The concept of training volume is important to understanding how to properly design and adapt a program to an individual based on their goals and their body’s response to exercise. Unfortunately, most have an overly simplistic view of this which can lead to misunderstanding and confusion, especially when comparing different protocols and training programs.
The number of exercises, sets and repetitions, or even mechanical work performed during a workout is only part of what constitutes the volume of work performed, and can only be used as a meaningful standard of comparison when all else is equal.
Mechanical versus metabolic work
Both the effectiveness of a workout and its effect on recovery have more to do with the metabolic stress it produces than the mechanical work, and the two are not directly related. During an isometric workout it is possible to have a tremendous amount of metabolic work with no mechanical work at all. If very different repetition speeds are performed it is possible to have similar metabolic demands with very different amounts of mechanical work. For example, whether you perform six repetitions at a 5/5 cadence or three repetitions at a 10/10 cadence your muscles are producing nearly the same amount of force for the same duration.
Repetitions versus time under load
The mechanical versus metabolic work is an important consideration when comparing high intensity training programs involving a single set to failure with multiple-set programs. The traditional Nautilus guidelines for set and repetition performance were to perform between eight and twelve repetitions of an exercise, lifting the weight in 2 and lowering in 4 seconds. This would average out to around 60 seconds per exercise, or longer when pausing briefly at the end point on simple and compound pulling movements. Some high intensity training protocols recommend even slower reps, like Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Duty training (4/4) and Ken Hutchins’ SuperSlow and the Renaissance Exercise protocol (10/10).
A typical bodybuilding workout consisting of three sets of ten repetitions of ten exercises would require performing three hundred repetitions. A Body by Science “Big Five” workout or the RenEx generic routine consisting of a single set of around five repetitions of five exercises would require performing only thirty reps. If you compared repetitions, the typical bodybuilding workout might appear to involve twelve times the work:
10 exercises x 3 sets x 10 repetitions = 300 repetitions
5 exercises x 1 set x 5 repetitions = 25 repetitions
However, if you multiply the total repetitions by the average repetition duration and compare the time under load of the workout, a different picture emerges. The “Big Five” or RenEx generic workout appears to involve a slightly higher volume of work:
300 repetitions x 1.5 seconds = 450 seconds (7:30)
25 repetitions x 20 seconds = 500 seconds (8:20)
Notes: The average repetition time for the typical bodybuilding workout is based on observing and timing sets performed by trainees in a local gym. The time under load recommended in Body by Science is 90 seconds, but the repetition cadence recommended is 10/10, which would result in an upper repetition guide of 4.5, which would result in an equal time under load in the second example, but the decimal would have seemed odd in the first.
Assuming the loads used are the same, time under load is a better measure of physiological demand than sets and reps. When looked at this way, it becomes apparent a lot of people performing high intensity training protocols calling for a higher time under load may be performing a much higher volume of work than they realize, and some “high volume” routines may not be.
Sets versus reps
The above leads to yet another problem with comparing sets and reps. Even if we assume equal repetition duration, does it make a difference if we do one set of twelve reps or two sets of six? What about four sets of three? What about a series of twelve singles?
Some HIT trainers prefer higher rep ranges, in some cases up to 20, or even 50 for leg exercises. How much different would this be in terms of the effect on the body than doing two sets of ten, or five?
While dividing the work up over one or more sets would allow for a heavier weight and higher tension to be used since the relatively shorter sets would involve less cumulative metabolic stress (although the fatigue from microtrauma and related factors may be higher) it probably wouldn’t increase the demands on recovery ability significantly.
While a single set program would be highly effective (and more practical and efficient) for the majority of people and goals, there may be situations where dividing the work between multiple sets while maintaining a similar total rep count or time under load would be preferred.
Intensity and density of work
Keeping all the above about total reps and time under tension in mind, there is a huge difference in the demand on the body between a single, continuous set of an exercise performed with an all out effort and several less intense sets of equal reps or duration. Also, three sets of an exercise performed with only a few seconds rest in between will be far more demanding than the same sets performed several minutes apart. It’s not just the number of reps and exercises, but the effort put into them and the pace of the workout.
Systemic effect versus number of exercises
Another problem with using exercises, sets and reps as a measure of exercise volume is regardless of the intensity of effort not all exercises place the same overall demands on the body. Both of the following workouts involve the same number of exercises, sets and reps:
Workout A:
- Squat: 1×20
- Chin Up: 1×10
- Parallel Bar Dip: 1×10
- Row: 1×10
- Standing Press: 1×10
- Stiff-Legged Deadlift: 1×15
Workout B:
- Calf Raise: 1×20
- Neck Extension: 1×10
- Neck Flexion: 1×10
- Wrist Curl: 1×10
- Wrist Extension: 1×10
- Gripping: 1×15
Despite the same number of exercises, sets and reps, workout A obviously places much greater physiological demands on the body than workout B. The amount of muscle mass being effectively worked during each of the exercises in workout A is much larger, and more muscle working means a greater metabolic stress and greater demand on the cardiovascular, nervous and endocrine systems, and a greater stress the body must recover from and more tissue to produce adaptations in.
With this in mind, as clients’ training intensity increases, rather than reduce the total number of exercises I usually substitute simple movements for compound ones focusing on areas that need it, gradually reducing the compound movements per workout to three – typically one multi-joint hip and thigh movement, one upper body push, and one upper body pull – while keeping the total number of exercises performed around the same.
What about training frequency?
A similar situation exists with frequency, although it starts to get a little more complicated because, contrary to the overly simplistic models often presented, recovery involves multiple systems and timelines, and efficiency and practicality are also important considerations. When debating full body versus split routines you have to consider systemic versus local recovery, how you would split a routine would be affected by the local recovery of individual muscles (which can vary due to fiber type and other factors), and other physical activities and demands affect all of those.
Like most things, the workout volume and frequency that works best for an individual will depend on many factors and a bit of trial and error along with accurate record keeping is required to fine tune your program. Try to look at the big picture and all it involves though, rather than focusing on just a few numbers.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Nice post Drew… I think this says it all: “Do enough to stimulate the desired physical adaptations, but not so much that the body can not recover from and produce the adaptations stimulated during the workout within a reasonable period of time.”
The issue, of course, is finding the intensity for the type of stimulation that is desired, and then to find optimal recovery periods. Guess that’s why this process is part objective (concrete numbers) and part subjective. Or, why training (oneself or someone else) is part science and part art 🙂
Thanks Drew. Your posts are always interesting and validating! Don’t recall anything re: kettlebell training. Of course it doesn’t mean you haven’t taken up the subject….I’ll go back and check….. Been alternating between HIT and KBs for the last 4 yrs or so…. Typically in 2-month cycles. Any thoughts?
I’m 67 and have worked out since my late-20s…I’ll probably be a pretty good cadaver when “my time” comes……LOL…
Make it a fun day!
Don Hyrkas
Hey Don,
Traditional barbell, dumbbell and machine exercises performed in strict form at controlled speeds are more effective and far safer than the quick, swinging movements typical of kettlebell programs. I recommend sticking with HIT and ditching the kettlebells.
Hey Drew,
Can you elaborate on what situations one might prefer multiple sets to single set while maintaining the same TUL? And how much rest in between is optimal?
Bill,
Powerlifters are one group that would benefit from multiple sets of doubles or triples as opposed to a single set of moderate to high reps. This would be more appropriate to their training goals, and as long as the total workout volume isn’t excessive would not result in overtraining.
The optimal rest period between sets depends on your goals and level of conditioning. There is a section on this in High Intensity Workouts
I play roller derby and went to a PT/Osteopath because I was losing range of motion in my shoulders (apparently my upper body was on lockdown from all those hits). I noticed it because it was interfering with my HIT workouts. He was able to restore my range of motion in minutes among other things that were helpful, but that’s not what I’m writing about. He said because I’m an athlete (skating 4-6 hours/week) I need to do both lactic and alactic weight training. For 6 weeks he has me doing lactic (aerobic) weight training 2/week, 2-3 sets of 15-20 with 15 seconds between sets and exercises keeping my heart rate 130-140 bpm using light to moderate weights. Then I am to switch to the alactic (strength and bulking) weight routine. I haven’t started that routine yet, but I know it involves multiple sets with very low reps, about a minute rest between exercises, and lifting at a 90% or more max. I will do that for 6 weeks. He says my maintenance training will be to do one lactic and one alactic weight training session per week.
Does this sound reasonable to you? Do you see any problems with it? He was not critical of my Big 5 HIT workout except to say that I need something more specific to my sport conditioning. If you see problems with it that would take more than a line or two, then let me know and I will gladly call for a consult. I’m not in FL. Thanks!
Angie,
You wouldn’t need to alternate between the two. A program of a single set to failure of one or two exercises for each major muscle group, using a moderate rep range (7 to 10) at a moderate pace and little rest between sets will provide a good balance of strength and metabolic conditioning for your sport. Performing full range pushing and pulling movements in horizontal and vertical planes will help improve shoulder ROM.
Drew, Great post. As a practitioner of the big five from Body by Science and Super Slow, this post made me wonder about taking TUL and intensity to the extreme. If for example, TUL, intensity, form and getting to absolute failure achieves such great results, could someone in theory literally do one repetition of one exercise movement for a full 2:00 minutes at the highest weight in order to move the weight (albeit very slowly) during that TUL? Would that produce the same results as say a 10/10 cadence of multiple reps to failure for the same 2:00 minute window? Just curious.
Chris,
What you’re talking about will work, and has been done by several people, most notably Terry Carter who developed a protocol based on this while working for Doug McGuff which he called “The Ultimate Rep”. The protocol involves a single rep divided into approximate thirds, performed for the same time under load as you would normally use for a full set. If you are currently using 2:00, then you’d do a 40 second positive, 40 second static hold, and 40 second negative. My recommendation would be to use only a minute, as two minutes is on the high and light side if muscular strength and size increases are your primary goal.
On the minute, would you recommend that for a typical big five workout as well using a 10/10 cadence or was it just for this extreme “ultimate rep” example?
PS: GREAT blog! Big fan of your post and I love the HIgh Intensity Workouts Book. A great resource as well. All the best. -Chris
Thanks Chris,
I prefer to keep most people around 60 seconds starting out, and adjust up or down based on their goals and response to exercise. What works best will vary between individuals, but it’s a good starting point.
What about Duo-Symmetric Poly contractile exercise? Should the exerciser go by time under load, or number of repetitions per limb?
Kevin,
It doesn’t really matter which you use, as long as your form is consistent. Duo-symmetric poly-contractile is discussed in Elements of Form, which will be out in the next few weeks.
Drew,
Great post, my current routine is a very low volume:
Bench 2X5
Deadlift 1X8-12
Curl 1X6-10
I do bench without spotter, so I think that 2 heavy sets near-to-failure would work fine.
I see that deadlift bring a great demand of recovery to my body, I am training once a week with it.
Best wishes from Brazil.
Carlos
Thanks for your reply but, I’m a little in the dark. At 6 seconds per repetition per limb, and ten repetitions per limb, plus holding a second after each repetition in the fully contracted positon, one set of duo-poly exercise will take approximately 2 1/2 minutes to complete, almost 3 times the 90 second tul recommended. But to stay in the tul recommended the exerciser would only perform 6 repetitions per limb to stay within the approximate 90 seconds of exercise. How can it not matter which method I use?
Kevin,
Nobody said you had to do ten repetitions per limb. Use a repetition range or time under load that works well for you for whatever protocol you’re doing and record it using the method you prefer. While there are pros and cons to both counting reps and using a stopwatch, either can be a useful measure of progress as long as your style of performance is consistent.
Drew, if tension is the main factor contributing to growth, then how can you advocate superslow training? Heavy weights are necessary to increased tension—-and heavy weights can’t be moved slowly. Ever tried to move a heavy weight slowly? It’s impossible. Of course—one has to draw the line on cadence speed as too fast can cause injury, but a nice balance has to be achieved—-perhaps a 1-2 second concentric followed by a slower negative is the best way to maximize tension—no? And quite frankly, superslow doesn’t accomplish this very well.
Ramy,
A muscle is actually capable of producing more force as contraction velocity decreases. This is known as the force/velocity curve. From Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function and Plasticity: The Physiological Basis of Rehabilitation, Second Edition, by Richard Leiber,
“Muscles are strengthened based on the force placed across them during exercise. The force-velocity relationship of muscle indicates that high velocity movements correspond to low muscle force and that low velocity movements correspond to high muscle force. Since strengthening requires high force-producing exercises, the velocities must, necessarily be relatively low.”
If a person is capable of lifting more weight by lifting faster it is because when they speed up they are also loosening up their form and bringing other muscles to play.
As long as an adequate weight and an appropriate rep range or set duration is used SuperSlow can be a highly effective way to train.
Also, what’s your take on guys like Dorian Yates who claim it is necessary to strive for eccentric failure after concentric failure is reached?
Ramy,
It is not necessary to work to the point of eccentric failure during regular, dynamic exercise protocols. I have also covered this in Elements of Form.
I simply can’t do and can’t believe, that anybody with free weights can do effectivly and safely squat or deadlift with 4/4 or 10/10 candence with proper weights
Wood,
It is possible, just much harder. Also, as repetition duration increases the repetition range must be decreased to maintain the same time under load.
Usually if a person has a harder time moving more slowly it is because their form is poor and the faster speed masks discrepancies or “cheating”.
Would love to see an article about clients you have coached, including before and after pics, measurements, etc. I have always found case studies to be very interesting and motivating.
Ralph,
I’m putting a physique transformation program together for the next book for exactly that purpose, which will include detailed workout records and meal plans from all the subjects involved. Similar to Ellington Darden’s fat loss books, but with a different dietary approach.
Very helpful and thoughtful as always, Drew.
I’m 70, started BBS a year and a half ago, but after about 6 months of 10/10, have transitioned to 3/5to7 with 4 or 5 days recovery depending on how I feel. Like Don, I’m hoping to achieve good-looking cadaver status.
A physique transformation program is exactly what I am looking for. Can’t wait to buy it.
First off, thanks for the ebook its full of good stuff and its great to see someone carrying the torch originally bourne by the likes of A Jones, C Viator, M Mentzer.
I have trained on and off for 30 years, nothing serious, but I always enjoyed it, I had of course heard of M Mentzer but only read his book last year and found his arguments difficult to contradict.
Being 57 years old and working full time I was pleased to find something that appeared to give me the best bang for my buck (ÂŁ actually I am in the UK). in terms of the amount of potential benefit for the least amount of time in the gym.
So, I started doing the basic routine from Mikes book six months ago and have been quite happy with the results:
Workout1 chest and back
D/b flyes (for pre exhaust) 1 x 6/10 reps
bench-press 1 x 1/8 reps
Straight arm push down (for pre exhaust) 1 x 6/10 reps
Palms up pulldown 1 x 6/10 reps
Dead-lifts 1 x 6/10 reps
REST 3 to 4 days.
Workout 2 Legs and abs
Leg extension (for pre exhaust) 1 x 10/15 reps
Squats 1 x 8/10
Standing calf raise 1 x 12/20
sit ups 1 x 12/20
REST 3 to 4 days
Workout 3 shoulders and arms
D/b lat raise 1 x 6/10 reps
bent over lat raise 1 x 6/10 reps
palms up pulldowns 1 x 6/10 reps
triceps pushdown (for pre exhaust) 1 x 6/10 reps
dips 1 x 3/5 reps
REST 3 to 4 days
I sent for your book anticipating that as Mike’s routine was so old, that it may have been improved on over time, (Your work / body by science, etc.) and as good as your book is, I found the sheer number of excersize options offered a little overwhelming so I would appreciate it if you could suggest what, (If anything.) You would change from Mikes basic routine? (For instance, I got the impression from your book that you are an advocate of the standing press rather than the lateral raise.)
NOTES:
* I am 174 Lbs fairly lean, 6Ft tall.
1.) I have already taken on board your advice regarding neck work at the start of the sesion, but need to know if this should be at the start of each session or just one of them, and if so, which one?
2.) I use a fairly well equiped gym although there are no Med Ex machines.
3.) I am not looking for spectacular gains, (It’s a little late in life for that.) I just want to stay strong and healthy as I get older.
4.) I train alone, so I do not have a partner to help me go to absolute failure, but I do try to push my limits a little each work out.
5.) When doing pre exhaust sets, should these be to failure? (I imagine not, but need a little guidance.)
Well, I think that’s about it Drew, I look forward to your reply and feel free to publish my note and your response on your web page.
Keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Steve.
Steve,
I prefer to perform compound before simple movements, as I don’t believe the arm muscles are as much a limiting factor in compound movements as Arthur or others assumed as long as the moment arms are considered in exercise positioning (something else I cover in Elements of Form). When I do perform or have clients perform pre-exhaust I use the condensed style discussed in High Intensity Workouts. All exercises in a pre-exhaust sequence should be performed to failure.
Neck exercises don’t need to be done at the start of every workout. If you do include neck exercises in a workout they should be performed at the start for the reasons mentioned in the chapter on the neck.
You can go to failure on any exercise even without a spotter as long as you use proper safety equipment. During exercises like the bench press and squat, use a power rack with the safety bars set in the bottom position so you do not become stuck under the bar. Instead of using a standard Olympic bench I recommend using a sturdy flat bench inside a power rack for bench press, with the safety bars set low enough that the bar can touch the chest, but high enough to keep it off your neck. Err high rather than low, if the adjustment increments are too large. The hooks should be set to hold the bar just a few inches below lockout for the start.
How do high volume bodybuilders get so big ?
There are huge men at my gym who don’t go close to failure on most sets but they do a lot of sets and they are very muscular.
How does this happen ?
I train by your guidelines. I train harder than any of them. They train longer and much more often than me but they are much more impressive muscle wise than I am.
Intellectually I believe that we are right and they are training all wrong but many of these mass monsters doing everything wrong would blow me off the stage easily in a body building contest.
If My training is better and they are wrong, overtraining and using too many sets and not going to failure and training almost everyday, why are they better than me ?
Rockwell,
Due to differences in genetics and other factors you can’t fairly compare yourself to others or evaluate the merits of a training program based on someone else’s results with it.
Often, the people who have larger, more muscular bodies to begin with or the people who are able to progress on higher volume routines train that way because that’s what’s popular, and they never question it because it appears to work for them. You don’t know how big they were to begin with, so while their training may appear to be working for them they may not be any bigger than when they started. Even if they did achieve some of their size as a result of their training that is not proof that the same or better results could not have been achieved with a much lower volume and frequency. Also, steroid use in gyms is far more common than most people realize and can not be ruled out as a factor.
If you’re curious you can always try an experiment. Try following a higher volume routine for a few months, record your results, and compare it to your previous progress.
Drew,
I love your site an no BS circus acts that others in the business typically pull.
My lower body is too big, and make clothes difficult to purchase. I also feel my big legs and ass are kind of a burden. I was thinking about dropping the direct leg work completely.
What do you think the result would be by performing deadlifts (trap bar, regular, roman) in place of squats/leg presses as a lower body exercise?
Al
Alberto,
I don’t recommend dropping the leg work completely. Rather than allow the legs to get smaller, continue to train them but stop increasing the weight or reps until you feel your upper body development is more proportional. Regular and trap bar deadlifts are great exercises to alternate with squats and leg presses, but I wouldn’t recommend replacing them entirely.
Drew!
I read your comment that you are coming up with a physique transformation program! When do you expect to release? I found your website recently and have been reading away. I am very impressed with the quality of info. I am definitely in line to purchase your upcoming program.
Al
Alberto,
I am currently working on a book on exercise form which will be out in August. The physique transformation book will probably not be done until November or December.
Hi Drew,
Your correct, “individual” based upon their goals and their body’s response to exercise, individual responses to exercise is covered in GAS – individual being the key word. Also measuring and keeping accurate records of progress is vitally important in how much exercise one should be performing.
Whilst I have some variation in workloads performed in my exercise program I think that I have about the right balance of intensity, volume and frequency to maintain and continue making progress right up until the end.
My time spent training may appear to be shorter than some others but I know exactly and how much I am going to do in my workout as I take my workout card with me during the workout.
I think that Arthur Jones covered the “more sets”, words to the effect that somewhere in all those sets performed that one set would be an all out set, would activate the growth mechanism, all the other sets would be just wasted effort. If all these sets performed by many body builders delivered such great results than there would be no need for steroids.
Hi Drew,
As always, great post. A trainee’s search for the “ultimate workout” can often be counter productive. There is no “one size fits all” program. If you constantly change your goals (strength vs. metabolic conditioning), exercise choices, cadence (rep speed), intensity, volume and frequency you can’t keep accurate records. Without accurate records you can’t measure your progress (body’s response / adaptation to the training). Hence you end up confused, frustrated and often overtrained.
Don’t waste your time / energy getting lost in the details of this program / technique vs. that program / technique. Instead, channel all your energy into giving a maximal effort with your exercises. Strive for a personal best each session (i.e. more reps / TUL or adding weight to the bar). If you can’t achieve a personal best every session, this is an indication that you most likely need more rest between sessions and possibly more food or sleep.
As for exercise selection, focus all your attention on making gains in a handful of the following exercises: eg. Squats or Leg Press; BB Deadlifts or Hex Bar Deadlifts; Horizontal Push (eg. Chest Press); Horizontal Pull (eg. Free Weight or Machine Row); Vertical Push (eg. Shoulder Press), Vertical Pull (eg. Chinups or Underhand Pulldown).
If you feel compelled to add accessory exercises (eg. arms, abs etc) do so with caution as it may slow or stop your rate of progress in the bigger more productive exercises mentioned above. You may even find that you achieve better personal bests with a big 3 style workout. Workout 1: horizontal push; horizontal pull; leg push (squats or leg press). Workout 2: vertical pull, vertical push, leg pull (deadlifts). I made this change recently and I feel fantastic for it (feel stronger during my lifts and better personal bests).
Take home message: Don’t get lost in the details. Train hard, train progressively, eat, rest and have fun!
Hey Eric,
All very good points. I’ve written about this in The Ultimate Routine and recommend it to new visitors who may not have read it already.
“…one set would be an all out set, would activate the growth mechanism, all the other sets would be just wasted effort.”
@Drew-I hear this a lot, but I’m curious about this “growth mechanism”-it’s talked about as if a switch is hit and the growth wheels start to turn. Is this really how it works? If so, this switch can be turned on in various ways, as volume training also seems to work for some/many people (ie. it’s not an all or nothing “action potential”, like nerves firing). Forgive me if you have written on this before. It just seems this “growth mechanism” is talked about as if everyone knows what they are talking about and I’m not sure it’s really that clear.
Hey Thomas,
It’s definitely not as simple as a switch or an all-or-nothing phenomena, but it is definitely more related to intensity of effort than volume of work performed, and if intensity is high enough the point of diminishing returns is reached very quickly with increases in volume. There is also no single growth mechanism, but many factors contributing to muscular growth and other adaptations, all of which are affected differently by tension, metabolic stress, micro-trauma, etc.
Also, did you get to interview Ryan Hall and do you plan to post any more info about his thoughts on inroad? Thanks Drew-you are a trusted resource.
Hey Thomas,
Ryan and I have not done the interview yet. He’s got a busy training schedule and I’ve had a lot going on during the past few weeks so it’s been put on the back burner. We’ll most likely do it after Elements of Form is completed.
Drew,
Exceptional as usual.
I have gottne to the point where I can reliably get stronger, with ten days rest in the leg press and dead lift.
Lately however, I have been experimenting with doing sub-max sessions, at various points along the timeline, until day twelve, and doing a full intensity sessionon day twelve. I am trying this because Ellington Darden suggested it in an interview you did with him.
How do you feel about this?
Bill
Bill,
I rarely have people stop shy of failure during workouts, although there are times when this may be appropriate. If recovery is an issue I prefer to reduce the volume or split up the routines or add recovery days.
Drew,
interesting point regarding the velocity-force curve. Quick question though—I’ve got nothing but respect for Dr.McGuff, Discover Strength and all HIT proponents——–but why is it that all their physiques just don’t look very good. I would avoid using the genetics excuse simply because there’s many of them. Not one of them would stand out in a crowd and a lot of these guys have been training this way for years. They can’t ALL have “bad” genetics.
Perhaps there is some truth to quicker cadence sets that still place an emphasis on maintaining good form. I think it would be a great experiment to try on long time SS guys like Dr.Mcguff. I’d love to see what sorts of transformations would occur if he was to uppp the weights a bit and use a more typical 1-3 or 1-4 cadence for 6 months.
Ramy,
Re-read what I wrote previously about comparisons.
As for quicker reps, most of the SuperSlow people started out training with traditional Nautilus high intensity programs and have already made the comparison. It is also wrong to assume they would need to increase the weight switching from SuperSlow to faster reps. As long as a similar time under load was used they would already be using a heavy weight.
The only time a person has to reduce the weight when switching from typical repetition cadences to SuperSlow is if they were using poor form to begin with (which is most people) or if they increase the time under load significantly.
While it is not necessary to move that slowly in most cases, there is no advantage to doing exercises quickly either, and if there is ever any doubt about the best speed of movement for an exercise it is better to go too slowly than too quickly for several reasons. A slower movement results in more consistent tension on the muscles over the ROM of the exercise, improves control of body position and movement, especially during the turnarounds, and reduces potentially harmful increases in force during acceleration around the start and end points.
Yes we hear this a lot hit guys don’t look as big and muscular as volume guys , you got to rember a lot of hit guys started off with the high volume aproach and fund it to much to recover from thay just weren’t the genetic freaks that do well with high volume training and don’t forget the juice that a lot of these guys seem to be taking these days . You have to take drugs just to keep doing that high volume bs. That’s why I chose hit instead of high volume to stay drug free , I got in to body building years ago after seeing Arnold , I’m one of those lucky freaks that seam to grow on any training program I whanted to look like him so I bought his training books Christ was it a lot of work I seamed to be living in the gym , I did alright on it put on a bit of muscle but fed up with being tiered all the time . so I looked up Mike Mentzer , Wow I could not get over how different it was so gave it a try and I could not believe how quick my muscles began to grow and my strength went though the roof and now I wouldn’t train any other way . So yes hit is best especially if like me your a freak
D
Multiple sets!??!
I really enjoy everything you publish Drew. Thank you!
Reading this post, I was a bit flabbergasted to see that multiple sets might be recommended for some HIT trainees. This is not a comment I remember seeing here or in the BBS literature… I’m starting to have difficulty differentiating HIT from standard body building but I’ll keep this for the end…
The comment about multiple sets made me think and question if I could be one that gets better results with multiple sets. You see, I’m a hard gainer and have been stagnating for over 4 months. If this is my natural potential, it’s quite discouraging. LOL. I tried all possible rest periods without success. I also split my workout in 3 sessions of 3 exercises to allow better focus on each exercise (Mon. Legs, Wed. Pulling, and Sat. Pushing).
I think what puzzles me is how to know that I have, or not, triggered the “switch” for muscle growth. I know there’s no magic answer.
So after reading this post this morning, I tried to do 3 sets of today’s workout’s last exercise. I was surprised to see that, after a 2 minutes rest, I was able to do another set even if the previous one had been to failure with inroad until runaway of the weight under the negative. Here’ s the example:
Triceps Pushdowns (Cadence 4/10)
Set 1: 5 reps (TUL = 70 Excluding inroad until runaway of approx. 10 to 20s)
Set 2: 4 reps (TUL = 56 Excluding inroad until runaway of approx. 10 to 20s)
Set 3: 3 reps (TUL = 42 Excluding inroad until runaway of approx. 10 to 20s)
Do you think that was a waste of effort or counterproductive? I think it doesn’t mean anything when it comes to triggering adaptions but my triceps felt much more tired for a much longer period of time.
And about these guys using steroids in the gym; are they getting better and faster results with high volume because the drug allows them to really exhaust their muscle to a greater degree and still recover? The big guys I observed do go to complete failure each heavy set; Usually 3 or 4 sets. They even do forced reps… What’s the difference then between this and HIT, other than warm up, rep speed and number of sets?
JF
JF,
I am not recommending multiple sets in most cases, and if I did it would usually involve dividing up the work of a single set over several smaller ones, not increasing volume. I wrote this to point out there is more to volume than sets and reps and that these were things that should be considered in program design and adjustment and when comparing the volume of different training programs.
If your first set of an exercise requires 70 seconds to complete, a second would be unlikely to provide much more benefit but it would add considerably to the stress the body must recover from. With SuperSlow, negative emphasized and other very slow repetition protocols with a long repetition duration a single rep lasts longer than two or three reps performed at typical cadences. Since a reasonable set duration would involve very few slow repetitions to begin with if you wanted to divide the set for some reason the best approach would be to use rest-pause.
Steroids increases your body’s response to and your ability to recover from exercise tremendously. The volume and frequency of training that is effective for someone on steroids is not appropriate for a natural trainee, but even steroid users would probably do better by adjusting their training volume and frequency based on their body’s response rather than blindly following the high volume approach.
Thank you for clarifying this for me!
Hey Drew,
in your answer to Thomas you wrote:
“There is also no single growth mechanism, but many factors contributing to muscular growth and other adaptations, all of which are affected differently by tension, metabolic stress, micro-trauma, etc.”
Because of these many factors do you use different TUL ranges to emphasize different stimuli in different training cycles?
E.g. a heavy weight necessitating a TUL of 30-60 secs for emphasizing tension and micro-trauma for maybe 6 weeks.
Than for the next 6 weeks a medium heavy weight and using the same exercises for a TUL of 70-100 secs to emphasize metabolic stress.
Perhaps going as high as 80-120 secs.
Thank you very much,
Andy
Andy,
No, you just find the repetition range or time under load that provides the best balance of these factors based on the individual’s response to exercise and goals. No periodization necessary.
Thanks Drew,
but using different TUL ranges for different muscles according to specific muscle fiber set up?
Is there a valid and practical muscle fiber test you use or do you just go by the response of each muscle group?
Andy,
The optimal repetition range varies between individuals and even between muscle groups within an individual. There is no practical way to test this but it can be determined based on patterns of workout performance over time. The specific method I use will be covered either in a future post or in one of the upcoming ebooks.
Eric Harkins said:
“You may even find that you achieve better personal bests with a big 3 style workout. Workout 1: horizontal push; horizontal pull; leg push (squats or leg press). Workout 2: vertical pull, vertical push, leg pull (deadlifts). I made this change recently and I feel fantastic for it (feel stronger during my lifts and better personal bests).”
Eric
Do you do Workout 1 one week and then do Workout 2 the next week in alternating fashion? Was it a big adjustment going from doing an exercise every week to doing it every other week?
Hi Craig,
I actually changed from doing 1 workout a week: horizontal push; horizontal pull; vertical push, vertical pull, leg push and split it into two workouts a week. i.e. same volume of work but split over 2 sessions. Tues: vertical pull, vertical push, leg pull (deadlifts). Sat: horizontal push; horizontal pull; leg push (squats).
Previously, my performance in exercises working similar muscle groups would suffer as I fatigued from earlier lifts. i.e shoulder press would suffer when i did a maximum effort with chest press and vertical pull would suffer when i did a maximum effort with horizontal pull. This reduction to 3 main exercises per workout allows me to enter each exercise with fresh muscles and give it the energy it deserves.
As the weight on the bar slowly edges up and the stress on my muscles increases, i will need to increase rest days between workouts. The next change will most likely be reducing to one “big 3 style” workout a week and alternate between the two.
It can be daunting when you need to reduce the volume or frequency of your workouts (I love my training as much as the next person). Use this time off to pursue other interests, rest, eat and have fun. As time passes your anticipation and energy for your next workout will continue to build. By the time your workout comes you will be bursting with excitement and energy. You can approach each lift feeling super strong and knowing that you will achieve a new record. This is the “fantastic” feeling I was talking about.
I used to constantly fret over wanting to train more. I would regularly adjust my program so I could justify more training. This only lead to overtraining and frustration. Try to avoid this behaviour and enjoy your time off instead.
This program sounds good!..My question is: You didn’t suffer any size or strength loss due to the reduced frequency of hitting an exercise only once a week?
Sandy,
No. You won’t lose size or strength cutting back to doing an exercise once weekly. You would have to go for a month or two without training before you started to lose any strength or size, you don’t start decompensating that quickly.
Drew,
When it comes to compound movements, I often see myself getting stornger the more I do them, but I find I’m no stronger in isolation movements – in fact I somehow get weaker.
So for example, if I consistently do bicep curls, I get stronger with each workout (or relatively so), but then let’s say I stop them and go to pulldowns or rows for a while, even incorportating advanced techniques like negatives and static holds, and I’m getting stronger in those lifts. If after a few weeks I return to bicep curls, they feel almost as weak as when I started.
Is it a matter than I’m weaker? Or is it an endurance issue? It seems for me I would not feel comfortable to going to a say “core 5” compound movements forever. I’d have to switch up and add some iso’s in there from time to time.
PTB,
There is a skill component which affects exercise performance, also the limb muscles, rather than being a weak link in many compound movements, can be underworked during some portions of the range of motion depending on the manner of performance (the moment arms the arm muscles work against). While a person can get pretty strong arms doing nothing but chins, dips, presses and rows, performing the occasional direct arm exercise will help if your goal is maximum arm development.
Drew,
Excellent site! It is of great help along with the great book of Doug McGuff.
The one variable that remains constant in HIT is training to failure. I do not seem to be able to place this in the sunburn analogy. Clearly getting a little sun each day works much better, than taking in a lot of sun at once (close to your threshold), for instance once a week. Training to failure does seem to have a major impact on the CNS (at least for me: small boned). Doing a total body workout (even the big three) has a major impact on recovery of my CNS and muscle soreness (especially doing deadlifts). I recently changed to a body split, training a push and pull one week and legs the other week and that seems to work a lot better. But I still wonder if it wouldn’t be beneficial to not work out to failure but just shy of failure and with a greater frequency with a total body workout. Any thoughts you have regarding this would be greatly appreciated.
JD,
The effect of training on the CNS is indirect and has more to do with volume than intensity. You’re not going to overstress your CNS by training to failure unless your training volume and frequency exceeds what you can handle and recovery from. Read the Q&A I wrote on criticisms of training to failure.
Drew,
Thanks for your advice. I did not want to increase my sets at all but I did add a second set to each exercise. After one full month I have gained 7 pounds and I am more defined. I have gotten many compliments at school and guys at the gym asked me what I was taking.
Should I go up to three sets for September ?
Rockwell,
Instead of doing more sets, put more effort into the one’s you’re already doing. More work is rarely the answer. Usually what people need is to work harder.
Drew,
Am I correct in converting TUL for the typical workout below to 10/10 cadence?
Typical workout 1.5s cadence
Bench press 4 sets of 15 reps (90s TUL)
Pullups 3 set of 3 reps (13.5s TUL)
Situps 4 sets of 15 reps (90s TUL)
HIT 10/10 cadence
Bench press 1 set of 5 reps (100s TUL)
Pullups 1 set of 1 reps (20s TUL)
Situps 1 set of 5 reps (100s TUL)
Les,
The difference in speed affects a lot more than just the cumulative TUL of the exercises and workouts, but if you were going to compare this is one way of doing it. Interestingly, something I’ve written about before and have been thinking about addressing again is how when you look at exercise volume from the standpoint of TUL instead of mechanical work you find there is less of a difference in cumulative TUL between typical multi-set bodybuilding workouts done at fast rep speeds and single-set high intensity training workouts done at slower speeds.
Hi Drew,
I recently read a couple of (more recent) articles by the late Arthur Jones. He seemed to conclude that training to failure is not for everyone (some people do not recover quick enough), that high reps (or TULS) also are too much for some people and that there are some people (although a minority) who actually seem to get stronger after each set (which could be an explanation for the multiple set pyramid system that never worked for me, because I’m finished after one set, but seem to work great for the genetically gifted).
He also mentions some people seem to respond best doing only one exercise for one set once in each two weeks. Since after this he did not seem to have published anymore, perhaps you could elaborate more on these subjects, because these seem crucial to training success.
I would be especially interested how he would have split the body training only once each two weeks with one exercise.
Thanks for your excellent site and your continuing effort to improve on current training philosophies.
JDR,
There are some people with extremely poor recovery ability for whom this might be a problem, but the majority of people should train to momentary muscular failure for best results.
While a wide variety of rep ranges or durations can be effective some people will respond better to higher or lower reps or TUL and some experimentation is required to determine what works best for an individual.
In addition to Elements of Form I currently editing an annotated and uncensored collection of a column I wrote back in 1998 during which time I was talking with Arthur regularly, and includes commentary on several of my discussions with him including discussions of training volume and frequency and whole body versus split routines. He generally favored whole body workouts with the exception of individuals with extremely poor exercise tolerance and recovery ability.
Thanks Drew. Looking forward to that column.
JDR,
You’re welcome. That book should be out before the end of this month.
One point I forgot. He also discerned a S type and a G type. Although he limited this to the range of motion, you could argue on these test results, that a S type would benefit doing more than one exercise per muscle group (Dorian Yates type of routine), while a G type would overtrain doing that. Would also appreciate your thoughts on that.
JDR,
I believe these differences are primarily neurological and specific to the exercises and testing methods used rather than the ability to apply strength improvements from isometrics to dynamic movement in other activities, and have little bearing on exercise selection or volume.
Hi Drew, excellent ideas.
I used a heavier weight to do only 4 reps (3 sec concentric and 7 sec eccentric). Once I reached failure after 4 reps, I rested for hardly 10 seconds to add an extra 2 reps at same cadence to reach failure, then paused again for 10 seconds to do ONE FINAL REP and then failed. So basically it is like one extended set with 3 failures and 7 reps/70 seconds TUL (with 20 seconds of rest in between).
Is it okay to do like this, or should I stop after reaching failure at 4 reps?
Hey Gene,
This is fine to do occasionally, but if you perform post-failure rest-pause frequently it can be stressful enough to compromise recovery. Instead, I’d reduce the load to allow a little more time under load, about five to eight reps at ten seconds per rep, and stop at momentary muscular failure.
Hi Drew, thanks again for the excellent ideas. I am curious about one thing. You often say TUL should be kept under 90 seconds, but what is the lower limit – 30 seconds? 20 seconds? I am assuming TUL which is too low will be as useless as TUL which is too high. Is my logic correct?
Hey Gene,
There is a very broad range of repetitions and time under load that can be effective, but I like to keep sets over 30 seconds for the sake of creating greater cardiovascular and metabolic demand, and 30 to 90 seconds allows for a heavy enough load to help create significant tension in the target muscles (along with numerous other factors) without allowing for a weight that is so heavy that it is unnecessarily hard on the joints. This also allows for a significant number of repetitions at a slower cadence. I like to keep it in the middle of that range and now use either a 4/4 cadence with a repetition range of 6-9 or a 4/8 cadence with a repetition range of 4-6 which both end up taking about 50 to 80 seconds with turnaround time and squeeze technique.