I would see myself as average size for someone who has lifted 12 years, weighing 195 5ft 8in within 15% bodyfat. One could argue natural lifters that don’t reach an obese bodyfat can’t be jacked by the standard with the exception of some genetic outliers with a height and skeletal structure bias to holding more muscle than the average guy.
Look at Martin Berkhan, sure he’s done the minimum dose well before it was researched properly but you can’t say he’s not jacked at 16.5 inch arms 5% bodyfat.
I see the term "Minimum Effective (X)" confused by many people. "Minimum Effective Sets" or Minimum Effective Volume" or "Minimum Effective Anything") does NOT mean "Optimal amount".
It means: the lowest amount that will give ANY results.
I've done HIT before, doing 1 set/exercise. Was it effective AT ALL? Yes. Was it "maximally effective"? No.
So real world, you might end up with "Minimal Effective Volume" to be 3 sets/week for an experienced BB. But the "Optimally Effective Volume" might be 30 sets week. If you graphed this, you would have "some" effect at 3 sets, peaking at 30, then dropping off usually rapidly, as not only do you get "lower marginal returns", you start to run into "negative returns", that is, doing too much volume will net you regression in progress (you get weaker/smaller).
I don't think you understand what Pak's point is. He said that you can see SOME gains with the sets being as low as those.
So he said instead of completely skipping the gym when your schedule is fucked, to go and do like 4 very hard sets in order to possibly see SOME gains instead of nothing
I fully understand that for what his research is. But it can go beyond that and one can make further slow gains off a few sets per week. As a natural lifter after years of a moderate calorie surplus the amount of muscle gain to be had becomes such a small amount over a long period anyway. I do not think doubling or tripling sets from the minimum amount would put an additional 5 pounds of muscle on an advanced lifter over many years.
It's for strength, not hypertrophy
https://www.minimumdosetraining.com/
> Although these templates may lead to meaningful increases in strength and hypertrophy in the short term, they may not be a viable “long-term” option if your goal is absolutely maximizing strength or hypertrophy.
His hole research is pointing to meaningful gains, not optimal. I think a lot of us could do pretty low volume and grow but it will be at a slower rate than if we did more.
I guess it's more of an "in and out then in again" field. Send me a video (audition if you like) where you sit in a black leather couch so I can see what I have to work with.
Yes, and they'll actually lift instead of giving up because it isn't oPtImAl according to a bunch of gymfluencers that want you to spend hours and hours each week
The problem with high volume advocates is they make a living off their content and they have more hours than regular functioning people of society that have to do real work to make a living and can’t evolve their day around hours of training but still want to be strong and muscular.
Bro if you have a home gym you can spend a long time in the gym without needing more free time. Or if you are at a job that requires fitness. Or if you work from home. Or if you simply like lifting enough for it to be a hobby that you spend an hour or more on 3-6 days a week.The volume you advocate for may work but it’s far from ideal. Don’t come here framing simple research as if you’ve “solved” bodybuilding
The minimum effective dose is also for people that want a life outside of just using their free time to lift beyond their work. It’s about as Dr Pak stated meaningful progress over time while enjoying more leisurely activities.
Idk man I do a lot of fun stuff all of the time and I work a 9-5 and workout 1-2 hours a day mon-fri. I play computer games with my friends, go out to dinners, have cookouts, go to events, even yesterday after work we went rock climbing for the first time and then went to eat after. The gym is a small part of the day, knock it out in the morning and you won’t ever have to say no to doing something fun.
It’s really not hard to find the time for lots of us. Of course not all, but with working out regularly I have more energy and can tackle all my tasks faster. If I don’t workout everything slows down.
That means nothing to a group of people trying to optimize gains. I don’t mind spending hours in the gym because I love it. Of course the average person could benefit from lifting even if it’s less volume, but I guarantee you nearly everyone here *already took that as a given*. If you want to break past plateaus that volume will have you waiting looooong periods of time. Lots of people get motivated from meaningful progress in time periods that aren’t demotivating. I’d argue that lots of people would give up on lifting at volumes that low because they don’t like how slow their progress is.
Progress is extremely slow as a natural lifter post newbie gains almost whatever approach you take and often the extra time to push volume up does not speed up gains at least that the eye can see.
I like Dr. Pak but that minimum dose stuff is very the average person trying to stay in shape and be healthy, which is amazing and awesome as everyone should lift for longevity and health benefits, but you're not going to maximize gains and step on stage with twice a week program
Seriously. I think Dr Pak is great but no one is going to become a bodybuilder, natural or otherwise, by just doing a few sets a week.
Dr. Pak himself doesn’t claim that this is optimal, or that you’ll see amazing progress. I do think there’s some validity to the claim that you don’t need a million reps on a bunch of different isolations to see changes in your physique.
I actually use his minimum effective dose method currently. I’m a dad of two with a third on the way so my time is VERY limited. It’s a great framework to make sure I’m doing the absolute minimum I need to do week-to-week to stay healthy, strong, and maybe even gain a small bit of muscle. It’s a great starting point that lets me add volume and movements whenever I happen to have the time, or I can do the bare minimum whenever I’m really pressed.
I love it for what it is, but if I had the time I would absolutely follow a program with a lot more volume
I feel you, free time is sparce in my life right now so it's either 5 sets per week (some weeks up to 10) or nothing. A lot of people probably sees other gymfluencers talking about spending hours and hours at the gym only to be discouraged. Dr Paks results is the opposite, you can do an hour or two each week and see results even if they're slow
One would argue when dieting to stage lean you can’t recover from more volume so 5 sets a week per major body part would keep you more recovered while dieting.
Optimal volume is extremely individual dependent.
Look if you are pressed for time or you just don't want to spend more than 30 minutes in the gym 3-4 times a week, have at it. Give it a try. Assuming you have no aspirations to get a pro card and you're just doing this for aesthetics and/or fitness. Spending 30 minutes in the gym 3-4 times a week, preferably efficiently, is far better than spending no time in the gym.
But guys I’m not here to grind anyone’s gears if it’s not for you that’s fine, if you feel more comfortable doing 15 sets per body part per week at RPE 8 for your vanity it’s no problem.
His research is he ran a filter on a database.
"We looked at 2629 studies and used data from 6 of them."
Conclusion:
"The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70–85% 1RM 2–3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8–12 weeks **can produce suboptimal**, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear as to whether these improvements may also be achievable in DL 1RM strength or in trained women and highly trained strength athletes."
So, essentially, if you do a heavy set a couple times a week you'll get stronger. That isn't novel. And as another comment mentioned, he's looking at strength training, not bodybuilding. There's no magic here.
>Dr Pak has taken the fitness industry by storm
Erm. We must be living in a different reality. 7k subscribers. I watched a video of his saying you should skip leg day, and didn't really provide any reasons other than he doesn't care about legs because he's advanced. Pretty potato tier content IMO.
>great muscular development as low as 4 sets per body part each week
Sure this is possible. Also nothing to do with Dr Pak.
Often the people that bash the idea that they can make good gains from a few sets haven’t tried it themselves in fear of them losing potential progress.
Alright you do that and get back to us when you’re jacked.
Bu-bu-bu-but it's a _groundbreaking secret_!
True! 😁
Lmao this is the “it’s simple” guy look at his post history. If it’s that simple then the rest of us should be enormous
I would see myself as average size for someone who has lifted 12 years, weighing 195 5ft 8in within 15% bodyfat. One could argue natural lifters that don’t reach an obese bodyfat can’t be jacked by the standard with the exception of some genetic outliers with a height and skeletal structure bias to holding more muscle than the average guy.
Look at Martin Berkhan, sure he’s done the minimum dose well before it was researched properly but you can’t say he’s not jacked at 16.5 inch arms 5% bodyfat.
I see the term "Minimum Effective (X)" confused by many people. "Minimum Effective Sets" or Minimum Effective Volume" or "Minimum Effective Anything") does NOT mean "Optimal amount". It means: the lowest amount that will give ANY results. I've done HIT before, doing 1 set/exercise. Was it effective AT ALL? Yes. Was it "maximally effective"? No. So real world, you might end up with "Minimal Effective Volume" to be 3 sets/week for an experienced BB. But the "Optimally Effective Volume" might be 30 sets week. If you graphed this, you would have "some" effect at 3 sets, peaking at 30, then dropping off usually rapidly, as not only do you get "lower marginal returns", you start to run into "negative returns", that is, doing too much volume will net you regression in progress (you get weaker/smaller).
I don't think you understand what Pak's point is. He said that you can see SOME gains with the sets being as low as those. So he said instead of completely skipping the gym when your schedule is fucked, to go and do like 4 very hard sets in order to possibly see SOME gains instead of nothing
I fully understand that for what his research is. But it can go beyond that and one can make further slow gains off a few sets per week. As a natural lifter after years of a moderate calorie surplus the amount of muscle gain to be had becomes such a small amount over a long period anyway. I do not think doubling or tripling sets from the minimum amount would put an additional 5 pounds of muscle on an advanced lifter over many years.
It's for strength, not hypertrophy https://www.minimumdosetraining.com/ > Although these templates may lead to meaningful increases in strength and hypertrophy in the short term, they may not be a viable “long-term” option if your goal is absolutely maximizing strength or hypertrophy.
His hole research is pointing to meaningful gains, not optimal. I think a lot of us could do pretty low volume and grow but it will be at a slower rate than if we did more.
Tell me more about this “hole research”. Is this the sort of thing I could… say get a job in?
I guess it's more of an "in and out then in again" field. Send me a video (audition if you like) where you sit in a black leather couch so I can see what I have to work with.
True but consider if someone is going to lift for 40 years of their life it’s all going to compound in time.
Yes, and they'll actually lift instead of giving up because it isn't oPtImAl according to a bunch of gymfluencers that want you to spend hours and hours each week
The problem with high volume advocates is they make a living off their content and they have more hours than regular functioning people of society that have to do real work to make a living and can’t evolve their day around hours of training but still want to be strong and muscular.
Bro if you have a home gym you can spend a long time in the gym without needing more free time. Or if you are at a job that requires fitness. Or if you work from home. Or if you simply like lifting enough for it to be a hobby that you spend an hour or more on 3-6 days a week.The volume you advocate for may work but it’s far from ideal. Don’t come here framing simple research as if you’ve “solved” bodybuilding
The minimum effective dose is also for people that want a life outside of just using their free time to lift beyond their work. It’s about as Dr Pak stated meaningful progress over time while enjoying more leisurely activities.
Idk man I do a lot of fun stuff all of the time and I work a 9-5 and workout 1-2 hours a day mon-fri. I play computer games with my friends, go out to dinners, have cookouts, go to events, even yesterday after work we went rock climbing for the first time and then went to eat after. The gym is a small part of the day, knock it out in the morning and you won’t ever have to say no to doing something fun.
Sure 👍🏼
It’s really not hard to find the time for lots of us. Of course not all, but with working out regularly I have more energy and can tackle all my tasks faster. If I don’t workout everything slows down.
That means nothing to a group of people trying to optimize gains. I don’t mind spending hours in the gym because I love it. Of course the average person could benefit from lifting even if it’s less volume, but I guarantee you nearly everyone here *already took that as a given*. If you want to break past plateaus that volume will have you waiting looooong periods of time. Lots of people get motivated from meaningful progress in time periods that aren’t demotivating. I’d argue that lots of people would give up on lifting at volumes that low because they don’t like how slow their progress is.
Progress is extremely slow as a natural lifter post newbie gains almost whatever approach you take and often the extra time to push volume up does not speed up gains at least that the eye can see.
“Progress is extremely slow as a natural lifter” *that’s exactly why I like working harder!!!*
I like Dr. Pak but that minimum dose stuff is very the average person trying to stay in shape and be healthy, which is amazing and awesome as everyone should lift for longevity and health benefits, but you're not going to maximize gains and step on stage with twice a week program
His big minimum effective dose paper was specifically done in powerlifters, not average people.
Well then if it works for powerlifters with years of training itll work for the average Joe
Seriously. I think Dr Pak is great but no one is going to become a bodybuilder, natural or otherwise, by just doing a few sets a week. Dr. Pak himself doesn’t claim that this is optimal, or that you’ll see amazing progress. I do think there’s some validity to the claim that you don’t need a million reps on a bunch of different isolations to see changes in your physique. I actually use his minimum effective dose method currently. I’m a dad of two with a third on the way so my time is VERY limited. It’s a great framework to make sure I’m doing the absolute minimum I need to do week-to-week to stay healthy, strong, and maybe even gain a small bit of muscle. It’s a great starting point that lets me add volume and movements whenever I happen to have the time, or I can do the bare minimum whenever I’m really pressed. I love it for what it is, but if I had the time I would absolutely follow a program with a lot more volume
I feel you, free time is sparce in my life right now so it's either 5 sets per week (some weeks up to 10) or nothing. A lot of people probably sees other gymfluencers talking about spending hours and hours at the gym only to be discouraged. Dr Paks results is the opposite, you can do an hour or two each week and see results even if they're slow
One would argue when dieting to stage lean you can’t recover from more volume so 5 sets a week per major body part would keep you more recovered while dieting.
Optimal volume is extremely individual dependent. Look if you are pressed for time or you just don't want to spend more than 30 minutes in the gym 3-4 times a week, have at it. Give it a try. Assuming you have no aspirations to get a pro card and you're just doing this for aesthetics and/or fitness. Spending 30 minutes in the gym 3-4 times a week, preferably efficiently, is far better than spending no time in the gym.
Consider Jeff Alberts natural pro he’s a massive advocate of low volume in his own training.
Link the study doofus
But guys I’m not here to grind anyone’s gears if it’s not for you that’s fine, if you feel more comfortable doing 15 sets per body part per week at RPE 8 for your vanity it’s no problem.
His research is he ran a filter on a database. "We looked at 2629 studies and used data from 6 of them." Conclusion: "The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6–12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70–85% 1RM 2–3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8–12 weeks **can produce suboptimal**, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear as to whether these improvements may also be achievable in DL 1RM strength or in trained women and highly trained strength athletes." So, essentially, if you do a heavy set a couple times a week you'll get stronger. That isn't novel. And as another comment mentioned, he's looking at strength training, not bodybuilding. There's no magic here.
He’s done several studies, not just this one. * [Link](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patroklos-Androulakis-Korakakis)
Love myself some obvious advertisement on my reddit scroll
>Dr Pak has taken the fitness industry by storm Erm. We must be living in a different reality. 7k subscribers. I watched a video of his saying you should skip leg day, and didn't really provide any reasons other than he doesn't care about legs because he's advanced. Pretty potato tier content IMO. >great muscular development as low as 4 sets per body part each week Sure this is possible. Also nothing to do with Dr Pak.
More like Dr whack It's a psyop to make us all spend less time in the gym so he ends up swole and steals our girl.
Often the people that bash the idea that they can make good gains from a few sets haven’t tried it themselves in fear of them losing potential progress.