Whats your take on doing the same amount of sets for every muscle group?

[HBK]

At the moment I do 3 exercises for legs with 3 sets on each, that's 9 sets altogether (and that's how I'm going to write the rest of this)
9 for upper back,
6 for lower back,
6 for biceps,
6 for triceps
6 for chest
12 for stomach
12 for forearms (I'm sure I've missed a group there, ahh well)

do you think that's a bad mix? I mean it works for me, but apparently it's bad just wondered what you thought. I picked muscle groups to work harder that I would need more than the others in kickboxing, that's how i came to this workout.

Hey look! a sheep!

[Dtlv74]

As with every single aspect on training there are several theories on volume! I think it depends how you structure your workouts.

Using triceps for an example, if doing a push/pull/legs, then on the pecs, delts, tris day you wouldn't need much work by the time you got to the tris as they'd already be quite exhausted, and likewise for bi's on the pull day.

If however you do tris in a workout seperate from other pressing movements then you can justify doing almost as many sets on them. Remember, training the big muscles is very demanding on the body while training the smaller ones is far less so - and so some trainers suggest actually doing more sets for smaller muscles.