>implying you need more

>>76367363 (OP)
>he only does 4 on biceps
Lmao, DYEL?

>>76367372
no need for more because I actually go to 0 RIR unlike you

3 sets of preachers and 1 finishing set of hammer curls, and then swap out preachers for incline curls the next time to bias long head

volumecucks just out themselves as either roidmonkeys or frauding dyels who don't train hard

>>76367363 (OP)
>5 reps chest
>4 reps bicep
>3 reps triceps
>3 reps side delts
>2 reps front delts
>then T=17 rest days
>5 reps lats
>3 reps traps
>3 reps quads
>2 reps upper traps
>2 reps lower back
>2 reps hamstrings
>then T=17 rest days
>2 reps Abs
>2 reps Calves
>then T=4 rest days
Finally, a routine that is actually LOGICAL and sensible posted on this chinese cooking forum.

Explain the logic behind these numbers. Mine are all 3 and then if I don't progress I add one because I need more unless it's because of doms then I subtract one because I need less. That's my logic. Explain yours.

>>76367780
You will grow with just 2 sets of an exercise (per session) targeting a specific muscle provided you performed the set intensely enough. Sometimes, if I feel I the exercise influences CNS very little, I will jack it up to 3 (in the case of side delts) for a little additional bit of gains.

The areas where you see more than 2 sets are either where I am targeting multiple muscles as part of the muscle group (e.g. chest) or areas where I want complete activation of the entire muscle throughout the weekly split (e.g. bicep with short and long head).

The pic is also kind of bad because there's definite spillover of muscles targeted due to effective compound usage. The "lower back" sets also target the glutes and hamstrings, for example, so the volume is deceptively higher than shown.

That's my logic. How'd I do?

>>76368610
You either did really well and it's just over my head or really bad and you don't know what you're talking about. I haven't the foggiest idea.

>>76367363 (OP)
Post body