Alpha Progression
2 things you need to track to build muscle optimally

2 things you need to track to build muscle optimally

Our goal is to build muscle and we want to know what and how much we need to do for it. Nutrition, sleep, stress reduction, etc. are all important for building muscle, but today we're talking strictly about training.

We give a certain input and get a certain output in return. The input is how hard we push our muscles, and the output is the resulting muscle growth, or hypertrophy.

We don't want to challenge our muscles too little or too much. Both are bad for muscle building. But how can we measure how much we are challenging our muscles and how much or if we are building muscle? After all, we need to know this in order to strategically direct our training so that we can achieve the best possible results for ourselves.

Input

Basic requirements

We'll start by talking about the input element and then we'll move on to the output element and how we can maximize it through the right dosage of input. First of all, we will assume that you have already mastered the following things:

  • You master the technique of the exercises you perform.
  • Your exercise choices make sense.
  • You're not training at a super low frequency per muscle (you should be training most muscles at least 1.5x per week).
  • You're not taking your training too easily (in RIR terms, that means no working set is any less than an honest 3 RIR).

Theory: muscle biopsy

Now, how can we find out how much we are using our muscles?

We will never find out exactly. Theoretically, we could do regular muscle biopsies on ourselves to analyze the muscle damage produced, for example. This could be a relatively reliable method, but is of course absolutely not realistic in practice.

Training volume

A much more practical method is to measure your training volume. It is now the scientific consensus that volume is the main determinant of the level of training stimulus.

Of course, this only applies under the conditions just discussed - i.e. that you don't train too easily or with too low a frequency, etc.

So, the training volume is mainly responsible for the level of the training stimulus. But how exactly do we determine this volume?

Volume formula

Now the only question is: What exactly is volume?

There are two common ways to define volume. The first definition expresses volume as sets x reps x weight. We'll call this the volume formula. For example, if we perform 4 sets of 10 reps using 400 lbs on leg press, that would be a volume of 16,000 lbs.

Expressing volume in this way is an approach that has been used for a long time and is actually still used quite often. However, the problem is that this volume definition is often not very useful in practice and can even be misleading.

Pros and cons

There are two problems with this volume formula. Problem number one is that different exercises are not comparable. Let's say we do 4 sets of 10 reps and 400 lbs on the leg press one day and 4 sets of 10 reps and 100 lbs on the leg extension for the quads another day.

Now we want to determine how great the training stimulus was for the quads on these days. So we multiply the sets by the reps and the weight. On leg press day the total volume was 16,000 lbs and on the leg extension day the total volume was only 4,000 lbs. So the leg press volume was 4x the leg extension volume.

And here you see the problem... the volume formula suggests that the training stimulus for the quads on the leg press day was 4x as high as on the leg extension day, even though the same number of sets were performed. But of course that's complete nonsense.

You could certainly find reasons why the quads are more stressed during the leg press than the leg extension, but they are definitely not 4x as stressed. That would mean that one set of leg presses would trigger the same training stimulus as a full 4 sets of leg extensions. But that is simply not true.

So the first problem with this volume formula is that different exercises cannot be compared with each other.

The second problem with this volume formula is that sets with different numbers of reps cannot be compared either.

Now let's assume that we do a set of 20 reps for 200 lbs on the leg press. Then we pause for a long time, add more weight, and aim for fewer reps. We manage 7 reps with 270 lbs in this second set. The underlying 10RM of both sets is identical (we'll go into the 10RM in more detail in a moment).

Now we are going to try to figure out in which set we put more stress on our quads. The volume of the first set is 4,000 lbs and the volume of the second set is only 1,890 lbs.

The volume formula would therefore tell us here that the set with many reps triggered about twice as strong a training stimulus as the set with fewer reps. However, this is of course not correct!

It is now clearly scientifically proven that sets with many reps (e.g. 20) elicit about the same training stimulus as sets with few reps (e.g. 7), provided that both sets are performed close to muscular failure.

Small side note: This is not to say that it doesn't matter if we do certain exercises with many reps or few reps.

Technically demanding multi-joint exercises such as squats, for example, are more suitable for fewer reps (because otherwise the technique often suffers and the cardiovascular system is the limiting factor) and isolation exercises are more suitable for higher reps (because these put less strain on the joints).

But let's get back to the topic at hand: In our example with the 2 sets of leg press, the volume formula tells us that the training stimulus is twice as high for the set with many reps as for the set with few reps, even though both sets were performed with the same level of effort.

This is simply wrong. In this specific example, it would mean that a set of 20 reps on the leg press would be just as effective as 2 sets of 7 reps. So you can see that this volume formula can lead us SEVERELY astray.

The volume formula is commonly used, but it has the major drawbacks that different exercises and exercises with different rep schemes are not comparable by this formula.

Improved volume definition

Now, what would be a better way to define volume? The number of hard sets with about 5 to 30 reps! Since we know that hard sets with many reps trigger about the same training stimulus as hard sets with few reps, this is a great way of defining volume!

One advantage of this method over the volume formula is that sets of different exercises for the same muscle group can be added together.

For example, if we perform 4 sets of leg presses and 4 sets of leg extensions, we can simply say that we have stressed our quads with 8 hard sets. Of course, the training stimulus of the leg press and the leg extension will not be identical, but can be viewed as roughly equivalent.

Just a reminder that the volume formula has told us that a set of leg presses sets a training stimulus 4x as strong as a set of leg extensions, which is very incorrect.

Another advantage of this way of defining volume by the number of hard sets is that sets with many reps are not favored. Again, as a reminder, when we used the volume formula, it came out that e.g. hard sets with 20 reps trigger about twice as strong a training stimulus as hard sets with 7 reps.

However, if we simply add up the hard sets, there is no difference between the rep count of the sets, so they are treated equally. Accordingly, the set with 20 reps triggers an equally strong training stimulus for the target muscles as a set with 7 reps, and that's exactly how it should be.

The total number of hard sets in the range of about 5-30 reps is the best way to define volume.

So: We can measure the input of our training (how hard we challenge our muscles) by the number of hard sets in the range of approx. 5-30 reps. But how do we now measure the resulting output - i.e. the muscle growth?

Output

Measure muscle growth

What we could theoretically do would be to have our muscle mass measured regularly by e.g. the DEXA scan. But of course this is not really practical, because the process is quite cumbersome and expensive.

Alternatively, we could have our muscle mass measured regularly by special scales. However, these have the disadvantage that they are super inaccurate. Even the most expensive scales are very inaccurate. To measure the muscle mass directly is therefore not a realistic possibility.

What about just using the mirror, then? We could look at ourselves regularly in the mirror (which most people in the fitness scene already do anyway) and see whether we have gained muscle mass or not. The big problem here is that this doesn't work at all, especially in a bulking phase or a weight loss diet.

During a bulking phase, when we eat in a calorie surplus, we usually also put on some body fat. This often leads to gradually looking flabbier and less muscular, EVEN THOUGH we have actually gained muscle mass.

When dieting, it is then often the other way around. The fat layer gradually decreases, the muscles come out more, and you think that you have built muscle mass, although this is not true.

But even if we neither gain nor lose body fat, it is still difficult to tell by looking in the mirror whether we are gaining muscle mass or by how much. This is because muscle growth is very slow and you will generally not notice it in the mirror.

Even if we look at ourselves in the mirror only once a week and have built up perhaps 50 g of muscle mass, we can no longer remember the old mirror image so precisely that we can recognize the 50 g we have gained. So we conclude: The mirror is also an ineffective tool for measuring progress.

What about taking photos? Definitely better than the mirror image, because you can see the old shape DIRECTLY compared to the new. However, again we have the problem that we cannot compare the pictures in terms of muscle mass when we are in a building or dieting phase.

What about measuring your body part circumferences? Again, this is well-intentioned, but... as with the photos, this is not meaningful during a bulking or dieting phase. If your arm circumference increases from 16.5 in to 17 in during a bulking phase, then you don't know how much of the increase is muscle mass and how much is body fat.

Fine, but if we can't reliably measure muscle gain via direct methods, nor using the mirror, photos, or body circumference measurements, how are we supposed to measure the output of the workout?

The answer is: by watching how your strength develops! There is a VERY strong correlation between strength and muscle mass. Strong people are almost always more muscular than weaker people, and when someone gets stronger, they usually get more muscular as well.

The best indicator for muscle growth is strength increases! But how exactly do we measure "strength"?

Force measurement

One rep max

What is the best way to measure force?

The classic approach would be to use as much weight in an exercise as you can just about manage for one rep with good technique - so, in short, test the 1RM (one-rep max). This was often done in the past and of course is still done in the powerlifting scene. However, there are three major drawbacks to this method:

Disadvantage 1: For a 1RM attempt you have to warm up specifically for a very long time. This is especially the case for very strong athletes.

If someone can e.g. move 450 lbs in a squat for one rep, then they will easily have to do 5 warm-up sets to tackle that 1RM attempt. This can easily take 20-30 minutes - just for one exercise.

Disadvantage 2: The risk of injury is very high. Technique mistakes with a lot of weight are much more serious than technique mistakes with little weight.

Disadvantage 3: With one rep, the technical component and the demand on the central nervous system are very high. Increasing your maximum weight for sets of about 5-20 reps correlates much better with muscle building.

The great thing is that there are 1RM formulas so we can calculate the THEORETICAL 1RM for each weight and rep combination and then compare performance between sets with different reps quite nicely.

These formulas were determined in studies in which participants were asked to perform several sets with different weights, each until muscular failure. They then observed how many reps the participants could do with a light weight and how many they could do with a heavy weight.

Certainly this varied somewhat from participant to participant, but it was still possible to identify very clear patterns and then create 1RM formulas based on these.

For example, we can say that someone who can do 20 reps with 200 lbs will also be able to do about 7 reps with 270 lbs (this is the leg press example mentioned above).

By the way, in the Alpha Progression App we use a combination of the Brzycki and Epley 1RM formulas and extrapolate them to the 10RM. We use the combination of two 1RM formulas because one formula is more suited for a lower rep range and one is more suited for a higher rep range.

Extrapolating to the 10RM, while not necessary for comparing performance in different sets, simply makes the number more descriptive, as most do train in the 10 rep range rather than the 1-4 rep range.

One can simply understand more with a 10RM of e.g. 100 lbs than with a 1RM of e.g. 200 lbs. The 1RM is too abstract.

Ten rep max

By the way, because the 10RM is so important, it is always shown next to each set in the Alpha Progression App so you can quickly compare your performance across sets.

If the 10RM gradually goes up, then we are very likely to build muscle mass in the target muscle groups of the relevant exercises. But of course, this is again only true under the conditions mentioned at the beginning of this episode - especially the condition that we master the technique of the exercise.

After all, if we don't master the technique, then the 10RM will increase simply because we are gradually acquiring better technique and NOT because we are building muscle mass.

To determine if we are building muscle, we should determine our strength based on the 10RM.

Conclusion

So, to achieve optimal results, we need to figure out how to influence the output (i.e. the 10RM) with the input (i.e. the number of hard sets in the range of 5-30 reps). The only way to do this is to record the workout.

If we train for a while with a certain number of sets for a particular muscle group, we can observe what effect this has on the 10RM. If the 10RM increases steadily, we should leave the number of sets as it is for the time being.

If the 10RM does not increase and we often have sore muscles or pain in the joints/tendons/ligaments or are exhausted, we should reduce the sets.

If the 10RM does not increase and we do not have any of the symptoms just mentioned, we should increase the total number of sets. After that, we should continue to monitor and then make some slight adjustments again after a couple of weeks.

And, of course, we must not forget to work constantly on the things we have taken for granted in this article - that is, to improve our form, to make good exercise selections, to train with enough effort, and not to train with too low a frequency per muscle group.

If you want to record, evaluate, and optimize your training, download the Alpha Progression app here.