15
Is it possible to increase one's systemic fatigue reservoir for the gym, so I can do twice as much weekly volume with no drawbacks? Or is "lowering the systemic cost per set" the only viable solution? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/fitness@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Male, 40, 250 pounds (120kg) lifting seriously for 10 months. 💪

According to Jeff Nippard, 10 or more sets per week per muscle group is optimal for hypertrophy. Problem is, however, fatigue is multidimensional—local/peripheral (muscle metabolites, calcium handling, connective tissue), central/systemic (CNS, immune, endocrine), axial (spine/hips), and psychological. To add insult to injury, a certain type of prescription medication I take masks fatigue and boosts mesolimbic neurotransmitters (dopamine, norepinephrine) further exacerbating the problem.

As a result, I struggle to do more than 10 working sets per day, even when I split my daily volume into a morning session and afternoon session with 3-5 minute rests between sets. If I do more than this, I begin to fall behind in my personal life. (apparently "executive function" is one of the first victims of collateral damage for training too hard)

I take ice baths regularly in 6C water. I pride myself on mental toughness so it's not simply a matter of being lazy or cowardice. I'm also totally fine with doing 10 working sets per day because I've made more progress than I ever thought possible and if 10 working sets per day is my limit, I'm fine with that. I'm not complaining, just asking out of curiosity in case others here have gone through this and figured out a solution to this mildly annoying problem.

TL;DR: Is "lowering the systemic cost per set" the only viable solution for a lackluster systemic fatigue ceiling? (i.e. incorporating more "greasing the groove" style training that utilizes a high percentage of 1RM coupled with low RPE and high RIR)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This isn't a direct answer, and I'm not an expert. I would say that increasing your total weekly volume should be one of the last things you should do to increase hypertrophy. Volume itself has pretty drastic diminishing returns, and early on is a good way to push, but it falls off fast for the effort involved. Sets 5-10 do a lot more for you than 11-20 (edited reps-sets).

I would focus on training sufficiently close to failure, them increase your frequency. If you can hit the same muscle 3x a week instead of 1 or 2x, it's going to be a much bigger difference than slamming more reps onto the same workouts.

With that being said, for increasing lifting stamina, I wanted to do it, I would make sure your nutrition is on target and get good rest, then just slowly ramp up the volume and see what you can handle and adjust accordingly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    I would say that increasing your total weekly volume should be one of the last things you should do to increase hypertrophy.

    According to Jeff Nippard, you must do a minimum of 2 hard sets per week per muscle group to maintain muscle mass. (or 1 near-death set where you collapse to the floor immediately after your final rep, Mike-Mentzer style exertion)

    I only hit 10 weekly working sets for 1 muscle group (front delts). I do 2 working sets of lower body weekly. 6-8 hard sets per week of side delts. 4 hard sets per week of triceps/biceps. 2 hard sets of chest. No weekly minimum for calves, quadriceps, trapezius, back, lats, etc... (I just only care about front delts so everything else is deprioritized until I've dropped 50 pounds (25kg) of excess bodyfat very slowly)

    My weekly volume is pathetically low, especially now that I'm in a very modest calorie deficit of ~400 calories or 3 pounds per month. I should have mentioned in OP that I can only do 10 working sets per day when I'm not in a calorie deficit -- but my question is still the same as I will still want to know how to fix this in a year when my diet is over.

    Reps 5-10 do a lot more for you than 11-20

    Doesn't this go against the idea of "effective reps" for hypertrophy? i.e. the last 5 reps before failure are the only reps which matter? (as explained in this Jeff Nippard video below):

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    From experience, it is quite difficult to add significant volume in a deficit. The more extreme, the harder it is, especially as you get leaner and leaner. I could do 20 sets per week starting out at 220 lbs, but as I got closer to 15% and, I had to drop back to just 8-10 hard sets per week per muscle.

    It sounds like you're doing solid though. I think it's worth just focusing on sustainability during the cut to get to your lean-ness goal, then really hammer down when you switch to maintenance or a clean bulk. I think you'll be surprised how much more you'll be able to handle with you're not in a deficit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    That last bit, I meant sets, not reps. So fair catch. The first few sets do the majority of the growth stimulus compared to the later sets. Doing 1-2 hard sets a week gets you like 70℅ of the potential gains (I don't remember the exact number) and as you add sets, you get asymptotically closer to 100% of potential gains.

    I'll edit the comment for clarity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent