What determines amount of weekly volume from person to person?

[Animal2692]

Alright guys so I had this revelation! I'm playing.

So I was thinking about weekly volume and as many here know, there's a certain range of weekly volume that has been proven to work for a lot of people such as 10-20 sets per muscle per week. We know that you need enough calories and protein to be able to recover. So my question is, why is it that despite getting enough calories and protein, an individual will only do better at the lower end of the volume range vs. Someone whose more on the higher end...say 20 sets per week? And they're both the same age and almost the same fitness level and sleep enough, etc. Why is one still going to do better on a lower volume than a higher amount? Is it genetics? What is it? Is it relative to how hard they push each set?

[paulinkansas]

Probably genetics. Some people are natural distance runners, other excel at sprinting. I think muscle growth and development also follows something like the examples of distance running and sprinting.

[WolfRose7]

Training age and sex are the biggest factors

Women can tolerate more volume, the longer you've been training consistently the more volume you need and can free recover from

[air2fakie]

In addition to the factors mentioned above, how you've specifically trained in the past can affect how much volume you need, and your current programming can affect how much direct volume you need for specific muscles (e.g., compounds v. isolations).

Note that even a specific individual may respond better to diff volume amounts for certain muscle groups versus others.

[TheShadowMan]

If a person is doing well with less volume, chances are they're either enhanced in some way, or they're maximizing the efficiency of each set that comprises that volume. Meaning, they're using high intensity techniques to make it a lot more challenging, drop sets, slow reps, forced reps, slowed eccentrics, isometric holds, 1-10's, pyramids, reps to failure, etc. They're getting a lot more out of those few sets than some get out of many more sets, but the compromise is you need to be giving adequate time to recover from that level of intensity if it's done frequently. You can test it out yourself - compare a workout where you use high intensity techniques in all applicable lifts, like going to failure, or pretty slow reps - by the end of a few sets you'll feel more burned out than you've ever been. Because you're pushing your limits and using your full potential in every exercise. That's the magic of low volume, you can put more into everything you're doing. And it really does work.

[WolfRose7]

If a person is doing well with less volume, chances are they're either enhanced in some way, or they're maximizing the efficiency of each set that comprises that volume. Meaning, they're using high intensity techniques to make it a lot more challenging, drop sets, slow reps, forced reps, slowed eccentrics, isometric holds, 1-10's, pyramids, reps to failure, etc. They're getting a lot more out of those few sets than some get out of many more sets, but the compromise is you need to be giving adequate time to recover from that level of intensity if it's done frequently. You can test it out yourself - compare a workout where you use high intensity techniques in all applicable lifts, like going to failure, or pretty slow reps - by the end of a few sets you'll feel more burned out than you've ever been. Because you're pushing your limits and using your full potential in every exercise. That's the magic of low volume, you can put more into everything you're doing. And it really does work.

Slower reps do not mean you get anymore out of a set

[Animal2692]

Slower reps do not mean you get anymore out of a set

This. Unless the reps are slow as a result of producing insufficient force (approaching failure).

[Animal2692]

In addition to the factors mentioned above, how you've specifically trained in the past can affect how much volume you need, and your current programming can affect how much direct volume you need for specific muscles (e.g., compounds v. isolations).

Note that even a specific individual may respond better to diff volume amounts for certain muscle groups versus others.

I have read about different volume requirements for certain muscles but it's not very clear cut. I've read smaller muscle groups can handle higher volumes because they recover faster and then I've read that it's the opposite and that larger muscle groups need more volume instead. I said screw it and kept the same volume for all muscles more or less.

[Animal2692]

Training age and sex are the biggest factors

Women can tolerate more volume, the longer you've been training consistently the more volume you need and can free recover from

So that means that lower volume in general is better for the vast majority of lifters since they haven't been lifting as long...as only a handful really count as "advanced".

[WolfRose7]

So that means that lower volume in general is better for the vast majority of lifters since they haven't been lifting as long...as only a handful really count as "advanced".

Depends how you count volume, and what counts as low

[air2fakie]

I have read about different volume requirements for certain muscles but it's not very clear cut. I've read smaller muscle groups can handle higher volumes because they recover faster and then I've read that it's the opposite and that larger muscle groups need more volume instead. I said screw it and kept the same volume for all muscles more or less.

Some of that you have to play by ear for yourself and adjust as necessary over time - if keeping the volume the same across the board works for you, stick with it. At some point if you feel you're not seeing the gains you want for certain muscles, you might have to play with some aspects of your routine, incl. volume (sometimes the answer will be less volume).

Some smaller muscle groups respond ok to higher training frequency than others, but you still have to be sensible about the volume.

[jk202]

longer you've been training consistently the more volume you need and can free recover from

I would say the exact opposite tbh. As you become more experienced, loads, work threshold and accuracy of reps should all allow you to get more out of less

[Magomed1]

So that means that lower volume in general is better for the vast majority of lifters since they haven't been lifting as long...as only a handful really count as "advanced".

Ive been lifting for 12 years and I work as a construction tradesmen so im always being physical 5 to 7 day a week for 8 to 12 hours a day...plus lifting after work and training jiujitsu 3x a week.

With that said...since this virus outbreak ive havent worked or trained jiujitsu since its all closed down.

Luckily i have a home gym...and I lift everyday. Full body, 5x5. Todays sets...

Squats
260 4x5
270 1x5

Bench
195 3x5
205 2x5

Deadlift
330 4x5
345 1x5

Db pullovers 70x20

Pulups 2x12

Lifting 7 days a week...no rest days and today lifts were all PRs. 10, 10, 15 lbs

[tommy4life]

Ive been lifting for 12 years and I work as a construction tradesmen so im always being physical 5 to 7 day a week for 8 to 12 hours a day...plus lifting after work and training jiujitsu 3x a week.

With that said...since this virus outbreak ive havent worked or trained jiujitsu since its all closed down.

Luckily i have a home gym...and I lift everyday. Full body, 5x5. Todays sets...

Squats
260 4x5
270 1x5

Bench
195 3x5
205 2x5

Deadlift
330 4x5
345 1x5

Db pullovers 70x20

Pulups 2x12

Lifting 7 days a week...no rest days and today lifts were all PRs. 10, 10, 15 lbs

You do fullbody 5×5 everyday?
What does that look like

[Magomed1]

You do fullbody 5×5 everyday?
What does that look like

Squats 5x5
Bench 5x5
Deads 5x5
DB pullovers 1x20
Pullups 2x10-12 bodyweight.

Straight sets, no ramping

Posted todays PR vidoes on my insta page.

[TheShadowMan]

Slower reps do not mean you get anymore out of a set

Actually it does. Slowing the rep speed down adds more time under tension, as well as upping the intensity through pushing the stabilizing muscles harder. It's a pretty efficient technique, and a great way to attack some of the weak points in a lift. Slow reps definitely helped me with controlling the weight - and in turn I saw my lifts increase from using them. It's not always applicable, such as in the case of explosive movements, but non-explosive I consider it a valuable tool to utilize.

[air2fakie]

Squats 5x5
Bench 5x5
Deads 5x5
DB pullovers 1x20
Pullups 2x10-12 bodyweight.

You've been lifting 7 days/week (35 sets/week each of squats, BP & DL) during quarantine or for 12 yrs?

[mdonnelly80]

Although training age and genetics play a huge part in this equation, I still believe that it's relative to the individual. And, it is relative on a small scale in many cases. I cranked my squat up to 505 for a double doing nothing more than the basic 5/3/1 waves every week. No FSL, no BBB, no BBS, etc..etc..

My bench on the other hand, was stuck at 320 until I cranked the volume way up. I had to do FSL on my bench day along with bench BBB on my OHP day to break that plateau. Supplemental work didn't do chit, assistance work didn't do chit; volume and food did the trick.

[Magomed1]

You've been lifting 7 days/week (35 sets/week each of squats, BP & DL) during quarantine or for 12 yrs?

Since the quarantine...so a month for me. Which can be done as long as you keep your intensity, % of 1RM in a moderate range.

Usually im lifting 4x a week. Sunday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

As a teenager and into my mid 20s I've always weight trained 5 to 6 days a week. Its just how we were brought up in sport in our country.

[SuffolkPunch]

Actually it does. Slowing the rep speed down adds more time under tension, as well as upping the intensity through pushing the stabilizing muscles harder. It's a pretty efficient technique, and a great way to attack some of the weak points in a lift. Slow reps definitely helped me with controlling the weight - and in turn I saw my lifts increase from using them. It's not always applicable, such as in the case of explosive movements, but non-explosive I consider it a valuable tool to utilize.

The data do not support the idea that deliberately slowed reps are better

https://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/...muscle-growth/

[all pro]

The data do not support the idea that deliberately slowed reps are better

https://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/...muscle-growth/

The sweet spot according to that study seems to be 1 up, 2 down. I'm not surprised!

[SuffolkPunch]

The sweet spot according to that study seems to be 1 up, 2 down. I'm not surprised!

I think that's just an artefact of choosing a weight in about the right range and pushing it more or less as hard as you can.

I think it was Hatfield who said: it's not time under tension, it's time under maximal tension that matters...

[all pro]

I think that's just an artefact of choosing a weight in about the right range and pushing it more or less as hard as you can.

I think it was Hatfield who said: it's not time under tension, it's time under maximal tension that matters...

When the reps are high the weight moves quick for the first few reps. In the 3 - 5 rep range they all seem to be about 1 up and 2 down until the last rep. That one I could time with a calendar.

[WolfRose7]

Actually it does. Slowing the rep speed down adds more time under tension, as well as upping the intensity through pushing the stabilizing muscles harder. It's a pretty efficient technique, and a great way to attack some of the weak points in a lift. Slow reps definitely helped me with controlling the weight - and in turn I saw my lifts increase from using them. It's not always applicable, such as in the case of explosive movements, but non-explosive I consider it a valuable tool to utilize.

Tut is worthless without quantifying how much tension.
Don't agree with the stabilising intensity comment at all.

Too work on technical and kinesthetic issues I agree

[Animal2692]

Actually it does. Slowing the rep speed down adds more time under tension, as well as upping the intensity through pushing the stabilizing muscles harder. It's a pretty efficient technique, and a great way to attack some of the weak points in a lift. Slow reps definitely helped me with controlling the weight - and in turn I saw my lifts increase from using them. It's not always applicable, such as in the case of explosive movements, but non-explosive I consider it a valuable tool to utilize.

Say you deliberately do slow reps with a moderate weight. The mechanical tension will by higher on the dormant muscle fibers being recruited, but the overall total of muscle fibers recruited will be low (because you're not lifting as explosively as you can). Now say you do the opposite where you lift that weight as explosively as you can. You will be recruiting all muscle fibers but they will be experiencing significantly less mechanical tension since you're recruiting more fibers in lifting the weight. Now if you're still with me, you need a combination of high mechanical tension AND full muscle fiber recruitment to stimulate growth. That means that slow reps are only viable for growth ONLY as a result of approaching failure due to insufficient force production while muscle fiber recruitment is also at its highest. This is due to the force-velocity relationship. Time under tension is only one component of muscle growth.

Here are two diagrams of how the force-velocity relationship works:
https://ibb.co/Ph4DSQh
https://ibb.co/KXdVpxp

Now you mentioned slow reps helped with increasing your lifts. This is most likely due to progressive overload and taking sets close to failure or using higher intensities. But deliberately lifting a weight slowly by itself does not directly lead to growth. That slowness has to be a result of producing INSUFFICIENT force (when you're struggling) in order to count. Higher intensities will do this right out of the gate which is why 5x5 programs are so effective.

So in a nutshell, just grab a weight and lift it with good form and all until it becomes really difficult to keep lifting it. If you do that, you get both the time under tension and the high mechanical tension without having to even think about it. That's all there is to it, there's no mystery behind it. That's what everyone whose ever gained a drop of muscle through time has always done (assuming they were natural of course LOL). Exception is when you're using high intensities of 80%+. Higher intensities are also more conducive towards strength gains and that's when you start getting into concepts like rate coding, etc. but that's a different topic all together.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

[Animal2692]

Depends how you count volume, and what counts as low

Weekly hard sets and low volume being the lower end of the range (10 sets). Realistically speaking, I'd say majority of the population is beginner/intermediate or has little experience lifting. A lot of people calling themselves intermediate are actually beginner and even more so intermediates calling themselves advanced. Example is 225lb benchers going around thinking they're advanced. So common sense is telling me that most people would benefit from the lower end of the volume range more. I mean...beginners and intermediates doing 20 hard sets per muscle per week? Hell I'll be honest, I can't even do that going hard on every single one. And I'm nowhere near advanced anyways either. Last time I went that high my ligaments and tendons couldn't take it and I wasn't progressing very well either.