It was my understanding that volume traditionally refers to sets x reps x load. I recall people claiming that volume is the main driver of gainzzz., in that increasing volume is the most effective way to elicit more muscular hypertrophy (provided you don’t go beyond the peak of the inverted U). However, I have also heard that the number of hard sets is the main driver of muscular hypertrophy.
While there is much overlap between these two concepts (adding hard sets also adds volume) there are some important distinctions. The “hard sets hypothesis” indicates that the # of reps in a set is irrelevant for muscular hypertrophy. Therefore, I can just do hard singles and get the same hypertrophy response. I think this is untrue but I don’t know why.
Similarly, the “volume hypothesis” indicates that I could increase my rate of muscular hypertrophy by lowering intensity and adding 3 reps to my sets. I think this is probable but maybe only because it is a novel stimulus in other words I could illicit a similar response by increasing intensity and taking 3 reps from my sets (which would decrease volume).
Is it really a combination of the two, meaning that volume and the number of hard sets are the two main drivers of gainzzz. I think that makes the most sense to me. That would indicate that the most important way to manipulate volume is through the number of hard sets. Also, that with a given number of hard sets 10s induce more muscular hypertrophy than singles, but I think there is lots of evidence against this idea.
Is that incorrect?
How confident can we be in any claims about what programming variables are more important than others (reps vs sets vs load) in providing a hypertrophy response?
thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to respond.
P.s.
links to evidence and further reading are greatly appreciated!
Thanks for the post. I think that you’ll need to ask a more specific question, as a thorough response to what you wrote here would be at least 5,000 words. That said, here’s my take on it based on current evidence:
I think that our underlying premise should be that people respond to training uniquely and that it’s hard to draw very hard lines in the sand about what approaches are best if/when the methods are similar (e.g. 2 reps in reserve vs 4 reps in reserve).
Training status and exercise selection also need to be included in the context when discussing the “best” intensity/volume/fatigue balance. More trained individuals and compound movements get achieve very high levels of motor unit recruitment early on in nearly any intensity movement, e.g. at 50% of 1RM and this doesn’t necessarily increase with load or when going to failure. Conversely, with isolation movements motor unit recruitment appears to follow a more traditional view where going closer to failure probably makes more sense. Consider the fatigue differences between going to failure on compound vs isolation movements too.
Most muscle growth occurs at a tolerable level of volume/fatigue/intensity meaning that significant increases may not actually produce growth in the short term until the individual is capable of tolerating them, e.g. doesn’t become very sore after them as one non-specific (and admittedly less reliable) indicator.
I think much of the folks who are hard-up on “effective reps” should take a more moderate approach.
Overall, I think most compound work should be done in the 1-4 RIR range depending on the individual. Adding volume here makes sense for driving up the stress when needed. Additionally, I think we can make a case for training isolation movements closer to failure, e.g. 0-2 RIR depending on the individual. Again, adding volume here makes sense for driving up hypertrophy stimuli.
Recommending people regularly go to failure on compound lifts seems like a poor strategy given the additional fatigue generated without concomitant adaptations (even when volume is lower, to a point- e.g. 6RM vs. 10 @ RPE 8) in trained and untrained lifters. We’d rather have a more proportional fatigue-adaptation relationship. From a hypertrophy perspective, this can be attained by increasing volume without going to failure on compound lifts. From a strength perspective, this can be attained by adding volume in the intensity range(s) specific to the desired goal.