High Volume or Low Volume

[tunafishrocks]

Hey i was wondering which is better high volume with

14-20 sets for back
8-14 for biceps
8-14 for triceps
12-15 for shoulders
15-20 for chest
20-30 for legs

Or low volume with

8-12 sets for back
4-8 sets for biceps
4-8 sets for triceps
8-12 sets for shoulders
15 sets for chest
8-12 sets for legs

[Hockey66]

Your low volume routine is still fairly high volume, I wouldn't do the first one.

[Nito]

Your low volume routine is still fairly high volume, I wouldn't do the first one.

Lol yeah, his low volume is like my high volume :P

[tunafishrocks]

what do you recommend?

[getfit]

everything looks outta control too me

[getfit]

check out WBB ROUTINES!

[Chris Tucker]

You will need to use low volume. There is really no other efficient way to train.

[body]

out of the two. i go with lower volume one

[PowerManDL]

You will need to use low volume. There is really no other efficient way to train.

Don't get that started.

[tunafishrocks]

I know a lot of people who progress very well with higher volume

[Max-Mex]

I prefer low or enough volume to be done in an hour or less.

[WBBIRL]

I think he has his high volume and low volumes confused... his top one seems more of a lower volume workout and his bottom one seems more of a low volume workout... thats if i understand high and low volume correctly.

[Canadian Crippler]

You will need to use low volume. There is really no other efficient way to train.

I've just looked at your posts from the last few days and this is the 6th ridiculous statement you have made. If you feel that what you are saying is correct, than please continue to explain your theory. But 2 line posts of generalized nonsense isn't really needed.

[DNL]

i concur.

[KingJustin]

Looking at my training over a normal week, I usually do ..
8 sets chest
12 sets triceps
12 sets legs
7 sets traps
8 sets biceps
10 sets back

I thought I did considerably more, but I guess not haha. I guess it's because when I say 10 sets back, that's two 5x5's on different days, and I consider 5x5 fairly high volume. I don't get caught up in working the same muscle 8 different ways.

I think it would be tough to fit in much more than the second routine's volume.

[DNL]

Why so much more sets for tris than back and for bis than back?

[Max-Mex]

cause he wanta hyooge arms dood! j/k To each his own.

[Canadian Crippler]

57 sets a week MIGHT be too much... try out it out though. I'm doing 54 sets a week right now and making some nice gains with it.

The only concern is how you have laid this out. Why would a muscle the size of the tricep get as many sets as your legs (glutes, quads, hamstrings). It just doesn't make sense. Go for less sets on the smaller groups (bi's, tri's, calves, traps) and more sets on the bigger ones (chest, quads, hammies, back).

[chris mason]

The answer to the question depends upon a huge number of variables the most important of which are:

how close to failure you take each set
intensity as a percentage of your 1RM
total number of reps

The answer also depends on your goals. If you are progressing nicely then keep it up. If not, reduce the volume and see how things go.

[KingJustin]

Why so much more sets for tris than back and for bis than back?

Well, I train Westside. I guess technically I do like 18 sets for chest between ME/DE days, but those really have hardly any impact on my chest growth. WSB is also really big on hitting the triceps hard, I've had a lot of success doing this. My biceps/triceps recover fast enough to where I have found it beneficial to up the volume a bit. My bigger muscles (chest, back, legs) recover a bit slower.

It's not like I'm neglecting my chest/back, though. I do 5x5 wide grip weighted pull-ups 1 day and then 5x5 on rows the other day. I guess I hit it lightly with hang cleans as well.