Yeah, I'm thinking volume is king
goodbway to boost volume is doing high rep rest pause sets. Poundstone curls and likes. forget lifting heavy. forget 3x10 pump. you need both intensity and volume in a way that wont wreck you
>>75474373Take the stupid lines away and see that it is almost a random distribution. Statistical mumbo jumbo. 4 sets per muscle group a week got near to the best results for one guy. What is a set? Not all sets are performed equal. If you REALLY go til failure you simply have to do less or it becomes counter-productive. But you may get the best results.
>>75474373wasn’t that clear? the main limiter of getting /fit/ is time. most people don’t want to be in the gym for 1 hour let alone 2+ hours, that’s one of the reasons I don’t like going to the gym with people.
>>75474431High volume guarantees gains but low volume doesn't. Probably low intensity+low vol=shit
>>75474431take a probability class sweetie
>>75474442indeed tripnigger, this is why i do sprints for cardio and lift heavy weight
>>75474373volumebros... we got too cocky
>>75474626
>>75474373What did the highest growth low volume dots do? Also eat more protein going from 1.6g/kg to 3g has much bigger effect on growth than any of the volume/rep range/frequency studies ever show
>>75474373If this is not proof it's just genetics idk what is
>>75474606I can't say too much without self doxxing, but I actually had a big video on youtube which explained a famous probabilities riddle better than it had ever been done before, at least better than I ever saw. I ran some simulations and went over how to understand it properly with a couple of important points that all the PHD midwits missed. Strict probabilities is actually really easy, if you can use a calculator you can do it and particularly if you can write a few lines of code. But real world stuff is much more complicated because of confounding variables.There are just too many variables here to draw any meaningful conclusions from any correlation, particularly with such a weak correlation. My main takeaway from this graph is that the majority of people who experience a high level of muscle growth do not need to do a lot of sets per week. If you cut the x axis off at like 28 then you can see an inverse correlation as sets go up beyond a certain point. That's still including like 90% of the data points, so although it is cherry picking in a way it isn't particularly egregious. So are we to believe that a certain number of sets is ideal, after which point it becomes counter-productive, until another further point at which it becomes beneficial again? No, it's just a dataset with a lot of random variation and confounding variables.
>>75476743>the majority of people who experience a high level of muscle growth do not need to do a lot of sets per weekBut what's the cutoff
>>75476743I would add that a good practice in statistics is to exclude the outliers. If we do it, we will get that there is no correlation between the number of weekly sets and growth. Only the variability of growth will decrease with more sets.And apllying a common sense, most do't with low volume and low results are just people never reaching even 5 reps till failure. That being considered, the data shows that more sets results in less growth.
>>75478606No way really to say without knowing a lot more information. If you look at the graph then you can see it is possible to achieve almost maximum muscle growth with just 4 sets per muscle group per week. But only one guy achieved that, others actually lost muscle mass doing the same number of sets. Obviously there is something going on here. So how were those sets done, are they pushing to failure on each set? Some following the Mentzer & co line of thinking might say two warm up sets and one working set til failure is enough, although I assume they do a few exercises for each muscle so 4 is low even for that training method. But it obviously worked for someone. Did they do 2 sets 2 times a week, or 4 in one day? Then you have to account for training intensity, diet and supplementation, did they rest adequately and sleep well, genetics obviously will be a huge influence, etc. The graph is meaningless without controlling for any of the near infinite permutations.
>>75474373I noticed that there are guys doing 30+ sets getting the same or worse gains as some guys doing like 5.
>>75478633Yeah and I mean there are a multitude of other factors to consider, for example I imagine people chose their own training method given the uneven distribution. It's not a stretch to assume that the less motivated people did less sets, or those who are disadvantaged in endurance and/or recover. conversely, to be able to do dozens of sets per muscle group that individual is likely highly motivated and disciplined, and potentially has some advantage when it comes to recovery to be able to maintain that.So you end up with a situation where the unmotivated and lower responders self-select to do less sets, many more would probably see the same modest results. High motivation and high responders will often do more sets than they really need, perhaps they would get the same or better results with much less. But we can't say that for certain either. All we can say for sure is you can make good gains doing a lot of sets, and you can make good gains doing not many at all.
I usually do between 3 to 5 sets of 8 to 10 repsI try to go to failure in the 5-6 rep range but sometimes I can't be botheredGains have been moderately good, I'm kinda stagnating now
>>75476743To my eye, there's a very promising region in the 10-15 sets per week range, a more complex regression might show there's a local max.
>>75478703I do 2 sets til failure on each exercise, with 3-4 exercises per muscle group. I do a roughly a PPL, rest day every third day.That averages out to something like 10 sets per muscle group per week, so towards the lower end according to the graph. But since I always do all of them til failure, I think I'm actually still doing too much. I want to try reducing a bit but I can't quite bring myself to finish a workout still feeling full of energy even though the lifts aren't going up as fast as I'd like. Also when I'm home on the rest days if I feel fine I usually pick up the dumbbells and do a few sets or do some bodyweight stuff.
>>75474373R^2 is .22 Volume can suck me off
>>75474373intensity is kingthe peak benefit of volume depends upon recovery ability
I started going by feel and it seems ideal. When it's sore if I poke it, it's done.
>>75474373>high scatter>linear regressing it (aka just drawing a line in the middle of the cluster)The current "science" ladies and gentlemen
I'm no scientist but that green line seems way too arbitrary, the points are too scattered for the "average" or whatever you call it to be that way.
>>75479012trust the science chud
