Volume per bout vs. per week

[HST_Rihad]

It's believed that muscle volume should be kept at 30-60 repetitions per bout for optimal muscle growth response. Despite that, how does the body know how much time passed from the previous working set? Does it care whether it's 2-3 minutes or 2-3 days? If a person willing to hit 30 reps in 6 sets of 5 rests 3 minutes after each set and spends a total of 17-18 minutes (approximate time for work+rest) to elicit a certain growth response, can he split same 6 sets into 3 workouts (Mon-Wed-Fri, or 5 days) doing 2 sets per workout, and expect the same cumulative muscle gains, albeit taking 5 days instead of 17-18 minutes? Or is per-bout volume crucial (Minimal Effective Volume) in respect to hitting 30-60 reps?

 

[HDLou]

so how much intensity of effort are these 30-60 reps suppose to be? Ive seen this study brought up a number of times in various places but didn't read anything as far as how close to failure these reps are supposed to be. I could take 50% of my one rep max and perform 3-6 sets of 10 reps but how much grow stimulation is that likely to cause?

 

[Jester]

It's believed that muscle volume should be kept at 30-60 repetitions per bout for optimal muscle growth response. Despite that, how does the body know how much time passed from the previous working set? Does it care whether it's 2-3 minutes or 2-3 days? If a person willing to hit 30 reps in 6 sets of 5 rests 3 minutes after each set and spends a total of 17-18 minutes (approximate time for work+rest) to elicit a certain growth response, can he split same 6 sets into 3 workouts (Mon-Wed-Fri, or 5 days) doing 2 sets per workout, and expect the same cumulative muscle gains, albeit taking 5 days instead of 17-18 minutes? Or is per-bout volume crucial (Minimal Effective Volume) in respect to hitting 30-60 reps?

FFS, that's what HST is. Spreading a volume over a longer time period. It's like you haven't read anything Bryan wrote. Take a typical "per day" volume and spread it out over a week.

Also, you're referencing Wernbom's meta analysis (via Bryan). This a flawed analysis of already-flawed studies. It (Wernbom's) is not an authority. Optimal reps per body part, per session at 30-60? Please ... that alone should be should be enough to wake you up. That conclusion is wrong.

 

[HST_Rihad]

HDLou, in the article linked to above: 65-85% of 1RM (concluded by research). Of course lower loads tend to lose their effectiveness rather quickly, but HST goes well along with this recommendation by constantly increasing the loads after SD.

AlexAustralia, Bryan also talks about Minimum Effective Volume (presumably per-bout), and it was once thought that even 1 hardest set (RPE-10) was enough to progress in mass gains, or 2 almost-hardest-sets (RPE-9). That's only 5 hard reps for the chest in my case! Do they even accomplish anything?

 

[Jester]

Yes they do.

Bryan also recently posted another study on this site, that further confirms that exposures beyond the first (per session) are becoming less and less necessary for hypertrophy.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Wasn't it concerning untrained folks? AFAIK the original 1-2 set recommendation was based on those kinds of studies.
In any case I can't seem to find that post of his by going to Bryan's profile and clicking "find latest posts" on the left.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Here's what I could dig out:

"Low volume/high load training produce increases in neuromuscular efficiency and motor unit recruitment, while high volume/moderate load training produces only moderate increases in strength and neuromuscular adaptations along with marked hypertrophy of both slow and fast twitch fibers."

http://thinkmuscle.com/training/advanced-training-planning-for-bodybuilders-part-2/

Wow. Seems that I was right in attempting to stick to at least 3 sets during 5's, albeit at a bit lower intensity.

 

[Jester]

HDLou, in the article linked to above: 65-85% of 1RM (concluded by research). Of course lower loads tend to lose their effectiveness rather quickly, but HST goes well along with this recommendation by constantly increasing the loads after SD.

AlexAustralia, Bryan also talks about Minimum Effective Volume (presumably per-bout), and it was once thought that even 1 hardest set (RPE-10) was enough to progress in mass gains, or 2 almost-hardest-sets (RPE-9). That's only 5 hard reps for the chest in my case! Do they even accomplish anything?

You should really stop editing your posts in discussions once they have been directly responded to. It's an insulting way to converse with somebody when it happens frequently.



If you can't gain mass on 10 reps, it's likely your load is too low.

 

[Jester]

It's also possible that you should SD and recondition the tissue to the load you are using.

And yes, big mofo's on this site continue to make mass on low rep totals.

Low volume/high load training produce increases in neuromuscular efficiency and motor unit recruitment, while high volume/moderate load training produces only moderate increases in strength and neuromuscular adaptations along with marked hypertrophy of both slow and fast twitch fibers.

Read more from this Think Muscle article at http://thinkmuscle.com/training/advanced-training-planning-for-bodybuilders-part-2/#ixzz2YXBCWCCk
​

For my money, I'm highly sceptical that 3x5 counts for the latter description.

 

[HST_Rihad]

This is the part I added:
"That's only 5 hard reps for the chest in my case! Do they even accomplish anything?"
And your reply was 12 minutes after my edit...

Quoting relevant parts of a message you're replying to would make sure context remains unaltered.

 

[HST_Rihad]

It's also possible that you should SD and recondition the tissue to the load you are using.

I've always done HST as outlined, 8 weeks (15-10-5-5), sometimes skipping 15, but never skipping 10-12 day SD. Lately I've started extending 5's by a few more weeks.

And yes, big mofo's on this site continue to make mass on low rep totals.

That's reassuring While training naturally, I assume?

For my money, I'm highly sceptical that 3x5 counts for the latter description.

Agreed, 6x5 would more more inline with 30-60 reps, 3x5 used merely as an intermediate step which is already in increase from 2x5. Some time I'd go 4x5.

 

[Jester]

6x5 to try and keep step with 30 reps is following a flawed conclusion. That's up to you.

If you're willing to overlook the various errors and flaws made in the studies relied upon by Wernbom, as well as arguably some errors and flaws by Wernbom in his analysis, be my guest.

 

[HST_Rihad]

6x5 to try and keep step with 30 reps is following a flawed conclusion. That's up to you.

Well, obviously some overlapping muscle groups need less work per exercise to hit the needed reps. Like 6 sets rowing movements to hit the lats would greatly diminish the need to go over a couple more sets for biceps or traps. Also, I'm assuming that higher rep metabolic-type work done during the same session as higher-tension lower-rep work counts towards the rep allotment. So 3x5 of heavy rowing movement, and then one set of 15's to top things off, for a total of 30, as far as TUT is concerned.

If you're willing to overlook the various errors and flaws made in the studies relied upon by Wernbom, as well as arguably some errors and flaws by Wernbom in his analysis, be my guest.

Isn't it enough that Bryan has cited material from that work? Ok, meta-work

 

[Jester]

Isn't it enough that Bryan has cited material from that work? Ok, meta-work

Is Bryan, God ? No. So no it isn't enough. This blind idolatry of yours is getting a bit weird.

 

[HST_Rihad]

This is the nature of human learning, we pick a path to follow & learn. When we're kids we go to school and learn whatever they teach us, which is assumed to be the optimal way of learning. With one difference that when we're grown up, we can pick what to learn and assume that to be true. Don't get me wrong, I don't blindly believe that HST is impeccable, moreover, lately I've been questioning its 1-2 sets per MG done 3 time a week to be optimal for growth. There are a few guys in my gym who aren't much stronger than me (considering they're in an upper weight category), who do lots of sets with moderate loads and probably no more frequently than once a week, and induce very much visible sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Ok, they're doing it "wrong" but they are more muscular than me (please spare me the "eat more" comments, they are pretty lean and it doesn't take much food to hit your protein macros + carbs & fats to cover TDEE). It's the way of training responsible for how you look as a natural, not food over what's needed to perform, not feel dizzy, etc.

Speaking of which, today I had a very bad sleep, could barely lift the loads from previous w/o, so I introduced RPT (reverse pyramid) after squats & incline bench, which involves dropping load by 10% on second set and doing reps+1. So, squat: 100 kg (220lbs) x4, 90kg (200lbs)x5. Incline: 67kg(147lbs)x5, 60kg(132lbs)x6, 50kg(114lbs)x10 (more metabolic work). We'll see how this works out.

 

[Jester]

This is the nature of human learning, we pick a path to follow & learn

No, it isn't.

The choice to stick to a path, blindly, as your comment -

Isn't it enough that Bryan has cited material from that work? Ok, meta-work

- clearly shows is not indicative of critical thinking or analysis.

You've forgotten to question the source.

This isn't an instance/s of arriving at the same conclusion. It's believing what you're told without reservation and doing the opposite of this,

With one difference that when we're grown up, we can pick what to learn and assume that to be true

Semi-tangent;

When we're kids we go to school and learn whatever they teach us,

Your school doesn't get it. Schools exist to teach you how to learn, not what to learn. They're also a social stabiliser and introduce adolescents into the structure of adult society.

which is assumed to be the optimal way of learning.

No, it certainly is not.



And this is starting to explain the unquestioning attitude ...

There are a few guys in my gym who aren't much stronger than me (considering they're in an upper weight category), who do lots of sets with moderate loads and probably no more frequently than once a week, and induce very much visible sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Ok, they're doing it "wrong" but they are more muscular than me (please spare me the "eat more" comments, they are pretty lean and it doesn't take much food to hit your protein macros + carbs & fats to cover TDEE). It's the way of training responsible for how you look as a natural, not food over what's needed to perform, not feel dizzy, etc.

1. You have to eat over your maintenance needs. It's physics. Magical Rihad himself cannot change this

2. If the look that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy produces is what you're after then train that way. I've had that look previously and looking like a pin-prick would deflate me was definitely not enough for me.

 

[HST_Rihad]

2. If the look that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy produces is what you're after then train that way. I've had that look previously and looking like a pin-prick would deflate me was definitely not enough for me.

Sarcolemmic hypertrophy isn't there to stay with you without training either, lack of training will quickly bring muscles back to how big they need to be in your daily life, whether you've trained them high-rep or mid- lower-rep. This is probably one of the reasons higher-rep finishing work during 5's bouts is recommended, providing best parts of both worlds.

 

[Jester]

"Quickly" - no, not especially for that. Of course that depends on the definition of quickly.

Either way, that wasn't what I was discussing, and not really related either. If the look from that style of training will satisfy you then train that way. It's not rocket science.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Speaking of which, today I had a very bad sleep, could barely lift the loads from previous w/o, so I introduced RPT (reverse pyramid) after squats & incline bench, which involves dropping load by 10% on second set and doing reps+1. So, squat: 100 kg (220lbs) x4, 90kg (200lbs)x5. Incline: 67kg(147lbs)x5, 60kg(132lbs)x6, 50kg(114lbs)x10 (more metabolic work). We'll see how this works out.

Got very pronounced DOMS on my pecs today. RPT may be "wrong" from HST perspective in the sense that muscle has grown accustomed to 90% of 5RM that I used in set 2 (and then 78% in set 3). It may be that using a given load in set 2 isn't the same thing as using it when you're fresh. Basically it IS 6RM in your current condition, so it works just fine.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Here's a hypothesis: some muscle fibers got damaged in set 1, so they could no longer be used in set 2, therefore lower absolute load still produced roughly the SAME amount of average tension for the remaining fibers.