Volume Load Does NOT Drive Muscle Hypertrophy (Science Overview)

It's not uncommon to hear that volume drivers muscle hypertrophy. However, volume can be quantified in a variety of ways. Such as the number of sets you perform, sets x reps, sets x reps x load, or even sets x reps x load x range of motion.
Volume load refers to the product of sets x reps x load. It's not uncommon to see individuals state volume load is what drivers muscle hypertrophy. In this video, I detail the research behind why I think this is a mistake, and why volume load is likely unrelated to muscle hypertrophy.
References:
Schoenfeld et al.(7 sets of 3 reps vs 3 sets of 10 reps) - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Schoenfeld et al. (rest-interval study) - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Lopez et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Lim et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Schoenfeld et al. (volume load overtime) - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Grgic et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Santanielo et al. - www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Lasevicius et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Music:
L'Indécis - Soulful chll.to/64a098ba
- / lindecis

[@jasonhawko3775]

Could you do a video and summary of research on the effect of sleep with muscle gain? I work a difficult work schedule where I only get a broken 6ish hours of sleep every day broken into two 3 hour naps. I know sleep and recovery is important for muscle development but I would love to know if there's any fully explored research on this topic. Thanks as always, I love your videos

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep! I haven't fully read the research in this area, but it is something that interests me! At some point, I should get around to making content on it. Based on my preliminary readings, it generally seems favorable to get 7-8hrs of sleep for muscle and strength adaptations (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5749041/ + pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20921542). Although, if you're schedule calls for 6hrs sleep, and it's something that cannot be practically changed, I wouldn't really worry about it. I'd say try your upmost best to optimize other areas of your training and nutrition. Perhaps you may not want to train too intense (stay a few reps away from failure and regulate volume to an amount you can handle stress free), while also ensuring adequate protein and caloric intake (depending on your goals).

[@jasonhawko3775]

@@HouseofHypertrophy thanks for the reply, I think different lifestyle choices and their effects on muscle gains and goals would be an interesting avenue for some of your videos. Keep on doing what you're doing!

[@Videoknite]

Bro, this is dangerous, and the long term effects of this sleep cycle are going to have catastrophic effects on your health

[@nicklibby3784]

You would grow probably twice as fast with 8. I learned in my college psychology class that lack full sleep will also impair brain function and memory severely over time. Also learned it is absolutely terrible for your heart to lack sleep, there is so many studies about it because they are overwhelming in the increase of heart attacks for people who lack sleep. People over 60 who miss 1 hour of sleep have a 50% higher chance of heart attack that day. Get your sleep

[@dakkitoto3467]

How can one do 7 sets of 3 reps to failure? Wouldnt it be 3-2-1-1-1-1-1

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

They adjust the load each set to get 3 reps.

[@dakkitoto3467]

@@HouseofHypertrophy I figured, but that will be hard to exactly get 3, maybe they lowered the weight and the guy stopped at 3 when he couldve got 4 or 5

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yeah, this is true, haha. Unfortunately the research papers are never truly clear about this.

[@dakkitoto3467]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Frustrating :'D

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

The researchers at 1:04 have mistaken the number of sets you peform for volume load. Now, it is true that with all other training variables equal, peforming more sets results in higher volume loads. However, this does not mean it is precisely volume load (sets x reps x load) that is driving more hypertrophy, as demonstrated by the research shown in this video. Rather, the researchers (in my opinon) should just say it is more sets (that have repetitions performed to or close to failure) that share a relationship with muscle hypertrophy.

[@KryssN1]

If more repetitions near or close to failure matter, like 5 reps in reserve let say. Not volume load, so not sets x reps x load. Then would Dropsets be an excellent addition for hypertrophy plan, as then you train close to failure for more reps? Only problem I guess would be managing fatigue, while doing compound lifts and combining dropsets into such program. Would imagine scenario, where I would add do it this way. Only would add a dropset or two to isolation movements and some compund lifts that utilize stabilization like smith or cable rows or OHP machine, not for deadlift or squat. Maybe could try adding it to some compounds down the line, to try to see if it's possible to recover consisently, or only to last workout day during a week before a break. Only for last working set, per muscle group. Working sets 2 reps away from failure and dropsets also 2 reps away from failur, instead of to failure. That way it's easier to manage the fatigue, while doing more reps near failure and cutting the time in the gym.

[@mazachek]

I’d like to see a study comparing 1 set of 8-12 to failure with increasing weight weekly vs 1 set of 8-12 with similar starting weight but adding additional sets weekly and staying at the same weight. Study to run for 6-8 weeks. Measure strength and hypertrophy gains at end

[@trash817]

Your video is very interesting. In my 15 years of weight training experience I can safely say that the most gains I have made was when I started lifting heavy. I don't know how to explain it scientifically, but mixing sets of 8-12 with sets of 3-6, prioritizing free weight multi-joint exercises has been what made me go from 70 to 92kg of my body weight. Not many exercises, but a lot of work on the classics of a lifetime, and another key element has been the push-ups and the supine pull-ups.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Good stuff!

[@kawasakizx10rr-trackbikeco85]

I have been training for 23 years, age 57. Classic ectomorph but gained over 50lbs (127lbs to 180bs) of muscle and can bench 300lbs, squat 400lbs....I think the explanation is that when you use heavier weights with lower reps and lower sets , the intensity (time under max tension) is optimized....I believe hypertrophy is 100% dependent on intensity. I typically never do more than 8-10 sets per muscle group and emphasize compound moves with 6-10 reps. I am still gaining muscle without drugs or supplements in my late 50s

[@darkforcekiller]

@@kawasakizx10rr-trackbikeco85 Idk. Everytime i think that Intensity = Hypertrophy, i think about countless of powerlifters who are extremely strong but dont necessarily look that muscular.

[@CalisthenicVagabond]

@@darkforcekiller Hypertrophy is driven by mechanical tension and fatigue. Growth of muscles occurs when the majority of motor units in the muscle can no longer overcome the mechanical tension. This means that if you don't use enough resistance, the intensity is too low and you simply can't fatigue the muscle sufficiently, as some motor units will recover while other are being fatigued, and failure will most likely occur because of lactate build up. But the inverse is also true, if you use too much resistance then the intensity is too great and you can't fatigue all the motor units because you need most or all of them to support the resistance. For example, if a hypothetical lift takes 100% of your motor units to perform (not possible in reality, but bear with me) then if just 1% of your motor units fatigue you will no longer be able to perform the exercise and 99% of the motor units will not be fatigued, meaning they will not be stimulated to grow.

[@77dris]

I've been lifting for many years, and watching KZbin videos on the topic for almost as many. This channel is quite unique and very informative and entertaining.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you so much dude, that means a lot to me!

[@flow1188]

The Problem with all this Studys are: The very Short Time. Those Studys should go 5-6 Months. 1-2 Months are to short.

[@Antonio-wb7ro]

Personally I belive Mike Israetel hit the nail on the head for this. The entire MEV and MRV concepts seem to explain why volume load IS the main driver of hypertrophy but only to a certain extent. We know every system can only take so much at a given time. So we could induce that MEV and MRV don't just exist in a mesocycle but also exist on a daily basis and on a momentary basis. This would also explain WHY the bro split is non optimal, as you are hitting your daily MRV and then training some more, so while you might be training to your weekly MRV, your training past your daily MRV. It's the same reason the last few reps are the ones that are most stimulative. As your 1rm is your momentary MRV. And training to failure is going to MRV and than trying to do more, that is the reason why 0-3 RIR is equal stimulative as going to failure.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

As far as I know, MEV and MRV use "Sets", not volume load (sets x reps x load)?

[@Antonio-wb7ro]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Yes they use sets of effective reps/volume load (anything below 5RIR) . But the definitions are still applicable here. Mike came up with MEV and MRV under the assumption that every system has a minimum stressor needed for it to adapt and a maximum amount it can adapt to given a time period. So a 1rp would be the maximum load your body could adapt to in that time frame. So if a set takes longer to complete, your muscles had a longer period of time to adapt to that load (in other words it had to generate less overall power in a short time period). So the reason low and high rep sets are equally simulative when taken to failure is the overall power outputs both reached max capacity at a certain point. But the high rep group got to that point by fatiguing the machinery's wattage output over a longer period of time than the low rep group.

[@KurokamiNajimi]

New meta analysis show that frequency doesn’t matter as much as often presented though. I’m guessing it depends on what’s the most you can do in 1 session vs if that’s also the same work you could do in a whole week. Reason there’s inconsistency is probably bc of the difference in recovery ability between novice vs intermediate vs advanced (I haven’t seen any study using actual advanced people like being able to pause bench 300, strict OHP 200, etc). Splitting up the work often ends up being more practical anyway though

[@alvodin6197]

Mike Israetel is more annoying than anything, in my opinion..we don't need more jargon.. Lifting is pretty fucking simple. He just seems like some annoying dude that needs to compensate for something. That's my take

[@Moiez101]

Menzter forever!!!

[@Procharmo]

You can call me an ultra-responder.. When I train high and low reps sets across the whole body several times a week I get the most hypertrophy and strength all at the same time. ( life time natty, 215lbs, 5'8', 59 years old, 180kg 396lbs 1 reps max bench, 19.5 inch arms). When i compare myself to other 60 year old and 30 year olds I'm far stronger and heavily muscled then them and train whole body, low and high reps as opposed to any other rep range or body split. Food for thought....

[@MenacedAssassin]

Probably you are just genetically gifted

[@SkepticalCaveman]

I actually prefer high reps even.if takes longer, and is more of a pain to do because the risk of soreness is much lower. I'm also sure that, while high volume load doesn't grow the muscles more, it gives more strenght endurance and burns more calories.

[@hoisdom]

But didn‘t Schoenfeld et al. propose that higher Volume-Load equals more hypertrophy only if you train at least at 60% 1RM? How would this come into play here?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Not sure, but if so, I'd still say the evidence does not support that. For one, the study by Santanielo et al. (detailed at 7:38) used a 75%1RM load, yet the failure condition (which achieved higher volume loads) did not grow more than the non failure condition (that achieved lower volume loads). Also, in many cases, the volume load you can achieve with a 60%1RM load would be more than an 80%1RM load, yet we know both of these likely produce similar growth. For example, let's say your 1RM is 100kg on an exercise. On this exercise you could probably perform 3 sets of 15 repetitions with a 60%1RM load (60kg), which equals a volume load of 2700kg. With an 80%1RM load (80kg), you could probably perform 3 sets of 8 repetitions with this load, which equals a total volume load of 1920kg. If volulme load was driving hypertrophy, you'd expect 3 sets of 15 with a 60%1RM load to be better for growth than 3 sets of 8 with a 80%1RM load. But, as we know from the current research, both of these likely produce similar growth. Hope this is clear! Let me know if it's not or if you disagree with anything :)

[@hoisdom]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you so much for the quick and detailed answer! It cleared up a lot for me. You really seem to have done your homework! :)

[@sandwitht6264]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Bravo, very concise explanation!

[@Mr.HeavyDuty]

Mike Mentzer was Right

[@mattmartini836]

and dorian yates?

[@2DarkHorizon]

Why are sets always performed only 1 to 5 mins apart? Is there studies of sets 1hr apart? I wonder if you can increase your sets mileage and get more hypertrophy if you spread your sets throughout the day and week.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

There's no research I'm aware of exploring sets more than 10 mins apart. Ultimately, "cooling down" is probably an issue if you rest for way too long.

[@lessismorefitness6789]

By the way, there is a very easy way to disprove the notion that volume load has any relevance, e.g: 120kgs x 10 reps x 3 sets = 3600, 100kgs x 12 reps x 3 sets = 3600, but 120kgs x 10 reps equates to a 1RM of 160kgs whereas 100kgs x 12 reps equates to a 1RM of 140kgs, so clearly different amount of work is being done despite an equal "volume load"

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yeah, there are many examples were volume can be equated yet the stimuli's are very different in nature.

[@KurokamiNajimi]

Volume is the driver but only when each rep is effective. When you’re doing reps further and further from 0 RIR it is low quality volume. You would see more growth in someone who does 3 reps 5 sets with 85% of 1 RM than 10 reps 3 sets at 50% of 1 RM because you’re 20 reps away from failure opposed to 1-3. 10 reps 3 sets at 70% of 1 RM would result in more growth than the first. This is also why it’s probably a good idea to include some higher intensity sets along with high volume so you get in more effective reps without more fatigue. On one hand high intensity burns you out fast like attempting to do heavy singles for tons of volume. But on the other hand high volume is more fatiguing than a low amount of intensity. Imagine doing 20 rep squats for example vs 6. Some folk like Natural Hypertrophy and Alec Enkiri also promote this idea that getting stronger via these higher intensity sets or strength work if you want to call it that ultimate aids in hyper trophy because it drives progression that will equate to more volume over time. Personally I don’t think that’s accurate, to me it seems more so about how heavy the weight is relative to your strength. With all that said you could debate about how heavy is most ideal for assisting in growth. There is a way to max out weekly and do high volume without getting injured, look up Alpha Destiny max effort. One could say doing 4-8 rep sets is better for more volume but you’re already doing high volume anyway. Probably doesn’t really matter which you do in which case I favor the max effort method because it simplifies things while also providing more strength. Only argument against that is if it forces you to deload more but AD explains in his last 5 tips vid that with adjustments he has been deloading only once every 12 weeks, less than most people doing it every 6-8 weeks. NH says deloads are unnecessary but he’s an outlier most of us have to deload whether we include higher intensity or not and again higher volume can be more fatiguing than low amount of intensity reps

[@correctpolitically4784]

I came across this years ago in a book by Cisco. It took me about a week to determine it was bullsht. Lotsa good stuff written by him but that was not 1 of those things.

[@tritonedelta3464]

No, this is simply incorrect. No volume = no hypertrophy. Volume *has to be present* to have hypertrophy which makes it *a* driver of hypertrophy. It is a factor. Your crucial mistake in logic is the mono-causation fallacy: an attempt to find the one and only cause for a phenomenon which is in reality caused by a combination of factors.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

All I'm saying in this video in that volume load simply is not correlated with hypertrophy in many cases, and so is not a good proxy for hypertrophy. Ultimately, tension is what matters for hypertrophy and volume of tension can probably better be thought of as number of hard sets rather than volume load

[@rubenflorespoupart1709]

Yeah I think the same as you, is a combination of volume load with failure training. Not by how many sets you do. For example your first set is the one you can lift the most weight and the one you can do more reps going to failure. Thus more volume load. That means it's the most growth stimulating. So one set with a high weight that you can do for reps with proper form equating higher volume load will get you the biggest more quicker than any other method. That's the true way to get bigger faster. Naturally or enhanced. Doing it this way you achieve metabolic fatigue with the higher reps. You achieve high mechanical tension. High time under tension. You will achieve proper form cause higher reps are easier to maintain proper form. High volume load. And better adaptation. So better progressive overload. First increasing reps on that weight and then upping the weight and doing it all over again

[@NoRockinMansLand]

Summary: Volume load does not drive hypertrophy, the number of weekly sets you do is the primary determinant (given that they're 1-3 reps close to failure, which the body registers as failure)

[@Oi-mj6dv]

Tension and repeated approaches to failure within recovery limits is a much more precise definition of "volume" if you only think volume you might not perform close enough to failure for the intensity to matter

[@justinlima2892]

How about the rest-pause set? Is it good for the hypertrophy? I incorporate this in every single exercises that I do.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

There's only 2 studies technically exploring this. I detailed them briefly in the previous video (on the 3/7 method, at the 6:57 timepoint). Basically, one study suggests it does not build more muscle than normal sets, while another study suggests it does However, the one that suggests it does have important limitations.

[@psychodynamicnaturalhistor437]

​@HouseofHypertrophy But there's also different ways rest-pause is used. There's one that's just a series of singles, the Mentzer way of adding some singles to the end of a set, Dante Trudel's multi-rep rest-pause, there's cluster sets where you're doing a series of doubles or triples sort of like the singles. There's so many different ways. I'd love to see some research really looking at Dante's DC rest-pause on experienced trainees. He seems to get good results, I'd like to see it if could get some formal validation.

[@spidy10]

Any proper research in hit training Dorian yates style or mike mentzer style like training to failure low volume

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Not precisely asssessing exact replicated routines. Technically, the research on how many sets you should perform somewhat it self addresses this. We'll be looking at such reseach next video :)

[@mattmartini836]

@@HouseofHypertrophy what are your thoughts on Dorian yates 1 set train to failure and beyond, ? everyones getting good results from it

[@kiruurself3553]

Please correct me if I am wrong. The purpose of this video is to inform that the optimal method to train is to just continue the exercise 2-3 reps shy of Failure. is that right?I got lost in the technicalities. 😅

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

My main aim was just to demonstrate that volume load is likely not a driver of muscle hypertrophy, therefore an individual does not need to worry about volume load. But, the takeaway that training within 3 reps from failure per set is important for hypertrophy is also fine :)

[@Muphenz]

Definitely great content as always! Once you have a million subscribers, you, along with Jeff Nippard and Jermey Ethier will complete the holy trinity of evidence-based bodybuilding KZbinrs. And I can say I was there since the beginning. I know things like this make sense on the surface, more reps and sets mean more muscle growth. But in reality, it's more complicated than that. After questioning it and researching it for myself, including using this video, I also came to a similar conclusion. This is why I question EVERYTHING and rely on science and reasoning.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you for the kind words!

[@WillyEast]

Is there a follow up video on this? I would like to watch it. So far I only do one set to near failure but I keep hitting plateaus.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

The follow up video was on the research on sets and hypertrophy titled "The ULTIMATE Guide to How Many Sets Optimize Muscle Hypertrophy" - kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4icapusarJkj8k

[@chiclown5475]

I love your videos bro but at this point you can literally find everything and anything to dispute why this exercise method , technique , position iS or not good for you to the point that it becomes detrimental to any progress due to gym bro analysis paralysis. just lift hard keep track of your progress eat and sleep and repeat .. after watching your videos I had to stop and reassess but I do love your in depth view of everything !

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I'm not too sure I agree. I really depends on how you analyze the research. Sure, anyone can cherry pick a study to fit a bias, but if you properly overview the science on a topic, this is certainly helpful :)

[@chiclown5475]

@@HouseofHypertrophy I agree brother to the thing that bothers me is trying to figure out what does work and what doesn't .I love to analyze as well but sometimes I wish things were simpler. As for me I think I've reached my limit so I'm trying new things with discernment tho. I think having a tailored routine would be best for each individual. Keep up the good work brother !

[@ДимаМ-з3ж]

Good overview

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you my friend!

[@jrippon]

How about this for a radical theory: Different people respond differently and to vastly different degrees to efforts to build muscle. So many studies compare two different groups of individuals, each group using a different regime. Bottom like: you need to find out what works best for you. You do this properly, you will probably take years to find what's optimal.

[@joojotin]

I have read studies that have shown you benefit from way higher volume than typically when you only rest for a short period of time but the results are equal with longer rest periods with less sets. If this is true, I wonder why dropsets are beneficial in terms of time compared to straight sets. Have any insight?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

With compound exercises (and sets equal), longer rest are probably better for building muscle. However, with isolation exercises, the research isn't clear on if long rest or short rests are better. It might just be with isolation exercises, rest periods do not matter at all, making drop sets effective for them. The study you're likely referring to is by Longo et al., they used a leg press (compound exercise). Feel free to check out the rest interval video we have on the channel, we detail all of this in there :) (including this Longo et al. study + the drop set research).

[@joojotin]

@@HouseofHypertrophy interesting, I will check it out, thanks :)

[@shahtayyib]

Finally seeing a good video on this :) had a conversation with someone about it a couple weeks ago and he thought I was talking about bro science 🤣 some people really love their volume

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you for the kind words! It does unfortunately seem to be common for folks to believe volume load is directly a driver of growth

[@shahtayyib]

@@HouseofHypertrophy no worries my dude can't wait for the next one!

[@KurokamiNajimi]

Volume is the driver but only when each rep is effective. When you’re doing reps further and further from 0 RIR it is low quality volume. You would see more growth in someone who does 3 reps 5 sets with 85% of 1 RM than 10 reps 3 sets at 50% of 1 RM because you’re 20 reps away from failure opposed to 1-3. 10 reps 3 sets at 70% of 1 RM would result in more growth than the first. This is also why it’s probably a good idea to include some higher intensity sets along with high volume so you get in more effective reps without more fatigue. On one hand high intensity burns you out fast like attempting to do heavy singles for tons of volume. But on the other hand high volume is more fatiguing than a low amount of intensity. Imagine doing 20 rep squats for example vs 6

[@redsix5165]

7:22 there are different energy systems at play. When you are high rep its more of an aerobic exercise. So they got “stronger” by ~50% when measuring the ability to generate work….so that seems “stronger” than a low rep to failure who didnt generate as much “strength” gains.

[@leviathan5664]

Great content as usual Hope you can tackle Chest dips vs bench/DB press

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thanks. If there's any research that comes out, I'll definitely cover it. At the moment though, there's no strong research comparing them two exercises.

[@leviathan5664]

@@HouseofHypertrophy What are your own thoughts?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I don't think one would necessarily be better than the other. I think they probably have the capacity to produce similar growth of many regions of the chest, deltoids, and triceps. However, I think there could potentially be some regional muscle growth differences between them (like dips might develop the lower region of the chest more, while perhaps bench pressing develops the mid chest more).

[@yoelmorales208]

Your videos are very good

[@nixen74]

The term “volume load” as you define it here., is basically meaningless for hypertrophy. Defining volume as “sets at or near failure” is the only definition that makes any sort of sense. Volume Load equated studies are by definition meaningless.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep, I agree!

[@CUB-qy2hj]

Would you mind reviewing Escalation Density Training by Charles Staley? It addresses an oft ignored aspect of progressive overload that is work done per unit of time.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I will check it out and see if anything can be done :)

[@joaojaneiro8501]

Excellent work! Good job! Your channel is very informartive!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude, I appreciate you!

[@deliapanca]

Is this information applicable to women?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep, I believe there's a good chance the contents in this video do apply to women :)

[@lessismorefitness6789]

In the last study mentioned, 14 reps from failure, how many reps constituted failure? And where was the cross-educational factor here?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

34 reps was what the failure leg achieved on average. While 20 reps was what the non-failure leg achieved on average. The cross-education effect is virtually non-existant with hypertrophy, see timestamp 2:32 on the video titled biceps curls with no weight build muscle. Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6Gxc3aapNWYna8

[@lessismorefitness6789]

@@HouseofHypertrophy I'll have a look, but going back, i think its a limitation that the study was only performed over 8 weeks, if we could have a study that spanned 52 weeks, it might be more valuable to the average person, reason being, training to failure demands more time off or "deloads", also, in terms of quality of life and function, if you can sacrifice time in favor of avoiding DOMS and stiffness, that could be a great option for many, imagine that, building muscle without killing yourself in the gym or dealing with perpetual soreness and tightness.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I highly doubt 14RIR with a 30%1RM load would outperform training to failure with a 30%1RM load, even in the long-term. From a mechanistic perspective, mechancial tension (muscle fiber recruitment and force production by the fibers) would be much lower when training with 14RIR vs failure. Also, DOMs and stiffness reduce as you continue training, thanks to the repeated bout effect. In essence, your body produces a range of protective adaptations that increase your recovery speed and substantially reduce the amount of DOMs, damage, stiffness, and swelling you experience after training.

[@lessismorefitness6789]

@@HouseofHypertrophy It wouldnt necessarily outperform it, but the difference wouldn't be as glaring as shown over the short term, and i think its established that things arent black and white but rather a spectrum, so 14 RIR in a context where 34 reps is failure isnt completely useless, especially in the context of a higher frequency which i would always advocate if this approach were to be tested or implemented. If we as humans have a ceiling and can only build so much muscle as naturals, im sure many would opt to wait a little longer if it meant no DOMS and being flexible and functional; I agree that most DOMS tends to go away with training, but i disagree about the stiffness aspect. Training to failure over a sustained period will almost always lead to some kind of joint pain or muscular imbalance and this is why Im always on the lookout for a more balanced, holistic, and optimized approach to hypertrophy. My intuition and logic tells me Im right, but only time and studies will prove it.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

The thing is muscle growth is does not continue at the same rate forever. It becomes increasingly harder and harder to gain muscle as you continue training. Although I respect your hypothesis, I think the reverse is probably true. To push past plateaus and further develop, training likely must progress or get more intense in some capacity. Progressive overload would be pretty hard when training very far from failure. I'm not too sure anyone could estimate 14RIR, or probably even 10RIR accurately. I'm not saying training to failure is neccessary, but getting 5 or fewer reps away from failure probably is.

[@jakemaxwell2800]

Maybe it's the total time the muscle is under load while also pushing towards failure?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep, I think total time under high levels of tension is a better way to think about it (which would be when pushing close to failure). Currently though, I'm still not sure what would be the optimal time under high levels of tension, as well as we can practically assess it :)

[@jakemaxwell2800]

@@HouseofHypertrophy One thing I have been experimenting with is slower reps. I aim for anywhere from 8 to 20 reps per set and the set should be anywhere from 1-2mins. By slowing it down it reduces momentum and allows you to focus on the muscle doing the work. Obviously you'll be using much lighter weights and reduce risk of injury with slow changes of direction

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I think that's a perfectly fine way of doing things :)

[@stupidrainbo]

I have a simple question but it's hard to put it into words so it might look complicated, lol. I've been using SL5x5 for a while. It wants you to continuously increase your weight while maintaining sets*reps, until you hit a point where you fail on any given set on that day, in which case you're going to 'hang out' there for future days until you can complete that 5x5 for that weight. So my question is: if the driver of growth is sets near failure, what about the earlier sets (like sets 1 and 2) which are easier and not as close to failure as sets 4 and 5 will be? Wouldn't it be in my best interest to modify variables so that every set is equally as hard?

[@Youthereogre]

Hey dude I could be wrong but I believe it’s saying that with the belief that the reason why you’re aren’t gaining is because of total weekly cumulative fatigue management.

[@CalisthenicVagabond]

There should be no such thing as "easier sets". Simply perform the set as long as you can until failure. Reps don't matter, and I don't even bother counting them most of the time. Focus of form, especially when you're nearing failure and you will see growth.

[@ss4vegeta1]

Hi House of Hypertrophy, is it that greater volume load itself is not the driver but the number of sets taken close to failure which happens to carry the necessary amount of volume irregardless of load to drive muscle hypertrophy?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep! I think that's a good way to put it :)

[@ss4vegeta1]

Thank you so much for answering my question. Love the channel. I know others have mentioned this but I have seen ALOT of channels and your channel is going to be big as you keep building. Even if you weren’t doing this, you have strong skills to be a Data Scientist. I wish you all the best and continued success. By the way just one more thing, personally I prefer it when there is no background music in your videos. I find it a little distracting. I think your voice is enough. I love hearing when you say muscle hypertrophy. Best SS4!

[@jevgenijsalunin9820]

wow, this is gold

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you :)

[@stevewise1656]

You’re exactly right! I’ve tried high volume training and sessions took too long and I didn’t grow at all, in fact I lost significant muscle.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Interesting! how did this high volume training generally look? (was it heavy loads, lots of sets, etc.?)

[@stevewise1656]

Yes, I used to compete in my teens and early 20’s. At I 50 got into shape and photos taken. I looked pretty good and was seriously considering training for a natural show. I hired a guy who is part of a well-known bodybuilding and research group, not named Schoenfeld, to coach me. They promote high volume training, they claim research highlights it’s the best way to gain muscle. I’d really never implemented high volume even when younger and did very well. I thought maybe this was some new scientific breakthrough training method and gave it a try. Well, they apply varying RPE’s per set and that distracted my attention from more important details. Like how do you exactly or closely determine a 7 RPE vs 8? As I noted above, more volume doesn’t necessarily equal a greater hypertrophy. I was spending hours in the gym each session due to the prescribed long rest periods. I’m married, my two children were young at the time, and I own a business. They also have you track volume on a spreadsheet. That increased volume is supposed to equate to hypertrophic gains. Being a competitive guy, I started focusing more on increasing total loads, rather than truly training the muscles closer to failure and under control. I’m not blaming them for me getting off track. The volume increases are supposed to equate to greater gains. My form was solid compared to most advanced lifters, so it’s not like I was throwing weights around. In any case, my CNS was depleted, I started to get sick more often as my immune system was clearly effected, and my sleep was severely disrupted. Most importantly, I lost significant muscle and looked awful. In summary, even at advanced competitive bodybuilding levels, you don’t need high volume to make gains. Progressively overload, train one to two reps short of failure per set, eat properly and sleep.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you for sharing this awesome comment. It's highly interesting to hear stories like these. Without a doubt, there probably are folks out there that do well on with high volume load training (but it probably doesn't build more muscle). But, there are also probably folks out there like yourself. Individual differences in resistance training are quite interesting and likely substantial, it's an area I wish more research would evaluate.

[@stevewise1656]

@@HouseofHypertrophy Yes, it’s genetics-some tolerate higher volume and also training to failure every set, though for most people, they can’t tolerate one and/or either training model. Especially natural lifters. Also, there’s so much information out there now on the internet, much of it’s confusing for new lifters and old farts like me.:) Simple is almost always better, and honestly, this notion “advanced” trainees need a bunch more volume isn’t true based on my own experience and training with pros when younger.

[@correctpolitically4784]

@@stevewise1656 if you'd have stretched things out farther you probably would have gotten great results. Yes you can do 100 reps on a muscle in a work out , but not every other day.

[@muzzammil6640]

So we dont need to progressive overload on weight?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Progressive overload (whether through increasing the weight, repetition number, or some other variable) is definitely needed in the long term to ensure your sessions remain a high quality stimulus for muscle growth. So most definitely continue to apply progressive overload. The takeway from this video is that for the purposes of building muscle, you do not need to concern yourself with volume load (the product of sets x reps x load), it's not a good metric as it is likely unreleated to muscle hypertrophy.

[@REPSDirect]

All things being equal, the key to hypertrophy results is genetics.

[@hosusebastian2521]

fell asleep 10 times during this vid

[@alvodin6197]

Can someone explain why he talks the way he talks? Not be rude I'm just curious why he doesn't seem to understand how to stress words, yet being fluent in English?

[@Gengh13]

Nicely done as usual. I haven't watched all your videos yet, but if you haven't talked about it I would like to ask for a video on different strength curves or changing resistance at different parts of the movement like using bands, adding chains to the barbell or also doing preacher curls besides the normal curls, is there enough research on the subject to learn something useful?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep, there's some research on how important strength curves may be for hypertrophy, as well as the effects of adding chains and bands to alter strength curves. I have not read them yet, but when I do, I'll create content on it :)

[@carlcproductions]

We need an easy link to find allowing us to donate. Whether it be one time or ideally a few bucks a month every month automatic deal.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

That's extremely kind of you. In the future, I was perhaps thinking of making a patreon or something, where in return I also create infographics summing up recent research papers. I'm still not sure I'll do it, but I'll see in the future. For the time being though, don't worry about it, it's all good! :) Thank you again!