# German Volume Training (GVT)- why does it work so well?



## sharkattack (Aug 8, 2006)

I asked once before, but didn't get a lot of replies. I am curious why this method of training seems to work so well. As far as how it's different from 'conventional' training, instead of doing 3-4 exercises per large body part, you do just one. And you do it for 10 sets. 

That being said, why does it seem more effective to do, say, 10 sets of 10 reps of low incline bench press vs. 3-4 movements at 3-4 sets each for chest?

My theory is that since the GVT method of training has you repeating the same movement over and over, you're going to really improve on that movement in that plane of motion, whereas 'conventional' training has you hitting the chest from multiple angles but for fewer sets per angle.

Does any of this make sense? I've been using the GVT method for a couple of weeks and really like it. It's not the most exciting thing, the same exercise for 10 sets, but it does seem to be having a positive effect-which is why we train in the first place, right?

If any of you kind folks have any info that you'd like to share, please do so. Also, how many folks either have done GVT training in the past, are currently doing GVT, or plan on doing GVT? If you used it in the past, what types of results did you get? What made you stop?

As always, thank you for the help,
Scott


----------



## Mudge (Aug 8, 2006)

If you are talking about improvement in only one plane of motion, you must be talking strength not size? The program is not in the best rep range for strength.

So, when you are saying it works well - in what manner are you speaking of?


----------



## sharkattack (Aug 8, 2006)

I meant for adding size.  Sorry for the confusion.  I understand that it's not a long term program, a 12 week or so limit.


----------



## SuperFlex (Aug 8, 2006)

I'll probably do it again for squats... Possibly bench, but probably not. I don't want a HUGE chest...

I think you're responding to it because it's new to your body. What you've already said makes sense to a point as well. Those type of gains won't last forever and when you switch it back up you'll probably be pleased with 3-4 sets of 3-4 exercises again... If you want research and scientific answers type it in your internet search engine...



Here's an article.
http://www.strengthcats.com/CP-GVT.html


----------



## P-funk (Aug 8, 2006)

anything works well for size if you eat enough food.


"everything works but nothing works forever."
-louie simmons


----------



## LoadedBats (Aug 9, 2006)

Check out this article by Charles Poliquin:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=658759

It's an advanced version of GVT.  Better utilized for strength gains.  I havn't tried it, but may consider it for the future.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 9, 2006)

There is a very high work density with the GVT protocol.  I kind of want to try it with squats, but I do like the ability to walk...


----------



## 33sun33 (Aug 9, 2006)

This looks pretty interesting and I might give it a try.

Is it best to do it like Poliquin suggests: chest and back on one day, legs/abs another, and arms and shoulders the third?

I thought body part routines were outdated (you know, all the push/pull, total body advocates...)?


----------



## Mudge (Aug 9, 2006)

P-funk said:
			
		

> "everything works but nothing works forever."
> -louie simmons



Common mistake is for people to switch to a new routine, make gains, and think they have found the Holy Grail.

Good quote.


----------



## Witchblade (Aug 11, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> There is a very high work density with the GVT protocol.  I kind of want to try it with squats, but I do like the ability to walk...


 Reminds me of 2 weeks back when I did a way too intense leg workout. Next day I got out of bed, I just fell on the ground. Next 2 days I found out what it's like to be semi-handicapped.


----------



## joesmooth20 (Aug 12, 2006)

LoadedBats said:
			
		

> Check out this article by Charles Poliquin:
> 
> http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=658759
> 
> It's an advanced version of GVT.  Better utilized for strength gains.  I havn't tried it, but may consider it for the future.



I don't like it, I sure you get just as good of results using a program with much less volume.


----------



## ElbowStrike (Mar 17, 2008)

*That's not GVT...  THIS is GVT!*



sharkattack said:


> I am curious why this method of training seems to work so well...
> 
> ...why does it seem more effective to do, say, 10 sets of 10 reps of low incline bench press vs. 3-4 movements at 3-4 sets each for chest?
> 
> ...



It seems like you've answered your own question.

By attacking the same set of muscle fibers with a repeated load over, and over, and over, and over again they get a growth stimulus like they've never seen before.

The more sets of an exercise you do, the more fatigued muscle fibers "drop out" of the effort and new, untapped ones are recruited.  By the end of 10 sets you've recruited muscle fibers that have literally never been used before.

The very high volume also stimulates the growth-resistant slow-twitch fibers into hypertrophy, which makes this a good program for endurance athletes who want to put on functional mass for their sport.

When I was 16 and a novice racing in winter biathlon, I was going up against kids who'd been training since they were four years old.  All the hill work and hours of cross-country skiing had given them these hypertrophied legs that were specialized for endurance work.

I trained the entire off-season in GVT to grow my legs (I managed to get up to 10x10 with 255 over the summer), and then modified it to specialize for endurance.  I increased the reps to 10x12, then over several workouts decreased the rest periods to 30 seconds.  So I was doing 10 sets of 12 reps with 255 with only 30 seconds of rest.

Since I had been using the same weight for months on end I rarely, if ever, experienced DOMS and I could actually maintain my strength-endurance through the entire biathlon season by doing the 10x12x30s workout every weekend there wasn't a race.

Oh yeah, and in that one year I went from the provincial "C" team to placing 24th at the North American Champs.  Not too shabby an improvement for one year's training.

Since then, I've turned to GVT any time I've had the opportunity to focus solely on bodybuilding.  I'm sure you can see how training with GVT is completely incompatible with concurrently training for any sport whatsoever.

I must make a correction though.  I see this mistake everywhere I see people talk about GVT.  Here goes...

 GERMAN VOLUME TRAINING IS NOT TEN SETS OF TEN REPS!!! 

Whew!

Nice to get that out of my system.

GVT is also known as the "ten sets method".  The number of reps varies.

10 sets of 10 reps is a TEMPORARY program for beginners whose bodies have not been exposed to high-volume training.  Only the first month of GVT is 10x10.

It goes like this:

Beginner:
6 x 5-day cycles of GVT are 10x10,
Two weeks off,
Move on to intermediate

Intermediate:
6 x 5-day cycles are 10x6
Two weeks off,
Repeat intermediate until plateau, then move on to advanced.

Advanced:
6 x 5-day cycles, strategically cycling resistance and reps like so:

10x6 @ 200 (your current 12RM)
10x5 @ 210
10x4 @ 215
10x6 @ 210
10x5 @ 215
10x4 @ 220
At this point you should be able to perform one set of 12 with 215

Even after that's stopped working for you, you can go on and do 10x3 @ 6RM to transform all your newly-grown muscle into strong, functional muscle that can move massive weight.

Once your strength gains plateau, you can start all over again at 10x10.

Due to GVT's changing nature, in theory you could cycle through the entire GVT program forever and make gains, forever.

In practice, you'd get horribly, horribly bored of it and tired of being half-handicapped all the time with the deep muscle soreness.

Just my 10 x 2 cents! 

-- ElbowStrike


----------



## Biggly (Mar 17, 2008)

> GERMAN VOLUME TRAINING IS NOT TEN SETS OF TEN REPS!!!



Yes it is, for 99% of lifters - because they do that 'intro' and never do such high volume again!

Someone once emailed me and asked "If muscles grow through damage, why lift weights when you could just beat yourself stupid with a meat tenderizer?" or words to that effect.

That would be preferable, and less painful, to GVT.



B.


----------



## Gazhole (Mar 17, 2008)

Like Mudge said, i think people give some of these programs far too much credit. Yeah they may be good ideas, but its the variation that really makes the difference.


----------



## mistergoodbar (Mar 17, 2008)

I think it would be an excellent program if you were German and on d-bol.


----------



## ElbowStrike (Mar 17, 2008)

mistergoodbar said:


> I think it would be an excellent program if you were German and on d-bol.



Or still 16 and bullet-proof.


----------



## btstrg (Apr 22, 2008)

*How to GVT question*

Hi could you answer a question for me. I have been reading on trying this but am confused. Do you superset this or would you do say 10 sets of bench with a 60 sec rest between each set??  or do bench then go right to  back and then a 90 sec rest?  When reading the workouts it says  Notes: Rest 90 seconds between each "A" exercise and each superset.

How do you do it??

Thanks
Brian


----------



## Biggly (Apr 22, 2008)

> bench then go right to back and then a 90 sec rest




B.


----------



## chris mason (Apr 22, 2008)

P-funk said:


> anything works well for size if you eat enough food.
> 
> 
> "everything works but nothing works forever."
> -louie simmons


 
Did you ever get my PM?


----------



## chris mason (Apr 22, 2008)

That quote by Louie is SOOOOO true.

GVT is something that would work if used on a limited basis.  Otherwise, you will quickly stagnate.


----------



## btstrg (Apr 23, 2008)

*Confusion about GVT and sets*

So there's two ways I can go about my sets. Taking chest and back day for example, one way would be:
Bench->60 sec break->Bench->break->Bench for 10 sets, then the same with Chins. 
The other way would be:
Bench->Chins->90 sec break->Bench->Chins->break for 10 sets. 

I wanted to do it the first way, but then thought I would be better to it the second way to save time. But now I'm confused, because it's important to have consistent 60 second breaks between sets, what's with the longer break down below on top of doing a different muscle exercise. What's the deal with these two methods? If i do it in a superset than there is a 2.5 min rest between  say the each bench set dosnt that defeat the purpose waiting that long between sets?

Thanks


----------



## P-funk (Apr 23, 2008)

chris mason said:


> Did you ever get my PM?



I don't think so?


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 23, 2008)

When I do supersets, I prefer to do something like this:

Bench
Rest
Chinup
Rest
Bench
Rest
Chinup
Rest
Etc.

So, I insert some rest in between the two exercises each time.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2008)

Those aren't supersets. First off, they're not hitting the same muscle group. Second, you're resting between sets. 

Pushing and pulling like you're doing is antagonist pairs training. I like it very much by the way - the antagonist gets a rest while you train the agonist, the workout moves along fairly quickly, and even though the rests between sets may be on the short side, the rests between pushes are longer because you've done a pull in between, and vice versa. Clears metabolites from the antagonist that was just trained while the agonist works... all good stuff. Plus it ensures your training is balanced between push and pull for that area - always a plus.


----------



## Gazhole (Apr 23, 2008)

CowPimp said:


> When I do supersets, I prefer to do something like this:
> 
> Bench
> Rest
> ...



I do them like this too, probably after you mentioned them in a thread like this


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 23, 2008)

Built said:


> Those aren't supersets. First off, they're not hitting the same muscle group. Second, you're resting between sets.
> 
> Pushing and pulling like you're doing is antagonist pairs training. I like it very much by the way - the antagonist gets a rest while you train the agonist, the workout moves along fairly quickly, and even though the rests between sets may be on the short side, the rests between pushes are longer because you've done a pull in between, and vice versa. Clears metabolites from the antagonist that was just trained while the agonist works... all good stuff. Plus it ensures your training is balanced between push and pull for that area - always a plus.



Semantics.  Some people call them "antagonist supersets."  I don't know that there is a cut and dry definition of a superset.  In fact, in my certification text they used some weird name for a superset; it might have been a compound set.  

Anyway, the point is it's a useful tool to put in the training tool box.  Whether you want to call it a superset or not is your perogative.  I'm glad you like "antagonist pairing" though, heh.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2008)

Oh, I wasn't meaning to criticize, sorry if it came out that way. I'm not a big fan of actual supersets - but antagonist pairs are awesome!


----------



## nartic (Apr 23, 2008)

Right now am doing the 10 set 10 rep range for each body part the second half of the week an doing the 5 set 5 rep range for the first half of the week.


----------



## btstrg (Apr 24, 2008)

*'German Volume Training (GVT)- why does it work so well?'*

Thanks for the replies. I did chest and back last night. I had to adjust the weights on the Dumbbells a couple of times as I started to low. 
I really didn't rest between the chest and back but did the 90 sec after both exercises.
When I woke up this morning I really didn't think it did that much as I  didn't feel that sore, but as the day goes on I am starting to really feel it.  I needed a nice break in routines and this seems to be a pretty simple and hopefully affective program.
Thanks again


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 24, 2008)

Built said:


> Oh, I wasn't meaning to criticize, sorry if it came out that way. I'm not a big fan of actual supersets - but antagonist pairs are awesome!



Yeah, I didn't really take it that way.  You can't hear my tone of voice over the Internet, but if you could you would hear that I wasn't really being defensive.  I just like to clarify.  My point was simply that we both agree on the concept, our aribtrary naming scheme for it is just different.  Hehe.


----------



## peni (Jun 6, 2008)

*GVT with chins = Massive results*

A few years back I had the bad luck to be framed for a crime I didnt commit, like the A-team. So inside there were no weights and only a concrete yard a third the size of a high-school gymnasium. I would walk around this yard and every 4 laps jump-reach for an overhead railing and do some chin-ups. Id start with 5 reps and quickly go down to 3, then 2 - which may not seem like a lot of reps but doing nothing but chins for an hour and a half... the reps add up.

So now I have really good lats and nothing else to speak of, just wish I could summon the mental fortitude to do 90min of heavy squats on a regular basis.

Moral: Heavy weight + High cumulative rep count = Monstrous gains 
(even on naturally skinny dude with no 'roids and crappy diet of mashed potato and virtually no protein)


----------



## Biggly (Jun 7, 2008)

Lats do tend to react that way and I've seen myself that just jumping on a home pull-up bar throughout the day can be as effective as incorporating within a workout as such. What I'm interested to know though is how did this affect your biceps and forearms?

I ask as I've found pull-ups do indeed seem to develop lats but not much on the arms, which is weird as the arms are usually the weakest link. 


B.


----------



## peni (Jun 7, 2008)

I always used a pronated grip, and although people often comment on my lats I know my biceps are very average and forearms pretty wimpy really.


----------



## MetalVolcano (Dec 15, 2008)

sharkattack said:


> My theory is that since the GVT method of training has you repeating the same movement over and over, you're going to really improve on that movement in that plane of motion, whereas 'conventional' training has you hitting the chest from multiple angles but for fewer sets per angle.
> 
> Does any of this make sense? I've been using the GVT method for a couple of weeks and really like it. It's not the most exciting thing, the same exercise for 10 sets, but it does seem to be having a positive effect-which is why we train in the first place, right?



Makes sense to me. You're doing 100 reps of one exercise, therefore with all of that movement on just one lift, you're bound to kill it on that lift, and exhaust your muscles in a more complete fashion than if you did 5 sets, or 3 different muscle movements.


----------



## MetalVolcano (Dec 15, 2008)

Biggly said:


> Lats do tend to react that way and I've seen myself that just jumping on a home pull-up bar throughout the day can be as effective as incorporating within a workout as such. What I'm interested to know though is how did this affect your biceps and forearms?
> 
> I ask as I've found pull-ups do indeed seem to develop lats but not much on the arms, which is weird as the arms are usually the weakest link.
> 
> ...



I've always gone underhand and done chin-ups, and when I do them that way, my biceps grow just as fast as my lats.


----------



## Merkaba (Dec 15, 2008)




----------



## jasoncscs (Feb 9, 2010)

Not sure exactly why it works so well, but I know I love it and throw it into my programming about once a year.


----------



## chiuchi (Mar 17, 2010)

im just staring out. it seems to be working well.


----------



## Kleen (Aug 23, 2010)

I am getting ready to use this again or maybe the Advanced one. One of the big things I haven't seen mentioned here is the GH release stimulated by the horrendously slow 4-0-2 tempo. I got great results from this before but the reason I plan to use it now is I am semi-injured y shoulder is not up to 100% closer to 80 and I am tired of not growing from using lighter weights to spare it. When done correctly with a 4-0-2 tempo you really don't have too much choice but to keep the weights light. I am not a big proponent of anything high volume but really this program is not as high volume as everyone makes it out to be. 13 sets per body part total is not that high. I see most people running 4-5 exercises with 4-5 sets per exercise not including warmup sets. With GVT the first work set is your warm up set. The weights you need to use are so light that there is no need for a warm upset before going heavy You are starting out with 60% of your ten rep max already. Also 10 sets of 10 is the goal and not the reality. IF you get to 10 sets of 10 then you move up in weight you WILL fail on many sets if doing it right.


----------



## bigjules (Sep 13, 2010)

hi everyone,ime starting the gvt in 2weeks time for a 6week programme as ive heard it takes so much out of you!!that 6weeks will do the job,hope so


----------



## roastchicken (Sep 13, 2010)

its designed for a 3 day split (5 day cycles) where the workouts are only repated a maximum of 6 times so the program should only last 4 weeks .When you have completed a cycle switch to a lower volume conventional program for say 3 weeks. First do a few cycles of GVT then move on to AGVT.

With that said i only ever use GVT or AGVT for legs as i believe the slow twitch dominant legs respond much better to the Time under tension, high reps and short rest periods. Always use a 41X0 Tempo this will kill You!


----------



## LAM (Sep 13, 2010)

IMO...volume training works well for most because many don't use a long enough TUT with high enough loads during training their regular training.  

for hypertrophy a TUT of 45-60 seconds with loads at/around 80% of the 1RM is optimum.  from my personal observances over many, many years in various gyms the majority of people sacrifice weight for form.  another thing regarding volume training is that this type of training will result in gains more from increasing intramuscular hydration, etc. than from actually increasing the size of cross bridges and muscle fibers. 

people forget that the majority of the gains in "fat free mass" are not from an increase in actual muscle fiber size but in an increase in the various nutrients being stored in skeletal muscle


----------



## cornbeef (Sep 14, 2010)

GVT worked for me for about 4 months... then i adapted and it stopped working...
really the only thing that works is HARD work... 
if you used to your routine and you try something new... ofc its going to work... isnt that what the sport is all about... constantly shocking the body into growth...


----------



## ConJnr21 (Aug 15, 2011)

btstrg said:


> Hi could you answer a question for me. I have been reading on trying this but am confused. Do you superset this or would you do say 10 sets of bench with a 60 sec rest between each set??  or do bench then go right to  back and then a 90 sec rest?  When reading the workouts it says  Notes: Rest 90 seconds between each "A" exercise and each superset.
> 
> How do you do it??
> 
> ...



thats a good question i was actually thinking that


----------



## ManGod123 (Aug 22, 2011)

What about shoulders? i don't see any shoulder training


----------



## Usealittle (Aug 22, 2011)

I'm doin the smolov jr squat cycle.... Squat 4x wk, works great!


----------



## Kleen (Sep 7, 2011)

ManGod123 said:


> What about shoulders? i don't see any shoulder training



Shoulders ate done on arm day. You wont need more.


----------



## bigbill69 (Sep 7, 2011)

if u never tried gvt u have to do it its fukin intense and on leg day those 10x10 squats will make u fell like ur going to die so if u think ur badass doing ur 4 sets of squats at 4 reps u aint got shit on this


----------

