Dear friend someone it’s using part of your work without giving you credit this is one of the videos Thanks you for all your hard work and knowledge kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n7x5kpubtM6aioE.htmlsi=I5wipsgPbm1t6Jew

Hi .. interesting video. I liked it. Does muscle grow at the same speed using kettlebells? Or does using KBs to grow muscles have be done 5X/week (example) (using different exercises) to be equivalent to 'gains' vs dumbbells/barbells?

Seriously. This study is pretty useless.

Was going to write this comment myself. Useless study, why do they even bother?

Indeed, I would like to see that done too. But this study still holds value. It appears the researchers primary investigation was the influence of fiber type, and if those more slow twitch benefit from more frequent training and more work (sets), while if the opposite was true for fast-twitch folks. I personally think this was a solid research question, with potentially important implications. As we saw, the answer (based on the subjects and variables used) was no. I also think the insight into the individual data was highly insightful, since the data indicates most grew better from more training. Other variables, such as rep ranges, may display more pronunced individual differences: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bKd2gcigydebpIE.html Finally, I thought this study was a good opportunity to dive into other studies (and done later in the video) which helps us understand the overall current state of the literature on volume and frequency, and hopefully this provided some value for folks :)

lol “scientists “

People, just get in the gym and perform. These “studies” don’t really add anything to 99% of gym goers unless your a pro athlete

Thank you dude! :)

Thank you so much my friend! :)

Appreciate the breakdown, now at least I definitely know this video was just too long for its content. I still seem to miss the point where and how the twitch type is determined per individual and/or training method. Without it this whole lot doesn't make more sense than to train your muscles 3 times a week instead of 2... 🤔

Mostly compounds. 15 sets total per session. Done.

@@GUITARTIME2024 just at the top of your head, what compoound exercises would you do on a 2x weekly?

@yoonvsaechao 4 sets incline dumbell press (setting 3), 4 sets standing (or sitting a setting 7) dumbell overhead press, 4 sets dumbell bench row (pull towards lower back a bit diagonally), 3 dumbell farmer walks of 1 minute each or whatever works for you ( works the traps, legs, arms). Slow down all eccentrics to milk every rep (trust me). Still have energy? Finish with 1 myorep set of incline dumbell curls (setting 5) to really torch arms. Leave gym.

@@GUITARTIME2024 thanks! I will be sure to incorporate all of that 🙏

Ok, so no legs and one pulling excercise. Great!

Thank you dude!

Thank you my friend, and that sounds perfectly fine for gainz! :)

Thank you so much my friend!

Thank you my friend!

Haha

How do US Navy SEALS do so well by exercising every day???

I wonder what would happen if you did 3x per week vs 6x per week (but the 6x was actually 3 days split into 2-a-days and volume was kept the same). Would an individual be able to get more quality sets in due to the rest between the morning and the evening workout on their working days? Would they get more average “anabolic window” time? I’d like to see that investigated.

That's why I do full body 3x a week, the best program ever

"not fatigued" yeah sure.. I do powerbuilding. I bench 120kg for 8 reps, only from the bench im fatigued at least 3 days lol.

I heard similarly and months back went to 2-3 full body days per week spreading out my sets across the sessions and it has worked very well.

if you actually properly do just 1 exercise for 3 sets you will be done for at least 2 days

Noticed the same, came looking for a comment to bump up.

Thank you my friend!

Don't forget they were untrained people and what they consider high intensity is not what the experienced gym goer would. Plus they only did one exercise per bodypart. Bodyparts need hitting from different angles. I would imagine after their initial gains, they'd plateau. Not enough versatility for their muscles to continue to grow. Great beginners way though. Or after a long spell out.

that was never stated. it’s just that with more training you face *diminishing returns*, and hence with fewer weekly sets you can achieve significant improvements as the *pay off per workout* seems to be higher, not the total benefit. some individuals, however, might see more growth with fewer sets per week. but those are the exceptions and might be due to genetics or other factors such as lack of proper nutrition.

He's saying that there may be some advantage to working a muscle 3x per week with 9+ (withing reason) sets over two days per week of 9+ sets but the advantage seems to be small so you still get good results at less than 3x per week / 9 sets per week - that said you obviously have to do what works best for you as an individual

@HandsomeTouchdown Junk volume, doing 20 sets for one muscle per workout, can’t progress with that. Now I’m literally doing 2 exercises per muscle per workout and my strength and muscle is up

​@HandsomeTouchdown20 hard Sets are to much on Most Guys.

That’s way too much . 2 exercises, 2 sets per exercise per muscle group 1-2 times a week is enough

@@corenko Yeah, I only do two exericses per bodypart. Takes me awhile to warm up these old bones but generally, a maximum of 5 sets for my second and third bodypart. Maybe 7 or 8 for shoulders which are three different muscles anyway. Too many sets is just a waste of time and energy.

@HandsomeTouchdown yes. And i cant Progress the Same way at extrem very high hard Set numbers

For me, because I get bored and don't want to go to the gym 6 days a week, I do a push/pull split like you but only one or two sets which are to failure. I do a fairly high number of sets for the first exercise so I'm fully warmed up but they're not heavy. And only two exercises. Example, chest I will do incline press, work my way through the dumbells unilt I'm ready for my heavy set and most likely, that will be a pause set (rest 20 seconds then to maximum again and repeat) or a drop set, to failure. Then I will do pec dec or flys, 2 sets to failure. Around 2 mins rest between sets although that's an estimate. That's chest done. That works well for me. Its good that you've found what works for you. My workouts are probably around 45mins maximum.

The Problem is when you get really strong and Train with Progression you cant do so much Volume.. yes more Volume is better more Sets If you Bench squat 100 kg...If you Squat 180 Bench 120 for Reps yoh cant so 20 Sets

Im the oposite. More rest more adaptations

@@djjankov6667 it's important for me to add: I was in a "detrained" state for the past 5 years. At my peak I was deadlifting 455, squat 365, bench 265 (pounds) and was training on a 5x5 or 5-3-1 type program. Now that I'm in my 30's and back into lifting I am far more interested in aesthetics and hypertrophy than strength. Being detrained and muscle memory are definitely having an impact on my growth rate. But you are absolutely making a good point. If you train for very high strength, you definitely CANNOT do 20 sets a week. 10-12 sets of like 1-5 reps at the most.

@@michaelpease2103 Yeah, wanting to be stronger is more a of a younger fellas thing. I'm 56 and far stronger than the average man my age and most far younger, but not at the level some fellas who train for strength are. But they're in the gym for ages. That way of training would absolutely bore me. Get in, get exhausted, get out! When you get older, you're thinking about your old age more, not so much a vanity thing, looking good in a t-shirt. Altough you do get a kick out of bumping into an old school friend who looks like shit 😊

Wrong! These were new individuals. It wouldn't have mattered if they'd trained EVERY single day, they still would have gained up until around 6 weeks. Once they had achieved a sufficient stimulation and grown muscle and strength then they would obviously need more rest. It's not a good example at all. It would've been far better to have had intermediate bodybuilders that had hit a plateau. It's not rocket science.

Thank YOU for checking it out! :)

Get rid of your dogma and you will grow better. i went from 2x a week to 5x a week and i growth way more.

Obviously it is important. But lets say we have study with p-value of 0.051 and another study with p=0.049. Those two values are VERY close to each other numerically, and they both indicate similar level of evidence against the null hypothesis. However, due to the arbitrary nature of using a specific alpha level (usually 0.05), one p-value falls on one side of the threshold and is deemed statistically significant, while the other does not. So no, its not everything.

Hey dude, I'm going to have to disagree with you hard on this one. P-values purely tell us the probability of getting our results assuming our null is true. The 0.05 cut off is purely arbitrary. As another commenter said, should we really treat at 0.049 p-value much differently than a 0.051? In these scenarios, not much with regards to confidence can be said. Moreover, even if we get a p-value below 0.05, type 1 error exists. Statistical signficance doesn't neccessarily mean a true difference (and vice versa, that is no stat sig difference doesn't neccessarily mean no difference) There are some great articles out there on the pitfalls of statistical signifcance, such as this one: media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-019-00857-9/d41586-019-00857-9.pdf I'd also recommend reading the statistic sections of some papers that have opted to ditch statistical significance overall, such as these two: sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/302/604 + www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2023/06/24/2023.06.21.545949.full.pdf#zoom=75

@@HouseofHypertrophy cheers for the links! I will definitely have a read 🤙🤙

as someone who has trained natural since the 90s and in that time exceeded what I thought possible naturally here is my take. Of course it's purely anecdotal. What works at sometimes wont at others and to keep busting through plateaus you'll often have to switch things up such as going from a bro split to PPL or visa versa at times, or as such swapping volume for frequency just to give the muscles a new stimulus to get through the plateau and then revert back to which works best. I wouldn't do this until you get to the stage where you really need to, ie your at or near your genetic potential and your muscles require a lot of stimulus to force them to keep growing Such as for myself I've found I put on the most mass when training a muscle once per week with 16 hard sets to failure per workout was optimal, but then at times when I hit a block I would split the volume up hitting each muscle group 2-3x times a week change up exercises and get a new growth spurt over the next few weeks until that stalled and then Id revert back to a 'bro split' and build on that growth. I'm not saying this is key but more that's what worked for me but it might be different splits, different volume and frequency for someone else, but the key being to listen to your body and learn when to switch things up to get through a plateau. I also found not to ever emphasis one aspect, ie dont ever put all your focus into one style of training such as volume for the sake of volume, or intensity for the sake of intensity or load over reps etc. I found I grow best when im embracing everything in equal measures. ie im training with as much intensity with as much volume as i can recover from using different rep ranges for different excercises. I train to overtrain then I pull back once I learn where that limit is, which for me is 16 sets to failure per week per muscle group, this will be different for most people based on many factors including sleep, lifestyle, stress levels etc. But Ive found there really are no short cuts or easy ways to keep building muscle Most importantly I've found the ability to truly listen to your body is key, not just in a workout ie mind to muscle etc I mean more overtime. to know when something is no longer as effective as it once was and when and how to change it. dont get caught up in studies either as what might be optimal for 80% of lifters might not be for yourself until you find out via trial and error, or it might be at one time but then not so much as you get bigger and stronger. This is why when you see people at their genetic limit who have trained for many years their training will often look very different to others as they have found what works best for them over time, whether that's a 'wrong' looking range of motion or the way they perform an exercise/s etc, its a hard nuance to explain when I say listening to the body as there are levels to such but after many consistent years it takes on different meanings as you become more in tune with such

@@papaspauldingThanks for your wise words there. I am training for more then 12 years now and I pretty much stagnate over time now. I guess I added around 0,5kg of muscle in 2 years of smart and hard training in total (in that time going up and down with gaining and dieting around +-7kg to try things out). Pretty sure I am close to my actual potential. Nevertheless I won´t stop obviously, I never will. Besides that, I will probably try out a true Bro Split again in my next training cycles, since I didn´t do that for years.

@@known8172 It certainly does get al ot harder to build muscle after many years once you get to a certain size the body being as economical as possible simply doesn't want to and you have to really force it to adapt. There were a few times in the past I thought I was at my genetic potential but managed to force a bit more more growth to get to the next stage

True, also there is the factor of fatigue vs stimulus in these rep ranges

@@vasst4506 Yes probably that when you are very tired after 3-4 hard sets the subsequent sets are much less effective to induce a growth stimulation. It is probably one of the reason which explains the relation between volume and stimulation. More reps/sets tend to induce more growth but not that much, very far from a proportional relation. One possibility is to increase time between sets but anyway...

So in this scenario, I'm just subtracting the raw % gains from each group, so with your example that would be an additional 1.5% of growth. Stricly speaking, what you're saying is correct, but I think stating that would result in me vastly "overstating" the benefit of the more training, so I stuck with the subtraction method. I could have also presented the raw absolute gains which can do a better job, but these are not super easy to intuitively understand (as they are in centimeters cubed as muscle volume was the measurement)

Oh yeah see what you are saying. But i just think the 30% number tells a lot more, since we are mainly trying to compare the results between the different groups in this study. And since muscle growth is such a slow process, the raw % gains is heavily influenced by the length of the study, much more than the different volume/frequency approaches between the groups. Also I don't think the 30% number would be "overstating" since the 3x group also trained with 50% more volume (counted as number of sets). "Group that trained with 50% higher total volume and with higher frequency, grew 30% more" I think that sounds very reasonable statement. @@HouseofHypertrophy

I actually agree with that. I will consider doing that in future videos, thank you so much for the input! :)

Some upcoming videos will have data from trained folks :)

Would need studies with both. The reasonings behind using untrained individuals is to maximize the muscles response to the training being studied. Trained individuals will be in quite a wide range of muscle states (aka their condition and the body's adjustment to resistance training). Using trained individuals would skew the study away from muscle response and more towards an individual's current state.

😂😂😂

15 sets in 15 minutes? So you dont rest at all lol? And including all the time it takes to warm up and set up the weights?

Same. If I train using drop sets to the point I can barely move, it takes 3 days to fully recover - so I can only do that 2x a week!

I was thinking that. 2% more doing 50% more work? I rather invest that work otherwise lol

I thought that was determined by eating food

@@damanOtsneed both

​@@damanOtsyou are correct. Training is catabolic, the anabolic phase of rest/feeding is the focal point of any successful training plan. Well said

You probably can but the intensity would have a factor. I saw a video on KZfaq once of a fella who trained every day and was in amazing shape. But I've seen vids of people who train only a bodypart once a week to extreme and look great. Just gotta find out what works. Going to the gym is time consuming for most of us though.

This isn't inherently true. As noted in the video, with total sets per muscle equated, very similar growth can be achieved with lower and higher frequencies. Think of it like this: Fewer sets per session with higher frequency = more consistent protein synthesis elevations BUT more sets per session with lower frequency = larger protein synthesis spikes (I think this is why both ultimately can be similar) However, quite importantly, individual differences exist as noted in the video (for reasons currently not known). Some people may indeed grow more from higher frequecies, while others don't

Thank you dude, as always!

That’s actually complete dependent on the individual unfortunately.

Yep! I believe per unit of CSA, they produce the same force. But since fast-twitch fibers are generally larger, overall force is more :)

I agree, and we need to remember that they are not measuring if all the participants are sleeping well or not, or even if they are eating well or not

Any "noisy" results aren't a true problem, since they reveal individual differences which is just as valuable (if not more valuable) than the averages. In this specific case, I wouldn't describe the data as noisy either. Most people grew better from training more. With regards to not normalizing sets, I see what you're saying, and I would certainly love to see future data doing this. However, It appears the researchers primary investigation was the influence of fiber type, and if those more slow twitch benefit from more frequent training and more work (sets), while if the opposite was true for fast-twitch folks. I personally think this was a solid research question, with potentially important implications. As we saw, the answer (based on the subjects and variables used) was no. Finally, I thought this study was a good opportunity to dive into other studies (and done later in the video) which helps us understand the overall current state of the literature on volume and frequency, and hopefully this provided some value for folks :)

💪

It's worth noting other studies which find higher volumes to be beneficial have used compound movements, so I don't anticipate this being much of a limitation :)

@@HouseofHypertrophy okay, but what about the people participating were newbies. Most research is done on newbies.

what's that? 3 times a week?

@@Jaburu yeah 3-4 times a week

No

No

He's probably just very lean, but I doubt he's got any appreciable mass on him.

@@michaelpease2103 he looks EXACTLY like Brad pit in Troy. No mass monster by any means

@@trumpdrago517 So, eating well and doing push ups will grow your biceps, back, and legs. Gotcha.

1) Studies show that higher frequency produces more growth. 2) Studies show that strength training doesnt even induce CNS fatigue if you rest long enough between sets, and when it does induce CNS fatigue its only takes 20 minutes for the CNS to recover, not days, certainly not a week. Peripheral fatigue only takes 48 hours to recover so if thats what youre talking about youre still wrong. 3) you dont RECOVER then GROW. The process of the muscle getting repaired is the exact same process that makes them grow. “…The body repairs the microtears by adding amino acids (actin and myosin) to the myofilament, which causes them to grow in size”. “…a biological effort to repair or replace damaged muscle fibers begins with the satellite cells fusing together and to the muscles fibers, often leading to increases in muscle fiber cross-sectional area or hypertrophy.”

​@@damanOtswell this google search of yours does not seem to have helped you with your physique right?lol The guy said everything right. And all the studies are contradicting themselves 180 degrees after some months with the newer studies and so on.

@@user-il3ec1um6e i am gaining muscle at a rate beyond my expectations so what im doing is working great, and I got all this information from people on youtube who are FAR bigger than this guy, so if you wanna equate muscle size to credibility go ahead. And why are you going to be derogatory about a google search when it is simply the middle man to present scientific research? These were from the university of phoenix and portsmouth, not some random article online. And its easy to just say “all the studies are contradicting themselves” but is that actually true, or are the majority of them showing the same results and you just happen to cherry pick the one with different results in order to support your argument? Have you actually read a large number of studies and compared them? Thats how studies work. You take the bulk of all the studies on a particular subject and then make a meta analysis to see where the weight of the evidence lies. The more studies and meta analysis, the more clear a view of reality we get. What this guy is proposing would work, but its far from optimal and its based on some fantastical philosophy he has constructed in his head that has no basis in reality.

The problem with 1x is you actually lose a small amount of muscle just waiting so long for the next workout. Your gain will still out weigh the loss but a minimum of 2x is optimal to avoid the small drop. Dr. Mike Isreaetel mentioned it in a video.

I know but it isnt too long where i read the **new study** where they tell that new reserach said 1x is same as 2x for muslce building @@jason2014

I think it depends a lot on the individual. A lot of people do HIT (I've never tried it) where they rest much more than a week on a muscle group and make gains and a lot of people do a ton of volume over several days and it works for them. I like to go pretty heavy on compounds , so there is no way I can recover from, say, 5 sets of 1 to 5 reps on bench at 9.5 or higher RPE in 3 days. 5 to 7 days on compounds seems to work best for me, or alternating a light day and a heavy day every 4 or 5 days. Smaller muscles I can hit a couple of times per week, directly or indirectly, no problem. Also preference. The "optimal" workout method may have that 1 percent advantage, but if you don't enjoy it, you probably aren't going to stick with it or push hard enough to make it worth while. I say follow basic sound principles, yes, but also arrange it so it's something you enjoy!

@@antiwufei553 frequency certainly matters . Is this a real comment ? Training a muscle once a week is suboptimal

I agree. The 2-4% better that 2-3 days of training gives you pales in comparison to being able to train regularly and the amount of time you’re spending in the gym by doing 1x per muscle group per week. I have kids and a full time job. Two workout sessions is plenty for me.

ive noticed ive gotten stronger in my bicep curls by just dropping my arms day down to 1 day as opposed to 2. i also think coupled with involuntarily working my arms in other workouts throughout the week means that when my 2nd arm day came around again they werent properly rested

squeezing that amount of volume into one session can be difficult for many and also pretty fatiguing since your doing high sets.

And Eddie Hall started to improve in the deadlift when he moved from a 7-day cycle to a 10-day cycle. I can't believe in programs where you do it many times a week, then you inevitably have to lighten the workouts.And you keep interfering with the recovery.

Enough for what? Enough to grow? Sure I guess. Ime 3x is better. Team #nodaysoff