does everybody agree with smaller muscle groups needing less sets?

[pstacks]

Pretty self explanitory. Just wondering if you guys have seen the best gains when training smaller muscle groups with less sets, or keeping everything around the same level.

[lifter65]

you can hit smaller muscles with more frequency than larger muscles, lighter the load=faster recovery

[Six]

I definately agree with Lifter. I am I beliver you can work out smaller muscle groups more often than larger ones.

[baseline_9]

I do not agree entirely but it is complicated to explain why...

I like HIT training, beyond failure training with low volume...

I hit quads with about 6 working sets, I also hit chest with about the same....

If a muscle is twice the size some would say it needs twice the work.... I disagree 100% with this.... The load may need to be twice as much but double the load can be achieved by lifting more weight (which a larger muscle will be able to do)

Do i make myself clear

[stpete]

Perfectly Baseline, and i agree.

[baseline_9]

Example

You can Shoulder Press 80kg - (Thus using 25% of the muscles in your body (example))

You can Deadlift 160kg - (Thus using 50% of the muscles in your body (example))


So you can lift twice as much in the deadlift but this is because you are recruiting 100% more muscle...

Why should you train those muscles that you use in the deadlift with double the number of sets....


Train a muscle to failure and beyond with a few different movements and I dont think the volume is that important