Since I have been teaching classes on the Fundamentals of Strength Training and Conditioning and Advanced Programming for Sport and Fitness, I have been reading as much of the popular press articles on lifting, as well as current scientific literature on the subject. Personally, I prefer select online sources that or founded on good science. The science, alone, often falls short for many reasons—primarily in that they are not “real world”. Nevertheless, it can all be quite overwhelming. Practitioners promote concepts like “time under tension”, “100 total reps”, and various volume (sets x repetition x frequency) schemes. For those of us former/nonathletes and average lifters, we just want an effective program with as little time demands as possible.
I have adopted the concepts of “landmark volumes” from Drs. Mike Israetel and James Hoffmann (How Much Should I Train). Simply, these are: Maximum Recoverable Volume (MRV), Minimum Effective Volume (MEV), Maintenance Volume (MV), and Maximum Adaptive Volume (MAV). The authors define these as follows:
Maximum Recoverable Volume (MRV): The highest volume of training an athlete can do in a particular situation and still recover.
Minimum Effective Volume (MEV): The lowest volume of training an athlete can do in a particular situation and still measurably improve.
Maximum Adaptive Volume (MAV): The amount of training that, in any one unit of time, yields the greatest adaptive response.
Maintenance Volume (MV): The lowest volume of training an athlete can do in a particular situation and still retain his/her abilities.
Ideally, one is spending most of his/her training in the “golden zone” between the MEV and the MRV. Proper planning then maximizes the MAV. Finding that MAV (i.e., a well-structured program the optimally manipulates the MEV and MRV) is what most of us find challenging. It is also what is at the heart of much of the confusion. After all, any effective program can get us there. Which program suits us is most dependent upon our goals and individual differences. Hence, one trains quite differently for physique than for strength (though each can benefit the other).
Two concepts seem to be emerging that provide a good starting point. One is the increasing tendency to label “five” as the most optimal number of repetitions (arguably, of course). This number is a good balance between training for strength (usually £5 reps) and hypertrophy (often 8-12 reps). This has made various applications of the 5×5 scheme popular. The second is the concept of total reps—usually 100. This is more of a hypertrophy concept borne of the German Volume Training method (10×10). In general, this is applied as a sort of MRV—I would say, MRV starting point. One can adapt this number based upon their recoverability (adding or removing volume, i.e., sets) and time constraints. This may be applied to training a body part one day a week or more. It can be applied to total body routines or split routines. It can be applied, as well, to any repetition scheme (though higher intensities will generally require less volume). Simply put, apply it as it works for you.
Beginning with a simple “basic five” program (squat, deadlift, bench, row, and overhead press), one might train each lift twice a week for 50 repetitions (2x5x5—remember these will be working sets). From here, exercise variations can be added to up the volume, or the frequency can be increased. Which approach(es) is(are) applied will depend on the goals and the constraints on time. One may also look at varying the volume by changing the repetition scheme (e.g., increasing to 10 repetitions for greater hypertrophy—2x5x10 = 100).
Don’t overcomplicate your strength/hypertrophy training. Find a simple plan that works for you and build on it.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!