T Nation

Real Responses to High Volume?

Here, I will conform to the seemingly implied standards of this forum and present what I want to say in a more acceptable way:

Muscle fiber is conposed of slow twitch, intermediate twitch, and fast twitch fiber. The way to achieve maximum muscular growth is to stimulate all three muscle fibers maximally.

The problem with most straight volume work is that it is essentially “too slow”. The lighter weight generally associated with high volume training doesn’t cause the whole muscle to reach fatigue fast enough to work all three muscle fiber groups.

Instead, in most high volume training, the slow twitch fibers will exhaust themselves, then the intermidiate, and then perhaps a few fast twitch, but by this time the slow twitch will have rested enough to begin to take over some of the work load again. This results in very poor in roads toward fatiguing and maximally stimulating the entire muscle.

On the other hand, too much of a load will cause all three types of muscle fiber to work together to deal with the excessive load and then fatigue and even failure is reached so soon that there is an insufficient amount of volume reached to encourage hypertrophy.

This naturally leads us to assume that the best workout for growth would be one that utilizes a moderately heavy weight with a good amount of volume.

So, given all that information, it seems like the problem should be settled. Ultrahigh volume work really would seem ridiculous.

And yet, from my years in the military, I’ve found that a surprising number of individuals respond to a volume of work much higher than would make sense given this information.

And indeed, some individuals who work hard labor jobs that require constant repetition of muscularly exhausting movements seem to defy the common sense idea that ultravolume will always result in some kind of broken, wasted body.

In addition, rest periods of weeks without working a muscle also seems ridiculous, but I have seen that work as well. I’ve witnessed individuals in the army subjected to unheard of volumes of bodyweight exercises worn down to nothing, then given a number of weeks without any workouts at all, and the result is a stronger, more rugged indivual when tested after the rest period.

I am not speaking hypothetically here. These are real responses to high volume that I have witnessed. Now, I am asking…WHY?

because the human body isn’t a machine

Because… when you were born, your penis actually touched your mothers vagina.

[quote]toolshed wrote:
Because… when you were born, your penis actually touched your mothers vagina.[/quote]

Damn you to hell.

Bro you’re getting annoying, seriously.

Im not really sure why you started a new thread for this, but that is an overcomplicated look at it. Because you can actually train AND fatigue all of your muscle fibers with a very low load.

Take a look at the way zatsiorsky describes training for hypertrophy.

Heavy resistance = High rate of protein degredation, small amount of work, small total deg.
Moderate resist = Average rate of protein deg., Average amount of work, Large amount of total degredation
Light resist = Low rate of deg. , Large amount of work , small amount of total degredation.

This pretty much explains it all, and is very simple.

I responded on your program idea in the other thread, so check that out. You know how I feel about volume and intensity, and I think a better way to look at things is this:

There are really only two things you have to worry about when looking at all of this.

  1. Total workload - Weight x sets x reps = workload
  2. You have to train with a reasonable amount of intensity and intensiveness.

You could get a high workload, by curlng a 2.5lb Db 10,000 times, but is this practical. And if you are doing sets of 10 with a 20rm work, you are lacking in intensiveness. Sure this could be made more complicated, looking at bar distance and speed, and rest breaks, but it isn’t necessary, especially for a hypothetical observation.

EX of the above.

Lets say your 1rm bench is 225.

And lets just say you decide to do as many sets as it takes you to hit 25 reps with 185.

185x25=4,625lbs

The next workout you decide to stick with 25 reps as the goal, but go up to 190lbs.

190x25=4,750lbs

And then maybe you take a different route and go for 50 reps with 175 lbs.

50x175=8,750

You see how the workload can change substantially as you adjust the intensity and volume. A lower intensity will probably always allow a greater volume and workload, so you cant just look at workload alone, but you also have to look at the intensity.

Not a lot of people use these methods to figure out how much work they are actually doing, but it is another way to monitor your progress.

I could think of many ways to use this to progress. Maybe start with a high workload, something like 50 total reps at 75% of your 1rm, and then over the course of a couple of weeks, drop the workload down as you increase the intensity to something like 15 total reps at 90% 1rm.

Then try to build the workload back up slowly by decreasing the intensity a bit, but building back up the volume to 20,25,30,35,40,45,and then 50 reps, this time using 80% of your 1rm.

Thats how I see it.

And as for people that make gains on high volume programs. I dont know why it happens, but I know it does. We’ve all seen the guy that can just do a couple hundred pushups a day and gets huge and ripped.

And sometimes these guys will go ahead and bench 300, or 350 without ever even training bench. It may be superior genetics, or maybe they just respond really well to low intensity with a lot of volume. I think they would get even better gains if they followed a typical program, but maybe not.

So remember, everyones “ideal” volume/rep range is different. But 25 reps is a sorta happy medium for the average.

TROLL FEST!!! wheres TYPE2B when you need him!?

@dankid

Check the “super workout” thread, I replied to you there. Thanks for the serious response. I appreciate it.

Testup,

Dankid just told you that you’re overcomplicating things. You need to cease and desist - immediately. Put your hands in the air and step away from the books.

[quote]testup wrote:
Here, I will conform to the seemingly implied standards of this forum and present what I want to say in a more acceptable way:[/quote]

Right.[quote]

Muscle fiber is conposed of slow twitch, intermediate twitch, and fast twitch fiber. The way to achieve maximum muscular growth is to stimulate all three muscle fibers maximally.[/quote]

I guess, yeah.[quote]

The problem with most straight volume work is that it is essentially “too slow”. The lighter weight generally associated with high volume training doesn’t cause the whole muscle to reach fatigue fast enough to work all three muscle fiber groups.[/quote]

I don’t think this true at all… if you use a regular BB load - 6-12RM load and explode up on the concentric you will recruit more IIb fibres. I like to do different cadences within the same session personally… and different ranges of repetition too.

Also - why does high volume mean light weight? By volume do you specifically mean high repetition? If so the whole post is redundant.
If not, then just increase the sets while keeping the reps lower and BANG! You have volume and maximal recruitment due to load.

Or of course you could just do as i first suggested and explode on the concentric…[quote]

Instead, in most high volume training, the slow twitch fibers will exhaust themselves, then the intermediate, and then perhaps a few fast twitch, but by this time the slow twitch will have rested enough to begin to take over some of the work load again. This results in very poor in roads toward fatiguing and maximally stimulating the entire muscle.[/quote]

NO… not in high volume per se. You are essentially talking about the size principle of course, but this is again rectified by using a heavier load, maximal power OR (preferably IMO) both.[quote]

On the other hand, too much of a load will cause all three types of muscle fiber to work together to deal with the excessive load and then fatigue and even failure is reached so soon that there is an insufficient amount of volume reached to encourage hypertrophy.[/quote]

Woa! What is wrong with fatiguing the muscle with less volume? The body dfoesnt respond by growing to volume but to the damage done to the muscle from the stress it endured… this isnt a matter of volume - while volume is a factor that can be manipulated, it isnt the one primary factor of fitness progression![quote]

This naturally leads us to assume that the best workout for growth would be one that utilizes a moderately heavy weight with a good amount of volume.[/quote]

While your theory sucks and shows you dont have a background in physiology, i would generally agree with this. Of course saying that it is THE BEST isn’t strictly true… but it certainly is an effective way to stimulate maximum growth in a muscle.[quote]

So, given all that information, it seems like the problem should be settled. Ultrahigh volume work really would seem ridiculous.[/quote]

What>? What happened to moderate/heavy weight and decent volume? That works - we know as WE DO THIS ALREADY![quote]

And yet, from my years in the military, I’ve found that a surprising number of individuals respond to a volume of work much higher than would make sense given this information.[/quote]

Overload works… you are obsessing on volume. This is but ONE factor of progression… load, volume, intensity, rest… etc.[quote]

And indeed, some individuals who work hard labor jobs that require constant repetition of muscularly exhausting movements seem to defy the common sense idea that ultravolume will always result in some kind of broken, wasted body.[/quote]

You seem to be going around in circles and i regret posting a reply. i think i may stop if this doesn’t change…[quote]

In addition, rest periods of weeks without working a muscle also seems ridiculous, but I have seen that work as well. I’ve witnessed individuals in the army subjected to unheard of volumes of bodyweight exercises worn down to nothing, then given a number of weeks without any workouts at all, and the result is a stronger, more rugged indivual when tested after the rest period. [quote]

It is called over training - and supercompensation.

Your problem is you have witnessed some phenomena of fitness progression and you don’t have the knowledge to comprehend it - you are not really hitting on anything most here don’t know already i’m afraid mate… all pretty basic stuff actually.[quote]

I am not speaking hypothetically here. These are real responses to high volume that I have witnessed. Now, I am asking…WHY?[/quote]

No, you are speaking… well - kinda without knowledge.

Yes volume works, but it is not fundamental to training.

The fact is, for maximal growth you need to stimulate the muscle. To do this you need to put it through a period that it has never encountered before - this is called overload.
This can be a higher load, more reps, a HIGHER VOLUME.

Then you have super-compensation, which is what we rest for and why ‘they’ say we grow when we rest… tis’ true.
We train (in whatever fashion suitable for the goal and person) and then we need to rest that muscle in order to let it adapt. IF for example (going back to the weeks of rest and coming back stronger) one over-trains… say with a volume that is too high/an insufficient diet/poor lifestyle to allow sufficient R&R (like what i did there?) to allow the muscle to adapt over that period of time, then a break of a week - or even a few eeeks if the overload was sufficiently challenging, a break of that length will be the time the body needs to recuperate and grow that muscle and adapt the CNS to that workload and the athlete (or private) will come back refreshed, ready to work harder than ever and stronger.

People employ this method all the time.

As for maximal fibre stimulation… well, fast reps do mean you employ the fast twitch fibres more as the speed increases the load lifted significantly, and the slowing of that repetition can often be attributed to the fatigue of those fibres and thus less fibres being available to do the work necessary.

Of course due to the ‘size principle’ it is also true that if you take a moderate load and rep out… you will go through all the fibres available as you fatigue - and is the EXACT reason one trains to failure (or damn near) when training for muscle growth.

There is a hell of a lot more but that covers the basics you mentioned.

It is a fascinating subject and one (if interested) which will allow you many MANY hours of study (trust me, i know) but you are attempting to re-invent the wheel there bud, and it just doesn’t need it at that level.

JJ

  1. Lift heavy stuff in different ways.
  2. Eat enough.
  3. Lift heavier stuff in different ways.

REPEAT

JJ… Is there a particular reason for why you’re wasting your time with a troll? I know we’ve all done it before, but…

I mean, if you want endless, totally ridiculous arguments then get married…
At least a wife might make it up to you afterwards in a nice way.

Yeah if dankid tells you you’re overcomplicating things, then you’re reaaally overcomplicating things. I hope you aren’t a lost cause and eventually wisen up.

Please watch this and understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1h3X0sYRmw

Happy lifting.

I dont think there is anything wrong with “complicating things” but that is as long as you understand there are really only two things that matter.

  1. You get stronger
  2. You eat for your goals

Those two factors account for probably up to 99% of everything. Everything else, with tempo, TUT, muscle fibers, special techniques etc, etc, may get you that last 1% but if you aren’t doing the above two things, then they wont get you anywhere.

Its like peope that that take a fat burner, but then stop at mcdonalds twice a day.

[quote]dankid wrote:
I dont think there is anything wrong with “complicating things” but that is as long as you understand there are really only two things that matter.

  1. You get stronger
  2. You eat for your goals

Those two factors account for probably up to 99% of everything. Everything else, with tempo, TUT, muscle fibers, special techniques etc, etc, may get you that last 1% but if you aren’t doing the above two things, then they wont get you anywhere.
[/quote]

You’re forgetting the part where you build muscle - why am I not suprised?

[quote]roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:
I dont think there is anything wrong with “complicating things” but that is as long as you understand there are really only two things that matter.

  1. You get stronger
  2. You eat for your goals

Those two factors account for probably up to 99% of everything. Everything else, with tempo, TUT, muscle fibers, special techniques etc, etc, may get you that last 1% but if you aren’t doing the above two things, then they wont get you anywhere.

You’re forgetting the part where you build muscle - why am I not suprised?

[/quote]

NO! I didn’t forget it. If you get stronger and eat more you’ll build muscle.

I think the old axiom, everything works, it just matters for how long it works, should be inserted in here.

[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:
I dont think there is anything wrong with “complicating things” but that is as long as you understand there are really only two things that matter.

  1. You get stronger
  2. You eat for your goals

Those two factors account for probably up to 99% of everything. Everything else, with tempo, TUT, muscle fibers, special techniques etc, etc, may get you that last 1% but if you aren’t doing the above two things, then they wont get you anywhere.

You’re forgetting the part where you build muscle - why am I not suprised?

NO! I didn’t forget it. If you get stronger and eat more you’ll build muscle. [/quote]

Aren’t you the guy that argued that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit, then proceeded to provide no proof whatsoever, but now advocates eating more? Aren’t you the guy that told Professor X that he “wasn’t impressive” and that you have “no interest in bodybuilding”, and yet you still insist on dispensing advice on a bodybuilding forum?

Aren’t you the guy who just called every other poster in another thread ‘trolls’, even though many of those posters are far bigger, more knowledgeable and more respected than you?

Aren’t you the guy who recently got owned on the powerlifting forum for offering advice on a topic you knew absolutely nothing about?

I’m sure you’ve got some typically arrogant retort, but you know what? Taking advice from you is like letting a tricycle- riding toddler show a teenager how to ride a motorbike: it’s just gonna end in tears…

[quote]roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:
I dont think there is anything wrong with “complicating things” but that is as long as you understand there are really only two things that matter.

  1. You get stronger
  2. You eat for your goals

Those two factors account for probably up to 99% of everything. Everything else, with tempo, TUT, muscle fibers, special techniques etc, etc, may get you that last 1% but if you aren’t doing the above two things, then they wont get you anywhere.

You’re forgetting the part where you build muscle - why am I not suprised?

NO! I didn’t forget it. If you get stronger and eat more you’ll build muscle.

Aren’t you the guy that argued that muscle can be built on a caloric deficit, then proceeded to provide no proof whatsoever, but now advocates eating more? Aren’t you the guy that told Professor X that he “wasn’t impressive” and that you have “no interest in bodybuilding”, and yet you still insist on dispensing advice on a bodybuilding forum?

Aren’t you the guy who just called every other poster in another thread ‘trolls’, even though many of those posters are far bigger, more knowledgeable and more respected than you?

Aren’t you the guy who recently got owned on the powerlifting forum for offering advice on a topic you knew absolutely nothing about?

I’m sure you’ve got some typically arrogant retort, but you know what? Taking advice from you is like letting a tricycle- riding toddler show a teenager how to ride a motorbike: it’s just gonna end in tears…

[/quote]

nope that wasn’t me :wink:

Yeah, if it wasn’t for the fact that this was the internet, dankid’s history would be pretty embarassing.