Keep in mind, though, that the principle controversy here is the finding regarding the dose-response relationship for hypertrophy. This is what the reddit poster contested. Also, please note that this same researcher, Brad Schoenfeld, wrote the following about his studies on his website: Take-Home Points 1. Strength gains are similar with 1 set per exercise as with 5 sets per exercise, indicating that if your goal is to simply get stronger, this can be achieved with minimal amounts of volume. These findings are specific to training with a moderate rep range (8-12 reps); it seems likely that training in more of a powerlifting range (3-5 reps) would necessitate the performance of more sets to maximize strength. 2. Volume is a primary driver of muscle growth, with more sets translating into greater gains. Upper body hypertrophy continued to show beneficial effects with 30 sets per muscle per week and continued lower body gains were seen with 45 sets per muscle week. These numbers should not necessarily be considered as definitive recommendations, but rather point to the fact that higher volumes can elicit superior muscle gains over relatively short time frames. Moreover, it seems likely that repeatedly training with high volumes will inevitably lead to non-functional overreaching and thus compromise results. Thus, volume should be manipulated in a wave-like manner so that periods of higher relative volumes are cycled with periods of lower volumes; moreover, regular deloads should be employed to promote proper recovery. 3. It’s essential to remember that studies merely provide the average responses to groups of people. Thus, these findings can only provide general guidelines as to how much volume is beneficial for strength and hypertrophy; the response for a given person will vary based on genetics and lifestyle factors and thus prescription must be determined individually. A good general recommendation for volume would be to perform ~10-20 sets/muscle/week, as detailed in our recent paper on the topic; some lifters will do well with volumes lower than this range, while others will thrive with somewhat higher volumes. The findings of our study suggest that specialized, short-term cycles of higher volume training can be employed to bring up lagging muscles groups that respond poorly to training or have reached a plateau in development. https://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/how-much-volume-do-you-need-to-get-stronger-and-build-muscle/ So Schoenfeld is recommending 10 to 20 sets per muscle group per week? Ten sets as a starting point? Based on what evidence? The reddit critic also linked Schoenfeld's facebook page where the debate continued, including with Schoenfeld, himself. Interesting reading.
That seemslike the right place to link Marianna Gasparyan recent Instagram post, where she starts describing her program (3 training sessions a week no more than 1 hour each). For those who don't know Marianna, she is the only person ever to have achieved a Wilks score over 700 raw, if that calculation is to be believed, she would be the strongest pound for pound powerlifter ever (again, it now appears tilted towards small women, but she is insanely strong anyway, she squatted 260kg @56kgs bodyweight last month at the Kern US open, beating the male world record in the process)
Good post. So a world class athlete in her prime (and not lacking in the hypertrophy department, especially for a woman) trains only 3 times a week for no more than an hour at a time. Meanwhile, what is Brad Schoenfeld recommending to his readers, most of whom are not world class athletes in their prime with the recuperative capability that goes with it? (See what I mean?)
Definetely interesting. I'm hoping she will post more info about her training, but this is probably a teaser and she will sell that info (worth a buy), yet there are also top strength athletes who train much harder. There is also speculation about possible differences between enhanced athletes and those competing in drug tested federations. Enhanced athletes might be do better with less sets, although this is not very intuitive.
Sure, and enhanced athletes also have improved recovery ability by virtue of the drugs that they're taking. So where does that leave us? Apart from extensive and systematic personal experimentation and experience, I would suggest that reliable and well-interpreted studies of sufficient size and duration provide a meaningful starting point. It does not appear that the various Schoenfeld et al studies meet these study criteria on any count.
Enhanced athletes might be do better with less sets than natural athletes is what I meant. I was mostly thinking of Izzy Narvaez, he is not a doctor but writes on the topic, he has an interesting review of various powerlifting programs, where one can see *very* different volumes recommended. But his idea on the topic is a bit different than I remembered or had understood (just came up on this link). He feels the low volume work for enhanced lifters works mostly in powerlifting, I don't know enough about weightlifting to compare there. Strongman training sessions seem quite long, but those I've checked rest 5 to 15mns between sets, which doesn't help (fwiw i also take long rests between sets, that's fine but only when one is not too busy). https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/steroids-vs-natural-training/ Also a link to his Program review series, the first routines are mostly for beginners but than he discusses more advanced programs : https://www.powerliftingtowin.com/powerlifting-programs/
Sorry guys. When I made my initial comment, my wireless keyboard died right before I had to walk out for an appointment and I couldn't finish my thought or edit my post the way I wanted it to be. So now that my appointment is over and I've got some new batteries... What I was trying to say is that these studies about what number of sets is "best" for strength or hypertrophy are basically meaningless to almost all of us that lift weights. Because I always ask the same question when I read studies like that... Best for who? Somebody who's got all day to lift weights? Because outside of professional bodybuilders, the average person will never do 5 sets to momentary failure per exercise anyway. According to the study, the 5-set workout took 68 minutes to do. Now, that's just the workout itself. Factor in putting on gym clothes, driving to the gym, warming up, doing the 68-minute workout, eating a post workout meal, driving back home, getting a shower, getting dressed again, etc. and you would likely have about 3 hours of your day eaten up by your workout routine. Who in the hell has time for that anyway? Furthermore, and most important, although slight differences can be measured between sets per exercise over the course of an 8-week study, there is no significant difference whatsoever when you measure the results over a multi-year time period. We've seen Mr. Olympia winners that are low-set high-intensity proponents like Dorian Yates and other winners like Phil Heath that do much higher volume and primarily using machines instead of free weights. The variation between the techniques of professionals are all over the map, but when you get these pros together on a stage, you literally need expert judges to even be able to discern who is the best. I've never heard a judge or commentator say, "Wow, our next competitor is clearly a 5-set guy. Look how massive he is!!" So for the average person, it's really not about how many sets per exercise you do. It's about staying consistent over time with a set/rep range you enjoy and have the time to accomplish because consistency is miles more important than sets per exercise in achieving results.
I know. And I hope you got what I meant, too. Enhanced lifters have better recovery ability, so they can do more. Just like the guy in your link said, drugs "imitate" better genetics. So you can get away with more mistakes in either direction; you have a greater margin for error. But here's the thing. What's the likelihood that a competitive athlete, on steroids, would skimp on training? I'd say it was unlikely. So I doubt the woman you profiled in your earlier post was compromising on effort. My guess is that she was optimizing. On the other hand, we've all read about the "pro" bodybuilders who worked out twice a day, six days a week. Assuming the workouts were in any way meaningful, do you think a natural athlete could get away with that kind of regimen without being ground to dust after a period of time? And did they really need to do it, anyway? Mike Mentzer's own "enhanced" results during the latter part of his competitive career suggest otherwise. Bottom line, assuming we are "naturals," I don't think we should be taking too much training advice from enhanced athletes, especially at the higher end of the volume spectrum.
Jim Wendler has the best quote on this stupid discussion. "I am a natural lifter so I have to train less" "I am a natural lifter so I have to train more" "Well what one is it?" Drugs increase the training effect. End of story. There is no such thing as having one training program for someone on drugs vs not on drugs. Otherwise you would have different programs for different levels of drugs. "Ohh no I can't do the 1000mg of cypionate a week program. I am only taking 250mg".