[0:00]Walk around the fitness industry and you'll see the same debate happening over and over again. On the one side, low volume works best, versus you need high volume on the other. But funnily enough, scientifically, this debate has been settled for a long time. But, just to sanity check myself, I called Dr Mike and asked him one simple question. If you had to give the average natural lifter one piece of advice to improve their progress over the next six months for the average natty, what would that be? If you're not completely overwhelmed and your XYZ muscle group that you're trying to get bigger feels like it's strong and recovered since the last time you trained it, consider adding one more working set to that muscle groups menu for that week, and reiterate that formula every single week that you're not deloading. It is absolutely crystal clear at this point from the research, much of which you and your colleagues have done recently, and much of which you and your colleagues have agglomerated into excellent reviews and metaanalyses, that per muscle, the top-end limit for how many weekly sets caused the biggest hypertrophy is just way higher than most of us had like had any conception that could be the case, and there are understandable reasons why most people didn't guess it, because in the context of whole body lifting, systemic fatigue for strong people is really high, you're just not going to do 40 sets of everything, you're going to fucking die. Totally. But if you're working on your chest or your biceps, and your chest and biceps feel pretty good after last session and you come in, let's say chest, biceps, you do on Mondays and Thursdays. If you did, you know, 10 sets of chest and five sets of biceps on Monday, you come in on Thursday and your chest feels totally fine, like very recovered. You ask yourself the question, like next Monday, could I do 11 sets and still recover Thursday? If the answer is like, yeah, probably, just add another set, and you can continue to iterate like that for weeks and weeks and weeks, and you're going to get two things: really fatigued, right, really fatigued, and much bigger. Because 10 sets of chest twice a week, it's 20 sets total. We know from very good data now that the vast majority of people in our training studies will not maximize their growth from 20 sets of chest per week. It's great growth, it's not maximum growth. More people, like if you and I went to a muscle casino, and someone was like, all right, we got two groups of random people in AI simulation, one group gets 25 sets of chest, the other group gets 20 sets of chest, everything else is the same. Who's going to grow more muscle? Like Milo, at this point, like lifting literature, we'd be real dumb to bet 20 is the answer, real dumb. And to be completely honest, bro, a much more interesting question that's very difficult, probably for you and I both to answer is, one group has 50 sets of chest, the other group has 45, who's going to grow more? I think you and I'd both be like, I don't know, like intuitively, like fuck, 50 is a lot, how long are they training? Is it eight weeks total progression, linearly, no deload? Like maybe 45, but then again maybe it's 50, like, I don't even know, right? So because the top-end limit is unknown and very high in most cases and because you don't have to guess, because if your muscles feel under-recovered and you're getting weaker, don't add any volume, just stay at your normal volume. But if you really can add, add. And there's like, a number of muscles for me that come into the equation as like, okay, this makes sense. Hamstrings, right? I mean there's only so much hamstring work you could do until you have delayed onset overlapping soreness and you're like, I'm just going to pull my hamstrings off the bone, this is fucking stupid. For sure, cool, we got to like mitigate that a little bit. But Milo, think about side delts. I mean, is there number of side delt raises you can do to where you're underperforming three days later in another side delt exercise? Like, yes, but it's numbered in like, say 15 sets of side delts. 15 sets of side delts three times a week is 45 sets. In most of the studies, 45 sets is illustrated as like, the highest level of growth ever recorded in study, relative to other growth, and okay, yeah, fuck. And it's not like a fun thing because you're like, man, stupid thing. Like I remember people were complaining a lot about um uh earlier versions of our app where the adjustment algorithm wasn't as easy where you could just like say, I don't want any more sets. And also we had, I remember back in the day, we had templates that would auto-progress you in in set numbers. And people would be like, dude, I can't fucking do this, man, this thing is just burning me to the ground, and it's like, Yeah, yeah, but it's growing you, though, that's how growth works. So that would be my biggest thing is like, if you're recovered and you feel pretty good, add a set, it's the most certain way to enhance hypertrophy. It's more certain than lifting heavier, it's more certain even unfortunately than like cleaning up your technique, because how will you clean up your technique could be make a difference? It's just like, adding volume is the most scientifically dependable way, so as long as you're going pretty close to failure, your technique's not the worst thing in the world, and you're actually hitting the target muscle, adding another set is the most dependable way to grow more. Period, as far as I can tell for the time being. To really determine the impact of training volume on muscle hypertrophy, the best thing we can do is look to the research. And as I mentioned earlier, when you look at the research, the picture has been pretty clear for a long time. Going all the way back to a meta-analysis by Schoenfeld and colleagues from around the early 2010s. In this meta-analysis, the researchers performed several analyses looking at the effects of volume on hypertrophy. First, they categorized volume into being low, moderate, or high. High was defined as being over 10 sets per week per muscle. That isn't high by modern standards, but at the time, we didn't have that many studies on the topic yet, and that was kind of the highest we had observed. However, in categorizing volume into low, I believe below five sets, medium between five to nine sets, and high above 10 sets, the authors clearly saw, the higher the volume was, the greater the hypertrophy observed. These findings persisted no matter the sort of analysis the authors performed. But that was one of the very first meta-analyses on this topic. There have been several more since. One of the more recent ones was a meta-analysis by Baz-Valle and colleagues a few years ago. They categorized volumes into moderate and high volume for our purposes. Moderate volumes were between 12 to 20 direct sets per week per muscle, whereas high volumes was above 20 sets per week per muscle. So again, you can see how the volume of research has shifted over time into exploring higher and higher volumes. Specifically, the authors focused on three muscle groups, the three muscle groups with the most research: the biceps, the triceps, and the quads. In comparing moderate volumes to high volumes for these three muscle groups, only one of the three significantly showed greater hypertrophy with higher volumes. However, if you look at the results closely, all three muscle groups directionally favored higher volumes, meaning that generally speaking, on average, within these studies, more muscle growth is seen when doing higher volumes and excess of 20 sets per week per muscle.
[6:43]So what does that mean? Well, it means that while we didn't have a ton of studies for each individual sub-group analysis, or for each individual muscle, in general, the studies did seem to favor higher volume. It's just that when you're dealing with 46 studies, you may not pick up on a true effect even if it is there, because statistical power and sample size are relatively low. And that's where the final and biggest meta-analysis on training volume comes in. And this one was published only a few months ago. And that's a meta-analysis by Pelland and colleagues. Yet again, they looked at the effects of training volume on muscle hypertrophy. But this time, they had far more studies to work with and they adopted a slightly different analysis model. In their analysis model, they effectively charted the relationship between volume and hypertrophy when volume was seen in a continuous fashion, meaning trying to look at for each individual set being added to your training routine, how much more muscle growth would you observe? Whereas previous meta-analysis had focused more so on categorical analyses. For example, comparing more moderate volume range of 12 to 20 sets to 20 plus sets. And when they adopted this continuous model approach, they observed, the more volume was performed, the more muscle growth was seen. And that was true all the way to 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets. But wait, let's rewind a little bit, what does fractional mean? Because it's the first time I've mentioned it in this video. Well, fractional volume simply refers to the idea that compound movements train several muscles at once. So, while a set of bicep curls, for example, might count only as one set for your biceps, brachialis and brachioradialis, how should we count a lat pull-down, for example, or a dumbbell row? Well, we likely shouldn't count those movements as a full set for the biceps, after all, it's unlikely the biceps are truly reaching muscular failure in this movement, like they would during say a bicep curl where nothing else can really give out. Additionally, oftentimes compound movements compromise on the stretch position, far more so secondary muscle groups like the biceps. So they had to come up with some sort of system or they wanted to see rather which method of evaluating volume was most accurate. So they actually compared which model of volume best fit the data. Was it that only direct training counted, meaning that each movement only counted for the primary muscle group involved, like a barbell bench press for the chest, a lat pull-down for the back, but not for the biceps and not for the triceps, or was it somewhere in the middle, meaning a fractional model where in a lat pull-down, for example, would count as a full set for your lats, but only half a set for your biceps, so somewhere in the middle? And when they compared these three approaches, counting all volume directly, all volume indirectly, or all volume fractionally, somewhere in the middle, that model fit the data best. And therefore, that's likely how you should see volume. That compound movements, for example, do contribute stimulus towards even the smaller muscle groups or secondary muscle groups, but not quite as much as for the primary muscle groups involved. And when they viewed volume fractionally, as was suggested by their analysis, they observed, going all the way up to 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets per muscle group per week, was beneficial for growth. But it goes even further, in their analysis, they found that around 25% of how much muscle growth someone observes could be attributed to how much volume they were doing. So, simply going from a low volume approach to a higher volume approach could get you around 25% of your total potential gains. It is that big of a player when it comes to maximizing muscle building. If you want to level up your training, check out MyoAdapt, the app I co-founded to help you apply the science from this channel. It builds evidence-based routines around progressive overload and smart exercise selection. Let's you emphasize the muscles you care about and tracks progress automatically. Train anywhere at home or in the gym, in as little as 15 minutes, and switch between gyms seamlessly. Head to myoadapt.com and use code Wolf for a free two-week trial. You can also book a free call below to see if we're a good fit. I'll work with you directly to optimize your training, nutrition, and recovery. Big thank you as always to Raskol Apparel for supporting the channel. You can use code Wolf for 10% off their training gear at RaskolApparel.com. Since this paper was published, however, many people have tried to poke holes into it, and rightfully so. That's what we should do when it comes to research. Specifically, they've pointed out a few things. They've pointed out that perhaps these results are only valid in the context of short rest times, which is oftentimes what happens in these research studies. Indeed, researchers don't really want to have participants in for three hours when they're doing high volumes, and so oftentimes, they adopt one to two minutes of rest between sets. Or maybe high volumes are only beneficial when you're a beginner, because as you get more trained, you are able to train a bit harder, you impose more fatigue, and therefore the relationship between volume and hypertrophy shifts meaningfully as you go from beginner to advanced. Or finally, some people even claimed, I don't think these results really apply if you're training to failure. After all, if you're training to failure, each set is more stimulative, but also more fatiguing, and therefore, you don't need as many sets, and you certainly can't recover from as many sets. Fortunately for us, the researchers actually looked at all of these research questions using sub-group analyses. Effectively, grouping the data into different categories to see whether individual variables, like whether or not participants trained to failure, like how long the rest times were, or whether participants were more advanced or more beginners. In grouping the data into different categories, they were able to see, does the shape of the relationship between volume and hypertrophy change much depending on what you're looking at? And the answer, no, the relationship was robust to both shorter and longer rest times. So whether you're taking a minute of rest or three minutes of rest, more volume does still lead to more growth, generally speaking. Likewise, whether participants were untrained or trained, they didn't seem to meaningfully alter the shape of the relationship. And finally, most studies actually had participants train to failure to begin with. And yes, whether participants trained to failure or didn't train to failure, more volume was still beneficial. So clearly, for over a decade now, the research has been relatively settled on the idea that you need to perform high training volumes to maximize muscle growth. The only thing that's really changed is what we consider high training volume. Over a decade ago, that was just over 10 sets per week per muscle. Now, that's closer to 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets per muscle, which is notably higher. And that's mostly because we've got more research on the topic. However, how should you take this volume on a weekly scale and split it up into individual workouts? Whereas the meta-analysis by Pelland and colleagues focused on weekly volume and hypertrophy, Remmert and colleagues focused on session volume and hypertrophy, effectively answering the question, how many sets should you do per session in order to reach your desired weekly volume per muscle? So if, for example, you're doing 30 fractional weekly sets for your back, how should you split that up? Five workouts with six sets each, two workouts with 15 sets each, or even one workout with 30 sets? There has to be some answer in the middle that is actually going to deliver the best muscle building effect. Here's what they found. Just like for weekly volume, there were diminishing returns with additional per session volume, meaning that for each individual additional set performed, you saw a little bit less of a benefit to your muscle group. That first set you do for a muscle in a given session is vastly more impactful than the 11th set. And speaking of 11 sets, they found that up to around 11 sets per muscle per session, greater hypertrophy was observed. However, once studies looked at going past around 11 fractional sets per session, it was relatively unclear whether doing more than 11 sets actually led to more muscle growth. Therefore, as a good heuristic, what I use as a coach and as a trainee, for every five to 10 sets you're trying to do per muscle group per week, add one workout to the week for that muscle. So whatever split it is you're using, push-pull legs, upper, lower, full body, just make sure it allows you to train a muscle once for every five to 10 sets per week you're trying to do. And so, depending on how much volume you do, that can really open up different routines for you. If you're aiming for lower volumes, say 10 to 20 sets per week per muscle, a push-pull legs routine where you train each muscle twice a week can work really well. If you're attempting to train with higher volumes, say 20 to 30 or 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets, upper, lower routines or full body routines tend to work better given this heuristic. However, there is an additional consideration, which is that on a non-local level, or on a systemic level for your full body, there is likely a cap on how many sets you can productively do in a single session. In my experience as a coach and as a trainee, most people can do productively around 20 to 40 sets per workout. 40 sets at the top-end, especially if that workout is composed more so of isolation movements, more so with shorter rest times, more so with training, et cetera. Or closer to 20 sets, especially if it's the lower body for more compound movements, with longer rest times, you get the idea. At some point with excessively high volumes, people simply tap out and don't necessarily give it their best effort yet, which is something we'll get back to in a moment. But before we do, I want to address one common criticism of the volume research, and that's that if you're trying to train with 20, 30, or even 40 fractional weekly sets per muscle, you're almost certainly going to overtrain. And there is some merit to this idea, and that's because what we do in studies doesn't perfectly mirror or equate what we do in the real world. Oftentimes, in studies, when we're trying to investigate the relationship between how many sets you do and how much muscle you build, we're focusing on one or two muscles at a time, and that's simply because of how research works. We don't have infinite resources, we don't have infinite staff, and so when it comes to investigating a research question, we always want to take the path of least resistance or the most efficient path to answering that question. And in this case, training one muscle with 30 sets a week takes far less time than trying to have participants come in and train their whole body with 30 sets per muscle per week. However, what that means for you in practice is that you cannot necessarily extrapolate the results from the volume research to individual muscles, to your whole body. Because doing 30 sets for one muscle at a time and training everything else with say five or 10 sets is one thing. Training all your muscle groups at once with 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets might be something different entirely. It might be something that can lead to overtraining, you might say. However, to be perfectly honest, based on the research, I don't think this is a huge concern. On the one hand, anecdotally, we have had bodybuilders for decades and decades do high training volumes close to failure and not overtrain. For example, in the more modern era of to quote someone or name someone you might have heard of, Eric Helms has been training with 30 to 40 fractional weekly sets for many muscles at once, close to failure, sometimes even past failure using length partials, recovering just fine and building a ton of muscle in the process. Likewise, some of the biggest bodybuilders across history, people like Ronnie Coleman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have actually trained with high volumes close to failure consistently and built their best physiques off the back of that training. Finally, when it comes to the research itself, we also have surprisingly little evidence of overtraining being a consideration. First, we have a review by Bell and colleagues, which looked at all the research in lifting that was available looking at overtraining as a concept. Trying to see, in all the protocols we have used in the literature, in studies, even the ones that were designed to induce overtraining or overreaching, did we consistently observe evidence of true overtraining? Overtraining being defined as a consistent and maintained reduction in performance lasting months. And the answer is no, not really. Even in protocols as extreme as daily maxing out on the squat, we didn't really observe evidence of true overtraining syndrome. Likewise, when it comes to the volume research itself, we also have studies that have had participants do as many as around 150 total sets for their body across the week, and still recover and grow more muscle from doing this high of a volume. For example, in a study by Brigado and colleagues, that is what they did. When you're doing 150 sets a week, that's 20 sets every single day. So it seems pretty clear that overtraining isn't something that just magically happens. In fact, I would say that under-dosing your training volume is a far more likely problem than over-dosing your training volume and ultimately overtraining. On the flip side, when it comes to under-dosing volume, what do you think is the simplest way for someone to know if they're not doing enough volume without having to track every single detail? One, there's a few things. One is your muscles seem to be completely recovered like the day after training. That can happen with smaller muscles that don't take a lot of damage and many exercises like biceps and shoulders, etc.. But then you had better be pounding the volume every fucking day. So if you, if there's a big discordance between recovery, progression, and session frequency, you have a problem. So this is actually probably my best answer. Here's here's let me claim that really quick. You train your chest Monday and Thursday, twice a week. I talk to you on Tuesday evening, and I go, hey, man, I'm your training partner. And I'm like, dude, I got this thing coming up Thursday, I've a trip with family, I can't get out of it. Any way you can train chest tomorrow, Wednesday morning? And you're like touch your chest, you move around, you're like, fuck yeah, yeah, hell yeah, I actually I've never even got sore, I never even got tired. Like I could, I could have trained chest like Tuesday night. Man, you know, there's only two answers to that question. You either should be training chest three days a week if you're doing that low volume, or your volume in each session needs to be higher, because to me, the hypothetically ideal training volume and frequency combination is the one you can barely recover from to train productively again. We know the more volume you do, the better, all things being equal. We also know that training under-recovered is not a sustainable practice. So that blends those two variables together to say, that the most you could do, the better. I two more analogies, both are going to be stupid, enjoy the analogy, right. You meet up with a girl that you live in a different city, man, and you're just having an amazing, fantastic, wonderful, consensual uh sex, fun. And it's only for a weekend and then you can't see each other for like a few months after. How often are you banging? Well, you know, whenever the tissues are ready again, bro, you hit it again. Like you try to bang as much as possible and you only have 48 hours. You can't be, you know, you're going to like theme parks and shit and be like, oh, we only banged once. Like I thought you guys wanted to bang a lot. Like, oh, I guess we fucked it up, you know? No way. But also if you're banging so often that you're under-recovered, you're like, ow, ow, ow, this hurts, I'm not having any fun and she's like, I haven't had fun for hours. You're like, okay, this is too often, right? As soon as you're ready to go again, you go again. Same thing with eating for mass gaining. I ask, I used to ask one question to people who couldn't gain weight. One question for people that couldn't gain weight, do you want to throw up right now? No, why aren't you eating?
[20:55]Oh, you get it, Milo. Like, if the food's not coming back up, you put food down your mouth. If that doesn't work, as an iterative formula, like sorry, you're just never going to gain weight, start steroids or sorry. You know what I mean? But almost nobody tries that. And so, a big mistake I see people make is like, yeah, dude, three sets of squats, Monday. Going to come back Thursday, do three sets of leg press. Then you're like, does it going to take you until Thursday to recover from that? No, I'm like, no, I could do that again like now, you're like, well, just fucking do it now, then. And they're like, oh, but but I want to be, here's the other thing, I want to be my strongest on Thursday. Ah, okay. Well, you know from lots of literature that peaking for strength, and even just general strength training, requires a lower systemic fatigue load, chronically than hypertrophy training. And by the way, hypertrophy training is not special, endurance training is like 70 miles a week, these motherfuckers are running. You're just beat up all the time, and so strength training is almost the great illusion, the great distractor from hypertrophy training. Because you end up being like, man, I'm going to hit crazy PRs for sets of five in a squat if I do, you know, just just three sets a week. And that's very true, but at the end of that, you're just going to grow very little muscle, and someone who hasn't hit major PRs on load, is going to hit crazy PRs on volume, and have like way bigger quads. And you're going to be like, oh, god damn it, so you have to figure out what you're training. If you're training for size, as often as you are recovered, fill up as much volume as you can to recover on time for your next sessions. That's a huge mistake people make in training, under-dosing volume. Yeah. I think it all comes down to the sort of overtraining boogeymen where everyone's told, oh, make sure you don't overtrain, make sure you recover, but often times 95% of people should have the opposite concern, where it's Yeah, pretty hard to overtrain and most people aren't even close. 100%, and you know, some people do overtrain, and then they tell their stories and everyone kind of freaks out, as well they should, about like, oh, I don't want to be that person. And that's total respect, but the other end of the day, it's like, um, Yeah, but is that you? It's like finding out that someone died in a race car accident and then you go to the down the street and you and you drive your car at five miles an hour. Like, oh, okay, that, you know, that's not you. The spectrum we're both on. It's the spectrum. There's a spectrum, oh boy, we are, we're on, we're on top of the spectrum. As always, when you are trying to determine whether you're doing too much, simply look at your performance. If you're able to lift the same weight as last week for the same number of reps, chances are, you're recovered just fine. But if your performance starts to dip consistently for a week or two at a time, that is an early sign of overreaching, and in the longer term, of potential overtraining. But always look at performance for your individual gauge of whether or not you're training too much. As I mentioned, I think the main thing to pay attention to when it comes to increasing sets is only doing so when your performance is consistent or going up. Because that is a sure fire sign that recovery is ultimately occurring. If your performance is the same or up, good, keep increasing volume, as that will likely increase muscle hypertrophy. Now, looking at the empirical research on volume training to failure, etc.. We generally see that more is more. And you've kind of espoused the model of using some proxies on your training to guide whether or not to add volume, for instance. Do you see any risk in using soreness, pump, perturbation, I think or disturbance in the muscle you previously stated as well. Proxies like those, do you see any risk using those to auto-regulate volume and that that might cause people to train with too little volume? And if so, how could you avoid that in using those proxies? Yeah, definitely. It could be that soreness doesn't really mean much, and if you get too sore, you just train through it and your body gets used to it and then you just keep growing more muscle. It could be that after you get mega crazy pumps and then you're doing so much volume that your pump in the workout actually reduces and you're still training, then that actually is nothing to do with growth. It's like a proxy for nothing, and then you end up cutting yourself off and not going far enough. That's totally possible. Another thing is if your training is insufficiently frequent, you could be getting such crazy soreness that if you just increase training frequency, you would get much less sore and you could pound in way more volume. So there are realistic concerns. The problem is is that two things: one, in my experience, there are tons of variables that inter-relate to those proxies that form a relatively convincing picture that they're instructive variables. Um, I have many times gone to the point where I'm doing overlapping soreness for my muscles, and I've almost always either gotten hurt or my performance is substantially tanked a few weeks later, and then I'm like, okay, I'm actually lifting less weight. I can't get to failure as easily. This is not the formula for gain, this is clearly the formula for for fucking myself up. And with pumps, pumps correlate incredibly well to growth on almost every measure. Take almost everything that has been validated by science to cause more hypertrophy, it almost certainly gives you better pumps in the gym. I don't know of any exceptions to that. Um, down to dieting, like if you are carbed up and have tons of energy, you get better pumps. If you are depleted down, getting pumps is really hard, growing is really hard, and so because those proxies to me seem sensible, they're the best guess, and it's unfortunate they are. What I would love is a very, very empirically based mechanistic way to determine how much more volume can I do and still grow, some kind of maybe self-free DNA, they looked into that, didn't do anything. Some kind of elements of muscle damage detection, some kind of very precise strength tracking, those things could be, you know, and it also like strength is something we look at, too, rep strength. If your rep strength starts going down, I don't think doing more volume is the answer. Like getting weaker is usually the sign that you're under-stimulating and there's under-recovering like crazy. And so, uh combining those pumps and soreness and strength, I think together form a pretty intelligent system, but to your point, it is limited because it's inferential. It's not directly empirically related, unfortunately, we don't have anything directly empirically related, and we need some kind of top-end buffer, because if there's no top-end buffer, we're going to burn a lot of people to the ground. You can't just tell people to train for 45, 50, 55 sets a week, because a lot of those people will never recover. I have suffered two acute types of muscle disruption, three, one in my quads, one in my triceps, one in my chest, that have taken 10 years of productive training away from me from simply doing too much volume in a few sessions in a row. It fucking neuromuscularly screwed up my muscles in a way that I still don't understand, nobody knows what it is, it is absolutely possible to locally overreach a muscle, it it either ends in injury or some sort of dysfunction or just really shitty gains for weeks and weeks and weeks. And so for me, some kind of top-end limiter that seems sensible, like soreness, pump, performance, um is I think better than not. Here's the really cool thing, though.
[27:48]All of those things allow you to train much more than you would have thought. Because at first, soreness is really intense. And if you don't go crazy and you just do a few sets, after a week or two, you need three sets to get as sore as you did. And then you need four, and then you need five, and you're like, dude, holy shit, a few weeks after this, I'm going to need 10 sets to get us sore. And I'm like, that's great. Like, it doesn't really mean I need to do 10 sets. Like, hmm, yeah, you can recover from 10 sets now and you will grow more from 10 sets. So soreness, pump and strength adapt to volume, which I think gives credence to the idea that your volume should be something you progress, you don't just start at 45 sets. But you can take it really, really high, especially if you use similar exercises for a while, which we know we should be doing from other kinds of data, then, yeah, like at some point you can do a lot of leg presses and get only as sore as you used to with two sets, but now it's six sets, and six sets will grow you more, you just have to earn the right to do six sets, because instantly blasting your volume to the moon, is as we know from other empirical work, a really good way to get hurt.
