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
  #11  
Unread 01-26-2018, 04:24 PM
nsteel nsteel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Default

Many on this thread posit that advanced trainees require more volume to make progress.

Even a small amount of googling will quickly reveal that many top bodybuilders thrive upon low volume high intensity, Dorian Yates being the most well known.

And yes I know this is not a study but more an anecdote and other factors come into play, most notably steroids.

Which brings me to my question. Are there any studies which show some sort of volume threshold for advanced trainees?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 01-26-2018, 05:33 PM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
Many on this thread posit that advanced trainees require more volume to make progress.

Even a small amount of googling will quickly reveal that many top bodybuilders thrive upon low volume high intensity, Dorian Yates being the most well known.

And yes I know this is not a study but more an anecdote and other factors come into play, most notably steroids.

Which brings me to my question. Are there any studies which show some sort of volume threshold for advanced trainees?
Many top bodybuilders have also been known to do very high volume, but this is kind of disingenuous. The huge amounts of drugs that professional bodybuilders take and genetics (including the response to said drugs) makes the training not matter so much.

As far as studies showing some sort of volume threshold for advanced trainees: there was the Rhea analysis that showed 8 sets, twice a week being ideal but that was for strength. It's not the same as hypertrophy but surely there's some carryover (this actually lands squarely in the range of Lyle's specialization routine.)

As far as a more direct hypertrophy measure, I'm not aware of one. Brad says he's working on it so we'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 01-27-2018, 02:37 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

I believe the number of 40-70 reps per muscle group 2x a week has been mentioned as well.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 01-27-2018, 04:22 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 630
Default

For hypertrophy, there may be situations where you're unable to add weight at the moment and adding volume for a few weeks might be better before dropping it and adding weight.

Lee Haney said "Stimulate, don't annhilate". Did 8 sets of 8 twice a week.

Interesting, 64 reps, right a the top of the 40-70 rep range. And he was on drugs. But the studies supporting those numbers were not on drugged people.

And about stupid MRV concept, here's how to do it :

Raise volume until you break. Then reduce by 10%.

Assuming that you didn't break yourself permanently.

Why bother? If you're an elite, maybe push the volume. Of course, that's how bad coaches break athletes and once broken they often stay broken.

I'd rather someone stay at a volume that produces gains in the long term without any risk of injury or overtraining or whatever than see what the breaking point is.

Even crap like planned overreaching, double shock microcycles and all that crap is ONLY for the elitest of the elite (and usually synched with their drug cycles).

For the natural who will never be more than a little better than suck, screw this. Go get a life, have a hobby. Don't be in the gym all day every day just to be mediocre.

By statistical average, most of us will never get beyond suck. Train moderately, make progress, have fun, have a life.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 01-27-2018, 06:58 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
I believe the number of 40-70 reps per muscle group 2x a week has been mentioned as well.
Yep. Itís been cited a lot and itís probably the best out there. Regardless, every study design has multiple limitations, such as but not limited too:

- self interest of designer
- study design
- experience of subjects
- measurement error (Dexa measures water with lbm, for example)
- age of subjects
- compliance of subjects
- calories consumed
- effort of subjects
- individual responses
- Data mining

Itís nearly impossible to account for all the potential confounders. Overall, who knows. Like many have said, find the minimal amount you can recover from and make progress on and take it from there.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 01-27-2018, 07:02 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

Agreed.

Exception is when you stall long term and tried everything. You may (temporarily) increase volume on specific exercises. Or try something like the Bulgarian method for a week. Of course, it's all just a way to specialize specific muscle groups, nothing new.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 01-27-2018, 07:03 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
Yep. Itís been cited a lot and itís probably the best out there. Regardless, every study design has multiple limitations, such as but not limited too:

- self interest of designer
- study design
- experience of subjects
- measurement error (Dexa measures water with lbm, for example)
- age of subjects
- compliance of subjects
- calories consumed
- effort of subjects
- individual responses
- Data mining

Itís nearly impossible to account for all the potential confounders. Overall, who knows. Like many have said, find the minimal amount you can recover from and make progress on and take it from there.
Agreed (again). Nothing to add
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 01-27-2018, 07:13 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
I believe the number of 40-70 reps per muscle group 2x a week has been mentioned as well.
It's a useful data point and probably the best we have right now, but even that was based on mostly on untrained or just prior endurance training. From Wernbom review:

Quote:
1.4 Classification of Training Status

In the majority of the studies, the subjects were reported as either untrained/sedentary or as physically active. Physically active subjects generally performed some form of endurance training, but not any systematic strength training. Since many studies reported varying levels of activity among the participants and because endurance training induces little if any muscle hypertrophy, the categories 'untrained' and 'physically active' were combined for analyses. Deschenes and Kraemer made the following classification of training status with reference to resistance training: untrained, moderately trained, trained, advanced, and elite. They suggested that the window of adaptation for strength becomes progressively smaller as the subject progresses. However, because of the lack of studies involving athletes of different training status, data from studies with trained, advanced, and elite athletes are discussed together in the present review.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 01-27-2018, 07:16 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zLeeKo View Post
For hypertrophy, there may be situations where you're unable to add weight at the moment and adding volume for a few weeks might be better before dropping it and adding weight.

Lee Haney said "Stimulate, don't annhilate". Did 8 sets of 8 twice a week.

Interesting, 64 reps, right a the top of the 40-70 rep range. And he was on drugs. But the studies supporting those numbers were not on drugged people.

And about stupid MRV concept, here's how to do it :

Raise volume until you break. Then reduce by 10%.

Assuming that you didn't break yourself permanently.

Why bother? If you're an elite, maybe push the volume. Of course, that's how bad coaches break athletes and once broken they often stay broken.

I'd rather someone stay at a volume that produces gains in the long term without any risk of injury or overtraining or whatever than see what the breaking point is.

Even crap like planned overreaching, double shock microcycles and all that crap is ONLY for the elitest of the elite (and usually synched with their drug cycles).

For the natural who will never be more than a little better than suck, screw this. Go get a life, have a hobby. Don't be in the gym all day every day just to be mediocre.

By statistical average, most of us will never get beyond suck. Train moderately, make progress, have fun, have a life.
Of course. We all have to figure out just how much time and effort we want to put into this. There's also the issue of what is ideal versus what can actually be recovered from, and optimal hypertrophy volume across many muscle groups ends up being a whole lot of work. There are ways to periodize around this though and one thing that is often overlooked is that not every muscle group needs the full volume. That's a whole separate, lengthy discussion though.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 01-27-2018, 07:22 AM
LightCrow LightCrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaBettor View Post
It's a useful data point and probably the best we have right now, but even that was based on mostly on untrained or just prior endurance training. From Wernbom review:
You seem quite happy to preach all the volume for advanced. So if not Wernbornís rep targets (which Lyleís advanced routine is in line with) what would you tell an advanced to do?
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 10:47 AM.


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