Increase set volume week to week? Ft. Eric Helms & Mike Israetel (Part I)

In this episoe Dr. Mike Israetel and Dr. Eric Helms go head to head at discussing whether or not increasing set volumes week to week is the best way to progress our training for optimal hypertrophy. This is part I of our discussion, in a week part II will drop!
Time-Stamps:
0:45 - Why Mike thinks we should increase sets week to week?
10:15 - How Eric likes to set up a mesocycle's progression
18:05 - Does your MAV change over the course of a mesocycle?
23:17 - Are low volumes more effective after deloading?
28:45 - How Eric likes to manipulate volume
34:28 - Why Mike doesn't use strength gains as his main/only proxy
42:42 - Eric's rebuttal
49:40 - Mike's recommendation for finding your optimal voluime
Coaching and consultations:
ssdabel.com/
or email me at:
[e-mail]
insta:
@SSD Abel
Our Facebook community:
/ sustainableselfdevelop...
RP KZbin channel:
/ @renaissanceperiodization
Mike on Insta: @rpdrmike
3dMJ website:
3dmusclejourne...
Eric on insta: @helms3dmj

[@ssdabel]

Time-Stamps: 0:45 - Why Mike thinks we should increase sets week to week? 10:15 - How Eric likes to set up a mesocycle's progression 18:05 - Does your MAV change over the course of a mesocycle? 23:17 - Are low volumes more effective after deloading? 28:45 - How Eric likes to manipulate volume 34:28 - Why Mike doesn't use strength gains as his main/only proxy 42:42 - Eric's rebuttal 49:40 - Mike's recommendation for finding your optimal voluime

[@eugenharald4368]

nm

[@CraigDRolle]

Mike and Eric are just absolutely brilliant.

[@Omar1066]

Abel you moderated this roundtable really well. Thank you for continuing to bring interesting guests and topics to your channel. I have followed you for years and I love how the quality of your channel grows.

[@ssdabel]

thanks a lot!

[@boricua8426]

This is one of the most important roundtables between these two giants. I highly recommend it if you still need clarity on their different opinions on set progression. Thanks SSD Abel for hosting this!

[@ssdabel]

Glad you found it valuable!

[@shoqed]

Let me contratulate you on moderating this debate excellently. The roundtable on Revive Stronger was a 3-hour long ramble, letting 4 guests talk with no structure is just not productive. I think I have been drawn to your channel because of how analytically you approach every topic and this is yet one more excellent example. Thanks a lot. PS This is totally anecdotal, but Eric Helms is the smartest jacked man alive.

[@ssdabel]

Thanks a ton!! For the record I did like the revive episode :)

[@BBoor82]

@@ssdabel I'm sure you took a lot from that to episode in order to dig deeper and provide additional nuance for this discussion. Hyped to check it out when it hits podcast :)

[@shoqed]

​@@ssdabel Then you're a fool! JK, I do remember though one moment when Eric said "where do I begin" and I thought - exactly. You did a good job distilling their arguments and insisting they respond to the particular claim and not go off on a tangent. It's fun to listen to them just talk it out but if you're familiar with their concepts, you don't learn anything new. Closing in on things they disagree on is where the money's at.

[@thewowleader]

Great prep Abel, probably your best performance as an interviewer. Much more fruitful than precedent convos on this issue recently.

[@ricklee1756]

This was a great follow-up to the recent roundtable on the Revive Stronger podcast. I expected them to essentially restate their previous positions (as that roundtable seemed fairly comprehensive), but they actually were able to expand on the previous discussion and provide further clarification. Great podcast, can't wait for Part 2.

[@ssdabel]

thank you and glad u liked it!

[@jordanholcombe9153]

Yes great structure and great questions. But to revive strongers credit, that podcast sort of helped form the foundation for better questions to come.

[@amqfit]

Thank you for this informative content. I’m wondering what James Krieger opinion on this topic . It would be great if you can make Part 3 with him .

[@joeherrera63]

Eric @ 24:34 sums it all up nicely

[@kjing8109]

Nicely moderated, well done.

[@icejumperke]

WOW! Thanks for this, Abel! Two legends! 🙌🔥

[@ssdabel]

hope youll like it!

[@icejumperke]

@Abel - I do so far! Can’t wait for next week part 2! 🙏

[@VEGASENTER]

Holy shit so pumped about this even drunk! Thanks man

[@ssdabel]

enjoy!

[@carvedouttastone]

I've asked Mike over a dozen times this question and even joined his members site paid forum to ask it but have never gotten a response. My question is "Why does Mike's programs increase volume as intensity or proximity to failure also increases"? So in low intensity weeks there's less sets to do but also less intensity (e..g 3 sets of squats at 3RIR). The final week of a mesocycle has one doing crazy volume e.g. 6 sets of squats at 0RIR which is basically crazy/impossible. Wouldn't it be better to have more sets at lower intensity with volume decreasing as intensity increases from week to week.?

[@ssdabel]

His reasoning would be something along the lines of increasing the difficulty as well as the volume of training as your work capacity increases over the course of the mesocycle, and your sensitivity to the training stimulus weakens due to the repeated bout effect and other things.

[@Latissimus65]

This is the primary reason why Im turned off from Mikes methods. The beginning of a meso is overly easy and the end is overly difficult. It just seems too inefficient to me and I cant get around it.

[@carvedouttastone]

@@ssdabel yeah, in other words, unconvincing. I did give it a try, but it's ridiculous to think that by week four of the meso, one can do in a workout - and this is on my template - 6 sets of sqauts to failure; 6 sets of leg press to failure followed by 6 sets of leg curls to failure. As Lyle has stated, "show me on video someone that can do that". And to think someone is going to be recovered from a week of this kind of training after having their volume halved for a piddling deload is totally deluding themselves. Not to knock Mike because I think he's knowledgeable, intelligent and entertaining, but his own personal training videos show him training at a VERY different level of training intensity when it comes to maximal RIR than what someone like Dorian or Jordan Peterson does. I just think he's so invested now in his erroneous paradigm of training that it's too late for him to reverse himself and admit he's peddling a bullshit, nonsensical system that works for noone that isn't genetically blessed, loaded on PED's or a total newbie who had no idea about what true training intensity is. Fantastic analysis though Abel. Really enjoyable listen and so glad that someone in the industry is thinking critically as opposed to the circle jerk of agreement that so often persists among the "evidence based community"

[@vieri864]

@@carvedouttastone The mistake you are making is blindly progressing volume without regards to your recovery. You not the program have to find the volume that is adequate for you. Mike isn't telling you to do unsustainable amounts of volume. If you have so much volume on your final week that you can't complete it then you are way past MRV. The problem I see is that people don't spend time actually finding their MEV and MRV and just mindlessly progress to the highest possible volume. Also your suggestion sure sounds a lot like strength training to me.

[@carvedouttastone]

@@vieri864 lol, no, not really. I've probably been doing this longer than you've been alive and forgotten more about the topic than you'll ever learn, so cut the condescending attitude. Unless you've got some verification to backup what you're discussing in the form of real world results, then I've got little interest in what you have to say, other than to lol at it.

[@DJcs187]

Really some of your best content Abel. Thank you.

[@ssdabel]

appreciate it!

[@TunnelVisionAthletic]

love seeing these guys go at it!

[@cushin13]

I will share my anecdotal experience. I'm a novice and after spinning my wheels on a high volume bro split, I decided to try Mike's RP novice/Intermediate template for 4 months. Start at 10 direct sets per muscle group "MEV" and add sets and RPE as weeks go on. By week 2 the template adds FIVE sets per muscle group if you rate exercises as 1 ( based on guidelines on pump performance and soreness)End of meso was 20-25 direct sets, with arms a bit lower than that. Iwas progressing in sets and RPE, but my actual performance was the same! Overall, it was a bad experience, didn't get results. I now use an approach similar to Eric. Keep my volume static at 10-14 sets/muscle per week ( counting compound overlap, which means volume is a bit lower than RP's first week of training!), with moderate and static intensity ( first set RPE 8 then match reps so last set is typically to failure). I am now making amazing weekly progress in reps and load! This also not due to "fatigue masking fitness." Because even after deloading from RP's high volume meso I might add one or two reps on a movement, which I'm already doing now on a weekly basis. I am now convinced less volume is better for me.

[@vieri864]

That's not a failure of the program but rather a failure of you to realize you need less volume. Mikes approach isn't to jack up volume to some high level but to progress through the mesocycle and adding volume when needed. I think that's where you and most people don't seem to make the distinction. People need varying amounts of volume and it's up to them and not the program to find where they make the best progress. This is more a discussion of static volume vs progressing volume and people are trying to make it moderate volume vs high unsustainable volume.

[@cushin13]

@@vieri864 I followed the exact guidelines outlined in the template's rating system. I did not add volume, the template/program did. I simply rated my pumps, soreness and performance. Basically, if you do not have overlapping soreness, and if your performance does not decrease, the template will add extra sets for you the next week..

[@sascha736]

@@cushin13 I think you have not really understood the principle behind the program. Mike is not getting tired of saying that a) this is nothing a "beginner" can fully understand, and b) this is nothing a beginner can fully understand. Your saying that you started with "your MEV at 10 sets" already shows that you are either very experienced (which i doubt), or did not fully understand-then how did you figure out that your MEV (for that particular muscle group) was 10 sets, if you have never tested it? Only advanced athletes can really define their own MEV or MRV......the rest of us (me included) can only guess-and most times, we are wrong in guessing. So you might have started with a volume that was already too high (or too low). In addition to that, most people cannot get their RiR right........ (No offense; i just realize that plenty of lifters hate the program, when actually it was them who screwed it up)...

[@cushin13]

@@sascha736 the programs starts by default with 10 direct sets/muscle group, with exception of the arms at 3-4 direct sets. This is also in-line with Mike's volume landmarks. I realize those are averages, but this is what the template determined as my "MEV." For RIR/RPE, it's not hard to guage that. Do 3x8 at first set RPE 8, rest enough and match reps, if you felt your last set was all out that means you started at RPE8. Your RPE will naturally climb as you match reps.

[@sascha736]

@@cushin13 I don´t think there is a relation between RiR and RPE....its a different way of measuring what seems to be the same thing, yet 99% of the athletes i have met are unable to exactly determine when they hit 2 or 3 RiR. With RP program, hitting the correct RiR is one of the key factors. I came from HFT (High Frequency Training, Full Body Workout on 6 Days/Week), and was lucky enough to hit the RiR from day one..... I followed the program, and had my best gains ever (after more than 10 years of continuous training)......

[@deejayspillz]

I have this wild and crazy idea, but how about Eric Helms gives Mike’s method a shot for a block or two and vice versa for Mike. Then we all touch base with a video afterwards to present their results.

[@ssdabel]

I actually think that happened already

[@natepepin09]

They honestly probably wouldn't put much stock in the results because they are only a sample size of 1 and they have an existing bias which would affect the result. They'd probably good with the idea of having a general study.

[@deejayspillz]

SSD Abel would love to see their honest feedback!

[@deejayspillz]

Nate Pepin I agree. Would be nice to see a study. I’ll be trying Mike’s approach starting next week. I’ve already been progressing RIR from 4 - 0 my last two mesos, just to get my feet wet. I’ve enjoyed it. I’ll now start ramping up volume through the meso to see how I respond.

[@yourlocalmemeist]

Thank you so much Abel this was a great episode

[@ssdabel]

glad you liked it!

[@cv0669]

thank you will need to give this one a second listen through

[@BrodieGiesbrecht]

WICKED! Thanks Abel :)

[@beace4436]

great vid abel, ngl i feel stupid, i watched the whole thing with a question i wanted to be expanded on and everything went over my head. i dont mean to ask a question that was probably answered in the vid, but do i need to progress number of sets week by week or can i just focus on strength progressions for 6ish weeks and then deload/take a week off, and start again? i train full body 2 days on, 1 day off with about 15 sets per muscle group a week.

[@ssdabel]

That's the crux of the discussion here - Mike would advise you to increase sets (start lower than 15, maybe finish higher than 15) and Eric would say that you can just do 15 and repeat.

[@beace4436]

@@ssdabel I thought so, thanks for the reply, I'll have anothre listen at the gym tomrrow :) 👍

[@oxxzkkr]

Thx to give more information about this topic. I'm doing my degree thesis about it and absolutely i needed this new debate. Regards from Mexico :D

[@Omar1066]

Eduardo, would you be able to publish your thesis once completed so we can all read it? Maybe reach out to Abel for an interview to present your findings?

[@vieri864]

What I took from this is that we still don't know what's optimal but both approaches are very good ways to program for your training. I would say just try both and do the one that you enjoy more.

[@ssdabel]

in a way, thats it. The driver of growth is tension, as long as youre supplying that (hint, you will in both approaches) you will grow.

[@mrbartuss1]

Hot topic recently

[@vasilzhiliev6057]

I got super intrigued by the vast difference of progression that both mike and eric have, and so I finally decided to check the 3dmj book on training, and I can tell you from personal experience, the RP templates are way better IF YOU ARE PROFICIENT ENOUGH to manipulate the numbers

[@ssdabel]

Given your profile pic I wouldnt expect anything different :))

[@Aronhgever]

Thanks Abel! I see from the comments that you have managed to attract new and exotic audiences...

[@ssdabel]

The channel just keeps rocking it indeed :'D

[@Aronhgever]

@@ssdabel the road to 100k subs will seem easy now...

[@Tom_North]

Great video Abel thanks, you really asked the questions that I think we’re all wondering! So from my understanding both their methods get you to where you would like to be but they just have slightly different approaches is that right? I’m just struggling to know the distinct differences between the two progression methods? Thanks again mate!

[@Low5ive]

A year later, KZbin algorithm sent me to 1) the video where the ubiquitous argument happens over on Revive Stronger, and then 2) the ubiquitous callback here. Science has gone too far.

[@ThaEpicFail]

Great!

[@wesfin]

2:10-56:00

[@wrxdrunkie]

You made my Sunday!

[@ssdabel]

my pleasure

[@adambaker1287]

I prefer hit

[@zelenisok]

yeah hit is interesting. at first i was like no way two working sets of 6--12 reps done to failure is enough for a muscle group hypertrophy, but then i found out that mentzer did 10 second reps, so it started sounding very different. thats 2 to 4 minutes of tension under load, which is basically as much as 4x10 to 8x10 sets the way they are typically done. plus its not clear how much of those reps in hvt are effective, whether people go near failure and how much. whereas mentzer would work a set to actual failure, not 0rir, but actually trying and failing to do a concentric. and then a spotter would help him do two or three of eccentric reps. so its actually three actual failures, after 2 to 4 minutes of tension under load. sounds like more work done than in typical hvt. its also interesting that mentzer actually had mesocycles where only volume increases. he would start with two 6 - 7 rep sets to failure, then through weeks increase the number of reps, and when he got to doing a 12 rep set to failure, only then would he add weight the next week.

[@michalisagisilaou6653]

So eric helms won? tha's cool.

[@ssdabel]

wasn't really that kinda discussion

[@michalisagisilaou6653]

@@ssdabel It was a debate, Eric made a lot more sense, in the last debate I was advocating Mike for the 'volume is the main driver of hypertrophy' is a meme now.

[@shoqed]

Does it mean he'll be the new president? I'm down.

[@vieri864]

Nobody won they both too cool.

[@Wildkoala1]

Michalis Agisilaou you deff missed the point if that’s what you got from the discussion

[@FranknStrength]

I think you should do the least that is required to make progress. feel good when you leave the gym. Not exhausted. Look forward to your workouts and not dread them. If you are spending more than 5 hours a week in the gym and you are not a professional bodybuilder the only good reason I can think of is that you really love spending time in the gym and don't have better things to do if you enjoy that more power to you but if you try to tell me that spending hours and hours in the gym is going to make you bigger than more sane approaches I think that is largely misleading and it doesn't play out that way in the real world. But do whatever you enjoy this is just a hobby. I don't care. Most People are out of touch with reality when it comes to bodybuilding. They make it their life instead of part of their life. The idea that more is better with regards to volume is really not true I know that the studies or whatever but having tried it myself not only does it not work is counterproductive. Better is better no more is better. Exercise execution, selection and those variables are left out in this discussions there is more nuance to training than just do 10-20 sets and add weight to the bar. I think 6-12 weekly sets divided over 2-3 workouts is going to get you to your genetic potential. I also think than pushing loading too aggressively beyond the intermediate stage will bring connective tissue problems very soon. I am often amazed by the sisyphean efforts of bodybuilders who are willing to train for hours a day with little or nothing to show for it. Most people I see at the gym would be better off cutting back their volume by 50-70% I am a trainer in a ghetto gym and most people train like retards they do 6 exercises for a muscle and 4 sets each. is like Jesus Christ. They will not listen to any reason they are scared. If their mediocre physiques are barely maintained with such high volumes they believe that progress will be even worse if they cut back their volume. most look like shit those that don't have good genetics or jumped on gear to make any progress on such stupid training.

[@Croissantrophy.meme.channel]

I'm so tired of Mike....