124 – Menno Henselmans on Minimalism, Optimising Muscle Growth for a Non-Responder, and Low vs High Training Frequencies

Comments

1. Julien says

   February 22, 2018 at 8:50 pm

   I respect your ability/courage to challenge both the guest and yourself by asking questions you know the anwser opposes your view. I like and follow Menno because he is a smart guy and prevides very interesting perspectives, but these opposing views on training are really outside of my comfort zone, it’s a lot to take in.

   A question to you Lawrence:
   Have the previous podcast guests managed to convince you to try to up your food intake? up to about 5%(what Menno mentioned), basically doing a very slow and controlled geek to freak experiment? Through your questions I get the feeling you might want to try it.

   In terms of question of the day: I started my training a little more than 1 year ago and did HIT all the way. I would like to experiment with higher volumes and frequencies, but I am afraid I will do all of those sets to failure, so I have to unlearn that. So far, 2x week fullbody of ~8-9 exercises has not prevented me from gaining muscle! I gained 20-21 lbs so far(with alternating calorie surplus/deficit phases) and can gain quite a bit more at my 6’3 180 lbs frame. Whether I need higher volume for that remains to be seen still.

   Lastly the cunningham equation vastly overestimates energy expenditure for me it seems, but you linked a fun to play with calculator.

   Reply

2. Rob H says

   February 23, 2018 at 6:17 pm

   Hi Menno & Lawrence, – very interesting podcast – Menno clearly knows the science as well as extensive practical experience on the coaching side. As per Julien’s comment below, this does take me out of my comfort zone a bit – I think most of us listening to this blog find the thought of not going to failure each time quite challenging.. But, to be fair Menno did seem to think that doing a full-body routine twice per week of 1 set to failure would still just about be sufficient to move from an intermediate to an advanced stage. Here’s my question to you though Menno: you echoed Brad’s view that the most important factor of all (other than a relatively high level of effort) is the number of sets per muscle group per week. And as per Brad’s recent research you also feel it is a minimum of 10 sets per muscle group per week – regardless of how this is spread throughout the week? But this just does not feel right to me: I currently am only able to workout once per week: so in order to optimise volume for the week surely I would not need to do 10 sets of chest exercises for example? Similarly, if I am someone who wants to do a full body workout every day, and I do 1 or 2 sets per muscle group every day at a relatively high level of effort (but not to failure), and get my 10 sets per week in that way, surely that will not be optimal either? My point is that surely a muscle group if it is worked relatively hard one day (not necessarily to failure) will need a set amount of time to recover and then adapt before you can hit it again? I don’t understand how you and Brad equate potentially hitting a muscle group extremely hard on one day to chronically stressing it every day as long as it works out the same at the end of the week? It makes logical sense to me that there must be a certain minimum number of days that a muscle needs to recover after having been subjected to a certain threshold of stress, assuming proper sleep and nutrition in between workouts? For example, in the book Body by Science Dr Doug McGuff explains that after a ‘big 5’ 1 set to failure workout it takes 7 days for a particular muscle to recover and then adapt before it should be worked again. Is he right or wrong?

   Reply

   • enlite says

     March 2, 2018 at 6:49 am

     Your absolutely correct about the need to recover from your workouts but remember that recovery and growth are distinct processes that don’t occur simultaneously , and each must be given adequate time to manifest . I just don’t buy this 10 sets per bodypart minimum to maximize muscle development for a very simple reason . When you perform the first set of an exercise and take it to utter failure and then perform a second the performance ( number of reps ) will be reduced by a significant extent and so on it will be with further sets performed . The energy costs are going to be very significant with that first set if truly taken to failure and energy reserves are limited as well , intense muscular work with slow reps will fatigue you very rapidly ! This is the reason why a high number of sets 10 or more per bodypart can’t be performed unless you’re not taking the sets to complete failure .

     Reply

3. Greg P. says

   February 24, 2018 at 3:01 am

   That was an interesting episode. I find the minimalist lifestyle that he describes to be strangely fascinating and yet something I could never follow myself. A nice change of pace to hear from someone else that is way out on the spectrum of volume. I wonder, Lawrence, if you are even a little bit tempted to up the volume and back away from failure?

   Reply

4. Matt A says

   February 24, 2018 at 4:27 pm

   Firstly great podcast really enjoyed it. Lawrence your a great host and Menno definitely knows his stuff!

   Do you think you can get close to your genetic potential without ever eating in a surplus? It seems to be me like for someone like me who doesn’t want to be huge but in relatively good shape should probably just eat at maintenance or below, would you agree with this?

   What’s your view on cadence when lifting? Would you say those who lift with a slower cadence can get away with less volume?

   Reply

5. Slim934 says

   February 26, 2018 at 2:17 pm

   Did I hear correctly that Menno is writing a book? Could we get some more details on that?

   Reply

6. Tony says

   October 20, 2019 at 1:52 pm

   Book suggestion related to the philosophy topics you’ve covered: Infinite Moral Compass.

   Reply