ascensionneeeded
sub5 infraorbitals
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2024
- Posts
- 862
- Reputation
- 1,072
i’m just going to assume that fbeod is more optimal than 3x or 2x a week frequency, despite the confusion over the past weeks. the issue is that we know volume is still very important and we also know that when training at a low rep range (and to 1 RIR) that our max recoverable volume is actually extremely high. 12 weekly sets per muscle will result in more growth than 4 weekly sets per muscle. this means, in theory, you should aim for 3 sets per muscle per session. if we train a muscle in the same movement, the same fibres are hit and this results in diminishing returns on any additional set in comparison to choosing a different movement that hits different fibres (although some will likely overlap)
i just don’t understand how, if you were to bias each major head of each muscle, it would make any sense for these sets to contribute to the weekly volume. like if i bias side delts and front delts doing pure shoulder flexion and also pure shoulder abduction, i just don’t see how those 2 sets will contribute to more overall growth for my shoulders than less sets that aren’t biased. if we ignore the obvious fact that this is more efficient and doesn’t have the diminishing stimulus issue, it must mean that one set per muscle head per session is all you need. the other issue that comes into play is the fact that when we take into account the diminishing stimulus from the same movements, we are inclined to try and find other potentially sub-optimal movements and there is no way in telling if this will lead to equivalent growth. let’s say we give units to the stimulus. now let’s say we do pec-dec and an upper chest fly - this gives us 6 units + 6 units (both optimal movements). but now to hit our 3 sets we need another set - either another set of the movement we did or a new movement. i can’t think of another movement that wouldn’t roughly hit the same fibres and be just as optimal, although imagine someone did a chest press machine (ik lots of fibres overlap) and they gain +4 units, whereas another set of the pec dec would give +5 units, even though it’s dropped from 6
it seems like it might be a struggle to do 3 sets per muscle per session and find optimal movements that bias the majority of other fibres for every set. this can lead to the programming being a bit tricky
i just don’t understand how, if you were to bias each major head of each muscle, it would make any sense for these sets to contribute to the weekly volume. like if i bias side delts and front delts doing pure shoulder flexion and also pure shoulder abduction, i just don’t see how those 2 sets will contribute to more overall growth for my shoulders than less sets that aren’t biased. if we ignore the obvious fact that this is more efficient and doesn’t have the diminishing stimulus issue, it must mean that one set per muscle head per session is all you need. the other issue that comes into play is the fact that when we take into account the diminishing stimulus from the same movements, we are inclined to try and find other potentially sub-optimal movements and there is no way in telling if this will lead to equivalent growth. let’s say we give units to the stimulus. now let’s say we do pec-dec and an upper chest fly - this gives us 6 units + 6 units (both optimal movements). but now to hit our 3 sets we need another set - either another set of the movement we did or a new movement. i can’t think of another movement that wouldn’t roughly hit the same fibres and be just as optimal, although imagine someone did a chest press machine (ik lots of fibres overlap) and they gain +4 units, whereas another set of the pec dec would give +5 units, even though it’s dropped from 6
it seems like it might be a struggle to do 3 sets per muscle per session and find optimal movements that bias the majority of other fibres for every set. this can lead to the programming being a bit tricky
