In part 1 of this article I cover the why, as I went through the pertinent information as to when higher volumes might be necessary, and I hinted that logistically specialization cycles might be the best way to safely achieve them. As a brief recap, plateaued poor responders and plateaued advanced lifters might want to consider a higher volume approach (in opinion, defined as 20 sets per muscle group or higher) if everything else is in order (nutrition, technique, effort, exercise selection, sleep, stress etc.). Also, since I wrote Part 1, the soon-to-be-published study exploring very high volumes in trained lifters lead by Schoenfeld and colleagues that I referenced is now published for those interested. This article is all about the how: the process of constructing these cycles.
Now first to give credit where it’s due, this is by no means a new concept. Lyle McDonald suggested this approach long ago, Berto was successfully using this approach with our lifters nearly a decade ago, and James Krieger most recently suggested it based on the logistics of achieving the kind of volumes that might be necessary. I’m not claiming intellectual ownership of the concept, rather I just want to provide some creative program design solutions to this problem.
So first, let’s establish some basic guidelines. In my experience, practically it’s difficult to focus on more than two muscle groups at a time, while everything else is shifted to a lower volume/frequency. With that generality stated, I’ll show how someone with more or less average volume tolerances might adopt a specialization cycle.
First let’s start with a basic template using an upper lower split, 4 days per week, then let’s focus on 1 major upper body muscle group/action and one major lower body muscle group/action. Then, let’s set up three 3-week microcycles: 1) pushing and quads/glutes; 2) pulling and hams/glutes; 3) arms and calves. This ends up as a 9-week mesocycle after which you can adjust exercise selection, rep ranges here and there and evaluate how it went.
To preempt a few questions, the reason glutes are in both of the first two cycles is that every squat pattern (front, high bar, low bar, BSS, leg press, lunge etc.) primarily hits the glutes and quads as the hips and knees extend and the hams are only minimally involved so as to transfer force without opposing the quads. The nature of the human body is that the glutes are involved in a lot of movements. Also, I want to point out that the calves/arms cycle serves as a natural recovery/transition/deload period as all the compound lift, multi joint exercises volume is lowered while you perform more isolation work that is inherently less fatiguing.
Here’s what it looks like:
Push & Quad/Glute 3-week Microcycle – upper pulling sets: 9 upper pushing sets: 22 Biceps: 12 (25% direct) triceps: 18 (17% direct) Quad sets: 18 Glute sets: 14 Ham sets: 9 Calves: 6 sets
| Upper 1 – Balanced | Lower 1 – Balanced |
| Horizontal Pull 3 Sets | Squat Pattern 3 Sets |
| Horizontal Press 3 Sets | Hip Hinge Pattern 3 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 3 Sets | Leg Extension 3 Sets |
| Vertical Press 3 Sets | Seated Leg Curl 3 Sets |
| Biceps 3 Sets | Abduction 3 Sets |
| Calf Raise 3 Sets | |
| Upper 2 – Specialized | Lower 2 – Specialized |
| Horizontal Press 4 Sets | Squat Variation 4 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 3 Sets | Lying Leg Curl 3 Sets |
| Incline/Decline Press 4 Sets | Leg Press 4 Sets |
| Vertical Press 4 Sets | Calf Raise 3 Sets |
| Fly Variation 4 Sets | Leg Extensions 4 Sets |
| Triceps 3 Sets |
Pull & Glute/Ham 3-week Microcycle – upper pulling sets: 22 upper pushing sets: 9 Biceps: 17 (18% direct) triceps: 12 (25% direct) Quad sets: 9 Glute sets: 17 Ham sets: 18 Calves: 6 sets
| Upper 1 – Balanced | Lower 1 – Balanced |
| Horizontal Pull 3 Sets | Squat Pattern 3 Sets |
| Horizontal Press 3 Sets | Hip Hinge Pattern 3 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 3 Sets | Leg Extension 3 Sets |
| Vertical Press 3 Sets | Seated Leg Curl 3 Sets |
| Biceps 3 Sets | Abduction 3 Sets |
| Calf Raise 3 Sets | |
| Upper 2 – Specialized | Lower 2 – Specialized |
| Horizontal Pull 4 Sets | Hip Hinge Pattern 4 Sets |
| Horizontal Push 3 Sets | Single Leg Extensions 3 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 4 Sets | Lying Leg Curl 4 Sets |
| Lat Pullover 4 Sets | Calf Raise 3 Sets |
| Face Pull 4 Sets | Hip Thrust Pattern 4 Sets |
| Triceps 3 Sets |
Arms & Calves 3-week Microcycle – upper pulling sets: 12 upper pushing sets: 12 Biceps: 20 (40% direct) triceps: 20 (40% direct) Quad sets: 12 Glute sets: 12 Ham sets: 12 Calves: 16 sets
| Upper 1 | Lower 1 |
| Horizontal Pull 3 Sets | Squat Pattern 3 Sets |
| Horizontal Press 3 Sets | Hip Hinge Pattern 3 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 3 Sets | Leg Extension 3 Sets |
| Vertical Press 3 Sets | Seated Leg Curl 3 Sets |
| Biceps 4 Sets | Seated Calf Raise Moderate Rep 4 Sets |
| Triceps 4 Sets | Standing Calf Raise 4 Sets |
| Upper 2 | Lower 2 |
| Horizontal Pull 3 Sets | Squat Pattern 3 Sets |
| Horizontal Press 3 Sets | Hip Hinge Pattern 3 Sets |
| Vertical Pull 3 Sets | Single Leg Extension 3 Sets |
| Vertical Press 3 Sets | Lying Leg Curl 3 Sets |
| Biceps High Rep 4 Sets | Leg Press Calf Raise 4 Sets |
| Triceps High Rep 4 Sets | Seated Calf Raise High Rep 4 Sets |
Notes:
- Choose movements that don’t cause pain, feel free to use different or the same movements when the same “slot” is listed on multiple days.
- Choose any rep range for each slot in the 6-20 range, but appropriate for the movement. For example, probably not 6-8 on bent over barbell rows as you’ll cheat and do subpar reps and create lumbar fatigue that bleeds into leg day, and probably not 15-20 on squats as you’ll spend 20 minutes trying not to yack and the rest of session will be low quality.
- Maintain the same rep range within the microcycle and try to just progress load at the same reps, or progress reps at the same load within the target range.
- When carrying the same exercises into the next microcycle you can either keep the same rep range and try to make small incremental progress or change rep ranges to progress in.
- Keep the same movements for the 9-week mesocycle (although some will go away when those target body parts aren’t being specialized) unless they cause pain, then swap out. Use BFR for Leg and arm isolation work if you get even hints of tendinitis.
- If you know (from previous experience showing this level of volume was not producing progress, in a surplus, with great form, at an appropriate effort level, while sleeping 8+ hours a day) that you need more volume than this, you have three options of increasing severity:
- Add a few more sets to a few of the exercises for each specialized muscle group.
- Add a fifth day doing additional training for the two specialized muscle groups.
- Run this setup 6 days per week with 2 balanced days in the day 3-4 slot and specialized days in the 1-2 and 5-6 slots. WARNING ⚠️THIS WILL CRUSH MOST MORTALS AND IS LIKELY NOT ONLY NOT NEEDED IN 90% OF CASES BUT MAY DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. Only do this if advanced, have a high-volume tolerance, for a time restricted period and if you are robust to injury.
Jose says
September 11, 2018 at 7:29 PMIn the push microcycle, could I change the focus of the chest and focus more on the shoulder? Thanks.
Eric Helms says
September 17, 2018 at 8:15 PMI promise the bodybuilding police won’t stop you! 😉
No but in all seriousness this is just a sample way of running a specialization cycle to give you ideas, you can and should customize it to your needs
Valentino Peluso says
September 12, 2018 at 5:39 AMThanks Eric for another great Article 🙂
I notice that there is no direct rear delt movement in the examples.
Lets say someone has good rear delts that match the other delt muscles (front/side) Would the pull movements be enough Stimulus for maintaining the rear delts muscles size?
I notice that Jeff and Alberto rarely do Isolation movements for the rear delts too….
Thanks for helping
Eric Helms says
September 17, 2018 at 8:15 PMRear delts, like anterior delts when doing horizontal or vertical pushing, get trained when doing both horizontal and vertical pulling. In most cases people aren’t lacking rear delts IME when they are doing adequate (and properly performed full ROM) rowing and pulling. However, of course if it’s a lagging muscle group you’d customize your training differently.
Teddy Massop. says
September 17, 2018 at 1:17 PMThank You!
Eric Helms says
September 17, 2018 at 8:14 PMYou’re welcome!
John says
September 21, 2018 at 12:43 PMPush cycle, what about side delts?
I get this is a sample, but can you help me with your opinion about this?
Thank you!
Right now I follow upper/lower inspired by your book.
Eric Helms says
September 21, 2018 at 6:49 PMHonored you have my book thanks! To answer your question:
Right, it is just a sample. So if you wanted to set up a specialization cycle that included more volume for side delts, you would make sure you did more volume for movements that targeted that muscle (and whatever other muscles you were specializing) and then lower volume on everything else.
John says
September 23, 2018 at 9:48 AMThank you!
My nutrition isn’t good enough..i try to eat healthy but it is hard for me to eat more so i kinda do a recomposition..2 years:( 67-71kg, all my bodyparts are weak points:))
i appreciate you, and i am looking forward for your next articles;)
especially nutritrion:))bulk in the year 2018
KC Cousineau says
September 21, 2018 at 11:22 PMFirst off, thank you for all of the quality, free content from 3DMJ!
My one though about specialization cycles has been this: If specialization cycles are successful and we see hypertrophy in the desired muscle group(s), what prevents regression or no growth after the cycle is over and volume decreases? Wouldn’t further growth need to be achieved using volume even higher than the specialization cycle? (I assume this isn’t the case, because no one would recommend specialization cycles if they resulted in atrophy or ridiculous amounts of volume needed to continue progression, following the cycle’s end).
Eric Helms says
September 21, 2018 at 11:58 PMYou assumption is correct! That isn’t the case, in fact it requires a lot less volume (and overall stimulus for that matter) to maintain an adaptation (like hypertrophy) than it does to stimulate a new adaptation (additional hypertrophy). So indeed, let’s say you’ve established that you need to do say, 20 sets on a given body part to grow, then after, you then drop to say 10 sets, you won’t regress, you will simply maintain that level of fitness.
John says
September 23, 2018 at 9:49 AMinteresting. you are the best!
when we will see results at Omar Isuf?:))
Eric Helms says
September 25, 2018 at 5:57 AMOmar? Never heard of him 😉
Magnus says
July 20, 2019 at 4:23 PMSo if I did a few mesacycles specializing shoulders and arms for example, would those muscles still be able to grow on ‘normal’ volume, granted it’s above the maintenance volume?
Eric Helms says
July 20, 2019 at 10:18 PMIf you need say, 15 sets to produce muscle growth, and you do 20, it doesn’t change the amount of volume you need to progress. Hope this helps!
Eric says
September 23, 2018 at 2:50 PMAny particular reason why you don’t have overload progress via sets?
Eric Helms says
September 25, 2018 at 5:58 AMThat’s certainly a way you can set up your training, I don’t see it as the default, so I didn’t set it up that way in this example.
Graham Wells says
September 30, 2018 at 4:10 PMThank you Eric for a brilliant two part explanation of volume for hypertrophy.
What, in your mind, would be a decent rest period in between sets/exercises? Obviously too much/little rest will adversely affect intensity and performance levels.
Thanks again, Graham.
Eric Helms says
October 1, 2018 at 11:43 PMYou’re very welcome Graham! Hey, if you haven’t seen it, go to the muscle and strength pyramids, link in our address bar, and download the free chapter, it’s actually the entire chapter on rest periods 🙂
Graham Wells says
October 4, 2018 at 11:12 AMOnce again Eric, a big thank you for your help.
Best wishes, Graham.
Eric Helms says
October 4, 2018 at 12:24 PMHappy to help!
Michael Wright says
October 7, 2018 at 11:09 AMquestion with example my chest development is alot crappier compared to my back would you recommend longer the 3 weeks for chest or not prioritize back for a while and cycle in more chest priority?
Eric Helms says
October 7, 2018 at 3:49 PMFew ways you could do it. You could do that or you could even just alternate between a balanced training cycle like the arms/calves with less arms/calves, with Chest specialization cycles as an example.
Justin says
October 8, 2018 at 2:54 PMGood article!
My question:
In a ‘cutting’ phase, while using the Auto Regulation Principle, should one try to make progress in volume via adding sets in ALL movements week to week? Or, should the same principle mentioned in the Group Specialization article be used; increase volume in specific muscle groups over a few micro-cycles?
Thanks!
Eric Helms says
October 9, 2018 at 5:19 AMJustin, I’m having trouble answering your question because your underlying assumption that you should be adding sets week to week cutting or bulking isn’t something I’d recommend. That’s one way to progress through a mesocycle, but certainly not the only way. I also don’t know what that has to do with autoregulation. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.
Shawn says
October 12, 2018 at 9:07 AMThanks for the article. What is the reason that the volume isn’t evenly split?
Eric Helms says
October 14, 2018 at 5:12 AMI might be misunderstanding, but the volume isn’t evenly split purposefully because this entire article and the sample split is a specialization cycle such that there is more volume for certain body parts during certain mesocycles.
Shawn says
October 15, 2018 at 9:49 AMSorry, I was unclear. I meant split volume for the specialized body part instead of 1 “balanced” day and 1 “specialized” day.
Eric Helms says
October 15, 2018 at 2:06 PMYeah that’s certainly an option too.
Krishnasai says
October 15, 2018 at 12:53 AMWhat is the conclusion Bro I am totally confused
Eric Helms says
October 15, 2018 at 2:05 PMSorry man, you’ll have to get to the point where you understand enough to actually ask a question for me to help you
Vikramjit Singh says
November 1, 2018 at 5:01 AMAmazing article, Eric !
But should I, someone who has lifted for 2 years, run specialization cycles? Or is it more beneficial to do moderate volume for ALL muscle groups or what ?
Right now I’m going from MEV to MRV for a couple muscle groups, and keep the other muscles at low/moderate volume, and then I switch it up the next mesocycle, so the other muscles don’t get neglected.
Eric Helms says
November 1, 2018 at 3:07 PMThank you!
And probably not necessary, just stick to moderate volumes until you can’t progress.
Mohammed says
March 17, 2019 at 1:53 PMHi eric,
Are you aware of any studies that showed that poor responders (beginners) benefit from 8-10 sets per session? (instead of the usual 1-4)
It seems that this is correlated to fiber type make up (predominately slow twitch muscles).
Eric Helms says
March 17, 2019 at 2:05 PMMohammed, beginners aren’t poor responders, they respond better than anyone else because they are new and the stimulus is novel, and they are no where near their genetic ceiling. Also, studies don’t usually use 1-4 sets per session, so I wouldn’t classify it as “the usual”. There is also no data at all connecting fiber type and appropriate volume.
Mohammed says
March 17, 2019 at 6:05 PMThnx eric for the reply,
Well i beg to differ. Some people usually ectomorphs (myself included) find that there are some muscle groups in their bodies that dont respond to a reasonable number of sets. I had trouble growing my thighs and upper arms (not the rest!) with 4 sets to failure. When i switched to 10 sets they finally grew and i was a beginner.
Ps: 1-4 sets up to 6 is from wernboms recommandations (2007 metanalysis) which works just fine for beginners.
Eric Helms says
March 17, 2019 at 7:20 PMNo worries man, happy to help, although I think we may be talking past one another.
Mohammed, I know you said “you beg to differ” but nothing you said is in disagreement with my statements.
You stated “poor responders (beginners)” which seems to imply to me (apologies if this isn’t what you meant) that beginners are the same thing as poor responders, when in general, that is not the case, as beginners respond better to training than more well trained individuals.
Having non responsive muscle groups is an unrelated point in my mind, but maybe I’m not understanding your question.
Also I don’t think the wernbom 2007 systematic review (wasn’t actually a meta analysis as they just looked at averages, but great paper nonetheless) represents “the usual” in practice, or in research, but sure those guidelines are a decent place to start for sure.
So given all that, by context, I’m thinking what you’re asking is “should non responsive body parts be assigned more volume, even if you’re a beginner?” And if that is your question, my answer would be if all other aspects of your nutrition, sleep, stress and most importantly exercise technique are assessed first and deemed good to go, then yes.
Hope this helps
Mohammed says
March 17, 2019 at 9:14 PMThnx, so i understand that non responsive muscles are more common than i thought. Who knew lol. If thats the case do you have personal experience with them. (how far did you raise the volume?) And why there arent studies that shed the light on this?
Mohammed says
March 17, 2019 at 9:15 PMI mean for beginners sorry.
Eric Helms says
March 17, 2019 at 9:28 PMI didn’t say anything about how common less responsive muscles are, i just suggested that if everything else is in order, more volume would be worth trying.
David says
May 6, 2019 at 1:21 PMHi Eric, thanks for such a great and helpful article!
I was wondering what are your thoughts on the effects of changing the duration of the microcycles.
Are 3-week microcycles a more or less arbitrary number and 4/6-week ones would work as effectively or, contrarily, is that 3-week a consciously selected number and higher ones would be too much stress for the specialized muscle??
Eric Helms says
May 6, 2019 at 1:36 PMYou’re welcome and thank you David glad to hear it! 3 weeks isn’t totally arbitrary, but it is primarily an example vs a recommendation. The same cycle could easily be ran twice in a row if joints are happy for the given muscle groups targeted
jake says
May 8, 2019 at 11:36 AMI’m curious about your thoughts on the comparison between your conception of specialization vs Lyle’s. Do you believe short 3-week micro cycles to be superior to his classic 6-week micro cycles? Assume all relevant factors pertaining to hypertrophy to be equal.
Program A (lyle inspired):
6 week cycle of chest and quad
6 week cycle of Hamstrings and back
Program B (Eric inspired)
3 week cycle chest and quad
3 week cycle hamstrings and back
3 weeks cycle chest and quads
3 week cycle hamstrings and back
Eric Helms says
May 8, 2019 at 6:21 PMJake thanks for the question, and check out my answer to David on May 6th, many ways to run this, and so long as it is logical, I think many variants could work, worth giving whichever one a few run throughs, then the other and comparing your results. Good luck!
jake says
May 10, 2019 at 12:49 AMwhoops thought i read all the comment…guess not lol. Sorry for the redundancy. Thanks, Eric! I’ll report back with results.
Daniel says
July 30, 2019 at 4:04 PMHi Eric,
I noticed that in this article, you count both horizontal, and vertical pushing towards just sets of “push” volume, while not really counting for chest specifically. So, in the balanced routine, you are really only getting 6 sets of chest volume, not 12, since vertical pressing doesn’t really hit the chest. Should we just count vertical pressing towards chest volume anyway (I guess it does hit the upper chest a little), or would adding 6 sets of flyes make it more balanced if we count each muscle group?
Thanks!
Eric Helms says
July 30, 2019 at 4:46 PMRemember this is mostly a conceptual article to understand how to program specialisation cycles, absolutely you can change how volume is counted to be more body part specific.
Jannik says
January 9, 2020 at 12:23 PMHi Eric,
do you think in such a specialization cycle a RIR regression (start around 3/2 RIR and end around 1/0 RIR after 9weeks) could make sense?
Thanks
Jannik
Eric Helms says
January 9, 2020 at 12:59 PMCertainly, having fixed rep targets within a mesocycle and increasing load and subsequently RPE (or decreasing RIR) is a perfectly acceptable method of progression Omar uses that in some good example setups here https://youtu.be/xfMn5AYRgkY