Oh, no! Another study, this one dated June 2019. Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Trained Men – Less is More? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31188644 Abstract PURPOSE: To compare the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle performance and hypertrophy in trained men. METHODS: 37 volunteers performed resistance training for 24 weeks, divided into groups that performed five (G5), 10 (G10), 15 (G15) and 20 (G20) sets per muscle group per week. Ten repetition maximum (10RM) tests were performed for the bench press, lat pull down, 45º leg press, and stiff legged deadlift. Muscle thickness (MT) was measured using ultrasound at biceps brachii, triceps brachii, pectoralis major, quadriceps femoris and gluteus maximus. All measurements were performed at the beginning (pre) and after 12 (mid) and 24 weeks (post). RESULTS: All groups showed significant increases in all 10RM tests and MT measures after 12 and 24 weeks when compared to pre (p <0.05). There were no significant differences in any 10RM test or changes between G5 and G10 after 12 and 24 weeks. G5 and G10 showed significantly greater increases for 10RM than G15 and G20 for most exercises at 12 and 24 weeks. There were no group by time interaction for any MT measure. CONCLUSIONS: The results bring evidence of an inverted "U shaped" curve for the dose response curve for muscle strength. Whilst the same trend was noted for muscle hypertrophy, the results did not reach significance. Five to 10 sets per week might be sufficient for bringing about optimal gains in muscle size and strength in trained men over a 24-week period.
But what about Brad Schoenfeld's study several months earlier that concluded there is almost no upper volume limit for hypertrophy? He believes that an absolute minimum of 10 sets per week per muscle group (and preferably much more) are necessary to optimize hypertrophy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153194 (Except, of course, that some statistically-minded folk took issue with the validity of his conclusions: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...dy-of-exercise-volume-and-hypertrophy.333321/ )
The problem is defining what a "set" is. I can assure you that the intensity of sets done under Brad Schoenfeld's watch is a far cry from the intensity of a set done with Ellington Darden watching you. There's no way in hell you're going to do 10 sets of leg presses in a single week with Darden overseeing things. Most people couldn't do more than 1 per week because after the first one, they would be sore as hell for the next 5 or 6 days.
I agree that the intensity of a set is the key variable. I corresponded via email with one researcher about Schoenfeld's study, and he told me he once watched Schoenfeld work out. He said Schoenfeld's definition of failure differed from his own. What I gather from what I read of Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden putting clients through workouts, and what you described some time ago from personal experience, I wonder if that is perhaps taking it too far. (Perhaps it has to do with moving immediately to the next exercise allowing for no rest between sets. I have yet to understand the reason for this, apart from looking to also replace cardio with this format. And my own gut feel is that it compromises the resistance work, however taxing the workout itself may be.) For my purposes, taking a set to failure means going until I cannot possibly do another rep or continue movement. And that means forcing it for a few seconds when movement has ceased to be possible. I would think that should meet most reasonable definitions of failure. But I take at least 3 minutes rest between most sets. There is an interesting review of the captioned study with some reference to Schoenfeld's study as well: https://bodyrecomposition.com/resea...ning-volume-trained-men-research-review.html/
If you've got an hour to burn, you should watch this video. It's Darden describing his entire system. Even if you don't necessarily subscribe to his way of doing things, it's still very informative.
I followed your advice and took an hour to watch this video. I don't like his approach one single bit. He feels it necessary to plug his book on every other slide. Blames his results on "unknown hormones" and tells the audience with a straight face that you'll lose up to 1 lbs body fat per day, for any number of days up to 60 it seems. He even admits that this is only added to increase book sales. By the way, he also admits that many of those people regain that lost weight afterwards. "Snake oil salesman" is the term that popped up in my head when watching this.
Interesting video, although it does have an infomercial feel to it. I'm in agreement with a number of his principles, including accentuating the negative (although not to the same extent as he proposes), training hard ("inroads") and infrequently, and not shying away from carbs. But in his presentation he made no reference to the need to go from one exercise to the next without resting in between. Since he is a proponent of this approach to training, I'm surprised he didn't make a point of bringing it up. It is one thing I cannot bring myself to do, especially since some research suggests that longer rest between sets is more conducive to hypertrophy: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...s-superior-results.333589/page-3#post-4887871
I was thinking recently about the above study I posted last year. Since the finding was that 5 and 10 sets per week per muscle group gave as good results in strength and hypertrophy as 15 and 20 sets, what was the magic of the lower number? More specifically, might fewer than 5 sets be as effective if performed properly? Since the lower number of 5 sets was probably chosen somewhat arbitrarily for comparative purposes, I cannot imagine that it is necessarily the threshold level below which results suffer precipitously. Food for thought, eh? It would be interesting to establish under controlled conditions the minimum number of sets required to get an equivalent or near-equivalent adaptive response (strength and/or hypertrophy). In the aggregate, of course.
All depends on the intensity of the sets. I think Arthur Jones, Darden, etc. have proved that even one set can get the job done as long as the intensity is at max level and the set is done to negative failure. The problem is that the average person does not have the ability to take themselves to that level of failure without the supervision of a trained expert.