Quick question on 'working sets' per week for hypertrophy?

[thebeginning88]

I'm several years into lifting off and on, would call myself an intermediate lifter. Probably have 20-25lbs of lean muscle growth to go before I get close to my genetic peak, so I have plenty of room to grow.

I'm currently doing a full body split, it's always worked best for me - but I'm worried that my volume may still be on the low side?

In general, I work out MWF, with the following:

1) A big lower body movement (deadlifts, squats, etc)
2) A big back or chest movement (bench, pullups, etc)
3) A secondary back or chest movement (whichever I didn't do above, T-Bar rows, incline DB press, etc)
4) A bicep, delt, or tricep accessory
5) A bicep, delt, or tricep accessory

I generally hit biceps, triceps, and shoulders twice a week, sometimes three, rotating

My question:

What does it mean when someone says the ideal volume for hypertrophy is "10-20 sets per muscle group per week"?

What counts as a set?

For example, this is what I do for dips:

Bodyweight x 10 for a warmup
60 lbs weighted x 14 (until failure)
60 lbs weighted x 6 (until failure again)
60 lbs weighted x 4 (final burnout until failure)
Then immediate dropset back to bodyweight until failure again


Another example, this time for deadlifts:

135 x 8 (warmup)
225 x 5 (warmup)
315 x 8 (to failure)
275 x 8 (to failure)


I generally do the big three with only two or three sets to failure (or near failure, up to 2 RIR at the most).


Do only those sets that are to failure (or close to it) count as sets? If so, I'm doing around 2-3 'sets' per exercise, meaning only 6-9 working sets per week per muscle group. That seems like not enough, no?

What about compound movements that obviously hit other muscle groups? E.G. Should I count military press or dips sets toward my tricep sets per week?

If anything I'm worried I'm undertraining, and just want to dial this in before I make my new regimen.

[air2fakie]

I'm currently doing a full body split, it's always worked best for me

If you feel this has always worked best for you, I don’t see why the rest of this is a concern.

[thebeginning88]

If you feel this has always worked best for you, I don’t see why the rest of this is a concern.

It's not a matter of whether I should stop full body splits or not, it's a matter of whether I should increase my number of sets per exercise, or exercises per workout. More of a volume question than a regimen comparison

[air2fakie]

It's not a matter of whether I should stop full body splits or not, it's a matter of whether I should increase my number of sets per exercise, or exercises per workout. More of a volume question than a regimen comparison

My point was that if something "has always worked best for you" it implies that you're happy with progress, so in that case the volume of whatever "regimen" you've been doing would be fine and you wouldn't be undertraining.

Actual results are a more important guide than what someone online says is optimal volume or a math formula, since what works for you may be different than what works for someone else.

To answer your Qs, if you want to count volume, most generally don't count warmup sets. But you also shouldn't be tiring yourself out on a bunch of reps for warmups anyway. Most people only count isolation exercises for small muscles, and don't count compounds towards them unless perhaps they're specifically doing a movement for that muscle (to use your example, if you're purposely doing vertical-positioned dips for triceps).

But again, the math isn't important if something is working for you. You can look at proper 3-day fb programs to get an idea of what MEV likely is for your preferred split. If you feel you may be undertraining, increase volume gradually and see if you think you get better results. Not "lifting off and on" would be much more of a concern tbh.

[twovalvekid]

Think less, lift more, track any (and i mean any) progress.

If you think you can do more work/volume, do it.

[TAWS6]

It really depends on the lifter and how strong they are. I started with low volume, moved to 12-15 sets per week. Once I was moving heavy weights I really couldn’t do any more productive volume without lowering the weights. If you want more volume I’d personally more to an upper lower split instead of trying to cram more into a fb day.

[BeginnerGainz]

I have made my best gains doing 4-8 hard sets a week per body part.

I don’t buy into the whole you need X amount of sets, minimal effective volume crap out there.

Also, I wouldn’t count compound pressing movements as triceps volume unless they specifically target the triceps (dips, JM press)

[paulinkansas]

I have made my best gains doing 4-8 hard sets a week per body part.

Me too. It's my observation that a lot of volume is not necessary. I still make gains doing 6-8 sets a week per body part. But I'm a feeble little 55 year old guy.

[CW47]

I'll echo the sentiment that with the amount of experience you have your results mean far more than any study. And it's largely for the reason you point out - there is SO much grey area regarding what constitutes a set. Do you take into account the proximity to failure, the actually number of reps, carry over on compound lifts? How do you objectively measure proximity to failure? How do you account for differences in form and how that impacts each muscle, and on and on.

The advice I follow is to do what works until it no longer works, and then do a little more (or a little less). Maybe in the future all of this will be much more fleshed out, but saying that everyone should do a specific number of sets within a specific time frame is just a far too general a guideline to follow and doesn't give enough credence to the different ways in which individuals react to training.

[TAWS6]

Everyone went crazy with the volume a few years back. Then everyone goes crazy with high frequency. It’s all just for fitness influencers to stay relevant. There is nothing new and exciting. All the same old programs that worked in 2008 still work today. Most are 6-8 hard sets/twice per week.