Higher Volume Training

[simon m]

When I was in my late teens and after doing Arnold style volume training, I discover Mike Mentzer and HIT and made some very good gains on this, but since returning to training last year, I've found that the higher rep workout with some HIT methods such as Rest/Pause is more beneficial.

I also see the higher set/rep workout as a more healthy training style as I'm increasing my heart rate and getting a cardio workout to boot.

My theory is that due to age and injury I cannot generate quite so much intensity as I used to, but what do older trainers think - is it a case that the older you get the more sets you need?

[kp1512]

Quote

When I was in my late teens and after doing Arnold style volume training, I discover Mike Mentzer and HIT and made some very good gains on this, but since returning to training last year, I've found that the higher rep workout with some HIT methods such as Rest/Pause is more beneficial.

I also see the higher set/rep workout as a more healthy training style as I'm increasing my heart rate and getting a cardio workout to boot.

My theory is that due to age and injury I cannot generate quite so much intensity as I used to, but what do older trainers think - is it a case that the older you get the more sets you need?

Doing Higher volume with HIT WILL overtrain you very easily if you dont have a)above average recoverability b) decent test levels c) good diet in place

Obv you have some circumstances in place which inhibits you from training hard and heavy on select bodyparts, but doing too much will effect you over the weeks, both CNS, Muscle, and overall mood and feel.

In so far as Volume Training...well...why do something that takes 5 years to get your goal, which can take 18-25 months...mindless to me; and Ive never understood this...but people still do it.

KP

[AlexTemper]

Quote

Doing Higher volume with HIT WILL overtrain you very easily if you dont have a)above average recoverability b) decent test levels c) good diet in place

Obv you have some circumstances in place which inhibits you from training hard and heavy on select bodyparts, but doing too much will effect you over the weeks, both CNS, Muscle, and overall mood and feel.

In so far as Volume Training...well...why do something that takes 5 years to get your goal, which can take 18-25 months...mindless to me; and Ive never understood this...but people still do it.

KP

From personal experience it's just as easy to lose the quicker gains where as volume will allow you to hold onto them for longer.

I'd rather choose the latter which is why I class a quality gain not just as the lean mass gained but also the ease of it's retention.

I like to work with as harsh an environment as I can interms of the training I put my body through. If I can gain under these circumstances then they'll stick. Also I find it a lot more fun

[simon m]

KP


I'd say that a lot of the volume I do is warmups as I jump up in weight considerably from the first set to the last!

[Dtlv74]

Have never really done this kind of training - I kind of feel I should give it a try at some point just to see how it works for me. Just out of interest, what are the recommendations of high volume trainers out there for starting such a routine... should you launch right into high volume or build up gradually?

[Bison]

What would be regarded as high volume?

[Dtlv74]

Quote

What would be regarded as high volume?

My personal definition would be over 50 reps per bodypart per session (that's probably not a lot by some others standards)... or sessions lasting more than 90 mins.

[Bison]

I wouldn't regard 50 reps as particularly high volume, especially for those who only hit muscle groups once a week. 2 exercises for 3 sets of 10 reps is 60 reps for a start.

This is why I asked the question I did, we could all have a discussion on a topic and have totally different ideas about the volume involved.

[simon m]

Quote

My personal definition would be over 50 reps per bodypart per session (that's probably not a lot by some others standards)... or sessions lasting more than 90 mins.

The session length has to be below an hour, or it's just not intense enough.

I have minimal rest between sets and I think that Alex is the same, perhaps this is a rugby thing?

[kp1512]

Quote

From personal experience it's just as easy to lose the quicker gains where as volume will allow you to hold onto them for longer.

I'd rather choose the latter which is why I class a quality gain not just as the lean mass gained but also the ease of it's retention.

I like to work with as harsh an environment as I can interms of the training I put my body through. If I can gain under these circumstances then they'll stick. Also I find it a lot more fun

Id have to strongly diasgree with this...whether its volume or not, you keep the gains and lose them based on the supplementary diet, and theres not one iota of evidence to suggest anything other. Seeing as though you do not and probably have not trained HIT i think its probably hard for your to make a comparison; in all fairness.

A muscle and any gain is oblivious to the volume, aside from ensuring it has been taken to task via muscle breakdown and thus micro trauma......when doing higher volume you merely make that trauma more...and again this is FACT based on muscle disection and scientific data on the state of muscle fibres and damage done to them.

A question to you

How long have you been training?

Reading a post from previous, I recollect that you have always been a trainer using high volume...so how long would you say this has been?

KP