<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Nov. 27 2006,09:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Nov. 27 2006,05:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Nov. 26 2006,22:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I said that in my post...if one were doing only 4-5 exercises then it would be better to do multiple sets, if however one is doing 12 or more exercises for the body then more than one set should not be needed.
</div>
I'd think it still depends.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Plus with high-frequency such as every 48 hours, the number of sets per week is not very low. Bryan himself points this out in the intro.. to HST.</div>
Yes, he does. And there is a certain logic to that.
But there's also a very strong logic to the idea that you need enough volume in the "right now" to stimulate an adaptation at all.
Example: if you need, say, X load by Y total reps to induce an adaptation, doing X load for Y reps once a week will be more valuable than doing (x load by Y reps) / 3, three times a week.
Because it'd be better to stimulate growth infrequently than to NEVER stimulate growth.
Volume has to matter, and there is nothing special about a "set." It just represents loading at a certain volume within a certain timeframe.
If volume were irrelevent, we could do a single rep three times a week and grow in a handful of exercises. But that doesn't work - why?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't agree with your stance on high-volume being necessary Mike...I am not sure which 'legions' you are talking about either. But to be fair, I don't think there is anything wrong with higher volume multiple sets as long as the trainee can handle the extra stress....even doing max-stim I will sometimes drop to only 10 total reps per exercise, if I am doing multiple exercise for the muscle group. I may just be one of the few who can't handle too much volume.</div>
I actually don't think high volume is necessary. I'd drift towards "medium volume" being necessary at some point, which, afaik, is also the conclusion that organizations like the ACSM hold to.
There are other avenues exploiting, for example, density and other weirdness (DC training) that is a clear example in my mind that 'lots of sets' isn't really necessary per se. But even in that, the 'total reps' isn't quite like a conventional single set approach.</div>
Michael,
I would love to see what you recommend or have expierenced as a trainer for volume on fullbody routines.
For example.
3 day a week full body or
4 day a week upper lower split.
I know there is no one size fits all.
But I agree with you on that volume hats to be enough for "now" training.
What in your opinion does that look like?</div>
Haha that's the million dollar question, I wish I knew.
I guess I could put this in terms of training age, and how I'd probably train somebody throughout their training career:
For noobs, I'd have them train on something looking like HIT minus the emphasis on failure/intensity. Low volume and frequent, the default HST template would also work fine here.
After they start tapping out their potential in this straightforward approach (which could take a lot of time, even a couple or more years), I'd probably add another layer of complexity to stuff and/or manipulate volume.
An example of what I'd do for intermediates might be the "dual factor HST" thing I presented here, or an upper/lower split with higher volume per exercise or more total exercises. To help performance feed growth, I'd probably do some basic accumulation-->intensification stuff, the logic of which is well described in the madcow 5 x 5 threads that have gone around here. Frequency in the "big lifts" in this case might drop from thrice a week to twice a week for most people.
That in itself would probably get people most of where they'd want to go, either a straightforward approach or some simple periodization and periods of higher volume loading.
Past that, or if people wanted to specialize, I might even recommend they do something like DC training or start to do something that'd look more like a poliquin style bodypart split. Retain "decent" frequency (~1.5 times per muscle group per week), but use various novelties/techniques to keep gains moving forward.
These trends also mirror what Glenn Pendlay suggests to some degree, and no surprise I'm partially ripping him off.
But I think the idea here is that:
* Performance/strength IS linked to growth over time
* The stimulus necessary to yield an adaptation needs to be greater in magnitude over time in the acute sense, i.e. an individual bout of training. As such, frequency in particular might have to take a back seat to intensity (in terms of how heavy - %1 RM) and volume.
This would be so because, over time, you get a higher dose/response from both heavier weights and a higher volume of those heavier weights than you do at comparatively younger training ages. Research substantiating this centers primarily on strength/performance, but insofar as strength/performance and growth are tied together for naturals, I feel this pattern still applies to people looking to fulfill their "genetic potential" in terms of muscle.
So there is no "one routine" to fit everybody, the demands of a trainee are going to vary based on both their individual needs (including psychological, because the willingness to put in the time/effort is as important as any other factor) as well as their training age through time (progressing from noob to intermediate to advanced).
</div>
