WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.339 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're tackling 00:00:02.339 --> 00:00:04.919 something you hear, well, all the time in fitness 00:00:04.919 --> 00:00:08.099 circles. This idea that doing too much training 00:00:08.099 --> 00:00:10.740 volume for muscle growth, you know, beyond a 00:00:10.740 --> 00:00:13.279 certain point, it just becomes junk volume. Right, 00:00:13.359 --> 00:00:15.580 the point of diminishing returns or even negative 00:00:15.580 --> 00:00:18.140 returns. Exactly. And it often stems from this 00:00:18.140 --> 00:00:20.300 assumption that strength gains kind of hit a 00:00:20.300 --> 00:00:23.179 ceiling at pretty low volumes, maybe five sets 00:00:23.179 --> 00:00:25.640 a week or so. Yeah. And people then extrapolate 00:00:25.640 --> 00:00:28.460 that thinking muscle growth must also stall out 00:00:28.460 --> 00:00:30.719 right there. But is that really the whole story? 00:00:30.820 --> 00:00:32.880 That's what we're digging into today. This really 00:00:32.880 --> 00:00:36.020 fascinating and honestly. often debated relationship 00:00:36.020 --> 00:00:39.460 between volume, hypertrophy, that's muscle growth, 00:00:39.619 --> 00:00:42.439 and, of course, strength gains. Absolutely. We've 00:00:42.439 --> 00:00:44.060 pulled together quite a bit of research here. 00:00:44.240 --> 00:00:46.119 We're talking meta -analyses, recent studies, 00:00:46.840 --> 00:00:48.899 really trying to challenge that common view. 00:00:49.039 --> 00:00:51.060 Yeah, maybe find some surprises along the way. 00:00:51.420 --> 00:00:53.520 I think we will. The goal here is to cut through 00:00:53.520 --> 00:00:55.840 some of the noise, clear up maybe some misconceptions. 00:00:56.299 --> 00:01:00.259 And give you, our listeners, a much clearer evidence 00:01:00.259 --> 00:01:02.619 -based picture. You know, so you can figure out 00:01:02.619 --> 00:01:04.439 what actually makes sense for your training. 00:01:04.879 --> 00:01:06.719 Precisely. Help you make informed decisions. 00:01:06.900 --> 00:01:09.599 OK, so where do we kick this off? Let's start 00:01:09.599 --> 00:01:11.439 with that traditional view you mentioned, the 00:01:11.439 --> 00:01:13.260 one that's been so dominant. Sounds good. So 00:01:13.260 --> 00:01:15.459 let's lay out that common argument first. You 00:01:15.459 --> 00:01:19.219 mentioned those Pelin meta regressions. Big analysis, 00:01:19.480 --> 00:01:21.819 right? Combining lots of studies. And initially, 00:01:21.900 --> 00:01:24.280 they seem to show strength gains kind of petering 00:01:24.280 --> 00:01:27.579 out beyond, what, about five sets per muscle 00:01:27.579 --> 00:01:29.680 group per week? That was the initial interpretation. 00:01:29.859 --> 00:01:32.159 Yeah, around that mark. which then led people 00:01:32.159 --> 00:01:35.379 to think, okay, the real growth, the contractile 00:01:35.379 --> 00:01:38.340 stuff, the myofibrillar hypergraphy that makes 00:01:38.340 --> 00:01:41.900 you stronger, that must also plateau there. Right. 00:01:42.319 --> 00:01:44.840 And any exercise people saw with higher volumes, 00:01:45.420 --> 00:01:48.239 that got dismissed. Dismissed as what, like water 00:01:48.239 --> 00:01:50.379 weight or something? Pretty much. Things like 00:01:50.379 --> 00:01:52.719 temporary muscle swelling or maybe this other 00:01:52.719 --> 00:01:55.620 concept, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy growth of the 00:01:55.620 --> 00:01:59.280 non -contractile bits, basically not real strength 00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:01.599 producing muscle. OK, but you hinted earlier 00:02:01.599 --> 00:02:03.859 that maybe this comparison isn't quite right. 00:02:04.060 --> 00:02:06.840 Yeah, that's putting it mildly. The direct comparison 00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:08.860 between the strength results and the hypertrophy 00:02:08.860 --> 00:02:12.319 results in that Pellin paper, it's actually quite 00:02:12.319 --> 00:02:15.419 misleading. Misleading? How so? I thought meta 00:02:15.419 --> 00:02:17.139 -analyses were supposed to give us the big picture. 00:02:17.419 --> 00:02:19.400 If the studies weren't the same, what's the issue? 00:02:19.520 --> 00:02:21.599 Well, that is the issue. They weren't based on 00:02:21.599 --> 00:02:24.219 the same set of studies. It's a bit of an apples 00:02:24.219 --> 00:02:26.740 and oranges problem. OK, explain that. So the 00:02:26.740 --> 00:02:30.889 strength analysis had like 66 studies, over 2 00:02:30.889 --> 00:02:34.349 ,000 people. The hypertrophy one, only 35 studies, 00:02:34.530 --> 00:02:36.930 about 1 ,000 people. Right, so fewer studies 00:02:36.930 --> 00:02:39.669 for hypertrophy. And crucially, only 21 studies 00:02:39.669 --> 00:02:42.870 were actually in both analyses. Ah, okay. So 00:02:42.870 --> 00:02:44.289 lots of studies were only in one or the other. 00:02:44.590 --> 00:02:46.710 Exactly. And a whole bunch of those studies that 00:02:46.710 --> 00:02:49.449 were only in the strength analysis used untrained 00:02:49.449 --> 00:02:52.449 subjects. Untrained people. Okay, why does that 00:02:52.449 --> 00:02:54.169 matter so much? They get stronger, right? They 00:02:54.169 --> 00:02:57.669 get stronger really fast, yeah. But a huge chunk 00:02:57.669 --> 00:03:00.409 of that initial strength gain comes from neural 00:03:00.409 --> 00:03:03.569 adaptations. Basically, their brain and nerves 00:03:03.569 --> 00:03:06.009 just get much better at firing the muscles they 00:03:06.009 --> 00:03:08.189 already have. Ah, so it's learning the movement, 00:03:08.389 --> 00:03:10.639 becoming more efficient. Not necessarily building 00:03:10.639 --> 00:03:12.740 bigger muscles, especially not at low volumes. 00:03:13.240 --> 00:03:15.599 Precisely. And when you include all those studies 00:03:15.599 --> 00:03:18.879 with massive neural gains in the strength analysis, 00:03:19.259 --> 00:03:22.080 but not in the hypertrophy one, it really warps 00:03:22.080 --> 00:03:24.419 the picture. It makes it look like strength plateaus 00:03:24.419 --> 00:03:27.599 way earlier relative to volume than it might 00:03:27.599 --> 00:03:29.000 actually do if you're just looking at muscle 00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:30.819 growth itself. OK, that makes sense. It's kind 00:03:30.819 --> 00:03:33.219 of muddied the waters by mixing beginners with 00:03:33.219 --> 00:03:36.400 experienced lifters. So what happens if we clean 00:03:36.400 --> 00:03:38.860 that up? If we look only at studies with training 00:03:38.699 --> 00:03:41.240 where they measured both strength and muscle 00:03:41.240 --> 00:03:43.939 size. Does the story change? Oh, absolutely. 00:03:44.180 --> 00:03:46.479 It changes significantly. When you isolate those 00:03:46.479 --> 00:03:49.000 studies, train folks. measuring both things like 00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:51.780 maybe squat strength and quant thickness, a very 00:03:51.780 --> 00:03:54.599 different pattern. We looked at data points from 00:03:54.599 --> 00:03:57.759 five such studies covering nine different strength 00:03:57.759 --> 00:04:00.219 measurements. The groups doing higher volume 00:04:00.219 --> 00:04:03.400 averaging around, say, 27 sets a week. OK, that's 00:04:03.400 --> 00:04:05.560 quite a bit. Yeah, they gained more strength 00:04:05.560 --> 00:04:08.280 in seven out of those nine comparisons compared 00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:10.419 to the lower volume groups who were doing maybe 00:04:10.419 --> 00:04:13.039 19 sets a week. Seven out of nine. That's pretty 00:04:13.039 --> 00:04:15.439 consistent. And muscle growth. Even more consistent. 00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:18.800 More muscle growth in eight out of nine comparisons 00:04:18.800 --> 00:04:21.779 for the higher volume groups. Wow. And here's 00:04:21.779 --> 00:04:25.579 the kicker. The only times higher volume didn't 00:04:25.579 --> 00:04:28.139 lead to more strength or more growth. Those were 00:04:28.139 --> 00:04:30.759 in the few comparisons involving untrained lifters 00:04:30.759 --> 00:04:33.730 included in those specific studies. So for trained 00:04:33.730 --> 00:04:35.689 people, the trend was clearly higher volume, 00:04:35.850 --> 00:04:38.149 more strength, more size. Exactly. It directly 00:04:38.149 --> 00:04:40.269 contradicts that whole idea that strength can 00:04:40.269 --> 00:04:43.870 stall out early, undermining that core low volume 00:04:43.870 --> 00:04:46.029 is enough argument, at least based on this line 00:04:46.029 --> 00:04:48.370 of reasoning. OK, that's really important clarification. 00:04:48.529 --> 00:04:52.170 But then why do some meta -analyses still seem 00:04:52.170 --> 00:04:54.750 to show strength benefits tapering off? Even 00:04:54.750 --> 00:04:56.589 if muscle growth keeps going up with volume, 00:04:57.110 --> 00:05:00.170 is there another factor? There is, yeah. It's 00:05:00.170 --> 00:05:03.079 about training specificity. Think about it. Low 00:05:03.079 --> 00:05:06.220 volume training is often super focused. Heavy 00:05:06.220 --> 00:05:09.040 weights, maybe just one or two main lifts, very 00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:11.709 specific to building maximal strength in that 00:05:11.709 --> 00:05:14.170 lift. Right, like power lifting training. Exactly. 00:05:14.750 --> 00:05:16.529 Whereas higher volume training, it's often aiming 00:05:16.529 --> 00:05:18.870 for both strength and size. So you might use 00:05:18.870 --> 00:05:21.350 a wider range of exercises, different rep ranges, 00:05:21.610 --> 00:05:23.649 maybe not always lifting maximally heavy on the 00:05:23.649 --> 00:05:26.050 main strength test exercise. Ah, so it's less 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:28.529 specific to hitting a huge one rep max on that 00:05:28.529 --> 00:05:31.209 one lift the study measures. Precisely. Which 00:05:31.209 --> 00:05:33.189 is fine. It's arguably more like how many people 00:05:33.189 --> 00:05:35.750 train in the real world, ecologically valid, 00:05:35.810 --> 00:05:38.389 as we say. But in a meta -analysis, comparing 00:05:38.389 --> 00:05:41.480 strength out comes, that lower specificity can 00:05:41.480 --> 00:05:44.000 make the higher volume groups look slightly less 00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:45.579 effective for peak strength than they might actually 00:05:45.579 --> 00:05:48.720 be overall. Gotcha. So it's not that high volume 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:50.680 doesn't build strength. It's just that the way 00:05:50.680 --> 00:05:53.139 strength is often tested might favor the lower 00:05:53.139 --> 00:05:55.920 volume or specific approach sometimes. That's 00:05:55.920 --> 00:05:57.720 a good way to put it. It influences the results 00:05:57.720 --> 00:06:00.399 we see in these big analyses. OK, so we've tackled 00:06:00.399 --> 00:06:03.079 the data comparing strength and size gains directly. 00:06:03.360 --> 00:06:06.089 But let's go a level deeper. There's this underlying 00:06:06.089 --> 00:06:08.610 assumption about why muscles get stronger, right? 00:06:08.870 --> 00:06:10.870 The idea that it's all about the contractile 00:06:10.870 --> 00:06:13.910 proteins. Yeah, the actin and myosin cross -bridges. 00:06:14.509 --> 00:06:17.389 The common thinking is more cross -bridges equals 00:06:17.389 --> 00:06:22.029 more force. End of story. But you're saying maybe 00:06:22.029 --> 00:06:24.750 not the end of the story. Definitely not. That 00:06:24.750 --> 00:06:27.370 premise, that strength capacity is solely down 00:06:27.370 --> 00:06:29.990 to the number of cross -bridges is actually false. 00:06:30.220 --> 00:06:32.620 There's more to it. Like what? What else contributes 00:06:32.620 --> 00:06:35.279 to how strong a muscle actually is? Well, a big 00:06:35.279 --> 00:06:38.060 one is connective tissue adaptations. These improve 00:06:38.060 --> 00:06:40.180 something called lateral source transmission. 00:06:40.839 --> 00:06:43.019 Lateral force transmission. OK, break that down. 00:06:43.279 --> 00:06:46.379 Think of it like this. The muscle fibers generate 00:06:46.379 --> 00:06:50.180 force. Right, but that force has to get transmitted 00:06:50.180 --> 00:06:52.439 outwards through the connective tissue layers 00:06:52.439 --> 00:06:55.399 surrounding the fibers and the whole muscle Eventually 00:06:55.399 --> 00:06:57.220 pulling on the tendon and bone. Okay, like the 00:06:57.220 --> 00:07:00.160 force needs a pathway out exactly and resistance 00:07:00.160 --> 00:07:02.800 training strengthens that pathway It increases 00:07:02.800 --> 00:07:04.819 specific proteins at the points where fibers 00:07:04.819 --> 00:07:07.220 attached to this connective tissue matrix This 00:07:07.220 --> 00:07:09.579 directly makes the whole muscle better at transmitting 00:07:09.579 --> 00:07:11.680 force independent of just the fibers getting 00:07:11.680 --> 00:07:14.360 bigger, huh? So the scaffolding gets stronger 00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:17.500 too. Precisely. And this isn't some new wild 00:07:17.500 --> 00:07:19.459 idea. Scientists were talking about this back 00:07:19.459 --> 00:07:23.800 in like 1989. Wow. And here's a potentially related 00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:27.180 really cool idea. Challenging high -volume training 00:07:27.180 --> 00:07:30.180 might actually cause tiny temporary unstickings, 00:07:30.259 --> 00:07:32.639 adhesions between the muscle fibers and their 00:07:32.639 --> 00:07:35.639 surrounding connective tissue. That sounds bad, 00:07:35.860 --> 00:07:37.899 like damage. Well, it might involve a protein 00:07:37.899 --> 00:07:40.490 called tenashin C. and it seems to be part of 00:07:40.490 --> 00:07:43.029 the repair and remodeling process. It might temporarily 00:07:43.029 --> 00:07:45.389 reduce strength capacity a tiny bit while things 00:07:45.389 --> 00:07:49.269 get rebuilt. But it's likely necessary for strengthening 00:07:49.269 --> 00:07:52.589 that extracellular matrix, the scaffolding, which 00:07:52.589 --> 00:07:54.889 ultimately allows the muscle to handle more stress 00:07:54.889 --> 00:07:57.449 and continue growing. So paradoxically, while 00:07:57.449 --> 00:07:59.509 your muscles are growing, they might also be 00:07:59.509 --> 00:08:01.829 undergoing these connective tissue upgrades that 00:08:01.829 --> 00:08:04.670 could cause temporary dips in strength capacity. 00:08:04.829 --> 00:08:08.050 So strength isn't just size, it's also how well 00:08:08.050 --> 00:08:09.930 the whole structure works together. And improving 00:08:09.930 --> 00:08:11.750 that structure might involve temporary trade 00:08:11.750 --> 00:08:13.870 -offs. That's complex. It is. It shows that the 00:08:13.870 --> 00:08:16.689 relationship isn't as simple as, bigger, you'll 00:08:16.689 --> 00:08:19.569 always stronger right now. This whole discussion, 00:08:19.569 --> 00:08:21.769 you know, really highlights a bigger point about 00:08:21.769 --> 00:08:23.649 how we understand things in fitness and maybe 00:08:23.649 --> 00:08:26.410 science in general. This tension between, like, 00:08:26.529 --> 00:08:29.519 logical arguments and actual hard data. Absolutely. 00:08:29.819 --> 00:08:31.540 It's kind of a classic philosophy of science 00:08:31.540 --> 00:08:34.179 thing. Rationalism versus empiricism. Explain 00:08:34.179 --> 00:08:36.639 that. So rationalism is building arguments based 00:08:36.639 --> 00:08:39.919 on logic, premises, known mechanisms. A leads 00:08:39.919 --> 00:08:42.840 to B. B leads to C. Therefore, A leads to C. 00:08:43.700 --> 00:08:45.580 A lot of common fitness beliefs are built this 00:08:45.580 --> 00:08:47.879 way. They sound logical. OK. And empiricism. 00:08:48.440 --> 00:08:51.080 Empiricism is about observation and measurement. 00:08:51.580 --> 00:08:54.299 It's about the data. What do experiments actually 00:08:54.299 --> 00:08:57.350 show? In science, especially experimental science 00:08:57.350 --> 00:09:00.110 like exercise phis, empiricism is ultimately 00:09:00.110 --> 00:09:03.289 the decider. Can you give an example? BCAAs are 00:09:03.289 --> 00:09:05.129 a great one. Branched chain? Branched chain amino 00:09:05.129 --> 00:09:08.169 acids. Logically, you could argue they should 00:09:08.169 --> 00:09:10.169 help muscle growth, right? They're involved in 00:09:10.169 --> 00:09:12.230 protein synthesis, they might reduce breakdown. 00:09:12.509 --> 00:09:15.230 Yeah, sounds reasonable. When you actually test 00:09:15.230 --> 00:09:18.389 empirically, study after study shows taking extra 00:09:18.389 --> 00:09:21.529 BCAAs doesn't really help people build more muscle 00:09:21.529 --> 00:09:23.429 compared to just getting enough total protein. 00:09:24.210 --> 00:09:26.549 So the logic seemed sound, but the data didn't 00:09:26.549 --> 00:09:29.090 support it. Exactly. And that's where pseudoscience 00:09:29.090 --> 00:09:31.870 often lives in plausible sounding logical arguments, 00:09:32.429 --> 00:09:34.809 while ignoring or dismissing the direct evidence. 00:09:35.350 --> 00:09:37.850 Empiricism forces us to confront reality. So 00:09:37.850 --> 00:09:41.350 the takeaway is, trust the data even if it contradicts 00:09:41.350 --> 00:09:44.840 a logical theory. Pretty much. Rationalism is 00:09:44.840 --> 00:09:47.799 great for generating hypotheses, ideas to test, 00:09:48.460 --> 00:09:51.279 but empiricism is what confirms or refutes them. 00:09:52.100 --> 00:09:54.379 It's how our understanding evolves, sometimes 00:09:54.379 --> 00:09:57.799 slowly, piece by piece, based on evidence, rather 00:09:57.799 --> 00:10:00.220 than sticking rigidly to a logical conclusion 00:10:00.220 --> 00:10:02.779 that the data doesn't back up. Okay, applying 00:10:02.779 --> 00:10:05.769 that empirical lens then. But let's go back to 00:10:05.769 --> 00:10:08.309 the high -volume arguments. What about that common 00:10:08.309 --> 00:10:10.769 counter -argument? Oh, the extra size you see 00:10:10.769 --> 00:10:12.710 from high -volume, it's just temporary swelling. 00:10:12.850 --> 00:10:14.789 It's edema. It's not real muscle. Right. That's 00:10:14.789 --> 00:10:17.350 a classic rationalist -sounding dismissal. But 00:10:17.350 --> 00:10:19.169 what does the data say? Yeah, what does it say? 00:10:19.450 --> 00:10:21.070 Well, muscle swelling does happen right after 00:10:21.070 --> 00:10:23.610 a workout, sure, especially if it's new or unusually 00:10:23.610 --> 00:10:26.470 hard. But studies show it decreases pretty rapidly 00:10:26.470 --> 00:10:29.779 as you adapt. How rapidly? Within, say, 24 to 00:10:29.779 --> 00:10:32.700 72 hours, it's largely resolved. We have recent 00:10:32.700 --> 00:10:35.500 studies confirming this. Even with really brutal, 00:10:35.679 --> 00:10:38.259 eccentric training protocols, untrained people 00:10:38.259 --> 00:10:40.159 adapt pretty quickly, maybe within eight weeks 00:10:40.159 --> 00:10:42.720 or so. All the markers of damage and inflammation 00:10:42.720 --> 00:10:44.940 go way down. OK, so the swelling effect is mostly 00:10:44.940 --> 00:10:47.100 short term, especially once you're adapted. Yes. 00:10:47.379 --> 00:10:49.279 And here's the really crucial empirical point. 00:10:49.980 --> 00:10:52.559 The effect of training volume on hypertrophy 00:10:52.889 --> 00:10:56.370 actual muscle growth becomes more obvious in 00:10:56.370 --> 00:10:58.970 longer studies. Well, longer studies. If swelling 00:10:58.970 --> 00:11:01.690 was the main reason high volume looked better, 00:11:02.090 --> 00:11:03.889 you'd expect the opposite, right? You'd expect 00:11:03.889 --> 00:11:05.690 the difference to be biggest in short studies 00:11:05.690 --> 00:11:07.990 before the swelling resolves or people adapt. 00:11:08.450 --> 00:11:11.679 Ah, good point. But we see the opposite. Exactly. 00:11:12.320 --> 00:11:14.419 The fact that the benefit of higher volume is 00:11:14.419 --> 00:11:17.340 clearer over longer durations strongly suggests 00:11:17.340 --> 00:11:20.200 it's causing actual tissue growth, not just temporary 00:11:20.200 --> 00:11:23.480 puffiness. The empiricism refutes the it's just 00:11:23.480 --> 00:11:26.009 swelling argument. OK, makes sense. What about 00:11:26.009 --> 00:11:28.710 the other related idea, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy? 00:11:28.850 --> 00:11:31.370 Is that just fake muscle or puffiness too? Yeah, 00:11:31.389 --> 00:11:33.889 it often gets lumped in with swelling. Sarcoplasmic 00:11:33.889 --> 00:11:36.169 hypertrophy is the idea that the non -contractile 00:11:36.169 --> 00:11:38.509 parts of the muscle fiber, the fluid, glycogen, 00:11:38.610 --> 00:11:41.009 mitochondria, et cetera, increase disproportionately 00:11:41.009 --> 00:11:43.230 compared to the contractile proteins. So bigger 00:11:43.230 --> 00:11:45.909 fibers, but not necessarily proportionally stronger. 00:11:46.190 --> 00:11:49.009 That's the idea. The sort of strongest indirect 00:11:49.009 --> 00:11:51.730 evidence for this came from a study back in 2015. 00:11:52.000 --> 00:11:55.519 It suggested bodybuilders had muscle fibers that 00:11:55.519 --> 00:11:59.440 produced less force for their size, but that 00:11:59.440 --> 00:12:02.039 study has largely been refuted. A follow -up 00:12:02.039 --> 00:12:04.740 study in 2021 found some methodological issues 00:12:04.740 --> 00:12:08.259 with the original research. Oh, like what? It 00:12:08.259 --> 00:12:10.159 seems the apparent difference in force production 00:12:10.159 --> 00:12:12.809 was likely an artifact, basically. the fibers 00:12:12.809 --> 00:12:14.750 were swelling up during the measurement process 00:12:14.750 --> 00:12:16.990 itself, making them look bigger and weaker than 00:12:16.990 --> 00:12:19.250 they really were. Ah, so a technical issue with 00:12:19.250 --> 00:12:21.529 how they measured it. Exactly. So our understanding 00:12:21.529 --> 00:12:24.590 of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as a distinct major 00:12:24.590 --> 00:12:26.610 phenomena, it's still pretty fuzzy, honestly. 00:12:26.690 --> 00:12:28.750 So we don't really know if it's a big factor? 00:12:29.029 --> 00:12:31.850 We don't. There are hypotheses. Maybe it's temporary. 00:12:31.889 --> 00:12:34.129 Maybe it happens before myofibrillar growth kicks 00:12:34.129 --> 00:12:36.509 in. Maybe it happens only when fibers get really 00:12:36.509 --> 00:12:39.769 big. But it's also incredibly hard to measure 00:12:39.769 --> 00:12:42.879 accurately. Think about it, muscle biopsies take 00:12:42.879 --> 00:12:46.120 a tiny, tiny sample, try to precisely measure 00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:48.899 the proportion of contractile versus noncontractile 00:12:48.899 --> 00:12:52.399 stuff in that tiny sample and then extrapolate 00:12:52.399 --> 00:12:55.120 to the whole muscle. It's really challenging. 00:12:55.519 --> 00:12:59.059 So the it's just circle plasmic argument doesn't 00:12:59.059 --> 00:13:01.379 have super strong evidence behind it either not 00:13:01.379 --> 00:13:03.779 really strong direct evidence No, the bulk of 00:13:03.779 --> 00:13:05.720 the evidence still points towards higher volumes 00:13:05.720 --> 00:13:08.139 leading to more actual contractile tissue growth 00:13:08.139 --> 00:13:10.480 over time Okay, so bringing this back to practical 00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:13.419 advice based on the data We do have where does 00:13:13.419 --> 00:13:15.940 the evidence seem solid in terms of weekly sets? 00:13:15.940 --> 00:13:17.759 Is there a number we can feel confident about? 00:13:17.950 --> 00:13:20.110 Yeah, looking at where the data is reasonably 00:13:20.110 --> 00:13:21.870 dense, we can be pretty confident recommending 00:13:21.870 --> 00:13:24.870 up to around, say, 25 sets per muscle group per 00:13:24.870 --> 00:13:27.070 week. 25 sets. Beyond that point, the studies 00:13:27.070 --> 00:13:29.649 become much fewer and farther between, so our 00:13:29.649 --> 00:13:31.990 confidence level in making recommendations naturally 00:13:31.990 --> 00:13:34.370 drops off. Right. But what about the upper limit? 00:13:34.470 --> 00:13:37.750 You mentioned studies going up to 45 sets still 00:13:37.750 --> 00:13:40.149 showing benefits. Is there any evidence for that 00:13:40.149 --> 00:13:43.110 inverted U where doing too much actually makes 00:13:43.110 --> 00:13:45.509 you grow less? Has any study found that yet? 00:13:45.610 --> 00:13:47.370 That's the million -dollar question, isn't it? 00:13:47.450 --> 00:13:50.370 The honest answer is, we don't have clear evidence 00:13:50.370 --> 00:13:53.529 for that downturn yet. Really? Not even at 45 00:13:53.529 --> 00:13:55.490 sets? The studies pushing those high volumes, 00:13:55.590 --> 00:13:59.049 like 30, 40, 45 sets, they still generally show 00:13:59.049 --> 00:14:01.950 more growth compared to lower volumes. Now, theoretically, 00:14:02.230 --> 00:14:04.570 that inverted U should exist, right? You can't 00:14:04.570 --> 00:14:07.110 just add sets infinitely. Yeah, eventually you'd 00:14:07.110 --> 00:14:09.970 just break down. Exactly. But based purely on 00:14:09.970 --> 00:14:12.129 the hypertrophy data published so far, we haven't 00:14:12.129 --> 00:14:15.360 clearly identified that peak and downturn. Maybe 00:14:15.360 --> 00:14:17.659 the next study will find it. But for now, the 00:14:17.659 --> 00:14:19.500 limit seems to be higher than previously thought. 00:14:19.580 --> 00:14:21.840 Certainly higher than that old 10 -20 set idea. 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:24.840 Speaking of that 10 -20 sets, where did that 00:14:24.840 --> 00:14:26.500 recommendation even come from? It feels like 00:14:26.500 --> 00:14:28.759 it was everywhere for a while. It really was. 00:14:29.179 --> 00:14:31.480 But it was never based on super strong direct 00:14:31.480 --> 00:14:34.159 evidence showing that's the optimal range. It 00:14:34.159 --> 00:14:37.299 seems to have stemmed from maybe a bit of a lazy 00:14:37.299 --> 00:14:39.620 interpretation, as some have called it, of a 00:14:39.620 --> 00:14:43.740 2017 meta -analysis. Or so. That analysis basically 00:14:43.740 --> 00:14:46.500 just lumped everything above 9 or 10 sets into 00:14:46.500 --> 00:14:49.740 one single high -volume category. It didn't really 00:14:49.740 --> 00:14:52.340 differentiate between 12 sets, 20 sets, or 30 00:14:52.340 --> 00:14:54.980 sets. Ah, so it just showed more than 10 is better 00:14:54.980 --> 00:14:57.000 than less than 10, but not how much more is better. 00:14:57.100 --> 00:14:59.500 Pretty much. And critically, during that period, 00:14:59.740 --> 00:15:01.320 there were a couple of influential studies that 00:15:01.320 --> 00:15:04.059 did seem to support lower volumes, like maybe 00:15:04.059 --> 00:15:06.919 5, 10 sets being optimal. OK. But those studies 00:15:06.919 --> 00:15:09.080 were later retracted because the data was found 00:15:09.080 --> 00:15:11.600 to be fabricated. Wow, seriously. Fabricated 00:15:11.600 --> 00:15:14.720 data. Yeah. And the time between when those studies 00:15:14.720 --> 00:15:17.080 were published and when they were retracted definitely 00:15:17.080 --> 00:15:19.179 skewed the perception and contributed heavily 00:15:19.179 --> 00:15:22.139 to that 10, 20 sets is probably enough consensus. 00:15:22.559 --> 00:15:24.419 Remove those faulty studies and the picture looks 00:15:24.419 --> 00:15:27.100 quite different. OK, that context is really important. 00:15:27.379 --> 00:15:31.919 But let's talk feasibility doing, say, 30 plus 00:15:31.919 --> 00:15:34.480 sets per muscle group. for all your muscle groups. 00:15:34.879 --> 00:15:37.379 That sounds like living in the gym. Is that even 00:15:37.379 --> 00:15:39.399 realistic? It's definitely a significant commitment, 00:15:39.559 --> 00:15:41.940 no doubt about it. When you look at surveys of 00:15:41.940 --> 00:15:44.080 competitive bodybuilders, you do see some reporting 00:15:44.080 --> 00:15:47.320 volumes in that 30 -40 set range per muscle group 00:15:47.320 --> 00:15:49.519 per week. Some do it, okay. But it's not the 00:15:49.519 --> 00:15:51.919 norm. The typical range reported is usually more 00:15:51.919 --> 00:15:55.200 like 12 to 24 sets. And the research we have 00:15:55.200 --> 00:15:57.580 doesn't strongly suggest high volumes only work 00:15:57.580 --> 00:16:01.350 if you focus on one or two muscles. Studies often 00:16:01.350 --> 00:16:03.210 have participants train multiple muscle groups 00:16:03.210 --> 00:16:05.669 with high volumes and see benefits across the 00:16:05.669 --> 00:16:08.470 board. But the downsides? Time, obviously. It 00:16:08.470 --> 00:16:11.210 takes a lot longer. And importantly, a higher 00:16:11.210 --> 00:16:13.710 risk of joint aches, tendon issues, that sort 00:16:13.710 --> 00:16:15.490 of thing, especially if you jump into it too 00:16:15.490 --> 00:16:18.690 quickly. So slow and steady ramp up is key if 00:16:18.690 --> 00:16:20.899 you try it. Absolutely crucial. We're talking 00:16:20.899 --> 00:16:23.179 gradually increasing over maybe three to six 00:16:23.179 --> 00:16:25.360 months, not trying to double your volume overnight. 00:16:25.759 --> 00:16:28.059 Your connective tissues need time to adapt. You 00:16:28.059 --> 00:16:30.139 mentioned earlier that not everyone responds 00:16:30.139 --> 00:16:32.779 the same way, though. Can you elaborate on that? 00:16:33.059 --> 00:16:35.639 Why might higher volumes work wonders for one 00:16:35.639 --> 00:16:38.399 person, but not another? Right. Individual response 00:16:38.399 --> 00:16:41.539 is huge here. While on average higher volume 00:16:41.539 --> 00:16:44.460 leads to more growth, the spread is wide. You 00:16:44.460 --> 00:16:47.480 might have roughly a quarter of people who respond 00:16:47.480 --> 00:16:50.740 dramatically better to high volume. Okay. Maybe 00:16:50.740 --> 00:16:53.139 another quarter see a moderate improvement. Another 00:16:53.139 --> 00:16:55.159 quarter might see no real difference compared 00:16:55.159 --> 00:16:57.360 to moderate volume. And then maybe another quarter 00:16:57.360 --> 00:16:59.639 actually do better on lower volumes. A quarter 00:16:59.639 --> 00:17:03.000 doing better on lower. Interesting. Why the difference? 00:17:03.139 --> 00:17:05.039 We don't know for sure, but there are potential 00:17:05.039 --> 00:17:08.920 reasons. Genetics play a role, obviously. Differences 00:17:08.920 --> 00:17:11.299 in things like ribosome biogenesis, how quickly 00:17:11.299 --> 00:17:13.940 your cells can build proteins. Satellite cell 00:17:13.940 --> 00:17:16.140 excavation, those are muscle stem cells involved 00:17:16.140 --> 00:17:19.019 in repair and growth. Fiber type distribution 00:17:19.019 --> 00:17:22.220 could matter too. People with more fatigue resistant 00:17:22.220 --> 00:17:25.319 type I fibers might tolerate and benefit more 00:17:25.319 --> 00:17:27.960 from higher volumes. Type I, the endurance fibers. 00:17:28.319 --> 00:17:30.799 Yeah, but they still grow quite a bit. And then 00:17:30.799 --> 00:17:34.589 there's the real world factor. In a controlled 00:17:34.589 --> 00:17:36.529 study, people might be pushed harder than they 00:17:36.529 --> 00:17:38.849 typically push themselves in their regular training. 00:17:39.349 --> 00:17:41.309 Maybe some people just don't maintain the necessary 00:17:41.309 --> 00:17:43.730 intensity when volume gets really high on their 00:17:43.730 --> 00:17:46.670 own. That makes sense. So genetics, fiber type, 00:17:47.150 --> 00:17:50.069 maybe even just practical effort levels. Given 00:17:50.069 --> 00:17:52.609 that high volumes can work, at least on average, 00:17:53.329 --> 00:17:56.750 why don't we see more people doing like 40 plus 00:17:56.750 --> 00:18:00.180 sets routinely in gyms everywhere? Besides the 00:18:00.180 --> 00:18:02.099 time factor you mentioned time is probably the 00:18:02.099 --> 00:18:04.559 biggest practical barrier. Let's be real getting 00:18:04.559 --> 00:18:07.599 maybe 20 % better results But spending 50 % more 00:18:07.599 --> 00:18:10.299 time in the gym that trade -off isn't worth it 00:18:10.299 --> 00:18:12.460 for most people who aren't competitive bodybuilders 00:18:12.460 --> 00:18:14.839 Yeah, the diminishing returns hit practicality 00:18:14.839 --> 00:18:17.700 hard Exactly. And there might also be a systemic 00:18:17.700 --> 00:18:20.180 recovery issue, even if each individual muscle 00:18:20.180 --> 00:18:22.299 could handle more. Maybe your overall system, 00:18:22.960 --> 00:18:25.579 nervous system, endocrine system, joints hits 00:18:25.579 --> 00:18:27.640 a recovery bottleneck when you try to push everything 00:18:27.640 --> 00:18:30.000 super hard simultaneously. Like a total body 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:32.720 stress limit. Potentially, yeah. It's easier 00:18:32.720 --> 00:18:35.339 to blast one or two body parts with insane volume 00:18:35.339 --> 00:18:37.359 than it is to do it for everything all at once, 00:18:37.640 --> 00:18:40.220 week after week. OK, another question. These 00:18:40.220 --> 00:18:42.920 studies are often, what, 8, 10, 12 weeks long? 00:18:43.240 --> 00:18:46.279 They might show, say, 10 % more growth with high 00:18:46.279 --> 00:18:48.779 volume in that time. Can we just extrapolate 00:18:48.779 --> 00:18:51.539 that out? Does that mean you'll gain 10 % more 00:18:51.539 --> 00:18:53.759 muscle every three months than definitely if 00:18:53.759 --> 00:18:56.400 you stick with high volume? Ah, no, definitely 00:18:56.400 --> 00:18:59.519 not. Muscle growth isn't linear like that. It 00:18:59.519 --> 00:19:01.799 follows more of a logarithmic curve. Meaning 00:19:01.799 --> 00:19:04.119 it slows down over time. Exactly. Your gains 00:19:04.119 --> 00:19:06.339 are fastest when you're starting out or recovering 00:19:06.339 --> 00:19:08.819 lost muscle, and they slow down progressively 00:19:08.819 --> 00:19:10.759 as you get closer to your genetic potential. 00:19:11.460 --> 00:19:13.539 Higher volume seems to lead to faster gains, 00:19:13.680 --> 00:19:15.799 especially early on. So you get more growth sooner? 00:19:16.079 --> 00:19:18.859 Yes, and likely more total growth over, say, 00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:21.200 the first year or two compared to lower volumes. 00:19:21.900 --> 00:19:24.680 But it's possible that over a very long time 00:19:24.680 --> 00:19:27.160 frame, like five or 10 years, the total amount 00:19:27.160 --> 00:19:29.660 of muscle gain between someone doing moderate 00:19:29.660 --> 00:19:32.880 volume versus high volume might start to converge 00:19:32.880 --> 00:19:34.920 somewhat as they both approach their genetic 00:19:34.920 --> 00:19:37.710 ceiling. Hmm, interesting. But very low volume 00:19:37.710 --> 00:19:39.750 would still be lagging behind. Oh, yeah. Very 00:19:39.750 --> 00:19:42.349 low volumes, like just a few sets per week, are 00:19:42.349 --> 00:19:44.730 almost certainly suboptimal for maximizing long 00:19:44.730 --> 00:19:47.170 -term growth for most people. What about volume 00:19:47.170 --> 00:19:49.650 cycling? You hear about people increasing volume 00:19:49.650 --> 00:19:52.430 for a while, then backing off to resensitize, 00:19:52.450 --> 00:19:54.609 then pushing up again. Is there anything to that? 00:19:54.869 --> 00:19:57.809 That's an interesting theory. The idea is based 00:19:57.809 --> 00:20:01.150 on progressive overload that you need continuously 00:20:01.150 --> 00:20:05.460 increasing stress. So maybe Constantly pushing 00:20:05.460 --> 00:20:08.640 high volume leads to accommodation, but cycling 00:20:08.640 --> 00:20:11.000 yet allows you to keep adapting. Does the evidence 00:20:11.000 --> 00:20:14.059 support it? There's some indirect physiological 00:20:14.059 --> 00:20:17.000 rationale, maybe some suggestive findings, but 00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:19.240 no really definitive studies validating volume 00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:22.259 cycling as superior to just maintaining a consistently 00:20:22.259 --> 00:20:25.539 appropriate volume yet. However, even if cycling 00:20:25.539 --> 00:20:27.539 turns out to be beneficial, the principle likely 00:20:27.539 --> 00:20:31.000 still holds. Training with generally higher volumes, 00:20:31.480 --> 00:20:33.960 even if you cycle them down periodically, seems 00:20:33.960 --> 00:20:35.920 to be more effective than training with consistently 00:20:35.920 --> 00:20:38.720 low volumes. So the baseline average volume still 00:20:38.720 --> 00:20:41.240 matters? It seems to. Okay, let's revisit the 00:20:41.240 --> 00:20:44.200 mechanism. At the most basic level, how does 00:20:44.200 --> 00:20:47.539 doing more sets lead to more muscle? Is it just 00:20:47.539 --> 00:20:51.059 more stimulus, more growth? That's the simplest 00:20:51.059 --> 00:20:55.440 and likely largely correct answer. A greater 00:20:55.440 --> 00:20:58.319 total stimulus triggers a greater adaptive response, 00:20:58.420 --> 00:21:00.940 up to a point. Is there any more nuance to it? 00:21:01.259 --> 00:21:04.279 Potentially. One idea relates back to fiber types. 00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:07.039 Higher volumes, often involving more reps and 00:21:07.039 --> 00:21:09.700 maybe shorter rests, might be better at stimulating 00:21:09.700 --> 00:21:12.400 those fatigue -resistant type I fibers. Which 00:21:12.400 --> 00:21:14.400 you said contribute significantly to overall 00:21:14.400 --> 00:21:16.640 size. They really do. They might be underestimated 00:21:16.640 --> 00:21:19.519 in traditional strength training. Also, think 00:21:19.519 --> 00:21:21.819 about the bioenergetics, the energy systems within 00:21:21.819 --> 00:21:24.640 the muscle. Things like capillary density, more 00:21:24.640 --> 00:21:27.119 blood supply, and mitochondrial function, energy 00:21:27.119 --> 00:21:29.380 production, are crucial for supporting muscle 00:21:29.380 --> 00:21:32.200 growth. Higher volumes might promote these adaptations 00:21:32.200 --> 00:21:34.619 more effectively, removing potential metabolic 00:21:34.619 --> 00:21:36.640 roadblocks to fibers getting bigger. So it's 00:21:36.640 --> 00:21:38.779 not just triggering the growth signal, but also 00:21:38.779 --> 00:21:41.079 building the support systems needed for that 00:21:41.079 --> 00:21:42.640 growth. That could definitely be part of the 00:21:42.640 --> 00:21:44.839 picture, yeah. We talked about strength versus 00:21:44.839 --> 00:21:48.599 size earlier. How good is tracking your strength 00:21:48.599 --> 00:21:51.019 gains as an indicator whether you're actually 00:21:51.019 --> 00:21:53.359 gaining muscle, especially in these shorter time 00:21:53.359 --> 00:21:55.839 frames like a typical study? It's tricky. Over 00:21:55.839 --> 00:21:58.940 the long term, for a specific individual who 00:21:58.940 --> 00:22:01.140 is already trained and consistent with their 00:22:01.140 --> 00:22:03.859 technique, tracking strengths can be a reasonably 00:22:03.859 --> 00:22:06.839 good proxy for hypertrophy. If your lifts are 00:22:06.839 --> 00:22:09.259 consistently going up over months and years, 00:22:09.700 --> 00:22:11.799 you're probably gaining muscle. Okay, long term 00:22:11.799 --> 00:22:13.710 it works better. But in the short term, like 00:22:13.710 --> 00:22:16.809 those 8 -12 week studies, strength is often a 00:22:16.809 --> 00:22:19.589 poor indicator. Why? Because as we discussed, 00:22:19.970 --> 00:22:22.329 those early strength gains are so heavily dominated 00:22:22.329 --> 00:22:24.470 by neural adaptations, just getting better at 00:22:24.470 --> 00:22:27.009 the lift. The point where hypertrophy becomes 00:22:27.009 --> 00:22:29.869 the main driver of strength increases is probably 00:22:29.869 --> 00:22:32.690 around that 8 -12 week mark or even later for 00:22:32.690 --> 00:22:34.549 some exercises. Right, when the study often ends. 00:22:34.759 --> 00:22:37.640 Exactly. Plus, in smaller studies, you get more 00:22:37.640 --> 00:22:40.440 random variation sampling variance. One small 00:22:40.440 --> 00:22:42.500 study might show strength going up without much 00:22:42.500 --> 00:22:45.400 size gain. Another might show the opposite, just 00:22:45.400 --> 00:22:47.940 due to chance or measurement error, even if the 00:22:47.940 --> 00:22:50.140 underlying relationship across many studies is 00:22:50.140 --> 00:22:52.690 clearer. So don't put too much stock in week 00:22:52.690 --> 00:22:54.829 -to -week strength changes as proof of muscle 00:22:54.829 --> 00:22:58.329 gain, especially early on. Generally, no. Look 00:22:58.329 --> 00:23:00.150 at longer trends. Let's talk about diminishing 00:23:00.150 --> 00:23:02.710 returns again. You said higher volume leads to 00:23:02.710 --> 00:23:04.809 more growth, but with diminishing returns. Can 00:23:04.809 --> 00:23:07.190 you clarify what that means? Does diminishing 00:23:07.190 --> 00:23:10.109 returns mean it's not worth doing? That's a common 00:23:10.109 --> 00:23:12.509 misunderstanding. Diminishing returns just means 00:23:12.509 --> 00:23:14.849 each additional unit of input gives you less 00:23:14.849 --> 00:23:17.029 output than the previous one. OK. So maybe going 00:23:17.029 --> 00:23:19.250 from 5 to 10 sets gives you x amount of growth. 00:23:19.869 --> 00:23:21.990 Going from 10 to 15 sets gives you less than 00:23:21.990 --> 00:23:25.170 x, maybe 0 .7x. Going from 15 to 20 gives you 00:23:25.170 --> 00:23:28.210 even less, maybe 0 .5x. Right, the benefit per 00:23:28.210 --> 00:23:31.190 set decreases. Yes. But importantly, diminishing 00:23:31.190 --> 00:23:33.630 returns does not mean lower total returns. In 00:23:33.630 --> 00:23:36.089 that example, 20 sets still gave you more total 00:23:36.089 --> 00:23:40.200 growth. x plus 0 .7x plus 0 .5x, then 10 sets, 00:23:40.299 --> 00:23:43.779 just x. Ah, okay. So even though the efficiency 00:23:43.779 --> 00:23:46.640 per set goes down, the total result can still 00:23:46.640 --> 00:23:50.099 go up. Exactly. So the goal of maximizing efficiency, 00:23:50.819 --> 00:23:53.640 most growth per set, often favoring lower volumes, 00:23:53.660 --> 00:23:57.019 and the goal of maximizing total results, most 00:23:57.019 --> 00:23:59.759 growth overall, often requiring higher volumes, 00:24:00.220 --> 00:24:02.440 can be contradictory. And people need to decide 00:24:02.440 --> 00:24:04.460 which goal is more important to them considering 00:24:04.460 --> 00:24:08.180 the trade -offs. Precisely. Time, effort, injury 00:24:08.180 --> 00:24:11.279 risk, recovery capacity, all need to be weighed 00:24:11.279 --> 00:24:13.839 against how much growth you're aiming for. OK, 00:24:13.940 --> 00:24:17.039 so let's try to synthesize all this. What's the 00:24:17.039 --> 00:24:18.920 practical recommendation for someone listening? 00:24:19.059 --> 00:24:21.339 How should they figure out their ideal volume? 00:24:21.559 --> 00:24:23.339 Well, first things first. If what you're currently 00:24:23.339 --> 00:24:25.259 doing is working, if you're consistently making 00:24:25.259 --> 00:24:28.839 progress, you're happy with don't change anything. 00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:31.359 Don't fix what ain't broke. Exactly. A bird in 00:24:31.359 --> 00:24:33.220 the hand is worth two in the bush. Don't mess 00:24:33.220 --> 00:24:35.380 with success just because some studies suggest 00:24:35.380 --> 00:24:37.359 something else might be slightly more optimal 00:24:37.359 --> 00:24:39.900 on average. Good advice. But what if you have 00:24:39.900 --> 00:24:42.380 plateaued, or you feel like your progress is 00:24:42.380 --> 00:24:45.339 way slower than you'd like? Then, based on everything 00:24:45.339 --> 00:24:47.720 we've discussed, increasing your training volume 00:24:47.720 --> 00:24:51.319 is a very valid evidence -based strategy to try. 00:24:52.099 --> 00:24:53.980 How should someone approach that? Just double 00:24:53.980 --> 00:24:57.420 their sets next week? Definitely not. Gradual 00:24:57.420 --> 00:25:00.049 increase is key. A reasonable starting point 00:25:00.049 --> 00:25:02.910 might be to aim for about a 20 % increase in 00:25:02.910 --> 00:25:05.950 weekly sets for a target muscle group. 20%, okay. 00:25:06.190 --> 00:25:08.410 And then what? Stick with that for maybe two, 00:25:08.490 --> 00:25:10.990 four weeks. See how recovery feels, then maybe 00:25:10.990 --> 00:25:13.809 add another 20 % if things are going well. Do 00:25:13.809 --> 00:25:16.049 this gradually over, say, two, three months. 00:25:16.170 --> 00:25:17.890 And how do you know if it's working? Monitor 00:25:17.890 --> 00:25:20.529 your progress objectively. Are your training 00:25:20.529 --> 00:25:23.559 loads? weight on the bar for the same reps, starting 00:25:23.559 --> 00:25:25.940 to consistently exceed what you were doing before 00:25:25.940 --> 00:25:28.900 on the original lower volume, that's a great 00:25:28.900 --> 00:25:31.259 sign you're responding well. So getting stronger 00:25:31.259 --> 00:25:34.200 on the higher volume is key. Yes. If your loads 00:25:34.200 --> 00:25:36.299 are just staying the same despite doing more 00:25:36.299 --> 00:25:38.380 sets, that's kind of a neutral signal. You're 00:25:38.380 --> 00:25:40.359 building work capacity, maybe some endurance, 00:25:40.759 --> 00:25:43.119 but perhaps not driving maximal hypertrophy effectively. 00:25:43.480 --> 00:25:45.200 And if your training loads actually start to 00:25:45.200 --> 00:25:47.240 decrease and stay lower after a couple months 00:25:47.240 --> 00:25:49.829 on a higher volume, That's a bad sign. That's 00:25:49.829 --> 00:25:52.009 a pretty strong sign that that level of volume 00:25:52.009 --> 00:25:54.670 isn't productive for you right now and you should 00:25:54.670 --> 00:25:57.529 probably back off or explore other strategies 00:25:57.529 --> 00:26:00.549 like changing exercises, improving nutrition, 00:26:01.309 --> 00:26:04.130 or focusing on recovery. What about those specialization 00:26:04.130 --> 00:26:06.390 blocks you mentioned? Yeah, focusing high volume 00:26:06.390 --> 00:26:08.410 on just one or two muscle groups for a period 00:26:08.410 --> 00:26:10.809 while maintaining lower volume elsewhere can 00:26:10.809 --> 00:26:13.009 be a great way to test your individual response. 00:26:13.509 --> 00:26:15.289 It gives you a clearer signal because you're 00:26:15.289 --> 00:26:17.369 not trying to push everything at once. It's about 00:26:17.369 --> 00:26:20.349 finding your sweet spot through careful experimentation. 00:26:20.750 --> 00:26:23.450 Exactly. The goal isn't necessarily to hit some 00:26:23.450 --> 00:26:27.130 magic number like 25 sets or to do the absolute 00:26:27.130 --> 00:26:30.250 maximum volume you can possibly tolerate. The 00:26:30.250 --> 00:26:32.029 goal is finding the amount of volume that you 00:26:32.029 --> 00:26:34.289 need to stimulate the progress you want, balancing 00:26:34.289 --> 00:26:37.569 results with recovery, time, and enjoyment. Individual 00:26:37.569 --> 00:26:40.509 context is everything. Wow, okay, we really went 00:26:40.509 --> 00:26:43.289 deep today. We unpacked why those old assumptions 00:26:43.289 --> 00:26:45.269 about strength plateaus limiting muscle growth 00:26:45.269 --> 00:26:47.230 don't really hold up when you look closely at 00:26:47.230 --> 00:26:49.049 the data, especially for trained individuals. 00:26:49.470 --> 00:26:52.250 Yeah, we saw that higher volumes generally do 00:26:52.250 --> 00:26:54.930 lead to more growth and importantly more strength 00:26:54.930 --> 00:26:57.410 gains, too, contrary to some interpretations. 00:26:57.680 --> 00:26:59.839 And we touched on the role of connective tissue, 00:26:59.980 --> 00:27:02.599 that strength isn't just muscle fiber size and 00:27:02.599 --> 00:27:05.640 the importance of relying on empirical data over 00:27:05.640 --> 00:27:08.660 just logical arguments. Definitely. Trusting 00:27:08.660 --> 00:27:11.660 the data, even when it's complex or contradicts 00:27:11.660 --> 00:27:15.279 old beliefs, is key. This whole exploration, 00:27:15.579 --> 00:27:17.599 it's more than just how many sets should I do. 00:27:17.720 --> 00:27:19.839 It's really about thinking critically, right? 00:27:20.160 --> 00:27:22.180 Applying these scientific principles to your 00:27:22.180 --> 00:27:25.039 own training journey. Absolutely. And maybe it 00:27:25.039 --> 00:27:27.400 prompts a question for you, the listener. If 00:27:27.400 --> 00:27:30.430 your goal is to optimize your progress, What 00:27:30.430 --> 00:27:32.569 aspects of your current routine are you just 00:27:32.569 --> 00:27:34.609 taking for granted based on old assumptions? 00:27:34.869 --> 00:27:37.089 Yeah, what new possibilities might open up if 00:27:37.089 --> 00:27:39.029 you looked at your training with this fresh evidence 00:27:39.029 --> 00:27:41.289 -based perspective we've discussed today? Something 00:27:41.289 --> 00:27:43.650 to think about. Keep exploring, keep questioning, 00:27:43.950 --> 00:27:45.809 keep learning. Couldn't said it better myself. 00:27:46.329 --> 00:27:47.990 Thanks for joining us on the Deep Dive.