What exactly is volume?

[ucf465]

What exactly is volume and why is it important while "on"?
(example workouts appreciated)

thanks

ucf

[Bonaparte]

With regards to weight-training, volume is just the amount of sets you do for each muscle group, mostly.

German Volume Training involves 10 sets of 10 reps per muscle, as opposed to the classic 3 sets of 10 reps.
So volume training generally involves lifting medium weight a shitload of times for maximum hypertrophy.

[ucf465]

very well explained. thank you for your time Bonaparte

ucf

[pebble]

With regards to weight-training, volume is just the amount of sets you do for each muscle group, mostly.

German Volume Training involves 10 sets of 10 reps per muscle, as opposed to the classic 3 sets of 10 reps.
So volume training generally involves lifting medium weight a shitload of times for maximum hypertrophy.

Normally your posts are solid, but you missed the mark on this one. You only provided half of the equation.

Volume = Sets x Reps

Sets determine volume, but do not = volume
Reps determine intensity (what % of 1rm you will be lifting at)

[marcus300]

Volume training is usually a training style what involves working out using many sets, there are many variations to volume training.

[dec11]

Normally your posts are solid, but you missed the mark on this one. You only provided half of the equation.

Volume = Sets x Reps

Sets determine volume, but do not = volume
Reps determine intensity (what % of 1rm you will be lifting at)

strange guy, BP had this one nailed perfectly for the OP

[baseline_9]

Your wrong

BP is correct...

Weight has nothing to do with intensity...

Volume is referin to total sets, also number of workout per week could come into this equation as well

Normally your posts are solid, but you missed the mark on this one. You only provided half of the equation.

Volume = Sets x Reps

Sets determine volume, but do not = volume
Reps determine intensity (what % of 1rm you will be lifting at)

[pebble]

Your wrong

BP is correct...

Weight has nothing to do with intensity...

Volume is referin to total sets, also number of workout per week could come into this equation as well

I am right. Check any text book: http://books.google.com/. If we want to get very specific volume is more about amount of work per unit [in this case we are referring to per workout session, although it is better to do per time] because if you did 20 sets in a day vs 20 sets in an hour we have a profound difference in one’s relative training volume vs absolute training volume. To compound this problem without accounting for intensity we know nothing about the work done. Intensity is simply work done per unit. In this case we are talking per rep. This is measured by intensity (weight) used compared to max voluntary intensity (weight). Once again per unit of time is better because it then accounts for the velocity of the movement which can play a role in one’s intensity, but this becomes too complex and tedious for most.

Here is an example to illustrate the problem you are creating by not using all information available.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets. Day 2 you perform 5 sets. By your system of measure you performed less volume Day 2.

But now if you include more information you get a more complete story.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps. Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps. Now we can see that on day 1 the person only lifted 200 reps whereas on day 2 the person lifted 500 reps. It is now very obvious that a higher volume of work occurred on day 2


What if we include more information?

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps @ 90%MVC (max voluntary contraction). Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps @ 10%MVC. Now it gets foggy because we cannot compare the two workouts in terms of simply volume anymore because the intensities are different.

We have two options: Only compare like intensities when looking at volume of workout per session ( or even better movement). Or we use total weight lifted per session which can be miss leading at times. As long as you stick to one method you will be able to track your volume and ensure progress

[ucf465]

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to reply to this thread.

Baseline- im implementing your power/hypertrophy workout right now and im loving it, thanks for the advise.

ucf

[pebble]

I am right. Check any text book: http://books.google.com/. If we want to get very specific volume is more about amount of work per unit [in this case we are referring to per workout session, although it is better to do per time] because if you did 20 sets in a day vs 20 sets in an hour we have a profound difference in one’s relative training volume vs absolute training volume. To compound this problem without accounting for intensity we know nothing about the work done. Intensity is simply work done per unit. In this case we are talking per rep. This is measured by intensity (weight) used compared to max voluntary intensity (weight). Once again per unit of time is better because it then accounts for the velocity of the movement which can play a role in one’s intensity, but this becomes too complex and tedious for most.

Here is an example to illustrate the problem you are creating by not using all information available.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets. Day 2 you perform 5 sets. By your system of measure you performed less volume Day 2.

But now if you include more information you get a more complete story.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps. Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps. Now we can see that on day 1 the person only lifted 200 reps whereas on day 2 the person lifted 500 reps. It is now very obvious that a higher volume of work occurred on day 2


What if we include more information?

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps @ 90%MVC (max voluntary contraction). Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps @ 10%MVC. Now it gets foggy because we cannot compare the two workouts in terms of simply volume anymore because the intensities are different.

We have two options: Only compare like intensities when looking at volume of workout per session ( or even better movement). Or we use total weight lifted per session which can be miss leading at times. As long as you stick to one method you will be able to track your volume and ensure progress

Dec or Baseline do you care to provide rational why you think your way is right while considering the example I have outlined.

[baseline_9]

Well the fact that we generally work in the 6-12 rep range your explanation does not hold up....

Would you say that a long distance runner is a Bodybuilder just training with High Volume?


So as a bodybuilder your going to be working in the 6-12 rep range for the most part..... Correct?

If I do 4 sets of lets say 10 reps then thats 40 reps total....(Low volume because only 4 sets were performed)

If I do 40 sets of 10 reps then thats 400 reps total....(High Volume since 40 sets were performed)


Volume has increased because SETS were increased

If I was to do 1 set of 400 reps would you still consider me to be a 'Bodybuilder training with high volume'?



The point I am trying to make is that we as Bodybuilders do not train in the extremely high rep range's.... Among the Bodybuilding community total SETS determine volume, since reps are never going to be that variable anyway...

[baseline_9]

And what does Dec have to do with this?

I was backing up what Bonaparte said

[pebble]

My point is that you cannot be certain of that unless you know both pieces of information. You just backed up my point. Just because you assume someone is working in a certain rep range does not mean they are. I did say sets are used to determine volume in my original post, but that does not mean sets are equal to volume. They are simply the variable that generally has the largest influence on the outcome of volume. This is simple physics/stats/math theory. I am not trying to stir the pot or cause problems, but sets are not volume. You need to account for total reps. If you don't you are cheating yourself.



And as for your first point yes it does. Here is an example.

4 sets of 12 of 5 sets of 6. What has more volume? By your standards 5 sets of 6 does, but its only 30 reps. 4 sets of 12 reps would be 48 reps.

I understand you are trying to stick to your guns here, but in this case it’s best to just concede that you slipped up and made a mistake than to come off as ignorant to some simple math (theory).

[pebble]

And what does Dec have to do with this?

I was backing up what Bonaparte said

He attacks all my post and sends me annoying pms.

[dec11]

He attacks all my post and sends me annoying pms.

and you are very good at instigating flaming, you wont get the satisfaction anymore. you should be banned from this forum, all you do is come on threads to try and discredit ppl with your medical dictionary when all posters want and need is an explanation in laymans terms

[dec11]

I am right. Check any text book: http://books.google.com/. If we want to get very specific volume is more about amount of work per unit [in this case we are referring to per workout session, although it is better to do per time] because if you did 20 sets in a day vs 20 sets in an hour we have a profound difference in one’s relative training volume vs absolute training volume. To compound this problem without accounting for intensity we know nothing about the work done. Intensity is simply work done per unit. In this case we are talking per rep. This is measured by intensity (weight) used compared to max voluntary intensity (weight). Once again per unit of time is better because it then accounts for the velocity of the movement which can play a role in one’s intensity, but this becomes too complex and tedious for most.

Here is an example to illustrate the problem you are creating by not using all information available.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets. Day 2 you perform 5 sets. By your system of measure you performed less volume Day 2.

But now if you include more information you get a more complete story.

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps. Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps. Now we can see that on day 1 the person only lifted 200 reps whereas on day 2 the person lifted 500 reps. It is now very obvious that a higher volume of work occurred on day 2


What if we include more information?

Day 1 you perform 100 sets of 2 reps @ 90%MVC (max voluntary contraction). Day 2 you perform 5 sets of 100 reps @ 10%MVC. Now it gets foggy because we cannot compare the two workouts in terms of simply volume anymore because the intensities are different.

We have two options: Only compare like intensities when looking at volume of workout per session ( or even better movement). Or we use total weight lifted per session which can be miss leading at times. As long as you stick to one method you will be able to track your volume and ensure progress

sums you up perfectly

[baseline_9]

My point is that you cannot be certain of that unless you know both pieces of information. You just backed up my point. Just because you assume someone is working in a certain rep range does not mean they are. I did say sets are used to determine volume in my original post, but that does not mean sets are equal to volume. They are simply the variable that generally has the largest influence on the outcome of volume. This is simple physics/stats/math theory. I am not trying to stir the pot or cause problems, but sets are not volume. You need to account for total reps. If you don't you are cheating yourself.



And as for your first point yes it does. Here is an example.

4 sets of 12 of 5 sets of 6. What has more volume? By your standards 5 sets of 6 does, but its only 30 reps. 4 sets of 12 reps would be 48 reps.

I understand you are trying to stick to your guns here, but in this case it’s best to just concede that you slipped up and made a mistake than to come off as ignorant to some simple math (theory).

He attacks all my post and sends me annoying pms.

I wonder why....

[pebble]

I wonder why....

I don't, I am blunt and speak my mind. On top of that I know my shit. It's easy to result to nonsense attacks when you have no ground or sound information to stand on in a disagreement.

Baseline I know you give solid advice and likely have a great wealth of knowledge on training. I respect your opinion when it comes to training, but its misguided this time around.

It's hard to argue with the numbers, they don't lie. I worked with in your parameters and showed you the problem with your take on this topic. It's easy to see the fault in your logic.

[dec11]

I don't, I am blunt and speak my mind. On top of that I know my shit. It's easy to result to nonsense attacks when you have no ground or sound information to stand on in a disagreement.

Baseline I know you give solid advice and likely have a great wealth of knowledge on training. I respect your opinion when it comes to training, but its misguided this time around.

It's hard to argue with the numbers, they don't lie. I worked with in your parameters and showed you the problem with your take on this topic. It's easy to see the fault in your logic.

i come on after you, and attack your threads? well heres one to the contrary, i can dig up afew more if you wish?

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...t=#post5701540


nonsense attacks? no ground or sound information? ive worked in the industry professionally with a very high success rate, have a degree in sports science and have competed internationally.
what are your credentials, besides condescending and passive flaming?
any fool can read and regurgitate a text book, takes someone with experience, common sense and social skills to convey it.

[ucf465]

Well the fact that we generally work in the 6-12 rep range your explanation does not hold up....

Would you say that a long distance runner is a Bodybuilder just training with High Volume?


So as a bodybuilder your going to be working in the 6-12 rep range for the most part..... Correct?

If I do 4 sets of lets say 10 reps then thats 40 reps total....(Low volume because only 4 sets were performed)

If I do 40 sets of 10 reps then thats 400 reps total....(High Volume since 40 sets were performed)


Volume has increased because SETS were increased

If I was to do 1 set of 400 reps would you still consider me to be a 'Bodybuilder training with high volume'?



The point I am trying to make is that we as Bodybuilders do not train in the extremely high rep range's.... Among the Bodybuilding community total SETS determine volume, since reps are never going to be that variable anyway...

^^^this really put the finishing touches on the explanation.

thanks again to everyone who put time into sorting out this issue for me

ucf

[baseline_9]

To the OP

In the real world where bodybuilders are bodybuilders the term volume refers to the total number of working sets that one performs....

If you do 20 sets for triceps this would be considered high volume training

If you do 3 sets for triceps this would be considered low volume training

[marcus300]

To the OP

In the real world where bodybuilders are bodybuilders the term volume refers to the total number of working sets that one performs....

If you do 20 sets for triceps this would be considered high volume training

If you do 3 sets for triceps this would be considered low volume training

Amen, The End

I can't believe this is still going on, the question was answered within the first couple of posts. All this text book nonsense whats splattered all over this thread is hilarious.

[PitMaster]

Bonaparte said 10 sets x 10 reps that's a hundred..I think u missed that part

[pebble]

Bonaparte said 10 sets x 10 reps that's a hundred..I think u missed that part

So what if I did 10 sets of 11 reps? Who did more volume? Use some math and figure it out.

[FireGuy]

Amen, The End

I can't believe this is still going on, the question was answered within the first couple of posts. All this text book nonsense whats splattered all over this thread is hilarious.

While text book definitions have their place I am in total agreement with Marcus. Pebble, I appreciate the indepth and intricate detail that you provide in many of the threads on here but you cant always apply those principles when it comes to bodybuilding terms. If someone were to ask what "forced reps" "negatives" "supersets" "rest pause" "drop sets" are the scientific/dictionary explanation would be far from correct in these instances.

[Corpsman]

Pebble was "technically correct" but I completely understood what Baseline meant by what he said. Pebbles post made my head hurt