High volume vs High intensity

[PFM]

For me bouncing back and forth keeps me from getting bored.

One Set Or Many Sets?

How many sets? That's probably the most hotly debated question in bodybuilding today. High-set advocates say "more is better," while the one-set-to-failure crowd proclaim "less is more." Who's right? Does either camp have science on it's side? Could both be correct?

Whether or not we like to admit it, there's still a lot we don't know about the precise mechanism by which muscles adapt and grow. New York Giants strength and conditioning coach John Dunn summarized what we know for sure in a recent issue of Sports Illustrated. "In weight training, there's only one scientific fact: progressive overloads build muscle," Dunn said. "That simply means whatever you do today, if you do more tomorrow you're going to get bigger and stronger." Beyond that we're operating largely on the basis of trial and error.

Much of our "knowledge" has come from observing competitive bodybuilders. Bill Pearl and Arnold Schwarzenegger, recognized by most as the best of their time, were volume bodybuilders. They did up to 20 or 25 sets per muscle group, and that's probably how most bodybuilders still train.

But we now have a new group of bodybuilding champions who have developed even more massive physiques using a different approach: low-volume and very high intensity. These bodybuilders do only a few very hard sets for each body part. One example is Swiss bodybuilding star Jean-Pierre Fux (pronounced "Fooks," as in "looks"), who is 6' 1/2" and weighs 270 pounds in ripped condition. (See photo of Fux below.)"I use very short workout sessions - just a few sets with as high intensity as possible" Fux told IronMan magazine (March 1997). Six-time Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates, Arnold's successor, belongs to the new low-volume, high intensity school.


Fux trains using low-sets and high-intensity.

What about research? Has science settled the volume versus intensity dispute? Dr. Ralph N. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training in the Department of Health, Physical Education and Human Performance at Adelphi University, says the issue remains unsettled. An extensive review of the scientific literature by Carpinelli and R. M. Otto "showed that 24 out of 25 strength training studies reported that there was no significant difference in the magnitude of muscular strength or hypertrophy (when it was measured) between training with single versus multiple sets." Says Carpinelli, "There is no evidence that a greater volume of exercise will elicit a greater response." (Master Trainer, December 1997)

In the same issue of Master Trainer, Dr. Carpinelli gave the results of a study comparing muscle fiber enlargement in bodybuilders, who generally do many sets with short rest periods, and competitive weightlifters and powerlifters, who generally do high-intensity, low-volume training with long rest periods. Surprisingly - at least to some - no significant difference in the size of muscle fibers in the two groups was found.

The volume versus intensity debate has also found its way into team sports. Countering the assertion that the vast majority of athletes use multiple sets, high-intensity guru Mike Mentzer, in the November 1998 All Natural Muscular Development, reeled off a list of elite teams which use the "less is more" high-intensity training approach. In football, the list included nine NFL teams and six college teams that went to bowl games; in basketball, NCAA champion Kentucky and the United States Women's team that won the gold medal at the 1996 Olympics; championship teams in hockey and volleyball rounded out the list. Mentzer credited Matt Brzycki, high-intensity strength coach at Princeton, as the compiler of teams using high-intensity training to enhance athletic ability.

While I can't vouch for the Mentzer/Brzycki list, at minimum it indicates that the how-many-sets controversy continues to rage in collegiate and professional athletic circles. Clearly, the debate remains unsettled across a broad front. Bodybuilders, exercise physiologists and strength coaches are still duking it out.

I am forced to conclude, based on current knowledge and experience, that both training approaches work. Until the issue is settled - it may never be conclusively resolved - each person must decide for him or her self what makes sense. For many, it may boil down to personal preference.

Ask yourself: Do you enjoy spending several hours in the gym four to six days a week or would you prefer shorter sessions which are more intense and less frequent?

It's not a matter of which approach is easier. Done properly, both types of training are brutally hard. It's more whether you like doing set after set with short rest intervals - many people love the pumped feeling - or do you prefer a quick warmup and one all-out work set. The latter approach has always appealed to me. I groove on really drilling a set, and then moving on to the next exercise. I don't enjoy doing the same exercise over and over. I also prefer to use my time as efficiently as possible. I've never wanted to spend my life in the gym.

Keep in mind that this is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Variety is the spice of life, and the same holds true for bodybuilding. Volume and intensity affect the muscle cells differently - I cover this in detail in the new book I'm working on now - and some combination of the two approaches may be a viable solution.

Is there a moral here? Yes, I think so. Perhaps it's that bodybuilding is a work in progress. At this juncture at least, there are few absolutes. It pays to critically evaluate everything you read or hear. Don't blindly copy anyone's training regimen, including mine.

As I wrote in Ripped 2: "There's bodybuilding wisdom in the maxim: Surely the quickest path to disillusionment is the one blazed by someone else." Every bodybuilder is conducting an experiment of one. (I like the idea of an individual sport where you sink or swim on your own.) We all have different backgrounds, needs, goals and abilities. There is no one "best way" for everyone. Try different approaches and see which one suits you best.

[grind4it]

Thanks. Great read -grind4it

[NbleSavage]

Nice article. I personally prefer to super-set two exercises in all cases except large compound movements.

[TheLupinator]

Nice article. I personally prefer to super-set two exercises in all cases except large compound movements.

x2 strength train the major barbell lifts-> low reps, last set to failure. Everything else high intensity supersets.

[Seeker]

I could sit and type a 5 page response to this. I will agree that both training approaches work and volume and intensity effect the muscle cells differently. What I will say is never stop learning how to better yourself. I love learning new methods of training, eating, and yes, even the chemistry part of it. Be consistent, have a plan, set goals, make sure you are recovering from your training. Recovery is so important. If you don't recover, you don't grow and you don't advance. Then again, there are times when I love doing things the good old fashioned way.

[HDH]

I think the best approach is to mix it up. I believe it all works until our body adapts and it's time for a switch up.

I like pyramiding the weights up so I do both throughout an exercise.

I like to switch things up by using different advanced training principals.

HDH

[SFGiants]

I prefer less moments but love volume also but I do it in a manner of speed work.

On a heavy day I can go in squat then pull or do some gm's then maybe some abs and GHR and I'm done

On a light day it is still low reps maybe lower then heavy day with 2 rep sets on squat but the weight is much lighter the rest is much shorter and many more working sets.

Heavy day is 3 working sets on main movement (Intensity)
Lighter day is 8 to 10 working sets on main movement (Volume)

The common of both is still less movement as all I will do is 2 to 3 movements and I'm done.

My approach is not going to help much for the total aesthetic look but will get your strong as you can be.

[creekrat]

Nice find pfm

[Jada]

Nice post pfm, thank u

[oldschool67]

As an old axiom states 'you can work out long or you can work out hard' I believe this to a certain extent..if you are a teen, you can get away with doing both.

[Mind2muscle]

Good read! I'm not sure if this debate will ever be scientifically proven but I think we can all agree that a combination of both methods over time will work best.

[Tren4Life]

Good read! I'm not sure if this debate will ever be scientifically proven but I think we can all agree that a combination of both methods over time will work best.

I agree I do 3 weeks heavy and 1 week light and fast

[Hero Swole]

Light week
Mass builder/Compound Movement 15 reps
Isolation Movements 15 to 25

Medium week (Most Common)
Mass builders/Compound Movements 8-10 reps
Isolation Exercises and some compound movements 12-15 reps

Heavy week
Mass Builder/Compound Movements 4 to 6 reps
Isolation 8-10

I try to go heavy on the main exercises squats , dead lift, bench press dumbbell pres etc. Anything with a barbell pretty much. And then play around with the rep range of the isolation non mas builder movements depending on feel. On the same work out i migt do all the rep ranges stated above it all depends.

My rule is once it starts to get easy its time for change. Improvise.

[Hero Swole]

oh and its 4 to 6 sets per workout. Depends on intensity.