@j3r3m3 Jeff?

 

[j3r3m3]

@justin017878 Close, I'm Dr. Eric Trelms. Jeff puts out great stuff, though!

 

[jvilardo]

@fender75 He says in the comments of that post that he trains 1.5 to 3 hours per session. Sounds like a lot of volume to me.

 

[fender75]

@jvilardo He also said he likes doing 10 total sets per workout and only does PPLx2 every 10 days. So maybe a lot of intra-workout rest, lol. Setting up for big lifts and whatnot

 

[marisela]

@fender75 If we assume a 2-hour workout, that's 12 minutes between sets. Even if each set is a minute long (which it wouldn't be if he's doing low rep sets) that's an absurd rest period.

I find it hard to believe there are studies that would support that style of training.

 

[trishers]

@marisela Jesus christ its two sets working , when you squatting 6 plates a side you need 30 minutes to arrive to set 1!

 

[sarah1985]

@fender75 He also trains with Kuba at the moment so half of that time is probably changing weights

 

[marcelc]

@jvilardo I train low session volume, high weekly frequency, and my sessions are long because of intraset rest. I like to recover enough to keep the same performance every set. Usually about 5 minutes, but I don't rush. 15 is fine. More is fine. There's a global crisis. Not many other demands on my time and presence.

I'll worry about conditioning when I get back to my Muay Thai gym. I'll worry a lot. X'D

 

[grace_chaser]

@fender75 It's worth taking into account that everyone counts volume differently. If you don't read this post I think I can sum it as follows:

My guess is that a) when people find lower volume/high intensity to be better, its usually people who are undershooting RIR when doing RP style as opposed to ramping up to a max set so they leave a lot on the table, or b) when people find more success with RP they are seeing the benefit of increasing volume across their mesocycle, as opposed to per session.

There's a whole bunch of other variables that could come into play but these seem like the most obvious issues for most of us who aren't high level competitors.

----------

This is a bit long winded but bear with me.

An example from powerlifting but one that is relevant - Mike T of RTS is known for programming "high volume." One of his standard styles of programming is ramping up to a top set and then doing 1 back off set. It can look like this:

10 reps @ 7RPE, 10 reps @ 8 RPE, 10 reps @ 9 RPE, 1 back off set at -5-10%

Is this high or low volume? If I describe this as working up to working set and one back off set, it sounds like low volume. After all, it's 2 working sets. If I describe this as 4 sets of 10 and do this 2x a week, suddenly it sounds like fairly high volume. (edit for numerical typo)

A lot of the bodybuilders with "low volume" programs are doing something rather similar but with bigger weight jumps. If you watch a video of JP training you're going to see him ramping up in weight until he gets to his working set and then does a drop set. Maybe he won't use RPE or RIR and instead just goes all out on the top set but is that really dramatically different than me writing:

10 reps @ 4 RIR, 10 reps @ 2 RIR, 10 reps@0 RIR, 1 Drop Set - 20% max reps

We can write another example as:

90lbs x 4 sets @ 2RIR

This is pretty much an RP style example.

Now let's calculate for load/volume by making a few assumptions. For the Mike T style I'm going to assume 80/90/100/90 as the load, for the ramp up I said as JP style I'll use more or less the same weights but lower the weight on the first set to 65 account for the typically bigger jumps in bodybuilding and I'll increase the 100 to 110 to account for the difference in RIR/RPE. For the Mike Israetel set I'l assume the reps look like 11,10,9,7 - something I've seen from myself and others as their reps drop doing that style.

RTS ramp up: 3500lbs - 4 sets

"JP Style": 3500lbs - 4 sets

RP: 3300lbs - 4 sets

Assuming I did my mental math right, the per session load is almost exactly the same. The set volume is almost the same if we count sets based on RIR the same way as RIR/RPE proponents do.

So why would one style work way better than the other? Given the similarity in volume, whether by load or total sets, I would guess it has something to do with the execution of the workout. Either people don't know how to tell how many RIR they have (a pretty good assumption I think given that its not that easy) or people aren't getting enough volume to grow across their mesocycle. Another possibility is people are working out TOO intensely with the RP style and with the increased frequency don't have time to recover - but as pretty much everyone who hates RP likes to point out, most people really do have a hard time being intense enough in their workouts and don't truly understand what a 9 or 10 RPE/1 or 0 RIR really means.

 

[niecey85]

@grace_chaser Great analysis.

Reminds me of when people argue about Dorian Yates supposedly using low volume, but what he was actually doing is what you describe here.

 

[grace_chaser]

@niecey85 Thanks, it seems to be a pretty common misconception and I’m always surprised to see people in this sub who still believe it.