Ah, the old volume discussion again. No other topic creates as much hand wringing and intense fervor in either direction as the volume debate.
And it’s nothing new either – it’s been going on for decades.
The “volume pendulum” is one of those pendulums that swings hard in both directions – there isn’t a strong voice for the middle ground, but plenty of voices for either end of the spectrum.
Not only does the pendulum swing hard, it swings often.
There are reasons for these swings back and forth.
First and foremost – there are always going to be “outliers” that go against the grain of whichever side of the fence you happen to be on. The problem is that taking an extremely hard stance one way or the other creates a conundrum – there is often no mechanism to explain how people get strong/big with the alternative programming structure other than to claim “genetics” and “drugs” – which in many cases may be true, but not the whole story. There has to be explanations as to why both high volume and low volume training protocols have their fair share of successful training outcomes.
Second – people often experience big increases in performance / size when switching from one approach to another. In these instances it’s very easy to latch onto the “new” approach as the reason for the sudden increases. The reality is that it’s the combination of one approach on the back end of the other. I’ve experienced this personally in my own training and with clients – and in both directions.
So it’s not that “low volume” is necessarily the answer….but that low volume on the back end of a prolonged period of high volume can manifest some extremely good results.
And it’s not necessarily that “high volume” is the answer…..but spiking the training volume substantially after a prolonged period of low volume training can also yield some very good results.
So it seems that, just from pure observation, that perhaps alternating periods of higher training volumes with periods of lower training volumes might be the best option rather than trying to firmly entrench yourself in one camp or another??
After all, most find that neither approach, taken to it’s extreme especially, is sustainable for long periods of time.
Even if your best results tend to come with higher volume training programs, you’ll still have to spend at least part of your year training at slightly lower volumes in order to keep from becoming chronically over trained.
The inverse is also true. Even if your best results come from pushing 1-2 “all out” sets to a max effort – that approach isn’t sustainable 52 weeks out of the year. At some point during the year you’ll have to back off the intensity a bit and when doing so it’s probably best to slightly increase your training volume as the intensity of your work sets comes down.
Third (and this is almost the inverse of my previous point) – swinging hard in either direction without an understanding of all the various mechanisms at play can yield some really disastrous results.
The potential problem with high volume training is that it makes all the other variables in your program that much more difficult to manage. Precision programming becomes far more important when the volume knob is cranked all the way to 10. If you are going to squat 15 sets per week, that’s fine….but if you overdo the relative or absolute intensity of those sets, after a few weeks you’re fucked.
The same can happen if you take volume way down. Less a risk of over training, but certainly under stimulation can also cause some regression. A much quicker and easier problem to solve in my opinion, but still a problem.
So if people have a bad experience working in one extreme or another, then they might be quick to make some assumptions based on their own experience that doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone.
The better solution is to recognize that there are going to be people who achieve great results at both ends of the volume spectrum, and also those who get pretty good results staying somewhat in the middle, never swinging too far in either direction. It’s best to try and learn WHY this happens and what factors might play a role in how we go about programming for various individuals.
#1: Genetics
I don’t pretend to know all of the genetic factors that come into play, but I’ve been doing this long enough and with enough clients to recognize a few things. Those with “poor genetics” tend to respond better to higher volume training. I think that this may be part physiological and part psychological. It seems that the better natural athletes tend to have an innate physical ability to push higher loads a bit harder AND have an innate mental/emotional willingness to do so. Both of these factors would necessitate a lower overall training volume as the stimulus generated by each work set is not only more effective but also more taxing on their recuperative abilities. Lesser athletes, tend to generate less overall stimulus but also less overall fatigue with each of their “work sets” and so they tend to need more of them in order to get the same training effect.
You see it in many sports. Typically guys that throw 95-100 mph fast balls have to keep their pitch counts down. Even if they go 9 innings, they typically get there pretty quickly in terms of pitch count. Guys that rely more on slower speed breaking balls can typically throw more pitches in a game and operate on fewer days of rest between starts. Many 100+ mph guys are relegated to the role of closer, rather than starter, because of this. They’re only good for a few innings.
In boxing or MMA there are volume strikers and power punchers. Power punchers throw less and they wear out faster. Volume strikers throw more overall strikes, but whether intentionally or unintentionally their strikes tend to carry far less power.
Knowing where you sit, or where your clients sit, on that spectrum can help you determine what type of training approach might work best for you.
#2: Training Goals
As a coach I actually program differently and perhaps inversely than what is the conventional wisdom when evaluating Strength vs Hypertrophy as the primary goal of the training program.
For several years now it’s been the trend to equate Volume with Hypertrophy. In other words if muscle growth is the goal then more training volume is always the answer.
I actually disagree. It’s not nearly that simple.
I have found, over time, that for optimal muscle growth in a pure bodybuilding type program, it’s far more effective and more efficient to take a greater number of your sets right up to failure or technical failure. If we’re talking in terms of RIR / RPE then I’m talking about taking the vast majority of your work sets to an RPE of 9-10 or an RIR of 0-1.
This is not new. The overwhelming majority of successful bodybuilders and physique athletes and coaches have advocated this approach for decades. The Volume = Hypertrophy thing has been a trend for the past few years but those claims are already starting to get walked back a bit.
When using higher relative intensities (i.e. training to failure) often…….you must also lower your training volume. You can’t take the bulk of your work sets to an RPE 10 and keep volume high. At least not for any length of time.
It’s also a good idea to have a broader selection of exercises to work with. High relative intensities or (absolute intensities) are hard to maintain on the same movements week in and week out.
Most bodybuilding programs that operate at higher relative intensities cycle exercises in and out of the program either every week or every few weeks for this reason. In bodybuilding the exact exercise you perform is less important than that exercise’s ability to fully tax the muscle group in question. So whether you choose to use a high bar squat or a hack squat machine is perhaps less important than the fact that you use that exercise to fatigue/damage as many fibers as humanly possible as efficiently as possible. I feel this is best achieved with a small number of sets taken to failure or right up to failure. This is not an issue if you are a bodybuilder, but might be an issue if your are a power lifter.
For power lifting – where the only thing we care about is progress in the Squat/Bench/Deadlift I think it’s wise to train these lifts more often and with higher volumes.
But this necessitates a lower relative intensity on average.
This is why for many years I’ve been relying so heavily on the dynamic effort method with lifters – often using as many as 10 sets of 1-3 reps in the 60-80% range.
This allows you to train the power lifts every week and even multiple times per week.
Training at a lower absolute and relative intensity but with FASTER bar speeds is an excellent way to recruit more motor units into each set, but with less corresponding fatigue when compared to taking a set to failure.
Work at higher absolute intensities and higher relative intensities is reserved for only for supplemental and assistance exercises.
What I just described is the Westside Barbell program in a nutshell.
The competition lifts are trained with high volumes but low intensities but with an emphasis on bar speed.
Absolute intensity is trained on the max effort day – but always with a variant of the competitive lift – rarely with the competition lift. This preserves your ability to strain against heavy loads between 90-100% of 1RM but doesn’t compromise your ability to keep high set volumes on the competition lifts themselves each week.
Training to failure (relative intensity) is not used on the main lifts either – only on assistance lifts. This part of the program is in essence a bodybuilding program that relies on a variety of implements (dumbbells, machines, etc) that build muscle mass by taking sets to failure in higher rep ranges.
Summary
So in summary, my general approach to programming actually uses a HIGHER volume of training for power lifters and strength athletes than I use for trainees purely interested in bodybuilding or hypertrophy specific training.
For power lifters, I use far more sets with a lower relative intensity, and a great emphasis on faster bar speeds. The protocols generally look similar to what Louie Simmons would call the dynamic effort method and what Fred Hatfield would have called CAT (compensatory acceleration training).
I really like Louie’s system the best, where high volumes / lower intensities / high bar speed is used in conjunction with a low volume of very high intensity lifts on similar yet different exercises than the main competition movements.
So my ideas are not new in the least – I’m borrowing (stealing) methods that have been in use for many decades.
However, for hypertrophy focused trainees, I reject the idea that Volume = Growth. I actually use far less overall training volume, as my observation has been that greater hypertrophic response comes from taking more sets to failure, and as a consequence, necessitating lower training volumes overall across the week.
(cont. in part 2)
