Greg Nuckols on how to count volume

[Animal2692]

I know this is redundant for some but I find this article useful for those that like having their own routine.

https://muscleandstrengthpyramids.co...-greg-nuckols/

Tl;DR:

"Lastly, there’s the way I personally like to measure training volume: number of hard sets, or sets within a couple reps of failure."

[OldFartTom]

Personally I normally use the word following the Practical Programing use of the word (which is equivalent to total tonnage moved), but both have their own merits as long as we're aware that there are 2 usages out there and don't jumble or confuse the two

Good article link (on spread), but I thought you'd previously subscribed to a less sets more intensity approach?

[WolfRose7]

Personally I normally use the word following the Practical Programing use of the word (which is equivalent to total tonnage moved), but both have their own merits as long as we're aware that there are 2 usages out there and don't jumble or confuse the two

Good article link (on spread), but I thought you'd previously subscribed to a less sets more intensity approach?

As long as we don't program according to tonnage-volume I think that's fine, but Gregs usage comes from wanting an "effective" volume measurement.

[mdonnelly80]

I'll be blunt here, fellas; I think there's too much dogma in the world of strength and conditioning, fitness, resistance training, etc..etc.. I know that there is a ton of scientific grounding in the studies that are done but that doesn't mean that those studies are to be taken as the word from the burning bush. It's great to be a student of the science but also remain a student of the science.

This is anecdotal but, I've gained size and strength from all kinds of programs out there. I've done "sweet spot" 5x5 programs like SS, Stronglifts, and Madcow where I hammered away at reasonably high volumes and intensities. Conversely, I've also gotten bigger and stronger from the basic 5/3/1 template which is considered a "submaximal" program; I probably only trained at 85%+ of my 1RM a few times per month.

We all know one thing is true; we get bigger and stronger if we train hard, eat a decent diet and recover properly.

[WolfRose7]

I'll be blunt here, fellas; I think there's too much dogma in the world of strength and conditioning, fitness, resistance training, etc..etc.. I know that there is a ton of scientific grounding in the studies that are done but that doesn't mean that those studies are to be taken as the word from the burning bush. It's great to be a student of the science but also remain a student of the science.

This is anecdotal but, I've gained size and strength from all kinds of programs out there. I've done "sweet spot" 5x5 programs like SS, Stronglifts, and Madcow where I hammered away at reasonably high volumes and intensities. Conversely, I've also gotten bigger and stronger from the basic 5/3/1 template which is considered a "submaximal" program; I probably only trained at 85%+ of my 1RM a few times per month.

We all know one thing is true; we get bigger and stronger if we train hard, eat a decent diet and recover properly.

This is true. And dogma is dumb, but we do have excellent sources that aren't dogmatic that can help Improve our knowledge and training.

Mike Tuscherer for example has single handedly advanced powerlifting and general
strength training years because of some of his articles and how many people have taken from that, partly because its not dogmatic.

Greg Nuckols and Mike israetel also do great jobs of avoiding dogma and staying doubtful and changeable in their opinions.

[all pro]

Greg Nuckols's math is way off and it's next to impossible to calculate using a bodybuilding type of pyramid. When doing sets across with limit poundage you will loose 2 reps from set 1 to set 2 and you will loose 1 rep for each additional set provided you rest long enough between sets. Maxed out, strong lifts 5x5 @75%, Starting strength or Reg Park 3x5 @80%, Bill Starr, Glenn Pendalay (Madcow) 1x5 @87.5%. There are 2 types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar and they aren't mutually exclusive. There are also fiber type conversions. AND there is CNS adaption. All of that is based on your style of training and if you stay with just one method for too long the program usually stalls. That being said, SIZE = VOLUME. Show me a small power lifter benching 750 or squatting 1000 pounds! What it looks like is an entirely different story. Most people on this site don't want to look like a heavy weight power lifter or an NFL lineman and they will NEVER look like the guys in the muscle mags unless they're willing to use vitamin 'S'. The single most important thing for a natty is diet! In so far as training methods go for any intermediate lifter, Soviet style concurrent training. That's were Louie Simmons got his training setup for West Side barbell. None of this stuff is new.

[arthurddayne]

Guys, even I have a query regarding "load", saw a video wherein the guy says that 3 sets for 8 reps and 8 sets for 3 reps both give a volume of 24 reps, hence it's actually a combination of strength training and hypertrophy. I find it difficult to believe, because 8 sets for 3 reps means you are going at approx 90% of your 1 rm, and the rest period for two schedules are vastly different. So how can the end result of both these programs will be similar even though the total volume is the same.

[SuffolkPunch]

I think what confuses people is that the effectiveness of each rep ramps up sharply towards the end of the set as you approach maximum RPE.

People can only deal intuitively with linear relationships and this isn't one.

And of course it has to be offset against the fatigue caused in the context of a routine run over time.

[all pro]

I think what confuses people is that the effectiveness of each rep ramps up sharply towards the end of the set as you approach maximum RPE.

People can only deal intuitively with linear relationships and this isn't one.

And of course it has to be offset against the fatigue caused in the context of a routine run over time.

There seems to be one piece missing in these discussions, https://www.t-nation.com/training/es...ning-revisited

[WolfRose7]

There seems to be one piece missing in these discussions, https://www.t-nation.com/training/es...ning-revisited

I gave up at "trick the body into recovering faster."
really?

a T-nation article

[all pro]

I gave up at "trick the body into recovering faster."
really?

a T-nation article

Not Tnation, Charles Staley. He used to post here. https://www.bodybuilding.com/author/charles-staley

[WolfRose7]

Not Tnation, Charles Staley. He used to post here. https://www.bodybuilding.com/author/charles-staley

I'll try and reserve judgement. Bb.com profiles aren't generally indicative of much useful knowledge.. Quite the opposite in most cases. But I'll do my own research later