You’re Not Fatigued, You’re Out of Shape

What a waste of time.

Low volume is the current training fad. Proponents state that it limits fatigue while optimizing gains. Their calculation of optimal is: Time spent training / Rate of progress = Optimal results. Such lifters put their time in the gym first because their primary goal is to train less per pound gained or added to the bar, after the fact justifying what is optimal by saying such things as, “Fatigue reduces progress” (and so they train less) and “I take all my sets to failure” (and so they train less) and “I’ve made good progress, for a natural” (and so they train less). Each of those statements is a confession. One that says, “I want to train as little as possible and whatever outcomes are realized are the best possible outcomes.” As if more time in the gym and more progress weren’t as good, because it meant spending more time training.

Now, don’t get it twisted. I’m not saying fatigue isn’t real. I’m also not saying that there’s no such thing as “too much” (far more than what they’ll call “junk volume”). What I am saying is that their perception of fatigue is so exaggerated that it keeps them from doing more and, in turn, seeing better progress. When they say that sets not taken to failure are junk volume, they quietly admit that they don’t understand training beyond one mechanism. That lack of understanding is the real cause of their fatigue and poor results because, by always finding ways to do less, they become less able to recover from what they do; their dwindling work capacity means that eventually their only way to shed fatigue is to stop training altogether. They call this a “deload.” I call it quitting for a while.

See, when a lifter with a high work capacity needs a deload because they’re feeling beat up or aren’t recovering the same as before, they reduce their training a little bit in one or more ways: volume, intensity, effort, and frequency being the most common. As a result, they benefit more from deloads because their higher level of General Physical Preparedness (GPP) supports faster recovery from fatigue. They can do this while continuing to train, only needing to slightly reduce what seems to be impacting them most. If they're in an accumulation phase, they might do fewer sets that week. If in an intensification phase, maybe they reduce the weight. Or, if really exhausted, they might do one or two fewer workouts. But when a lifter trains as little as possible (such proponents often espouse one or two sets per exercise), they have no option but to stop training because their work capacity (GPP) is so low that shedding fatigue requires no training whatsoever. This stems from their worldview.

To such lifters, any set not taken to failure is “junk volume.” When they regularly do one or two sets, they go to zero or one, halving their workload. But, in reality, based on my conversations with these types, they will instead not train at all because “Why go to the gym to do one set on each of my lifts? That’s a waste of time.” Again, less training time is their true goal, and they will find almost any excuse not to train at all. So they train less, worsening their work capacity and gradually demanding more frequent “deloads,” which means far fewer productive sets over a year of training. By year's end, they look in the mirror and, seeing a slight improvement, exclaim “I’ve made great progress, considering how little time I waste in the gym.”

Latching onto the notion that fatigue stymies gains and so less training, and therefore less fatigue, produces more gains is stupid. The truth is this: poor work capacity stymies gains because it allows more fatigue. Poor work capacity comes from a desire to do as little as possible, so they avoid “junk volume” like the plague, labeling high rep sets, easy sets, and high-volume workouts as such because to do more seems wasteful in the face of whatever studies they cling to that they interpret (often wrongly) as saying one sufficiently hard set produces the “optimal” growth compared to subsequent sets, which “takes more time and causes more fatigue with less stimulus.” The problem with this idea is that while true, more training volume will induce more fatigue; that fatigue, when gradually progressed and adapted to (as one would with adding weight to the bar), produces higher work capacity. Shortsighted, they fail to see this beneficial outcome that requires fatigue.

As an aside, is it any wonder that these lifters seem to frequently suffer from recurring injuries? Minor strains and tears that are caused by exerting themselves to failure while having bad technique. Why do they have bad technique? Because they don’t train often enough, or with enough sets to develop the skill of lifting weights; name the exercise, they’re bad at it. Enter the rise of novices who don't use free weights like bars and dumbbells, opting instead for machine-based training because it requires little skill. Their persistent weakness and smallness is, in fact, a skill issue.

If they are training wrong, what ought they do? More. Plain and simple. More sets and reps, not taken to failure, develop both skill and work capacity. Such work still promotes strength development and muscle growth because it should still be taken near either technical or muscular failure. Two to three reps left in the tank is sufficient, even when repeating such “easy sets” three, four, or five or more times. (Gasp!) But alas, that would require more time in the gym, the place where they don’t want to be.

Ironically, their sense of worth in the weight room relies on their ability to say they “train hard,” so they take what little they do to failure, believing that by doing so they are “training smart.” Simultaneously fulfilling two desires commonly found in insecure men: to appear both hardcore and intelligent

See that guy? He doesn't train hard. That's junk volume. I know more than him, so his results are worse than mine. Sure, I'm not as big and strong, but at least I’m not wasting my time.

Junk volume, so they say.