Recently I’ve written a few things here and had discussions on rep speed and workout volume with a few people, and just wanted to mention a few things people should consider regarding rep speed, time under load, and the effect on relative workout volume.
Earlier I did shrug bar deadlifts, weighted dips, arm curls, calf raise, and a set with each hand on the Ivanko Super Gripper. Six sets total, 51 reps, in under 10:13. This Heavy Duty style workout is pretty short, even as HIT workouts go. Compared to a typical bodybuilding routine this is really short.
Or is it?
On average, I take around ten or more seconds to perform a rep; about a four second positive, a brief pause at the top of simple and compound pulling movements, about a four second negative, and a slow, controlled turnaround at the bottom. So 51 reps equals around seven minutes cumulative time under load.
A typical Nautilus style HIT workout might include one set of eight to twelve reps of a dozen exercises. Performed using a similar speed of movement the cumulative time under load would be around sixteen minutes.
A typical bodybuilding routine might include three or four sets of ten reps of up to a dozen exercises, or between 360 and 480 reps. Performed at typical speeds of around two seconds per rep, this would only add up to a cumulative time under load between 12 and 16 minutes.
Not much of a difference in time under load.
And two seconds is being really, really generous. I recently filmed one of my experimental subject’s workouts. Everything was going smoothly until I banged my head on the dipping handles of the Nautilus Omni Multi Exercise while setting it up. I watched the video afterwards to see if it was noticeable and even while watching at 4x speed searching for that part Joe still appeared to be moving more slowly and with better control than most people do in the gym.
So, assuming an average rep duration of two seconds is erring on the high side.
The total time under load for the hypothetical “high volume” bodybuilding workout may actually be lower than a typical Nautilus style HIT workout. Other than the quality of muscular loading, the biggest difference is the number of movements and the work/rest intervals. Comparing time under load to total time, the HIT workout has a much higher density of work.
There would be little rest between exercises in the Nautilus style workout. Assuming an average of ten reps per set, or around 80 seconds, and about 30 seconds to get out of one machine, get to, set up and enter the next, you’d be looking at a total workout time under 22 minutes.
With the typical bodybuilding routine, the total set time might average around 20 seconds, but the rest intervals tend to be on the longer side, usually 90 seconds or more unless pre-exhaust, supersetting or giant-setting is performed. With a 90 second rest interval, a 48 set workout would take around an hour and a half.
Why am I thinking about this?
After years following typical bodybuilding routines with little to show for it I made the best gains of my life following Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Duty program, training twice a week doing only a few exercises. Then I started doing SuperSlow, following Ken’s 1992 guidelines and over time lost size.
I was doing about the same number of exercises for about the same number of reps (four to eight), and at a similar frequency, so what was the problem?
The time under load. Averaging six reps per exercise at a 10/10 cadence and following each set with a ten second static for “thorough inroad” I was averaging over two minutes per exercise and over twelve minutes per workout. Two problems with this – the total time under load was around double, and since the sets were lasting two minutes straight I was not handling near as much weight and not putting nearly as much tension on the muscles.
The solution? I cut back to only two or three reps to bring the time under load down to under a minute. My results immediately improved.
Although entirely subjective, the sets also felt very different. I felt as though the exercises were more a challenge of strength than a stamina.
This presented a problem when I stopped working for Ken Hutchins and started doing some of my workouts at a local gym. When performing SuperSlow on equipment without resistance curves designed specifically for very slow rep speed, or when using free weights, sticking points that would normally feel like speed bumps became small hills. Even with a good understanding of strength curves and the moment-arms involved in free weight exercises, when you’re moving extremely slowly you spend a lot more time going through those sticking points and tend to get stuck there consistently. Increasing to a more moderate speed eliminated this problem while still allowing me to maintain proper body position and relatively strict form.
What’s the point?
There are several.
Volume is about more than the number of sets and reps. It is also a matter of time under tension, which must be considered if you are going to try using a slower or faster rep speed. It is also about the amount of muscle being worked – a deadlift places a much greater demand on the body than a wrist curl.
There is such a thing as too slow if you don’t have equipment that has very good resistance curves. You should never move very fast in exercise, but you may need to move less slowly when using less than optimal equipment or you might rob yourself of a few productive reps because you couldn’t get past a small “speed bump” of a sticking point. Understanding how to perform free weight exercises to balance the resistance and strength curves helps but not as much if you’re going really slowly.
Even if you have equipment with ideal resistance curves like Ken Hutchins’ SuperSlow machines or retrofitted Nautlilus and MedX, it isn’t necessary to move extremely slowly. You’ve got to move slowly enough to be able to maintain reasonably strict form, turnaround smoothly, etc., but that’s about it. Beyond that there is little additional benefit for most people. Of course, what is slow enough will vary between individuals depending on physical condition, motor ability, skill in the particular exercise, etc. Someone with joint problems and poor motor ability who is not skilled in the performance of a particular exercise may need to perform it considerably more slowly than someone in perfect physical condition with excellent motor ability and who is highly skilled in performing the exercise.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Drew, nice work again, but after all what is the best time under tension that a muscle should be, because I put 4 seconds to raise the weight and 4 seconds to lower it, not mentioning the static time in some exercise, and I have another question refered to shoulders, for me in that case is very hard put this kind of muscle under tension with a particular time with free weight, in the most cases dumbbells, what you suggest, but in my gym here in Brazil there isn’t good machine to train shoulders.
Best regards Drew.
Diógenes,
There is a wide range of reps or time under load that is effective for building strength and size, but some people do better with lower or higher, depending on genetics and other factors. I cover this in the bodybuilding book, which I will be finishing up as soon as I wrap up editing on a side project we’re releasing soon.
If you don’t have a machine for shoulders I recommend strict standing presses and dumbbell lateral raises. People tend to do a little better with lower reps for shoulders but don’t go so low in reps or high in weight you can’t maintain strict form.
Are you still looking at releasing it this month? please don’t tell me it’s gonna be towards the end of this month or early next month. : )
Tim,
Yes, it has to be out this month. I’m featured in Tim Ferriss upcoming book The 4-Hour Body which is out in December and anticipate it generating a lot of interest outside of the HIT community. That, and people are getting sick of waiting, especially my wife. Every week I hear “Are you still working on that? When is it going to be done” At this point I’m more motivated by making the nagging stop than the income the book will produce.
We’re also about to release something else I’ve been working on on the side. My business partner, who handles the technical stuff, marketing, etc. says we need to do a proper “launch” so whatever that involves it’ll probably start this weekend.
Hey Drew. This is out of sheer curiosity. Have you ever had any clients that progressed on a given exercise doing just one rep per workout? Or guess the better question would be on a time under load in the single digits? I realize that the higher the load the harder to keep strict form. I’m just curious if you knew of anyone at this extreme end of the spectrum.
I know one person who performed only one slow rep of a few different exercises and reported good results from it. There are various isometric protocols like Max Contraction which involve sets lasting only a few seconds which have proven to be effective as well.
2 seconds really is generous Drew. In reviewing studies for the paper I’ve been working on most refer to this as traditional speed, however in one study while they had all groups perform varying speed reps with a metronome, one group just did whatever speed they felt and from memory the average lowering and lifting phases were both less than 1 second.
TUL.(Time under load) widely recommended at 60 – 90 seconds. So my three reps at 10/10 is the same as twenty reps at 2/1 as far as TUL goes. Can this be so? Whence arose the TUL theory? And is TUL considered effective for strength or hypertrophy or both? Any research on this? There must be.
It is all very confusing. Thanks
Time under load (TUL) is just a different way to measure exercise performance, not a different way to perform exercise.
I love it when Christmas comes early! : )
Hi Drew,
This past week I asked if you knew if Randy was still making the original Max Contraction Home Unit machine and told me you didn’t know. Do you know how I can contact him to find out? I just love the simplicity of it. I’m a life-long arthritis sufferer and still only in my mid-30’s and have been interested in the Max Contraction approach and equipment. I refuse to take the medicine and rather work with the proper exercise and diet. I still need much improvement. Thanks.
John,
The Max Contraction Home Unit is no longer available. A CZT home machine is in development, however.
Would you consider the number of turn-arounds(including partial movements which would inhibit inertia) instead of the term repetition a factor in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? Are changes in cross-bridging, going from concentric to the eccentric and back important?
Although the relationship between mechanical and metabolic work is not direct, the rate of work and relative duration of positive and negative phases affect rate of inroad, which is important.
I performed a few experiments a while back comparing rates of fatigue at different cadences. If a person performed an exercise to failure at a 2/2 cadence, then waited half an hour and repeated the exercise at a 10/10 cadence most people were able to go 30 to 40% longer at 10/10 even though it was their second set. If they did 2/10 the results were similar. If they did 10/2 they still achieved a higher time than with 2/2, but not as much as with the slower negatives.
This tells us a few things:
Even with the same average tension on the muscles rate of fatigue increases with rate of work, although not proportionally. The 2/2 group did over twice as much work on average but did not fatigue twice as fast. Faster inroad means faster recruitment of all motor units, so this is an argument against going too slowly.
The higher the ratio of negative to positive work the slower the rate of fatigue. No big surprise there; you’re stronger during the negative and it’s less metabolically demanding than the positive. This leads to all sorts of additional considerations and questions.
You can handle a much heavier weight if you do 3 reps in a minute than 10 because of the slower rate of fatigue and the longer respite during the negatives. You’re still spending 30 seconds lifting and 30 seconds lowering over the course of the exercise, but you wouldn’t be able to recover as much during the shorter negatives.
You could speed up the positive while still doing a very slow negative and get an extra rep or two in that minute with the heavier weight. Of course, if the goal is a longer respite you’d be better off doing both a moderate positive and negative and just unloading completely between reps, rest-pause style.
To lift a heavier weight you could also just shorten the set at the moderate cadence. You can handle more weight doing 3 to 5 reps at 3/3 (about 20 to 30 seconds) than 3 to 5 negative emphasized reps at 3/10 lasting over a minute.
I think it’s important to not perform too few repetitions at moderate cadences, though. While using too high of a rep range requires you to use a weight that is too light for optimal strength and size increases, using too low of a rep range often requires a weight that makes proper form extremely difficult to maintain and safety should always be the highest priority. First, do no harm.
The problem with talking about repetition ranges, however, is the differences in cadence and the resulting TUL. When most people talk about doing 15 to 20 reps they’re talking about 30 to 40 seconds of work. Their 15 to 20 equals less time than my 7 to 10. I think this may be where you and I had a disconnect before. Performing repetitions in the manner I suggest using a repetition range of 15 to 20 would result in a time under load of 2 minutes to 2:40, which is about four times as long. I think it’s important for everybody to clarify this, especially when discussing research where the exercises are typically performed in a sloppy, haphazard fashion at cadences that are very fast by HIT standards.
I’m seriously considering cutting my reps down to the 3 to 5 range for a while as an experiment (I typically do 7 to 10 at a strict 3/3 cadence) which would still result in a TUL over twice as long as a typical set of 12 to 15. The results will be interesting, as this would bring my total time under load for each workout way, way down.
I have other comments to address and a ton of editing work today but I will write more about this later. I actually revised the section on rep speed and rep range in the book to include some of this and might just insert some of these tangential things in there at the end of the chapters.
Drew,
Great article,I have had a similar experience and have come to similar conclusions.After being certified as a super slow instructor
my training experiences showed that this method was not the best method to build muscle size/strength. Failure was a matter of running out of steam, more a lack of stamina than lack of strength.Sets were too long ,training intervals too far apart.Looking back I can see that I stuck with this method of training and teaching for far too many years.I wanted it to be true so I ignored my conclusions because I wanted the whole super slow philosophy to work,it made great sense and was a great business model.
I still use the super slow protocol with all new clients as I find it is a great way to teach. Beyond teaching, I think for best results,that the final productive few seconds of the set needs to occur at a time when the subject still has enough steam left and is not hampered by systemic fatigue. The trick is to gradually fatigue the the muscle and not the ‘system’ as much. They go hand in hand but muscle force production needs to be the limiting factor not your ability to re-synthesize fuel,which is probably closer to 45 seconds than it is to 100 seconds.
As TUL is shortened, the volume can increase. With standard super slow protocol the subject especially an advanced subject can easily be on the floor after 3-4 back to back 2 minute sets,with much ‘left on the table ‘in terms of local muscle stimulation, they are wiped out but again more from a lack of ‘stamina’.
If you want to train yourself to work hard,going super slow for 2 minute sets to failure will do the trick, I think to work the muscles to a point where they fail from lack of force production, all the points you make in this article must be taken into consideration,again great article.
Dennis
Is there possibly another factor in rep performance? Perhaps how the endpoints of a movement are handled should also be evaluated? For example, a set done with a 1/1 or 2/2 cadence done with continuous motion with no stopping at the endpoints is a completely different animal from a set where complete stops are used at said endpoints. I think the element of inertia is reduced.In movements that have lockout positions such as the bench press, complete stops at the stretch position and 10-20 degrees from the end of the movement makes for a more challenging workout.
Absolutely. Whether you reverse direction immediately, pause, or unload between reps makes a difference. What is best depends on the goals and the exercise.
As a general rule I recommend turning around a few degrees short of lockout on pushing movements to avoid unloading.
Is there a factor of “mechanical work” under time and is it significant for the purposes of skeletal muscle hypertrophy? Would the results be different performing 10/10 for 3 or 4 reps to failure for approximately 60-80 sec. work compared to 2/2 cadence for 15-20 reps for the same time period to failure?
When I did Superslow I lost muscular size and wondered if there was a “mechanical work” factor.
I don’t know how much mechanical work affects hypertrophy but the effectiveness of isometric protocols shows it isn’t necessary. You can have strength and hypertrophy increases with no movement at all.
A higher rate of work results in a higher (but not proportional) rate of fatigue with a particular load, but the converse is a slower rate of work allows a significantly heavier weight to be used for the same period of time.
I also lost muscular size when doing SuperSlow, but was doing very high TULs at the time (4 to 8 reps at 10/10, or 1:20 to 2:40 on average) and suspect it had to do with the relatively lower loads required. I immediately regained my previous muscular weight when cutting my TULs to a minute or less and increasing the weight and others had similar experiences.
Hi Drew,
What I have noticed with rep speed when working through maximal moment arm position to control the speed of movement aids in maximal intensity outcomes. I believe that you really have to focus on the controlled speed of movement through maxiaml moment arm.
Thanks
Hi Drew,
I know that in past posts you have mentioned “Specific movement” and that coaches and trainers will tell you to do Olympic lifts – power cleans etc to improve explosive speed for any number of sporting activities. What you won’t hear is the olympic weight lifting coach say lifters go out out do twenty slam dunks or some other explosive sporting movement and you will improve your explosive power cleans. If something is to be considered “Specific” then it should be both ways. Just some thoughts.
Steven – although Olympic lifters don’t train explosiveness using slam dunks, they do employ vertical jump training.
Hi Drew I’m glad you brought up moment arms. I have been sifting through Moment Arm exercise and one thing Bill says is that you don’t really need to hit the ends of the strength curve because of Sliding Filament Theory which basically states that you can’t really increase the strength on either end of the curve as the muscle fibers overlap in the middle and this maximum force is generated in the middle. I guess my question is, I have a hard time believing that one does not have to go through a full ROM just hitting around the middle part of the strength curve as opposed to someone who goes the full ROM. Do you agree with this because I’ve always thought you supported a full ROM.
Thanks
Alex,
You can improve strength at any point in the range of motion, but a muscles strength is lower towards both ends of a muscles range of motion because of the reduction in overlap in the stretched position and backbending of actin getting in the way of crossbridging towards the fully shortened position. It is not necessary to go to the extremes of range of motion during exercise and in many cases safer to avoid extreme stretches in particular. I instruct clients to go until they just start to feel a stretch, but to not attempt any kind of deep stretch while under load.
Perhaps it wasn’t the load that was at fault but the way it was being used. The lower load at very slow rep speed probably did little to enhance occlusion via tension, a possible component of hypertrophy. Loads of 40-60% of 1RM done in a “controlled” manner with complete stops at set points produces occlusion very nicely. The limited number of reps also probably produced little mechanical stimulation.
The conclusions of those occlusion studies are interesting but have no bearing on what you should do in the gym, unless you work out wearing tourniquets. They shouldn’t be interpreted as supporting the effectiveness of lower loads under normal conditions.
The limited number of reps was not the problem either. Many people started getting better results by dropping from the 4 to 8 rep range suggested in the SuperSlow technical manual to the 2 to 3 rep range I was recommending at the time. They were doing fewer reps, but they were doing them for a shorter time and with more weight. If the problem was lack of mechanical work the results would have been worse, not better.
The below study and J. Physiol. Vol. No.1 Feb. 2008 pp.7-14 talk about using low load with tonic cadence(3/3) producing Kaatsu(muscle deoxygenation) like effects without tourniquets. I believe 40-60% of 1RM is a good and safe training medium for hypertrophy training if performed properly. When I tried using Superslow with higher loads with lower reps like Fred Hahn who I respect, orthopedic problems developed and had to stop. Others had the same issues.
Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men
Michiya Tanimoto and Naokata Ishii
Department of Life Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Submitted 22 June 2005 ; accepted in final form 1 December 2005
We investigated the acute and long-term effects of low-intensity resistance exercise (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength. This type of exercise was expected to enhance the intramuscular hypoxic environment that might be a factor for muscular hypertrophy. Twenty-four healthy young men without experience of regular exercise training were assigned into three groups (n = 8 for each) and performed the following resistance exercise regimens: low-intensity [50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)] with slow movement and tonic force generation (3 s for eccentric and concentric actions, 1-s pause, and no relaxing phase; LST); high-intensity (80% 1RM) with normal speed (1 s for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 s for relaxing; HN); low-intensity with normal speed (same intensity as for LST and same speed as for HN; LN). In LST and HN, the mean repetition maximum was 8RM. In LN, both intensity and amount of work were matched with those for LST. Each exercise session consisting of three sets was performed three times a week for 12 wk. In LST and HN, exercise training caused significant (P < 0.05) increases in cross-sectional area determined with MRI and isometric strength (maximal voluntary contraction) of the knee extensors, whereas no significant changes were seen in LN. Electromyographic and near-infrared spectroscopic analyses showed that one bout of LST causes sustained muscular activity and the largest muscle deoxygenation among the three types of exercise. The results suggest that intramuscular oxygen environment is important for exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy.
The only thing this paper suggests is a moderate rep speed (3/3) is more effective than a fast rep speed (1/1) using moderate or higher loads in previously untrained subjects. Why didn’t they have a HST (high load, slow movement, tonic force generation)?
The paper states, “…studies suggest that the muscle-trophic effect of resistance exercise involves not only large mechanical stress but also metabolic, hormonal, and neuronal factors.”
Nobody disputes these other things play a role, but they are not as important as load under normal training conditions. They are contributing factors, but by themselves, without load, they will not stimulate hypertrophy. Even only a few seconds exposure to a heavy enough load, however, will stimulate hypertrophy. John Little’s work with Max Contraction and the research he based it on all show very brief (a few seconds) of high intensity muscular contraction will stimulate increases in strength and size.
No amount of occlusion, fatigue, movement, etc. will stimulate anything in the way of meaningful strength and size increases unless there is also a high amount of tension, but a high amount of tension will stimulate significant strength and size increases with very little involvement of these other factors.
Is it possible to make good progress training with lower loads? Sure, for a while. Eventually, if a person wants to continue to become bigger and stronger they’re going to have to lift heavier weights, though.
They conducted this study for 12 weeks with 24 beginners. I have nearly two decades experience training hundreds of individuals ranging from beginners to people with decades of training experience using both low load, very slow movement and tonic force generation, and high load, moderately slow movement with and without tonic generation (continuous and rest-pause training) and the higher loads produced consistently better results, and the rest-pause has produced the best results so far in terms of hypertrophy.
Hey Drew, You, John Little, Josh Trentine, and some others have really got me thinking about the heavy weight, low TUL sets. I’ve been able to put some of it into practice at my local gym. I really appreciate all the information you have on your site.
Donnie,
It’s important to keep in mind low, high, etc. are relative terms. What I’m recommending is only low TUL compared to SuperSlow, it is still a bit on the high side compared to typical rep speeds.
A set of 10 reps at typical fast, sloppy rep speeds would take about 10 to 20 seconds. A set at a moderate, 3/3 pace with a pause in the fully contracted position would take about 50 to 80 seconds. I’ve actually cut my rep range back down to 5 to 8 because I found I was moving more slowly than I thought I was when recording my TUL. A current SuperSlow recommendations are to perform between 100 and 180 seconds TUL (5 to 9 reps at 10/10).
Load is also relative. What I’m calling “high load” is high relative to what we were using with SuperSlow, but probably still somewhat moderate compared to what could be used at typical rep ranges with typical cadences. Consider charts for estimating 1RM from rep maximums typically consider an 8RM to be around 80% of someone’s 1RM, but a typical 8 rep set is only going to last less than 16 seconds. A 15RM is considered to be around 60 to 65% and even that typically lasts less than 30 seconds.
What I’m recommending might actually be closer to the LST in the study than I had considered, keeping the TULs in mind. Which would mean the SS people are actually using way less weight, and would also explain why we were able to make such huge jumps in weight using rest pause at moderate speeds.
Thanks for the response Drew. with regards to isometrics and hypertrophy. I was reading on Wikipedia about isometric exercise and that isometrics only increase strength at the specific joint angle that the exercise was performed as opposed to dynamic exercise which increases strength along the whole range of the muscle. Does just having that extra strength at that specific joint angle help induce hypertrophy as opposed to having it along the entire muscle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_exercise#Comparison_with_dynamic_exercises
I noticed that since I have implemented this Max moment arm movement of performing the exercise through a medium range of motion that not only has my TUL gone down but also my Reps because now my exercises are harder due to not being able to have that point where moment arm resistance is down to 0 (giving my muscles a slight rest). If really all this is, is extra work that isn’t necessarily correlated to Hypertrophy then I see no point in doing it this way (besides easing on joints and using proper biomechanics).
thanks again
Hi Drew,
I apologise to Mdm I was was probably taken some what out of context in making reference to Olympic Lifters who I have the greatest respect for. Olympic Lifting as a sport can be extremely demanding in mastering the required specific skills.
My post was more in relation to olympic lifting type exercises have in relation other sporting activities and the transference “specificity”.
Thanks
Hi Drew,
what kind of advantage do you have working with rush-factor between compound exercises?
Thanks
Fabio,
I do not usually rush between exercises, but I do not rest for a long time either. I take just enough time to unload and load whatever barbells require it or make adjustments to the multi exercise.
A person should rush between exercises if their primary goal is improved metabolic conditioning, although it might be somewhat detrimental to strength development since it would reduce the amount of weight that can be handled thus the tension on the muscles, which is a more important factor than fatigue.
Hi Drew,
I am also an over 50’s lifter doing some form of training for over 35 years. My research: training weight 12 months ago, used the same weight 12 months later to see what improvements have occurred. The order of exercises, I had the least amount of rest between exercises as possible. All exercise on MedX
23.10.09 22.11.10 Current weight
Leg Press 340lbs X 13 reps 340lbs X 27 reps 438lbs
Leg Curl 120lbs X 14 reps 120lbs X 33 reps 212lbs
Leg Ext 130lbs X 10 reps 130lbs X 20 reps 186lbs
I did not include upperbody exercise as I had a shoulder operation last year so I will include only weight increase on a couple of upperbody exercises.
Current weight
Chest Press 82lbs 170lbs
Torso arm 150lbs 222lbs
From my results as my muscle strength increased so did my muscle endurance, the weights I used on the 23.10.09 whilst still felt heavy I could actually move the weights fast “explosively” if I wanted to.
I think if I had stayed at the same weights 23.10.09 I could have increased my reps but would not have increased my strength. Also I normally train metabolic conditioning so if I trained just pure strength my weights could have increased more.
From 47 workouts approximately approximately 2 minutes on each exercise per workout.
Alex,
Some research suggests that strength gains are specific to the range of motion trained, however this may have more to do with neural factors or skill. A significant strength increase in any position should translate to size gains (although the ratio of strength to size improvements varies between individuals).
The rate of fatigue is greater when doing isometrics at the position of maximum moment arm because there is no respite, no unloading, unlike regular full range movement, where it is possible for a person to rest briefly at or near lockout or at the bottom between reps.
Drew this may soud silly only because im new to HIT but is doing one rep max to failure on each exercise effective as volume is not important in a workout. Thanks
Paul,
Nothing is unimportant, it just has to be in the correct amounts relative the individual’s response to exercise and goals. You need some volume, minimally enough to effectively train all the major muscle groups and to place a significant demand on cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, you just don’t need to perform as many exercises or sets or work out as often as most people believe.
I don’t recommend one rep max sets. While a wide range of repetitions can be effective, I recommend a more conservative range that results in a time under load of around sixty to ninety seconds.