I think someone wrote about this a while back on here but what if you trained a muscle group Daily with 1 set to failure, would this constitute volume by the end of the week & would enough stimulation be present for growth?letīs say i did an abbreviated routine of ..Parallel bar dips 1 set to failure Under grip supinated chins 1 set to failureBarbell squats. 1 set to failureIf i did just 1 set to absolute failure at least 5 days ( maybe 7) a week would growth be evident after say 6 months?
On paper maybe but in reality no. If you train with 1 set to failure (doesn't have to be to failure btw) per exercise 5 to 7 days you're still only doing 5 to 7 sets a muscle part at the end of the week. It still not enough to maximise gains for muscle growth.
aside from the weekly number of sets ..would the daily stimulation trigger growth ? I mean the signal to the muscles is being sent more often what iīm getting at is the daily stimulation
It would help to maintain maybe but to trigger further growth, no.
The truth is you will not look like a drug using bodybuilder without taking drugs, no matter how you train.However, if you take the drugs and train just about any way, you will look very muscular.
I just finished six sets of half mile repeats does that count? I used a quarter mile warm up and quarter mile cool down. Then I hit the heavy bag for a couple of three minute rounds. Getting back to multiple sets Robert Kennedy said this. He might be right on target. He said in effect that one set to failure gets you 85% of a stressor for adaptation. Two sets might bring you to 90%. Three sets might bring you to 92%. In other words more sets is better but there is diminishing returns. It's just apples to oranges. A 400 meter runner would never put down a 10K runner's training as easy because it isn't as intense. A 10K runner will never say a 400 meter runner doing 200 meter repeats is a walk in the park. It's too different types of training.No one does more full ass to the ground squats than Olympic lifters. They use low reps and plenty of sets with heavy weight. While they have thick muscular thighs they don't compare to bodybuilders. Then again a bodybuilders by definition are pumped up with drugs. True, the best way to build muscle for lack of a better term might be to train for muscular endurance as in multiple sets and high reps. Danny Padilla touched on this. To paraphrase him he said he tried HIT and used seriously heavy weights. He said his workouts became scary. Scary was the word he used. Maybe he meant dread. Hard to go into a gym everyday knowing you're going to bang your head into the wall so to speak. He said he got his best results doing 5 sets of 12 reps using the same weight for an exercise.
And he did. Danny had great genetics but he did train same weight 12 reps for 4 to 5 sets. Knew him in Worlds. Same thing with Steve Davis. He did 6 sets same reps for 10. And then trained with Berytl Fox. Extremely heavy weights working up in weight each set. And trained with Roger Callard. He loved supper setting two chest exercises together. I guess the message is. Everything works. And btw. I knew Ray Mentzer fairly well. And HIT did not get him big..
It would be an interesting experiment
Maybe be. But then you would be gravitating towards volume.
yes i suppose so, i take it you mean volume as in the number of working out days ?1-2 sets max a day would be max 14 sets over a week, 5 days 10 sets. still low volume for a muscle group or if using just basic exercises multiple muscle groups needing only 1 exercise to stimulate multiple growth.
I mean that Mentzer advocated the absolute least working volume possible, using the intensity approach to produce results. Incorporating more work than the bare minimum necessary (by his beliefs) would be counterproductive in his eyes. Obviously it was his views, we have ours.