Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy Read more for timestamps and statistical significance discussion: Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:28 Part 1: How Many Sets? 4:34 Part 2: These Exercises Build More Muscle? 9:23 Part 3: Same Gains in Less Training Time? Many people are under the impression that when we get a non-statistically significant result, we have "proof" there was not a real difference between groups, or that statistically significant results "prove" there was a real difference. However, this is a mistake. We say a study found statistically significant results if a "p-value" was (typically) less than 0.05. A p-value tells us the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as those observed if we assumed there was no difference between groups. Thus, a p-value of 0.05 tells us that there's a 5% chance of getting results at least as extreme as we did if we assumed there was no difference. Given that 5% is generally considered a small chance, we suppose there could be a difference between groups. Hence obtaining a p-value of 0.05 or smaller gives us a "statistically significant" finding and we suspect there is a real difference between groups. However, notice that 0.05 is pretty arbitrary. In fact, any p-value threshold we use as a cut-off to delineate between "significance" and "nonsignificance" is arbitrary and debatable. Furthermore, since this is probability, there's nothing certain about it. It's entirely possible to get a statistically significant result when there's a real difference between groups (and vice versa). This is not to say p-values are useless or should never be used, it's just that we need to be clear on what they tell us. To understand the results of a study, considering all the given statistics and other research is a good idea. Considering this, looking at the results of the calf set study detailed in the video in conjunction with the other literature, I feel we can appropriately conclude that for pretty much all muscle growth measurements, the results followed a dose-response (12 weekly sets > 9 weekly sets > 6 weekly sets) despite the fact not all differences were statistically significant.

The info across the web being “Pretty confusing” is a massive understatement. 😂 Great content!

Fun Fact double tapping a comment will like it

I'm here again to get overwhelmed by new data.

00:02 Training with higher weekly set numbers improves muscle growth 01:50 Performing nine or more weekly sets for a muscle produces greater growth. 03:28 Optimal muscle growth with 12 to 20 weekly sets per muscle group 05:09 Lowering overload training leads to significant muscle growth. 06:47 Nordic curls maximize hamstring muscle growth 08:28 Training muscles at longer lengths may promote more muscle growth 10:15 Antagonist supersets with multiple exercises in trained subjects for faster muscle growth 11:55 Consider incorporating antagonist super sets for muscle growth

Another great, high-quality video from the House of Hypertrophy.

Antagonistic muscles: lower pec & upper traps mid pec & mid back upper pec & rear delt front delts & lats triceps & biceps wrist extensors & wrist flexors abbs & erector spinae gluteus maximus & hip flexors gluteus medius & adductors quads & hamstrings calves & tibialis anterior

Love these types of vids. Straight to the point without all the unneccesary fluff

This is the best, no-nonsense bodybuilding resource I have ever come across. The research studies don’t necessarily demonstrate what’s best for everyone in every situation, but they are a great place to start and accurately reflect what I’ve observed over four decades of training. A beginner can save years of wasted effort mining this channel.

Awesome to see you getting recognised by other content creators . Been coming here for my best info for a good while

Please make a Video on how to plan the Workout for most muscle growth

Appreciate you covering our study

HIT High Intensity Training is the best.I do 4-6 sets per body part with super intensity.I only train each body part once a week.i also do cardio. Ive made more gains than when i used to do 12 sets and training a body part twice a week. I used to be a competitive bodybuilder. Kudos to Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates.

I like the supersets. I train at home every day and i always try to do my target in 30 min. It's very difficult and it requires a lot of willpower to not just rest between sets but when I do I gain a lot of time. I also do 4 day split: - Chest, triceps and neck. Weighted push ups, handstand push ups, skull crushers, neck extensions and neck curls - Lats and mid back. Pull ups, weighted pull ups and standing bent over rows focusing on the mid back muscles - Legs and shoulders. Lateral raises, upright rows until sternum, single leg calf raises, leg extensions, bulgarian split squats, hip thrusts. - Biceps, forearms, abs. Crunches, hanging leg raises and curls (supinated for biceps, pronated or reversed for brachialis). Day 2 also trains forearms indirectly. Except weighted push and pull ups, everything is either 12 or 20 reps (normal or legs). I find legs benefit a lot from some borderline cardio because i use them on the daily, and I don't want to go on a hike and die. The only two exercises I train with very high reps are crunches (I can't figure out how to do weighted at home, so this is the next best thing) and hip thrusts (because I want to perform well if you know what I mean). I started doing everything at once but as I started balancing my workout, reducing time and isolating more muscles I split into push pull, then push pull legs and now this. I used to sometimes be still sore on the 3 day split because remember I train every day without rest, but now I'm always ok. As you can see each day always has some very different groups I can use to rest in between; neck vs chest/triceps, legs vs shoulders, biceps/forearms vs abs. Day 2 is the only one I still simply just rest in between because nothing else feels good when I'm doing pull ups idkwhy. Any tips?

underrated channel fr

Great video as always! I'm eating this information up and I'm always excited to learn new information. 🙂

I only train with super and giant sets thanks to Natural Hypertrophies Channel and advise. Will probably never go back to training traditionally, absolutely love it. Chin-Ups and Dips is my favorite combo.

Nordic hamstring curl on a GHD bench with hip flexed would be a better alternative to stretch the muscle out more, easy to load and it hits the muscle really well.

House of Hyper is backkk! Big respect.

Have been training steady, for about 9.5 years. My split is 6 on 1 off, leg day is Wednesday and Saturday, for calves I do 4 sets standing, 4 sets seated each leg day. It has worked great for my gains.

wow! You do more and get more gains??? Impressive results! How could anyone thought!!!

Is it possible to create a document that contains the summaries from each of the “Ultimate Guide” videos for each muscle group? I think it would really help when creating plans and trying new things to see what works best. Thank you for the great videos💪🏻❤️

Hey, can you make a video about all the compound exercises to target every muscle and every functional movement? That would be a good video to appeal to both bodybuilders and athletes.

This channel is the fucking goat 🐐

Your videos have been and always be my recommended videos for anyone wanting to understand an easy and simplified but thorough understanding of how to lift. Great information and solid imagery for people to see and understand. Beyond this, I have been waiting on a study to be done on partial bench press as it has been stated that lifting in the stretch position is best for muscle growth. So, do we no longer need to push all the way up and should do partial bench press to maintain that stretch position? Thanks in advanced, fellow lover of what you do.

I "bend my knee" to the "spirit of scientific accuracy".

You legit have the best lifting info on the internet 👌🏼 👍🏼. Even amongst Nippard and Dr Mike.

So the more you train the more you grow, thank you

Every study that starts with "..of untrained individuals" I lose interest, because it's just not relevant to most of us.

Wake up, HoH dropped another banger 🔥🔥🔥🔥 time to learn, gents and gent-ettes!

on trained individuals, there is evidence supporting more muscle damage training at lengthened positions, thus resulting in less muscle protein synthesis directed toward hypertrophic benefit and more towards reparation of the muscle fibers as a result of calcium ion overload. how are we neglecting the idea that muscle damage and recovery is a factor in suggesting training 12 sets per week while also suggesting lengthened position training which further damages muscle? much love, HUGE fan of the channel

Interesting that many other channels state that fewer reps (6 per set) with more weight are better for growth in large muscles. I started doing antagonist super sets in the 80s but they weren't labeled as such then, just made sense to me.

Training to failure 1x frequency 4-10 sets 2x frequency 2-5 sets 3x frequency 1-3 sets All depending on training status, individual variance, rest times and exercises performed. These volume studies are not reliable and they contradict dozens of other studies.

Oh baby where has this channel been all my life 😂

I love your vids so much, like literally, i wanna know everything abt my body, but i'm in shock only for one your video, so you doing really great, keep do vids, i keep watching :). btw i'm russian, and bad at english, and i write it by myself, so hope you understand everything i said before.

another great video, thanks

Top shelf info & video! Thank you🖖

Love supersets. My approach is different tho, I'll do flys then bench press, shoulder press then lat raises, underhand lat pulldown with a bicep curl. Generally a compound movement followed by a light weight high rep isolation exercise. I've noticed a huge difference in time and effectivenes. Superset of bent over rows and y raises really helped my upper back develope

Every BODY is different so find what fits best to your body

Great video once again, thanks for the detailed breakdown!

Over an almost 15 year period ( in total - with 2 hiatuses of 2 years in between ) i 've trained ( naturally ) using all kinds of systems in regards to amount of reps , sets , training frequency , training principles etc. The best results i've ever gotten for calves is doing just one set to failure , with a focus on the top contraction , per workout. Two or three times a week. That's it. Might not be for everyone , but i've met other people who've built excellent calves this way. ( used by Dave Palumbo , who developed great calves , as well )

After applying the lessons from every House of Hypertrophy for the last few months, my gains have multiplied by a factor of about 50. I can't fit in my house anymore. Thanks HoH!

A day that HoH uploads is automatically a good day 🥰 Am I wrong in stating that RDLs will also build more muscle than a Nordic curl? And I’m performing my RDLs with a hex and straight legged, so I use a lot more glutes, but my hamstrings do get a lot of growth stimulus too, right? 🤔 I tend do switch the style within sets: I first do a rep with straight legs, followed by a rep with bent legs, and just repeat this. I also perform them on step-ups to have more ROM 😅 If you answer me: thank you! But if you don’t: thank you anyway for the video 😅🙏

I've recently had great success with calves (begginer to intermediate, 1y of lifting). I do it as an antagonist superset on push days, in between bench sets, on a leverage squat machine. I do very heavy loads with one leg, then use both legs to add reps at half the weight (2 legs simultaneously). The key part is the stretch at the bottom, which feels good, unlike when sitting down at a calf machine. I don't really worry about sets and reps, just do as much as I can without it interfering with the push workout.

A daily full body resistant band program will do it. I do that and squat and bench once a week. Best results so far.

By the way, that cartoon showing the leg extension is not depicting optimal seat position. You should have the seat back as far as it will go so you can lean back and it will make the quad muscle more extended as you do the extensions, thus creating more tension.

I have been working out for almost 2 years now, on the second year I changed my way of working out, doing pretty much only 3-4 weekly sets for each muscle, and pretty much grew and doing well, progressing with weights and all, and I want to say I am pretty much above average. I am still not sure whether actually 9+ weekly sets per muscle group is ideal.

I'd say the pacing that stimulates growth in the 12 set group is by giant setting and super setting

Muscles are not the same, some muscles benefit from higher frequency and sets but other benefits from higher load and low volume, calves and legs in general and designed for endurance and they can handle more frequency and they like higher training volume like going for higher reps and sets for legs. But other muscles in upper body like arms and chest likes higher load and lower volume than legs. results may vary between individuals that's why you need to find what works for you.

The stronger you are, less sets you need, for example now I just need 7 sets for quads weekly

Good info. I would suggest slowing the audio down a little.

Good stuff! Are you still planning to do a video on strength vs size? Despite your name, I actually don't follow you for the pure growth elements and am much more interested in being as strong as possible without bulk.

Could you add a summary at the end? Recaps help with memorizing information.

My number 1 great staff as always

Outstanding ❤😊

I've radically reduced volume to just one set per exercise and one exercise per muscle and I saw improvements. Believe it or not.

Exciting studies! Any videos showing the researcher definition of "momentary muscle failure" (MMF)? I've seen some researchers (example: Brad J Schoenfeld) who consider MMF as happening when the positive movement stops vs some who keep holding in static position, and then continue resisting hard against the negative.

4:36 was that a summrs/pluggnb type beat😂😅??

12:39 , I was literally brushing my teeth (phone on counter playing this video)

I'm glad to hear the about the "decrease in nausea" reported overtime with supersets. In the interest of time, I've started doing more and can relate. Although not all antagonist based, like weighted dips/pullups/lunges - repeat.

The question is... are you in the gym to hurry, or to grow? Speaking from experience... You will get the same results in a shorter time when you do supersets, but you will also... 1. cause more systemic fatigue (meaning you'll skip sessions later in the week or have to take a deload week after 3 weeks of lifting hard) 2. be drenched in sweat and need to sit around catching your breath for 30 minutes after you get home/get to work. 3. make smaller improvements than if you'd rested 3-4 minutes between harder sets (because you'd be limited by the target muscles rather than cardiorespiratory fitness and nausea) The choice is yours. I have gotten much bigger since decreasing the pace of my workouts. Squeezing in a 30-minute workout before work was better than not working out, BUT it is not as beneficial or enjoyable as taking my time and allowing myself to recover for 3-3.5 minutes before doing hard, good quality reps.

Antagonistic supersets work fine, especially when used in a time specific system like EDT, but you need your own gym or train at 3am!!

Fellas, at 0:55 this guy used a km instead of measuring in bald eagles so we’re all gonna have to unsubscribe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Including the diet they followed during the training might help..

I only train 24-30 sets per week total for consistent strength gains. I do not want to gain much muscle mass or change my body weight by much. I know this data is about hypertrophy, but I wanted to comment to point out the various goals there are for training. With this knowledge we can say, train very hard and heavy for a lower number of sets, getting stronger while minimizing short-term hypertrophy.

havent been here for a while and somehow i wasnt subbed glad u popped on my fyp

Great interesting video!

As long as you're doing something that somewhat works, the biggest determining factor is time. A person training for 3 years is going to be bigger than someone with 1 regardless of the little changes.

This is amazing. The diminishing returns concept is intriguing

Max growth per session analysis would be interesting. I can only train two times per week and usually do 12 sets per muscle group. Would like to know, if going higher would benefit me.

A good research would be the assessment between 4 sets 3 times a week on a single muscle and 4 sets 3 times a weel with other muscles trained. Mostly to assess if recovery is an issue.

Hello, love your videos! 🤙💪Can you make a topic on Static contractions (Overcoming Isometric or Yielding Isometric) Vs Dynamic contract ("normal" traning) for muscle growth?💪💪 Sorry for bad English! Have a Nice Day!

With over 3 decades of training I still prefer the Mentzer 'Heavy Duty' training protocol for best results - low volume-high intensity sets- infrequent sessions (2x per week)

I hate with passion studies with calves

Performing more sets will build up more edema in the muscles. It's possible that's what's being measured, and not muscle growth at all.

It is clear, we have 4 studies that now shows 34 sets is better than 20 sets. We dont really know where the cut off is, but volume can be much much higher than we thought before

Why is it the case that the lying leg curl didnt grow the bicep femoris short head more than seated leg curl when it is the same position as the nordic curl??

Amazing video as usual! What are you thoughts on "overhead triceps extension "? I have never seen such dichotomy about it being an emphasis on the long head of the triceps....

In my opinion there is one problem with these studies about weekly number of sets: There is no recording of training the participants are doing beside training the muscle group of interest (in this case calfs). Therefore, the influence of other training cannot be evaluated and estimated. This could lead to the problem that e.g. every participant of the study is not training any other muscle groups at all and is therefore able to recover from 12 sets calf raises per week. But the "normal" bodybuilder, who is training lots of different muscle groups, could not recover from doing 12 sets per week for every muscle group, because of the body is overloaded with recovering every muscle group. And therefore, the bodybuilder will build less muscles with 12 sets as with e.g. 6 sets. Anyway, in this "calf size" studie and a few other studies I've read, the training besides muscle group of interest is not recorded or controlled. Maybe there are other studies, where this is the case, but I dont know them.

I think it is very worth to be pointed out that these individuals trained only one group muscle meaning that part of the body they trained was the only muscle that required resources to recover after training. Let's say per training session I do 4 different exercises for different muscle groups such chest, back, legs and shoulders. That means my body is required to recover all muscle groups that underwent 4 sets per session. Differently put, I may not recover after working out on 4 muscles per session with 4 sets for each muscle group.

Consistency… Person a starts on 5x5 and moves to hypertrophy training will have a different result to person b who started on hypertrophy going to 5x5. No one responds the same to everything no matter the control experiment. Some people have poor joint health, I can barely handle leg exercises after squatting for 10 years to 3x bodyweight squat. Others might not be able to get to even 2, some might be able to get to where I got and stay there. Same with deadlifts, almost 3.5x my bodyweight, my back is wearing out, others may be fine others won’t get close. Either way, my legs don’t put on size easily but get very strong no matter how I train; and others may build lots of muscle and not get very strong.

So i got a question, in the first part it says 15-20 reps per set until failure (momentary failure) but isnt it "better" to train with more weight to get better muscle growth and keep the range of reps around 4-8 for example?

Shouldn't we also take into consideration the duration of the studies? It is possible that high number of sets can only accelerate muscle growth without necessarily increasing the maximum muscle one can build. For example the first study mentioned lasted for 6 weeks, but perhaps after, say 1-2 years the results would be the same.

This channel has to blow up soon, similar to Jeff Nippard, but with even more info, cites the best studies and actually looks into the studies to see if they’re credible, this channel will blow up at some point as long as it keeps going.

Hi, could you please make a detailed video about how many sets for each muscle group? Because for your rear delt for example, you need less volume then bigger muscles like your quads.

great video

How does 10 sets of 8 reps differ metabolically from 5 sets of 20 reps done to similar degree of effort

Overall, the video suggests that performing at least 9-12 weekly sets per muscle group, training muscles at longer lengths and incorporating antagonist supersets into your workout routine can all be helpful for maximizing muscle growth.

Do you have any videos on supersets with the same muscle?

Now I do 4 sets×week of calves with partials and they are growing more than when I did 6 sets...

I rather have my muscles grow slow but strong. I don't know what this 'FAST' even mean in this regards. Keep your workout 30 mins long, use heavy weights, mind your balanced diet. And you will have success, no matter your age. I'm 47, and I grow muscles like a 20 yr old. Keep your body healthy. That's all it takes.

The Thing i always wonder about is how can we compare sets. Is it defined how intense the sets are because that could make a huge difference in outcomes.

WHY would their calf sets per session range from 2-4 sets?? Anyone familiar with MRVs would be doing 4-8

But wouldn't higher set numbers require less weight/reps? I train to failure for the final (3rd) set - there's no way I could do 4 without reducing the weight or reps per set. Does this still benefit from greater relative muscle mass increase?

View @ 1.5x your welcome

When "new" data comes out each week or month, it's really saying "we still don't know, and there's not one right way, but we need content"

a question, I perform shoulder press 3 sets on tuesday and then another 3 sets on friday, a total 6 sets a week for side delt. But I also do 3 sets lateral raise along with it which means that I am hitting the same muscle (side delt) 12 sets a week in total?

I think the more advanced you get the less volume you need because you can activate more fibres and get more from each set.

I super set all my exercises, but people keep stealing my equipment when I'm doing the other exercise. It really only works if you go to an empty gym.

In Part 2 you showed a chart where the muscle volume of the hamstrings increased by over 15% during the study period. How can this be explained? Extrapolate the study period to a year and everyone would double their legs.