Fortitude < DC = Training Volume?

[Jacob.Rockinger]

Hey guys,

I am pretty new here on this board and finished the Fortitude book yesterday. Currently, I am on the 2-way DC split and I ask myself if Dc is missing important aspects of hyerptrohpy - especially for natural guys? 

DC is all about loading sets with rest pauses and tons of failure points + extreme stretching. With Fortitude we have more metabolic work and more not-to-failure sets + higher freuquency.

But if I took a look at the total workload Fortitude seems to be even lower in volume as DC and I am afriad if I would lose gains or progress slower as with the 2-way. 


For example the push-chain with DC

We have a chest press, shoulder press and triceps press
= 3 x 3 rest pauses and that's around 9 sets with lot's of effective reps for triceps I would say.

In Fortitude it looks different: We have on a Tier II on the Basic the following
Loading set chest + loading set chest iso, same for shoulders
pump set chest 1 push and 1 iso, maybe shoulders 1 push to, triceps 1 set
muscle rounds 2 chest presses, maybe a third shoulder press and 1 triceps 
= that's 2 loading sets wit 2 failure points, 1-3 pump sets and 3-4 muscle rounds with 3-4 failure points
here we have 6-9 sets of lot's of effective reps for triceps 


So we have every week in Fortitude 6-9 sets for triceps and I count it as direct work bc of my close-medium grips and the effort for each set. Same goes with DC, but in Dc we have 9 sets every workout and we do this every other week twice. So we could say we have 13,5 sets of effective reps for triceps each week. 

-> and that's around twice as much as in Fortitude


I hope this topic would'nt discuss before  . And to make it clear, I love the ebook by Scott, it has so much great info in there. Scott is a true mastermind and training to failure + low volume is the way I love and need to train! 

I am looking foreward to this discussion ! 

[Scott Stevenson]

Hey guys,



I am pretty new here on this board and finished the Fortitude book yesterday. Currently, I am on the 2-way DC split and I ask myself if Dc is missing important aspects of hyerptrohpy - especially for natural guys? 



DC is all about loading sets with rest pauses and tons of failure points + extreme stretching. With Fortitude we have more metabolic work and more not-to-failure sets + higher freuquency.



But if I took a look at the total workload Fortitude seems to be even lower in volume as DC and I am afriad if I would lose gains or progress slower as with the 2-way. 





For example the push-chain with DC



We have a chest press, shoulder press and triceps press

= 3 x 3 rest pauses and that's around 9 sets with lot's of effective reps for triceps I would say.



In Fortitude it looks different: We have on a Tier II on the Basic the following

Loading set chest + loading set chest iso, same for shoulders

pump set chest 1 push and 1 iso, maybe shoulders 1 push to, triceps 1 set

muscle rounds 2 chest presses, maybe a third shoulder press and 1 triceps 

= that's 2 loading sets wit 2 failure points, 1-3 pump sets and 3-4 muscle rounds with 3-4 failure points

here we have 6-9 sets of lot's of effective reps for triceps 





So we have every week in Fortitude 6-9 sets for triceps and I count it as direct work bc of my close-medium grips and the effort for each set. Same goes with DC, but in Dc we have 9 sets every workout and we do this every other week twice. So we could say we have 13,5 sets of effective reps for triceps each week. 

So you're getting into the set counting issue here which, complicated by the notion of effective reps, which makes for a very imprecise metric for training volume, IMO, especially when we're talking about comparing cluster sets (MR vs. RP) leaving Reps in reserve (RIR) vs. not doing so.  
What counts for triceps when doing Chest and delt pressing?
How effective is a set of heavy pressing for triceps growth in a beginner vs. advanced and how does this vary across 
*individuals who vary in pressing styles
*mind Muscle Connection
* Exercise: E.g., Converging chest press vs. BB press


How do you compare effective reps for these two:

MR with 200lb (Lets say this load is a true 12RM - I use 15RM in the book as a rule just for a margin of safety and to account for differences in fatigue across exercises, and individuals. i'd rather have folks go a bit lighter the first time out.)

The MR goes: 4 (8RIR), 4 (5 RIR?), 4 (1 RIR?), 3 (Failure), (drop to 160), 4 (1 RIR), 4 (0 RIR)
Are all reps of the last 4 sets effective?... Or, realistically, only the last two - three reps before a failure point would occur?....  Looking at the last 4 sets:

Last 4 sets of 6 set MR:  4 (1 RIR?), 3 (Failure), (drop to 160), 4 (1 RIR), 4 (0 RIR)
Effective reps (respectively): 1, 2, 1, 2 = 6 Effective reps just for one MR?... 

I'll call Effective Reps ER below.

---------

DC Rest Pause with same load:

12  / 4 / 3 / (Partials /negative hold)

This would be 3 x (2-3) effective reps (all sets to failure) plus the pulsed negative so maybe about 8-9 effective reps for a single RP set?...


You can see how much guesswork/ eyeballing is involved here, eh?... 

Can you REALLY count a rep that's 2 shy of failure the same as the rep just before a failure rep.
How much does a failure rep count?... 


If you're doing, lets say for chest the following every two weeks (DC two way vs. FT Tier II)

DC:  3 x RP = 3 x 9 effective reps = 27?...  Your number!
What happens if we add in a Chest widow maker?...   Maybe that's an extra 3 x 5 Effective reps so

Every two weeks; [9 + 5] x 3 workouts = 3 x 14 ER = 42 ER or 

DC TRAINING 
THIS IS: 22 Effective reps / week with the neurological strain of the 9 RP Failure points, plus the 3 x pulsed negative failure points + the 4 widow makers = [9 + 3 + 8 (WM's come very close to failure repeatedly!) ] = 20 failure points or 10 weekly failure points. 


FT (Tier II): [2 x Pump sets + 2 x Loading sets + 2 x MR ] x 2 = [2 x 2 ER = 2 x 2ER + 2 x 6ER] x 2 = [20 ER] x 2 = 40 effective reps 

THIS IS: 20 Effective Reps / week with Failure points from [2 (Pump) + 2 (Loading) + 2 MR] x 2  = 6 x 2 = 12 Failure points or 6 weekly failure points.

This is generally what I hoped to accomplish with FT (more effective training with fewer failure points).

NOTE too that Pump sets can be done a VARIETY of ways such that the relative stress (muscular and neurological) can be vary here  to fine tune in an auto regulatory way.

Also How do we quantify the stretches: Extreme in DC (only option) vs. The three types in FT?... 

-> and that's around twice as much as in Fortitude

in addition to the REALLY highly estimated noting of "effective reps" and estimation of volume, there's

DC has a 2 way and 3 way split  variations.

FT has THREE volume Tiers to Address the volume / recovery issue.

I hope this topic would'nt discuss before  . And to make it clear, I love the ebook by Scott, it has so much great info in there. Scott is a true mastermind and training to failure + low volume is the way I love and need to train! 



I am looking foreward to this discussion ! 

Great topic!!!!!!


And then there's this - Variability in adaptive responses.  


Damas F, Barcelos C, Nóbrega SR, Ugrinowitsch C, Lixandrão ME, Santos LMEd, Conceição MS, Vechin FC, and Libardi CA. Individual Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Responses to High vs. Low Resistance Training Frequencies. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 33: 897-901, 2019.

Note that HIGH frequency also meant high volume in this study:
"This short communication highlights that some individuals showed greater muscle mass and strength gains after HF (31.6 and 26.3% of individuals, respectively), other had greater gains with LF (36.8 and 15.8% of individuals, respectively), and even others showed similar responses between HF and LF, regardless of the consequent higher or lower TTV resulted from HF and LF, respectively. Importantly, individual manipulation of RT frequency can improve the intrasubject responsiveness to training, but the effect is limited to each individual's capacity to respond to RT. Finally, individual response to different frequencies and resulted TTV does not necessarily agree between muscle hypertrophy and strength gains."

[Jacob.Rockinger]

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

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). 


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. 



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). 

[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