Is volume underrated?

Volume on squats is heavily underrated because people implement it the wrong way. It WILL get your numbers up by a lot if you're an intermediate. I swear by this method:
>20-rep squat program until you can't get to 20 reps anymore (my 10rm became my 20rm)
>25 total reps consisting of 1 max effort AMRAP set (more than 10 reps at least) followed by 1-3 more sets to get to 25. (my new 10rm exceeded my old 5rm)
>If you go under 10 reps, 5x5 (or some other method to adapt to low reps).
>When you stop progressing 5x5, establish a 1-rep max
>cycle a different program, then cycle this one again if you want to
>The whole thing is linear progression, +2,5kg each workout throughout the whole thing

Worked like a charm after my 3x5 LP was exhausted, provided you only squat twice a week to allow for good recovery

i believe so, yes

Does is matter if the volume comes from singles and doubles? I lift at home for hours to kill time. Been doing this for around 6 months.

I think it matters. With singles, let's say every 2 minutes, you are never gonna have a pump.
The pump is associated with metabolic stress. Increased blood flow and occlusion play some role in muscle building.

strongerbyscience.com/more-is-more/

Volume is fucking everything.

This is broscience lol.

Doing multiple difficult sets across all rep ranges over the course of the week will get you bigger faster than "m-muh light weight high reps pump work"

Makes sense desu. I normally get a pump towards the end but it's never as intense as a normal pump.

How brosciencey of you.

You're implying that if you did singles every 2 minutes 10 seconds that it wouldn't do much if anything?

wait wait wait, i didn't say that it wouldn't do anything. I just said that you are never gonna have a pump.
Of course singles are an interesting way to train and break plateus, but for pumps, you have to implement different methods like dropsets, supersets, semi-reps etc.

What about this way:
Let's say you've added 10lbs to your bench and you were able to do 5x5 with good form, (touching chest and shit) on your previous weight.
Now you probably can do 3 sets of 5 with the new weight and on the 4th and 5th sets your form starts to suffer.
Next workout you're keeping the weight and if you succeed to do 5x5 with good form on the next workout you switch to 4 sets of 8 and keep it until your form is perfect again, and then switch to 3 sets of 12.

what the guy you're responding to makes sense though biologically, so how can you say yours is the correct one?

Focusing on the pump is broscience. Once you get to a certain point you have to do more work to get bigger/stronger, but focusing on pumps and high rep ranges is not how it's done.

For example if you're an intermediate lifter and doing some sort of DUP or monthly periodization, benching 102.5kg 5x5 a week after benching 100kg 5x5 is doing more work. Likewise, squatting 145kg 5x3 a week after squatting 140kg 3x5 is doing more work as well.

...

10x10 is helping me blast through my OHP plateus.
175 to 190 in a little over a month

I could disintegrate this girl with my dick right now believe me

nice

Don't listen to tripfags. Ever.

who is this semen demon???

i'm going to lay it out for you friendo.

look around your gym. on average, the guys following some brosplit off bb.com is going to be bigger and look better than the average manlet doing SS in the corner.

why is that? aren't brosplits bad? isn't strength training the "correct" way to train as a beginner?

the truth is that the average beginner that is half-assing his fitness and isn't on gear will get bigger and look better on a brosplit because the overall volume from a brosplit will beat out the extra weight you're going to put up on a strength program (to a certain point).

most of those dudes you see slaving away at a cage and lifting babyweight will probably never get to that breaking point and were better off doing the "wrong" thing if all they cared about is validation and looks.

he said for isolations. if you're already doing your chins and rows like a good boy you'll be getting FAR more vaulable stimulus from slowing down and focusing your biceps curls than just trying to move weight like you would compounds. also if ALL your hard sets are in low rep ranges you absolutely are going to miss out on TUT from equally difficult higher rep sets at lighter weight. pretty sure I've seen your physqiue too and you definitely dont get to weigh in on hypertrophy training

wtf i love 1 rep sets now

1. He didn't mention isolations til the end. As far as isolations go it does make a lot more sense to stay in moderate rep ranges of 5-15. It's easier to handle the lighter weight and they'll get you about the same result.

2. Time under tension doesn't mean anything as far as actual muscle building goes, it just leads to a pump.

3. I'm 6'2" and 212 at about 13% bodyfat. I have more lean mass than most of Veeky Forums has bodyweight.

Post physique

the guy who gets joocy side delt pumps every upperbody workout with babyweight focusing heavily on a burning out the muscle and pumping it up will have better delts after a period of several years than an identical guy who didnt, this is an absolute fact. pump is not the king of progress, but to say it does not influence muscle building is a lie, in order to get a pump you must fulfill some of the fundamental criteria for muscle building, blood doesnt just flow into tissue because you will it to. also you're right it was some other other /plg/ guy i saw

That's me in that photo.

That actually does make sense but you don't need to do enough high rep sets to get a pump to build muscle.

I suppose not. the main point im trying to make is that doing some of that bro-style stuff that leads to a pump alongside sensible programming that gets you stronger and handling more volume over time will get you better results from a pure hypertrophy standpoint in the long run than just doing one or the other.

volume is overrated. gymcels use it as an excuse to avoid intensity. 10 sets of lateral raises with pink db's isn't going to do shit

Name of this demon?

Also do certain parts of the body respond better to volume than others?

>gymcels use it as an excuse to avoid intensity

DESU, after heavy triples or fives, fluff stuff feels like freaking heaven.

10x10 for OHP? Jesus Christ. What percentage do you use? Could you get a little more detailed on your results so far? You've peaked my interest bb

190 for sets of ten?

...

>forearms respond more to volume than weight
>calves respond more to volume than weight
>tfw you realize that the calves are anatomically the forearms of the legs

ch3ck3d

...

who dis

volume is incredibly underrated. most people aren't working anywhere near as hard enough as they could be, especially beginners and intermediates. in most cases the harder you work the better results youll attain to. you have to push yourself and always strive to push up your volume and work capacity. why stop at 3 sets of 5, or even worse, 3 sets of 10? there are days when ive done 10-20 sets of work sets of the competition lifts. if you can barely recover from 3 sets of 5 three to four times a week you are seriously out of shape

i mean you have to increase both your volume and intensity. doing volume work at 50% or submaximal weights aint gonna do shit

Does your body acclimatise or do you have to take extra rest?

What if I do like 45 reps at 50%?

im a retard. what do you mean at 50%?

Can you explain this like in 5yo please

I mean if my max bench is 225, and I do like 45 reps at 110 pounds.

oh, thanks

...

I thought hypertrophy had more to do with recovering from lifting induced micro-tears. High intensity training should do the trick with that one.

That picture doesnt show your physique

Dis
Volume and periodization are THE 2 ways to overcome plateaus

judging from your other pictures i've seen you're nowhere near 13%

>all these idiots who dont understand how volume works
12x3x45s
Is the same volume as
3x12x45s

Its more complicated than just "more volume bigger muscle".

>examining 20+ reps
Fucking hell. Why do scientists do this stupid shit, why do they test ways people don't work out?

>mixed grip xD

>3x5 isn't working hard
Hmmmmmm
>beginner's are not in shape
Hmmmmmm

This kind of doctrinaire posturing is so stupid.

Ronnie Coleman did sets of 20. That's why. It's a bodybuilder thing.

Just because you can use a thesaurus does not make your argument better. The point of language is to communicate, and you are intentionally making that more difficult

>there are days when ive done 10-20 sets of work sets
These days were a waste of time

It's just that you start to get an insane amount of diminishing returns after a certain point. Using your example: 20 sets may give you more gains than 10 sets, but those 10 will be a million times more efficient. After a certain point you're just wasting time on minor shit that won't matter in the end.

This is why you strive for the minimum-to-medium amount of volume needed for growth. Minimum amount to actually make your body adapt, and a tiny bit extra without getting crazy diminshing returns.