High Volume vs Low Volume Training

One of the most common questions that come up with weight training is how many exercises and sets you should perform; how long should you work-out for.

We've been led to believe that, historically, bodybuilders typically used long workouts with lots of sets. That sometimes equated to 40-plus sets, a workout that lasted over two hours. Irrespective of the accuracy of this perception, we're sure that this was the image presented by mainstream bodybuilding of the '70s and '80s. Were the articles accurate reflections of the bodybuilders' methods? Probably not — but they sure as hell made good reading!

Not to long after that magazine readers found out the pro’s and top amateurs used anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroid supports recovery and allows bigger workloads. Whatever was the truth, the reading public came to believe that if you want to be a bodybuilder, you need a high-volume workout, and you must also take drugs! So, with this little icing on the cake, the workouts had a greater chance of working. Were these high-volume workouts optimal, even for the drug user? I doubt it.

It was only natural that some began to question the tradition of high-volume training. But there are arguments for both sides of the fence.

On the pic Mike Menzer and Dorian Yates.

Industry icons, such as Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, were among those to pioneer the popularization of an alternative: high-intensity, very low-volume, single-set training. In the 1980's, Casey Viator, the youngest Mr. America and Mr. Olympia contestant, and Mike Mentzer, Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia contestant, promoted the high-intensity, low-volume training. More recently, two of the greatest bodybuilders, six-time Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates and eight-time Mr. Olympia Lee Haney, reportedly performed only a warm-up set and one or occasionally two workout sets throughout his off-season training.

On the pic Arnolds high volume beginners routine.

But then you had some equally successful bodybuilders that follow a high volume method of training. Arnold  Schwarzenegger (and lots of his buddies) was known for training with extreme high volume. Obviously both methods work because these guys were conquering champions in their sport. Joe Weider, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger developed this volume training philosophy, which is a 20-sets-per-body part routine. Larger muscles, like the legs, might need 25 sets. Smaller muscles, such as the biceps, need less. Maybe 12-15 sets. This is the way most bodybuilders trained. No one really questioned it. You just did it. There was another school of bodybuilders that took the volume training one step further. Serge Nubret, did up to 40 sets per body part. Steve Michalik, a former Mr. America, would perform around 75 sets per body part. He called his training "Intensity or Insanity." I'd say that was appropriately named.

A lot of this controversy comes from bodybuilding magazines. You need something to write or discuss about, right? In the 1970's Weider was promoting his high-volume approach (based on his "Weider Principles") against Arthur Jones' Nautilus principles (i.e. "HIT"), which were running in Iron Man.

You can also use periodization (later in this blogpost) or combine both. Many work with low volume – high intensity and top muscle-group training of with a pump-set to failure. Numerous power and strength training periodization techniques have been developed to cycle training volumes, allowing for periods of low volume and thereby maximizing training results. Bodybuilding training requires pain, hunger, sacrifice, dedication, all of it with the ultimate goal of improving your body.

So when it comes to the rest of us who simply enjoy training yet may not compete, what method is best? You don't need to choose between one or the other.

One of the many beauties bodybuilding and strength training offers, one of them is that there are really no rules because training methods have various impacts on individuals as we’re all different. Much of this has to do with genetics in regards to how our muscles respond. With this being said, it’s clear that both low and high volume training methods can produce some massive results in new muscle growth and strength. The key here is to find what works for you, and more importantly, when to change it up.

Low Volume Training

Low volume workouts are great when you want to train with all-out intensity. But for this method to be effective, you must train until you reach absolute muscle failure.  You’ll only be hitting about three to four exercises per body part, and performing one to two working sets for each exercise. These working sets are the sets you should train until failure on. So we can add high intensity workouts to low volume training as they go together.

Some bodybuilders and weight trainers believe that being in the gym too long can be counterproductive and actually diminish muscle gains. One of the things that makes a low volume training workout convenient is that you’re in and out of the gym quickly. You’ll walk out of the gym pumped, and knowing that you gave max effort of every working set. Another important factor of low volume training is recovery. You’re going to be pushing your muscles to their maximum potential so you’ll need to make sure you get the proper nutrition and supplements for your muscles to recover and grow. Pic: Arthur Jones and Casey Viator.

Drummond et all 2008: Low-intensity resistance exercise can alter skeletal muscle mRNA expression of several genes associated with muscle growth and remodeling, such as REDD1, HIF-1alpha, MyoD, MuRF1, and myostatin.

High Volume Training

With high volume training you’ll typically be performing anywhere from four to six exercises per body part hitting three to five sets each exercise. Some may start out doing four to five sets for the first several exercises, then for the last few they may only do three sets. The idea with this weight training method is more is better. However, with high volume training you won’t be going to failure, or at least not often.

High volume workouts doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be training with light weights or with low intensity. You should still be training hard and heavy. During this phase you will certainly need to up your carb intake and take in some extra amino acids for recovery. You’ll be in the gym longer with high volume training so more than likely you’re going to burn more calories than usual.

Alternating High & Low Volume Workouts

So are high volume workouts better, or low volume workouts? I believe both weight training methods can be used to maximize muscle gains. It’s good to change up your workout routine from time to time. You’ll probably experience more long term muscle growth if you were to do high volume workouts for, let’s say three weeks followed by low volume workouts for three weeks, rather than doing just one method for that six weeks. The same applies to rep ranges in your workouts.

Here’s a quick reference guide to implementing both high volume and low volume training into your workout routine:

Weeks 1-3: High Volume Workouts

Weeks 4-6: Low Volume Workouts

Weeks 7-9: High Volume Workouts

Weeks 10-12: Low Volume Workouts

Making slight changes in your workouts every few weeks will shock your muscles. You don’t necessarily have to make extreme changes though. In other words, you can perform the same exercises with both high volume and low volume training, or at least keep your core mass building exercises. Try changing the volume of your workouts every few weeks as described above and see if that leads to new muscle gains.

Goto et all 2003 came to this conclusion: “These results suggests that a high intensity, low volume training protocol to induce neural adaptation resulted in little GH response, but GH secretion was increased by performing a single set of low intensity resistance exercise at the end of a series of high intensity resistance sets.”

Pruitt et al 1995: “ These findings suggest that high-intensity and low-intensity resistance training regimens effectively increase muscular strength.”

Perodization

The first table shows a variation of linear periodization in which the number of sets reduces in a constant manner, thereby allowing the intensity to raise in a reverse manner. This method has been popularized in American strength science literature for some 20 years, so it's old-hat to some and not cutting-edge enough. Nevertheless, I find that it's an effective method for those with less experience, and for those who need to carefully monitor changes in strength and skill through specialization in any one lift. This latter group includes strength athletes at all levels.

The second table, using a variation of alternating periodization, is more "hip" because it's relatively new to American strength training. Despite this, West German sports scientist Dietmar Schmidtbliecher, one of its early proponents, was writing about this method some 20 years ago! So, in reality, it's no more "new" than linear periodization. I find this method to be effective for those who have the necessary experience to handle more radical shifts in their program, and for those who are more interested in size than strength. It's certainly effective in keeping the body continually adapting!

If I had to choose between volume and intensity — you know, "if you were stranded in a gym all by yourself and could only choose one training variable," I'd go with intensity. I believe that intensity is more important to neural-based training (such as strength training) than volume. But this doesn't mean that I'm going to throw out volume. It plays a role, too.

If you're not stranded in a gym and limited to one training variable, you don't need to choose between one or the other — this isn't a presidential election. You can enjoy the benefits that both have to offer.

What this girl has to do with this blogpost? Nothing but it surely looks niiice, right?