Is anyone aware of any studies on how much weekly volume is needed to maintain muscle?
All I found is :Exercise dosing to retain resistance training adaptations in young and older adults - PubMed
If a study told you 3 sets per week and you tried it and got weaker, would you continue doing 3 sets per week?
Either way, this is always going to be highly individual and likely to change over time. So there’s only one way to find out…
What does that have to do with actual published studies?
“highly individual”? I doubt it, we are not the special snowflakes our moms told us we were.
Not sure about studies but in my opinion training for maintenance is BS. You can lower the volume and the intensity but if you go in with the mindset to just maintain I can almost guarantee you will not keep your strength or muscle mass.
Keep looking for your study instead of working it our yourself then.
I don’t think Strongmangoals was implying what you think he was implying. While there are decent studies that help give people information, it’s a bit obvious that most studies don’t study every last single human being. Hence, there’s room for variation.
Meaning “highly individual” as suggested by strongmangoals, is still correct.
Testing out the amount of volume that would best be suited for you is great advice. Since it’s what most of us do anyways. There’s no set number anyone can give you, because it’s not gauranteed to be correct since they’re not you.
1 Like
Look up mike isratel’s stuff on training volume landmarks. I think there’s individual components in like training history drug use and other stuff. I think it’s a pretty broad range anyways.
For your own training it’s most useful to find your own max recoverable volume and maintenance and stuff because random studies on other people isn’t like very useful
The guy was just asking if studies have been done. Why would you try it out yourself? If someone asks for studies on the effects of drugs would you say just try it out?
It is not highly individual. There are outliers and slight variations but, like a drug most people are going to have similar effects. No one is going to need 50 sets of curls to grow there biceps.
I take it’s something he’s concerned about? Not that I know his personal life. Most people ask that if they’re trying to cut down on body fat without their lifts plummeting, or just maintaining. As he stated.
Obviously not. But he’s asking about weight training. Of all the assumptions to make about what I would say, that wouldn’t be it.
I…dude…why would be try it out himself? Did I not just explain a reason why he very well could? He doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to do anything he doesn’t feel like doing. But as I referenced before, if he’s looking for a concrete number, that’s specific to him, he can test it out. Simply put. Obviously if he’s looking for a general number he can find articles. If he’s looking for a more accurate number of volume…well as I said before.
I never said that wasn’t the case. Generally speaking, yes stuff will be similar. As I’ve mentioned.
I’m gonna ask one more time…where…did you see me say, anything similar to that? I didn’t. Where did you see me allude to anything similar to that?
I said:
Whether that’s higher volume or lower volume. Volume that falls within the generalizations of various studies, or a bit more, bit less, completely different than what studies have concluded, whatever the case may be.
If the OP just wants generalizations, that’s fine. I’m not in position to dictate anything, apologies for any assumptions, if they’re incorrect. But if he’s trying to do something concerning his training, and is seeking specific numbers that allow him to see whatever his goals are, try it out. I’m really not trying to complicate anything. Not sure if you think I am or what have you.
1 Like
He is not trying to do anything, he just wants to known if there are studies. Not concerning his own training. I will word it different for the OP.
" Guys I am writing paper on the minimal training needed to maintain muscle, is anyone aware of any studies done on the subject?"
If he’s writing a paper then great. Read all the articles to his heart’s content. Gather as much info as he needs.
I’m curious as to why he didn’t mention it to begin with?
I don’t think each of us counts our “working sets” the exact same anyway
1 Like
No idea what the studies say, but in my experience at least it doesn’t take much.
It will vary greatly from person to person. As a person who works in the science field who has advanced degree, I’d just cringe when someone tell that this is the absolute/right way to build muscle while citing a research paper in which they only read the abstract. Shots at some Youtubers
Research is highly variable. You have to look at the methodology, test subjects, etc. Does that all applies to you? 99 out of 100 it is going to be not. Finding out by yourself is your best bet.
Articles are worthless unless they cite studies.
Because he did not have to? The question was are there published studies not, how much do I have to train to maintain.
It does not matter if it applies to him, that was not the question. The question was simply are there published studies.
If I were to ask about suicide studies would you link studies or start giving me numbers to suicide hotlines?
Articles, studies, whatever you want to call them. I wasn’t insinuating that non-cited articles should be used as a basis. The fuck is your problem?
There’s been plenty of threads where they don’t initially state the word “I” when they ask questions, or even mention that what they asked actually concerns them. They don’t even state that until later as the thread progresses. Doesn’t mean they weren’t somehow applying whatever they were asking to themselves.
I’ve already stated how I apologize for any wrong assumptions, if and when they are.
Why you keep trying to prove me wrong, despite me trying to be neutral about this trivial stuff anyways, is beyond me.
And please, spare me on the whole “people refusing to accept facts”, “facts this, facts that”, “studies this, studies that”. Granted I’m sure you’re going to do this anyways.
Can i just personally ask you if you’re doing this for a written assignment? Or are you asking because this somehow applies to you?
That way I don’t have to assume, and that way this thread doesn’t turn into a shit storm.
What does the study actually say? All I see is a short summary. Who did they train and how did they train them?
We’ve seen posters on here use the bicep training of middle-age Japanese men to try and prove a point…
1 Like
I believe this mindset is what’s wrong with an unfortunate number of lifters today. Expecting to see studies before accepting any given training method puts the focus on the wrong thing. If a coach writes an article about a method that he’s consistently and repeatedly seen results with, but you hesitate to use the info because it’s not supported by a study, I have to wonder why you value “paper says it should work” higher than “it works”.
Like the guys are saying… nevermind the fact that, with enough digging, you can find a study to support anything. So by that theory, everything works to some extent (which we’ve known in the gym for a long time anyhow). And nevermind the fact that many studies are often done on populations that don’t apply to general lifters (usually elderly and/or pre-existing conditions) so extrapolating the results to say they maybe-probably-might also work with the average person in the gym is sometimes a stretch.
And nevermind, that we’re seeing more studies coming out that support stuff that was figured out in the gym years, if not decades, earlier. So taking “broscience” at face value isn’t really a bad thing.
2 Likes