[samiv]

Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout. In fact you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear and more recovery while maximizing the growth stimulus.

First intensity. Then recovery. These two dictate the volume. If volume exceeds recovery injury and burnout will follow.

[oarfish]

> Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout

Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob. But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i misunderstand.

> you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear

Not a helpful way of thinking about exercise induced adaptations. unless you are doing pro athlete amounts of training, would ignore this completely.

[samiv]

Yeah theres the "progressive overload" + volume camp.

It can work.. the problem is that if you do too little you get no result, if you do too much you burn out. So you have to manage both volume and intensity so that you have a progressive overload. This is difficult.

Easier way is to just ignore the volume in the first place, train as hard as you can (so go to failure, or very close), for maximal effort, i.e. increase the intensity then RECOVER then go back to the gym when you're no longer sore.

This is much easier routine to follow and it will produce development assuming other factors (quality of sleep and nutrition) are in check.

So therefore a shortcut summary is to forget about the volume, focus on the intensity and then make volume follow your capacity to recover. Avoid injuries and burnout while precipitating growth.

Using the bench press example again, in a volume program I might do

6 sets of 6 reps for a total of 36 reps. Since I'm doing so much volume it's clear that my first 5 sets will not be challenging because with this amount of sets I HAVE to save my energy for 6 sets. MAYBE the last rep or two in the last set will be what will start challenging me. So I'd say that with this volume workout you get 2 reps out of 36 that are "progressive". That's 5% and 95% of my work is just junk that produces only wear and tear.

In high intensity method I continue with drop sets after I fail. So.. let's say I do my initial set, 8 reps until I fail, I drop weights and do 3 more reps until I fail, I drop the weights and do 2 more reps. And then I'm done and that's the workout. My total reps are 13 but there are at least 5 reps that are in the zone that challenges me. That's 5/13 for 38%.

[com2kid]

For a couple years I did a super low weight time under tension routine.

Almost no hypertrophy, but I was able to step into a BJJ gym and roll for hours, I was still ready to go long after everyone else had gassed out.

The adage that you get good at what you train at is true.

Train to lift a ton of weight 3 times and you aren't going to be able to compete with the calisthenics peeps who can rep out 100 pullups and literally dance mid air.

[machomaster]

Doing dumbbell raises to failure with 5repmax will bring more pain, discomfort and wear/tear than doing the same exercise with 20repmax.

[oarfish]

Why?

Most people don't build up to such a stimulus, so its not surprising if its uncomfortable, if all youve ever done is 20 rep sets.

[machomaster]

It's not about the stimulus. It's about the fact that some exercises are naturally better done within the lower rep range (5-10), while others work and feel better with the higher rep range (20-30). Some are better in the middle.

With DB side raises, take too high of a weight, and you will feel like you can't do anything productive done (can't even raise to an appropriate height). With lower weights you can get a proper range of motion and can really feel the burn and get the target (sic!) muscle exhausted.

Additionally, too high of a weight doesn't feel good on joints.

Similarly with squats (or deadlifts). Squating with 5-10RM is fine. But 30RM?.. Theoretically it gives the same stimulus as doing 5-10RM, but practically everyone who suggests putting such sets to a program should be medicated and put on a suicide watch. The taxationvon all systems of your body is just so huge (especially the more advanced you are).

Heck, mere squating true (!) 20RM (just one set!) is considered a crazy challenge that most will never do. I have done crazy stuff in my life, but I am not embarrassed to admit that this challenge is beyond me. Simply doing 20RM leg extensions is hard enough for me.

These require the practical experience. Take barbell/dumbbells, try yourself and no more explanations will be needed.

[oarfish]

My point is that there is nothing a priori about it, its just a question of what your goal is, what you are adapted to do and how the resistance curve of the movement is set up.

If you have a cardiovascular system that can grind through 20RM squat sets and you like it, go off. It'll be hard for most people due to the large amount of muscle mass recruited, but on the other hand, if you can load a lateral raise 5RM with acceptable range of motion, why the hell not. It just doesn't work well with dumbbells in particular.

[machomaster]

There are personal preferences and then there are universal human physiology preferences. Both examples I gave fall into the latter category.

[samiv]

Not sure what you want to say with 5repmax and 20repmax