Why upper body require more volume?

[Igor]

I've heard numerous times from various sources, both related (eg Austin Baraki, Izzy Narvaez) and unrelated to Starting Strength community that upper body lifts require more volume than lower body to sustain long-term progress. If require is too strong of a word than at least respond better. Also, accesory work (such as chins, LTEs, DB work) seems to more important and valuable for the upper body.

However I haven't encountered a full reasoning or scientific explanation behind it. At the moment I can only speculate.

On that note why the Starting Strength program as well as the basic version of Texas Method is lower body dominant (especially before chins are added)?

PS. No, I don't intent to change the Holy Grail. It's just a genuine secondary question in the context of what seems to be pretty much an universal agreement (or is it?). One of the most obvious reasons might be simplicity. 3 sets of 5 for everything bar pulls. And it's proven to work for quite a while.

[manveer]

Upper body lifts involve less muscle mass and lower weights, so they're easier to recover from. Since you can tolerate higher volume in those lifts and higher volume usually leads to better progress (as long as it's something you can recover from/your technique doesn't suck/it doesn't cause you to get injured), a higher volume approach is more optimal. Gets harder and harder to grow more muscle as you advance, so keeping the volume up can help you keep the hypertrophy gainzzz coming.

[Pawn]

Upper body lifts involve less muscle mass and lower weights, so they're easier to recover from. Since you can tolerate higher volume in those lifts and higher volume usually leads to better progress (as long as it's something you can recover from/your technique doesn't suck/it doesn't cause you to get injured), a higher volume approach is more optimal. Gets harder and harder to grow more muscle as you advance, so keeping the volume up can help you keep the hypertrophy gainzzz coming.

This logic doesn't follow the standard programming of Squatting every day... while alternating OHP and bench.

I think its less muscle mass that is being stimulated to grow so you need to stimulate it more without causing injury or overtraining it.

There is a difference between 'being recovered' and 'not hurting'... its easy for the upper-body to 'not hurt' because it does effectively nothing during the day for most people.

[manveer]

This logic doesn't follow the standard programming of Squatting every day... while alternating OHP and bench.

I think its less muscle mass that is being stimulated to grow so you need to stimulate it more without causing injury or overtraining it.

Sounds like you're operating under the assumption that SS and TM are optimal programs for the upper body lifts. They're not.

[MBasic]

Sounds like you're operating under the assumption that SS and TM are optimal programs for the upper body lifts. They're not.

yeah,

google The Pier Program.

I went from a 100kg 3x5 bench to like a 220lb-15 rep-10 minute density set in like only 2 weeks.

[Pawn]

Sounds like you're operating under the assumption that SS and TM are optimal programs for the upper body lifts. They're not.

My only question is about recovery... the larger muscle groups should be able to recovery from an equivalent workload faster.

These muscles have a much larger work capacity and move far more weight in a workout.

[manveer]

My only question is about recovery... the larger muscle groups should be able to recovery from an equivalent workload faster.

These muscles have a much larger work capacity and move far more weight in a workout.

Larger muscle = more muscle tissue to repair, limited by rate of muscle protein synthesis. More muscle protein to synthesize takes longer. What do you mean "equivalent workload"? Like squatting 315x5x3 vs. benching 315x5x3? Or squatting 3sx5r @75% vs. benching 3sx5r @75%?

[John Hanley]

My only question is about recovery... the larger muscle groups should be able to recovery from an equivalent workload faster.

These muscles have a much larger work capacity and move far more weight in a workout.

Larger muscle = more muscle tissue to repair, limited by rate of muscle protein synthesis. More muscle protein to synthesize takes longer. What do you mean "equivalent workload"? Like squatting 315x5x3 vs. benching 315x5x3? Or squatting 3sx5r @75% vs. benching 3sx5r @75%?

Probably this. And maybe -handwave - relatively high androgen receptor density in many of the muscles of the upper body (though this will vary quite a bit across peeps).

If more volume is better, why hasn't Bill Been written an article about it?

You're still shitting on Been?

[Pawn]

Larger muscle = more muscle tissue to repair, limited by rate of muscle protein synthesis. More muscle protein to synthesize takes longer. What do you mean "equivalent workload"? Like squatting 315x5x3 vs. benching 315x5x3? Or squatting 3sx5r @75% vs. benching 3sx5r @75%?

Right, so we have two questions getting to the OP's request for the 'science' behind the explanation.

Protein synthesis... is the body's ability to produce combine proteins the limiting factor in recovery? On the face of it I don't believe this is true due to the growth rate is specific body parts. (ie I can make my quads grow faster than biceps... even if I overtrain the hell out of the biceps... so the building material isn't the issue)

In terms of workload; if you talk about total absolute work... (massxdistancetravelledxtotalnumberofreps) its going to be a no contest. I think %1RM would be a good method. (easier to use than Work/MuscleArea)

[John Hanley]

(ie I can make my quads grow faster than biceps... so the building material isn't the issue)

Luuuuuucky.

I'm lats on sticks.