Sam Sulek is arguably the biggest fitness influencer currently. An analysis of his 2024 workouts (so far totaling 460 sets) reveals some interesting trends: 15% of his sets are dedicated to chest, 20% to back, and 16% to biceps. Surprisingly, only 11% of his training focuses on quads, while a significant 25% targets triceps. This disproportionate focus on triceps is notable, considering anatomical research indicates they comprise less than 4% of total body muscle, whereas quads, the largest muscle group, make up nearly 30%. Furthermore, Sulek trains to failure in a staggering 96% of his sets, with the exceptions primarily involving forearm exercises. Excluding forearms, his training intensity reaches 98% failure. An examination of his range of motion and rep ranges provides a foundation for a science-based critique of his training methodology, highlighting both effective strategies and potential areas for improvement.
His technique, while prioritizing “ego lifting” (emphasizing weight moved over strict form), could be refined. While some flexibility in form is acceptable when pushing oneself, prioritizing strict form likely yields better gains. Optimal lifting technique involves maximizing range of motion for a deep muscle stretch and controlled negatives. Sulek’s range of motion is inconsistent, sometimes achieving a full stretch, but frequently falling short, as seen in incline presses where the bar stops short of his chest. Similarly, he often cuts short the bottom range of preacher curls, neglecting the most anabolic portion of the exercise.
Sam Sulek performing incline dumbbell press
While he generally controls negatives effectively, there are instances where he allows the weight to freefall, particularly nearing failure. Ideally, resisting the weight throughout the negative, especially on the final rep, maximizes muscle activation.
Sulek’s lack of a structured training plan, often improvising workouts based on feeling, presents challenges for consistent progress. While this intuitive approach might work initially, especially with favorable genetics or supplementation, long-term progress necessitates progressive overload (incrementally increasing weight or reps). Randomly switching exercises hinders tracking progress and can lead to plateaus. While Sulek’s gains suggest this approach is working for him, a more structured plan is generally recommended for sustained, long-term progress. Tracking key compound lifts (squats, presses, heavy pulls) while allowing flexibility for isolation exercises provides a balance between structure and adaptability.
Sam Sulek working out his back
His preference for a body part split (training one muscle group per workout) leads to uneven volume distribution across muscle groups. This year, he performed 113 sets for triceps and only 9 for calves and 6 for glutes. His triceps volume more than doubles his quad volume despite quads being considerably larger. While Sulek acknowledges a current focus on triceps, this imbalance is typical of bro splits, which favor upper body over legs. This can lead to lagging leg development unless genetics compensate.
His high volume per muscle group (e.g., 13 sets plus drop sets for chest) likely includes “junk volume,” exceeding the optimal 6-8 sets for maximal growth per workout. Distributing this volume across multiple workouts might be more efficient. While Sulek’s size might warrant higher volume, and while this split is common among IFBB pros, a more balanced split (push-pull-legs, upper-lower, or full-body) generally optimizes volume distribution and minimizes junk volume.
Sam Sulek doing preacher curls
Despite these areas for improvement, Sulek’s dedication to high-effort training is commendable. Pushing sets hard is crucial for maximizing muscle growth. While his high frequency of failure training (440 out of 460 sets) might raise recovery concerns, his apparent resilience suggests it’s working for him. A combination of failure and non-failure training might be more sustainable long-term, but his enthusiasm for pushing limits is a positive attribute.
His rep range distribution (11% in 0-3 reps, 40% in 4-7 reps, 40% in 8-12 reps, and 9% above 13 reps) demonstrates a focus on the moderate rep range (4-12) ideal for hypertrophy. While incorporating more high-rep work for variety could be beneficial, his approach generally aligns with hypertrophy goals.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sulek’s genuine passion for training is evident. His consistency, exercise selection, and enjoyment in the gym contribute to long-term adherence, a crucial factor for success. While a science-based critique highlights areas for optimization, his enthusiasm and commitment are invaluable assets. His training approach, although unconventional, reflects a dedication to pushing limits and achieving significant muscle growth.
