Volume = King
so you’re saying if i lift weights my muscles will get better?
>>76779573That is the most laughably forced correlation I've ever seen. Even the fact that there's a dozens of participants losing significant amounts muscle shows this is horribly controlled and worth nothing.
For the most part I think you're best of doing less volume/sets and more frequency ie every day lifts. Ideally lower rep range/increased weight for strength gains. More volume will build more mass but there's no way to safely maximize volume and strength. I think it's best to get the most value out of the least here.
>>76779598Funny how the only ones who lost were the LOW volume chuds poor guys had to reduce their volume for the study and payed for it
>>76779628If you want strength all you have to do is one max set everyday and eat like a pig For SIZE Volume is king
What's the R squared on this curve?
>>76779637It's a meta regression it pulled participants from doing all kind of differnt studies there's no controlled criteria. Like surplus or deficit to volituonal failure vs not, they're not adjusted for even the length of time the study took or years trained. If you eliminate the absurd and likely fraudulent it looks exactly like what lifting is a genetic crap shoot.
>>76779663Zoom out
>>76779672Zoomed in even further starts at 1 set instead of zero caps at 26 and only growth by wen 0 and 10% are displayed
>>76779642Overeating for strength is nonsense. The driver of strength is lifting heavy simple as. Size/muscle growth occurs with strength too but volume is optimal. I think optimal in this case is suboptimal because safely gaining strength is more valuable.
>>76779683Bro can't ever read a single chart grim>>76779690The more mass you have the more mass you can move simple as if you want to move as big things as possible you have to become big
>>76779694You don't need to you can see data right there gravitating into lines around 8, 10, 18 suspicious absences at 20 then another line finally appearing at 24.
>>76779694fat mass doesn't increase strength therefor overeating doesn't increase strength. optimal energy intake supports muscle growth =/= overeating.
>>76779573imagine doing 25 sets in a week and gaining no muscle
>>76779573I'll just do 1 rep every minute and be super jacked in a week then
>>76779573>shitty study with extreme wide range for low volume groups and almost no studies for high volume groups>as much if not more in the low to moderate volume range with the same gainz as the majority of the volume rangeLower end is only skewed because there are negative responders in the 0-20 range who somehow lost mass. Obviously, they must have a shit diet, shit sleep, absolutely bottom of the barrel garbage genes (perhaps even those guys who need the 4-7 days between workouts on a split like Mentzer talks about and are overtraining), etc. The only other explanation for them is that they lost a lot of sarcoplasm while gaining myofribrils something unusual like that. Omitting those aberrations (a normal person with a decent diet and sleep should be seeing gainz), we see there is no difference within the data other than the lowest groups, say 1-4 just don't have as much growth as those in 6-20 which has comparable growth to most in the 20-40 range.
>>767799338 HOUR ARM WORKOUT. For best results use mind-muscle connection. Look at your biceps in the mirror and whisper, "grow grow grow," while lifting you'll have 20" biceps in no time.
>>76779941Damn, I miss Pinata. I always watched Bigger by the Day first thing in the morning.
>>76779573Have you ever tried a high intensity routine OP?
But what is volume???
>>7677957340 sets a week?Madness.
>>76780300100 lb vs 5 lb
>>76779598>Nobody doing more than 20 sets per week lost muscle
>>76779941>I COMMAND YOU TO GROW!>I'M THE BOSS MOTHA FUCKA>YOU LISTEN TO ME>I'M THE BOSS OF YOUIs what I shout when lifting at my planet fitness
As someone who has been lifting for 20+ years I dont think volume matters anywhere near as much as making progress on ur liftsIf your bench press is 200 for 10 reps and you do 50 sets per week with that, but you keep doing that for 3 years, you will not grow.But if you took your 200 for 10 reps bench and got it to 250 for 10 reps over the course of 3 years, and all you did was 5 sets per week, you will be much bigger.
>>76780672>If you do more volume you will growYea this is what I said
>>76780659You don't know which data points are coming from which studies and since it's primarily sourcing these clowns you know none of it is probably good.
>>76781058Holly shit just admit you are a lazy fuck who doesn't want to put in the work and fuck off
>>76781045200x10 for 50 sets is more volume than 250x10 for 5 sets, but the guy doing 250x10 will be bigger despite doing 90% less sets 200x10 X 50 sets = 100,000 volume per week250x10 X 5 sets = 12,500 volume per weekThe guy doing 12,500 tonnage volume for bench press per week will be bigger than the guy doing 100,000 tonnage volume
>>76781083>The guy doing 12,500 tonnage volume for bench press per week will be bigger than the guy doing 100,000 tonnage volumeSure buddy
>>76781064>>76781064Yes I'm lazy for not wanting to take the time to pick apart the 40 some studies most of which are paywalled to find which data points come from where when most of these have already been picked apart by kinesiologists.
20 sets per muscle per weekQuadsHamsCalvesAbsTricepsBicepsForearmsFront deltsChestLateral deltsBack deltsUpper backLower backTraps14 muscles/groups14 * 20 = 280 sets a week2 mins rest + setup per set = 560 mins just for rest a week = 9 and a half hours in the gym resting on top of the actual working out
>>76781124>Calvs>Forearms>Front delts >Uper back>Lower backBro doesn't even count the indirect sets from working chest back Not gonna make it
>>76779573>Midwits missing the forest for the treesYou know what else increases muscle size? Edemas9 - 12 sets per muscle per week at 0 - 1 RIR
>>76781272this is all you need as a natural and everything else is roidtranny volume cope because they're afraid to snap something if they go heavy
>>76781124People unironically train like this and make zero gains because they're forced to sand-bag every single set just to get through the week, if they actually trained hard for all those 20 sets they'd need to be a NEET sleeping 16 hours a day.
>>76779573For me its>Have my reps approach 0>Weight increases towards infinityAnything else is basic
>>76779591niggas on this board will do anything to convince themselves the opposite of this is true. case in point, the anon directly below you >>76779598
3 sets of deadlifts and 3 sets of leg curls per week have my hamstrings big and developed, so why do they grow with a max of 6 sets per week?Its almost as if this whole "X amount of sets" thing is bullshit.Your muscles will grow if they get stimulated no matter what ur set count is, dumb cunts.
>>76781507>because someone thinks this dataset is bad means they believe the complete opposite
>me right here doing mike mentzer/dorian yates style trainingSee ya later
>>76781571>mentzer/dorian yates style trainingAnon.. 10 sets are the yearly Volume those roidtranys you mention recommend
>>76781593>roidtranysGood luck doing 50 sets a week without being on gear
>>76781609You just have to learn how to manage full body Volume ex drop legs chest back to 5 weekly sets to maintain and blast arms with 40 do this for each muscle group you want to grow
>>76781626Or or You do 10 sets a week per bodypart, train hard and regularly go to failure and then your whole body is growing and you're not wasting hours in the gym doing junk volume
This is the real relationship but most scientists are retard p value chasing midwits who only know how to do a linear or sigmoid fit, you ask them "hey what if the relationship is more complex than what you're taught in basic stats class, what if it's a polynomial" and they'll stare at you blankly
>>76781743Bro you should question yourself more and think if the average lab rat that doesn't know what a macro is managed to put size with 30 and 40 sets what you can achieve when you optimize for it more Volume is better no matters how you spin it just admit that you are LAZY
>>76781743The fit is fine as far as fits go and it correctly models the relationship between mechanical volume and muscle volume, which in this case is at best fat free mass (everything that's not fat, including water from inflammation). The problem is that people try to extrapolate this model to dry muscle mass which is nonsensical
>>76781743>what if it's a polynomialHopefully you'll never be in charge of modelling. In general, models should be as general and with the least amount of assumptions as possible. What good is a model if it only explains your exact set-up? I'd understand a gauss fit but a polynomial fit is just laughable
>>76781913>hurr if a latter value is bigger than earlier value than the relationship is linear>you can't possibly have diminishing returns, they famously don't exist in biology
>>76781878>Volume is better no matters how you spin it just admit that you are LAZYLazy = doesn't want to do endless sets of junk volume according to this retardYou cannot dream of the kind of intensity I train with, in a single set I probably produce more muscular output than you do in a weekGo on do your hamster wheel training, I'll be out of the gym in an hour and look better than you
So do only sets matter and not reps? If I do 30 doubles at a challenging weight is that the same as doing 30 sets of 12 at a challenging rate?
>>76781979Any rep range between 5-30 is fine as long as you go 1-2 RIR
>>76781969Nice headcannon schizo. No one said anything of what you're sperging on about. Even the authors didn't use a linear fit.
>>76781979Only the last 5 reps are fully stimulating, Anything up to that is negligible for protein synthesis. But if you do 0 RIR and you could only do 3 reps, then you still achieved full stimulation but you didn't do optimal volume (had you reduced the weight, you could have done 5 reps which are just as stimulating but the MPS AUC is larger). I wouldn't advise going 0 RIR because you'll have to deload after about 12 weeks, but for some of us, that's the only reference point we're able to understand.In short: both sets and reps matter for cummulative volume of stimulating reps. Outside of that, try not to exceed intensity of 5RM (unless you powerlift) and try to train 0-1 RIRIn your particualar scenario 30x12 would be better for MPS than 30x2 (assuming you reach around 0-2 RIR in both scenarios) because your cummulative volume of stimulating reps would be greater. In reality, you'd just burn-out and get severe tendonitis
>>76782127So for example today on bench i did:95kg x 5 reps (1rir)100kg x 4 (0rir)Would have been better to just do 3x5 at 95kg and slowly go up? Progressive overload does matter right?
>Le study barely has more than 10 studies above 25 sets volume vs the gazillion plot points under 25 sets>"This actually is factual because of muh R squared"No wonder Kike Israetel got a PhD with publications like this
>uhh humans need WATER to survive>no, uhhHMMM actually humans need OXYGEN to surviveJust kill me now
>>76782158If we want to nitpick, then yes, 95 kg and progressively overload by either adding the smallest amount of weight possible when you can, while still staying at 5 or more reps. Or stay at 95 kg and try to add more reps; once you get to i.e., 8 reps, try to add 2.5 kg.But in reality don't stress too much if you're not at exactly at 5+ reps. It's not the end of the world if you do 3 reps every not and then. Consistency over the long period is much more important.Also, progressive overload is key for progressing, but social media has warped what it's supposed to look like. Beginners can add weight every workout, intermediate lifters every week to every month. Advanced lifters are happy if they can add weight bi-yearly. That means you'll be stuck for months on end doing the same weight and reps until you've accrued enough contractile tissue to move heavier weight at the same amount of reps
>>76779573What is volume? Do we need to change our intensity if we increase volume? What if one person trains much more intensely but with a bit less volume, and therefore gets fewer injuries—wouldn’t this be a better long term strategy?
>>76781913I have a PhD in statistics. There’s a bias variance trade off with modeling. More parameters in the model results in less bias but more variance (in the model fit and the predictions). Fewer parameters results in more bias but less variance. You cannot simply make a blanket statement that the “simplest” model is the best. We want the correct model. And sometimes fitting flexible smoothing splines gives you a sense of the best (though you then need to specify something based on that). U-shaped curves like this are very common in nature, and make a lot of sense. You can’t increase volume indefinitely and expect monotone increasing gains.
>>76782672You're nitpicking at semantics. Maybe take a moment to realize you are on /fit/. There's no basis to model the relationship with a polynomial fit and even if you did you wouldn't get any predictive power out of the fit; that's what the point was. A much more sensible fit would be a logistic model, which is prevalent in nature and would actually give you some predictive power. On top of that, it is a general model; it's not overparameterized
>>76782672>We want the correct modelRarely in reality. In psych they try to make everything unimodal and ignore categories like sex, by defining things like female as how much you like dresses instead of how many vaginas you have.
>>76779573Lift heavy if you want. It's fine. Just do it until failure. If you want to lift a little lighter and have higher volume then that's fine too. Just do it until failure. It's not that fucking hard you retards. You can even alternate it week by week and do both if you're an indecisive fuck. JUST LIFT THE GOD DAMNED WEIGHTS
>>76781626or you are an Indian that hald asses all his sets so he can easily do 40 a week
