The debate between volume vs intensity in bodybuilding has been ongoing for decades, with strong arguments on both sides when it comes to building muscle.

DURING anybody's journey through bodybuilding there is likely to be a phrase or two that strikes a chord.

Keep It Simple Stupid [KISS] is one. Another that resonates comes from Lee Priest, never one to mince his words but, in the context of this article, he may have had a point. "Just fucking train," were his wise words.

But countless people in gyms across the country 'just fucking train' and few experience the sort of results that will take them to the stage, let alone win them a competition. So there must be more nuance to training than just those two phrases.

According to 'the science', volume is king for hypertrophy. But then how does one explain the anecdotal evidence from training routines such as DC Training by Dante Trudel [above] [DC = DoggCrapp, which was his website username at the time]?

DC Training, when it was first released, was met with a mixed reception. Some loved it and hailed it as a revelation, while others ridiculed it. How could muscle growth possibly be stimulated with just one exercise per bodypart – and one set?

But it was hardly a revelation. Dorian Yates had been advocating a similar type of training for years. In fact, he wrote as much in his second book, A Warrior's Story.

Up until he won the EFBB [now UKBFF] British Championships in 1986, Yates was using a standard upper-lower split. He trained three times a week. The main differences between his split and DC Training is that Yates did two to three sets, whereas DC Training advocates counting just one working set and extreme, weighted stretching for up to one minute. The number of rest-pause sets with DC, however, can be as high as two or three. And with a three-second negative, it attempts to squeeze as much intensity out of each rep as possible.

It was only later in his career that Yates dropped the number of sets he was performing. But even then he would still do more than one exercise per body part. It was here that he moved from three times a week four times [images above].

Volume v Intensity – how does the science compare?

Here’s a comparison of DC Training and high-volume training through the lens of scientific research on hypertrophy:

1. Training Volume and Frequency

• High-Volume Training: Science consistently shows a strong relationship between training volume (sets × reps × load) and hypertrophy. Studies indicate that a moderate-to-high training volume with multiple sets per muscle group per week tends to maximize hypertrophy by effectively stimulating muscle protein synthesis and maximizing muscular fatigue. For example, doing 10-20 sets per muscle group weekly is a common guideline for hypertrophy-focused volume training.
• DC Training: DC Training, by contrast, is low-volume and high-intensity. Each muscle is typically worked three times over a 14-day period. It includes one to two intense working sets taken to failure using techniques such as rest-pause and loaded stretches. This lower-volume approach relies aims to create similar muscle stimulation to that seen in high-volume programs.

Science Insight: While high-volume training aligns more closely with traditional research favouring higher set counts, DC Training’s emphasis on intensity can still produce hypertrophic gains.

2. Intensity and Failure Training

• DC Training: DC relies on pushing each working set to failure and beyond, with techniques such as rest-pause (where short rests allow you to squeeze out extra reps), three to five-second negatives and static holds. Training to failure is known to recruit maximum muscle fibers, which can be beneficial for hypertrophy. However, constant failure training can also increase fatigue and potentially lead to overtraining or injury, particularly without adequate recovery. However, a recovery period, usually after roughly six weeks, is built in to the programme.
• High-Volume Training: High-volume programs typically recommend stopping just short of failure on most sets. This allows for more total sets and reps and thereby a greater overall training volume. Stopping short of failure can mitigate fatigue and still lead to hypertrophy, provided that enough volume is reached.

Science Insight: Research shows that training close to failure is effective for hypertrophy but that training to absolute failure every set is not necessary. High-volume training often yields greater cumulative workload without hitting failure as consistently. This aligns with evidence supporting effective hypertrophy without needing maximal fatigue.

3. Frequency and Recovery

• DC Training: Muscles are worked frequently, with a typical schedule of training three times a week, with a split akin to upper/lower. Over the course of one year, there are 78 opportunities to stimulate growth. This is much more than the much-heralded 'bro split', where each body part is trained once per week.
• High-Volume Training: Generally, high-volume programs encourage training each muscle group just once per week. While there are few opportunities to stimulate growth, it could be argued that there are more opportunities FOR growth. This is because a particular muscle group is given more rest days.

Science Insight: Research suggests that higher frequencies (eg two to three times per week) may support better hypertrophic outcomes. It does this by keeping muscles in a more consistent state of stimulus and recovery.

4. Progressive Overload and Periodisation

• DC Training: Progressive overload is central to DC Training, with lifters aiming to increase weight or reps every session. However, the high intensity and failure training may limit long-term progression due to accumulated fatigue.
• High-Volume Training: With high-volume training, progressive overload is typically managed through incremental increases in volume or weight over time. It often incorporates periodisation to allow for phases of intensity and volume.

Science Insight: Research supports progressive overload as essential for hypertrophy, but managing fatigue is crucial for sustainability. High-volume training with periodisation often leads to longer-term adherence and growth compared to constantly hitting failure, as in DC Training.

Which Is More Effective?

• For maximal hypertrophy, high-volume training aligns more closely with the scientific consensus on optimal hypertrophic outcomes. This is primarily because of its cumulative workload, higher frequency and ability to manage fatigue over time. High-volume training is more adaptable for both beginners and advanced lifters, making it generally more sustainable.
• DC Training can be effective for certain advanced lifters, particularly those who respond well to low-volume, high-intensity training and can recover adequately from infrequent, intense sessions. However, it may not be as effective as high-volume approaches for overall hypertrophy, especially over longer periods.

In conclusion, while both low volume and high-volume training can lead to gains in muscle size, high-volume training has a broader base of scientific support and might be more universally effective, especially for consistent, long-term hypertrophy. Having said that, what we know for certain is that no one size ever fits all. And, as usual, it is what works best for you, the individual, that will result in the most progress.

At the beginning of this analysis, we spoke about phrases. Often, when something is working and is, therefore, good, many of us look for better. It is in that process where progress can become derailed. So, finally: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

MORE FROM FRONTDOUBLE:

BODYBUILDING RESULTS

ATHLETE PROFILES

HEALTH AND EDUCATION HUB

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Δ