HIGH VOLUME/multiple sets

S

scientific muscle

New Member
I have recently finished the 4 weeks 'volume phase' of Stephan Korte's powerlifting program. To make a long story short....do a crap load of sets for squats/deads and bench three times week at fairly low weight (60% of 1 rm). My thighs grew over an inch each and I was cutting and losing bodyweight at the time! They would have grown even more if I was bulking.

I cut this from my post in the SST section so I could post it here also:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
I have learned first hand that VOLUME (total workload) really is a HUGE factor in hypertrophy. The loads I have been using are light (around 60% of 1 rm) but the total workload each week for the thighs is tremendous. I have never had thigh growth like this, and I was CUTTING and losing weight while they grew.

I know Dan has voiced this several times, and at hypertrophy-research.com we have discussed this several times and I am decided now from my experience that high volume is KEY to hypertrophy.

I would recommend HSTers to keep up the 3 times/week training and sticking to basic, heavy, compound exercises. But one thing I would recommend is to INCREASE TOTAL REPS PER BODYPART, if you can handle it.
For example doing a simplified HST routine:
Alternating
Day 1:Squats, Rows, Bench, Military Press.
Day 2:Deadlifts, Chinups, Dips, DB Upright rows.
In this routine there are only 4 exercise per workout, I would recommend doing at least 30 reps per exercise. This means doing 2 sets of 15s, 3 sets of 10s and 6 sets of 5s. If you are doing something like 8 or more different exercises, then 15-20 reps per exercise is probably fine. (which is what Dan and Bryan usually recommend).

*PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!
</div>
 
A similar thing works for me too Carl. I now know that for my thighs I need to do around 25-30 reps per session. Trouble is, I can't manage it at my top loads for 5s so I do 15-20 heavy reps and follow that with enough slightly lighter reps to get 25-30 total reps. After the heavy sets I add a set of 10, with at least my 15RM load (ie. at least 70% of my 1RM). I love the last set. My form is good because the load is lighter and I can really go for it.

I'm going to try a similar thing for all my exercises (ie. try for 15/20 reps with my top loads and then add in 10 more reps with 15RM).

Adding in the extra work during 5s seems to be a good move for me.

I remember reading something Bryan said about doing as much volume as you can comfortably handle (can't remember where?) so it's up to each individual to find out what that is.

It can even be worth doing enough volume so that a bit of regression occurs (eg. planned over-reaching) as this can then lead to some good gains once accumulated fatigue has dissipated after cutting back/unloading. Is this what you are up to right now Sci?

I think it often gets misconstrued that HST is about low volume. Of course, for new trainees, results from lower volume can be spectacular but for intermediate and advanced trainees, more volume is likely to be your friend if you want to keep the results coming.

It's all a bit of a balancing act which is what makes it both great fun and sometimes really frustrating too. So much to learn...
 
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif
And everyone thought I was crazy!
 
Yeah, I really think there is something to all this 'dual-factor' stuff.
I think I am going to do an advanced 5x5 cycle after this. It is very similar to Korte's program in that there is 4 weeks of high volume (5x5) then four weeks of lower volume (3 sets of 3). Used by even elite athletes for strength.
 
Dual Factor is the bomb, in fact HST uses dual factor principles (though apparently not intentionally?).

Put simply, for those that don't know, when you exercise/workout, your body reacts in two ways, it improves/adapts (gets fitter, stronger), and it fatigues. Both are cumulative, and according to the theory after a while your body's increased fitness is hampered/masked by your increased fatigue, which is why after a period of inactivity/rest/SD, you actually come back fitter/stronger, because fatigue is reduced, but the adaptive changes have stayed.

This's why you have the volume phase, the deload phase, and the intensity phase.

I'm finding dual factor principles especially useful now that I'm cutting, because fatigue accumulates much quicker.
 
Awesome Sci! I'm gonna lower the weight and increase the volume
cool.gif


''in fact HST uses dual factor principles''

I'm pretty sure HST doesnt use dual factor principles. If you perform as Bryan recommends, keeping volume constant, the intensity builds and builds.

SD is to recondition the muscle.
 
You know Sci...this does make sense.

Kind of like when I did the reverse when I dropped from 40 reps 3 times a week to 20 reps 3 times a week I saw results.

I guess its good to do both in your training!
biggrin.gif
 
Very interesting study Dan.

What is frustrating (what isn't!) is that there are so few trainees per rep scheme tested in that last chart. Looks like they used two at most. It would be really great if they had a small sample of about 10 people per rep scheme to see if there were any obvious trends. As it is, I can't really see that there's a lot that can be learnt from it. It would appear that doing around 7 reps isn't much good but doing around 12 is 300 to 400% better!  
laugh.gif


If you did some kind of regression analysis on the plots, it looks like you would end up with a line passing through the origin and then maxing out at around 50 reps. Seems like a lot of reps to me. Here's my guesstimate of a few regression lines:

BicepVolume2.jpg


In the 'Increase in CSA vs the Intensity' chart, what's that test result with 180% of 1RM?! Is that correct? That's some heavy neg!  
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Lol @ Mar. 02 2007,17:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Very interesting study Dan.

What is frustrating (what isn't!) is that there are so few trainees per rep scheme tested in that last chart. Looks like they used two at most. It would be really great if they had a small sample of about 10 people per rep scheme to see if there were any obvious trends. As it is, I can't really see that there's a lot that can be learnt from it. It would appear that doing around 7 reps isn't much good but doing around 12 is 300 to 400% better!  
laugh.gif


If you did some kind of regression analysis on the plots, it looks like you would end up with a line passing through the origin and then maxing out at around 50 reps. Seems like a lot of reps to me. Here's my guesstimate of a few regression lines:

BicepVolume2.jpg


In the 'Increase in CSA vs the Intensity' chart, what's that test result with 180% of 1RM?! Is that correct? That's some heavy neg!  
biggrin.gif
</div>
It's also kind of misleading as they broke done the total CSA change into daily increases and this can skew how the volume actually interplayed. But yes I agree and they recognize the limitations of sample size and how it tends to change things. The point is as Sci points out in this thread, that there is absolutely a relationship to load and volume and what may be the best acutely may not play out in a chronic situation. But obviously there is a threshhold of sorts, not enough, too much or just right (which probably varies widely).
 
The more science of hypertrophy I learn, the more I see why Bill Starr's old 5x5 strength routine has been legendary for strength and mass for decades. Everyone in strength sports knows who Bill Starr is, and have heard of his outrageously successful 5x5 training programs. For decades very little has changed and guys are still packing on tons of muscle and strength using variations of this program.

The 5x5 programs are very strength specific and also fits almost every HST principle that Bryan has laid out.
1) Heavy mechanical loading: compound barbell exercises using between 65% and 85% of 1 rm.
2) Chronic loading: three times/week full body exercise.
3) Progressive resistance: increasing relative load on a weekly basis. Then deloading or restarting at lighter weights.
4) &quot;just right&quot; volume: 25 reps per exercise. (not too little, not too much).

Through trial and error, research, coaching and years of training in strength sports it seems Starr found an excellent way to train for muscle strength and mass without going deeply into the science of it all.
Even with all the latest scientific research, it only confirms to the effectiveness of the training and 'new' training methods like HST, and Max-stim follow the same effective principles.

I went to an elite powerlifting forum recently and asked how best a newbie powerlifter should train, and the answer was a unanimous '5x5!' from some seriously strong guys who built the base with such programs.

Really ANY program which follows the principles WILL work. Which is why guys are seeing great results on HST, Max-stim, Madcow's 5x5, Waterbury, Lyle Mcdonald's routine, etc. etc.
 
Regarding hypertrophy itself, I've always thought that the &quot;perfect&quot; workout program would incorporated different sets, reps, and load percentages for different muscles. I notice that in the graphs, that is exactly what is proven.
Someday, someone is going to produce a &quot;new&quot; program with these things in mind, done from studies like this...and the final analysis is going to be the same...doing it this way works for me, doing it that way works for you, etc. But just like HST, it will pretty much work as a framework for all.
Actually, the only thing missing from HST might be this consideration. For now, we do every bodypart with the same reps, sets, and loads.
It's something to think about.....Bryan!
biggrin.gif
 
Hey Sci, if you want an idea on how to go all out on volume, you may want to give the following a try. It's basically Pavel's idea of hypertrophy training, the lots and lots of sets of low to moderate reps.

In short, 10 sets of 5. Yes, I said 10.

How to make this work:

* Loading has to be fairly cautious. I find it doable in the 10-15 RM range, once you start dipping much below 10 it gets pretty hard to crank out 50 total reps in 10 sets. Note that you can theoretically start heavier than this and lower your loads over time, but I find it a little easier to start lighter and keep it there. Obviously, over time, you want these loads to be increasing on a week to week basis.

* Minimize the number of exercises per session. I.e. with a normal upper/lower split, I'd recommend two exercises per day, with some assistance work thrown in as you see fit. I'll demonstrate this more below.

* Superset the two sets of 5 between antagonistic pairs. For lower body work, pairing knee extension dominant with knee flexion or hip extension dominant (this is an oversimplification but it works well enough in principle), e.g. squats and leg curls, or leg presses and deadlifts. For upper body, pairing push and pull exercises, e.g. benches and rows, or overhead press and pullups.

Examples:

Lower Body Day Example
--------------------
Squats - 10 sets of 5 supersetted with
Leg Curls - 10 sets of 5
Extra calf work (NOT 10 sets of 5, though I have been doing 5 sets of 10)
Some ab work

Upper Body Day
--------------------
Bench Press - 10 sets of 5 supersetted with
Chest Supported Rows - 10 sets of 5
Extra arm-specific work as needed

Most signs appear to point to twice a week per muscle group being the most bang for your buck, so a 4 day per week upper/lower split seems optimal for this setup. It's worth pointing out here that I am rotating through different exercises as I see fit with the intention of bringing up a core set of exercises in load over time, but have no pre-planned pattern as to what lifts I do on what day other than deciding based on how I feel at the time.

If you're really ambitious, you could try what I'm doing, which is three days a week full body like this, but this is only really possible because I'm lifting twice a day. And it's pretty damn tiring. Though on the plus side, seems to be expending a retarded amount of calories.

I basically came up with this ideas as a contrast to higher density training, as I figure both density and volume are probably viable routes to coolness, and alternating between the two as one or the other goes stale is probably a good idea. An example of viable density based training would be early HIT/Arthur Jones stuff, or more recently, Doggcrapp style training. Volume based training would traditionally be more split type routines, but I figure you can do just as well with some fatigue management by going nuts on an upper/lower split or even full body if you have lots of free time.

So anyways, yah, just an idea I thought you might find interesting to try at some point in the future
tounge.gif


P.S. This form of training can lead to retarded amounts of soreness.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Mar. 03 2007,08:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Hey Sci, if you want an idea on how to go all out on volume, you may want to give the following a try.  It's basically Pavel's idea of hypertrophy training, the lots and lots of sets of low to moderate reps.

In short, 10 sets of 5.  Yes, I said 10.

How to make this work:

* Loading has to be fairly cautious.  I find it doable in the 10-15 RM range, once you start dipping much below 10 it gets pretty hard to crank out 50 total reps in 10 sets.  Note that you can theoretically start heavier than this and lower your loads over time, but I find it a little easier to start lighter and keep it there.  Obviously, over time, you want these loads to be increasing on a week to week basis.

* Minimize the number of exercises per session.  I.e. with a normal upper/lower split, I'd recommend two exercises per day, with some assistance work thrown in as you see fit.  I'll demonstrate this more below.

* Superset the two sets of 5 between antagonistic pairs.  For lower body work, pairing knee extension dominant with knee flexion or hip extension dominant (this is an oversimplification but it works well enough in principle), e.g. squats and leg curls, or leg presses and deadlifts.  For upper body, pairing push and pull exercises, e.g. benches and rows, or overhead press and pullups.

Examples:

Lower Body Day Example
--------------------
Squats - 10 sets of 5 supersetted with
Leg Curls - 10 sets of 5
Extra calf work (NOT 10 sets of 5, though I have been doing 5 sets of 10)
Some ab work

Upper Body Day
--------------------
Bench Press - 10 sets of 5 supersetted with
Chest Supported Rows - 10 sets of 5
Extra arm-specific work as needed

Most signs appear to point to twice a week per muscle group being the most bang for your buck, so a 4 day per week upper/lower split seems optimal for this setup.  It's worth pointing out here that I am rotating through different exercises as I see fit with the intention of bringing up a core set of exercises in load over time, but have no pre-planned pattern as to what lifts I do on what day other than deciding based on how I feel at the time.

If you're really ambitious, you could try what I'm doing, which is three days a week full body like this, but this is only really possible because I'm lifting twice a day.  And it's pretty damn tiring.  Though on the plus side, seems to be expending a retarded amount of calories.

I basically came up with this ideas as a contrast to higher density training, as I figure both density and volume are probably viable routes to coolness, and alternating between the two as one or the other goes stale is probably a good idea.  An example of viable density based training would be early HIT/Arthur Jones stuff, or more recently, Doggcrapp style training.  Volume based training would traditionally be more split type routines, but I figure you can do just as well with some fatigue management by going nuts on an upper/lower split or even full body if you have lots of free time.

So anyways, yah, just an idea I thought you might find interesting to try at some point in the future
tounge.gif


P.S. This form of training can lead to retarded amounts of soreness.</div>
MikeyNov,

I remember reading a thread two or so years ago on HST by an expert. I did a search under all of the HST experts yourself included and I couldn't find it anymore.

I was thinking it was Biz who once recommended a 50 rep HST cycle. He said it was doable in a upper body only routine.

Do you remember this thread? Sorry I couldn't find it!
 
My question, dont hate me, so what do we take from this thread.


Everytime someone tries a new routine and it works, which 50% of the time, in the beginning you will see some improvement, it becomes the holy grail.  Then after a couple months, you either try something new or go back to what you were doing before, and there is a 50% chance you will see positive results, again, then it becomes a discussion about keeping things simple, stay persistant and change little.  Viscious cycle.   Ive done this, probably do it in the future, just frustrates a person, as the more you read, the more you realize, how little we know about the why of hypertrophy.

It almost lends credibility to the concpet, that a person should mix their routine up. How can that be? HST is scientifically proven. Is that proven to work over a brief time period or proven to work indefinitely, with proper diet and progression?
 
<div>
(style @ Mar. 02 2007,14:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">''in fact HST uses dual factor principles''

I'm pretty sure HST doesnt use dual factor principles. If you perform as Bryan recommends, keeping volume constant, the intensity builds and builds.

SD is to recondition the muscle.</div>
I think it does, though. At the beginning of each 2-week block you generally have a couple of easy workouts before reaching your max again.

Bryan's said a couple of times that zig-zagging isn't a bad thing in HST, and that it helps recover from any minor injuries.
 
<div>
(need2eat @ Mar. 03 2007,09:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It almost lends credibility to the concpet, that a person should mix their routine up. How can that be? HST is scientifically proven. Is that proven to work over a brief time period or proven to work indefinitely, with proper diet and progression?</div>
I was thinking the same thing. The more I read this forum, the more confused I get. People talk about the rigorous &quot;science&quot;of HST, but here you have someone varying the routine to the degree he ends up doing a 5x5---the very routine I came to HST to avoid, since its repeated maximum lifts stressed my body out.

I've done two full cycles of HST now. I think it's a great program and I've made some gains, but nothing like I did doing either 5x5 or the so called &quot;dogcrap&quot; routine.
 
I don't see anything confusing about it... like I said ANY program which follows the PRINCIPLES will work. Varying routines and playing with applied volume/frequency/load is fun and experimental, but none of us are straying from the HST (or SST) principles.
 
need2eat &amp; mb2, I am sure you are aware that some of the folks commenting here are very seasoned lifters whereas others are not. That will mean that some of the suggestions made here may well be overkill for a lot of folks. Most of Mikeynov's posts are coming from a great deal of experience and experimentation. Maybe in a few years time I will give some of his suggestions a try but right now I am still relatively new to lifting and am more concerned with learning how my body reacts to different levels of volume using the present science behind hypertrophy.

As Sci says, there are lots of ways to apply the principles underlying HST and many of them are being applied by other methods so there isn't any harm in mixing things up for a bit of a change. It's good to try other things once you have really figured out how to apply progressive load and to manage fatigue well over the course of a cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top