What Happens to the Extra Volume?

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Yes, I read PP, SS and Barbell Prescription. There seems to be a common theme in the books that one should, in theory, train to reach only the minimum volume that will elicit a strength adaptation, assuming strength is the goal. So, I am wondering, what happens to extra volume?

For example, Monday night on bench, I did a density block: 220 pounds for triples, doubles or singles on the minute or 90 seconds for 10 minutes. I hit 24 reps. This was after working up to a top set of 3 reps at 245 (likely could have done 4 or 5 but this wasn't a true max-3 set).

In all likelihood, I elicited a strength adaptation with my top set of 3, followed by my first 10 reps at 220. For the sake of argument, let's assume that 13 reps was the magical threshold that elicited a strength adaptation. Also, for sake of argument, lets assume that 245 = ~88% of 1RM and that 220 = ~82% of 1RM.

That leaves 14 reps @ 82% 1 rep max on the table that were "unnecessary".

So, what happens to that extra volume?

Will the adaptation to the training will be higher than if I stopped at 13 total reps, meaning that 27 reps makes me stronger than 13 reps?

Did the extra volume work towards hypertrophy, but had zero affect on strength, once the 13 rep threshold was reached?

Was extra volume just wasted time under the bar that could lead to overtraining and DOMS and had zero added value over the 13 rep threshold?

I've pondered since I read SS the first time 4 years ago whether the strength adaptation potential for a workout session is bracketed. For example, depending on sets and reps, can a single workout elicit an adaptation of between .05 - 1.5% strength increase, depending on volume and intensity, or is the adaptation binary: 0.5% or 0.0%? And does this relationship change when one advances from Nov. to Int. to Adv. lifter?

Your thoughts?

[Tom Narvaez]

Intensity determines the specific adaptation but volume determines the magnitude of the adaptation. There is diminishing marginal benefit to each additional set over the minimum effective dose. You can eventually get to into the negative with too much volume, but, generally speaking, the more training you can do AND recover from, the faster you'll get stronger and you'll stronger overall than if you did less training in the same amount of time.

More is generally better as long as you can recover and stay injury free which are huge "ifs" in a long training career. Staying healthy over time is probably the best argument in favor of the slower, steadier "minimum effective dose" approach.

[manveer]

So, what happens to that extra volume?

It results in a larger training effect.

[Bryan Dobson]

Every set beyond the individuals most effective dose has declining returns until it reaches the point of negative return such as doing too much to recover from. The correct volume doses are going to vary from individual to individual (some generalities exist to start from, search minimum effective volume) and those doses will change over time as the individual becomes better conditioned to recovering from volume or comes back from a layoff or injury.
There are differences in minimum effective doses and an maximum effective doses that results in overreaching and a strong specific strength adaption. You can maintain training at a minimum dose for a sustained period and make incremental gains.
Or work up to an overreaching/overload dose (slightly beyond recovery) that elicits a stronger response, this has has to be cycled with periods of lower doses for long term progress, and mental and physical health. Multiple weeks of overreaching volume per that individual will not be recoverable and could be harmful to the desired result.

In practice this could mean, your squat has stalled, you average x work sets a week? Try x+2 a week for a month and see if things change.

[John Hanley]

Just to add to what these guys said:

- definitely not binary

- I'm not sure what "minimum effective dose" actually means in the context of an intermediate lifter. A stress dose that induces .25% strength gains post-adaptation? Smallest-plates-I happen-to-have-in-the-gym stronger? But if there's a theoretical low-end stress threshold, it's (hand-wave) min effective dose.

- for the high-end single session stress-dose, a lot of folks use "max recoverable volume". Which is basically that level of stress from which the lifter can recover within a fixed interval (I like 48 hours for upper; 72 for lower)...but peeps will use different fixed intervals (the interval typically represents the period after the session during which MPS rates are elevated).

- related to the article upstairs: I still don't understand what "volume sensitive" means. But I think it should mean that the gap between min effective & max recoverable is very small. On young peeps this gap is huge. Old peeps...not so much.

[Chebass88]

... Your thoughts?

There is a lot going on here. It is hard to say that the "extra reps" weren't part of the minimum effective dose, or that a portion of them weren't. You'll see at your next bench session - especially if you can do an easy triple at 250 & 225x24 in 10min density block. Even if you did achieve them - are the easy single and density block work well within your strength limits? Perhaps it is just as "hard" or "easy" to do a similar session next week, and you might not necessarily have increased your strength per se. You would only know this if you tested an actual maximum. If you get the maximum, it means the dosage is effective, but still might not be the minimum effective dose. Then again, if you miss a new maximum, it might not necessarily mean the dosage was wrong - you could have been tired, too much stress at work, etc.

Last year I did some tracking of my lifts & when I earned new maxes on the big lifts. I found that after ~80-90 lifts at ~80%, I could earn a 10lb increase for the squat & deadlift, and about the same number of lifts & intensity for a 5lb increase on the bench and press. I did a few tests using considerably lower volume (~50 lifts), and it was not sufficient for a new max. 50 lifts was not sufficient, but ~90 was, so the optimum number was somewhere in between. Then again, that might be the minimum effective dose for that weight range, and the dosage required to increase further is different.

[Tom Narvaez]

In the real world, working with actual people, minimum effective dose is usually merely an individual's minimum acceptable rate of progress. One of the hardest parts of coaching is talking people off the ledge of more, more, more especially if you mostly work with competitors.

[Les Hahn]

Or you could just take more drugs

Yes, I like to super set my volume sets with chugging 1ml of ZzzQuill right afterwards. This lowers my minimum effective threshold because I start to get drowsy.

I've seen better progress of late hitting the main lifts in a 3x per two week cycle with offset assistance work than HLM/TM splits. But in order to do so, I have to hit equivalent volume. Then I get more time to let joint inflammation die down before the next session.

I'm the same way, but I only hit squats and deads 1x per week. I just bumped the bench up to 2x per week. More recovery time really helps, or I get banged up and injured.

[Bryan Dobson]

Cool.

For people over 40, I think piling on the volume in a single session with more recovery time is the way to go. That is, I'd rather do eight sets of five on Monday and Friday as opposed to 5x5 MWF holding the lift constant.

Even at higher intensity (let's say a night of heavy doubles) I'm better off hitting 8-10 sets. If not, it's a session pissed away.

I've seen better progress of late hitting the main lifts in a 3x per two week cycle with offset assistance work than HLM/TM splits. But in order to do so, I have to hit equivalent volume. Then I get more time to let joint inflammation die down before the next session.

You can do that or you can the lift more frequently, lowering the session volume but doing the same or more volume in a cycle without the joint irritation and inflammation. I have a big buy in that muscle drives gains and mps is best optimized with frequency. After about 24-48 hours if I am still sore I don't think recovering is gaining muscle it's missing oppurtunities to stimulate within the window.

Admittedly I train in both views depending on goal.

[Tom Narvaez]

It's a lot less than 48 hours for women.

There was one study that comes to mind where they had women max out on bench press (to failure). Six hours later they had completely recovered to baseline. That doesn't happen with men. I suspect that the larger and more male you are, the longer the MPS window / recovery timeline is. No proof other than anecdote for that assertion, though.