• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Is volume king?

Fadi

Fadi

...
Yes volume is king, volume of work that is. However there is one clause attached to the performing of this volume, and that is, the most volume you can recover from, is what’s going to either make you or break you..., as far as adaptation is concerned. Yes intensity is essential, but in the overall picture, it’s the total amount of work (done well) that counts.

I’ve written about the subject of FOR and NFOR on this forum before. These letters stand for Functional Over-reaching and Non-Functional Over-reaching. Simply put, if you’re doing the maximum volume you can master, and you’re recovering from such volume, then you’ll be in a FOR state. Ultimately, that’s the state all world champions are aiming to achieve on their way to success in their chosen sport.

It goes without saying that keeping a log is paramount if you wish to know where you’re at; where you’re heading, and where you’ve been. Only then are you able to make adjustments to suite your particular needs.

I remember my days at the AIS where a daily log was kept. However it was the weekly tonnage lifted that ultimately counted the most.
 
Last edited:
concur with above in general terms.


There is an increasing amount of literature that suggests that many top sportspeople train only intensely about 20% of their training, and the rest moderately.


They found that this allowed them to push even harder with intense sessions, which they found was more beneficial than say a much higher proportion of medium training.


If I find article, it also suggests same is true of power sports, although no reference yet to weightlifting. However, a lot of strength programs do emphasise volume and less intense sessions already.


whether this is also true of drugged up activities like bb or some powerlifting, was not mentioned, as study referred to sports with testing.
 
Layne Norton quotes numerous studies which in his summary indicate "its just a matter of volume as long as you're lifting over 60% of your 1RM.


I caught the tailend of the H.I.T. movement in the late 80s. I remember H.I.T. was gone but John Little was still writing for Flex magazine and he used to advocate the to absolute failure sets. I followed that for "failure" approach for maybe 20 years then switched to more volume based training and blew up like a baby elephant.

Nowadays I like to switch between a volume approach and an intensity (every set to absolute failure) approach.

My 3 cents.
 
Last edited:
speak for yourself, I am a legend in my own lunchtime.

seriously, sound training principles applies to all who want to improve or not go backwards. Why would it not?
 
spartacus said:
speak for yourself, I am a legend in my own lunchtime.

seriously, sound training principles applies to all who want to improve or not go backwards. Why would it not?
Click to expand...
The lifestyle and goals of a professional sportsman would be quite different would it not?
 
could be, but not convinced that principles of traning would be any different for novice or pro. After all, pros start out as novices. I recall Lee Haney telling me he trained the same way as both a beginner and pro.

Differences between novice and pro, perhaps workload, but amount of necessary intensity would be the same (minority of training).
 
spartacus said:
could be, but not convinced that principles of traning would be any different for novice or pro. After all, pros start out as novices. I recall Lee Haney telling me he trained the same way as both a beginner and pro.

Differences between novice and pro, perhaps workload, but amount of necessary intensity would be the same (minority of training).
Click to expand...

Lee Haney was great.

I remember Lee Haney writing around 1990 that everyone should train the same way. Not sure how true that is though.
 
I'm not talking about the general principles, I'm thinking more the difference in methods used by a pro compared to a recreational lifter.
A pro does it for a living, that's all he days each day, he has people telling him when and how to train and eat and so on.
Surely you can see the difference here
 
Darkoz said:
I'm not talking about the general principles, I'm thinking more the difference in methods used by a pro compared to a recreational lifter.
A pro does it for a living, that's all he days each day, he has people telling him when and how to train and eat and so on.
Surely you can see the difference here
Click to expand...

Not all 'pros' are surrounded by a team of trainers and cooks. Bodybuilding can be very solitary at all levels. Excluding geared athletes I think there are plenty of amateurs who train and live the lifestyle similarly to natural pros/competitors.
 
where I see key point, relevant for both pros and the rest of us, is that intensity should be used sparingly, although intensity is indeed crucial to success.

what studies suggest is that there is a need to back off rather than going just a little bit below flat out.
 
Darkoz said:
What about the regular Joe who isn't a top sportsman?
ie all of us here
Click to expand...
The regular Joe would stop short of FOR, as there'd be no need for him to over-reach by going all out. Simply put, based on this regular Joe's experience of his own ability, he'd stop the sets (say) two sets prior to feeling he can do no more. Why? Because he's content with the level of muscle and strength gains he has achieved, and by stopping short of going all out, he'd be maintaining what he's built over the years instead of unnecessarily pushing himself where he does not need to go. By doing so, he'd be minimising on injuries and maintaining his muscle/strength gains.
 
I agree volume is king.

For or us regular joes with a job, Mrs ect I can't see overtraining being an issue. We simply don't have the time to overtrain properly. Most of us don't have the drive or dedication to either.

For results train consistently long term. Overtraining is the least of your issues.
 
Darkoz said:
Okay
Click to expand...

I think volume is a lot easier to do, physically and mentally than a abbreviated workout.

For an abbreviated workout to be productive the rate of work needs to be real high, it's something the needs to be built over time, it's not an overnight thing, I think both will produce amazing results.


so for the average joe, it seems as though volume is the go.

although lots of successful coaches and clubs, in particular American football use a high intensity abbreviated program for their athletes.

at the end of the day we strive for safe productive progressive training.
the same theme keeps repeating, find what works for you.
 
Last edited:
Hi Tim,

For me, Ivan Abadjiev principles can't be beaten. However there's only one catch, and it's a significant one: you don't have a life, as training, competing, and more than likely winning and breaking world records would be your life...., for a given time at least. I like his philosophy and principles because they are so simple and non-complicated, leaving the lifter to mainly and fully focus on the competition lifts themselves instead of performing all the other added supplementaries ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top