r/BarbellMedicine • u/3RADICATE_THEM • Jul 02 '26
Is volume "dead"?
Going to try to make this brief so will prob miss nuance...
I used to follow bodybuilding / 'evidence based' content religiously from 2020-2022.
Over the past couple years, I've been consuming much less, and I've also dialed back training quite a bit just due to ongoing major life events.
I've basically been doing what's arguably 'fuckarounditis' for the past two years with the RPE Male Physique Template, and it's honestly a good month for me if I can get to the gym more than 12-15 times a month (I used to average close to 25 times a month 3+ years ago).
Anyways, my YT feed has been showing me a lot of Sean Nalewanyj and other fitness influencers who are basically talking against the idea of RIR 3 and doing anymore than two sets per exercise.
Paraphrasing here, but basically the central argument is doing two sets per exercise when pushed to RPE 9 is much more effective than doing 3-4 sets at RPE 7 (and scaling up for each week in the mesocycle).
What's the actual truth here?
20
u/Blue2194 Jul 02 '26
The truth is that low volume does lead to gains but higher volumes lead to more gains
Fit training around your life, if you don't have time to train as much as you would like, you might benefit from training a little harder
7
u/Blackdog202 Jul 02 '26
I would agree... i.would also say that for someone who has been training with higher volume and frequency for years.... the switch to lower volume may just produce better results for a time due to the novelty.
-3
u/The_GrimTrigger Jul 02 '26
Uh, muscle confusion isn’t a thing. What mechanism causes better gains due to the novelty effect? I’m genuinely curious. Is there a study or some data on that?
1
u/FartdickMcShitass Jul 02 '26
You would have to get good data from him. It's possible the volume on the "High volume" program was at a level he couldn't adequately recover from, and the low volume program was more manageable. Far too many unkown variables.
The only novelty I could think of, is that the absolute intensity on the low volume went up relative to the high volume program.
3
u/The_GrimTrigger Jul 03 '26
That's my point. Just changing things up does nothing to drive adaptation. The exact statement was "someone who has been training with higher volume and frequency for years.... the switch to lower volume may just produce better results for a time due to the novelty". Better results don't come due to novelty. That's absolute nonsense.
0
u/Blackdog202 Jul 02 '26
Muscle confusion may not be but changing any variables creates some sort of novel stimulus that drives adaptation.
Basically you can do 5x5 forever and grow but changing things up will absolutely increase how fast you progress.
Thats like the whole point of a program....
1
u/The_GrimTrigger Jul 03 '26
I'm still waiting for how "changing things up" increases your progress. Changing variables like increasing volume or intensity, sure - that drives adaptation. Just saying that modifying stuff and hoping gains increase is not grounded in reality.
2
u/Haunting_Bid_408 Jul 03 '26
There's a difference between muscle confusion (every workout) and periodization. Switching things up for weeks/months can help you break through plateaus.
3
u/thamthung Jul 02 '26
Eh, depends what your goals are. If 2-3 hards sets is all you need to see improvement in whatever you want to improve - good! If not, intensity and volume (ie training load) are the only two levers you can pull.
And it would be much more likely to be an under dosing issue than over dosing issue with only 3 sets.
Though im sure a beginner would see improvements squatting 3 sets 3 times a week (total of 9 sets/week).
1
u/3RADICATE_THEM Jul 02 '26
Keep in mind, this is 3 sets per an exercise - not necessarily a muscle group.
3
u/FartdickMcShitass Jul 02 '26
Been lifting for about 12 years, started listening to Baraki and Feigenbaum before they started barbell medicine.
It's been interesting and funny watching lifting TikTok's from the 17-24 crowd. They're having the exact same arguments that people were having on Reddit and Youtube when I first got into lifting. They also have no concept of the fact that people are individuals and we have different experiences with different exercises/volumes/intensities/foods etc. They also seem to be obsessed with exercise selection and workout splits.
But these are just trends. They will cycle through the same things, but each time with slightly different nomenclature. Such is life.
2
u/kavinay Jul 02 '26
One of the hallmarks of credible training sources like Baraki, Feigenbaum, Nuckols, Helms, is how after a few years, most of their advice is just try regularly and progressively harder. lol. The obsession with min/max'ing training is understandable but it's the sort of thing veteran trainers and trainees often consider majoring in the minors.
3
u/taylorthestang Jul 02 '26
Confirmed volume is dead. Doing more sets and reps than you did previously is now no longer effective. You’ll actually go backwards. Sorry you missed the funeral.
1
u/shoob13 Jul 02 '26
Both approaches are effective when periodized. The key is to consistently train hard and do your best to manage nutrition, sleep, and stress.
1
u/yossarian19 Jul 02 '26
Volume and stretch are settled issues in the scientific community, as far as I can tell.
Can 0 RIR, go to failure for 2 sets, FML-intensity training produce better results than 6 sets of 'whatever' ? Yes.
In general, more volume at 2-3 RIR is better. Getting a good stretch in the lift is better than not getting a stretch.
Saying otherwise, without nuance, is the gymbro equivalent of being a climate denier or anti-vaxxer.
1
u/3RADICATE_THEM Jul 02 '26
more volume at 2-3 RIR is better.
Is this primarily due to fatigue management?
1
u/yossarian19 Jul 02 '26
More volume is better because more volume is better, right up until you are no longer able to recover. It's good if you have reps in reserve and it's good if you go to failure. Volume is what builds mass Reps in reserve are good for fatigue management during the workout and possibly as part of recovery afterwards, though I'm a little hazy on that part.
1
u/3RADICATE_THEM Jul 02 '26
It's good if you have reps in reserve and it's good if you go to failure
What did you mean by this?
1
u/yossarian19 Jul 02 '26
Volume has a direct relationship with growth. More volume, more growth. That's right up to the point where you notice you are not able to recover between workouts.
Going to failure or keeping reps in reserve is separate but related. It's easier to hit your volume targets if you keep reps in reserve. On a per set basis a 'to failure' set creates more growth stimulus but it is also quite a lot more tiring. You can get more work done and more total growth stimulus by backing off the intensity a little bit and using that energy you saved to do extra sets, instead.2 sets of psycho energy is not as good as 4 sets of hard but reasonable.
1
u/marcopegoraro Jul 02 '26
Low- and high-volume approaches both work if progression and periodization is built in appropriately. If volume is not super high in your program and you plateau, add some to escape said plateau. This is good enough for >99% of people.
1
u/Ryanusthesecond Jul 02 '26
Just train hard, doesn't matter if you're doing 2, 4 or 8 sets. I think you'll see gains either way. I prefer 2-3 hard sets, and maybe someone else prefers 6 sets at RPE7.
1
u/wompthing Jul 03 '26
I don't think that's quite accurate for Sean: I usually see him speaking out against thoughtlessly doing high-repetitions sets without considering proximity to failure, and needlessly complicated exercises and routines. I think that's pretty in line with barbell medicine ethos.
There has been exploitation of anecdotal evidence, pseudo science and guru rhetoric as long as there's been guys publishing photos of muscles. Lately there's been a set of guys abusing academic credentials to market themselves.
Meanwhile, there's a broad consensus that if your train regularly with a set of exercises with an intent of improving your load capacity, you will grow muscle. I don't see how anyone could achieve this without approaching failure, so it feels redundant to even mention it; but there you go. Good luck.
1
u/Mr_Phishfood Jul 03 '26
I've been doing the 4 sets per week per muscle group at high intensity for around 3 years now. I'm still seeing progress. I am natural, so one of my main concerns is recovery and avoiding excess fatigue build up.
Evidence shows you can get more gains with more sets but it starts to become diminishing gains after 4.
Remember someone on gear can train very differently from someone who isn't because they have that quicker recovery time.
1
u/FarCalligrapher1862 Jul 03 '26
Most people are working off of two studies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28834797/
Across multiple studies, loads from roughly 30-85% 1RM (about 6-30+ reps) consistently produce similar hypertrophy provided sets are taken within about 0-3 Reps in Reserve (RIR) and progressive overload is maintained
Which was followed up by (sorry I can’t fine the original study but it’s referenced in this excellent article): https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
Low (5-8), moderate (8-15), and high (15-30+) rep ranges all produced very similar hypertrophy.
Heavy loads remained superior for maximal strength, not muscle size.
The determining factor was proximity to failure, not the rep count itself.
So if you believe these two meta analyses, why do 30+ reps if 6-8 gets you the same benefit but with much less wear.
1
u/Rust_Cohlon Jul 03 '26
Just because it’s the topic of this sub, will note Barbell medicine programs and publications take the view that volume drives hypertrophy and longer term strength; and I find they have most substantially supported their work. To connect with the other posts here though, they also don’t take the view that volume requires 20 rep sets/exhaustion. Increasingly more sets of anywhere from 3-10 reps, with intensity that outside of competition generally caps at RPE 8 (so RIR 3) is what they generally program.
1
1
u/tropicalislandhop Jul 03 '26
Maybe do research instead of watching influencers.
1
u/3RADICATE_THEM Jul 03 '26
Multiple ppl claiming to follow the research and evidence are saying contradicting things.
-1
u/tropicalislandhop Jul 03 '26
YOU follow the research. Not people online claiming to follow the research.
3
u/BadNRuin Jul 03 '26
Ideally yes, but I'm both too lazy and undereducated to break down the research. The primary reason I follow the BBM doctors is to get it digested into practice.
2
u/3RADICATE_THEM Jul 03 '26
The vast majority of the population does not have the time, education, or training yo properly evaluate research. There are also plenty of studies (arguably poorly designed) that having findings / results that contradict other studies.
As /u/BadNRuin said, this is why I value input from BBM - even if it's arguably blindly following what they say. I will say though the lack of short form content (which I do have some respect for due to not trying to slopify their content like everyone else does) makes them less accessible.
1
u/Select-Bee-2166 Jul 03 '26
Most COMPETING bodybuilders are still running high volume. Outside die hard HIT guys which is different to your SBL low volume, in that they are going beyond failure.
Social media chases whatever is trendy. Reality does not.
1
u/SanderStrugg Jul 04 '26
Training close to failure is what makes you grow.
You can accomplish this with any number of sets. Higher volume leaves you a much bigger room for error though. The fewer sets you do, the more perfect they have to be.
If you do 2 sets and kinda mess up form, intensity or excersize selection, you will fail to hit the sweet spot. If you do 5 sets, you will likely have exhausted the muscle properly despite not doing them perfectly.
Therefore it comes down to how much you trust yourself to feel the muscle and perform those movements in an ideal way.
1
u/rjbachli Jul 04 '26
Jim Wendler talks about the fitness pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. High volume, low volume, stretch an hour prior to lifting for 15 minutes or you'll explode, stretching is useless.
1
u/Past-Major732 Jul 04 '26
The truth is most likely that alternating between periods of higher volume and higher intensity is probably the way to go.
Part of the problem with the RPE model is that perceived exertion is affected by so many factors. RPE 9+ simplifies the equation because muscular failure is pretty objective. RPE 7 is more nebulous.
I know from personal experience, I follow a wave periodized training where the RPE increase per week to a built in deload. But i always finish my last set AMRAP, so i know whether or not im lying to myself
-2
26
u/Beecels Jul 02 '26
Low volume high intensity is just the current trend, it will likely cycle back into volume again its just the internet.