How to produce the best muscle growth stimulus

[SuffolkPunch]

TLDR: Keep your routine basically the same but make small incremental changes constantly - this is to keep the stimulus fresh.

For a novice this means increasing the weight every time... Intermediate+ need to increase reps first then increase weight (you can reduce reps back down after increasing weights). Keep it challenging but rarely max out. Move into different rep ranges over time. If all else fails, increase volume (number of hard sets per week). When you start to overreach, deload and reset to a lower volume.


If we are trying to gain muscle, what is the one thing that we want the most each time we set foot in the gym? We want the strongest MUSCLE GROWTH STIMULUS that we can produce. Then we can go and eat ourselves silly and gain the most new tissue possible.


Part I: Lift big, eat big?

What produces a muscle growth stimulus? The simple answer is lifting weights. Lifting HEAVY weights? Doesn't have to be, both research and anecdote indicate that high rep pump sets, myo reps and bloodflow restriction training all have their place. At the other end of the spectrum, you can also gain muscle from doing many sets of low reps.

In fact rep range doesn't really appear to be a major factor at all. All kinds of protocols have been shown to work. Some rep ranges make it easier or are less fatiguing while getting the job done though, so in practical terms what we find is that the 5-15 rep range will contain the sweet spot for most muscle groups or exercises.

The size of the weight used is what will tend to dictate how many reps we can get in a given exercise. This is our first programming factor: INTENSITY - usually expressed as the percentage of your 1 rep maximum lift (1RM). To work within the 5-15 rep range, we would usually use somewhere between 60% and 85% of our 1RM.

Best indications are that a mixture of rep ranges for each bodypart appears to work best. There are many ways to achieve this, one example is to do 5-8 rep main compounds and 10-15 rep accessories/isolations. You could also mix rep ranges from one workout to the next or even from one set to the next. There truly are many ways to skin a cat.


Volume

If we can use such a wide variety of rep ranges, then what produces the best stimulus? All indications are that total VOLUME is what does this. This is a tricky thing to study though. Using something like reps x sets x weight often doesn't tell us the full story. If we are sticking to the recommended 5-15 reps per set then we can actually use the number of HARD SETS (i.e. sets taken to failure or close to it) that we do per bodypart, per week.

The recommendations are to use 8 - 20 hard sets per bodypart per week. With novices picking from the low end and advanced athletes picking from the high end. So from this hopefully you can see that volume must generally rise over time as you get more advanced.


Exertion

Does every set have to be a hard set? No - and later I'll be explaining why it could be a good idea if that's not the case sometimes. So the level of EXERTION is a factor too. In fact at this point, we've now introduced the "holy trinity" of programming factors: intensity, volume and exertion.

Exertion can be measured using the RPE scale. Have a look at Mike Tuchscherers work on RPE as it relates to intensity and reps for your homework. In short, a set taken to RPE 10 means you could not do another rep if you tried. Whereas RPE 8 means you had 2 reps left in the tank.

It seems to be the case that exertion needs to be fairly high for high rep sets to be effective - you need to "feel the burn" and struggle through at least some of the lactic acid pain.

However, with heavy low rep sets, you don't need to use high RPEs and in fact this may kill the total volume you are able to do in a session if you try. You get that "fried CNS" feel. I only recommend hitting failure with heavy weights now and again, perhaps to test your progress (I like to use rep maxes rather than 1RMs). Your final set can come close if you want.


Submaximal sets: tempo and volume

If you don't take sets to failure and are using a submaximal load, the best thing to do appears to be to move each rep as fast as possible (without form breaking down). This means that muscle fibres are still maximally recruited. The only difference between that and a heavier rep would therefore be the time it takes to complete the rep.

So the defining characteristic of any given setup is "time spent under maximal tension" which is different to the more simple idea of "time under tension" that sometimes gets mentioned. Actually, deliberately slowing reps does not appear improve fibre recruitment.

In practical terms, we aren't going to be measuring the time spent moving the weight, we still need to use a nice simple method of measuring volume such as the number of hard sets done. So if sets are not taken to failure, we need a method of at least estimating volume. I think that if you do an RPE 7 set then that counts as about half the volume of what an RPE 10 set would. So you would do twice as many sets to achieve the same volume load.


Workload, recovery time and frequency

It's tempting to say that you should do as much volume as you can possibly do so that you are crawling out of the gym at the end of your session feeling ready to puke.

However, this is not a smart approach for several reasons. There is a limit to how much growth can be stimulated each time. You also need to be able to repeat the stimulus reasonably often so that you keep growing continuously. Novices may only have to do this once every 4 days or so but this 'anabolic window' gets shorter for more experienced lifters.

Excessive muscle damage caused by a single crazy session may be desirable once in a while (due to complex reasons around satellite cell proliferation) but it may take a lot of recovery time and should not be the most common type of training session you do. It's better to use enough volume to cause a stimulus but leave some in reserve in case you need to increase it further down the line (see discussion on RBE below).

There are also good reasons for spreading your weekly workload for a given bodypart into more than one session - for one thing you will be doing more of your sets 'from fresh' and produce a better average performance. This is better than doing all your sets back to back where most of them will be affected by fatigue from previous ones.

So the more total workload you need, you more you are going to need to split it up. Also, you are likely to be more advanced if you need more workload so your recovery times will be shorter. Therefore, it makes sense for more advanced lifters to use a higher weekly FREQUENCY than less advanced lifters.

Generally speaking then, a novice that is past the initial neural training stage should be training every bodypart around twice a week, perhaps as low as 3 times in 2 weeks. This will tend to rise to around 2-3 times a week for more experienced lifter. It can go even higher although the benefits of this are not entirely clear at this point in time. Ultimately total weekly volume is by far the most important factor.

[SuffolkPunch]

Part II Long term progression

By now you may have some idea of what you think your training schedule should look like. You should be able to create a rotation with a split, sets, reps and all that in place, right?

Well yes and no... The number one problem with any static setup like this is that it always eventually stops working. This is known as the REPEATED BOUTS EFFECT (RBE). If you've recently had time off or a deload then the stimulus will be strong and probably not require a huge amount of volume. Each time you repeat it however, it gets weaker until eventually it plateaus altogether.

How do we get around this repeated bouts effect? Generally speaking we need some kind of VARIATION in our training to keep changing the stimulus to keep it fresh. Does this mean that the bros who talked about "muscle confusion" and "shocking the body" were right? Well, not entirely no.

The principle of DIRECTED ADPATATION is more important than variation at least in the short term. What this means is that we must practice the same thing to get better at it. Doing the same exercises in about the same intensity ranges using the same number of sets. The only thing that should change in the short term is that we increase the weight used (progressive overload).

Directed adpatation (DA) is a short term thing and only raw novices can keep adding weight without changing anything else. So to strike a balance between DA and RBE, I like to use the idea of CLOSE VARIATION. That is, making a small incremental change in some aspect of training fairly regularly to pre-empt stalling.

On a side note, I believe that all fancy periodised routines attempt to do exactly this in a systematised manner - producing variation - but not too much variation. Following such a routine is all well and good but I think it's better to understand the underlying reasons and produce variation for yourself in the most appropriate way.


progressive overload

If you can still make progress every workout, you probably should. Increase reps or weight so you are doing more every time. This is what we mean by progressive overload and it automatically produces a simple form of variation which is probably enough for novices.

Note that it's perfectly valid to start a cycle of progressive overload using less than maximum exertion in your 'top' set - I would argue that it probably should work this way since hitting maximum exertion (failure) is very costly in terms of fatigue and will eventually lead to a brick wall across your path of progress.

It's a good idea to understand how the various methods of structuring your sets work with regards to the Holy Trinity of programming factors. For example, if we are doing sets across, what this means is that we are using the same reps each set (volume), same weight each set (intensity), and the exertion naturally increases in each set.

Note that volume can mean number of reps in a set or it can mean number of hard sets per week. To avoid confusion, I'll talk about reps or workload instead.

Progression can be done in two stages - by reps then by weight. This is called double progression. For example 3 x (8-10) means do 3 sets of 8 reps. Increase the reps when you can until you get to 3 sets of 10 reps. Then increase the weight and drop back to doing sets of 8.

The number of sets can likewise be increased for example (3-4) x 8.

So double progression involves tweaking volume (reps) before tweaking intensity (weight).

Another method involves fixing the weight and the exertion level - by training to a fixed RPE each set. For example 3 x 100kg @9 means do 3 sets with 100kg - in each set keep doing reps until you are 1 rep short of failure.

Both sets across and RPE based sets make it easy to track progress. You can use the number of reps in the last set for sets across to do this. For RPE based sets, you can use the number of reps in the first set.

Track main compound lifts to monitor your progressive overload. If you can't make your accessory lifts and isolations fit into a nice progression then don't worry too much about it. They are usually done when fatigued from previous exercises so results are going to vary. Just work hard at them and don't be shy about throwing in varation if you have a feeling they aren't moving. Talking of variation...


Going sideways to go up

Progressive overload is a luxury that more advanced lifters will eventually lose. And trying to pursue it using a single method can lead to the RBE trap. For example, if you've done sets of 9,9,8 with the same weight for the last 3 workout sessions - then what do you suppose is going to happen next session? You've stagnated, it's time to take an alternative course of action.

My view is that you should have changed your programming factors around before this happens. Avoid getting yourself onto the flat top end of the RBE curve.

I've already mentioned two methods - sets across and RPE based. There is a third logical method - drop sets. You keep exertion and rep numbers the same but reduce the weight each set to account for fatigue.

So you can produce variation by temporarily switching between the 3 basic methods. Or indeed by changing parameters within those methods. I would advise staying within the same general ballpark for intensity, rep numbers, number of sets etc. (close variation) However, I like the idea of temporary reductions in exertion which can give some relief from repeated attempts at a paricular rep x weight combination.

One method I like is to use fairly heavy weights (say an 8RM) and do lower reps (2-4). Find a level where you can keep doing many sets with that weight - but each one doesn't exceed an RPE 8-9 until you've hit a certain rep count. For example, if your max is 8 x 100kg in the bench press, do sets of 2,3 or 4 with 100kg until you've totalled (say) 30 reps. This gives a good healthy dose of TUMT (time under maximal tension) without hitting RPE 10 at any point. Tuchscherer would call these 'repeats'.

You could also train to a particular RPE every set - and let the reps per set drop as you go along. I prefer to use the TUMT method for heavier weights most of the time - and drop sets for higher rep accessory exercises (where the weight drops, not the rep count). Sets across can be used for either but with generally higher exertion levels in the case of lighter weights.

The only downside of switching methods is that measuring performance progress is not so easy. It's probably simplest to stick to one main method of measuring your performance and just use other methods as temporary side-tracks - going sideways before going up.

Remember to vary the parameters within a method over time. Usually this means moving between different rep ranges - its fine to do this as long as the rep range suits the exercise. For example you wouldn't be doing sets of 3 for curls or sets of 15 for deadlifts.

Since performance is very specific to the rep range used, it might be a good idea to record a range of rep maxes for each exercise, e.g. your 3RM, 5RM, 8RM and 10RM. You can then choose to beat your oldest rep PR and replace it with a new one. This gives a nice sense of continuous progression.


Volume progression and adaptation

It's likely that programming variation will not hold RBE off forever and at some point there will be no option but to increase total volume to keep a lift moving forwards.

This will be done by adding sets incrementally. If you eventually reach the top end of what's recommended (20+ HARD sets per bodypart per week) and you aren't a pretty advanced lifter then it could be that you've become prematurely adapted to volume. This can happen when people use inappropriate programs with a crapload of volume for example.

I'll call this the volume trap. You can reverse out of it but it will require a deload - or possibly just time off from using that particular bodypart. About 1-2 weeks is probably a decent length of time to take off and reverse RBE adaptations. After this, try coming back with a reduced volume.


Exercise variation

One final method of producing variation is by changing your exercises. You can switch to a close variation (e.g. paused bench instead of touch and go bench) or to something quite different (e.g. weighted dips instead of bench).

I put this last but it's not clear if it should be a last resort variation. On the one hand, starting a new exercise involves some neural learning - you get rapid improvements at first but these aren't due to growing new tissue, they are down to motor learning. This arguably takes away from time spent growing.

On the other hand, experienced lifters will have well established motor pathways and there will not be much of a penalty switching from one exercise variant to another.

Perhaps the best approach would be to gradually introduce more variations over your lifting career and switch to the closest variation in response to becoming to 'ingrained' with one particular lift. As Greg Nuckols mentions in his video on exercise variation, if you are too habitualised to a particular lift, you are likely to produce the same performance each time.


Credits and further reading:
Greg Nuckols - quantifying volume, RBE, satellite cell proliferation and more
Brad Schoenfeld - optimal volume
Menno Henselmans - Frequency and recovery
Mike Israetel - Directed adpatation vs. frequency
Mike Tuchscherer - Measuring progress via RPE, intensity and reps

[gcjager]

Great read, thanks for this!

[Oreyon]

Innn !!!

[juvefan]

Nice info breh

[SuffolkPunch]

Thanks for the comments guys. Small update to the end of the progressive overload section ^^

[Grizvok]

Giving this a bump.

[Jasonk282]

Awesome thread.

[SuffolkPunch]

Having been trying the various methods, it really boils down to this:

- Either you take a set to the point where it starts to get hard - but you hold back to that you could continue to do more sets with about the same level of performance
- Or you take a set way past this point to the point where you are accumulating large amounts of fatigue and subsequent sets are going to be at a much reduced performance

In the first case you can get more volume at a level where you are making it count. In the second case you are reaching a higher peak and pushing the envelope of what you can achieve.


Over time, you need both of these...

[Jasonk282]

Having been trying the various methods, it really boils down to this:

- Either you take a set to the point where it starts to get hard - but you hold back to that you could continue to do more sets with about the same level of performance
- Or you take a set way past this point to the point where you are accumulating large amounts of fatigue and subsequent sets are going to be at a much reduced performance

In the first case you can get more volume at a level where you are making it count. In the second case you are reaching a higher peak and pushing the envelope of what you can achieve.


Over time, you need both of these...

I usually manipulate volume to get past sticking points.

For example say I'm doing Ohp and at 150 I can't get in 3x5, I'll go to 5x3 till that stalls, then go back to my 150 at 3x5...usually I'll blast through it then.

Thoughts?

[SuffolkPunch]

I usually manipulate volume to get past sticking points.

For example say I'm doing Ohp and at 150 I can't get in 3x5, I'll go to 5x3 till that stalls, then go back to my 150 at 3x5...usually I'll blast through it then.

Thoughts?

That would also involve backing off the exertion per set - which I definitely think is a good idea as some temporary relief from high RPE training. The amount of volume is actually pretty similar if you go by the rep x set x weight model rather than the number of hard sets model.

[Jasonk282]

That would also involve backing off the exertion per set - which I definitely think is a good idea as some temporary relief from high RPE training. The amount of volume is actually pretty similar if you go by the rep x set x weight model rather than the number of hard sets model.

Yeah I just go by reps/sets.

Like say chins...
I can do 20 at bodyweight by the time add 15 lbs I have to start doing sets of 5 to get the same volume in

Its been working for the past year or 2.
Plus I also do a full body 3x5 5 days a week

[sooby]

Having been trying the various methods, it really boils down to this:

- Either you take a set to the point where it starts to get hard - but you hold back to that you could continue to do more sets with about the same level of performance
- Or you take a set way past this point to the point where you are accumulating large amounts of fatigue and subsequent sets are going to be at a much reduced performance

In the first case you can get more volume at a level where you are making it count. In the second case you are reaching a higher peak and pushing the envelope of what you can achieve.


Over time, you need both of these...

I think good programs should have both of these by default.

For example say you bench 3x a week.

On the first and second days you hammer out volume using submaximal weights with around an RPE of 7-8 per set or set intensities. Say a Monday/Wednesday. Then on Saturday you attempt a max effort (say with 75% intensity and if you reach a certain rep goal you increase the weight for next week.

Then perhaps you add 2 extra sets over the Monday/Wednesday and again attempt a max effort. Then perhaps when you get to week 4 you lower the volume a bit but work at higher intensity and try to set a max rep using 85% and then probably a deload, yada, yada.


IMO though, I like the concept of RPE but sometimes I feel like I am a terrible judge at it, especially when I am using heavier weights. I will often overestimate RPE so it is like, meh. I often prefer to use set intensities and reps but of course you can have bad days and not meet rep targets. But to me that isn't a big deal anyway as I do most of my work submaximally (my bad days aren't bad to the point where I can't do 225 for 2 reps when it is my 8RM for example).

Even then if you miss a rep and you truly feel like it was just a bad day, I would just go ahead with my programming or just leave the weights the way they are and let the program autoregulate things to a higher level if I am capable of doing so.

Although I think a simple solution to that would be just to use simple autoregulation by having a range of reps to hit (for example if you are feeling amazing do 8 reps, if you are feeling okay but don't want to fatigue yourself too much do 7 or you aren't feeling that great do 6 reps).

[Payton1221]

One method I like is to use fairly heavy weights (say an 8RM) and keep doing sets of RPE 7-8 with that until you hit a certain rep count. For example, if your max is 8 x 100kg in the bench press, do sets of 2,3 or 4 with 100kg until you've totalled (say) 30 reps. This gives a good healthy dose of TUMT (time under maximal tension) without hitting RPE 10 at any point.

. . . you take a set to the point where it starts to get hard - but you hold back to that you could continue to do more sets with about the same level of performance . . . you can get more volume at a level where you are making it count.

I like this idea, but if your 8RM was 100kg, wouldn't and RPE of 7-8 be 5 or 6?

[SuffolkPunch]

IMO though, I like the concept of RPE but sometimes I feel like I am a terrible judge at it, especially when I am using heavier weights.

I like this idea, but if your 8RM was 100kg, wouldn't and RPE of 7-8 be 5 or 6?

Yes, it is hard to estimate RPEs under about 8 or 9. I think in that example I gave the first set or two would be less than a RPE 7-8 but I'm not so concerned with the RPE number itself, more like finding the right number of reps so that you can keep doing sets without hitting a wall, get lots of volume done with relatively high tensions. Maybe after 30-40 total reps you'd start reaching the point where the last rep slows down.

I think there is a sweet spot there - and other trainers have noticed it too, they've tried more sophisticated techniques like bar speed measurement to work around this point.

I might edit the original post with this point, thanks guys.

[RadialDevial]

Why isn't this a sticky

[SuffolkPunch]

Bret Contreras supports the idea of close variations:

https://www.********.com/bretcontrer...23192957776208

[SubWooferCooker]

That was a great read thank's, Another vote for sticky.

What i found interesting is that a lot of the stuff mentioned i have learned intuitively my self just from listening and being in tune with my body.

For the past 6-7 weeks i have been experimenting with full body work outs every single day, In this time i have taken no more than 2 days off. By being in tune with my body i have come to know just how much i can recover from daily, after around 5 weeks i found my self making progress on pretty much a daily basis, Some days i picked up the weights and been shocked on how much lighter it felt than just the day before and it put the weird big grin on my face as i am thinking to my self lol wtf is going on?

I am still trying to fine tune this, Somedays i if i push just a tiny bit too hard, the next day i can feel it but if i get it just right i can progress pretty much day to day and i am not exaggerating. The hardest part for me to get over was feeling like i was not doing enough, Going to failure is a big no no, If i do that i will start to regress within a few days if i keep at it, but if i simply stop 1 or 2 reps before failure the difference this makes on recovery is insane, i can keep going every day with no signs of over training, This tells me that the symptoms of burn out and fatigue are clearly not based on totally volume or frequency, Those reps close to failure are what kills my recovery, if i avoid this and throw in another set to compensate i can still go day to day with no over training symptoms. i do go to failure a couple of times per week just to judge progress and this is ok as long as i don't do it the following days.

Now are those reps to failure or close to important to grow and progress? At this point based on the progress i am currently making i don't believe so. They may be beneficial but they certainly are not essential. Another thing is if course while i might be able to train daily and recover am i making any more progress that i would training 2 or 3 times per week and is not all this just a waste of time?

I guess its still too early to tell but i honestly feel like i am making faster progress that i have done in very a long time using this approach, My lifts/reps have increased dramatically in the last 3 weeks, more so than the previous weeks since this is where i really began to dial in the correct amount of work i can recover from, I have even started getting amazing pumps just from warming up, I never used to get pumps warming up ever, For me its starting to feel more and more like upping the volume and frequency WITHOUT hitting failure or going too close to failure is the key.

Now for all i know i may hit a brick wall and over training symptoms might creep up and bite me in the ass any day now, but as of right now i have not ever felt better, stronger etc.

I am looking forward to what the following week's bring.

[SuffolkPunch]

^ That's cool, it sounds like you are experiencing the benefits of high frequency. I don't think you will overreach if you keep controlling your total workload but you might run out of growth potential within you myonuclear domain. Skeptics of high frequency like Mike Israetel point out that you need heavy overloading sessions from time to time - the theory being that they cause the muscle damage necessary to increase the number of myonucleus cells.

You can switch to a different style of training when this happens. Greg Nuckols does this. He runs the Bulgarian method for up to 6 weeks and then reverts back to his normal programming which has more moderate frequency (2x a week) but heavier individual sessions.

[SuffolkPunch]

Great ******** post on the tradeoff between directed adaptation and the need for a novel stimulus now and then:

https://www.********.com/nutritionta...26415324240076

one has to train with a novel stimulus for at least 3 weeks before rewards can be reaped

Presumably this refers to a completely new stimulus of the type that might make you very sore initially.

[MyEgoProblem]

Thank you for the great read as usual SP!

Stellar post.
/On spread

Big fan of the idea of lifting the Right weight, the right number of times. :-) how you do this tho, so many ways..

[JustShred]

Would you consider this as a good push day, regarding volume?
PUSH
week 1:
//Chest
Bench press 3x13-15
Machine flys 3x13-15
//front delts
OHP 3x
// rear delts
Rear raise 2x
bb facepull 2x
//side delts
bb upright row 2x
lat raise 2x
//triceps
Rope pulldown 2x
Tri ext 2x
Week 2: basically increase one exercise for each muscle group by 1 set, so weekly volume is 14 instead of 12
week 3:increase the other exercise by 1 set, weekly volume is 16
..
week 6: deload

And similarly for Pull and Legs?

[SuffolkPunch]

^ A volume ramp is one way.

I would suggest that you delay increases in volume for when you need them to proceed. My contention was that there are other ways of producing progress without volume increases which won't keep building fatigue.

[JustShred]

^ A volume ramp is one way.

I would suggest that you delay increases in volume for when you need them to proceed. My contention was that there are other ways of producing progress without volume increases which won't keep building fatigue.

Ok thanks, like what though? Weight?

[SuffolkPunch]

Ok thanks, like what though? Weight?

intensity, reps per set or exertion - as mentioned in the article above.

[Thundershaman]

Don't forget Time under Tension. You can stimulate muscle growth without doing a single "rep" i.e. Isometrics.

[SuffolkPunch]

Don't forget Time under Tension. You can stimulate muscle growth without doing a single "rep" i.e. Isometrics.

I don't think time under tension is a good measure of hypertrophy. If you were to talk about time under maximal tension, it would be a better proxy for growth. For more info read this:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sp...h-press-gains/

the HalfV protocol had substantially more TUT than the MaxV protocol, but it produced substantially worse results. Perhaps TUT should be amended from “time under tension” to “time under maximal tension” – how much time you spend actually moving the weight with as much force as possible.

[Thundershaman]

I don't think time under tension is a good measure of hypertrophy. If you were to talk about time under maximal tension, it would be a better proxy for growth. For more info read this:

That study is measuring strength gains and not hypertrophy. For all we know the participants with more time under tension had superior hypertrophy results.

Strength is the result of many factors. The protocol put forth in that study- "maximal velocity" is training mostly the nervous system- to get all more muscle fibers to contract in unison. This is how 130 pound Olympic lifters get three times their body weight over head.

If we are talking about stimulating muscle growth, time under tension is most certainly a big component.

Just my 2 cents

[SuffolkPunch]

Greg has written about the link between strength and hypertrophy HERE

In the absence of data, I would tend to agree with his position:

There was actually a recent study showing that slower ECCENTRICS were a little better for hypertrophy than faster eccentrics, but I still think moving the concentric as fast as possible is typically a good idea.

Menno Henselmans promotes the idea of slowing the eccentric during the easier parts of the force curve (e.g. top of the bench press) to make up for an imperfect force curve.

[JustShred]

Greg has written about the link between strength and hypertrophy

In the absence of data, I would tend to agree with his position:



Menno Henselmans promotes the idea of slowing the eccentric during the easier parts of the force curve (e.g. top of the bench press) to make up for an imperfect force curve.

God dammit, ive just been listening to a podcast by eric helms saying that faster reps use more muscle fibers thus increase hypertrophy.
This stuff is so confusing