Intensity vs volume

u_e_s_i

u_e_s_i

Well-known member
I've read arguments advocating both but I find that in the short-term upping one often comes at the cost of the other. Which one is better (assuming one just is), or which one do you guys prefer?

From theory, I'd hypothesise that intensity favours strength gains whilst volume favours hypertrophy
 
you already said it. for a bodybuilder, the volume is key. a powerlifter will train with high intensity.

research is unambiguous, volume is the main factor for us.
 
u_e_s_i said:
I've read arguments advocating both but I find that in the short-term upping one often comes at the cost of the other. Which one is better (assuming one just is), or which one do you guys prefer?

From theory, I'd hypothesise that intensity favours strength gains whilst volume favours hypertrophy
Click to expand...

You got it
 
Honestly don’t think you can simplify it to this level - do agree with the above as a general note but in terms of ‘which is best’ it’s very much dependant on both goals and the individual lifter. Everyone reacts differently to training stimulus.

Of course you then have other variables such as frequency, TUT, adaptation, ability to recover etc etc.

Whilst there is definitely some solid parameters (within which training will generally be more effective) there is still a lot of variables for an individual lifter to content with. Otherwise by now there would be a set program for strength and one for hyperthropy that everyone agreed was the best.......I tend to follow the ‘try something, if it works do it till it doesn’t, if it doesn’t work, change it’ approach.
 
u_e_s_i said:
I've read arguments advocating both but I find that in the short-term upping one often comes at the cost of the other. Which one is better (assuming one just is), or which one do you guys prefer?

From theory, I'd hypothesise that intensity favours strength gains whilst volume favours hypertrophy
Click to expand...

Switching between both is the key, I guess.
BTW, You can train intense -but high volume too. Just shorten the pauses, go with rest pause sets -or drop sets.
Personally I mix both in 1 workout. As my shoulders are bad, I go for high volume and long reps (TUT) with low -to moderate weights.
Rowing I go heavy. IMHO, as long as you hit failure fairly often, either way works well.
 
I’m sorry but, to me, volume and intensity aren’t opposites. Volume is a measurable thing (high or low) but intensity always needs to be high if you want to grow so I’m a bit confused by the question.

DC training is low volume
FST training is high volume
Both use intensity (as with most training protocols)

If you think you’re going to build muscle but just doing high volume “pump” workouts, you’re wrong.

You need to give a muscle a reason to grow (progressive overload) or it will not. Not doing a million sets
 
I assumed that by volume OP meant high volume in terms of reps/sets compared to a typical HIT training protocol . I was under the impression HIT is not defined only be taking sets to positive muscular failure but also by both load and time. If my 1rm max is 260 and I bench 225 for 5 reps to failure (assuming the same tempo) I'm doing more work in an acute period than if I lifted 180 for 12.

While I agree in progressive overload and adaptation being the driving factor in muscle growth there's no reason you cannot progress from high volume pump training. Would you say 64 sets for chest each week is a lot?. For some it may be optimal.
 
ericos_bob said:
I assumed that by volume OP meant high volume in terms of reps/sets compared to a typical HIT training protocol . I was under the impression HIT is not defined only be taking sets to positive muscular failure but also by both load and time. If my 1rm max is 260 and I bench 225 for 5 reps to failure (assuming the same tempo) I'm doing more work in an acute period than if I lifted 180 for 12.

While I agree in progressive overload and adaptation being the driving factor in muscle growth there's no reason you cannot progress from high volume pump training. Would you say 64 sets for chest each week is a lot?. For some it may be optimal.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok that makes sense then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top