Is Too Much Volume Bad For Muscle Growth

In the original guide, I mentionedthe German Volume study that I reviewed in a past research review. In this study on trained subjects, 24 weekly sets was not more effective than 14 weekly sets for quadriceps, and 28 weekly sets was not more effective than 18 weekly sets for biceps and triceps. However, it should be noted that many of these sets were not to failure. German Volume Training involves doing 10 sets of 10 with 1 minute rest, and you use the same weight for all sets. In many cases, people can do around 20 reps with 60% 1-RM . In fact, it's difficult to ascertain how many hard sets the subjects did.

Also, it likely varied from one person to the next since it was based on % 1-RM, rather than doing sets to a specific Reps In Reserve . In other words, one person might be able to do a lot more reps than another person with 60% 1-RM, so their initial sets will be much easier. Thus, this study is not a reliable data point for determining where an upper limit may lie. The same holds true for another 2018 German Volume Study; the methodology was nearly identical, and it again is not reliable for determining an upper limit for volume.

It should also be noted that the training frequency was twice per week for upper body, and once per week for lower body in this study. Thus, the highest volume condition was doing 24 sets per session for lower body, greatly exceeding the theoretical 10-set limit. This group was doing 14 sets per session for upper body, again exceeding the theoretical 10-set limit. Thus, the training frequency and per-session volume may also be contributors to the lack of volume effect observed in this study. Well, that about does it for the most thorough review on training volume and hypertrophy that you'll find anywhere.

You can be sure that this will be updated as new research becomes available. Conclusions in science are always tentative, and based on the best available evidence at the moment. In the case of set volume and hypertrophy, more is better up to around 6-8 hard sets per training session with long rests and twice as much with short rests. High weekly volumes (20+ weekly sets) give best results when split into frequencies of at least 3 days per week. Of course, this is based on averages, and individuals may respond very differently to changes in volume compared to the average. It's also important to point out that12-18 weekly sets probably gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of hypertrophy relative to the time investment when hitting each muscle 2-3 days per week.

If you're looking to do some very high volume training, specialization is the most realistic method of achieving high weekly volumes for a particular muscle group. Also, regardless of how you program volume,the needs of the individual must be considered. So how might you apply this information to structuring a training program for maximizing hypertrophy? Here's one example of how you might structure a program that uses the best "bang for your buck" range of weekly sets per muscle group. This particular example is a 4-day upper/lower split; most muscle groups are trained via combination of compound and isolation movements. Sets are stopped around 1-2 reps short of failure to allow for better recovery, and repetitions and exercises are varied to help reduce joint stress.

In the study by Ostrowski and colleagueson trained subjects, the triceps were subjected to either 7, 14, or 28 weekly sets. Gains nearly doubled moving from 7 to 14 weekly sets, but there was no further increase with 28 weekly sets. Also, bench press performance dropped off with that level of volume.

This suggested that perhaps weekly volumes in the high 20's may be more than necessary. However, one limitation of this study, which I did not address in the original version of the guide, is that the researchers did not assess bicep gains. They also did not do anything beyond 12 weekly sets for quadriceps. Thus, this study is insufficient for determining where an upper limit may lie, as only one muscle group was trained for more than 20 weekly sets.

It's also important to note that the training frequency for triceps in this study was two times per week. Thus, the 28 weekly set condition involved 14 sets per session, exceeding the approximate 10-set per session threshold that we established earlier. Thus, the observed plateau in this study may be due to the frequency. Regarding the effects of antioxidant supplementation on strength gains, six studies reported data and the results of four of them indicate that vitamin supplementation has no influence on strength gain. Within these six studies, meta-analysis was done with the three studies that employed isokinetic assessment of muscle strength [33–35]. Results of the meta-analysis confirmed that supplementation is innocuous regarding this outcome .

Is Too Much Volume Bad In other words, vitamin supplementation was neither positive nor negative. Importantly, the studies evaluated strength in the elderly after traditional or an undulating model of periodization or used isokinetic eccentric training in adult men . Overall, these findings indicate that beyond ineffective, vitamin C and E supplementation could even be detrimental to strength gains in a long-term basis. This is the opposite of what could be inferred from acute design studies, as well as from the logic "conclusion" that neutralizing exercise ROS production would be beneficial to performance. Ostrowski and colleagues examined the effects of 1, 2, or 4 sets per exercise on hypertrophy in trained subjects. Subjects did 7-12 reps to failure per set, with 3 minute rests between sets.

Triceps were trained twice per week, as pressing movements were performed on one day, and isolation movements were performed on another day. Quadriceps training volume did not exceed 12 total weekly sets since they were only trained once per week. However, triceps weekly volume, when counting pressing movements, was 7, 14, and 28 for the low, moderate, and high volume groups, respectively.

There were no significant differences in changes in triceps thickness between the groups, although the percentage gains and effect sizes favored the groups doing 14 and 28 weekly sets. In fact, percentage gains and effect sizes for weekly sets were about twice that of 7 weekly sets. In a study of which I was a coauthor, Brad Schoenfeld and colleagues replicated the design of the Radaelli study, but with trained subjects. The subjects performed 1, 3, or 5 sets per exercise, for 8-12 reps to failure and 1.5 minute rests. Total weekly sets were 6, 18, and 30 for biceps and triceps, and 9, 27, and 45 for quadriceps. A significant dose-response effect was observed in the biceps, rectus femoris , and vastus lateralis .

There was not a significant effect for triceps, although the overall pattern had similarities to the other muscles. I turned 50 this year and four months before my birthday iI decided it was time to lose fat and get back into shape. The goal when training for increased muscle mass and size is to use a "heavy-ish" load that elicits a "muscle pump", or feeling fullness in the muscle belly. The easiest way to describe "the pump" is when your muscles are full, hard, and you have a sense that the muscle is larger creating a tight, tone feeling]. This is most often done with a combination of higher repetitions sets (8-12 reps, or sometimes more) and moderate to heavy loads.

This, paired with timed rest periods of seconds has been shown to increase muscle hypertrophy and increase hormonal response of growth hormone and testosterone. This 9-week strength-hypertrophy cycle is a perfect combination of power, strength, and muscle hypertrophy movements. There was a clear dose-response effect in terms of volume in this study, especially in the biceps. In fact, the gains in muscle thickness observed with weekly sets were 3-4 times what is typically seen in studies (most studies show around a 5% increase in muscle thickness). Now, one odd result of this study was that there was hardly any increase in tricep muscle thickness for a volume of 27 weekly sets. This is at complete odds with other studies that show significant gains in tricep thickness with much lower volumes in untrained subjects.

The sudden jump to nearly a 21% gain at the highest volume is also very strange. However, this does not invalidate the study; as I've written elsewhere, you can get odd results like this from random chance alone. Overall, the study did support an effect of volume, and no plateau was observed for weekly set volumes of more than 20.

It should also be noted that the researchers examined fat-free mass gains. Finally, a study performed was performed on high volume training by Haun and colleagues. Subjects started 10 sets per exercise per week , with approximately one compound exercise per muscle group . Subjects did 10 reps per set at approximately 60% 1-RM; the average Reps In Reserve was around 4. Set volume was progressed each week, so that subjects were doing 32 sets by week 6. Lean mass significantly increased by 2.2 kg by the end of the study.

Now, there were a number of limitations to this analysis. First, there were only 8 studies that met my inclusion criteria. There were only 2 studies that involved 4-6 sets per exercise. There wasn't enough data to determine if there were differences due to factors such as training status (i.e., trained versus untrained subjects). I was the sole author on this paper, so there was no one available to double check my work, and thus it's always possible some bias or error could sneak in.

This analysis only tells us about volume in a single session, and not overall weekly volume. Finally, sets per exercise is not the same thing as sets per muscle group. For example, you could do 1 set of incline press, 1 set of flat press, and 1 set of decline press, and that's 3 sets for your chest, but in this analysis it would be categorized as 1 set. Still, more sets per exercise will still mean more sets per muscle group, so this meta-analysis clearly showed that your gains increase as your volume increases. In this article, a set is going to be defined as a set of moderate to high repetitions to muscular failure or near failure.

I use this definition because high load, low rep sets do not produce as much hypertrophy as more moderate 8-12 rep sets, despite an equivalent number of hard sets. However, moderate-rep and high-rep sets to failure are similar in their impacts on muscle hypertrophy. Also, a set should be to near muscular failure, because stopping well short of failure will impair muscle hypertrophy. Finally, a set counts towards a particular muscle group if that muscle group can be considered a prime mover in the exercise that is being used. For example, 3 sets of bench press will count as 3 sets for triceps, since the triceps are active prime movers in a bench press. Three sets of bench press, and 3 sets of tricep pushdowns, would count as 6 total sets.

One limitation of this study was that subjects were allowed to train outside of the study. Another limitation is the short duration of the study ; it is the shortest study among all the dose-response studies on volume. A third limitation is that the groups used different frequencies; the low volume group trained biceps once per week, while the other two groups trained biceps twice per week. While frequency does not appear to impact hypertrophy much on a volume equated basis, it may impact hypertrophy when weekly training volumes become high as I pointed out earlier in this article. One study that examined the impact of set volume on muscle protein synthesis came out of the lab of Stu Phillips. The researchers compared 3 sets of leg extensions to 1 set of leg extensions.

Fed-state muscle protein synthesis was elevated by almost twice the amount in the 3-set group compared to the 1-set group. Protein synthesis was still elevated by 130% at 29 hours after the training session in the 3-set group, but was back to normal in the 1 set group. In other words, muscles were not only making more protein soon after the workout with 3 sets to failure, but they were still making more protein 29 hours later compared to 1 set.

Since muscle protein synthesis correlates with gains in muscle size once you get past the initial muscle damage, this would imply that 3 sets is better than 1 set for putting on muscle. Now, are these lower training volumes totally ideal for building muscle? For optimal muscle growth, we'd want to be doing 2–5 workouts per week, each containing somewhere between 3–8 sets per muscle group. But are these lower training volumes enough to gain muscle and strength? When training for muscle hypertrophy, be sure to always monitor overall training volume so that you can maximize muscle growth, allow for recovery, and still train strength.

Adding too much can certainly be counterproductive, but by following the tips above you should be able to navigate those waters. This is often done, and then transitioned into a more strength-focused period. I noted that the claim of the authors that this is the highest volume ever studied isn't strictly true. Radaelli et al. had participants perform 1, 3 or 5 sets per exercise with 2 exercises for the biceps and 3 for the triceps in a 3x per week full-body training program.

So for the biceps the set volumes per week were 6, 18 and 30; for the triceps they were 9, 27 and 45. This is probably my favorite study on training volume to date, because they studied such a wide range of volumes, the study lasted 6 full months and the participants were military personnel. Many study populations don't battle much other than sarcopenia. In the high volume training study performed by Schoenfeld, me, and others, the average training time per session for the highest volume group was 68 minutes. The subjects performed 7 exercises, for 5 sets each, for a total of 35 sets per session.

However, it's important to note that this time frame of 68 minutes may not be realistic when applied to someone training in a regular gym. In a resistance training study, you have research assistants pushing you along, and also helping to get weights set up for you. There is a study by Baker and colleagues that examined strength, not hypertrophy. In this study, weekly sets did not improve strength over weekly sets in trained subjects. However, gains in strength may not be a good proxy for hypertrophy, even in trained subjects. This might be particularly true in a study like this, where the cumulative fatigue from the very high training volume (36-45 weekly sets) might mask any hypertrophy-related strength gains.

Thus, this study may not be a reliable data point for determining an upper limit for set volume. Another study examined the effect in trained women doing 5, 10, 15, or 20 sets to failure for one muscle during only one workout per week, and the training program lasted a full 24 weeks. Again, not a statistically significant result, and it may be due to chance. The ideal training volume for building muscle is around 9–18 sets per muscle per week. And if you're choosing good lifts, doing 6–20 reps per set, and bringing those sets within 1–2 reps of failure, the bottom end of that range is often enough to maximize muscle growth. What's interesting is that when doing this research, Krieger noticed that with shorter rest times we can benefit from extremely high training volume—as much as 45 sets per muscle per week.

However, he also discovered that if we use longer rest times (3–5 minutes of rest between sets), that effect disappears, and we build just as much muscle with moderate training volumes. Overall, assuming we rest long enough between sets, Krieger found that muscle growth is maximized with six challenging sets per muscle per workout. While lifting in the moderate rep range is highly beneficial for muscle growth, there are times when adding more weight and dropping the number of repetitions to between 2 and 5 should occur. For starters, adding more weight will increase strength, which over time will increase the amount of weight you can move for moderate rep ranges, as your top-end goes up.

This equates to more training volume , a significant factor in muscle growth. Without compound movements as a basic component, most programs will fall short of offering training muscle strength, bone health and density, increased testosterone, and results. This is not to say it cannot be done, however it is much more difficult to add sufficient muscle mass without them. In 1999, Taaffeet al studied strength training frequency in a few dozen healthy older adults, aged 65 to 79 years13 — remember, strength training is not just for bodybuilders!

They were divided into groups training 1, 2, or 3 days per week. The issue with training to absolute failure with respect to building maximal strength is that it causes neural fatigue and disruptions in resting hormonal concentrations. In a phase where one is seeking to gain strength, they will find that they are gradually becoming weaker and more fatigued as they continue to consistently push to failure. Thus, they're simply incapable of regularly moving the weights needed to sustainably enhance max strength. If your main goal is muscle growth, then you are most likely to face the debate on whether volume or intensity is more effective for hypertrophy. In strength training specifically, "volume" indicates the number of reps and sets, while "intensity" refers to how much weight you're lifting.

Because of this, the relationship between volume and intensity is "inverse", meaning that the more repetitions you perform, the lighter the weight you lift is, and vice-versa. But this is all based on extrapolation from data derived from muscle biopsies. Ultimately, we need to look at what happens to changes in muscle size when you put people on training programs with different set volumes.

To make up for this low training volume they train to failure and sometimes even beyond failure with things like rest-pause sets, forced reps and isometric holds. Guys like Greg Doucette, David Henry, Dorian Yates and Dusty Hanshaw are huge believers in high-intensity bodybuilding training programs. Two studies analyzed muscle mass adaptations in young men and women, and they found no effects of supplementation.

Is 44Mm Apple Watch Too Big

The Apple Watch Series 3 features a slightly bigger display than the 40mm Apple Watch, although this is primarily owing to the larger display. This design is perfect for smaller wrists and wallets. Aside from the casing and display size differences, the two have the same hardware and software characteristics.

Do I Want 40 Or 44Mm Apple Watch Both were made to accommodate a certain wrist size—the 40mm for smaller wrists and the 44mm for bigger wrists. However, this does not imply that pick one over the other only on the basis of that criteria. The 44mm is undoubtedly simpler to operate and read thanks to its bigger screen.

The Apple Watch casing, unlike typical mechanical or digital timepieces, must accommodate a Retina display, a system-in-package , a battery, and sensors. The 44mm Apple Watch replaces the 42mm version on Apple Watch Series 1 to 3. With a larger battery, it has more characteristics and longer battery life. Wearing my 42mm series 3 here on the photo from afar. I am thinking of getting the 40mm stainless steel gold this time, I'm aiming for more classy and can wear anywhere watch. I just want something that looks just right, not too big nor too small.

I just don't have an access to the Apple Watch series 4 right now. People, like tastes, come in a variety of forms and sizes. Some women like the larger Apple Watch, while others like the smaller one.

People with little wrists will prefer the bigger watch, while those with larger wrists would choose the smaller watch. All of this suggests that you should purchase the size you desire. Hermes Single Tour , Leather Loop, and Hermes Single Tour Deployment Buckle are all 44mm bands.

The vertical series is different from standard watches that measure the case size horizontally. The larger of the two Apple Watch versions has a height of 44 mm. At a normal viewing distance, the pixels are undetectable to the human eye, resulting in Retina-quality images. With a 448×368 pixel display on the 44mm model, the larger Apple Watch boasts more of them. The 40mm Apple Watch Series has a slightly bigger screen than the 38mm Apple Watch Series.

However, this is mostly due to the larger display. This style is ideal for smaller wrists as well as the wallet. It is the only size that consists of a modern buckle. It is smaller in size, and battery life is slightly less. I have a wrist size similar to yours and I think both watches fit me but I ended up buying the smaller watch.

The main reason was that the Milanese loop is my favourite band and the one for the larger watch was just too long for me. It only comes in 2 sizes (one length for the 38/40mm watch and one length for the 42/44mm watch). The display size of a 40mm apple watch is 394 x 324 pixels, whereas the display size of a 44mm apple watch is 448 x 368 pixels. My wrist size is about 155mm (6.2 inches) which size do you think will fits me?

I actually like the 44mm, but all of the watches that I had was all 40mm and it's actually fits me well. The size you'll choose doesn't only affect the price of the Apple Watch, but also bands compatibility, display size and, of course, how good it will look on your wrist. So, let's go through all of those factors and see what's what. With watches a lot depends on the band you are using. With case integrated bands like the sport band, the band curves smoothly away from the watch face, reducing the effect of a large watch. If you put the same watch on a standard strap, then the strap hangs straight down off the end of the watch case if you have a smaller wrist, making at large watch look gigantic.

How do you feel about the size of your 42 on that monstrous wrist of yours and do you like the size of the screen? I have both a Series 2 42mm and now a Series 4 44mm and both feel the same on the wrist. There is noticeably more real estate on the Series 2 than the Series 4. I would also give consideration to your decision making.

When comparing the two watch sizes, you may not see much of a difference. However, after testing both sizes in the store, I realized that the actual size of the display and the usability felt quite different because of the display size difference. It is not cartoonishly large but is obviously larger than intended.

In the end though asking others to tell you whether it is too big for you is silly. You will be the one wearing it so it is a matter of comfort and taste - no one can address those things but you. BTW, any device that goes edge to edge on your wrist will also be more exposed to scuffs and scratches at the upper and lower margins, if those bother you. Put a completely unnecessary bumper on it and it would look like a children's toy.

Simple answer - if you like large watches but it, if not go with other size. None of the Apple Watches would be regarded as overly wide or high in the traditional watch industry. For smaller wrists, the 40mm is more comfortable.

The Apple Watch 40mm has a 394×324 pixel display. Hermes Single Tour , Hermes Double Tour, and Modern Buckle are all 40mm-specific bands. The 44mm Apple Watch is the company's largest model to date, replacing the 42mm versions seen on Apple Watch Series 1 through 3. The model with the most official bands is this one. It has more properties and a longer battery life with a bigger battery.

As for the official sizing, Apple states that the 40mm model is suitable for wrists between 130 and 200mm, while the 44mm model's range is between 140 and 220mm. Unless you're at either end of the supported sizes, you're free to choose whichever model you like more. And although that's not properly visualized in the image above, the larger display will actually allow you to see more things rather than just display everything slightly bigger. Considering the small overall size of both displays, that can be quite an advantage if you're an Apple Watch power user and like to tinker with all sorts of apps. For the first time ever, this year Apple released a budget Apple Watch that carries the familiar moniker SE.

It appears Apple realized that not every Apple Watch user is a health buff that needs every possible health feature on their wrist. The Apple Solo Loop bands have a heap of sizes, and Apple has a tool to measure your wrist so you pick the right size. Let's go over how to measure your wrist and the key differences between the four models. First off, I can't recommend enough this series 4 beast.

I was a Series 0 SS owner, and loved the idea of the apple watch, but the struggle of the first gen was real. Coming into the S4 SSG, is like the biggest and most surprising Apple upgrade I've done in a long time. I am thinking of getting the 40mm stainless steel gold this time. I would say that the 44mm might feel quite large at first if you're used to 40mm but it shouldn't be a problem. For the general sizing guide, you're still within the advised range for both watches. Personally, I'm glad that I purchased the 44mm for my 165mm wrist and I think it would work perfectly fine for you aswell.

Some may feel more comfortable in the 40mm size and that is totally fine. Although I talked earlier about display and usability, both sizes are completely fine to use and it's more of a personal preference for me to have a larger display. The 44mm will probably look too bulky on a tiny wrist while the 40mm is not a good option if your wrist is close to 200mm. Better spend the extra bucks to get the larger Apple Watch SE. Speaking of bucks... You might think a 4mm difference isn't a big deal, but in reality, it's quite noticeable.

The 44mm Apple Watch SE comes with a 1.8-inch display with a resolution of 448 x 368 pixels while the smaller one has a 1.6-inch display with a resolution of 394 x 324 pixels. If you need yet another number to comprehend the difference, the 44mm model's display is 28.7% larger than that of the 40mm Apple Watch SE. These measurements denote the size of the bezel, though the straps do always play a role in the specific fit of the smartwatch on your wrist. Apple also takes its Watch measurement vertically, as opposed to most other brands, which do so horizontally. In 2018 Apple moved to a new size standard for its smartwatches. So Series 4 - 6, and crucially the Apple Watch SE, come in 40mm model and 44mm models.

For me, I like to use my watch to see my notifications, switch soundtracks, take calls and read texts, etc. Get a measurement band and measure your wrist to get a little bit of an understanding how far up or down you are in the size range advised by Apple. I will try to find a good priced genuine link bracelet on ebay as I didn't really like the replica, but besides that I am not sure what bands would fit the SB watch.

I always wanted a leather band but most leather bands i've seen have silver lugs fitting the SS model. Depending on the types of activity you do with it.. I feel the 44mm is too big for gym but the 40mm is, less obstructive.

Ask Any Difference is made to provide differences and comparisons of terms, products and services. The vision is to cover all differences with great depth. The display area of a 40mm apple watch is 759 square mm, whereas the display area of a 44mm apple watch is 977 square mm. Which wrist can wear which Apple Watch model depends on how long the appropriate bands are. It's important to note that while Apple Watch bands are compatible between generations, they're only compatible with the right size. This means, if you have an older Apple Watch that's 40mm or 38mm, you can use the bands with the Apple Watch SE 40mm, but not with the 44mm one and vice versa.

If that's the case, then you probably don't need to consider which size to get much longer. The new Apple Watch Series 7 moves to 41mm and 45mm case sizes – but Apple has confirmed that older bands will be compatible with the latest smartwatch. Well my opinion isn't the one that counts but I think the 42mm looks great.

If I were in your position, I'd think about screen size-- as in how much screen you want to view. Do you ever wish you could see more screen in your 42? If you're content with how much content you can view on your 42, then maybe the 40 will be a better choice. I tried both in the store — both look big on me, but I went for the larger screen. It can be tough choosing the correct size but it is definitely something you should be sure to take into consideration since it's a rather pricy investment for a watch.

I am happy about my choice to go with the 44/45mm size. In my case, I have found that the bands that are too wide could also make your wrist look more skinny. I have been using a slightly narrow band for the last couple of weeks and I believe it fits perfectly.

This is the most important factor to consider, i.e., battery life. Anyway, regardless if you're going for the GPS model or want to have LTE connectivity as well, the jump from the 40 to the 44mm model will only cost you $30. Over the span of two years, that's a little over a dollar a month of added cost. You should probably focus on other aspects when making this decision. When you're done with that, you can check our selection of the best Apple Watch bands.

The fit of your watch is a fairly subjective thing, but it's important to know just how big your wrist is before buying the Apple Watch or an additional band. Remember, too, that all bands that worked with Series 1-3 will correspond with the bigger/smaller size of the Series 4 or Series 5. So, a 38mm Series 2 band will fit the 40mm Series 5. If you are concerned about the actual practical use in terms of reading notifications, I advice you to go with the 44mm. That's not saying the 40mm is difficult to read, however I do believe the 44mm would be a better fit for you since it has the larger display.

Based on what I read I believe the 40mm is the better size. I will try to go to the Apple Store tomorrow and try it before I open the package. As I previously used the gear S3 I never gave any thought to the purchase at first. Afte doing some research I read that having a 46mm watch on my wrist was in general thought to be way out of proportion. It was indeed kind of big but it only had one size.

As a point of reference my wrist is 165mm, which puts me right on the border of 40 vs 44. So yesterday I ordered a stainless steel Apple Watch as an upgrade from my aluminium Watch and just saw that I ordered a 40mm on instead of a 44mm one. Now it got me thinking that a 40mm might fit me better. Ask Any Difference is a website that is owned and operated by Indragni Solutions. We strive to provide the best differences and comparisons.

A few years ago we as a company were searching for various terms and wanted to know the differences between them. Ever since then, we've been tearing up the trails and immersing ourselves in this wonderful hobby of writing about the differences and comparisons. We've learned from on-the-ground experience about these terms specially the product comparisons. This is the site where we share everything we've learned.