BodyRecomposition Support Forums

BodyRecomposition Support Forums (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//index.php)
-   General training questions (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Number of sets (http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//showthread.php?t=34550)

nsteel 01-26-2018 06:35 AM

Number of sets
 
Borge Fagerli :

"It only takes 1-2 hard sets to get 80-85% of the training effect, and doubling-tripling that only provides marginal benefits with a large increase in potential negatives."

If someone were to do more than this one set would it use up "recovery units" and hence impede progress?

patriots2 01-26-2018 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsteel (Post 309206)
Borge Fagerli :

"It only takes 1-2 hard sets to get 80-85% of the training effect, and doubling-tripling that only provides marginal benefits with a large increase in potential negatives."

If someone were to do more than this one set would it use up "recovery units" and hence impede progress?

Interesting and appealing. Does that include myo-reps or are those straight sets?

Also, how many times per week does he suggest hitting each body part?

Determinism 01-26-2018 07:04 AM

Depends on training status and genetics. Low volume isn't going to cut it for most advanced trainees. However, if you don't manage recovery you will go nowhere. As you can see, the line becomes thinner and thinner the more you progress.

patriots2 01-26-2018 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Determinism (Post 309209)
Depends on training status and genetics. Low volume isn't going to cut it for most advanced trainees. However, if you don't manage recovery you will go nowhere. As you can see, the line becomes thinner and thinner the more you progress.

Fair enough. Look, however, at all those performing onl 2-3 RPT per bodypart per week. Many get amazing results, even so called advanced.

Makes one wonder. The research is there on so-called optimal volume, frequency & intensity, but if you can get 85% of the results w/o the possibility of overdoing it, thatís fantastic. Also, itís way easier to stay focused if you only have 2 sets a week.

Anyway, who knows??? Whatever works for some, doesnít for others.

AlphaBettor 01-26-2018 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsteel (Post 309206)
Borge Fagerli :

"It only takes 1-2 hard sets to get 80-85% of the training effect, and doubling-tripling that only provides marginal benefits with a large increase in potential negatives."

If someone were to do more than this one set would it use up "recovery units" and hence impede progress?

Is there any further context for this?

1-2 hard sets might give 80-85% of the training effect for beginners (depends on a lot of factors.) That's often not even enough volume to maintain for advanced lifters.

Determinism 01-26-2018 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriots2 (Post 309210)
Fair enough. Look, however, at all those performing onl 2-3 RPT per bodypart per week. Many get amazing results, even so called advanced.

Makes one wonder. The research is there on so-called optimal volume, frequency & intensity, but if you can get 85% of the results w/o the possibility of overdoing it, thatís fantastic. Also, itís way easier to stay focused if you only have 2 sets a week.

Anyway, who knows??? Whatever works for some, doesnít for others.

Well, genetics. There are some commonalities regarding volume/frequency for the average trainee. But then again, there are also many outliers. Bell curve distribution. For some 3 sets a week is sufficient, for others 10+ sets and hardly any progress. Some guys just recover much better, have more protein synthesis, have less fatigue, better joints, better partitioning, you name it.

I think the best way is to use as little volume as possible while still progressing. If progression stalls (over longer period of time), up the volume a little bit. Find your own sweet-spot in terms of frequency, volume and recovery.

zLeeKo 01-26-2018 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Determinism (Post 309216)

I think the best way is to use as little volume as possible while still progressing. If progression stalls (over longer period of time), up the volume a little bit. Find your own sweet-spot in terms of frequency, volume and recovery.

Correct.

But seriously, minimal effective volume > maximal recoverable volume.

Essentially, if you're doing X volume, stalling and feel really good, increase volume.

If you're doing X volume and feel beat up, reduce volume.

But only increase/reduce volume becuase you need to. Not just because.

LightCrow 01-26-2018 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriots2 (Post 309210)
Fair enough. Look, however, at all those performing onl 2-3 RPT per bodypart per week. Many get amazing results, even so called advanced.

Makes one wonder. The research is there on so-called optimal volume, frequency & intensity, but if you can get 85% of the results w/o the possibility of overdoing it, thatís fantastic. Also, itís way easier to stay focused if you only have 2 sets a week.

Anyway, who knows??? Whatever works for some, doesnít for others.

Even the big Schoenfeld meta-analysis on volume showed growth with just 1 set per week, it just got better when you went over 10 sets a week. I guess Martin dug into the numbers and said the difference between 3 and 10 in growth wasn't just huge, but if you have the time and optimal matters to you it can make the difference.

At the end of the day 1 hard set is going to probably be better than 10 foo foo sets where you never train hard.

patriots2 01-26-2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightCrow (Post 309221)
Even the big Schoenfeld meta-analysis on volume showed growth with just 1 set per week, it just got better when you went over 10 sets a week. I guess Martin dug into the numbers and said the difference between 3 and 10 in growth wasn't just huge, but if you have the time and optimal matters to you it can make the difference.

At the end of the day 1 hard set is going to probably be better than 10 foo foo sets where you never train hard.

Yep, well said. Adding in 1-2 hours of commuting, 50-hours woemrk/week and other life stresses makes lower volume appealing.

AlphaBettor 01-26-2018 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightCrow (Post 309221)
Even the big Schoenfeld meta-analysis on volume showed growth with just 1 set per week, it just got better when you went over 10 sets a week. I guess Martin dug into the numbers and said the difference between 3 and 10 in growth wasn't just huge, but if you have the time and optimal matters to you it can make the difference.

At the end of the day 1 hard set is going to probably be better than 10 foo foo sets where you never train hard.

That meta-analysis has the same limitation that most hypertrophy research has. In Brad's words (bold added by me):

Quote:

A limitation of the analysis is that the findings are largely specific to the muscles of the upper arms and frontal thighs; there simply isn’t enough evidence to generalize results to other body regions (i.e. muscles of the back, shoulders, chest, calves, etc). What’s more, the vast majority of studies were carried out in untrained subjects; only two studies used resistance-trained individuals. It has been speculated that increasingly higher volumes are necessary as one gains lifting experience, but more research is needed to support such a conclusion. My lab currently has a large scale study in development to investigate the topic in well-trained men that should help to fill in the gaps in the current literature. Stay tuned…
Sure, untrained subjects will grow on a couple sets a week because they'll gain muscle on pretty much anything more strenuous than walking between the couch and the refrigerator. It would be unusual for a truly advanced lifter to grow on a few sets a week although there are always exceptions-- favorable genetics, hormones, a disposition to go all-out in the weight room, and techniques to enhance intensity and what not can all factor in.

For the most part though, in advanced lifters these low volumes will often show no growth at all. The questions are more along the lines of, is it enough to maintain, and for how long.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.