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 01-26-2018, 06:35 AM
nsteel nsteel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 01-26-2018, 06:57 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 01-26-2018, 07:04 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 01-26-2018, 07:43 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 01-26-2018, 07:43 AM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsteel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 01-26-2018, 08:02 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 01-26-2018, 08:15 AM
zLeeKo's Avatar
zLeeKo zLeeKo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post

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.
__________________
"He never had the makings of a varsity athlete"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 01-26-2018, 11:43 AM
LightCrow LightCrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriots2 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 01-26-2018, 11:53 AM
patriots2 patriots2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightCrow View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 01-26-2018, 01:57 PM
AlphaBettor AlphaBettor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightCrow View Post
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.

Last edited by AlphaBettor : 01-26-2018 at 02:10 PM.
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 02:11 AM.


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