Doing full body workouts 6 days a week isn't the standard recommendation on this board

Old wives' tale. Training the same muscle group 3 days consecutively or 3 days spread apart yields the same result
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00725/full

3 sets per workout, 18 per week

were the "bros" right all the time?

ok, so it's just saying what we already know about "training like a farmer"
outside of Burgerland this is just regular training to them. you don't get anywhere near your maximum lifts so that you can train everyday.
farmer will toss hay until he's tired, but not until exhaustion, because he will be out there again tomorrow tossing hay again.
youtu.be/_fbCcWyYthQ

>yes
except it isn't

elaborate.

mennohenselmans.com/upper-limit-training-volume/
There have been at least 2 studies showing that there is a clear limit to how much one benefits from training in a single session.
Both female and male subjects fail to improve on 20 sets per muscle group in a single session, on 15 sets progress occurs, on 10 sets progress is even higher and it is almost the exact same as it is with 5 sets(some metrics actually go through the biggest improvements on the 5 sets per muscle group a week group).

Attached: 64393810_2348337555224066_8324540136054325248_n.jpg (682x960, 57K)

Well sure, "equated for volume". Would be hard to do a week's worth of volume in a day or two.

Doesn't mean the frequency itself matters

I don't deny the possibility of the existence of such a limit, just that it simply hasn't been demonstrated to exist within a reasonable range of volumes one might complete over the course of a week.

how many reps?

>going to scientific studies for truth
baka, God says to work six days a week pleb

not sure, but all the sets were done to volatile failure

>Most researchers don’t seem to actually lift and think ‘volitional failure’ is the same as momentary concentric muscle failure. Volitional failure just means someone pussied out when the reps became tough. Most people don’t come near actual momentary concentric muscle failure, actually trying but failing the last rep.

> Training to failure all the time is probably not a good idea.
> Training a muscle only once a week doesn’t cut it for trained individuals with higher volumes.
> Muscle size does not seem to change the training volume dose-response relation. Smaller and bigger muscles thus probably have similar optimal training volumes.
> When training to failure and performing all your weekly volume in one workout, doing more than 5-10 sets likely results in overreaching and sabotages your gains.

/thread
Sage up and go home negros

Ok? And? That's interesting in setting some real outlier boundaries but 20 sets per muscle group spread across an entire week is already very high. The extent to which this matters because of frequency vs volume alone is unclear to me.

Additionally, the degree of confidence I can put in generalizing the findings of an experiment with 10 people a group is also limited.

It would seem intuitive that there's some maximal limit to hypertrophy in a single session. A week is a biologically arbitrary amount of time relatively to the rate of recovery.

But we simply haven't seen controlled experiments that reliably produce dramatically superior gains under one frequency protocol or another. Even if the difference is statistically significant and measurable, it's not as though it's a dramatic difference in almost every experiment, sans steroids.

Reps don't matter so long as
Volatile failure achieved

[Doubts leaving bro-splits and doing GSLP]

Its too much information for me to consider waa;-;

full body calestenics until failure, 6-days of the week is wassup

yeah, which goes agains the notion that training volume is all that matters and how you distribute it makes no difference as stated by this poster it matters because we know that each subsequent set is much less anabolic than the previous, we know this effect is real and it is real in humans and rodents, when actually training hard anything more than 5 sets per muscle group in a single session is useless
>Additionally, the degree of confidence I can put in generalizing the findings of an experiment with 10 people a group is also limited.
they were 2 with the exact same methodology, one with female subjects and the latest one with male subjects.

Ok oh wow, 20 people in a group.

Soooo, where's the evidence you're getting superior results doing 20 sets across a week?

2 seperate studies
same methodology
exact same results, the 5 and 10 set groups outperforming every other, barely any change between the 5 and 10 set groups in both the men and the women
this goes in exact accordance with the data we have on rodent models
the threshold of profitable volume on a single session is low, around 5-10 sets

Attached: MPS.jpg (603x602, 88K)

now how does all this sets work out for compounds.
when I do bench, and then do dips, do I need to reach 5 sets total on both of those and everything over that is much less beneficial?
what if I added tricep pulldowns?

Less beneficial is still beneficial enough up untill 10 sets, thats what i understood

Yes we get it. 20 people a group, nice.

So where's the evidence this same volume produces greater hypertrophy across a week?

What you're asserting is totally plausible. But it'd be contrary to our other analysis of existing frequency studies that have been volume equated. So you kind of need evidence.

check the training schedule in they only used compound exercises.

They combined the bench press, incline bench and military press as chest/tricep volume, which meant that they distributed the volume between those 3 exercises, giving emphasis to the flat and incline bench press because those are more chest and tricep centric than the military press and they only measured growth of the pecs and triceps.
So the 5 set group obtained a 10 rep max of 110kg on the flat barbell bench from doing 2 sets of flat bench press, 2 sets of incline and 1 set of military press a week and NOTHING else for pressing.
All the sets were done to failure.
They didn't do any isolation.

Attached: Multi-paired-estimation-plots-for-muscle-thickness-MT-changes-G5-5-sets-per-week.png (850x205, 42K)

>So where's the evidence this same volume produces greater hypertrophy across a week?
Where's the evidence that there is no difference to how you distribute your training volume throughout the week for muscle growth?
There are studies showing that there is a clear advantage in lower volume more frequent training sessions as there is in the exact opposite, depends on the training status, training template itself, and how hard the subjects are training(which is the hardest thing to control for), so it's hard to find a consensus on the matter, exercise science will take time to show this clear superiority of lower volume more frequent training methods without a shadow of a doubt.

so I had been experimenting a bit with HIT, Mentzer and Yates, and just doing one working set to failure. it really fucks you up, but it was the first time I ever felt sore in the chest after benching.
I was considering adding my compounds back to 3x5 then the isolations I do afterwards just one set to failure. seems like this will be my best option now after reading all this.

Are you in solitary confinement?

I wouldn't do just one working set, I would just ramp up the weights until I reach muscular failure, I think that would be the simplest way to do this sort of low volume high intensity type of training.
Either that or just warm up to a heavy weight with 5-15 reps to muscular failure and then reduce the weight and try to do the same ammount of reps, for a total of 5 hard sets tops for a compound exercise
then with isolation you could just do higher reps on a single set to muscular failure if you want.

Either listen to
>strength aethletes and coaches who actually experienced the process of lifting and gaining muscle and/or strength
Or
>second hand information from a junk paper that failed to proof anything
Tough decision to be honest lads.

Attached: 20190816_085744.jpg (1433x1586, 2M)

>Where's the evidence that there is no difference to how you distribute your training volume throughout the week for muscle growth?

See: