I’m a tall guy (> 6’4” / 196 cm) and I am having trouble figuring out what kind of volume allows me to progress the best on squat and deadlift. Is the relationship between lifter height and typical volumes something that has been looked at en masse? Do any of you other tall people have findings of your own as to what worked best for you? Coaches, have you seen a trend in volume requirements for taller clients?
I’m unaware of any correlation. In general I wouldn’t expect any single variable to strongly indicate how you should train, as there are so many variables.
Mechanistically I suppose that being tall increases ROM so a given time under tension can be achieved with less volume, but meh. I wouldn’t base anything off that.
There’s some evidence that on average women can handle more relative volume than men, and on average women are shorter than men, but meh. There’s so many other variables at play.
1 Like
All things being equal being taller would lower your volume recommendations. But its only one out of about a dozen variables that go into your ideal volume.
1 Like
interesting. Why does it lower your volume recommendations?
I am not sure. I know it does because I saw a Youtube thing for Juggernaut Training Systems AI and they said when the AI calculates your volume it calculates a bunch of variables including your height. My guess would be the same amount of sets and reps includes more work being done and more time under tension because you are moving the bar further each rep–its more taxing.
1 Like
Interesting question, though I too am unable to think of a plausible mechanism.
Being tall increases the work done against gravity as the vertical bar path will be longer, but assuming your leverages are not very unusual (and I have heard that your legs are more likely to be longer relative your torso when one is very tall), the joint angles and resultant ranges of movement per se shouldn’t be different to somebody shorter with the same proportions. Being taller, you’re more likely to carry and support more lean mass (via a larger skeleton) to compensate for the increased work done.
I have no experience of Chad W-S’s programming or how much the algorithm accounts for previous training history, but I imagine height could factor into current and maximal lean body mass potential i.e. If someone was relatively light for their height, you might start out more gently. Over time one would train into tolerating more volume regardless of height. Per 4l3x’s comment, if there is some truth to this, do shorter (i.e. lighter, at the elite levels) male lifters train at greater volumes than the SHWs? If so, might this be related to them handling less absolute weight overall compared to a SHW? Be interesting to see if this has been looked at in LBM-matched male vs female lifters as there does not seem to be a difference in force per unit of muscle cross-sectional area between men and women.
The other thing I noticed on JTS articles is that Chad W-S refers to volume as weight x reps x sets, which I always took to be tonnage and not volume. ShirtBeforeTheShirt, may I ask what sort of volumes (by whatever definition) have you being doing and would you be willing to share your progress? As an archetypal short and scrawny male, I always wondered if I needed more volume than than those blessed with height/general jackedness; so sorta the opposite of your concern.
Just to clarify, by ROM I meant the distance traveled by the bar. I think I was failing at physics when I reasoned that longer limbs make each each rep take more time.
There’s evidence that strength matched women are more fatigue resistant than men. I was speculating that one plausible mechanism for this may be difference in height, but that was dumb because a lot of that research is using isometrics (maybe height could still factor in, but I’m not seeing how).
I’m unaware of peer reviewed research on relative volume tolerance/requirements for different weight classes. I’ve heard the idea thrown around that the same relative volume at a greater tonnage (a set of 1@10 with 300lbs vs 600lbs) is more fatiguing, but IDK. IMO JTS is using a bunch of data that we don’t really know what to do with, though if I was forced to guess what to do with the data, I’d make the same guesses as JTS has. Maybe they have collected a bunch of data that I’m unaware of, or are in the process of doing so.
Is the JTS AI a real AI, is it being fed trainee stats, formulating programs, getting trainee response data, finding correlations between what stats respond best to certain levels of certain program variables, tweaking programs? Or does it just go: if tall then less volume, because JTS thought that probably made sense when they released it?
As an aside here’s a plausible mechanism: taller>heavier>moving more BW on each rep.
I don’t think its real AI.
That said, users are supposed to give feedback every workout. For example, had to lower the weight or it felt too easy. They are supposed to rate how hard each set felt ona 1-10 basis and the program will alter the workout mid routine based on the feedback. I think the system is recording that and then people (not the AI) modify the base formulas to account for the data they collected. They are on version 2.0 now. I don’t think its real AI.
There are some really nice articles on Stronger by Science about sex differences to training. Greg describes the lower concentric/eccentric fatiguability (in terms of reps/sets to failure) being at least partly down to better fat metabolism efficiency and increased relative Type 1 fibre predominance and capillary density in women (though this does not necessarily hold true for all muscle groups and there are studies contradicting this).
I’ve not seen any strength-matched MvF studies but re: volume, I would guess a woman as arbitrarily strong as a man, given that she is likely to be shorter and have bones supporting only ~80% of the lean mass per kilogram of skeleton relative to the man, she is going to be better trained and there more volume/fatigue tolerant.
I would expect higher tonnage for the same reps/sets to be harder since it’s more work done, so I agree. Re: more work against gravity for the taller/heavier lifter due to more body weight - I agree, but the same issue will apply to anyone getting more jacked. Since we arbitrarily define a rep as a certain movement range e.g. ATG/below parallel squat etc, I don’t think it helps to define training decisions since you can’t have one without the other once you have maximised neuromuscular and mechanical efficiency. If you aren’t making progress, you would tweak something (exercise-type, rep ranges etc) but it wouldn’t be based on height. Volumes need to go up over time regardless.
ShirtBefore, apologies to hijack your thread so much! I would simply state my conclusion to your question is, “it might make a difference somewhere but it won’t alter training decisions (beyond what you can do productively with your available levers) so I don’t think it matters.”
I am about the same height and have never considered it to be a factor in my programming. I’ve been coached on and off for a few years and attended some seminars as well. Never a mention.
O would think that the alterations in volume would be relative to your status as a trainee, what your goals are, other physiological considerations, and the other aspects of your training (intensity, frequency, etc.).
Simply put. Move 10 kg for 100 cm require more energy than move 10 kg for 50 cm. As you, my tall friend, if we deadlift the same weight. You move the same weight longer than me, (180cm) from the floor to hip height. (most likely, unless my legs are oddly long and arms oddly short) 
That can be taken into consideration if you are borrowing a program from a shorter lifter with similar fitness level as you.
In theory, You may want to do a bit less volume to achieve the same training stimulation
Since each REP you are doing more and consume more energy. it may fatigue you more.
JT system is highly based on: Do just enough to get away with for the best result. No more. No less.
Height is worth considering for fatigue management.
I agree with Jameswmccue.
Long term speaking, I would suggest you to treat it just like one of the other factors that influence our recovery capacity, e.g intensity, frequency, protein intake, sleep, etc.