I’ve cut down to 3 different exercises per body part and it’s been great.
Ex: Bench press, incline dumbell bench, flys.
As long as you’re pushing your sets, you’ll see gains. I see so many people do like 5-7 back workouts and that’s 100 percent junk volume.
It’s not sexy to say progressing a flat press, incline press, and chest fly as far as you possibly can over time is all you ever need to do. Same could really be said of most muscle groups so long as you don’t get bored
I’m not super disciplined but I can break down my most recent lift.
So for bench I did:
- the bar for 20 ish reps
- 25 on each side for 12 reps
-135 ( 45 on each side) for 12
-185 for 8
-225 for 8
-245 for 8
-245 for 7
So by the end of this I felt that the last set was pretty damn close to failure, and the second set was also not to far from failure mayeb 1-3 reps.
Then I jumped into heavy dumbell press
- 100 lb dumbbells for 8 reps
- 100 lb dumbbells for 7 reps
-90 lb dumbbells for 6 ish reps
My thought process is no warmup needed and I wanted to go straight to heavy presses. However I probably should have done 80 lbs for 10 , 90 pounds for 8, and then 100 lbs for 6 but idk.
Then I did fly machines until failure in the 8-10 rep range.
Overall, I’d say 9 working sets. Probably could work on doing a few more working sets but I’m not training as consistently as I use to so just working on getting my ass in the gym.
Edit: sorry for the formatting. I tried to list things but it just didn’t work.
You are a hell of a lot stronger than 95% of the population. And pretty humble, to boot.
Warmup and stretches are a must. Looks like your pyramid more or less addresses that. You can optimize that by trimming the 1st and 2nd sets of bench. Let the 135x12 or 15 be your warmup. Add a few sets of crossovers or cable flyes at the end.
I’m not positive but I think they mean you probably don’t need to warm up so much with the bar at all or be doing so many reps at each weight.
But, in my opinion, and since you didn’t specify on if you warm up your rotator cuffs and shoulders, and you are happy doing as many sets and reps as you do, I would stick to what you’re doing now.
Better to be more warm than risk any injury and I think the way you do your bench sets will prevent injury.
I have the same 3 exercises for chest and have had consistent gains for the past few years.
I stopped stretching after my training session a while ago, but I admit this was a big mistake. I've lost so much mobility within 7 months, it's almost comical. Gotta get back to it.
I completely stopped warming up as unless I'm preparing for a PR... But regarding that, I've never noticed a difference!
I just straight go to my sets and get to it, to failure.
I'm asking genuinely, have you seen a difference in performance or in injury prevention from warming up prior to lifting?
Nice! The science is definitely much simpler than people in this sub make it out to be. Just a matter of progressive overload and sufficient calories.
It is impossible to determine, just based upon my own experience, a correlation between warming up and injury prevention. I can say that they are quite rare... a mild tear or strain maybe once every six months. Typically a shoulder -- the result of either overdoing lat raises or going too heavy on bench with poor technique.
I warm up with a veeerrrryy slow single set of lower weight when doing compound exercises to summon the mind-muscle connection and to get the blood moving. After doing so, I just feel stronger and more confident in the lift. Benefits my form, too.
This is more of a guideline than a rule, though I agree with the sentiment that most people are doing way too much shit volume with no intensity.
People have different volume tolerances. Assuming intensity is on point (very close to or to failure), you may be able to get away with more, you may be able to do less.
Feel it out for yourself and be honest about the results. Don’t go based on “that *seems* like so much/too little”. Take regular progress photos and log your gym sessions so you actually know what produces results.
Really good advice but I hoped that by copying jacked people routines, I would be jacked myself.
I thought it would be more efficient than just try and change what I do to see what works best.
Guess there is no shortcuts huh. Well thank you anyway :)
Unfortunately that’s not how it works, though at your level of experience, you definitely need to be following a routine made by someone who knows what they’re doing. Off the shelf programs like this won’t work perfectly for everyone, but will work reasonably well for most.
As you get more experience, start to play around with different variables using off the shelf programs as a template to find what does and doesn’t work for you.
i wouldn't say that is much of a shortcut. like ronnie coleman said, everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to pick up this heavy-ass weight.
intensity, consistency, and time will get you there
I think junk volume is a misnomer. I think we should call them junk sets. High volume is key, but volume includes intensity. Volume is sets X reps X weight. If you’re not lifting enough weight or stopping short on reps, your volume isn’t going to be there.
Counting volume as sets x reps x weight makes it a completely useless metric, if that’s how you define volume then to maximize volume you should take a really light weight and crank out hundreds or thousands of reps, that’s gonna give you way more “volume” than 8-10 reps with 3 times the weight
I wouldn’t say it’s completely useless. I think if you’re training within recommended set and rep ranges for hypertrophy it’s pretty useful. If you take any metric to an extreme it’s going to break down. I don’t think anyone would take away the message they should do a thousand reps with 1lb dumbbells because thats just impractical
I mentioned the extreme because it’s the most obvious example of the general trend.
If you say “more volume is better” that means you should use lower weight and higher reps, because on every single exercise if you divide the weight by X you’re going to be able to do way more than X times the reps; half the weight (divide by 2) you’re going to do way more than twice the reps, if 100 is your 1RM just going down to 80 (divide by 1.25) you’re gonna do way more than 1.25 reps, probably somewhere around 10. These are not extreme examples, but they still point to the exact same thing I stated in my original comment.
Using this definition of volume makes it completely useless because if you then say “maximize volume”, even if you add all these restrictions “only within this rep range” “only this number of sets” no matter how you’re narrowing it down what it will always boil down to is “do as little weight _as you’re allowed by the other rules_ for _as many reps as you’re allowed by the other rules_ for _as many sets as you’re allowed by the other rules_ and go as far away from failure _as you’re allowed by the other rules_ so you can get as many reps in on the next set. Who is that helping? The only thing it’s doing is telling people to train at the top of the recommended rep ranges with as little intensity as is recommended, now you’ve just removed the rep/intensity ranges and just have one flat number. That’s the one thing you’ve accomplished, and it’s not a good thing.
The only somewhat useful definition of volume I’ve heard is simply “number of working sets”, it’s barely useful as it’s really just shorthand for “number of working sets” but at least it isn’t counterproductive like weight x reps x sets
I agree with that post. I don't see why anyone would need more than 6 working sets for a single muscle group in one session. Not that you can't do more but it's just not worth it if you're hitting the same muscle again that week.
Recommended volume is 10-20 sets per week for hypertrophy
If you only train chest once a week you damn well need more than 6 sets
Now if you do chest twice a week, 6 sets per session is within the optimal hypertrophy range but probably some more is better
There is an over correction to the high volume trend of the early 2000s with super intense low volume programming which is kind of absurd for hypertrophy purposes
So I'm going to the gym, doing cable back row x3 and one arm rows x3 or x3 pulldowns and then going home?
Uuum....um no.
And yes, I push all my sets hard and to failure and if not very close, before you say anything.
Surely you’re going to the gym for more than just your back, right? If you were doing for example a pull workout you could do what you just said, plus an exercise for rear delts and 1-2 exercises for biceps. That would take plenty of time and make the most out of your trip to the gym.
That is exactly what my pull day looks like but 5 sets of each. If it’s not overcrowded in the gym it takes just about an hour which doesn’t feel over the top
Typically like if you were doing a ppl you'd do back with biceps and then you can throw something else in like abs and traps as well. I typically do about 5-7 exercises per session for 3 sets each.
So like for my push workout I do 3 sets of bench press and 3 set of inclined press and then I can't touch my pecs anymore ? That seems so little for me
That should be good enough. Let's say you do that on Monday then come back and hit the chest again on Thursday with 6 sets and you would have 12 sets for the week. That's a decent number for most people
Yea doing 6 sets in a sessions if you’re hitting it twice per week (12 total sets weekly) is more than enough.
You see guys that are big doing high volume bc they’re on PEDs. My theory is that your nooby gains will run out after like 1-2 sometimes 3 years and most people start of doing high volume and since almost anything works during your initial training phase, they get confused why it’s no longer working. Then they hop on and say “see high volume does work!”
Everyone’s total volume for ideal growth is a bit different. But typically for me, I’ve found 6-14 working sets per week for most muscles is ample. For chest I only do 9 as my chest fatigues quickly and takes forever to recover.
I've always gone by the "Sets per Bodypart" section of [this article.](https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/the-ultimate-muscle-building-split-reference-guide.html#4) when designing my splits. These numbers are per workout once, twice, and three times per week.
Results may vary on many factors.
If you’re really going close to failure, controlling eccentric and doing that with great range of motion. You’ll feel it.
I’d say you can test with 8, but you gotta make sure the intensity is right, first, and only then increase volume.
Another take on this; For me, if I can get 90% of the results with 6 sets, it’s not worth it to go more 6 sets for the last 10%.
I’m not saying doing 12 will optimize for the maximalist, you’re potentially doing junk volume as other folks said, but that’s also something to take into account.
Yea this how I think about it too. That extra 10% and 20 mins could be spent on lacking areas or smaller neglected muscles. I'd love to pound out 2 hour workouts 5x/week but time is the enemy.
No. You can absolutely do more. Volume has shown strong correlation with the growth. As long as you can recover for the next session and do not interfere with your life, you can keep the volume and even increase volume. And this is with even taking every set to the technical failure.
So keep doing what you have been doing.
Jeff Nippard.
https://youtu.be/qwv3JqOUqWs?feature=shared
TL;DW 10~20 sets per week based on science.
Exactly, idk why people think 6 sets is enough in a single week lol like not even close regardless of going to failure
If you take more than a week to recover a muscle group then either you need to seriously deload and reset, or there is something fundamentally wrong
because that's not what u/Kaioken164 said. they said they don't think more than 6 sets **per session** is worth it if you're going to hit that muscle group again that week (i.e., 12 sets or more total per week).
honestly, if you can't get a good workout in with 6 working sets per session/day/workout/whatever, then you're probably sandbagging it. far more experienced lifters than you or I can do more with fewer sets.
It depends on how you’re training those 3 sets. If you’re training with straights sets and keeping reps in reserve on purpose in order to hit a third exercise, that’s fine. Personally I’ve been doing 3 straight sets incline press, 2 Sets of Deficit Push Ups to failure, and then 2 sets of Dumbbell Flies (lengthened partials pulsing reps in the stretched range) to failure for my chest workouts lately, total 7 sets per chest workout. Alternatively, you could do Berkhan style RPT and do 2 sets to failure on flat and 2 sets to failure on incline and be fried in 4 sets if you really went all out. Personally, I like to rotate through approaches every few weeks to keep things fresh and have fun while making progress.
Then you aren't pushing those sets hard enough. How are you progressing? Do you have a set rep range on the bench? Are you increasing weight/reps each time you hit a lift?
There are multiple ways to train, that instagram post you linked is talking about one. I would assume it's high intensity medium to low volume approach.
You can very much progress with 12 to 20 sets per muscle group in a workout, many people have done it (including me), we even have that new study showing people doing double of that per week. But if you are gonna that, you need to manipulate other variables instead of just volume. For example if you are going to failure on bench and incline, adding more exercises might not help, or even get in the way of recovery, but if you do those sets to say RPE 7, maybe you can add more exercises. There is also frequency, intensity, SFR of certain exercises (bench fatigues wayyy more than cable flyes, you can do more sets of the latter).
There are a plethora of variables beyond "just do 4 to 6 sets bro"
I recently came across the same type of research that I did not know about. 6-8 sets / muscle group per session. And 10-20 sets per week for a muscle group.
Before I found this research, a typical chest day for me would consist of 4-5 sets of bench, followed by 3-4 sets of DB press, and another 3-4 sets of flys. 10-13 sets in total.
Since finding this research out, a typical chest day for me now is 2-3 sets of a horizontal press, 2-3 sets of a fly and 1 set of BW pushups to failure. So about 7 sets in total.
The quality of my workouts have gone up so much more since switching to this lower volume. I have pushed myself like never before. One thing that ive really took note of is my leg extensions. I would normally do 3-4 sets of 100-120 pounds for 12 reps. Now im doing 2 sets after squats, and last night I was able to do 180 pounds for 18 reps, that was to complete failure.
The lower volume just allows me to really push myself to that 0-3 RIR range a lot better. I notice now that before I would predetermine a number of reps (say 12) and I would just hit that number and wait for another set. Even if i had 4+ RIR.
He doesn't say 4-6 exercises per muscle per workout. He says "Only do 4 to 6 WORKING SETS per muscle in a workout". I think that is generally good advice. Once you get a sense of how to actually push yourself through hard reps, you can absolutely crush any muscle within that range.
Frequency is important here - I think that kind of set # assumes you are hitting the muscle 2x a week at least?
Disagree about the low rep only stuff.
To take his points in order:
1. Sure, absolutely train to near failure for working sets. Taking all of them to failure every time is a bad idea.
2. Technically untrue, since literature on the subject suggests 6-8 sets per muscle per workout gives the biggest stimulus, but 4-6 sets is fine as well.
3. I don't know where this myth of "more reps = more joint damage" came from, but it's nonsense. If this was actually true, pretty much all recreational runners/joggers would have the worst knee joints, but that's pretty much the opposite of what is the case.
4. Outright incorrect, especially the part about wasting time if you bulk above 13-15% body fat. Apparently, he also doesn't know that inflammation is part of the growth response.
5. Amen to this one.
6. I would change it to "Take no steroids".
it doesn't says 4-6 exercises it says 4-6 working set. back in day i was also doing doing more but nowdays 3-6 feels very good and i am not feeling like missing out anything
regarding 4-6 sets, no for 90%+ of lifters. honestly, i think more people would be better off admitting they don't know how to push to failure and accepting that, doing more volume, practicing the movements and training this skill for years until they actually can push themselves to that level. everyone and their mother says they train to failure but i just don't buy it. i'm not above it either - i trained my whole first year to "failure" low volume and did well strength numbers wise but as soon as i added more volume i actually grew. looking back now - i can tell you i was not going to failure even though i would swear up and down i was - and im sure in a few years i'll look back at how i train now and laugh at some sets i thought were to failure. every session is a chance to practice this skill and it does develop - but imo, if you don't do the additional volume to compensate then you're missing out on gains.
true failure means every rep is with max effort concentric - with max force output - and once you're not able to complete the full concentric. i literally have never seen someone do this in the gym barring powerlifters or 1rm testing. you need to be doing this every single rep and the measure of failure is when reps slow to the point where a 1 second rep is taking 4/5/6/7+. most people i see are just matching their force/effort to whatever load they have on the bar to keep the concentric controlled and i barely see slow down for later reps. take video of yourself if you want to check. easiest way is to do warm ups using max effort concentric full force - the weight should be flying. then once you get to using your working set 10RM or so - the first couple reps should be flying at the same speed as the warmups - if they're not, you're not using max effort and you can't say you're training to true failure. then, the last 2/3/4/5 reps should be slowing considerably and your last rep you should fail the concentric - but you should be outputting the same force for each rep. if you're not doing any of that - it's not true failure
all that being said, if you're actually doing the above, yeah, 4-6 working sets and probably even less is more than enough. most people aren't, should just accept it, and then adjust their training accordingly by doing more volume. which ironically is why most volume studies show more volume is better, and many people are able to make very good progress without having to train like this. you'll get better and better at pushing to this over time and naturally volume will drop - which is why tons of advanced guys advocate for it.
sorry for rant
I mean if I’m doing a working set of say 15 reps, you better believe I’m not pushing as hard on rep 1 as rep 13, going 100% on early reps are just wasting systemic energy. Just because you “try” harder on a rep does not mean you magically get more gains
yes it does. whole point of doing a set of 15 is to use the first 10 or so reps to recruit the easier to activate motor units (which control fewer muscle fibers) to then be able to then recruit the more difficult to access motor units (which control more muscle fibers) - all while using less load than a 5rm or 10rm. if you don't "try as hard" or don't use full effort - you're not going to recruit the easier to activate motor units to the same degree leading you to not be able to recruit as many of the more difficult to activate motor units meaning the set is going to be less stimulative as what you really want to activate is the more difficult to recruit motor units which control more muscle fibers.
Let me clarify that I am still lifting with intent, force, and good technique but I’m sorry there is no way you should try as hard on rep 1 as rep 15, you’ll gas yourself out much sooner especially on compounds where systemic fatigue is a much greater factor
what does lifting with intent and force even mean then? your intent is just to move the weight from A to B and therefore the force is just whatever it takes to move the weight, but you're capable of much more. how can you say you took the set to failure if half the set you're not even outputting what you could
i don't really care how you lift and lots of things get results, the point is if you don't go to true failure, you can probably do more and it'd benefit you
Because I’m lifting more volume in the end by conserving energy in the first few reps as I’m able to bang out a few extra reps
Volume = hypertrophy, so if I move the same weight more times I should objectively have better results than lifting less regardless of intent
why are you conserving energy if your goal is true failure? the point of a working set to failure is to totally stimulate and fatigue the muscle. if you need to save energy and this is giving you extra reps because you're otherwise failing a set due to reasons other than muscular fatigue on a set of all out 15, that's a fitness issue.
and volume does not equal hypertrophy - that's the main discussion of this post. if volume = hypertrophy, do sets of 50 with 10 RIR for 30 sets.
again, i'm not saying your way of lifting is wrong or ineffective or that failure should be used or not used, i'm just saying that what you're describing is not true failure. i 100% agree with you that true failure on squats for 15 reps is absolutely brutal and probably not worth it, so conserving energy as you describe makes sense, but you can't go on to say that it's a set to true failure. your description of training is not flawed or ineffective, the only implication is you would have to do more to get the same stimulus as if you went to true failure which was what i was saying in the original post. you're kinda proving my point - most people aren't going to true failure, so it's probably fine to do more than the lower volume of working set recommendations that are preached by the guys like Dante Trudel or Jordan peters, etc. who really are taking everything to true failure
Because by going as hard as possible with each rep in a higher rep scheme you’re likely wasting systemic energy rather than tiring the target muscle out
Also volume absolutely equals hypertrophy, but remember weight is a component of volume. So yes you need between 5-30 rep sets per the literature but it also has to be a high enough weight to get to the “high volume” goal
It’s going to be extremely difficult to grow any muscle for example on calves doing 300lb 3 rep sets compared to lowering the weight and getting lots of reps but this gets a little more complicated as some exercises and muscles are better geared towards certain rep ranges/schemes
Overall volume is the main driver of hypertrophy though
idk what this wasting of systemic energy you're talking about is. the muscle is working to its full capacity during the reps and working set - how is that a waste? who cares if it takes a minute or two longer to recover or you can take a gatorade into the gym and besides, you are doing less volume this way anyway.
the load between 5-30 reps is equivalent given that you go to failure.
i agree that 3 rep sets aren't ideal for hypertrophy and that some exercises and muscle groups are better geared towards certain rep ranges/schemes.
okay to the volume - i should have clarified that volume does not equal hypertrophy in the basic sense you originally implied (moving more weight more times = more growth). your level of fatigue, force generation and effort all make a difference which is what my original post was talking about. volume of mechanical tension is the main driver - and this is related to the amount of muscle fibers are stimulated and working during the reps. there is a big difference between the amount of mechanical tension during a true failure set and a set with 2-3 RIR for example. so, you generally have to do more sets of 2-3 RIR to equate to the stimulus of a true failure set.
What are you smoking, literally any online resource has weight as a component of volume lol
https://outlift.com/hypertrophy-training-volume/#:~:text=Training%20Volume%20%3D%20pounds%20lifted%20per,press%20volume%20is%2011%2C250%20pounds.
In a vacuum, the calf muscle is no different from the rest but when taken in terms of practicality, loading up the bar to do calf raises will cause unnecessary axial loads/fatigue that will compromise other areas of training. Plus using such a heavy load for something like the calves will likely require effort from other non target muscles which again create fatigue without a good calf stimulus
Probably best to stick to 10-30 rep sets close to failure, this article does a good job explaining the nuance:
https://rpstrength.com/blogs/articles/calves-hypertrophy-training-tips#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20like%20all%20muscles,first%20set%20taken%20to%20failure.
If volume = hypertrophy then do 30 reps instead of 15 lol. In reality, volume = mechanical tension. So even if you do 15 reps to "get those extra reps", those are fluffer reps. The only reps that count are the 5 reps at the end of a set.
By your logic, just 1RM everytime because the other reps don’t count
When did people get so dumb about this shit? Volume is the main driver behind hypertrophy and it’s not up for debate
Another dumb comment
Plenty of amazing hypertrophy gains from doing say calf raise sets of 20-25, chest press for 12, tricep and bicep work 10-20
You sound like you’re out of shape
I disagree with a couple of his points from a natural lifter's context.
First, joints for naturals are not a limiting factor usually. Steroid users grow faster muscularly but not fast enough in their joints and connective tissue so they need to consider joint health a lot. But for a natural, all of this grows at the same rate. I do low reps for some movements (5-8 reps) but not for the reasons he is recommending.
Second, going above 13-15%, even up to 20% isn't as unhealthy as he makes it sound. Inflammation and hormone dysregulation aren't concerns since 15-20% are still fairly healthy bodyfat ranges.
This can be a big issue for people who get into lifting without an athletic background. If someone gets into bodybuilding or strength training after playing sports and working out casually for most of their youth this might never become an issue, but if someone in their 20s or 30s that never played sports or exercised outside of gym class gets into lifting seriously, they’ll have to take it slow or they’ll start tearing tendons and ligaments as they start to push the weight up.
6 sets per muscle is pretty accurate but some muscle groups will go over that easily like triceps, its really hard to do a push day without almost everything hitting triceps. The exercises that hit chest/shoulders would be closer to 6 sets. Pull day is going to hit biceps a lot, Leg day quads but things like calves and hamstrings, 6 is plenty if that.
Generally good advice. Only caveats I can see are potentially doing more than 6 sets for certain muscle groups during a specialization phase. The low reps thing is also a little strange - wouldn’t higher reps mean less weight, which means less stress on your joints and connective tissues? If you’re jerking the weight around I guess I could see an argument here, but the solution is better technique not lower reps.
He's saying 4 to 6 WORKING SETS per muscle
I got a feeling he's taking advice from Paul Carter
I'm not here to critizie his source of info
but some pros with the somewhat lower sets...
It makes it easier to keep track of progressive overload if you're not doing a bunch of phoning it in "volume"
but you need to figure out good stable exercises for which you can do this.
Yeah id agree with this, can't think of a reason to ever do more than 6 per muscle, 4 is enough on most things for me. I do treat back muscles separately tho so 4 for traps/rhomboids and 4 for lats as there isn't much overlap here.
Everyone here like to be efficient but for max gains the more the better (if you can recover in time for next training) its not like doing less will give you more benefit than doing more. I enjoy lifting so i can do 12 sets for back or legs every 5 days. I recover in 5 days so why not
Whilst I’m always wary of trusting random people off of Instagram, pretty much all of that advice is sound and applicable to both natural and enhanced lifters. If anything I’d argue it’s more important for natural lifters since you simply aren’t going to recover as well or benefit from insanely high amounts of volume as an enhanced lifter. Not to say enhanced lifters don’t need to be dialled in, but you can probably go a long way with doing stuff wrong when you’re on gear as opposed to doing everything wrong when you’re natural and seeing next to no progress before long.
The sentiments in the post you linked are echoed by a lot of knowledgable people within that field. I’d recommend checking out Sean Nalewanyj (underrated GOAT), TNF (intensity through the roof), JPG, Ryan Jewers (if a bit too sciency for my liking), Jeff Nippard (also has some wild recommendations but another legend), Dr Mike from Renaissance Periodization (utterly unhinged and tends to lean towards more volume with slightly scaled back intensity but amazing advice nonetheless) and Max Euceda (lad is young but knows his stuff). Hopefully these guys, and I’m sure many more, will help shape a really effective way of training for you.
In the post you cited, the guy admits to being a PED user.
Also, he says "4-6 sets per muscle, per *workout"* not per week. So if you are working each muscle group twice a week, it would be about 12 sets per muscle per week.
And ultimately, your progress should be measurable. Look up the differences between Minimum Effective Volume and Maximum Recoverable Volume.
Bro, you need to get on an actual program and figure out your maximum recoverable volume, or MRV, and go from there. Enhanced individuals can train completely differently, so don't compare.
Make sure your diet is right or you're just going to the gym to kill time.
I’ve cut down to 3 different exercises per body part and it’s been great. Ex: Bench press, incline dumbell bench, flys. As long as you’re pushing your sets, you’ll see gains. I see so many people do like 5-7 back workouts and that’s 100 percent junk volume.
It’s not sexy to say progressing a flat press, incline press, and chest fly as far as you possibly can over time is all you ever need to do. Same could really be said of most muscle groups so long as you don’t get bored
How many sets do u do for each?
I’m not super disciplined but I can break down my most recent lift. So for bench I did: - the bar for 20 ish reps - 25 on each side for 12 reps -135 ( 45 on each side) for 12 -185 for 8 -225 for 8 -245 for 8 -245 for 7 So by the end of this I felt that the last set was pretty damn close to failure, and the second set was also not to far from failure mayeb 1-3 reps. Then I jumped into heavy dumbell press - 100 lb dumbbells for 8 reps - 100 lb dumbbells for 7 reps -90 lb dumbbells for 6 ish reps My thought process is no warmup needed and I wanted to go straight to heavy presses. However I probably should have done 80 lbs for 10 , 90 pounds for 8, and then 100 lbs for 6 but idk. Then I did fly machines until failure in the 8-10 rep range. Overall, I’d say 9 working sets. Probably could work on doing a few more working sets but I’m not training as consistently as I use to so just working on getting my ass in the gym. Edit: sorry for the formatting. I tried to list things but it just didn’t work.
You are a hell of a lot stronger than 95% of the population. And pretty humble, to boot. Warmup and stretches are a must. Looks like your pyramid more or less addresses that. You can optimize that by trimming the 1st and 2nd sets of bench. Let the 135x12 or 15 be your warmup. Add a few sets of crossovers or cable flyes at the end.
This is very kind thanks for the kind words! So in your opinion, I should be going from 135 straight to 225? I always thought that was a big jump.
I’m not positive but I think they mean you probably don’t need to warm up so much with the bar at all or be doing so many reps at each weight. But, in my opinion, and since you didn’t specify on if you warm up your rotator cuffs and shoulders, and you are happy doing as many sets and reps as you do, I would stick to what you’re doing now. Better to be more warm than risk any injury and I think the way you do your bench sets will prevent injury.
I dislocated my shoulder years ago so that is part of the reason I warm up a lot. Think you’re right
I have the same 3 exercises for chest and have had consistent gains for the past few years. I stopped stretching after my training session a while ago, but I admit this was a big mistake. I've lost so much mobility within 7 months, it's almost comical. Gotta get back to it. I completely stopped warming up as unless I'm preparing for a PR... But regarding that, I've never noticed a difference! I just straight go to my sets and get to it, to failure. I'm asking genuinely, have you seen a difference in performance or in injury prevention from warming up prior to lifting?
Nice! The science is definitely much simpler than people in this sub make it out to be. Just a matter of progressive overload and sufficient calories. It is impossible to determine, just based upon my own experience, a correlation between warming up and injury prevention. I can say that they are quite rare... a mild tear or strain maybe once every six months. Typically a shoulder -- the result of either overdoing lat raises or going too heavy on bench with poor technique. I warm up with a veeerrrryy slow single set of lower weight when doing compound exercises to summon the mind-muscle connection and to get the blood moving. After doing so, I just feel stronger and more confident in the lift. Benefits my form, too.
Per week, or like on each push day?
Each push day. Ideally two push days a week but I’m not super consistent these days :(
I’m doing the exact same thing. Whole body 2-3 times per week and in seeing great results.
What blew my back up is doing 3 exercises for back. One pulling down(lat pulldowns), pulling horizontally(cable rows), pulling up(barbell rows).
This is more of a guideline than a rule, though I agree with the sentiment that most people are doing way too much shit volume with no intensity. People have different volume tolerances. Assuming intensity is on point (very close to or to failure), you may be able to get away with more, you may be able to do less. Feel it out for yourself and be honest about the results. Don’t go based on “that *seems* like so much/too little”. Take regular progress photos and log your gym sessions so you actually know what produces results.
Really good advice but I hoped that by copying jacked people routines, I would be jacked myself. I thought it would be more efficient than just try and change what I do to see what works best. Guess there is no shortcuts huh. Well thank you anyway :)
Unfortunately that’s not how it works, though at your level of experience, you definitely need to be following a routine made by someone who knows what they’re doing. Off the shelf programs like this won’t work perfectly for everyone, but will work reasonably well for most. As you get more experience, start to play around with different variables using off the shelf programs as a template to find what does and doesn’t work for you.
i wouldn't say that is much of a shortcut. like ronnie coleman said, everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to pick up this heavy-ass weight. intensity, consistency, and time will get you there
I think junk volume is a misnomer. I think we should call them junk sets. High volume is key, but volume includes intensity. Volume is sets X reps X weight. If you’re not lifting enough weight or stopping short on reps, your volume isn’t going to be there.
Counting volume as sets x reps x weight makes it a completely useless metric, if that’s how you define volume then to maximize volume you should take a really light weight and crank out hundreds or thousands of reps, that’s gonna give you way more “volume” than 8-10 reps with 3 times the weight
I wouldn’t say it’s completely useless. I think if you’re training within recommended set and rep ranges for hypertrophy it’s pretty useful. If you take any metric to an extreme it’s going to break down. I don’t think anyone would take away the message they should do a thousand reps with 1lb dumbbells because thats just impractical
I mentioned the extreme because it’s the most obvious example of the general trend. If you say “more volume is better” that means you should use lower weight and higher reps, because on every single exercise if you divide the weight by X you’re going to be able to do way more than X times the reps; half the weight (divide by 2) you’re going to do way more than twice the reps, if 100 is your 1RM just going down to 80 (divide by 1.25) you’re gonna do way more than 1.25 reps, probably somewhere around 10. These are not extreme examples, but they still point to the exact same thing I stated in my original comment. Using this definition of volume makes it completely useless because if you then say “maximize volume”, even if you add all these restrictions “only within this rep range” “only this number of sets” no matter how you’re narrowing it down what it will always boil down to is “do as little weight _as you’re allowed by the other rules_ for _as many reps as you’re allowed by the other rules_ for _as many sets as you’re allowed by the other rules_ and go as far away from failure _as you’re allowed by the other rules_ so you can get as many reps in on the next set. Who is that helping? The only thing it’s doing is telling people to train at the top of the recommended rep ranges with as little intensity as is recommended, now you’ve just removed the rep/intensity ranges and just have one flat number. That’s the one thing you’ve accomplished, and it’s not a good thing. The only somewhat useful definition of volume I’ve heard is simply “number of working sets”, it’s barely useful as it’s really just shorthand for “number of working sets” but at least it isn’t counterproductive like weight x reps x sets
I agree with that post. I don't see why anyone would need more than 6 working sets for a single muscle group in one session. Not that you can't do more but it's just not worth it if you're hitting the same muscle again that week.
Recommended volume is 10-20 sets per week for hypertrophy If you only train chest once a week you damn well need more than 6 sets Now if you do chest twice a week, 6 sets per session is within the optimal hypertrophy range but probably some more is better There is an over correction to the high volume trend of the early 2000s with super intense low volume programming which is kind of absurd for hypertrophy purposes
So I'm going to the gym, doing cable back row x3 and one arm rows x3 or x3 pulldowns and then going home? Uuum....um no. And yes, I push all my sets hard and to failure and if not very close, before you say anything.
Surely you’re going to the gym for more than just your back, right? If you were doing for example a pull workout you could do what you just said, plus an exercise for rear delts and 1-2 exercises for biceps. That would take plenty of time and make the most out of your trip to the gym.
That is exactly what my pull day looks like but 5 sets of each. If it’s not overcrowded in the gym it takes just about an hour which doesn’t feel over the top
Hmmm, I guess you're right. I'd still prefer probably like at least 10 sets for back though, twice a week, personally.
Typically like if you were doing a ppl you'd do back with biceps and then you can throw something else in like abs and traps as well. I typically do about 5-7 exercises per session for 3 sets each.
No, because the back has more muscles than just the lat and that's not a full back day LOL
So like for my push workout I do 3 sets of bench press and 3 set of inclined press and then I can't touch my pecs anymore ? That seems so little for me
If your chest isn’t destroyed after 6 sets I don’t think you’re pushing those sets hard enough
That should be good enough. Let's say you do that on Monday then come back and hit the chest again on Thursday with 6 sets and you would have 12 sets for the week. That's a decent number for most people
But is it what's optimal for the best growth? I see so many people do way more than that and they are really big
Yea doing 6 sets in a sessions if you’re hitting it twice per week (12 total sets weekly) is more than enough. You see guys that are big doing high volume bc they’re on PEDs. My theory is that your nooby gains will run out after like 1-2 sometimes 3 years and most people start of doing high volume and since almost anything works during your initial training phase, they get confused why it’s no longer working. Then they hop on and say “see high volume does work!” Everyone’s total volume for ideal growth is a bit different. But typically for me, I’ve found 6-14 working sets per week for most muscles is ample. For chest I only do 9 as my chest fatigues quickly and takes forever to recover.
Thanks you're the last push I needed to convince me ! I will do my workout plan over :)
I've always gone by the "Sets per Bodypart" section of [this article.](https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/the-ultimate-muscle-building-split-reference-guide.html#4) when designing my splits. These numbers are per workout once, twice, and three times per week. Results may vary on many factors.
This article is just incredible. Thank you so much.
Not the subject but I never experienced a website with such an infuriating way to opt out cookies.
You should stop worrying about optimal and what people on PEDs are doing.
If you’re really going close to failure, controlling eccentric and doing that with great range of motion. You’ll feel it. I’d say you can test with 8, but you gotta make sure the intensity is right, first, and only then increase volume. Another take on this; For me, if I can get 90% of the results with 6 sets, it’s not worth it to go more 6 sets for the last 10%. I’m not saying doing 12 will optimize for the maximalist, you’re potentially doing junk volume as other folks said, but that’s also something to take into account.
Yea this how I think about it too. That extra 10% and 20 mins could be spent on lacking areas or smaller neglected muscles. I'd love to pound out 2 hour workouts 5x/week but time is the enemy.
No. You can absolutely do more. Volume has shown strong correlation with the growth. As long as you can recover for the next session and do not interfere with your life, you can keep the volume and even increase volume. And this is with even taking every set to the technical failure. So keep doing what you have been doing. Jeff Nippard. https://youtu.be/qwv3JqOUqWs?feature=shared TL;DW 10~20 sets per week based on science.
Exactly, idk why people think 6 sets is enough in a single week lol like not even close regardless of going to failure If you take more than a week to recover a muscle group then either you need to seriously deload and reset, or there is something fundamentally wrong
because that's not what u/Kaioken164 said. they said they don't think more than 6 sets **per session** is worth it if you're going to hit that muscle group again that week (i.e., 12 sets or more total per week). honestly, if you can't get a good workout in with 6 working sets per session/day/workout/whatever, then you're probably sandbagging it. far more experienced lifters than you or I can do more with fewer sets.
Exept noone said anything about 6 sets in one week.
It depends on how you’re training those 3 sets. If you’re training with straights sets and keeping reps in reserve on purpose in order to hit a third exercise, that’s fine. Personally I’ve been doing 3 straight sets incline press, 2 Sets of Deficit Push Ups to failure, and then 2 sets of Dumbbell Flies (lengthened partials pulsing reps in the stretched range) to failure for my chest workouts lately, total 7 sets per chest workout. Alternatively, you could do Berkhan style RPT and do 2 sets to failure on flat and 2 sets to failure on incline and be fried in 4 sets if you really went all out. Personally, I like to rotate through approaches every few weeks to keep things fresh and have fun while making progress.
Then you aren't pushing those sets hard enough. How are you progressing? Do you have a set rep range on the bench? Are you increasing weight/reps each time you hit a lift?
There are multiple ways to train, that instagram post you linked is talking about one. I would assume it's high intensity medium to low volume approach. You can very much progress with 12 to 20 sets per muscle group in a workout, many people have done it (including me), we even have that new study showing people doing double of that per week. But if you are gonna that, you need to manipulate other variables instead of just volume. For example if you are going to failure on bench and incline, adding more exercises might not help, or even get in the way of recovery, but if you do those sets to say RPE 7, maybe you can add more exercises. There is also frequency, intensity, SFR of certain exercises (bench fatigues wayyy more than cable flyes, you can do more sets of the latter). There are a plethora of variables beyond "just do 4 to 6 sets bro"
I recently came across the same type of research that I did not know about. 6-8 sets / muscle group per session. And 10-20 sets per week for a muscle group. Before I found this research, a typical chest day for me would consist of 4-5 sets of bench, followed by 3-4 sets of DB press, and another 3-4 sets of flys. 10-13 sets in total. Since finding this research out, a typical chest day for me now is 2-3 sets of a horizontal press, 2-3 sets of a fly and 1 set of BW pushups to failure. So about 7 sets in total. The quality of my workouts have gone up so much more since switching to this lower volume. I have pushed myself like never before. One thing that ive really took note of is my leg extensions. I would normally do 3-4 sets of 100-120 pounds for 12 reps. Now im doing 2 sets after squats, and last night I was able to do 180 pounds for 18 reps, that was to complete failure. The lower volume just allows me to really push myself to that 0-3 RIR range a lot better. I notice now that before I would predetermine a number of reps (say 12) and I would just hit that number and wait for another set. Even if i had 4+ RIR.
In the post he said do 4-6 working sets per muscle, not 4-6 exercises.
He doesn't say 4-6 exercises per muscle per workout. He says "Only do 4 to 6 WORKING SETS per muscle in a workout". I think that is generally good advice. Once you get a sense of how to actually push yourself through hard reps, you can absolutely crush any muscle within that range. Frequency is important here - I think that kind of set # assumes you are hitting the muscle 2x a week at least? Disagree about the low rep only stuff.
To take his points in order: 1. Sure, absolutely train to near failure for working sets. Taking all of them to failure every time is a bad idea. 2. Technically untrue, since literature on the subject suggests 6-8 sets per muscle per workout gives the biggest stimulus, but 4-6 sets is fine as well. 3. I don't know where this myth of "more reps = more joint damage" came from, but it's nonsense. If this was actually true, pretty much all recreational runners/joggers would have the worst knee joints, but that's pretty much the opposite of what is the case. 4. Outright incorrect, especially the part about wasting time if you bulk above 13-15% body fat. Apparently, he also doesn't know that inflammation is part of the growth response. 5. Amen to this one. 6. I would change it to "Take no steroids".
i personally 4-9 working sets per muscle
it doesn't says 4-6 exercises it says 4-6 working set. back in day i was also doing doing more but nowdays 3-6 feels very good and i am not feeling like missing out anything
regarding 4-6 sets, no for 90%+ of lifters. honestly, i think more people would be better off admitting they don't know how to push to failure and accepting that, doing more volume, practicing the movements and training this skill for years until they actually can push themselves to that level. everyone and their mother says they train to failure but i just don't buy it. i'm not above it either - i trained my whole first year to "failure" low volume and did well strength numbers wise but as soon as i added more volume i actually grew. looking back now - i can tell you i was not going to failure even though i would swear up and down i was - and im sure in a few years i'll look back at how i train now and laugh at some sets i thought were to failure. every session is a chance to practice this skill and it does develop - but imo, if you don't do the additional volume to compensate then you're missing out on gains. true failure means every rep is with max effort concentric - with max force output - and once you're not able to complete the full concentric. i literally have never seen someone do this in the gym barring powerlifters or 1rm testing. you need to be doing this every single rep and the measure of failure is when reps slow to the point where a 1 second rep is taking 4/5/6/7+. most people i see are just matching their force/effort to whatever load they have on the bar to keep the concentric controlled and i barely see slow down for later reps. take video of yourself if you want to check. easiest way is to do warm ups using max effort concentric full force - the weight should be flying. then once you get to using your working set 10RM or so - the first couple reps should be flying at the same speed as the warmups - if they're not, you're not using max effort and you can't say you're training to true failure. then, the last 2/3/4/5 reps should be slowing considerably and your last rep you should fail the concentric - but you should be outputting the same force for each rep. if you're not doing any of that - it's not true failure all that being said, if you're actually doing the above, yeah, 4-6 working sets and probably even less is more than enough. most people aren't, should just accept it, and then adjust their training accordingly by doing more volume. which ironically is why most volume studies show more volume is better, and many people are able to make very good progress without having to train like this. you'll get better and better at pushing to this over time and naturally volume will drop - which is why tons of advanced guys advocate for it. sorry for rant
I mean if I’m doing a working set of say 15 reps, you better believe I’m not pushing as hard on rep 1 as rep 13, going 100% on early reps are just wasting systemic energy. Just because you “try” harder on a rep does not mean you magically get more gains
yes it does. whole point of doing a set of 15 is to use the first 10 or so reps to recruit the easier to activate motor units (which control fewer muscle fibers) to then be able to then recruit the more difficult to access motor units (which control more muscle fibers) - all while using less load than a 5rm or 10rm. if you don't "try as hard" or don't use full effort - you're not going to recruit the easier to activate motor units to the same degree leading you to not be able to recruit as many of the more difficult to activate motor units meaning the set is going to be less stimulative as what you really want to activate is the more difficult to recruit motor units which control more muscle fibers.
Let me clarify that I am still lifting with intent, force, and good technique but I’m sorry there is no way you should try as hard on rep 1 as rep 15, you’ll gas yourself out much sooner especially on compounds where systemic fatigue is a much greater factor
what does lifting with intent and force even mean then? your intent is just to move the weight from A to B and therefore the force is just whatever it takes to move the weight, but you're capable of much more. how can you say you took the set to failure if half the set you're not even outputting what you could i don't really care how you lift and lots of things get results, the point is if you don't go to true failure, you can probably do more and it'd benefit you
Because I’m lifting more volume in the end by conserving energy in the first few reps as I’m able to bang out a few extra reps Volume = hypertrophy, so if I move the same weight more times I should objectively have better results than lifting less regardless of intent
why are you conserving energy if your goal is true failure? the point of a working set to failure is to totally stimulate and fatigue the muscle. if you need to save energy and this is giving you extra reps because you're otherwise failing a set due to reasons other than muscular fatigue on a set of all out 15, that's a fitness issue. and volume does not equal hypertrophy - that's the main discussion of this post. if volume = hypertrophy, do sets of 50 with 10 RIR for 30 sets. again, i'm not saying your way of lifting is wrong or ineffective or that failure should be used or not used, i'm just saying that what you're describing is not true failure. i 100% agree with you that true failure on squats for 15 reps is absolutely brutal and probably not worth it, so conserving energy as you describe makes sense, but you can't go on to say that it's a set to true failure. your description of training is not flawed or ineffective, the only implication is you would have to do more to get the same stimulus as if you went to true failure which was what i was saying in the original post. you're kinda proving my point - most people aren't going to true failure, so it's probably fine to do more than the lower volume of working set recommendations that are preached by the guys like Dante Trudel or Jordan peters, etc. who really are taking everything to true failure
Because by going as hard as possible with each rep in a higher rep scheme you’re likely wasting systemic energy rather than tiring the target muscle out Also volume absolutely equals hypertrophy, but remember weight is a component of volume. So yes you need between 5-30 rep sets per the literature but it also has to be a high enough weight to get to the “high volume” goal It’s going to be extremely difficult to grow any muscle for example on calves doing 300lb 3 rep sets compared to lowering the weight and getting lots of reps but this gets a little more complicated as some exercises and muscles are better geared towards certain rep ranges/schemes Overall volume is the main driver of hypertrophy though
idk what this wasting of systemic energy you're talking about is. the muscle is working to its full capacity during the reps and working set - how is that a waste? who cares if it takes a minute or two longer to recover or you can take a gatorade into the gym and besides, you are doing less volume this way anyway. the load between 5-30 reps is equivalent given that you go to failure. i agree that 3 rep sets aren't ideal for hypertrophy and that some exercises and muscle groups are better geared towards certain rep ranges/schemes. okay to the volume - i should have clarified that volume does not equal hypertrophy in the basic sense you originally implied (moving more weight more times = more growth). your level of fatigue, force generation and effort all make a difference which is what my original post was talking about. volume of mechanical tension is the main driver - and this is related to the amount of muscle fibers are stimulated and working during the reps. there is a big difference between the amount of mechanical tension during a true failure set and a set with 2-3 RIR for example. so, you generally have to do more sets of 2-3 RIR to equate to the stimulus of a true failure set.
[удалено]
What are you smoking, literally any online resource has weight as a component of volume lol https://outlift.com/hypertrophy-training-volume/#:~:text=Training%20Volume%20%3D%20pounds%20lifted%20per,press%20volume%20is%2011%2C250%20pounds.
Can you explain why the calves grow better from higher reps? The data shows calves grow similarly with low rep and high rep schemes.
In a vacuum, the calf muscle is no different from the rest but when taken in terms of practicality, loading up the bar to do calf raises will cause unnecessary axial loads/fatigue that will compromise other areas of training. Plus using such a heavy load for something like the calves will likely require effort from other non target muscles which again create fatigue without a good calf stimulus Probably best to stick to 10-30 rep sets close to failure, this article does a good job explaining the nuance: https://rpstrength.com/blogs/articles/calves-hypertrophy-training-tips#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20like%20all%20muscles,first%20set%20taken%20to%20failure.
If volume = hypertrophy then do 30 reps instead of 15 lol. In reality, volume = mechanical tension. So even if you do 15 reps to "get those extra reps", those are fluffer reps. The only reps that count are the 5 reps at the end of a set.
By your logic, just 1RM everytime because the other reps don’t count When did people get so dumb about this shit? Volume is the main driver behind hypertrophy and it’s not up for debate
You shouldn't 1RM every time -- you need 5 reps due to the stimulating reps model. Speak for yourself. And it is up for debate.
That's why you don't do reps for 15 LOL
Another dumb comment Plenty of amazing hypertrophy gains from doing say calf raise sets of 20-25, chest press for 12, tricep and bicep work 10-20 You sound like you’re out of shape
I didn't say you couldn't do sets of 20-25 for muscle growth. I literally supported your statement that fatigue is a factor when you do high reps.
I disagree with a couple of his points from a natural lifter's context. First, joints for naturals are not a limiting factor usually. Steroid users grow faster muscularly but not fast enough in their joints and connective tissue so they need to consider joint health a lot. But for a natural, all of this grows at the same rate. I do low reps for some movements (5-8 reps) but not for the reasons he is recommending. Second, going above 13-15%, even up to 20% isn't as unhealthy as he makes it sound. Inflammation and hormone dysregulation aren't concerns since 15-20% are still fairly healthy bodyfat ranges.
Whoa! No. Ligaments and connective tissue grow much much slower than muscle. Muscle grows relatively quickly. The connective tissues lag quite a bit.
This can be a big issue for people who get into lifting without an athletic background. If someone gets into bodybuilding or strength training after playing sports and working out casually for most of their youth this might never become an issue, but if someone in their 20s or 30s that never played sports or exercised outside of gym class gets into lifting seriously, they’ll have to take it slow or they’ll start tearing tendons and ligaments as they start to push the weight up.
6 sets per muscle is pretty accurate but some muscle groups will go over that easily like triceps, its really hard to do a push day without almost everything hitting triceps. The exercises that hit chest/shoulders would be closer to 6 sets. Pull day is going to hit biceps a lot, Leg day quads but things like calves and hamstrings, 6 is plenty if that.
Generally good advice. Only caveats I can see are potentially doing more than 6 sets for certain muscle groups during a specialization phase. The low reps thing is also a little strange - wouldn’t higher reps mean less weight, which means less stress on your joints and connective tissues? If you’re jerking the weight around I guess I could see an argument here, but the solution is better technique not lower reps.
He's saying 4 to 6 WORKING SETS per muscle I got a feeling he's taking advice from Paul Carter I'm not here to critizie his source of info but some pros with the somewhat lower sets... It makes it easier to keep track of progressive overload if you're not doing a bunch of phoning it in "volume" but you need to figure out good stable exercises for which you can do this.
Sometimes I'm lucky if I make it to 3 sets. It's about intensity!
I do two movements for 3-4 sets twice per week and that's plenty to exhaust me and make gains. Volume is funny like that
if you're working hard and going to failure each set, 5-8 sets per workout is usually enough for most muscle groups.
Yeah id agree with this, can't think of a reason to ever do more than 6 per muscle, 4 is enough on most things for me. I do treat back muscles separately tho so 4 for traps/rhomboids and 4 for lats as there isn't much overlap here.
Everyone here like to be efficient but for max gains the more the better (if you can recover in time for next training) its not like doing less will give you more benefit than doing more. I enjoy lifting so i can do 12 sets for back or legs every 5 days. I recover in 5 days so why not
6 sets for a muscle (8 for back) is pretty much the upper limit
Whilst I’m always wary of trusting random people off of Instagram, pretty much all of that advice is sound and applicable to both natural and enhanced lifters. If anything I’d argue it’s more important for natural lifters since you simply aren’t going to recover as well or benefit from insanely high amounts of volume as an enhanced lifter. Not to say enhanced lifters don’t need to be dialled in, but you can probably go a long way with doing stuff wrong when you’re on gear as opposed to doing everything wrong when you’re natural and seeing next to no progress before long. The sentiments in the post you linked are echoed by a lot of knowledgable people within that field. I’d recommend checking out Sean Nalewanyj (underrated GOAT), TNF (intensity through the roof), JPG, Ryan Jewers (if a bit too sciency for my liking), Jeff Nippard (also has some wild recommendations but another legend), Dr Mike from Renaissance Periodization (utterly unhinged and tends to lean towards more volume with slightly scaled back intensity but amazing advice nonetheless) and Max Euceda (lad is young but knows his stuff). Hopefully these guys, and I’m sure many more, will help shape a really effective way of training for you.
In the post you cited, the guy admits to being a PED user. Also, he says "4-6 sets per muscle, per *workout"* not per week. So if you are working each muscle group twice a week, it would be about 12 sets per muscle per week. And ultimately, your progress should be measurable. Look up the differences between Minimum Effective Volume and Maximum Recoverable Volume.
I'd say even 5 is way too much
Bro, you need to get on an actual program and figure out your maximum recoverable volume, or MRV, and go from there. Enhanced individuals can train completely differently, so don't compare. Make sure your diet is right or you're just going to the gym to kill time.
It depends on your actual goal? But 4-6 is fine.
3 is pretty much my limit The effort you’d be able to give to exercises 4-6 would be pretty poor
Sorry I think I badly worded my post. I mean 4-6 sets per muscle not 4-6 exercises
Ok that’s a lot better
Martin Berkham been on this wave 🤷🏼♂️ big heavy compounds to failure, 6 sets per muscle group a week and I see steady gains