Fortitude < DC = Training Volume?

[Scott Stevenson]

Scott, thank you for taking the time to answer my question(s) in such great detail!

Sure!

It is true, that the DC split has a 2-way and a 3-way while Fortitude has 3 volume tiers. Your example with chest is pretty different than the example with triceps. 



If we take a look at the 2-way and cutting out the widowmakers, we can do a second chest exercise for triceps development like dips, cg smith presses or reverse grip smith presses. The volume for chest (without widowmaker) is now twice as much as before. For triceps it is trice as much a for your chest example (again: without widowmaker). 



I see a very clear advantage in Fortitude on the grounds of more effective reps without that many failure points - very good construction in the program and point here Scott! The thing is, there a a lot less effective reps for muscle groups like triceps, biceps, forearms and maybe chest (depends on the exercise selection). 

I'm not sure why you would say that specifically about those muscle groups, given all the guesswork that goes into counting effective reps.  Heck, who's to say that effective reps are even counted the same for different muscle groups?  Some muscles respond better than other for MANY people.  

I would also check the FAQ here on in this forum where I address ways to bring up weak muscle groups. I've address the reduced direct arm work and you've hit the nail on the head s far as exercise selection. (IN the research, for instance, you'll typically see any pressing counted as a "set" for triceps, such that 3 sets of incline pressing = 3 sets of cable triceps press-downs...)  

You can address differences in stimulus (effective reps being a way to guesstimate that), by adjusting how you do Pump sets.

Same goes for how you drop the load during MR after a failure point and where the failure point lands in a MR (failing on set 4 affords the opportunity for 2 more near failure sets to accrue ER, whereas failing in the 6th sets of an MR means more reps performed outside of what might be the threshold for accumulating ER.  

Same also for how much you put into the stretching (type, duration, effort during occlusion stretches)

You can also use DIFFERENT volume Tiers for different muscle groups if you like with FT. (I suggest everyone start off at least with the Basic Version just to be on the same page, but put the diff. volume Tiers there for this reason.)

And sth different regarding the volume topic. Menno said sth to a study which compared the frequency of 5x vs 2x a week. The 5x a week group comes out worse than the 2x. He said it could be bc the volume on the days of the 5x a week group was way to low to get an anabolic response. Same goes for a low volume tier in Fortitude. 

What study?... (The on I posted here compared 5 vs. 2x / week, but doesn't sound like what Menno's referring to.

I know a guy who told me about  study, too.... LOL   

All the points aren't critique Scott, it's more like some sort anxiety bc I read so much different things about lifting (expecially for bodybuilding) and I changed programs way to often so I can't say what works for me now (as a more advanced guy - advanced in the powerlifts). 

Effort and progressive overload rule the roost, man.  Eat enough to grow, ensure progress performance in the gym and you'll put on size within your genetic capabilities. 

The effective rep notion is great conceptually, but hasn't been captured in a collectively  quantitative way  b/c it will vary for the individual and can only be measured as result of growth outcome ultimately.  What happens even as far as protein synthesis during the initial couple weeks of a novel training program doesn't predict resulting growth.   (Several studies I can post here - i've discussed this a lot on my and other podcasts.)

The big and quite bizarre thing I'm not seeing published in the literature are the correlations or assessments of training load / performance improvements over a training period vs. the resulting muscle growth.  (Another topic, but this is also highly variable in terms of the relative contributions of muscle size vs. neural adaptation, i.e., skill acquisition in learning how to produce more force at least during a 1RM.  What I want to see are training LOG values - performance during the actually sets that produce the adaptive stimulus...)

But my bottom line is if you're getting stronger in reps ranges that foster growth, and body mass in increasing (with body comp assessments pointing the right direction as far as FFM / muscle mass vs. Fat mass), you're going well.  Find the program that makes you a more of monster in the gym across those "growth" rep ranges and you've got a good recipe for making your physique monstrous as well.  

-S