Not Growing? You Aren’t Training Enough

Israetel argues that simply adding sets to an existing workout can feel like 'junk volume' and be mentally draining. By spreading the same per-session volume across more days, you accumulate more total work without the dread of a marathon session. He emphasizes that this is a 'big deal' and can cause notable gains if low volumes weren't working. He suggests doing this only for a few muscles that recover fast, to keep systemic fatigue in check.

Israetel explains that one of the worst things about high-volume training is the time it takes. Myo-reps solve this by condensing the work. He describes the protocol in detail: after the first set to near failure, you rest only 5–10 seconds, then do a few reps to reach the same total, repeating until you can't. He notes that even though it's not a ton of sets, the volume is 'nuts' because you're getting close to failure numerous times. He admits 'it sucks, but you don't waste a lot of time doing it.'

Israetel suggests this as a fun alternative to doing many straight sets of an isolation exercise. He gives the example of tricep pushdowns immediately followed by dips or deficit push-ups. He says the amount of volume and stimulus is 'massive' and because rest is short, it doesn't take much time. He even suggests a variation: pushdowns then flat or incline dumbbell press, where triceps are the limiting factor, saying 'it will cook that ass.' He recommends trying these techniques only on muscles that recover fast but aren't growing.

Israetel frames this as the core message: when low volume doesn't work, more volume almost certainly will. He advises using the three techniques (frequency, myo-reps, supersets) to implement higher volume without excessive time or monotony. He stresses that this is not a guess but what the literature says, and that he has no dog in the fight—he loves heavy low-volume training but acknowledges the reality.

Israetel explains that multiple university studies since then, including a landmark study peaking at 52 sets, have consistently shown that higher volumes produce more growth. He emphasizes that this does not mean everyone must do 52 sets for all muscles, because individual differences, systemic fatigue, and time constraints limit real-world application. However, for stubborn muscles that recover quickly, pushing volume far beyond 20 sets is often the answer. He notes that the low-volume crowd memed the 52-set study hoping it was a joke, but the data are clear: as long as you can recover (strength goes up session to session), more volume generally means more growth.

Israetel acknowledges that this approach has wisdom: it's great for beginners, intermediates with limited bandwidth, and those seeking a strength-size combo because it allows heavier loads and lower systemic fatigue. However, he argues it is incomplete because it doesn't work well for muscles that are stubborn, don't get pumped/sore easily, recover within a day, or maintain performance across many sets. He says the low-volume approach is tempting because it's more fun, less painful, less work, and gives bigger short-term ego boosts from strength jumps. But when muscles don't respond, higher volume is the answer, even if it's 'thankless labor'.

He explains that if a muscle gets pumped and sore from just a few sets, it probably doesn't need much more volume. But if you can do set after set of lateral raises with minimal performance drop, or your delts feel fresh the next day, that muscle is likely slow-twitch dominant and thrives on high volume. He says this is supported by theory and empirical evidence. The goal is to push volume until the muscle finally starts to fatigue, because that's where growth occurs. He uses delts as a prime example, noting that many people can train delts hard and feel ready to hit them again the next day, indicating they'd grow better with far more than 10–20 sets per week.