Anybody here who had problem with growing his arms?

[CJ]

Does anyone have the link to the new volume study, the 52 sets for leg hypertrophy study? Study was by Annis (sp?) and colleagues.

I'd love to read it, but I can't find it. Maybe behind a pay wall or not published yet?

 

[Test_subject]

Does anyone have the link to the new volume study, the 52 sets for leg hypertrophy study? I believe it was Schoenfeld, Pak, Wolf.

I'd love to read it, but I can't find it. Maybe behind a pay wall or not published yet?

Wrong link.

I’ll try to find it at lunch.

 

[CJ]

Wrong link.

I’ll try to find it at lunch.

I've only listened/watched videos on it. Sounds interesting.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

Does anyone have the link to the new volume study, the 52 sets for leg hypertrophy study? Study was by Annis (sp?) and colleagues.

I'd love to read it, but I can't find it. Maybe behind a pay wall or not published yet?

Here is an excellent rebuttal to that study

Biggest take away, can you imagine doing 52 sets to failure as claimed? You’d be crippled. The inflammation from that would make you hooooooge though.

 

[Test_subject]

Here is an excellent rebuttal to that study

Biggest take away, can you imagine doing 52 sets to failure as claimed? You’d be crippled. The inflammation from that would make you hooooooge though.

Shit man, I can barely bang out 12-16 sets to failure for my legs (quads and hammies combined). 52 sets? Oof.

How are they measuring “failure”? Because there’s no way that anyone not named Clark Kent is taking that many sets to actual positive failure.

 

[CJ]

Here is an excellent rebuttal to that study

Biggest take away, can you imagine doing 52 sets to failure as claimed? You’d be crippled. The inflammation from that would make you hooooooge though.

Love their podcast, although Paul interrupts Chris way too much.

They're a couple of weeks late putting out a new episode.

 

[CJ]

Shit man, I can barely bang out 12-16 sets to failure for my legs (quads and hammies combined). 52 sets? Oof.

How are they measuring “failure”? Because there’s no way that anyone not named Clark Kent is taking that many sets to actual positive failure.

I did 6 quads, 3 hams, 3 calfs today, and I'm crushed. No way in hell.

There were 2 groups, both started at 11 sets twice per week for quads. 4 sets of Squats and Leg Presses and 3 sets of Leg Exts.

Trained subjects, averaged a 3 plates per side squat. Each set was taken to 1-2 RIR, with the last set of each exercise taken to failure.

Group 1 stayed at 22 sets for the entire study. Group 2 added 6 sets every other week, to finish up at 52 sets.

Results were that growth continued to increase as the sets did.

This was only for quads, not total body, and they're theorizing that it could validate specialization blocks.

 

[Test_subject]

I did 6 quads, 2 hams, 3 calfs today, and I'm crushed. No way in hell.

There were 2 groups, both started at 11 sets twice per week for quads. 4 sets of Squats and Leg Presses and 3 sets of Leg Exts.

Trained subjects, averaged a 3 plates per side squat. Each set was taken to 1-2 RIR, with the last set of each exercise taken to failure.

Group 1 stayed at 22 sets for the entire study. Group 2 added 6 sets every other week, to finish up at 52 sets.

Results were that growth continued to increase as the sets did.

This was only for quads, not total body, and they're theorizing that it could validate specialization blocks.

That’s interesting. Doing 52 sets a week taken either to or near to failure for legs is almost superhuman. 26 sets each leg day? Ouch.

I do significantly less than that (12-16 sets) and my legs are absolutely devastated afterwards, and I’m thanking my stars that my gym has an escalator. I can’t even fathom doing that many hard sets.

 

[CJ]

That’s interesting. Doing 52 sets a week taken either to or near to failure for legs is almost superhuman. 26 sets each leg day? Ouch.

I do significantly less than that (12-16 sets) and my legs are absolutely devastated afterwards, and I’m thanking my stars that my gym has an escalator. I can’t even fathom doing that many hard sets.

It sounds impossible to me as well, at least for legs. Maybe shoulders or biceps, but legs??? Holy fuck!!!

I legit can't even do leg extensions after hack squats, I have nothing left. I have to do them first.

If I recall correctly, there was only 1 drop out, and it was in the control group, from an injury.

 

[Mythos]

I saw a review of that study, they were trained individuals and they had strength coaches on staff to ensure form uniformity etc. 52 sets a week for only quads..leg press, squat and leg ext. Not too many injuries but as I understand it everyone shid their pants at least three times

 

[Mythos]

It has always been 8-12 reps. Though 6-10 reps is sometimes used. When training to failure, it’s the last 5 reps that are demonstrated to be “effective” reps so NOBODY here has ever said less than 5 reps. This isn’t ego lifting. It’s going hard for minimal sets as opposed to pacing yourself for 4-5 sets.

I'm just saying this conversation about reasonable, more optimal set and rep ranges needs to be had when telling people that nothing but mechanical load grows muscle. because just saying stuff like this can be confusing and could lead people to do super low volume stuff. Hey I get that we shouldn't spoonfeed people especially if they won't listen or think they know everything, the UG has always been about that. I just think that when I see five or six posts talking about set volume is a useless variable and about mechanical load is only driver, I can easily be a newbie around here a month and infer some very unfavorable things. But look, I am not really around here consistently so maybe I'm being unfair, I will concede that

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

I'm just saying this conversation about reasonable, more optimal set and rep ranges needs to be had when telling people that nothing but mechanical load grows muscle. because just saying stuff like this can be confusing and could lead people to do super low volume stuff. Hey I get that we shouldn't spoonfeed people especially if they won't listen or think they know everything, the UG has always been about that. I just think that when I see five or six posts talking about set volume is a useless variable and about mechanical load is only driver, I can easily be a newbie around here a month and infer some very unfavorable things. But look, I am not really around here consistently so maybe I'm being unfair, I will concede that

*Mechanical tension

 

[healthybodies101]

Absolutely! It sounds like you've put in a lot of effort, so let's approach this seriously. Have you considered adjusting your training volume and intensity specifically for your arms? Sometimes, a targeted approach with focused exercises and proper recovery can make a big difference. Keep experimenting and stay committed – progress might be just around the corner!