BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 08-26-2018, 12:48 PM
HeavyLifting145 HeavyLifting145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 82
Default Brad's study on 1 vs 3 vs 5 sets

Lyle,

On Brad Scoenfeld's fb he talks about a new study which is about to come out where he suggests 45+ sets a week was more beneficial for hypertrophy in certain muscles than less sets.

I see most of his studies are conducive to this and the studies keep suggesting more volume. In one of James Kreigers posts on IG he commented that he suggests to add more quality volume to focus on 1-2 muscles and do a speciailzed cycle where everything else gets on maintenance in order to accomplish this. I right away thought about your spec cycles.

My questions are:
1- Do you still stand by your spec cycles for the advanced trainee? And if so, do you still recommend the same volume for the speciailized volume (and same volume for maintenance muscles)?

2. Would you perhaps change the spec cycle at all? Maybe adding 5 days instead of 4 to add more volume, or something else?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 08-26-2018, 12:55 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,074
Default

1. Yes
2. No

Because the program works as designed. It generates the most growth anybody is gonna get in that time frame so why change it?

I'll be happy to look at Brad's paper when it comes out. I am aware of all previous work on it and thoes studies don't say what people claim they say. Raedelli is crap, Ostrowski has it's own set of issues. We'll see what Brad adds to this.

A paper jsut came out, paid for and involving Mike Isratel where they pushed volume up to stupid levels. By week 3 they were at 20 sets. Week 6 32.

Gains stopped at 20 sets/week. Ok, that's not true, they gained LBM over the last 3 weeks most of which was water due to inflammation and swelling.

There's a cap to volume and growth and more is not and will NEVER be better.

The abstract is deparaetly, and IMO deliberately misleading as their discussion conclusion about volumes over 20 sets flat out says the gains were essentially nil and mostly water. Increaing volume nearly 50% past 20 had essentially zero effect.

volume is a losing battle and progression tension overload will ALWAYS win.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...00084/abstract

**


0 total views
Article has an altmetric score of 2


Want to win $100,000 to host your own conference?
Suggest a Research Topic
SHARE ON

0
0
0
0
New

Original Research ARTICLE Provisionally accepted The full-text will be published soon. Notify me
Front. Nutr. | doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00084
Effects of graded whey supplementation during extreme-volume resistance training
Cody T. Haun1, Christopher Vann1, Christopher B. Mobley1, Paul Roberson1, Shelby Osburn1, Hudson Holmes1, Petey Mumford1, Matthew Romero1, Kaelin Young1, 2, Jordan Moon3, L. B. Gladden1, Rusty Arnold1, Michael Israetel4, Annie Kirby2 and Michael D. Roberts1, 2*

1Auburn University, United States
2Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM), United States
3Impedimed, United States
45Renaissance Periodization, United States

We examined hypertrophic outcomes of weekly graded whey protein dosing (GWP) versus whey protein (WP) or maltodextrin (MALTO) dosed once daily during 6 weeks of high-volume resistance training (RT). College-aged resistance-trained males (training age=5ą3 yrs; meanąSD) performed 6 weeks of RT wherein frequency was 3 d/wk and each session involved 2 upper- and 2 lower-body exercises (10 repetitions/set). Volume increased from 10 sets/exercise (week 1) to 32 sets/exercise (week 6), which is the highest volume investigated in this timeframe. Participants were assigned to WP (25g/d; n=10), MALTO (30g/d; n=10), or GWP (25-150 g/d from weeks 1-6; n=11), and supplementation occurred throughout training. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vastus lateralis (VL) and biceps brachii ultrasounds for muscle thicknesses, and bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) were performed prior to training (PRE) and after weeks 3 (MID) and 6 (POST). VL biopsies were also collected for immunohistochemical staining. The GWP group experienced the greatest PRE to POST reduction in DXA fat mass (FM) (-1.00 kg, p<0.05), and a robust increase in DXA fat- and bone-free mass [termed lean body mass (LBM) throughout] (+2.93 kg, p<0.05). However, the MALTO group also experienced a PRE to POST increase in DXA LBM (+2.35 kg, p<0.05), and the GWP and MALTO groups experienced similar PRE to POST increases in type II muscle fiber cross-sectional area (~+300 μm2). When examining the effects of training on LBM increases (ΔLBM) in all participants combined, PRE to MID (+1.34 kg, p<0.001) and MID to POST (+0.85 kg, p<0.001) increases were observed. However, when adjusting ΔLBM for extracellular water (ECW) changes, intending to remove the confounder of edema, a significant increase was observed at PRE to MID (+1.18 kg, p<0.001) but not MID to POST (+0.25 kg; p=0.131). Based upon DXA data, GWP supplementation may be a viable strategy to optimize body composition during high-volume RT. However, large LBM increases observed in the MALTO group preclude us from suggesting that GWP supplementation is clearly superior in facilitating skeletal muscle hypertrophy. With regard to the implemented RT program, ECW-corrected ΔLBM gains were largely dampened, but still positive, in resistance-trained participants when RT exceeded ~20 sets/exercise/wk.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 08-26-2018, 12:57 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,074
Default

IF you can't get all the growth yer gonna get with 8-10 hard sets per muscle group in a workout twice a week or every 5th day, more volume is not the solution. not training like a lazy poof and getting your diet in order is.

Dante's Doggcrap builds MONSTERS with maybe 3 work sets per muscle group every 5th week.

So why do 7 times more than that?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 08-26-2018, 01:03 PM
HeavyLifting145 HeavyLifting145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
IF you can't get all the growth yer gonna get with 8-10 hard sets per muscle group in a workout twice a week or every 5th day, more volume is not the solution. not training like a lazy poof and getting your diet in order is.

Dante's Doggcrap builds MONSTERS with maybe 3 work sets per muscle group every 5th week.

So why do 7 times more than that?
Thanks for the in depth response. I'm surprised then why most people are NOT doing your spec cycle routine if it really is the best way to for hypertrophy. I'm assuming either because of ego, or misunderstanding of all this data. I think people also are so obsessed with volume that when they see maintenance volume they automatically freak out and think its not enough.

In your revivestronger interview you also made a good point about tendonitis. Thats another reason why I like the spec routine with 4 days; doing more volume and adding days might help in the short run but there's a big chance it could lead to injury.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 08-26-2018, 03:01 PM
LightCrow LightCrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyLifting145 View Post
Thanks for the in depth response. I'm surprised then why most people are NOT doing your spec cycle routine if it really is the best way to for hypertrophy. I'm assuming either because of ego, or misunderstanding of all this data. I think people also are so obsessed with volume that when they see maintenance volume they automatically freak out and think its not enough.

In your revivestronger interview you also made a good point about tendonitis. Thats another reason why I like the spec routine with 4 days; doing more volume and adding days might help in the short run but there's a big chance it could lead to injury.
Because even advanced nattys have the same misconception that more volume is better as you get more advanced. Also most want to assume at that level that they can bring everything up at once rather than having to specialize.

These things go in cycles. In another 10 years there will probably be another HIT guru getting everyone to go back to 1 set training. Moderate volumes with focus on overload have stood the test of time.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 08-26-2018, 03:08 PM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,804
Default

I tried going up to 20 sets for some stuff. Sucked hard got burnt out. Dont think ill go over mid teens again on the high end. Iirc best gains was ppl 6 to 8 sets.pplrpplr...so that's every 4th day. 10.5 to 14 sets a week converted

Last edited by w1cked : 08-26-2018 at 03:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 08-26-2018, 03:51 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyLifting145 View Post
Thanks for the in depth response. I'm surprised then why most people are NOT doing your spec cycle routine if it really is the best way to for hypertrophy. I'm assuming either because of ego, or misunderstanding of all this data. I think people also are so obsessed with volume that when they see maintenance volume they automatically freak out and think its not enough.

In your revivestronger interview you also made a good point about tendonitis. Thats another reason why I like the spec routine with 4 days; doing more volume and adding days might help in the short run but there's a big chance it could lead to injury.
Because the entire Internet is hung up on volume as the primary driver of growth which it isn't. At most, volume is important IF intensity and progression aer there. But nobody has f'ing read Brad's full papers where the first two are present. In that contet, more volume can be valuable UP To a point. But hte message has been lost and the Internet is full of idiots like Isratel pushing stuff that only works when you're on his drugs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 08-26-2018, 03:53 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by w1cked View Post
I tried going up to 20 sets for some stuff. Sucked hard got burnt out. Dont think ill go over mid teens again on the high end. Iirc best gains was ppl 6 to 8 sets.pplrpplr...so that's every 4th day. 10.5 to 14 sets a week converted
Bingo. Look at GBR volumes. 6-8 sets for big muscle groups = 12-16 per week. By the time you math out the compound stuff and direct arm work, it's about the same depending on how you count sets. I might bump delts a bit but overlap gets it done.

But you have twits like Isratel telling people to use volume as an acute stimulus. Build from 12-20, back down. Meh, set volume appropriately and get stronger. You'll grow.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 08-26-2018, 10:11 PM
HeavyLifting145 HeavyLifting145 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcdonald View Post
Because the entire Internet is hung up on volume as the primary driver of growth which it isn't. At most, volume is important IF intensity and progression aer there. But nobody has f'ing read Brad's full papers where the first two are present. In that contet, more volume can be valuable UP To a point. But hte message has been lost and the Internet is full of idiots like Isratel pushing stuff that only works when you're on his drugs.
Well, looks like maybe the next new thing/fag/whatever might be specialization cycles:

https://3dmusclejourney.com/muscle-g...cycles-part-1/

Eric Helms wrote that, and like I said in my OP James Kreiger talked about specialization as a good way to approach things. Maybe soon everyone on the internet will be doing your spec cycles.

And I agree, doing anymore than 15-20 sets a week is overkill. GBR and any balanced upper lower is great for when you could handle it. I guess spec cycles is the winner over everything else. I even think about people like Layne who do PHAT, and then I think to myself, look at how many times he has been injured
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 08-27-2018, 05:17 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyLifting145 View Post
Well, looks like maybe the next new thing/fag/whatever might be specialization cycles:

https://3dmusclejourney.com/muscle-g...cycles-part-1/

Eric Helms wrote that, and like I said in my OP James Kreiger talked about specialization as a good way to approach things. Maybe soon everyone on the internet will be doing your spec cycles.
Helm's has good stuff. I've been doing a slightly modified version of his novice routine for months now. I found there to be too much volume for me personally with the intermediate program (has you in the gym 5 days a week if I recall correctly).

I did cut intensity on this routine, and added more volume, but there's a caveat. I was more or less going to failure on most exercises, and I definitely wasn't hitting everything...or at least the volume at which I hit everything wasn't ideal. Helm's routine is more balanced, and has you cutting sets short of failure, with programmed deloads every fourth week (cutting sets and reps, but not weight on the bar).

I also modified the routine a bit to have more back work to fix my shoulder, plus I felt it was a little too geared towards chest stuff and some extra stuff for back was necessary, at least for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 AM.


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