# How many sets per muscle?



## Hardestworker2002 (Feb 18, 2022)

Hi!

I want to make my own workout schedule, but I have a question. How many sets should I aim for, per muscle group.

I have been training for 4 years now. I train for hyperthrophy and train 5 days a week. I like to work out for about 2 hours per workout. I train naturel. 

Thanks in advance guys!


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

As many sets as you can to failure and beyond while still recovering enough to hit the muscle every 3-5 days while adding weight or reps. 
How do you count sets? I only count failure and beyond failure sets and even then it’s murky. 
Tomorrow I’m doing back and hamstrings b workout:
Lat pulldown 8-12,12-15+ pulses+ triple drop set
Neutral grip cable row 3rp+pulses+ triple drop set 
Reverse db swings 15-20+partials 
Reverse hyper 8-12,12-15,no weight to failure
Lying leg curl 3rp+partials+ triple drop set+ static hold
Calves. 
I don’t know how many sets it is. It doesn’t matter. It’s a lot of effective reps. Its what allows me to destroy myself and still be able to train it again in 4-5 days. 
I go to the gym for results not just because i enjoy it for a certain amount of time.


----------



## Hardestworker2002 (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> As many sets as you can to failure and beyond while still recovering enough to hit the muscle every 3-5 days while adding weight or reps.
> How do you count sets? I only count failure and beyond failure sets and even then it’s murky.
> Tomorrow I’m doing back and hamstrings b workout:
> Lat pulldown 8-12,12-15+ pulses+ triple drop set
> ...


Well I just count the sets like for example: bicep curls 8-12 8-12 8-12, so that’s 3 sets. But how do you know you can recover enough, do you don’t overtrain? 

And shoulder there be a difference between isolate and compound excercises?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

Hardestworker2002 said:


> Well I just count the sets like for example: bicep curls 8-12 8-12 8-12, so that’s 3 sets. But how do you know you can recover enough, do you don’t overtrain?
> 
> And shoulder there be a difference between isolate and compound excercises?


It comes from experience. 
I think 3x8-12 is meaningless. How close are you to failure on those? Could you get more out that 3x8-12 if you did 1x8-12, 1x12-15 and just really tried everything you could to make those the hardest sets of your life? Like a gun is to your head. 
When I write some one a program I stick to 1-2 chest movements. 2-3 back movements. 1 rear delt. 1 side delt. 1-2 bicep and tricep. 2-3 quads. 2-3 hamstring. Per day. I’d have some body doing 1-2 sets per movement and over time if recovery allows I’ll add intensifiers. 
If they’re making steady progress (adding weight or reps each week) I don’t change anything. 
I don’t add conventional volume ever. 
I want more effort per set not less effort and more junk volume. 
Volume is not the primary driver of growth. Effort and mechanical tension are. A stronger muscle is a bigger muscle. 
I want the muscle hit hard as often as possible. 
If someone can train so hard that they are able to completely destroy the muscle with one set then that’s all they need. Then hit it again 4-5 days later.


----------



## Hardestworker2002 (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> It comes from experience.
> I think 3x8-12 is meaningless. How close are you to failure on those? Could you get more out that 3x8-12 if you did 1x8-12, 1x12-15 and just really tried everything you could to make those the hardest sets of your life? Like a gun is to your head.
> When I write some one a program I stick to 1-2 chest movements. 2-3 back movements. 1 rear delt. 1 side delt. 1-2 bicep and tricep. 2-3 quads. 2-3 hamstring. Per day. I’d have some body doing 1-2 sets per movement and over time if recovery allows I’ll add intensifiers.
> If they’re making steady progress (adding weight or reps each week) I don’t change anything.
> ...


Thank you! !
That makes a lot of sense!!
I do have another question though; during a workout what do you aim for? Going all out in the first set? Or do you determine in advance i’m going 3 set all out? How do you know when to stop?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

🤔 I’d say if you’re not able to train the muscle hard again 4-5 days later you didn’t recover enough. 
Then I’d look at food, rest, drugs and lower the volume.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

Hardestworker2002 said:


> Thank you! !
> That makes a lot of sense!!
> I do have another question though; during a workout what do you aim for? Going all out in the first set? Or do you determine in advance i’m going 3 set all out? How do you know when to stop?


I’m determined to go all out on every work set that I do. 
My warmups are sets of 1-4 until I get to my first working set. I don’t hold back on any set to try and save energy for another. When you do that you get into junk volume territory. 
I want max effort on every set with decent form. My set is done when I can’t lift the weight. Then I take 2-5 minutes to recover and do the next set.


----------



## Hardestworker2002 (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> I’m determined to go all out on every work set that I do.
> My warmups are sets of 1-4 until I get to my first working set. I don’t hold back on any set to try and save energy for another. When you do that you get into junk volume territory.
> I want max effort on every set with decent form. My set is done when I can’t lift the weight. Then I take 2-5 minutes to recover and do the next set.


But when do you stop with an excercise?


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

If you want a good scientifically based explanation go check out Jeff Nippards new video called "Junk Volume". 
It's pretty much common sense stuff backed by actual peer reviewed studies.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

Hardestworker2002 said:


> But when do you stop with an excercise?


Do 2 sets to failure and/or beyond.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> If you want a good scientifically based explanation go check out Jeff Nippards new video called "Junk Volume".
> It's pretty much common sense stuff backed by actual peer reviewed studies.


Do they have peer reviewed stuff on actual trained guys trying to get as big as possible?


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Do they have peer reviewed stuff on actual trained guys trying to get as big as possible?


Yes that was why he even made the video because the participants were all previously trained.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> Yes that was why he even made the video because the participants were all previously trained.


No they don’t. How they qualify trained isn’t someone like Jordan Peters or someone trying to get his size.
The participants are usually not even that of an average gym rat.
They don’t any studies involving bodybuilders


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> No they don’t. How they qualify trained isn’t someone like Jordan Peters or someone trying to get his size.
> The participants are usually not even that of an average gym rat.
> They don’t any studies involving bodybuilders


You're right they don't have studies specifically involving established bodybuilders.
 But the fact of the matter is that they have a peer reviewed study, and a recent one at that in regards to volume and what the study shows to be the sweet spot. 
If you're going to immediately discredit the study and try to tell me that it's invalid because it's not bodybuilders then why even bother saying anything? 
The science isn't going to drastically change in terms of volume for bodybuilders. Fuck, 90% of the people even here on this forum wouldn't benefit any from a study involving bodybuilders.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> You're right they don't have studies specifically involving established bodybuilders.
> But the fact of the matter is that they have a peer reviewed study, and a recent one at that in regards to volume and what the study shows to be the sweet spot.
> If you're going to immediately discredit the study and try to tell me that it's invalid because it's not bodybuilders then why even bother saying anything?
> The science isn't going to drastically change in terms of volume for bodybuilders. Fuck, 90% of the people even here on this forum wouldn't benefit any from a study involving bodybuilders.


Because most of these studies are useless when it comes to trying to build as much muscle as possible. If you’re like most of the people in these studies you can still get a novel stimulus from subpar training.
The more advanced you are the less these studies apply.
If you’re sedentary you can gain muscle by walking more. So yes it does fucking change.
If you add drugs into the mix it does fucking change. If you’re optimizing everything it absolutely fucking changes.
I’m not going to do the same thing that average gym rat does in order to get as big as fast as possible.
The people in these studies don’t even know how to hit true failure so yes it changes


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Because most of these studies are useless when it comes to trying to build as much muscle as possible. If you’re like most of the people in these studies you can still get a novel stimulus from subpar training.
> The more advanced you are the less these studies apply.
> If you’re sedentary you can gain muscle by walking more. So yes it does fucking change.
> If you add drugs into the mix it does fucking change. If you’re optimizing everything it absolutely fucking changes.
> ...


Have you watched the video and reviewed the study and come back with thoughtful critiques within the studies process or are you just sitting here bitching and whining because they didn't do it with people you define as worthwhile?

Hahaha give me a shit post because I'm asking you for thoughtful feedback.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> Have you watched the video and reviewed the study and come back with thoughtful critiques within the studies process or are you just sitting here bitching and whining because they didn't do it with people you define as worthwhile?


I’m well aware of these studies. There’s a reason you look like you and I look like me and I’ve gotten people to look better than you ever will in a year or less.


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> I’m well aware of these studies. There’s a reason you look like you and I look like me and I’ve gotten people to look better than you ever will in a year or less.


Why are you bringing this to attacks? You're literally having a tantrum because I'm asking if you're going to give feedback in regards to the specific study I had linked. 
Don't come at something I post if you're not going to be constructive and thoughtful and have a dialogue. Instead you're getting angry and now attacking me for what reason?
That right there tells me all I need to know about your character.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> Why are you bringing this to attacks? You're literally having a tantrum because I'm asking if you're going to give feedback in regards to the specific study I had linked.
> Don't come at something I post if you're not going to be constructive and thoughtful and have a dialogue. Instead you're getting angry and now attacking me for what reason?
> That right there tells me all I need to know about your character.


I gave feed back and you cried about it. Now I’m just being harsh and honest.


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> I gave feed back and you cried about it. Now I’m just being harsh and honest.


You're being an asshole for literally no reason. 
I'm saying that the 99% of the public and 90% of the people on this board do not even classify as individuals you're asking to see a study for. Therefore I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense to 99.999% of consumers. 
I didn't say a single thing about you or directed towards you as an individual yet you immediately made it about me as an individual the second I challenged your perspective. If that doesn't have a direct tell of your individual character then I don't know what does. 
I'm not challenging you to be rude or inflammatory I'm challenging you for the sake of conversation for most of the people who will read this thread. Your input saying it's not bodybuilders and whatnot, while yes it does hold some weight for those who are seriously trained, 90% of the folks on this board and most importantly the person asking the question in this specific thread it will definitely do some educating. So for you to immediately interject is just cutting down from the possible positive conversation we could be having about volume.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> You're being an asshole for literally no reason.
> I'm saying that the 99% of the public and 90% of the people on this board do not even classify as individuals you're asking to see a study for. Therefore I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense to 99.999% of consumers.
> I didn't say a single thing about you or directed towards you as an individual yet you immediately made it about me as an individual the second I challenged your perspective. If that doesn't have a direct tell of your individual character then I don't know what does.
> I'm not challenging you to be rude or inflammatory I'm challenging you for the sake of conversation for most of the people who will read this thread. Your input saying it's not bodybuilders and whatnot, while yes it does hold some weight for those who are seriously trained, 90% of the folks on this board and most importantly the person asking the question in this specific thread it will definitely do some educating. So for you to immediately interject is just cutting down from the possible positive conversation we could be having about volume.


90% of the people on this board are on drugs and again the individuals in this study don’t apply.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

😂 shit post me all you want. Those individuals in this study are not applicable to the people here. I’m not sure how fail to understand this


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> 😂 shit post me all you want. Those individuals in this study are not applicable to the people here. I’m not sure how fail to understand this


And 90% of the people on drugs on this board still don't have elite physiques.
Again, if you're saying that majority of consumers on this board cannot fall into the same category as people involved in this study, then I truly believe you're  grossly exaggerating what volume differences would stimulate maximum muscle growth or have some crazy idea about what most people here look like.
I'm small, woopty Doo. I've been back to training for a whopping 5 months after 2 years of detraining. Wow you really got me there.
My point is, what you're critiquing would be for the top 1% of people within the fitness community. The person asking the question and the people who are active on this board are not that demographic.
So for you as an individual the study may not pertain to you, but to interject on someone's thread and immediately cut it down because it's not specifically what you want is a bit silly don't you think?


----------



## Terry Davis (Feb 18, 2022)

1-2 sets to complete failure per muscle after warming up


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> And 90% of the people on drugs on this board still don't have elite physiques.
> Again, if you're saying that majority of consumers on this board cannot fall into the same category as people involved in this study, then I truly believe you're  grossly exaggerating what volume differences would stimulate maximum muscle growth or have some crazy idea about what most people here look like.
> I'm small, woopty Doo. I've been back to training for a whopping 5 months after 2 years of detraining. Wow you really got me there.
> My point is, what you're critiquing would be for the top 1% of people within the fitness community. The person asking the question and the people who are active on this board are not that demographic.
> So for you as an individual the study may not pertain to you, but to interject on someone's thread and immediately cut it down because it's not specifically what you want is a bit silly don't you think?


No you still don’t understand. These studies are done on people who don’t even know how to train to failure. They do not apply. They do not apply to people who know how yo train hard. I would not use them for someone wanting to maximize muscle growth. 
I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman here.


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> No you still don’t understand. These studies are done on people who don’t even know how to train to failure. They do not apply. They do not apply to people who know how yo train hard. I would not use them for someone wanting to maximize muscle growth.
> I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman here.


You're also admitting you didn't watch the video and listen to the verbage and things discussed in said video because the points you're attempting to make now are discussed and addressed.


----------



## TiredandHot (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> No you still don’t understand. These studies are done on people who don’t even know how to train to failure. They do not apply. They do not apply to people who know how yo train hard. I would not use them for someone wanting to maximize muscle growth.
> I’m not talking about Ronnie Coleman here.


You come off like a know it all on the subject. And offended someone disagrees with your opinion. Is your answer to effective training always going past failure as stated in your first post?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

TiredandHot said:


> You come off like a know it all on the subject. And offended someone disagrees with your opinion. Is your answer to effective training always going past failure as stated in your first post?


I’m just honest. I have a lot of experience. I get results. I don’t care how I’m perceived. 

My answer to effective training is getting the most out of each set. Training each set like a gun is to your head. And progressive overload. 
My answer to effective training is to learn how to get the most out of each rep and set. 
My answer is almost never to increase conventional volume.


----------



## iGone (Feb 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> I’m just honest. I have a lot of experience. I get results. I don’t care how I’m perceived.
> 
> My answer to effective training is getting the most out of each set. Training each set like a gun is to your head. And progressive overload.
> My answer to effective training is to learn how to get the most out of each rep and set.
> My answer is almost never to increase conventional volume.


Ahh, yes your answer > science


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> Ahh, see there it is.
> It's all about you and your answer. That's all it's been about is to fluff up your feathers and pump your ego.
> Science has no place when we have the wealth of knowledge you contain.


😂 wrong. I didn’t say that either. It’s just important to understand application of the studies especially when it comes to training. 
That being said I did just watch the video and it was pretty good. 
Jeff Nippard did a good job.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 18, 2022)

iGone said:


> Ahh, yes your answer > science


Lol nice edit.
You’re still unsurprisingly wrong.
It is proven that the primary  driver of growth is effort and mechanical tension.
Volume is there to make up for lack of effort intentional or otherwise.
If I can completely destroy the muscle with one set doing more volume will only eat into recovery.
You don’t even understand the science.
Volume has an inverse u curve. Do you understand?
It’s funny because the video didn’t disagree with me. 
There’s also the repeated bout effect for muscle growth that I also apply


----------



## CJ (Feb 18, 2022)

I did watch the video, which is a discussion of a James Krieger meta analysis, and it falls pretty much in line with Riro's thoughts on the subject.

Per the video... on average, 6 hard sets per muscle group seems to be the most effective per session. Hard sets being defined as within 1-2  reps of failure. Pushing sets to failure will drop the volume cap, much more sets and you're probably doing junk volume, wasting time and energy.

Watch for yourselves...


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 19, 2022)

CJ said:


> I did watch the video, which is a discussion of a James Krieger meta analysis, and it falls pretty much in line with Riro's thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Per the video... on average, 6 hard sets per muscle group seems to be the most effective per session. Hard sets being defined as within 1-2  reps of failure. Pushing sets to failure will drop the volume cap, much more sets and you're probably doing junk volume, wasting time and energy.
> 
> Watch for yourselves...


To be fair I should’ve watched the video first as I was just arguing things Jeff said in the video. 
I’m not really familiar with Jeff Nippard.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 19, 2022)

@iGone I apologize for responding like an asshole. 
Often when people talk about evidence based training they’re referring Mike Isratel and his ilk. So it is a trigger for me. People like Mike have made a living off of misrepresenting studies to support what they’re selling.


----------



## iGone (Feb 19, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> @iGone I apologize for responding like an asshole.
> Often when people talk about evidence based training they’re referring Mike Isratel and his ilk. So it is a trigger for me. People like Mike have made a living off of misrepresenting studies to support what they’re selling.


No offense taken, I should've stopped responding anyhow.
I bring things up for sake of dialogue and conversation, hopefully inviting different view points to the conversation.
That's all I'd like to do, so I got frustrated when it was an immediate inflammatory response.
All love man, no worries.

Oh and the edit was me realizing I was just pouring fuel on the fire and had second thoughts lol


----------



## wotmeworry (Feb 19, 2022)

I have wasted too much time on useless volume in the past.  Warm up, do multiple sets, each until they feel hard enough to stop, keep going until I judge enough sets.  Too easy to cop out on intensity.

Now, I warm up (not ramp up weight but do just enough at each step up to be ready to work), do 2 working sets full on and up somehow from the previous time (weight or reps), deload when I cannot face it.  Alternatively, I do muscle rounds (1 set of 6 x 4 reps with 10 second pause), with weight set so that I barely finish the set.  Both of these have me on much lower volume but better results, and a clearer picture of what I am meant to do each workout, so less risk of copping out.

With volume, I understand the risk is wear and tear on joints.  With intensity, I worry more about my tendons.  Muscles recover from either fine.


----------



## Terry Davis (Feb 19, 2022)

As a general rule of thumb, when people use the word science I assume that they're full of shit.

Also Mike Israetel's name looks way too much like Israel so I just dislike him by default. I have no other reasoning.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 19, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> As a general rule of thumb, when people use the word science I assume that they're full of shit.
> 
> Also Mike Israetel's name looks way too much like Israel so I just dislike him by default. I have no other reasoning.


Aren’t you the rock against communism guy?


----------



## FlyingPapaya (Feb 19, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> As a general rule of thumb, when people use the word science I assume that they're full of shit.
> 
> Also Mike Israetel's name looks way too much like Israel so I just dislike him by default. I have no other reasoning.


What?


----------



## Terry Davis (Feb 20, 2022)

FlyingPapaya said:


> What?


Another excellent post by @FlyingPapaya


----------



## Skullcrusher (Feb 20, 2022)

100 sets per muscle or as many sets as possible until vomiting, vertigo, or death occurs.


----------



## FlyingPapaya (Feb 20, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> Another excellent post by @FlyingPapaya


Really? I question a troll with one word and that's what you've got.


----------



## Trendkill (Feb 20, 2022)

Back to the original question…..

In my experience it’s different for everyone. The only way to figure out the optimal sets your body needs is through experimenting with different levels of volume And intensity

I would also strongly encourage you to not train 5 days a week for 2 hours each session. Give yourself more time for recovery. Focus the new additional time away from the gym on diet, active recovery and sleep.


----------



## Yano (Feb 20, 2022)

iGone said:


> You're being an asshole for literally no reason.
> I'm saying that the 99% of the public and 90% of the people on this board do not even classify as individuals you're asking to see a study for. Therefore I'm saying your argument doesn't make sense to 99.999% of consumers.
> I didn't say a single thing about you or directed towards you as an individual yet you immediately made it about me as an individual the second I challenged your perspective. If that doesn't have a direct tell of your individual character then I don't know what does.
> I'm not challenging you to be rude or inflammatory I'm challenging you for the sake of conversation for most of the people who will read this thread. Your input saying it's not bodybuilders and whatnot, while yes it does hold some weight for those who are seriously trained, 90% of the folks on this board and most importantly the person asking the question in this specific thread it will definitely do some educating. So for you to immediately interject is just cutting down from the possible positive conversation we could be having about volume.


best thing to do with that riro idiot is keep it on ignore.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 20, 2022)

Yano said:


> best thing to do with that riro idiot is keep it on ignore.


Best thing to do with this idiot is to not listen to his advice. He’s useless broken and obese.
Get fucked you washed fat piece of shit
This guy. I’d blow my brains out if ever looked like this.
You look like a melted pear with Down syndrome


----------



## iGone (Feb 20, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Best thing to do with this idiot is to not listen to his advice. He’s useless broken and obese.
> Get fucked you washed fat piece of shit
> This guy. I’d blow my brains out if ever looked like this.
> You look like a melted pear with Down syndrome


Can we insult each other intelligently and creatively rather than just immediately jumping at someone's physique or appearance? 
I'm all for going back and forth but Christ that just sucks the fun right out of it. I'm sure you know a thing or two about sucking things right out of another man. 

See, creative and fun. All without attacking you 😋


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 20, 2022)

iGone said:


> Can we insult each other intelligently and creatively rather than just immediately jumping at someone's physique or appearance?
> I'm all for going back and forth but Christ that just sucks the fun right out of it. I'm sure you know a thing or two about sucking things right out of another man.
> 
> See, creative and fun. All without attacking you 😋


Well on a forum called ug bodybuilding a physique is extremely relevant. The old piece of shit can go go have another stroke and die for all I care. If you’ve only ever looked like a sack of shit you should shut up and learn


----------



## CJ (Feb 20, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Well on a forum called ug bodybuilding a physique is extremely relevant. The old piece of shit can go go have another stroke and die for all I care. If you’ve only ever looked like a sack of shit you should shut up and learn


A little excessive, don't you think? 🤔

Remind me to never piss you off, holy fukk!!! 😳


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 20, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> Also Mike Israetel's name looks way too much like Israel so I just dislike him by default. I have no other reasoning.





RiR0 said:


> Aren’t you the rock against communism guy?


Yes. He’s definitely not on my list of people whose opinions I value. 

The only thing worse than racist retards are racist retards who thinly veil it. At least overt racists have the balls to be honest.


----------



## Terry Davis (Feb 22, 2022)

Test_subject said:


> Yes. He’s definitely not on my list of people whose opinions I value.
> 
> The only thing worse than racist retards are racist retards who thinly veil it. At least overt racists have the balls to be honest.


I've made my opinions very clear. I'm not trying to put a target on this site, I'm just looking out for the safety of you and all the others who are less confident in their beliefs and identity.


----------



## Trump (Feb 22, 2022)

What was the question again?


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 22, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> I've made my opinions very clear. I'm not trying to put a target on this site, I'm just looking out for the safety of you and all the others who are less confident in their beliefs and identity.


Oh cut the shit. There are lots of members on this site with wives who aren’t white.  Your inbred, redneck ROC garbage is old and stale.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> I've made my opinions very clear. I'm not trying to put a target on this site, I'm just looking out for the safety of you and all the others who are less confident in their beliefs and identity.


Awesome so basically you’re an uneducated domestic terrorist.

If your pride and identity are based on things that happen by chance you are pathetic.


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Awesome so basically you’re an uneducated domestic terrorist.
> 
> If your pride and identity are based on things that happen by chance you are pathetic.


To be fair, they do have everyone else beat in the chromosome department.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

Interesting I was reading some stuff by Justin Compton and he did high volume with lots of failure sets. I’d imagine if you recover and progress with it, that would work pretty damn well. If I read it correctly it was like 20 sets or so all to failure


----------



## silentlemon1011 (Feb 22, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> I've made my opinions very clear. I'm not trying to put a target on this site, I'm just looking out for the safety of you and all the others who are less confident in their beliefs and identity.



Post up a pic Mr. Downsy.

Let's see what the "Master race" looks like, and why you can discount Mike Isreatel, who probably is 3x your size, based off of his name.

BTW
Having an "Extra" chromosome is not a good thing.


----------



## TomJ (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Interesting I was reading some stuff by Justin Compton and he did high volume with lots of failure sets. I’d imagine if you recover and progress with it, that would work pretty damn well. If I read it correctly it was like 20 sets or so all to failure


recovery is always going to be the limited factor, two sets to failure is great and all, but 4 sets to failure will be better if you can still recover. I have always tailored my programming to dance right on that edge of being able to recover in time for the next session.


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> recovery is always going to be the limited factor, two sets to failure is great and all, but 4 sets to failure will be better if you can still recover. I have always tailored my programming to dance right on that edge of being able to recover in time for the next session.


Yep. That’s how you maximize gains: max recoverable volume.


----------



## silentlemon1011 (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> recovery is always going to be the limited factor, two sets to failure is great and all, but 4 sets to failure will be better if you can still recover. I have always tailored my programming to dance right on that edge of being able to recover in time for the next session.



Amen
I like 3 or 4 working sets
4th set will be dependant on how o do on working set #3
If I csnt perform and I drop like 30% of my intended volume, I'll just move on to another exercise


----------



## TomJ (Feb 22, 2022)

Test_subject said:


> Yep. That’s how you maximize gains: max recoverable volume.


exactly,, i think thats one of the things that i dislike about strict DC style or dorian style training, where you have some absolutely insane intensity burning you out and killing you for the rest of the session, but then youre recovered in a day or two.


----------



## TomJ (Feb 22, 2022)

When i tried DC style training, or other training methods utilizing intensifiers heavily I found even training twice a week for each muscle group I wasn't able to get enough volume in each session to really maximize the time i had to recover. And i was training HEAVY at the time


----------



## snake (Feb 22, 2022)

Hardestworker2002 said:


> Hi!
> 
> I want to make my own workout schedule, but I have a question. How many sets should I aim for, per muscle group.


Ok son, I'm going to cut through all the BS, bro science and studies on rats. It matters very little in the end how may you do. I have worked upper legs with only 5 sets of squats for years and it did the job. I have done 16 sets for upper legs also, not often but I have done it. 

For the most part, stick to 8-10 sets for the bigger muscles and 5-8 for the smaller ones. As for reps, there's a wide range but 8's are my sweet spot. 

I will say that sets to failure, if you're advanced, using big weights and over the age of 35 is not a great idea. That's just my opinion but I can back it up if need be.

Truthfully, don't over think any of this.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> recovery is always going to be the limited factor, two sets to failure is great and all, but 4 sets to failure will be better if you can still recover. I have always tailored my programming to dance right on that edge of being able to recover in time for the next session.


I’d rather add more movements instead of more sets to an exercise. That way you get different mechanical positioning. Also with set 3 and 4 if you actually go to failure and beyond you’re not going to really going to be able to progress correctly because you’ve pretty much exhausted that movement pattern. I disagree that 3 and 4 sets are better than 2 for a movement.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> When i tried DC style training, or other training methods utilizing intensifiers heavily I found even training twice a week for each muscle group I wasn't able to get enough volume in each session to really maximize the time i had to recover. And i was training HEAVY at the time


Then honestly you probably weren’t training as hard as you thought. What is heavy? 1-3?4-6?8-12?
Heavy doesn’t matter as much as effort, which is failure and beyond. And progressive overload. 
And you can shit post me but I stand by my statement if someone has always looked like shit and has never been able to apply things to themself then no they shouldn’t give advice.


----------



## TomJ (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> And you can shit post me but I stand by my statement if someone has always looked like shit and has never been able to apply things to themself then no they shouldn’t give advice.


We will disagree there, i gave that reaction just because of the combative attitude you had about it all. T

here are plenty of coaches and trainers in every athletics field that arent capable of even a fraction of what their athletes are. having the knowledge and experience, and having a great physique are not mutually exclusive. Completely discounting someone's valid input just because they couldnt cut it as an open pro is stupid and ignorant.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> We will disagree there, i gave that reaction just because of the combative attitude you had about it all. T
> 
> here are plenty of coaches and trainers in every athletics field that arent capable of even a fraction of what their athletes are. having the knowledge and experience, and having a great physique are not mutually exclusive. Completely discounting someone's valid input just because they couldnt cut it as an open pro is stupid and ignorant.


Well I didn’t say anything about an open pro. Jordan Peters isn’t a pro. Skip Hill not a pro. Dante Trudel never competed. But they were able to apply everything they know to themselves and others. Application is extremely important. You’re talking about genetics I’m not.


----------



## TomJ (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Well I didn’t say anything about an open pro. Jordan Peters isn’t a pro. Skip Hill not a pro. Dante Trudel never competed. But they were able to apply everything they know to themselves and others. Application is extremely important. You’re talking about genetics I’m not.


im also talking about people who made the choice not to, genetics aside some people simply can not or will not fully apply this lifestyle to themselves. 

I say again from any athletic endevour, there are high quality trainers that are completely incapable of applying their training to themselves. 

I was a nationally competitive pole vaulter in highschool and college. Went through MANY coaches and trainers to continue to get better. The absolute best trainer id ever had had never vaulted a day in his life. 

I agree application is important, but its not a completely disqualifying factor.


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 22, 2022)

snake said:


> Ok son, I'm going to cut through all the BS, bro science and studies on rats. It matters very little in the end how may you do. I have worked upper legs with only 5 sets of squats for years and it did the job. I have done 16 sets for upper legs also, not often but I have done it.
> 
> For the most part, stick to 8-10 sets for the bigger muscles and 5-8 for the smaller ones. As for reps, there's a wide range but 8's are my sweet spot.
> 
> ...



All of that is thrown out the window if you equalize the volume load. The number of reps doesn’t matter nor does how many times you work out. Even going as far as resting interval. There are peer reviewed studies on this within the last five years. 
Note: I am referring to hypertrophy only. Strength does have some differences. I can provide the names of the studies if you are interested. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

TomJ said:


> im also talking about people who made the choice not to, genetics aside some people simply can not or will not fully apply this lifestyle to themselves.
> 
> I say again from any athletic endevour, there are high quality trainers that are completely incapable of applying their training to themselves.
> 
> ...


But he did apply it. He applied to you and many others. He wasn’t some washed up fat guy or some random 90lb kid. 
If all you know is theory then There’s a huge gap in knowledge, the most important one application and experience. 
Application is the number 1 qualifier. 
If you’ve repeatedly produced results through others that is application and that’s experience.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> All of that is thrown out the window if you equalize the volume load. The number of reps doesn’t matter nor does how many times you work out. Even going as far as resting interval. There are peer reviewed studies on this within the last five years.
> Note: I am referring to hypertrophy only. Strength does have some differences. I can provide the names of the studies if you are interested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well rep ranges do matter and there’s a direct relation with strength and hypertrophy. You’re not gaining muscle on 50 rep sets.


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Well rep ranges do matter and there’s a direct relation with strength and hypertrophy. You’re not gaining muscle on 50 rep sets.



Not if you volume load. There are numerous variables that affect hypertrophy. Volume loading trumps some of them, however without volume loading equilization, you are correct. 
The volume load appears to have a dose response to hypertrophy however further testing is still required to see where the dose response weakens. 

Reference : Kubo, K., Ikebukuro, T., & Yata, H. (2020). Effects of 4,8, and 12 repetition maximum resistance training protocols on muscle volume and strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 35:4 879-885


----------



## silentlemon1011 (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Well rep ranges do matter and there’s a direct relation with strength and hypertrophy. You’re not gaining muscle on 50 rep sets.



I'd say you're right, but there is nuance.

What if you're say, in a 15 rep range on something like French press, super set to a more inclusive tricep exercise like skull crushers, then superset into close grip bench, to truly exhaust yourself to the point of insanity

Youd be in the 40s and I can gaurentee gains from that type of training

Obviously it wouldnt beneficial to do that every fucking set, but incorporating those types of drop sets or super sets, can be beneficial


----------



## snake (Feb 22, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> All of that is thrown out the window if you equalize the volume load. The number of reps doesn’t matter nor does how many times you work out. Even going as far as resting interval. There are peer reviewed studies on this within the last five years.
> Note: I am referring to hypertrophy only. Strength does have some differences. I can provide the names of the studies if you are interested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I would not say reps and the number of times you workout does not matter but I may be unsure of your point. Maybe you could clarify that for me. If your point is intensity can produce the same results for hypertrophy as volume does, I'd buy into that. 

As for any study done in the last 5 years, I'll stick to my own 40 year study I call my gym log.


----------



## GymRat79 (Feb 22, 2022)

Jack your cock off for 20 minutes pre workout then another 20 minutes post workout to tranny porn. Do not let up because if you do, the gains won't CUM fast enough.


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

silentlemon1011 said:


> I'd say you're right, but there is nuance.
> 
> What if you're say, in a 15 rep range on something like French press, super set to a more inclusive tricep exercise like skull crushers, then superset into close grip bench, to truly exhaust yourself to the point of insanity
> 
> ...


How close were you to failure on the French press? You also changed mechanical position. Not only that but there’s a good chance that your growth came from the first exercise and you just created more inroads to recovery with the all the supersets. 
How can you guarantee the extra stuff was what stimulated the growth and not the original hard set?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 22, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> All of that is thrown out the window if you equalize the volume load. The number of reps doesn’t matter nor does how many times you work out. Even going as far as resting interval. There are peer reviewed studies on this within the last five years.
> Note: I am referring to hypertrophy only. Strength does have some differences. I can provide the names of the studies if you are interested.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So I can just go in the gym and do high rep circuit training and develop the same amount of tissue as if I were to go in the gym and take 2-5 minute rests between each working set and focus on progressive overload and taking each set to failure?
Which one will produce more mechanical tension? Because that’s the one that will produce the most tissue.
You cannot get bigger without getting stronger.


----------



## silentlemon1011 (Feb 22, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> How close were you to failure on the French press? You also changed mechanical position. Not only that but there’s a good chance that your growth came from the first exercise and you just created more inroads to recovery with the all the supersets.
> How can you guarantee the extra stuff was what stimulated the growth and not the original hard set?



Well
It's clear that the majority of the growth was from the initial set at a 10RPE
Or like your name

But like Meadows or vuys like the Quadfather say...
Make it hard as hell and push far past failure.
Certainly you're changing the mechanics of the movement to be able to keep pushing weights.

But you're still recruiting the same muscles a d fivres on the second movement as you were on the first to a certain extend.

In terms of percentage based growth?
That I cant say
But I can say, for my personal growth, its paid dividends


----------



## Trainline (Feb 24, 2022)

Great discussion.
Would this advice change much as a natural lifter?


----------



## TomJ (Feb 24, 2022)

Trainline said:


> Great discussion.
> Would this advice change much as a natural lifter?


Not really. Maybe some less volume or frequency, depending on recovery times. 

But it's just as important for natural guys to lift hard and lift to failure that it is for enhanced guys, arguably even more important.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 24, 2022)

TomJ said:


> Not really. Maybe some less volume or frequency, depending on recovery times.
> 
> But it's just as important for natural guys to lift hard and lift to failure that it is for enhanced guys, arguably even more important.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


I don’t switch up my volume much when on cycle.  I just hit it harder and do more of my sets to failure and beyond failure.  

Adding junk volume just because you’re on cycle isn’t terribly useful IMO. If you have more sets left in the tank, you weren’t going hard enough to begin with.


----------



## Badleroybrown (Feb 24, 2022)

*BURY ME WITH A BARBELL
CAUSE THE SET NEVER ENDS!!*


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Badleroybrown said:


> *BURY ME WITH A BARBELL
> CAUSE THE SET NEVER ENDS!!*


That’s why I can only do 2-3 exercises per body part because I just keep extending the set 😂 I don’t even know how to count my volume. It’s starts off as top set with pulses  then a back set into 3 rest pause into pulses into drop sets with all pulses and partials. I just keep extending the sets until the muscle spasms and it hurts like shit when I move it.


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 25, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> So I can just go in the gym and do high rep circuit training and develop the same amount of tissue as if I were to go in the gym and take 2-5 minute rests between each working set and focus on progressive overload and taking each set to failure?
> Which one will produce more mechanical tension? Because that’s the one that will produce the most tissue.
> You cannot get bigger without getting stronger.



You are correct as long as you have volume load equalization. There are numerous studies that back that statement up. 
You are also incorrect. You can get bigger without getting stronger. There is a caveat to that statement : no statistical relevance of any increase in strength. 
Just about all studies for hypertrophy also include strength increases. Depending on the focus of the study, you can see hypertrophy without strength gains. 
I used to believe as you did until I started researching. There are tons of studies out there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> You are correct as long as you have volume load equalization. There are numerous studies that back that statement up.
> You are also incorrect. You can get bigger without getting stronger. There is a caveat to that statement : no statistical relevance of any increase in strength.
> Just about all studies for hypertrophy also include strength increases. Depending on the focus of the study, you can see hypertrophy without strength gains.
> I used to believe as you did until I started researching. There are tons of studies out there.
> ...


That is where you’re wrong. You have to get stronger.progressive overload, mechanical tension is the primary driver of growth. No you can’t get massive doing circuits. You talk about studies but you obviously don’t know how to read them.
Reps around 40-50 plus produce no gains in muscle mass or strength.
Buddy you have no idea what you’re talking about tbh
You started researching? How do you read a study?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> You are correct as long as you have volume load equalization. There are numerous studies that back that statement up.
> You are also incorrect. You can get bigger without getting stronger. There is a caveat to that statement : no statistical relevance of any increase in strength.
> Just about all studies for hypertrophy also include strength increases. Depending on the focus of the study, you can see hypertrophy without strength gains.
> I used to believe as you did until I started researching. There are tons of studies out there.
> ...


Do you believe we can all get massive using pink dumbbells and soup cans?
Do you fail to understand that there has to be significant tension on the active fibers to produce growth?
You didn’t do any research you’re vomiting Mike Isratels volume is the primary driver of growth bs where he misrepresents the studies.
Lol you keep repeat when volume is equated for but you really have no idea what you’re talking about. Volume has an inverse u curve. You can’t just constantly increase volume to produce growth.
You literally have to get stronger to grow.
Do you know what creates the catalyst for contractile proteins?


----------



## Skullcrusher (Feb 25, 2022)

I found this on the interwebz...

Legs - 14-20 sets
Back - 12-16 sets
Chest - 12-16 sets
Shoulders - 9-12 sets
Triceps - 8-10 sets
Abs - 6-10 sets
Calves - 6-10 sets
Biceps - 6-9 sets
Forearms - 4-8 sets
Traps - 3-6 sets



			https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/overtraining-why-less-is-more.html
		


I don't agree with it but...well there it is.


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 25, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Do you believe we can all get massive using pink dumbbells and soup cans?
> Do you fail to understand that there has to be significant tension on the active fibers to produce growth?
> You didn’t do any research you’re vomiting Mike Isratels volume is the primary driver of growth bs where he misrepresents the studies.
> Lol you keep repeat when volume is equated for but you really have no idea what you’re talking about. Volume has an inverse u curve. You can’t just constantly increase volume to produce growth.
> ...




I am using peer reviewed studies by researchers with Doctorate degrees. I have data behind everything that I said along with the statistical analysis. 
I have a feeling that you have something that you read from a magazine or locker room talk. 
Can you provide any data? I know that you can’t. 
I am not going to belittle you- you believe what you want. It’s unfortunate that you can’t open your mind and look at data. 
Just for you- how many peer reviewed articles do you want where strength did not increase of any statistical significance and hypertrophy did?

Just a simple question…. Why are bodybuilders so big and nowhere near the strength of a smaller power lifter? According to you that’s impossible. 

By now you should be getting the idea that I have studied this extensively in a formal institution. I will leave it at that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Skullcrusher (Feb 25, 2022)

My data is better than your data
My data is better than yours
My data is better than your data
and it sure fucking shows

Fe-fi-fiddley-eye-oh
Fe-fi-fiddley-eye-oh-oh-oh 
Fe-fi-fiddley-eye-oh

My data is better than your data
My data is better than yours


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 25, 2022)

Contreras, Krueger, schoenfeld (2018). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medical Science Sports exercise. 

Read this one. I am sure that you are familiar with Schoenfeld and all of his research. 

Data vs no data


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> I am using peer reviewed studies by researchers with Doctorate degrees. I have data behind everything that I said along with the statistical analysis.
> I have a feeling that you have something that you read from a magazine or locker room talk.
> Can you provide any data? I know that you can’t.
> I am not going to belittle you- you believe what you want. It’s unfortunate that you can’t open your mind and look at data.
> ...


Answer my questions I previously asked. 
Everything I said is backed up by evidence and studies and biology. 
Show me a bodybuilder who is big who isn’t strong?
Show the me strongest power lifters who are big as fuck. 
I don’t give a fuck about your made up credentials or appeal to authority. 
You have to be close to failure for effective reps ( the ones that stimulate growth)
Now in order to do this you have to a) increase reps or b) increase weight. 
This is all proven. 
Eventually around 40-50 reps no longer produces growth. This is proven. 
Again it is proven volume has an inverse u curve so you can not just infinitely increase volume. 
Mechanical tension is the primary driver of growth this is proven. 
In all those studies where growth occurred they all got stronger. This isn’t coincidence. 
Can we all get massive using soup cans and broom sticks?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> Contreras, Krueger, schoenfeld (2018). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medical Science Sports exercise.
> 
> Read this one. I am sure that you are familiar with Schoenfeld and all of his research.
> 
> ...











						The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations - Sports Medicine
					

Although many training variables contribute to the performance, cellular and molecular adaptations to resistance exercise, relative intensity (% 1 repetition maximum [%1RM]) appears to be an important factor. This review summarises and analyses data from numerous resistance exercise training...




					link.springer.com


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 25, 2022)

Provide me one peer reviewed research paper that supports any of your claims…. Except the being close to failure. That is correct. That is the whole idea about volume loading. 
I was unaware that Big Ramy holds the bench press record or the person that does is as big as big Ramy. 

I know that you will not find peer reviewed research papers supporting your claims. 
Oh, by the way.., volume loading is thought to be a dose relationship not a U curve. There needs to be more research into it however the inferential statistics have a dose relationship model. I am sure when they do more studies, there is a cutoff. 

I am through with trying to convince you. Just look at the research papers I referenced. Plenty of data there. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> Provide me one peer reviewed research paper that supports any of your claims…. Except the being close to failure. That is correct. That is the whole idea about volume loading.
> I was unaware that Big Ramy holds the bench press record or the person that does is as big as big Ramy.
> 
> I know that you will not find peer reviewed research papers supporting your claims.
> ...


I’ve read it before. Click the link I provided and pay for the study like I did.
We’re not talking about holding world records.
Show me a big guy who isn’t strong? There’s a direct relationship with strength and size.
Can we get massive with broom sticks and soup cans? Why can’t we? You have one study that you don’t even know how to read. How did you read the study to come up with your own conclusion?
Again, answer my previous questions. Can you not?
😂 the *inverse u curve is the dose relationship. * Do you know what an inverse u curve is? 😂 all you can do is recite what you read from others and appeal to authority but you really don’t know what you’re talking about.


----------



## Test_subject (Feb 25, 2022)

Is it just me or has every thread been turning into a pissing match for the last week or so?

Is it tren season already?

*checks calendar*


----------



## Skullcrusher (Feb 25, 2022)

I like Schoenfeld and I also agree that those last few reps we struggle on are what grow muscle.

Can't we just all get along?


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> Provide me one peer reviewed research paper that supports any of your claims…. Except the being close to failure. That is correct. That is the whole idea about volume loading.
> I was unaware that Big Ramy holds the bench press record or the person that does is as big as big Ramy.
> 
> I know that you will not find peer reviewed research papers supporting your claims.
> ...





			https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/62467/1/japplphysiol.00685.2018.pdf


----------



## Skullcrusher (Feb 25, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/62467/1/japplphysiol.00685.2018.pdf


This here is a sophisticated do-hickey.


----------



## Charger69 (Feb 25, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> I’ve read it before. Click the link I provided and pay for the study like I did.
> We’re not talking about holding world records.
> Show me a big guy who isn’t strong? There’s a direct relationship with strength and size.
> Can we get massive with broom sticks and soup cans? Why can’t we? You have one study that you don’t even know how to read. How did you read the study to come up with your own conclusion?
> ...



Well, Andrew Frey appears to be reputable. My library didn’t have it, but I have requested it and should get it tomorrow. 
I am aware that the u curve is a non linear dose relationship, I was referring to a linear dose relationship which is the reason I mentioned that I believe that there is a cutoff point but more research is necessary. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CJ (Feb 25, 2022)

All sets are not created equal. 

All reps are not created equal. 

Be your own experiment. 

But start at a reasonable point and work up.


----------



## Butch_C (Feb 25, 2022)

CJ said:


> All sets are not created equal.
> 
> All reps are not created equal.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Everyone responds differently. Everyone has a different threshold of pain. I know certain muscles on me respond different that others. My legs and back respond to heavy weight, less reps and more sets. Smaller muscles such as delts and biceps respond better to more reps per set at a lower weight.


----------



## Send0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Test_subject said:


> Is it just me or has every thread been turning into a pissing match for the last week or so?
> 
> Is it tren season already?
> 
> *checks calendar*


Well, spring is coming... 😂

Unrelated note, Bulgarian drop set of death wrecked my legs yesterday. I made the mistake of sitting on the toilet, and now I can't stand back up 😢


----------



## CJ (Feb 25, 2022)

Butch_C said:


> Exactly. Everyone responds differently. Everyone has a different threshold of pain. I know certain muscles on me respond different that others. My legs and back respond to heavy weight, less reps and more sets. Smaller muscles such as delts and biceps respond better to more reps per set at a lower weight.


And some people think that they're training hard, when in actuality they're merely doing cardio with weights.


----------



## Butch_C (Feb 25, 2022)

CJ said:


> And some people think that they're training hard, when in actuality they're merely doing cardio with weights.


Fact!


----------



## RiR0 (Feb 25, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> Well, Andrew Frey appears to be reputable. My library didn’t have it, but I have requested it and should get it tomorrow.
> I am aware that the u curve is a non linear dose relationship, I was referring to a linear dose relationship which is the reason I mentioned that I believe that there is a cutoff point but more research is necessary.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Inverse u curve. Not u curve.
Stop calling it a u curve.




Charger69 said:


> Contreras, Krueger, schoenfeld (2018). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medical Science Sports exercise.
> 
> Read this one. I am sure that you are familiar with Schoenfeld and all of his research.
> 
> ...


😂 did you even read this bull shit?

Also answer the questions I asked previously that for some reason you keep avoiding. It’s probably because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about


----------



## Badleroybrown (Feb 25, 2022)

I literally hurt my head and eyes reading thru the last 2 pages.
WGAF!!!!
To Curve or Not To Curve.. 😂😂 People gotta stop pissing in each others Cheerios…
It’s ok to disagree and move on..
Who cares how many reps one does.
I’ve done workouts before we’re I’ve done 200 reps for chest or biceps..
I sometimes start my tricep routine with a set of 40 push downs.
Do I grow from that.
Hmmm. By the time I am done with the set my triceps feel like they are gonna explode.

How about this example
Last Fri I was beat from work.
I got to the gym and I really did not want to be there.
I got changed and I walked slowly over to the smith machine.
Sat down and said to myself. Self just leave…
But I didn’t and I banged thru 3 sets of military press’s.
Stood up and looked around, picked up my gym bag and walked the fuck out..
Shitty workout yes. But if you don’t want to be at the gym, you might as well pick up and leave because you are gonna just go thru the motions. 

Here is my point.
I woke up sat morning like I did 20 sets of press’s.
Why was this.? I don’t think it was because I had a killer workout.

Now before someone answer’s sillaly..
I am not new,  I have been training for, many moons.

So if the two guys arguing back and forth can shed some light on this it would be great. 😉


----------



## BelaDublin (Mar 10, 2022)

I recently became interested in this question as well. I found information that the ideal proportion for each exercise for each muscle group would be 4 sets of 12 repetitions. But the most important thing is not to do sets without rest. The rest between approaches is on average 10-15 minutes. And then go back to work.


----------



## Send0 (Mar 10, 2022)

BelaDublin said:


> I recently became interested in this question as well. I found information that the ideal proportion for each exercise for each muscle group would be 4 sets of 12 repetitions. But the most important thing is not to do sets without rest. The rest between approaches is on average 10-15 minutes. And then go back to work.


10-15 minutes between sets?


----------



## Undecanator (Mar 10, 2022)

Terry Davis said:


> I've made my opinions very clear. I'm not trying to put a target on this site, I'm just looking out for the safety of you and all the others who are less confident in their beliefs and identity.


Shut up and make me a sandwich Mr. Davis


----------



## RiR0 (Mar 10, 2022)

It’s the wrong question. 








						Paul Carter | Hypertrophy | Education on Instagram: "@biolayne and I have had this little back and forth about mechanical tension vs volume so I’m going to try and shed light on it. - Mechanical tension - - As you get close to failure, there is an in
					

Paul Carter | Hypertrophy | Education shared a post on Instagram: "@biolayne and I have had this little back and forth about mechanical tension vs volume so I’m going to try and shed light on it. - Mechanical tension - - As you get close to failure, there is an increase in high threshold motor...




					www.instagram.com


----------



## Undecanator (Mar 10, 2022)

I swear @Terry Davis has a personality that makes bland chicken look appetizing


----------



## healthcare8055 (Mar 19, 2022)

do a set till failure first


----------



## Bro Bundy (Mar 19, 2022)

I go by feel on everything I do in the gym


----------



## RiR0 (Mar 19, 2022)

Every time this gets bumped or asked I want to slam my head into concrete.


----------



## GymRat79 (Mar 19, 2022)

Depends how your body feels and how fast you recover.


----------



## RiR0 (Mar 19, 2022)

GymRat79 said:


> Depends how your body feels and how fast you recover.


This is the least retarded thing you’ve ever posted


----------



## Skullcrusher (Mar 19, 2022)

100 sets per muscle per hour...JUST DO IT!


----------



## RiR0 (Mar 19, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> 100 sets per muscle per hour...JUST DO IT!


CrossFit fuck the world


----------



## CJ (Mar 19, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> CrossFit fuck the world


^^^THIS!!!


----------



## RiR0 (Mar 21, 2022)

Gtfo you shill


----------



## Send0 (Mar 21, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Gtfo you shill


I banned the spam bot


----------



## elizabethmanning (Jul 18, 2022)

"Proponents of high-volume training believe that to grow mass. You ne


----------



## MisterSuperGod (Jul 18, 2022)

elizabethmanning said:


> "Proponents of high-volume training believe that to grow mass. You ne



No doubt! Gotta ne every time or it's not worth doing.


----------



## silentlemon1011 (Jul 18, 2022)

MisterSuperGod said:


> No doubt! Gotta ne every time or it's not worth doing.


----------



## RiR0 (Jul 18, 2022)

elizabethmanning said:


> "Proponents of high-volume training believe that to grow mass. You ne


All I need is this sentence to say you’re wrong and so are they


----------



## Yano (Jul 18, 2022)

Here's why I was always a bit of a volume whore ,, and yes I've since learned it is not the proper way. 

Hey I only get 52 weeks a year , if I hit shit once a week thats just 52 workouts ,, wtf will i accomplish with that ,,, same for sets n reps n lifts , 4x8 3x10 4x12 .. 3 days a week ? .... huh ? da fuq outta here with that shit.  

I would try to figure out where my recovery started to suck and take more than a day ,  that's where I would try to stay right on the edge of my recovery like that. 

Which again I've learned is just plain stupid , you don't accomplish as much if you cant recover properly. 

So If I could work 6 days a week , like I was when I came here and the guys started to help me ,, I would , like an animal. 

So I could get double the workouts in of a 3 day a week guy or a 1/3rd more than a 4 day a week guy. 

Fuck I even tried to lift twice a day , like 6 am and  then again at 6 at night ,, that ended after a month and it was ugly. 

I honestly cant say that 50 reps a week or 100 is better for a muscle  group 

But what I have learned is that more ain't always better , less is some times more and as a wise man has taught me its better to , Stimulate not Annihilate


----------



## Test_subject (Jul 18, 2022)

elizabethmanning said:


> "Proponents of high-volume training believe that to grow mass. You ne


You can say that again.

I still wouldn’t know what the fuck you’re on about, but you can say it again.


----------



## presser (Jul 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations - Sports Medicine
> 
> 
> Although many training variables contribute to the performance, cellular and molecular adaptations to resistance exercise, relative intensity (% 1 repetition maximum [%1RM]) appears to be an important factor. This review summarises and analyses data from numerous resistance exercise training...
> ...


in other words dont waste you time till at 80 to 95% of you 1 RM or that is where the growht happens... correct?


----------



## presser (Jul 18, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fibre Adaptations - Sports Medicine
> 
> 
> Although many training variables contribute to the performance, cellular and molecular adaptations to resistance exercise, relative intensity (% 1 repetition maximum [%1RM]) appears to be an important factor. This review summarises and analyses data from numerous resistance exercise training...
> ...


ty for the stufy


----------



## RiR0 (Jul 18, 2022)

Looking at my last 2 training days.
Push had 10 failure sets for chest 
4 for shoulders
3 for triceps 

Pull day
12 for back 
3 rear delts 
3 biceps 

Some were beyond failure with intensifiers


----------



## Test_subject (Jul 19, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Looking at my last 2 training days.
> Push had 10 failure sets for chest
> 4 for shoulders
> 3 for triceps
> ...


If you like failure you should try GVT. The whole program is set up for failure


----------



## RiR0 (Jul 19, 2022)

Test_subject said:


> If you like failure you should try GVT. The whole program is set up for failure


My whole life is a failure 😞


----------



## Jimmtubiik (Oct 10, 2022)

The greater the incentive, the greater the challenge.


----------



## LeeSikvel (Oct 10, 2022)

The more stimulation you require, the more sophisticated you are. Weight is the stimulation if your primary goal is strength training. If you bench press 100 kg now but 150 kg a year from now (same reps), you may be certain that your strength has risen. There is SO MUCH MORE to strength than just hypertrophy. What about muscle mass, though? The repetitions that are close to failing are what stimulate muscle growth, says Reverse Health. You ought to gradually raise that. This time frame does not refer from one workout to the next. It might even be measured in months if you're quite advanced.


----------

