This is so similar to personal finance. Everyone (the industry) focussed on the tertiary concepts (investment strategy) when the bulk of the success comes from an individuals behaviour (savings rate, delaying gratification, behaving well as an investor). But there ain’t much money in that and everyone wants a quick fix. Thank you for the piece.
Money is so much easier! It compounds. Imagine lifting got easier the more muscle you have. Like you just lift really hard for 5 years and let it grow and youre jacked at 45 without doing anything else.
I’m actually gonna push back on that mate. I deal with a lot of wealthy folks, who have already ‘done the hard bit’.
If those people were able to just coast and let their money work for them, I’d be out of a job. We are hard wired to make unforced, behavioural errors and those biases get ever more ingrained as the numbers rise.
Put another way, wealth is not a great indicator of financial literacy. Just my experience.
We need a similar article on personal finance! David, you got any resources or advice on this! I like the way Dylan put the formula [especially with primary(60% of results), secondary(30%) and tertiary (10%)] , need a similar formula and mental model for financial knowledge
"Most people should absolutely be relying on compound lifts for their bread-and-butter exercises."
I agree, but I wonder if lifters with longer arms would benefit from adding isolated biceps and triceps exercises compared to lifters with shorter arms? I don't ever work arms and I'm happy with only compound lifts. My tall, long-armed friend wants better arms and adds in curls and extensions.
"If you hit 1-rep-maxes every workout, you’re placing your CNS under severe stress, putting immense strain on your joints, and increasing the chance of injury. If you pick such a light weight that you can do 20 reps straight before feeling fatigued, that’s just not time efficient. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps a weight such that you can perform 10 clean reps on your first set (with less on subsequent sets), is probably the best approach."
I'm curious that this is included in the tertiary section given that if an injury does occur, it has a significant impact on progress.
I also question the optimal rep range here. 20 reps of 40 pound dumbbells is roughly equivalent to the volume of 10 reps of 80 pound dumbbells. 80 pound dumbbells are much more heavy to me. If I try to lift them, I've got poor form and risk injury. But I can crank out 20 reps of 40 pound dumbbells. Seems like the sweet spot for optimal volume is a slightly higher rep range (but not exceeding 30 reps), especially for those looking for protect their joints. And if consistency is the most important thing, you should do everything to protect your joints.
What you're saying about supplements checks out with everything I've read, but I do wonder if there are supplements that are good for joint health.
Yea, one problem taller lifters face is that they need larger amounts of muscle mass to look similarly 'filled out' on their frame. This is notoriously the case for the longer limbs specifically, and adding isolation work after the compounds in order to get the weekly set count for biceps for example up to the 10-15 range would be totally reasonable.
You make a good point about the negative follow-on impacts of injuries. Perhaps that risk specifically would justify moving higher in importance!
Regarding optimal rep ranges for muscle growth, nobody has been able to demonstrate that any specific rep range is better than another after controlling for variables such as set count, volume, or proximity to failure. So, it would be totally reasonable to do 20 reps instead of 10- but if you do this for every exercise you're going to be substantially increasing the time in the gym. And the cardio requirement to successfully hit 20 squats down to 1 RIR is not going to be fun!
Age is a factor. You young boys will probably do just fine hitting 5-10 reps/set and getting the hell out of there in time to go on a date. The older married guys may want to spend a little more time in the gym if it means our joints hurt a little less.
Just as an aside- cardio/fun, i suspect the variance is high. Seems like you either love running or hate it. I tend to do ass to grass squats at about the 10-15 rep range, but I'm probably not hitting RIR as to the quads and glutes. It's more like extreme yoga. I do squats and RDLSs last and leave feeling sufficiently wrecked. That's good for the psychological sense of accomplishment, but I have doubts whether I'm building my legs.
Rep ranges depend a lot on the exercise itself. Let’s take two different exercises where you decide to do 20 reps. On one you’re able to reach muscular failure before your cardiovascular system limits you, on the other your cardiovascular system gives out first before your target muscle gives out. In such a case obviously the high rep range only makes sense for the first exercise, not the second. The key is that you should get as close to muscular failure as possible, that’s it.
Just one thing missing here for me, and it’s really quibbling. That would be form, well executed exercises make injuries less likely and exercises more effective especially when you get to the end of a set. Although it’s at the end of a set where form really starts to fail. I suppose this is also why having a ‘gym buddy’ is so helpful.
A LOT OF PEOPLE NEED TO READ THIS. Thank you for busting these common myths. As someone who has been into fitness for 10+ years, I've seen so many people make this journey so hard, while wasting so much time and money. This post was breath of fresh air to read.
This has to be one of the best fitness info articles I’ve read in recent memory. The research is top notch, the advice is stupidly actionable, and the voice is inspiring. I’m just planning my winter lifting routine and this article will absolutely be a spirit guide for the coming months. Thank you for writing this!
A straightforward, fairly enjoyable read, thanks. It feels like a decent sized chunk of advice is missing though. Maybe a companion piece is in order? "Losing weight is simple"?
About the number of sets per week: many people do much more than 10-15 sets. Certainly, healthy people doing bodybuilding usually do a great deal more than that--and of course it works for them. I suspect that one can increase the number sets only if one takes very seriously the rest & recovery requirements. In brief, it's perfectly fine to do 30 sets/week provided one can devote plenty of time to r&r, plus really good nutrition. No?
1) Most people count a set for a muscle group even if it's of secondary importance, whereas the definition used in the studies is only the primary muscle involved. For example, most lifters would count 5 sets of bench press as 5 sets of chest, triceps, and possibly even front delts. The research would count it as only 5 sets of chest. So, the 15 sets of the strict research definition might actually equate to the larger number of sets people are doing under the looser definition.
2) With a perfect diet and recovery protocols (which these studies generally do not include), it is pretty easy to imagine that lifters might be able to see benefit beyond the upper range of what was calculated. So, I agree that professional bodybuilders are probably not wasting their time at say 20 sets even under the strict definition, which probably corresponds to ~30 sets at the recreational definition.
My understanding is yes, but there are diminishing returns at 20-30 sets per week. That is to say, you'll see more gains at the 10-20 sets per week range, but that's not to say the 20-30 sets range is total "junk volume." A professional body builder may certainly want to chase those gains on the back end, whereas a regular dude may not find them worth his time.
I could be wrong though, I don't have the research in front of me.
Great article, nicely & clearly laid out & good to see it all in one place. Also, chimes with the other sources I trust. (Zoe, Arnie, James Smith.) Thanks. Interested in the weight loss one coming, which I'm sure will also help people.
This is so similar to personal finance. Everyone (the industry) focussed on the tertiary concepts (investment strategy) when the bulk of the success comes from an individuals behaviour (savings rate, delaying gratification, behaving well as an investor). But there ain’t much money in that and everyone wants a quick fix. Thank you for the piece.
True, so much so in fact that I’ve been concurrently working on both this post AND a similar one regarding investing (which is my actual career).
Money is so much easier! It compounds. Imagine lifting got easier the more muscle you have. Like you just lift really hard for 5 years and let it grow and youre jacked at 45 without doing anything else.
I’m actually gonna push back on that mate. I deal with a lot of wealthy folks, who have already ‘done the hard bit’.
If those people were able to just coast and let their money work for them, I’d be out of a job. We are hard wired to make unforced, behavioural errors and those biases get ever more ingrained as the numbers rise.
Put another way, wealth is not a great indicator of financial literacy. Just my experience.
Great point - for all things in life, in fact!
We need a similar article on personal finance! David, you got any resources or advice on this! I like the way Dylan put the formula [especially with primary(60% of results), secondary(30%) and tertiary (10%)] , need a similar formula and mental model for financial knowledge
Please hold, caller. I’m putting something together.
Looking forward to it 🤞
Thanks! Please leave a comment once ready
https://themoneyden.substack.com/p/foundations?r=2rc8b2 - put this together this week buddy.
You got the answer in "The Psychology of Money" book.
Aw cool I won't bother then.
Yes. And like compounding time is the exponent in the formula.
Studied both sports science and finance. 100% agree.
Solid, well-researched, disinterested summaries like this make the world a better place. Have a nice week!
Very kind, thank you 🙏
This is the salt fat acid heat of fitness
Thank you for these essentials 🫡
What a great comparison. Although sometimes being a good cook can make the looking jacked part harder!
All true—and I say this as a personal trainer of 20 years.
"Most people should absolutely be relying on compound lifts for their bread-and-butter exercises."
I agree, but I wonder if lifters with longer arms would benefit from adding isolated biceps and triceps exercises compared to lifters with shorter arms? I don't ever work arms and I'm happy with only compound lifts. My tall, long-armed friend wants better arms and adds in curls and extensions.
"If you hit 1-rep-maxes every workout, you’re placing your CNS under severe stress, putting immense strain on your joints, and increasing the chance of injury. If you pick such a light weight that you can do 20 reps straight before feeling fatigued, that’s just not time efficient. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps a weight such that you can perform 10 clean reps on your first set (with less on subsequent sets), is probably the best approach."
I'm curious that this is included in the tertiary section given that if an injury does occur, it has a significant impact on progress.
I also question the optimal rep range here. 20 reps of 40 pound dumbbells is roughly equivalent to the volume of 10 reps of 80 pound dumbbells. 80 pound dumbbells are much more heavy to me. If I try to lift them, I've got poor form and risk injury. But I can crank out 20 reps of 40 pound dumbbells. Seems like the sweet spot for optimal volume is a slightly higher rep range (but not exceeding 30 reps), especially for those looking for protect their joints. And if consistency is the most important thing, you should do everything to protect your joints.
What you're saying about supplements checks out with everything I've read, but I do wonder if there are supplements that are good for joint health.
Yea, one problem taller lifters face is that they need larger amounts of muscle mass to look similarly 'filled out' on their frame. This is notoriously the case for the longer limbs specifically, and adding isolation work after the compounds in order to get the weekly set count for biceps for example up to the 10-15 range would be totally reasonable.
You make a good point about the negative follow-on impacts of injuries. Perhaps that risk specifically would justify moving higher in importance!
Regarding optimal rep ranges for muscle growth, nobody has been able to demonstrate that any specific rep range is better than another after controlling for variables such as set count, volume, or proximity to failure. So, it would be totally reasonable to do 20 reps instead of 10- but if you do this for every exercise you're going to be substantially increasing the time in the gym. And the cardio requirement to successfully hit 20 squats down to 1 RIR is not going to be fun!
Age is a factor. You young boys will probably do just fine hitting 5-10 reps/set and getting the hell out of there in time to go on a date. The older married guys may want to spend a little more time in the gym if it means our joints hurt a little less.
Just as an aside- cardio/fun, i suspect the variance is high. Seems like you either love running or hate it. I tend to do ass to grass squats at about the 10-15 rep range, but I'm probably not hitting RIR as to the quads and glutes. It's more like extreme yoga. I do squats and RDLSs last and leave feeling sufficiently wrecked. That's good for the psychological sense of accomplishment, but I have doubts whether I'm building my legs.
> I have doubts whether I'm building my legs
are you tracking measurements?
No. Should I be?
I was just thinking if you aren’t sure your legs are getting bigger you should track measurements so you know
Rep ranges depend a lot on the exercise itself. Let’s take two different exercises where you decide to do 20 reps. On one you’re able to reach muscular failure before your cardiovascular system limits you, on the other your cardiovascular system gives out first before your target muscle gives out. In such a case obviously the high rep range only makes sense for the first exercise, not the second. The key is that you should get as close to muscular failure as possible, that’s it.
Just one thing missing here for me, and it’s really quibbling. That would be form, well executed exercises make injuries less likely and exercises more effective especially when you get to the end of a set. Although it’s at the end of a set where form really starts to fail. I suppose this is also why having a ‘gym buddy’ is so helpful.
Good point
Crazy how long it took me to find something this simple yet thorough on how to properly build muscle mass/strength. Thanks for sharing
A LOT OF PEOPLE NEED TO READ THIS. Thank you for busting these common myths. As someone who has been into fitness for 10+ years, I've seen so many people make this journey so hard, while wasting so much time and money. This post was breath of fresh air to read.
This has to be one of the best fitness info articles I’ve read in recent memory. The research is top notch, the advice is stupidly actionable, and the voice is inspiring. I’m just planning my winter lifting routine and this article will absolutely be a spirit guide for the coming months. Thank you for writing this!
Simple, but not easy. Worth it though.
Indeed. I think Theo Roosevelt is supposed to have said “nothing worth having comes easy.”
A straightforward, fairly enjoyable read, thanks. It feels like a decent sized chunk of advice is missing though. Maybe a companion piece is in order? "Losing weight is simple"?
I’m working on that one now :)
Fat lost = 0.6(caloric deficit %) + 0.3 (time) - 0.1(inherited fat-preserving genes).
This is a great writeup. A follow-up would be the cherry on top!
Honestly, this article is the truth and no other article needs written. That's it.
About the number of sets per week: many people do much more than 10-15 sets. Certainly, healthy people doing bodybuilding usually do a great deal more than that--and of course it works for them. I suspect that one can increase the number sets only if one takes very seriously the rest & recovery requirements. In brief, it's perfectly fine to do 30 sets/week provided one can devote plenty of time to r&r, plus really good nutrition. No?
I think there's 2 things going on:
1) Most people count a set for a muscle group even if it's of secondary importance, whereas the definition used in the studies is only the primary muscle involved. For example, most lifters would count 5 sets of bench press as 5 sets of chest, triceps, and possibly even front delts. The research would count it as only 5 sets of chest. So, the 15 sets of the strict research definition might actually equate to the larger number of sets people are doing under the looser definition.
2) With a perfect diet and recovery protocols (which these studies generally do not include), it is pretty easy to imagine that lifters might be able to see benefit beyond the upper range of what was calculated. So, I agree that professional bodybuilders are probably not wasting their time at say 20 sets even under the strict definition, which probably corresponds to ~30 sets at the recreational definition.
My understanding is yes, but there are diminishing returns at 20-30 sets per week. That is to say, you'll see more gains at the 10-20 sets per week range, but that's not to say the 20-30 sets range is total "junk volume." A professional body builder may certainly want to chase those gains on the back end, whereas a regular dude may not find them worth his time.
I could be wrong though, I don't have the research in front of me.
Great article, nicely & clearly laid out & good to see it all in one place. Also, chimes with the other sources I trust. (Zoe, Arnie, James Smith.) Thanks. Interested in the weight loss one coming, which I'm sure will also help people.
Wow, thank you for writing this. Very inspired to and much less overwhelmed about getting a lifting program going again.
Some of the most clean cut advice you’ll ever get, thanks for this!
Thank you for the kind words!