Apart from the “Compound Exercise Only” heads in this game, the group I find most annoying is the “Total Volume” people….grrrrrr.
Do you know what I mean? They multiply the reps and sets completed by the weight lifted to arrive at a “Total Volume” Figure.
The larger that figure the better their gains, or so they believe.
Intensity, going to failure, has nothing to do with stimulating gains according to these people. It’s all about that final number.
Example: 10 sets x 8 reps/set x 100lbs used in each set = 8000.
Wow – 8000, that’s big. Must be good. Really? Seriously?
I’m going to delve into the Intensity Vs Total Volume topic here but before I do, I can encapsulate the whole argument in one sentence that I want you to remember:
Stimulating muscle gains is a biological matter, not a mathematical one. Intensity matters!
Stimulating muscle gains is a biological matter, not a mathematical one. Intensity matters! Share on X
Total Volume is a groundless argument. But many proponents use it as justification for not training to failure, because total volume is more important than intensity.
This means that the total amount of reps and sets performed is more important than the intensity of effort employed.
Let’s say I can do 10 reps to failure on a bench press. If I was a believer in Total Volume, I could stop at rep 8 knowing that I’ll perform another 8 reps after a minute’s rest or so. If I do this 10 times, that’s 80 total reps at whatever weight I was using.
Contrast this to the guy that goes to failure. Let’s say he is a THT training guy. He does 6 sets and fails on the 10th rep every time. That’s 60 reps at whatever weight was employed.
The Total Volume (TV) guy points to his 20 extra reps as proof of a superior workout. The THT guy points to the higher intensity of effort as proof of a superior workout. Let’s consider what the TV guy is implying here…
If he voluntarily stops at rep 8, he must believe that the first 2 reps of his next set are equal in stimulating growth as the last 2 reps of the previous set which he DIDN’T perform (rep 9 + 10).
Basically he asserts that WHEN a rep is performed in a set doesn’t matter; it’s simply the QUANTITY that matters.
Is this the case? Nope.
There are biological factors relating to that last rep which are conducive to producing growth. And they just don’t happen if you don’t take the set to its end. Let’s have a look…
THAT LAST REP…
That last rep is what is responsible for maximizing “metabolic stress”. And metabolic stress rates correlate positively with muscle hypertrophy/growth.
- That last rep will also maximize the recruitment of type 2b muscle fibers, the ones that are predominantly responsible for size gains.
- That last rep will help maximize muscle damage. This leads to inflammation, which leads to the release of growth factors that stimulate protein synthesis. Damage the muscle and stimulate the thickening of individual muscle fibers.
- The sheer stress and fatigue caused by those last reps is a form of “cellular disruption” that causes an increase in all the growth factors i.e those responsible for protein synthesis rates.
These are the biological markers of stimulating gains. The “total volume number” you write on a piece of paper at the end of your workout is not a marker of anything – though it may inflate your ego.
This is NOT mathematics. It’s biology. Total volume does not take precedence over intensity.
There are biological factors occurring inside the muscle that just don’t and won’t happen if you don’t train to failure – fact!
Now, check this out…
The following is from a discussion I had with a fellow trainer who was into Total Volume. I have excerpted this from my article, ‘Training To Failure Roundtable‘.
He was making that point that going to 100% (failure) was unnecessary and that 7-8 reps (70-80%) was better coupled with extra sets for a larger ‘Total Volume’ figure.
To this I said…
Me: “Let me ask you: Why go to 7 out of 10 possible reps (or 70%)? If Total Volume was true, doing 5 reps (50% intensity of effort) for a total of 14 sets would also yield 70 total reps. It would be equally as effective, right?” [7 x 10 = 70. 5 x 14 = 70]
Him: “Well…”
Me: “Or why not do 1 rep, put the bar down, have a chat or whatever. And just make sure you do that 70 times, because it’s the total number that matters, not intensity.”
Him: “Yeah but Mark, no-one is recommending training to just 10% or 50% in every set.
Me: “Why not?”
Him: “It’s too easy. You have to go a bit higher”.
Me: “Ah, exactly. It’s too easy. It’s not taxing enough, or you might even say…it’s not intense enough. Don’t you see you’ve just conceded the point? You’ve just implicitly stated that there is indeed something about the intensity of effort. If this were not so, those low-intensity sets would stimulate an equal amount of growth because it’s all just down to the math at the end of the day”.
The body’s existing capacity must be stressed in order to trigger the desired adaptive response i.e. the body increasing its existing capacity by building more muscle mass.
And I need to say this because it’s important…for me it’s not even a matter of Intensity Vs Volume. What I argue for is…
INTENSITY PLUS VOLUME.
Both. It’s not one or the other. Once the intensity is there, volume matters. But if the intensity isn’t there, all the volume in the world will still be ineffective.
Intensity and volume form the foundation of THT training. Everything is dialed in correctly to produce superior gains. No wonder people make the best gains of their life with this routine. THT training is 100% free.
NOTE: You don’t have to go to your email to confirm anything. Once you click the button, you’ll be taken straight to the download page 😀 I operate a ‘Strictly Zero Spam‘ policy.
Don’t get it twisted, the real motivation of TV proponents is not science, but simply their lack of strength and will (physical and mental) to take a set to failure i.e. they just don’t like it.
But Doesn’t Failure “Fry your CNS”?
One last point. Don’t you just love it when a phrase is parroted around by people who don’t even know what it means?
People that don’t like/want to train to failure pick this phrase up somewhere on their journey and regurgitate it when it’s needed to defend their position.
While there is a lot that can be said on this issue, I can summarize it by simply saying that it’s rubbish. You can experience this type of burnout by OVERTRAINING, but taking a set to failure doesn’t “fry your central nervous system”.
If you have any questions or need help, ask me below 😀
ALSO, I’M SOCIAL – ADD ME & LET ME HELP YOU…
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Google+
I think my ‘send-off’ that I put at the bottom of most of my articles is more relevant than ever today…
“Train With Intensity!”
Mark
This is one of your best articles I’ve read Mark. Loved it!
Very well explained. Will help when I’m having these “debates” with some guys in the gym 🙂
Thanks, guys. Glad you found it useful.
Food for thought. I’ve been doing total volume type BB routines for a couple of years now, might be time to change things up. I was actually thinking about this just yesterday. Great article!
@James. You should make the switch.
I wasn’t going to read today’s article because it just sounds like common sense to me. Total Volume, really? I’m glad I read it anyway because you have such a great way of putting things into words. By the way Mark, I started your THT training program 14 weeks ago and I can not believe the gains I have made in that short time. I am not a professional body builder, just your average guy who goes to the gym after work. The last 14 weeks have but on more muscle then the previous two years. Thanks a million!!!
Great article! I should think the next step forward is an in depth discussion into volume – why we do X number of sets instead of Y, and uh, why hahaha.
No, no, no, and no. The reason why you don’t do 100 sets of 1 rep is because it’s impractical, not because failure is so important. Nevertheless, doing so would probably yield the same or even better benefits than going to failure. However, none of what I or you say really matters. What matters is results, right? Well, I’ve had nice benefits by NOT going to failure and incorporating more volume to my routine. People need to STOP buying into anyone’s theories and testing it out on their own bodies. That’s how REAL knowledge is attained. Peace out
@Tomas. 100 sets of 1 rep will absolutely not yield the same result. Of course it won’t. It doesn’t in any way stress the body’s existing capacity and there is therefore is not capable of stimulating any structural change in the body. Failure is important. I give the scientific/biological reasons why it is important in the article itself (about half way down starting “That last rep”). It’s not my theory or opinion. Real knowledge is not attained through anecdotes but by scientific understanding. And this is from the article too…”And I need to say this because it’s important…for me it’s not even a matter of ‘Intensity Vs Volume’. What I argue for is…
INTENSITY PLUS VOLUME.
Both. It’s not one or the other. Once the intensity is there, volume matters. But if the intensity isn’t there, all the volume in the world will still be ineffective. Peace out.
Great article as always Mark. Now, I see how intensity is key when your main focus is adding muscle mass. What about when you are focusing on cutting (like in TSPA)? I know you’re teaching working to failure even when cutting; my question is – is there a benefit to adding a drop-set (like someone suggested in your forum) right after a normal set? – all in the context of a calorie deficit aimed *primarily* at burning fat.
@Jason. Who said volume wasn’t important? You either didn’t read, or didn’t understand, my article. The point is that if intensity isn’t there, all the volume in the world won’t make up for that lack. But if the intensity is there, then added volume can produce more growth.
That’s what the article you are linking to also states. From my article above, I state:
“And I need to say this because it’s important…for me it’s not even a matter of Intensity Vs Volume. What I argue for is…
INTENSITY PLUS VOLUME.
Both. It’s not one or the other. Once the intensity is there, volume matters. But if the intensity isn’t there, all the volume in the world will still be ineffective.”
The people in the article you linked to all trained to high intensity levels, so as expected, extra volume would produce more hypertrophy. That’s the point I am also making. In that article the author states:
“Before we can dig into the real meat of the subject, it’s important to understand some basic physiology of muscle recruitment. During any set in which you lift a weight to failure, your nervous system will first recruit small/slow motor units and then begin to recruit larger and faster motor units until the force demands are met (or cannot be met).(4) For example (and I’m just making these numbers up to facilitate understanding of the concept), let’s say I can curl a 50 lb. dumbbell 10 times. During the first 3 reps, I might only be using small/slow motor units and muscle fibers. By the 6th rep, the smaller fibers have fatigued a little and can no longer produce enough force to move the weight, and I begin recruiting larger muscle fibers. By the 10th rep, all the muscle fibers in my biceps have been recruited and have experienced enough fatigue that they can no longer produce enough force to move the weight, and I fail the 11th rep.”
That’s exactly what I’m talking about – the sequential nature of muscle fiber recruitment means training to failure maximizes muscle fiber recruitment, and more importantly, the recruitment of type 2b fibers, which are predominantly responsible for growth.
And yet that is only one of the reasons I put forth advocating going to failure. You can see the rest above in the section starting, “THAT LAST REP…”
So yes, intensity matters. And if it is there, added volume works.
@Tudor. Exactly the same, bud. Even when cutting, train for hypertrophy. Yes, drop-sets can help. But I would advise you only throw these in after the last set of a given body part. For more on this, and other advanced techniques, see my recent article https://musclehack.com/6-techniques-to-build-muscle-that-youve-never-heard-of/
@Bill. Awesome to see you have put on more muscle over the last 14 weeks than you have over the past 2 years using my techniques. So happy for you 😀 Keep up the good work.
@Muhammad. I cover the sets issue in my free THT training guide. Also check out a recent article of mine here https://musclehack.com/should-i-train-3-days-or-5-days-a-week-for-best-muscle-gains/
Interesting.
Last week I deadlifted 200kg*4 +195*4 + 190*4 = 2340kg.
Wasn’t feeling 100% in mind and body for next back session and rightly or wrongly convinced myself I was still making positive and maybe better progress with my total volume.
This week 190kg*5 for 3 sets = 2850kg.
All sets to complete failure for what I could do on the day.
I appreciate this is a snapshot on the long road of tht training, but in regards to this discussion which week would have produced the most growth do you think?
Hey Mark, really enjoy the site.
Just a few caveats on this article. First, the example of a 10RM for 6 sets to failure equaling 60 reps is not going to happen. More like 10, 9,9,8,8,7. This does adjust total volume a bit. Programs are often written with the assumption that all sets will hit the RM called for, but that is a great indicator that either the article was ghost written or the author doesn’t train.
Second, there are numerous studies showing that training to failure extends the time to full recovery and thus does impact frequency.
In my experience and from a handful of well conducted studies I’ve seen, a better approach might be to keep a single rep in the tank until the last set or so. This will allow for full motor unit activation for all the involved fibers and creates basically the same benefits without quite the same “hit” to recovery.
This “hit” is what is meant by CNS fatigue. Even old school guys like Vince Gironda warned against “training on the nerve”. Importantly, this is most relevant in the lower rep ranges of 1-8 reps where all the MUs are activated from nearly the first rep. Higher rep/lower weight sets have less of an impact on CNS recovery.
Anyway, I really enjoy your site and your stuff. Just wanted to add a few bits of nuance to what you have written above. I too am a big fan of the Anabolic Diet and have used it since 1995 off and on. Mostly on.
Take care
The guys who are saying less intensity and more volume are the guys who are on the juice..they love volume..they love training 2 hours for 6-7 days a week twice a day…Mike Mentzer said…you can train hard and you can train long but you can’t do both. I train the THT way and when guys ask they say thats way to little sets for them so they keep following their bonehead ways…funny thing is though…im bigger than them and when i see them a year later, they dont look any different. It’s guys like these that need to go home rather and give us more space in the gym…go home and play ball with your kids, atleast you will get a better workout doing that.
@Richard. I’m assuming the lifts you quoted first are the failure sets? Yes that workout was more productive. All reps are not created equal, and ‘failure reps’ are more productive of muscle growth than non-failure reps (for the reasons stated in this article). So the TV number in the 2nd workout has little meaning regarding actual growth stimulated.
@Chris. Yes those figures quoted were to equalize the volume simply to illustrate the point. As inroads are made into strength, less reps will be completed. But since the body works in “negative feedback cycles”, it is this catabolism that stimulates anabolism. You would expect that a productive workout does indeed make inroads into strength. From this position, the body is forced to adapt and overcompensate. If a guy is leaving the gym almost as strong as when he went in, he got nothing accomplished.
Second, I am recommending “positive” failure i.e. the last rep where you can do the positive full range with good form. That’s all. From this, there is no need to leave 1 rep in the tank. If a guy does 2 sets to positive failure for his whole body, he can comfortably train his whole body again 48 hrs later (as we do in THT training).
Yeah, I do recommend some advanced techniques, drop-sets, omni-contractions and so on. But they are best used once, and after the last set of a given body part as not to extend the length of recovery time too much.
Thanks.
@JaSoN. Exactly. These moderate intensity/high volume guys disprove themselves with their own bodies. I don’t like to offend people, so I never would say it to their face, but it does occur to me why they don’t realise their training method isn’t working when their body looks exactly the same year after year. And they spend all that time in the gym for nothing. What a shame.
The only guys making meaningful gains with such a program are those genetically gifted individuals (rare) and those on steroids.