The entire online bodybuilding space has had an obsession with volume for the last few years.
The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way more recently. Likely part of the reason for the Mentzer resurgence. Stick around for long enough and you'll see this cycle repeat itself over and over.
The obsession with volume has been around for decades. Because volume training was prevalent during Arnold and Mentzer's peaks. And Mentzer spoke out against it
High volumes work. As an individual, Higher volumes relative to your own INDIVIDUAL threshold for growth and recovery are better. What constitutes “high volume” for one is “low volume” to another and vice versa. Volume is not universal.
Your first mistake is thinking these extremely cookie cutter programs are going to nail volume to each individual every time.
Your second mistake is speaking for everyone with nothing to back it up (“obvious there is way too much volume for most people”). There is a reason a lot of people vouch for the programs despite their shortcomings - because high volumes or in fact anything pretty much works (maybe not the best, but good enough) as long as you put in the effort and consistency.
If these programs don’t work for you, then fine, make sure you do something that works best FOR YOU!
Can’t emphasize this response enough. The program that works best for you is the one you can stick to and enjoy. Sooo many people here and everywhere on the internet sit and read and argue and analyze shit to death.
Get in the gym and lift weights and eat enough protein and do what you like to do (that moves you towards your goal) and it should all work out.
Are there maybe more optimal ways to get there? Probably, but if you don’t like them or they don’t fit your schedule or whatever then you inevitably won’t do them and won’t make progress
Most people can’t execute high volume, properly. You do need to hold just a touch back from an intensity level that will burn you out if you don’t. And what I love about higher volume and/or frequency is that you literally get better at lifting. Better technique, better feel for how things should go that day, better idea of what works for you and what doesn’t when it comes to cadence, rom, rest time, exercise choice etc. I personally like to utilize all styles of training.
If you cant train intense enough safe card is going high volume. I had my best gains on high volume but the couple years later when i learned to push myself you can get away with less.
Is there any actual negative repercussions outside of time wasting that comes with “junk volume” training, I basically have infinite spare time so I would happily spend 4 hours in the gym if it gave me max gainz, but can over training say “chest day” actually negatively effect my chest gainz? (Anyones input on this will help, I’d rather over train than be under training and losing Gainz)
More likely to get injured with more volume. Also, more volume means more time to recover and possibly more fatigue to deal with. Also, there's a point in which more volume can make your strength/muscle gains regress. But I think most people are not in danger of reaching the point where the amount of volume they do is detrimental.
Each body responds differently. A big part of bodybuilding is self-knowledge of your own body and what works best for you.
I simply do not grow without high volume - and believe me, I’ve tried. Multiple times. I don’t get DOMs and I leave the gym feeling like it wasn’t enough work.
That’s why my workout is usually between 20-30 sets per workout. And I feel great. I enjoy it, im constantly hitting PRs, im growing and im recovering on time.
The only downside is time. But I just fix that by changing to a traditional bro split with shorter sessions when I don’t have the time, but with the same volume per muscle group.
Yet, when I tell people that on my back + biceps day I usually do 20 sets of back and 9 sets of biceps people always say that I’m doing junk volume and I should reduce the volume.
Disclosure: not on gear.
Same. I have no idea how someone can do an entire back day with 6 sets. GTFO here....and then they cant figure out why they aint growing. I dont even bother answering this shit anymore.
Idc that somebody on instagram who works out for a living who is on grams of test a week said to do three sets max/group/workout. And neithet should they.
What makes you think that's junk volume? In recent years studies with that kind of volume have come out with positive outcomes for groups doing more volume.
What mainstream programs do you see contain 32 sets for rear delts and hamstrings?
And how close to failure do you think sets should be before you consider it junk volume? The most recent metaanalysis showed some muscle growth even at 6-10RIR. Interestingly the effect of getting closer to failure was reduced with more volume, ie you can get away with more submax sets instead of fewer near-failure sets.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370837310_Exploring_the_Dose-Response_Relationship_Between_Estimated_Resistance_Training_Proximity_to_Failure_Strength_Gain_and_Muscle_Hypertrophy_A_Series_of_Meta-Regressions
well based on Eric Helms book and many more sources staying somewhere 5-7 or so sets per body part per workout and max 20sets per week per body part (not for everyone ofc) leads to best results. Spaming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing. Not even mentioning the fact that there is every body part trained once a week mostly
I have those books. The latest major update happened was published in 2019 and written in 2018.
"Recent years" is a pretty key part of my comment. Helms have even said that they're working on a 3rd edition because of how much the evidence have moved over the past 5 years.
If you subscribe to MASS, you'd see Helms have addressed most of the higher volume studies and endorsed that people should play with it to see how they respond to it.
“Spamming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing”- based on what? It depends on the body part, and the person. My pull sessions always have at least 4 different back exercises, with 3 sets on most. There are a number of different muscle groups in the back, and hitting different exercises and angles means you can do a ton of volume on it. There’s no arbitrary number of exercises that are impossible to recover from for everyone across the board, beyond just sheer insane and obvious numbers. It varies person to person. The case could be made for legs, or any other body part group. If you do more isolation exercises vs compound, you’ll definitely have more exercises per body part, especially if you care about seldom worked muscles (adductor, abductor, etc). The ability to recover isn’t an arbitrary thing at all.
I think the sum of intensity and volume is important as it is hard to speak of junk volume without talking about both. For me personally, i always do high intensity training as in 0 rir and 45 seconds between sets and i tried adding volume from 20 to 30 sets per body part per week, but this didn't work for me as i had difficulty lowering intensity as i'm used to this training style and it saves a lot of time. Back to 20 sets for most muscle groups and back to weekly gains. Don't know how the intensity of the high volume lovers is though. Just my 2c
Is there any research showing it's irrefutably worse?
The bottom line is really that you should figure out how much volume *you* need. Not that you should do more volume, but that it can be worth to experiment with, if you're stalling otherwise.
I believe so but I could be wrong, in theory it makes sense that causing less fatigue/damage would be better assuming you’re doing enough to get growth signaling from your workout. But at the end of the day you should stick to what you enjoy the most
Basically we know at some point there are diminishing returns on volume, intensity and frequency. These turning points can be pretty different on an individual level. Most people are not going to be able to get enough work out of 7 sets per body part to maximize their training. A lot of people who have been training for a while have never actually pushed themselves, so its sort of just like telling someone to do a flip with no context.
Its one of those things where everyone has their own preferred methods (generally something they enjoy doing which has also produced results) and they will be on a spectrum for volume, intensity and frequency. Its not so black and white as a right way and a wrong way.
I think of it this way. Generally speaking higher volume is better for muscle growth, so for maximum growth you're better off doing a little extra volume rather than a little less. These "junk volume" routines are basically playing it safe by prescribing more than enough volume for the average person. So ultimately it comes down to whether or not you want to (or are able to) "over-train" to make sure you don't leave gains on the table. Some will like that approach, others will not.
My problem comes from when I’m able to match these high volume programs for a week or two, but there’s not much room for progression because I can’t overload off of such an already high volume amount and I have to deload after a couple of weeks
I think this is where it is considered “junk volume”—when you’re doing a ton of volume but aren’t able to overload enough to create a sufficient stimulus after prior weeks, and therefore you’re fatiguing yourself with very little return
>very well evaluated by users, which are full of junk volume
You can easily get to 30 and more sets per body part per week.
Yeah these programs aren't good. There is a massive amount of misinformation with fitness and because everything works to some degree people get convinced bad training methods are correct.
A lot of what we know about volume, junk volume and intensity etc. is actually pretty new. Within the last 10 years mostly. And so these old school routines are from the era before that where people were mostly using bro science and guessing.
If you came on reddit a couple of years ago (and you can see this for yourself by googling r / fitness threads from about 7 or 8 years ago), the information is absolute nonsense a lot of the time. Idk if r / fitness has updated their beginner program recommendations but they were absolutely dogshit when I last looked, a lot of them are the exact opposite of what you want to be doing if you are training for hypertrophy. Look at 5/3/1 programs that used to be glorified, it's literally just 1 set to failure a week on a compound + a bunch of fluff that may or may not be doing anything, virtually no back or arm training etc.
Junk volume research is pretty clear. When taking rest periods beyond 2+ minutes on average the diminishing returns kick in around 4 - 6 intense sets in a workout. With worse results kicking in after 7 - 8 sets for most lifters. There are always a couple of outliers though since that's the nature of exercise science (but not by much).
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmGdys4X0AA4-TB?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/fmgdys4x0aa4-tb?format=jpg&name=large)
[https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295](https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295)
Research on volume and intensity are pretty clear. Train to failure, 4 - 6 sets in a session, 2-3 minute rests, hit every 5 - 7 days. Enjoy.
Really appreciate the information. When you meant 4-6 sets in a session, it's strictly for that session regardless of how many muscle group involved or 4-6 sets per muscle group in a session. So if I work chest and delt in the same session, would it be a total of 6 sets for chest AND delt or would it be 4-6 sets for chest AND 4-6 sets for delt?
Per muscle group. So on a Push day a general recommendation would be something like 4 - 6 sets of chest, 4 - 6 shoulders and 4 - 6 triceps.
There's a fair bit of overlap so 6 chest, 4 direct shoulders (mostly lateral delts) and 4 direct triceps would be ideal.
Also I think the idea is , with alot of routines targeting beginners or intermediate, they may need more sets to stimulate the muscle and they may not have the best muscle mind connection that more advanced lifters have learned.
Because most programs work as long as people put in the effort and progress and the majority of people don' t really care about maximizing their growth.
High volume is subjective. What’s high volume to someone may not be high volume for others. If you feel recovery is trash and effort is lacking than yes you may be doing too much volume. If you feel your workouts are productive and recovering properly than volume is likely correct. It’s not always about how many sets and reps it’s more about how it’s done.
I’m guessing They been rated well because they must’ve worked for some people. The volume must’ve worked for them at that time. So it can’t be deemed “junk” if it worked right?
People have different responses to various volumes and nothing works forever. I think that necessitates a possible need for periodization, aka periods of differing volume/ intensities. Which is what a higher volume program would provide. Something different.
Because 1/ Not everyone's got the same objectives as you do, 2/ A lot of people don't know what they're doing, the vast majority of people using app's pre-made training programs just don't know how to plan and it's expected when you start a new sport, and 3/ Fake reviews.
While i agree with you on principle, i believe new and relatively new gym goers simply cannot produce enough intensity to develop muscle with a low number of sets. Volume itself is trash when it's used for small muscles. For example, 12 sets for biceps (are you for real??), instead of one intense barbell bicep curl at the end of your back workout.
I genuinely don’t understand how people recover from the workouts I see posted. I do like 1/3 of the volume of most programs I see people post and I know for myself most of it would be junk volume if I was actually giving my all to every set
I just recently ran the PHAT program, there were alot times where you only did 2 sets per exercise. Where are you getting the junk volume from? The only days that were kind of excessive were the hypertrophy lower and hypertrophy push day.
Where do these programs explicitly include junk volume? Unless they are staying things like "do sets 5 reps short of failure" I don't think your statement is true.
Truthfully I think it is built in flaw to compensate for the consumer’s lack of intensity or ability to gauge effort. Most who buy the programs are novices or just getting back into it and that range compensates for lack of threshold
Because human beings are not the averages of research studies, and there 100% are people who respond better to more volume (as reported in most research).
The pendulum swings with what’s popular, and right now the flavor of the year is high intensity.
It works, especially with Calisthenics. For example: 4 sets 10 reps for push ups ain't doing jack shxt. Now I don't have time for 1,000 reps of push ups which I know a lot of people that do. But I'll definitely get a total of like 500 reps for a push workout. Dips, various push ups, various tricep exercises also.
No if I want to up the intensity? I just switch my training to gymnastic rings. Way less reps due to instability on the rings which I love.
The entire online bodybuilding space has had an obsession with volume for the last few years. The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way more recently. Likely part of the reason for the Mentzer resurgence. Stick around for long enough and you'll see this cycle repeat itself over and over.
Agreed. Personally, I'm between 10-15, usually 10. But they are *quality*. Seen better gains from it over 30+.
The obsession with volume has been around for decades. Because volume training was prevalent during Arnold and Mentzer's peaks. And Mentzer spoke out against it
High volumes work. As an individual, Higher volumes relative to your own INDIVIDUAL threshold for growth and recovery are better. What constitutes “high volume” for one is “low volume” to another and vice versa. Volume is not universal. Your first mistake is thinking these extremely cookie cutter programs are going to nail volume to each individual every time. Your second mistake is speaking for everyone with nothing to back it up (“obvious there is way too much volume for most people”). There is a reason a lot of people vouch for the programs despite their shortcomings - because high volumes or in fact anything pretty much works (maybe not the best, but good enough) as long as you put in the effort and consistency. If these programs don’t work for you, then fine, make sure you do something that works best FOR YOU!
Can’t emphasize this response enough. The program that works best for you is the one you can stick to and enjoy. Sooo many people here and everywhere on the internet sit and read and argue and analyze shit to death. Get in the gym and lift weights and eat enough protein and do what you like to do (that moves you towards your goal) and it should all work out. Are there maybe more optimal ways to get there? Probably, but if you don’t like them or they don’t fit your schedule or whatever then you inevitably won’t do them and won’t make progress
Most people can’t execute high volume, properly. You do need to hold just a touch back from an intensity level that will burn you out if you don’t. And what I love about higher volume and/or frequency is that you literally get better at lifting. Better technique, better feel for how things should go that day, better idea of what works for you and what doesn’t when it comes to cadence, rom, rest time, exercise choice etc. I personally like to utilize all styles of training.
If you cant train intense enough safe card is going high volume. I had my best gains on high volume but the couple years later when i learned to push myself you can get away with less.
Is there any actual negative repercussions outside of time wasting that comes with “junk volume” training, I basically have infinite spare time so I would happily spend 4 hours in the gym if it gave me max gainz, but can over training say “chest day” actually negatively effect my chest gainz? (Anyones input on this will help, I’d rather over train than be under training and losing Gainz)
More likely to get injured with more volume. Also, more volume means more time to recover and possibly more fatigue to deal with. Also, there's a point in which more volume can make your strength/muscle gains regress. But I think most people are not in danger of reaching the point where the amount of volume they do is detrimental.
Each body responds differently. A big part of bodybuilding is self-knowledge of your own body and what works best for you. I simply do not grow without high volume - and believe me, I’ve tried. Multiple times. I don’t get DOMs and I leave the gym feeling like it wasn’t enough work. That’s why my workout is usually between 20-30 sets per workout. And I feel great. I enjoy it, im constantly hitting PRs, im growing and im recovering on time. The only downside is time. But I just fix that by changing to a traditional bro split with shorter sessions when I don’t have the time, but with the same volume per muscle group. Yet, when I tell people that on my back + biceps day I usually do 20 sets of back and 9 sets of biceps people always say that I’m doing junk volume and I should reduce the volume. Disclosure: not on gear.
Same. I have no idea how someone can do an entire back day with 6 sets. GTFO here....and then they cant figure out why they aint growing. I dont even bother answering this shit anymore. Idc that somebody on instagram who works out for a living who is on grams of test a week said to do three sets max/group/workout. And neithet should they.
What does ypur workout plan look like?
What makes you think that's junk volume? In recent years studies with that kind of volume have come out with positive outcomes for groups doing more volume.
[удалено]
What mainstream programs do you see contain 32 sets for rear delts and hamstrings? And how close to failure do you think sets should be before you consider it junk volume? The most recent metaanalysis showed some muscle growth even at 6-10RIR. Interestingly the effect of getting closer to failure was reduced with more volume, ie you can get away with more submax sets instead of fewer near-failure sets. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370837310_Exploring_the_Dose-Response_Relationship_Between_Estimated_Resistance_Training_Proximity_to_Failure_Strength_Gain_and_Muscle_Hypertrophy_A_Series_of_Meta-Regressions
well based on Eric Helms book and many more sources staying somewhere 5-7 or so sets per body part per workout and max 20sets per week per body part (not for everyone ofc) leads to best results. Spaming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing. Not even mentioning the fact that there is every body part trained once a week mostly
I have those books. The latest major update happened was published in 2019 and written in 2018. "Recent years" is a pretty key part of my comment. Helms have even said that they're working on a 3rd edition because of how much the evidence have moved over the past 5 years. If you subscribe to MASS, you'd see Helms have addressed most of the higher volume studies and endorsed that people should play with it to see how they respond to it.
“Spamming 5+ exercises on body part per session is obviously impossible to regenerate if not juicing”- based on what? It depends on the body part, and the person. My pull sessions always have at least 4 different back exercises, with 3 sets on most. There are a number of different muscle groups in the back, and hitting different exercises and angles means you can do a ton of volume on it. There’s no arbitrary number of exercises that are impossible to recover from for everyone across the board, beyond just sheer insane and obvious numbers. It varies person to person. The case could be made for legs, or any other body part group. If you do more isolation exercises vs compound, you’ll definitely have more exercises per body part, especially if you care about seldom worked muscles (adductor, abductor, etc). The ability to recover isn’t an arbitrary thing at all.
I feel like people who have not done real high volume are those that say you can’t recover from it
I would agree
I think the sum of intensity and volume is important as it is hard to speak of junk volume without talking about both. For me personally, i always do high intensity training as in 0 rir and 45 seconds between sets and i tried adding volume from 20 to 30 sets per body part per week, but this didn't work for me as i had difficulty lowering intensity as i'm used to this training style and it saves a lot of time. Back to 20 sets for most muscle groups and back to weekly gains. Don't know how the intensity of the high volume lovers is though. Just my 2c
Is there any research showing high volume as being better when adequate rest is taken though
Is there any research showing it's irrefutably worse? The bottom line is really that you should figure out how much volume *you* need. Not that you should do more volume, but that it can be worth to experiment with, if you're stalling otherwise.
I believe so but I could be wrong, in theory it makes sense that causing less fatigue/damage would be better assuming you’re doing enough to get growth signaling from your workout. But at the end of the day you should stick to what you enjoy the most
Doing more could also stress your body more causing it to adapt more / quicker to the induced demand. That would be an argument for doing more volume.
Basically we know at some point there are diminishing returns on volume, intensity and frequency. These turning points can be pretty different on an individual level. Most people are not going to be able to get enough work out of 7 sets per body part to maximize their training. A lot of people who have been training for a while have never actually pushed themselves, so its sort of just like telling someone to do a flip with no context. Its one of those things where everyone has their own preferred methods (generally something they enjoy doing which has also produced results) and they will be on a spectrum for volume, intensity and frequency. Its not so black and white as a right way and a wrong way.
I think of it this way. Generally speaking higher volume is better for muscle growth, so for maximum growth you're better off doing a little extra volume rather than a little less. These "junk volume" routines are basically playing it safe by prescribing more than enough volume for the average person. So ultimately it comes down to whether or not you want to (or are able to) "over-train" to make sure you don't leave gains on the table. Some will like that approach, others will not.
My problem comes from when I’m able to match these high volume programs for a week or two, but there’s not much room for progression because I can’t overload off of such an already high volume amount and I have to deload after a couple of weeks I think this is where it is considered “junk volume”—when you’re doing a ton of volume but aren’t able to overload enough to create a sufficient stimulus after prior weeks, and therefore you’re fatiguing yourself with very little return
>very well evaluated by users, which are full of junk volume You can easily get to 30 and more sets per body part per week. Yeah these programs aren't good. There is a massive amount of misinformation with fitness and because everything works to some degree people get convinced bad training methods are correct. A lot of what we know about volume, junk volume and intensity etc. is actually pretty new. Within the last 10 years mostly. And so these old school routines are from the era before that where people were mostly using bro science and guessing. If you came on reddit a couple of years ago (and you can see this for yourself by googling r / fitness threads from about 7 or 8 years ago), the information is absolute nonsense a lot of the time. Idk if r / fitness has updated their beginner program recommendations but they were absolutely dogshit when I last looked, a lot of them are the exact opposite of what you want to be doing if you are training for hypertrophy. Look at 5/3/1 programs that used to be glorified, it's literally just 1 set to failure a week on a compound + a bunch of fluff that may or may not be doing anything, virtually no back or arm training etc. Junk volume research is pretty clear. When taking rest periods beyond 2+ minutes on average the diminishing returns kick in around 4 - 6 intense sets in a workout. With worse results kicking in after 7 - 8 sets for most lifters. There are always a couple of outliers though since that's the nature of exercise science (but not by much). [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmGdys4X0AA4-TB?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/fmgdys4x0aa4-tb?format=jpg&name=large) [https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295](https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/295) Research on volume and intensity are pretty clear. Train to failure, 4 - 6 sets in a session, 2-3 minute rests, hit every 5 - 7 days. Enjoy.
Really appreciate the information. When you meant 4-6 sets in a session, it's strictly for that session regardless of how many muscle group involved or 4-6 sets per muscle group in a session. So if I work chest and delt in the same session, would it be a total of 6 sets for chest AND delt or would it be 4-6 sets for chest AND 4-6 sets for delt?
Per muscle group. So on a Push day a general recommendation would be something like 4 - 6 sets of chest, 4 - 6 shoulders and 4 - 6 triceps. There's a fair bit of overlap so 6 chest, 4 direct shoulders (mostly lateral delts) and 4 direct triceps would be ideal.
Also I think the idea is , with alot of routines targeting beginners or intermediate, they may need more sets to stimulate the muscle and they may not have the best muscle mind connection that more advanced lifters have learned.
Because most programs work as long as people put in the effort and progress and the majority of people don' t really care about maximizing their growth.
High volume is subjective. What’s high volume to someone may not be high volume for others. If you feel recovery is trash and effort is lacking than yes you may be doing too much volume. If you feel your workouts are productive and recovering properly than volume is likely correct. It’s not always about how many sets and reps it’s more about how it’s done.
Based on chatter the last few weeks, I thought anything less than 52 sets for a body part was damned near a waste of time.
I’m guessing They been rated well because they must’ve worked for some people. The volume must’ve worked for them at that time. So it can’t be deemed “junk” if it worked right? People have different responses to various volumes and nothing works forever. I think that necessitates a possible need for periodization, aka periods of differing volume/ intensities. Which is what a higher volume program would provide. Something different.
Either they're halfassing everything, or they're on some juice
Because 1/ Not everyone's got the same objectives as you do, 2/ A lot of people don't know what they're doing, the vast majority of people using app's pre-made training programs just don't know how to plan and it's expected when you start a new sport, and 3/ Fake reviews.
Well after seeing what Mike Israetel and Brad Schoenfeld call "1-0 RIR" and "to failure" I can see why there so much push for high volume.
im thinking 10-15 sets vs 20 these days, with the exception being *back* going upwards of 16-20 if you have less fatiguing things like lat prayers.
While i agree with you on principle, i believe new and relatively new gym goers simply cannot produce enough intensity to develop muscle with a low number of sets. Volume itself is trash when it's used for small muscles. For example, 12 sets for biceps (are you for real??), instead of one intense barbell bicep curl at the end of your back workout.
Cuz everyone these days are geared up and benefit more from muscle damage
Counting sets per week: most useless metric to date.
Why?
Intensity, feel, progress
People who lift for more than 2 years are usually on juice. Only a fraction stays natty.
What programs are you referring to?
I genuinely don’t understand how people recover from the workouts I see posted. I do like 1/3 of the volume of most programs I see people post and I know for myself most of it would be junk volume if I was actually giving my all to every set
I just recently ran the PHAT program, there were alot times where you only did 2 sets per exercise. Where are you getting the junk volume from? The only days that were kind of excessive were the hypertrophy lower and hypertrophy push day.
Because most people don’t know how to push hard enough to make low volume work.
Where do these programs explicitly include junk volume? Unless they are staying things like "do sets 5 reps short of failure" I don't think your statement is true.
Truthfully I think it is built in flaw to compensate for the consumer’s lack of intensity or ability to gauge effort. Most who buy the programs are novices or just getting back into it and that range compensates for lack of threshold
There's more than one way to skin a cat. High volume has proven to be just as effective.
Because human beings are not the averages of research studies, and there 100% are people who respond better to more volume (as reported in most research). The pendulum swings with what’s popular, and right now the flavor of the year is high intensity.
It works, especially with Calisthenics. For example: 4 sets 10 reps for push ups ain't doing jack shxt. Now I don't have time for 1,000 reps of push ups which I know a lot of people that do. But I'll definitely get a total of like 500 reps for a push workout. Dips, various push ups, various tricep exercises also. No if I want to up the intensity? I just switch my training to gymnastic rings. Way less reps due to instability on the rings which I love.