What are the main arguments against high-volume training for muscle growth?

Critics argue that high volumes necessitate lower per-set intensity (junk volume), lead to performance decline due to fatigue, or are impossible to recover from, causing stagnation or overtraining. They also claim there's a cap on how much volume a body can adapt to.

When did the modern discussion about training volume begin?

The modern debate around high vs. low volume training largely began in the 1970s with the mainstreaming of bodybuilding, driven by influential coaches like Vince Gironda (high volume) and Arthur Jones (high intensity).

Who was Arthur Jones and what was the 'Colorado Experiment'?

Arthur Jones was the founder of Nautilus equipment and a proponent of high-intensity training. The 'Colorado Experiment' was a highly publicized case study where bodybuilder Casey Viator, after a layoff, allegedly gained 63 pounds of muscle in just four weeks using Jones' low-volume, high-intensity protocols on Nautilus machines.

When did the first peer-reviewed research on training volume for muscle growth emerge?

The first actual peer-reviewed study on the effects of different training volumes on muscle growth, suitable for meta-analysis, was published in 1996. By 2010, there were still only eight such studies.

What is the 'inverted U' relationship between volume and muscle growth?

This common hypothesis suggests that low volume yields little growth, higher volumes increase growth up to a plateau, beyond which further increases in volume offer no additional benefit or even lead to regression/overtraining, forming an inverted U-shape on a graph.

What did the Schoenfeld et al. (2017) meta-analysis conclude about training volume?

This meta-analysis generally found that higher volumes tend to lead to more muscle growth. It suggested a pseudo-logarithmic relationship, where the initial sets provide the largest gains, and additional sets yield smaller but still meaningful increases, up to or beyond 10 sets per muscle group per week.

What were the key takeaways from the Baz-Val et al. (2022) meta-analysis?

This meta-analysis, focusing on studies with direct hypertrophy measurements, found no significant benefit to high (20+ sets) vs. moderate (12-20 sets) volumes for quads and biceps, but did for triceps. This could be due to triceps being less stimulated by typical compound movements.

What did the Andersen et al. study (most recent and highest volume to date) find?

Andersen et al. investigated volumes up to 37 weekly sets (peaking at 52 sets for quads) and found generally more favorable hypertrophy results in the highest volume groups, suggesting the plateau for quad growth might be higher than previously thought, even though statistical significance wasn't always met.

Is high-volume training feasible for the average person?

While critics argue protocols like Andersen et al. (up to 26 sets per session) are infeasible, personal accounts from the hosts suggest that for motivated individuals, especially those who enjoy lifting, sessions of 1.5 hours are manageable, particularly with proper acclimatization.

How should one interpret statistically non-significant results in a practical context?

In an applied field like coaching, a non-significant but positive trend should still be considered. While science prioritizes avoiding false positives, a coach might accept an 80% chance of improvement (even if not statistically proven) if there are no known downsides, as the cost of inaction could be higher than trying a potentially ineffective strategy.

Can high volumes like 30-40 sets per week be applied to multiple muscle groups simultaneously?

It's a complex question, but based on historical bodybuilding practices (specialization phases) and current understanding, it's likely more effective to limit such extremely high volumes to one or two muscle groups at a time rather than applying them across the entire body for extended periods.

What are the methodological strengths of the Andersen et al. study?

The study included extensive control for prior training history with a two-week baseline, two-week volume reduction, and two-week familiarization phase, enhancing confidence that observed results were due to the intervention itself. It also measured nutritional intake and body weight changes, making it a very strong methodological paper in the field.

Key Moments

Extreme Volumes, Extreme Gains? (Part 1) (Episode 127)

Stronger By Science

Sports4 min read149 min video

Feb 21, 2024|7,926 views|267|58

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

High training volume for muscle growth is debated, with new research suggesting volumes up to 37 sets per week may be effective.

Key Insights

Training volume is a key driver of muscle growth, but the optimal amount is debated, with two main camps: high volume and high intensity (closer to failure).

Historically, the perception of training volume has shifted, with what was considered high volume decades ago now being seen as moderate.

Early research on training volume was scarce, with the first meta-analysis on single vs. multiple sets published in 2010.

More recent meta-analyses and studies, like the one by Andis et al. (averaging 37 sets/week), suggest that higher volumes may lead to greater hypertrophy, even beyond 20 sets per week.

While the scientific community often focuses on statistical significance, practical implications and effect sizes are crucial for understanding the real-world benefits of training volume.

Methodological rigor in studies, such as controlling for prior training history and nutritional status, is vital for drawing reliable conclusions about training volume and hypertrophy.

THE DEBATE BETWEEN HIGH VOLUME AND HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING

The podcast episode begins by outlining the ongoing debate in resistance training regarding optimal volume for muscle growth. Two primary camps exist: one advocating for training volume as the most critical factor, and another emphasizing training intensity, specifically training close to or past failure. Proponents of high-intensity training often argue that very high volumes necessitate training far from failure, thus resulting in 'junk volume,' or that high volumes close to failure lead to performance degradation. Conversely, proponents of high volume suggest it's the primary driver of hypertrophy, with intensity being a secondary factor.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF TRAINING VOLUME DISCUSSIONS

The discussion traces the historical context of training volume debates, highlighting how viewpoints have evolved. In the 1970s, figures like Vince Gironda advocated for high-volume methods (e.g., 8x8), while Arthur Jones pioneered high-intensity training (HIT) with its focus on low volume and training to failure. Initially, high volume was seen as the 'bro' approach, and HIT as the 'scientific' one, partly due to Arthur Jones's marketing of Nautilus equipment through case studies like the 'Colorado Experiment.' This historical perspective shows a gradual shift, with even proponents of lower volumes becoming more accepting of higher volumes as research progresses.

THE PROGRESSION OF RESEARCH ON TRAINING VOLUME AND HYPERTROPHY

The early body of research on training volume was surprisingly sparse, with the first peer-reviewed meta-analysis on the topic appearing in 2010. This initial meta-analysis by James Krieger focused on comparing single versus multiple sets per muscle group. Subsequent meta-analyses, such as Brad Schoenfeld's in 2017 and Basolun's in 2022, have expanded the scope to examine ranges of 0-5 sets, 5-10 sets, and 10+ sets per week. These reviews indicate a general trend where higher volumes tend to correlate with greater hypertrophy, though the exact point of diminishing returns or a plateau remains an area of ongoing investigation.

THE ANDIS ET AL. STUDY: PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF HIGH VOLUME

A pivotal study discussed is by Andis et al., which investigated training volumes significantly higher than previously examined, with average weekly sets reaching up to 37 for quadriceps. Participants were divided into groups training with 22, 32, or 37 sets per week. The findings indicated a trend towards greater hypertrophy with increased volume, with the highest volume group showing the most favorable results, though statistical significance was not always reached. This study has been controversial, with some critics questioning its methodology and practical applicability.

INTERPRETING THE DATA: STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE VS. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The podcast delves into the nuances of research interpretation, distinguishing between statistical significance and practical meaningfulness. Critics of the Andis study often point to the lack of statistical significance in some comparisons, while the hosts emphasize effect sizes and trends. They discuss how research findings should be viewed in a practical context, considering that even non-significant findings with positive effect sizes might warrant consideration for athletes and coaches, especially when potential downsides are minimal. The discussion also touches on the 'fog of war' in research, suggesting that the optimal volume curve is still being mapped out.

METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN VOLUME RESEARCH

The methodological strengths of the Andis et al. study are highlighted, particularly its extensive familiarization and baseline phases designed to control for prior training history. This rigorous approach is contrasted with studies that may have weaker designs. The episode also addresses criticisms regarding potential bias in research and the importance of considering context-dependent factors like individual recovery, muscle group specificity, and the cumulative effect of volume across the entire body. Future research is needed to further explore sustained high-volume training, habituation effects, and optimal total weekly volume across multiple muscle groups.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Products

●Studies Cited

●People Referenced

Common Questions

The debate centers on whether total training volume or per-set intensity (proximity to failure) is more important for muscle growth. High-volume proponents suggest more sets lead to more growth, while high-intensity advocates believe hard sets near failure are key, often dismissing high volume as 'junk volume.'

Topics

Junk Volume Statistical Interpretation

Mentioned in this video

People

Eduardo de Souza

Second author on the Andersen et al. study and senior author on a prior paper, suggesting the Andersen paper authors aren't inherently biased towards high volume.

Casey Viator

A bodybuilder famous for the 'Colorado Experiment' under Arthur Jones, where he reputedly gained a significant amount of muscle in a short period post-layoff.

Larry Scott

A legendary bodybuilder whose career was touched by Vince Gironda.

Sergio Oliva

A bodybuilder associated with Arthur Jones.

Vince Gironda

An influential coach and early influencer in physical culture, known for popularizing the 8x8 method and other training and dietary ideas.

Frank Zane

A legendary bodybuilder whose career was touched by Vince Gironda.

Studies & Research

Colorado Experiment

A famous case study by Arthur Jones where Casey Viator purportedly gained 60 lbs of muscle in 4-12 weeks using low-volume, high-intensity training on Nautilus equipment after a layoff.

Products

Nautilus Equipment

Exercise equipment designed and sold by Arthur Jones, often featured in his high-intensity training methods and 'experiments'.