German Volume Training Isn’t Real: Why 10x10 Was Never an East German Weightlifting Secret
- Josh Hezza
- Mar 28
- 7 min read
German Volume Training Isn’t Real: Why 10x10 Was Never an East German Weightlifting Secret
You’ve seen it in countless blog posts, heard it in locker room whispers, and maybe even suffered through it yourself:
10 sets of 10 reps.
German Volume Training.
Often referred to as “the secret of East German weightlifters,” this brutal method supposedly emerged from the legendary sports science machines of Cold War-era Olympic domination. It’s sold as the ultimate mass builder — a badge of honour for those tough enough to crawl away from the barbell.
But here’s the thing.
It’s not real.
At least, not in the way you've been told.
Let’s unpack where this myth came from, what German Volume Training (GVT) actually is, and what we should learn from the idea of GVT — even if its origin story is fiction.
The Origins: Not East German Volume Training, Just Poliquin
Despite the name, German Volume Training has no documented roots in East German Olympic lifting.
There is zero archival evidence from the GDR (German Democratic Republic) weightlifting programs — the same institutions that gave us titans like Gerd Bonk and Frank Mantek — that shows athletes following 10 sets of 10.
Instead, the phrase “German Volume Training” was popularised in the 1990s by Charles Poliquin, a respected strength coach with a flair for marketing. In his writings, Poliquin described it as a method allegedly used by “national weightlifting coaches in Germany in the 1970s.” But there’s no cited source. No Eastern Bloc training manual. No surviving coach who recalls it.
Poliquin was a genius at popularising ideas — but this one was more legend than science.
Why 10x10 Isn’t a Weightlifting Program
Let’s look at this critically. Olympic weightlifting is built around:
Low rep ranges (1–3 reps)
High intensity
Explosive output
Planned tapering and variation
Ten sets of ten at a fixed percentage (often 60%) flies in the face of this. Weightlifting isn’t about accumulating fatigue through sheer volume — it’s about speed, precision, and neural efficiency.
There is no reason a national-level Olympic lifting program — let alone a scientific juggernaut like East Germany’s — would rely on such a blunt instrument.
But... It Still Works. Sort Of.
Now here’s the twist.
Even though the story isn’t real — the idea has value.
GVT, when used correctly and sparingly, can stimulate hypertrophy. It’s brutally effective at forcing volume, improving work capacity, and creating mechanical tension across a huge number of reps. If you're undertrained, detrained, or need to build muscle quickly (without caring how much you lift), 10x10 can get the job done.
But it’s also unsustainable and unnecessary for most trained lifters.
High-volume straight sets create disproportionate fatigue. You accumulate junk reps, lose bar speed, and overload connective tissue. If you're chasing performance — especially in strength sports — you're better off using smarter methods rooted in dynamic effort, targeted accessories, and recovery-based autoregulation.
GVT is a hammer when you need a scalpel.
What the East Germans Actually Did
The real East German systems focused on:
High-frequency skill training
Complex variations of competition lifts
Scientific wave loading
Volume carefully tracked via tonnage, not arbitrary set/rep schemes
They had meticulous records of every athlete’s morphology, recovery ability, and speed. Lifters didn’t do “bro splits” or universal hypertrophy templates — they followed adaptive, individualised cycles.
And yes, they used a lot of volume — but it was planned, progressive, and specific.
So Where Did 10x10 Come From?
Poliquin reportedly got the idea from Rolf Feser, a German national weightlifting coach — but that link has never been proven. More likely, it was inspired by general hypertrophy principles common in bodybuilding circles, then repackaged with Cold War mystique to make it more marketable.
That’s not a bad thing. It’s just important to separate narrative from evidence.
Modern Application: What You Should Actually Do
Here’s the truth: most lifters would be better off doing 6x3 at 80% than 10x10 at 60%.
You get:
Higher intensity
Better bar speed
More meaningful adaptations
Less mindless suffering
If you really want to build muscle or increase training density, use the following instead:
✅ Cluster sets: 5x4 with 15–20 seconds rest inside each set
✅ Rest-pause sets: 1 set of 10–8–6 with 10–15 seconds rest
✅ Wave loading: 6/4/2 at ascending loads, then repeat
Or follow a system like Conjugate, where volume is layered into the program through DE work, accessories, and extra workouts — not jammed into 100 mind-numbing reps.
Absolutely — here’s an added section you can slot in just before Why 10x10 Isn’t a Weightlifting Program. It gives context to Poliquin’s broader pattern of mythologising and repackaging, while keeping the tone sharp, informative, and aligned with the rest of the piece:
Charles Poliquin: Coach, Marketer, Myth-Maker
To understand where German Volume Training came from, you need to understand the man who made it famous: Charles Poliquin.
Poliquin was a brilliant strength coach, no doubt — but also a master of rebranding, selective storytelling, and, at times, straight-up pseudoscience.
This wasn’t his only “German” invention. He also gave us:
German Body Composition Training (GBC): A hypertrophy-fat loss hybrid approach that combined short rest periods, heavy compound lifts, and alternating upper/lower body supersets. It was touted as “based on German training science,” but there’s no record of it existing in any actual German training literature.
Poliquin’s Biosignature Modulation: A wildly popular body fat testing protocol that claimed you could assess hormonal imbalances from skinfold measurements. It was eventually discredited for lacking scientific support — yet it remained a lucrative seminar product for years. *
"Meat and nuts for breakfast": A dietary slogan based on half-truths and overinterpretations of blood sugar research, often repeated with the authority of gospel — and no citations.
This is not to discredit everything Poliquin did. He worked with high-level athletes and introduced many lifters to key concepts in tempo, structural balance, and eccentric loading.
But his legacy is also one of storytelling over evidence, where marketing often came first, and sourcing was an afterthought.
“German Volume Training,” like many of his ideas, wasn’t drawn from verified historical systems — it was packaged to sound like it was.
So before we start treating a method as sacrosanct because it “comes from East Germany,” it’s worth asking: did it really? Or did Poliquin just give it a cool backstory to help it sell?
Great Marketing, Weak History
German Volume Training is a myth with muscle.
It didn’t come from the East Germans. It’s not a weightlifting program. It’s not even that effective long term.
But it caught on — because we love big round numbers, and we love big stories.
The lesson?
✅ Don’t fall for training myths.
✅Respect volume — but apply it with context.
✅ Don’t train like a fictional Eastern Bloc ghost lifter. Train like an athlete.
Ready to Ditch the Myths and Train Smarter?
If you’re tired of doing things because “someone said it worked,” and you want programming based on real principles — let’s talk.
At TEAMJOSHHEZZA, we build strength with intent. No fluff. No gimmicks. No ghost stories. Just results that last.
📩 Apply for coaching now — and let’s build your next breakthrough, together.
*
🔍 What is Biosignature Modulation?
Poliquin claimed that body fat distribution (as measured by skinfold calipers) could indicate hormonal imbalances — for example:
Triceps fat = testosterone issues
Subscapular = insulin resistance
Suprailiac = cortisol dominance
He developed protocols to “fix” these imbalances through supplementation and training.
🚨 Scientific Critique & Discrediting
Lack of Peer-Reviewed Evidence
There is no peer-reviewed scientific research that validates the link between regional body fat storage and specific hormone levels in the way Biosignature claims.
A 2011 review in the Journal of Obesity concluded that regional fat storage is influenced by multiple factors, and while hormones play a role, the specificity suggested by Biosignature is oversimplified and unproven.
Criticism from Evidence-Based Coaches & Scientists
Alan Aragon, James Krieger, Lyle McDonald, and others have repeatedly debunked Biosignature as pseudoscientific.
Lyle McDonald wrote:
"It’s complete and utter bullshit. There is no data to support that you can determine hormone levels or imbalances from skinfold sites."
Poliquin Group No Longer Offers Biosignature
After Poliquin’s death in 2018, Poliquin Group and successor organisations removed Biosignature Modulation from their official offerings, likely to distance themselves from the lack of scientific legitimacy.
ISSA, NSCA, and ACSM etc Have Never Endorsed It
Major certifying bodies in sports science and strength coaching have never adopted or endorsed the method due to its lack of scientific rigour.
🧠 TL;DR: Why It’s Discredited
No peer-reviewed support
Fails standard tests of scientific reliability and validity
Based on anecdote and correlation, not causation
Dismissed by credible experts in the field
1. No Peer-Reviewed Evidence Supporting Biosignature
Forbes, G. B. (1987). Human Body Composition: Growth, Aging, Nutrition, and Activity.– Regional fat distribution varies with multiple factors, but cannot be used to diagnose individual hormonal profiles.
Schönfeld, J., et al. (2000). Regional distribution of body fat in relation to insulin resistance in obese women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.– Insulin resistance correlates with total and visceral fat, not specific skinfolds.
Thyfault, J. P., & Krogh-Madsen, R. (2011). Regional fat, fitness, and the metabolic syndrome. Obesity.– Discusses hormonal influences on fat storage without supporting the specificity of Poliquin's claims.
🧠 Expert Commentary & Critique
Alan Aragon (Nutrition Researcher & Educator)
Regularly refuted Biosignature claims in his Research Review and public interviews.
Quote:
“Biosignature is a sexy idea with zero science behind it. Fat storage patterns are not reliable markers of individual hormone imbalances.”
Lyle McDonald (Author, “The Stubborn Fat Solution”)
Extensively critiques Biosignature in multiple articles and forum posts.
Quote:
“There is absolutely no way to accurately determine hormonal status from skinfold measurements. This is not even good bro science. It's made-up nonsense.”
James Krieger (MS, Strength & Nutrition Researcher)
Addresses this in his lectures on evidence-based training:
“Fat patterns vary by sex and genetics. There's no way to validly infer something like testosterone levels from your triceps skinfold.”
Brad Schoenfeld (PhD, Muscle Hypertrophy Researcher)
While not addressing Biosignature directly, he’s cited numerous times on:
Regional hypertrophy and fat storage
The lack of evidence for spot reduction or regional hormonal effects via training or supplements
6. Greg Nuckols (MA, Stronger by Science)
Criticised Biosignature’s claims for lacking falsifiability and scientific testing.
Quote:
“If you can’t test it, and there’s no data, it’s not science. It’s a sales pitch.”
🏢 Institutional Silence & Removal
Poliquin Group (Post-2018)
Following Poliquin’s death, Biosignature Modulation quietly disappeared from the official Poliquin Group website and curriculum.
Many seminars and programs were either:
Rebranded (e.g. “Metabolic Analytics” by offshoots)
Or removed entirely
✅ Summary
Biosignature Modulation:
❌ Not supported by peer-reviewed science
❌ Widely discredited by experts
❌ Removed from formal education paths
✅ Still discussed critically as an example of pseudoscientific marketing in fitness
Comments