Agreed.
I know a lot of people think more is more and maybe TS is guilty of it. Sano, you've probably seen this study comparing German Volume Training vs a program with half the amount of volume. Small sample size over the course of 12 weeks but the 10x10 group showed no significant benefit in that type of training over the 5x10 group.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969184/
I'd imagine there's a psychological component to facing a hard 10x10 exercise too. Major gut check during every single workout. Doesn't seem like a sustainable way to lift weights.
Thanks, no hadn't seen the study! Although I have heard of it. Taking a look at it, I think it's hard to say anything definitive for sure. It's a very small study with few participants, so unfortunately not enough power (high enough sample size) to register most significant changes. Inclusion criteria leaves a lot of room for variety in training experience and thus potential for gains. With a sample so small, even with individual randomisation, people with more gain potential might have been lumped together in the 5 set group, which would explain differences in baseline characteristics.
There's this little caveat as well:
"When participants were able to complete >10 repetitions on the final set and 10 repetitions for the previous sets of an exercise (with correct technique), the training load was increased by approximately 5–10%. The increase in training loads were influenced by the exercise, with generally greater increases in load for exercises involving larger compared to smaller muscle groups."
So seems like the 5 set group
might have worked at a higher intensity, despite doing less volume. They mention that the relative intensity was not
statistically significant between groups, but that again might be because they didn't have a big enough sample size. Just saying we don't exactly know.
As they pointed out, they didn't control for calorie intake and they suspect the 5 set group ate more, as they increased their bodyfat and mass. This might also play into it, or it could just be that the 10 set group were simply overtrained to the point of reduced appetite and/or weightloss. Lastly, it seems like they did actually find a
very small benefit to the 10 set group on leg press 1RM, however it was not statistical significant.
"The small effect size found favoring the 10-SET group for 1RM leg press may suggest that higher training volumes are more effective for increasing lower compared to upper body strength."
There's a few more confusing things about it. Under
participants, they say that twenty males were assigned, but there were only 6 in each group. The way they calculated effect size with something called cohens d is an odd choice. As well as something in the abstract about there not being an increase in 1RM leg press within any group, when the results show there was. Aaaanyway!
Definitely interesting as a pilot study. And considering that they did 10x10 3 times a week, I don't doubt that it was
way too much, and that 5x10 3 times a week, as they showed, can be superior with half the volume. I think we both agree that generally is the case. And let's not forget, 5x10 working sets 3 times a week is still a high amount of volume on any compound lift. Wouldn't surprise me if that's most peoples ceiling, depending on the intensity as well of course.