I go to 0 RIR / sometimes to failure, and there is no way in hell I can do more than 10 sets of quads a week lol. Train hard and you wont have to hit the gym for hours every day.

"Quality Research & Evidence" = Brad Schoenfeld 's RPE 5 sets calling it "Faliure".

@lewis843

Ай бұрын

Is Schoenfeld unreliable?

The closer to failure you get, the less sets you need, the father you are from failure (5 RIR for example), the more sets you need. No one is doing 20+ weekly sets with 0-1 RIR

@charlesmarshall1309

2 ай бұрын

Maybe. But as this suggests, it may vary with muscle group. Forearms, notoriously, recover fast and training them causes very little systemic fatigue. The big muscles like glutes and quads need big compound lifts to provide stimulus and that toasts both them andthe system as a whole. I’m guessing most people could bench far more sets per week than they could squat, for example.

@yf1177

2 ай бұрын

Exactly, with maybe the exception of PED-ophiles

Nice production guys! I like your slide backgrounds

Great video, thanks doc!

I love the point about the triceps often being synergists, but I think muscle lever type is another huge potential explanation for why the triceps may need more volume to achieve hypertrophy. Almost every major muscle group in the body is what's known as a "Class 3 lever," which means the muscles are at a mechanical disadvantage relative to the resistance. The triceps, on the other hand, are a "Class 1 lever," which means neither they nor the resistance have mechanical advantage over the other. For a "Class 2 lever," the muscle has the mechanical advantage over the resistance. And the only major muscle group that's a Class 2 lever is also the one most notorious for being difficult to grow: the calves. To understand a Class 3 lever, think of two people pushing on opposite sides of a door. One person pushing near the handle, the other pushing near the hinge. Simply because they have significantly better leverage, the person pushing near the handle will win every time, even if their strength levels are way lower than those of the person pushing from the hinge. With most exercises, we're essentially pushing from the hinge while the weight is pushing from the handle. But because the calves and triceps have better leverage than the other major muscle groups, it makes sense that they would need more volume than others to achieve hypertrophy, and have a higher volume threshold for diminishing returns. They simply don't need to work as hard in any given set, so they need more/respond well to a higher number of sets. This article goes more in depth on levers in case anyone is interested: www.visiblebody.com/blog/biomechanics-lever-systems-in-the-body

Great video. Commenting for the algorithm. Would love to see more of these videos. I would also love to see you with collaborations with other fitness KZreadrs (Nippard, RP, Tennyson etc.)

@neilpollack3514

2 ай бұрын

Me too

I can do 3 heavy sets of RDLs and have sore hamstrings for 3 days. Add a few sets of leg curls twice a week and I'm done. Noone will convince me that I need 20+ sets for better growth. Of course from the video it seems that different muscles have varying requirements and the effect may not be very large.

@LucidStrike

3 күн бұрын

That's where the concept of Maximum RECOVERABLE Volume comes in, yeah, and that would be relatively low for the quads, I would think.

If you train with high mechanical tension and to muscle failure, you don't need a high volume. High training volumes only accumulate unnecessary fatigue, which limits your regenerative capacity.

@LucidStrike

3 күн бұрын

Nah, pretty much all of these studies were 2 RIR or less, many to failure. And high volume still won in many cases.

One of the problems I see with this volume research is that the subjects are often only doing volume for the muscle region of interest (e.g. quads) and to the exclusion of other exercises/muscle groups across the week. That is not how it works in the real world where we would work out most muscle groups throughout the week. I get that they eliminate this to reduce confounding but it severely limits its generalisability. I’m not sure many people could ramp up the volume on all their muscle groups to the extent that some of the research suggests.

Very nice video, thanks for the valuable info!! So it means that the more frequent I go to the gym in a week, I should get more results? (like going 6x times per week to maximize sets per muscle group instead of going only 3x times)

@harzemyalcinkaya

2 ай бұрын

Generally yes, more frequent visits to the gym allow you to train more sets, or at least train muscles more fresh. But overtraining and not enough rest is a risk, because resting is actually what allows your muscles to rebuild. For casual lifters up to 5 days a week is great, which allows enough rest if managed properly. Professional lifters whose career is all about lifting and resting (no day job), they can even train twice a day for 6 days a week.

@Anandfulness

2 ай бұрын

Frequency per muscle group is more important than just going to the gym 6 times a week. You can do a bro split going 6 times a week but doing a high frequency fullbody routine will give you better results

@j.rob.5943

2 ай бұрын

@@Anandfulnessnot if volume is equated.

When tracking weekly sets do these volume recommendations take into account overlapping work or is it only supposed to be direct work?

Thanks for the video! Roughly how much of my gains I'm looking at if do 12 sets per week with adequate rest and am training very close to failure. Also is there an updated graph of potential gains vs weekly set volume?

@Mikey__R

2 ай бұрын

It's going to be different for everyone. Some people build muscle faster, given the same stimulus and protein, that other people. This response will also change with time, if you're early on in your lifting career, you'll grow much faster than later on. If you take a break and lose muscle, you'll gain it back quicker. Your technique will also change over time as you learn more. If you hire a coach, they can make small changes that could add up to a big difference; or they might not be very good and you'll have wasted your money. There are just too many variables to be able to come up with a function of X sets per week = Y kgs of muscle gained.

This never ending debate is getting stale. Most trainees can probably make the same gains by doing less volume than they are now as long as they continue to train hard (reasonably close to failure and occasionally all the way). We have over 100 years of bodybuilders dating back to Eugen Sandow to know that there’s a multitude of ways to train….high volume lower intensity, low volume high intensity and everything in between. These types of videos continue to cause people to program hop thinking more “optimal” is attainable when in reality it won’t make a difference or at best maybe a 1-2% improvement that is really dilute over the lifetime of training.

Anecdotally triceps love high amount of sets. I did 21-24 sets of push-ups and dips each week for 4 months and my biceps grew ~3 inches from ~11 to 14-14½. Hours of rest between sets.

Wondering if it is important to ever mention responders that do not follow the general results of the study - e.g. are there relevant groups (20pct? 5pct?) that see a regression when increasing sets ? I myself was never able to progress even as a brand new beginner and I'm always wondering if i should have reduced volume instead of increasing it...

Studies rarely, if ever, identify whether the subjects are using steroids. It is difficult to extrapolate training methodologies from steroid-using athletes to non-steroid-using athletes. Is the hypertrophy a result of training, or steroids?

Pretty useless to know how many sets are being done if the RIR isn't mentioned. Huge difference in how you recover from a session where you stop 4 reps before failure compared to when you go "balls to the wall".

@Henrik_Holst

2 ай бұрын

basically in every single training study they take all reps to failure.

@1TieDye1

2 ай бұрын

@@Henrik_Holstnot remotely true lol

@greglnuckols

2 ай бұрын

You can check out our podcast episodes on the topic. We discussed the details of the training interventions in all of the studies that used 20+ sets per week. But, in this body of literature, almost all of the studies take all sets to failure, and the ones that don't still use ≤2 RIR. So, it wasn't really worth mentioning since RIR was similar in all of the studies. If there were big differences in a variable that's that important for the outcome of interest, it would have been mentioned in the video.

@greglnuckols

2 ай бұрын

@@1TieDye1 in this body of literature it's more-or-less correct.

@justgivemeanumber8215

2 ай бұрын

logically, if you're running a program, you aim to advance something. you do 20 sets one week, next week you do them heavier, or more reps or something. you eventually and quickly even get to your limit, even if you start below your limit.

I do 24 sets per muscle group per week, and I am happy with my results.

What program can you do 20 sets per muscle per week? Two a day workouts?

@marktucks

2 ай бұрын

5 sets 4 days a week is one way

@cristobalarriagada8141

8 күн бұрын

No way you recovering on time

I'm not doing 30 sets per week of squat variations, good mornings and shit like that 1-2 reps to failure. I'm fucking done after two days of 3x8-10. And I'm not dedicating the time to do 30 sets per week of muscle groups that could actually take it, like abs and arms.

@feelzgoodmane6517

2 ай бұрын

It's insanity to do 30 sets of quads a week at a high effort. But 30 sets of biceps or forearms is very doable.

Nobody gains 60lbs of muscle in a month. If someone says that, then you should walk away.

This is all good yet I see an increasing of these channels putting so much attention to "science" or what we currently call science and nobody seems to remember that these studies are super short, as mentioned, one of the longest being 6 months only, the population samples are also tiny and specific to certain groups of individuals, usually not exceeding the 100's and definitely never more than a thousand individuals in one study. So how in the world can these statistics be significantly representative of ALL the population out there, counting for cultural, racial, gender, etc, differences? Let alone that the individual differences are HUGE. What I get of all this "science" is basically a guide line but it does not mean I can skip MY OWN experience and trial and error. In other words I keep this info in mind but I personally try different volumes, reps, rests, etc. It may take time but at the end I will know exactly what works for ME. Thanks!

Many studies ended in just 6 to 8 weeks so do u really feel that 6 or 8 weeks is enough to make any claim ???

@JorgeGonzalez-sx7fk

2 ай бұрын

in my anecdotal experience, 6-8 weeks is exactly how long you have before burning out from overreaching lol

@EmilWestrum

2 ай бұрын

@@JorgeGonzalez-sx7fk Yeah Id love to see people doing 30+ actual hard sets for months on end. Wont happen.

@JorgeGonzalez-sx7fk

2 ай бұрын

@@EmilWestrum yeah man, i might be an outlier case, but i made almost no gains doing 10-20 sets a week too. i literally spent multiple years making some gains for 3-6 weeks, stalling out in the 6-8 week range, burning out all beat up, and having to start over differently in my next training cycle from the same place i started in the previous

Awesome video. Could you expand on how the volume was counted? Is the general recommendation of 10-20 sets per muscle group based on direct work only? For example, is the bench press counted as 1 set of chest work or 1 set of chest, 1 set of triceps and 1 set of front delts? Thank you

@SmeX723

Ай бұрын

I am wondering the same thing cause this will take forever

you have to take into account the detrimental longevity affects of to many sets in a week as you covered in a previous video basically to much weight training is unhealthy irrespective of maximum growth i would prefer a little less growth and keep it healthy

@D350DX

2 ай бұрын

I understand the concern with this as I felt the same when I saw Milo's video on mortality and duration of resistance training. However, I would keep in mind that despite the association with mortality in observational studies, non of the recent meta-analyses on controlled trials on resistance training and cardiovascular, cancer or diabetes (that I have seen) shows worse outcomes with lower vs high doses of volume/session duration. In addition, the study Milo previously mentioned that looked at observational studies, they did find a doseresponse relationship with health, resistance training and diabetes. In other words, I don't think there is a need to be concerned about doing resistance training more than 30-60 mins per week at current

@asprinklingofclouds

2 ай бұрын

Correlation doesn't mean causation. My take on this is that those who do more hours of resistance training are more likely to be on steroids/TRT etc which is obviously detrimental to health.

@saradoherty3875

2 ай бұрын

@@asprinklingofclouds yeah without a doubt we need more studies to be clear

Sounds like the Clust is a Must. Full Glysajin.

Which G-Shock model is that?

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

Spotted. DW-6900. Tough Solar is a nice feature to have! -Milo

What about 6-8 sets per week per muscle group done as top set / back off sets method. Both sets to failure and with 2 rest-pause ( 3 points of failure ) ? You have to take age and ligament recovery into consideration.

@griffingeode

2 ай бұрын

6-8 sets per week per muscle group would be low volume. A top set and back off set to failure is intense and harder on joints and ligaments but low volume. Yes age and recovery impacts growth but a less intense + higher volume approach could be easier to recover and grow from. Just my opinion, maybe I misunderstood your method.

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

It will very likely cause a good deal of muscle growth (perhaps around 40-70%), but it's very unlikely to optimize growth for the vast majority of people.

@mirceamurgu

2 ай бұрын

@@strongerbyscience , thank you. One more question: is there a way to corelate volume with mechanical tension ? As far as I read the most important driver for hypertrophic stimulus is mechanical tension.

@Ethereum1789

2 ай бұрын

​​@@mirceamurgu 1 Top set + few back off sets is perfectly optimal. Also Checkout Lyle McDonald.

„The reason we don't see increased growth for other muscles is because we don't have enough studies" sounds like you want a specific conclusion to be true

Nothing clear that how much sets are actully good but most peoples in the gym do atleast 24 to 32 sets weekly if they begainer or intermediate they do around 24 sets and if they are advanced they do upto 32 sets...

Another excellent video. Thank you, Doctor

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

Thank you Maciek! Cross-platform support. -Milo

@gerym341

2 ай бұрын

@@strongerbyscience you can count on it:)

I do 60 sets per week total broken up into 3 days, back /bi chest / tri , legs/ shoulders 1-4 RIR each set, beginer lifter, is this sound?

I've seen most growth with 70sets / week anything beyond that produced worse results

@sealedindictment

2 ай бұрын

😂

@andy0009

2 ай бұрын

Try 70.5 sets per week. You will get an instant 5% more hypertrophy

Why am I watching. Video of this guy when I'm so much bigger than him ?? Anyone else? In the/my boat?😂😂😂

What’s the most effective drop set pattern?

The background jazz is making me anxious. I appreciate yall.

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

It was meant to relax you. -Milo

Other studies and experiences of experienced lifters tell 10-20 sets per musclegroup per week is the best range but not taking in account the restperiod between sets. But do they train to faillure every time? Or how many reps in reserve? That's important too. I think 2-3 minutes rest is quite long but if it makes the muscles grow, well plenty of time to do supersets then. Ah, you just said it. I'll do this again after cutting this summer. Good video.

For the algorithm! Ps. Greg there comes a time when you can stop responding and let the masses do the correcting.

So many issues with these studies. Each person reacts to a stimulus differently. Some people can handle lots of volume, while others will be overtrained. Also, the type of movements will greatly influence systemic fatigue, which is rarely mentioned. Try do 25 hard sets of deadlifting each week and see how quickly you’ll be fatigued or injured. Small muscle like the biceps and triceps will always be able to handle more. They are generally isolated exercises, not compounds that have much more weight. Finally, factors such as stress - work - good - rest - experience - age and genetics play large roles. As an experienced powerlifter, I can’t handle near the work that I could in my 20s avd 30s. But my intensity can be kept high with a lower amounts of sets, and RIR between 1-3 for working sets.

@majungasaurusaaaa

2 ай бұрын

I personally consider leaving 1 rep in the tank normal training. 2 reps is taking it easy and 3 or more training like a wuss. I guess if you stop 4 reps short of failure you will need lots of volume.

@chattingwithshap8010

2 ай бұрын

@@majungasaurusaaaa this again depends on the type of training you do and the exercises. Hypertrophy training is vastly different than say powerlifting. The exercise selection and weight used are key. Leaving two or even three reps left in the tank for heavy squats - cleans - dead’s is totally acceptable. For a bicep curl you’d want to go close to or at failure. Most people do not understand the nuance of training.

Simply BS

Wondering how one would go about performing 35 sets each per week for biceps and triceps in a specialisation phase. I’m guessing it would require really putting back and chest on the back burner since you’d be doing 9 sets of each arm 4 times per week just to accumulate that level of volume and much back or chest work on top of that would surely interfere with proper rest.

@asprinklingofclouds

2 ай бұрын

As I understand it back and chest work compound work is actually counted towards your biceps and triceps volume, it may not be 1 =1 but something like 1 set of bench press for example counts as 0.5 sets for triceps.

doing 8 more sets teaches me how to photoshop my pictures to pretend im bigger? Crazy

Accent is brutal

Mr.Greg Bossman, funding a Strong By Science background neon sign for MiloPakStudio when?

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

Little do you know... we already have it. Future videos will have it; stay tuned -MiloPakSBSGang

Which one increases semen volume?

Full body German Volume Trainig every day is the only way to train.

Maybe, possible, depends on who, experience, age, race, diet, sleep, frequency, duration, intensity, periodization, form, movement velocity, exercise selection, rest time,.....plus some extra nuances we end up with we don't know what we don't know. Case by case, person by person.

@strongerbyscience

2 ай бұрын

Individual differences do not preclude the discussion of what works best, on average. We have a much more in-depth discussion on that topic in our podcast on volume! -Milo

You ignored the most important thing. The best volume is the one you can recover from! That depends on age, stress, nutrition, sleep, RIR. In certain situations LESS is better, but ofc the goal is to improve recovery and then try to do slightly more.

👌🏾

For the algorithm

TLDR???