I agreed with this until about two weeks ago. Now I think there are more variables to consider and this isn’t as black and white as it seems. In theory, a few all out sets is probably better than more sets at a lower intensity. But in practice, it can vary.
For example, we can all probably agree that fewer sets will take less time and your sessions in the gym will be shorter and more efficient. That meets the criteria of “optimal”. However, I’ve found that certain joints dislike the intensity of all out sets all the time. While the “optimal” approach may be two sets to failure with a drop set or rest/pause set, the better approach might be 3-4 sets to fatigue and only hitting failure on the last set (or even leaving a rep or two in the tank).
All we need to achieve is fatigue to stimulate the muscle. The time under tension or the number of reps and sets is irrelevant. Those variables need to be adjusted from time to time to keep the body from getting stagnant, but there’s not one particular training scheme that’s better than another.
I have found that going all out all the time can cause some strain that I don’t want. My joints started aching. Aching joints impair proper training. Pain also messes with the psychological side of training. If I know it’s going to hurt (in a bad way) then I’m not exactly excited for the session; therefore, I might not be putting forth the right effort.
But if I back off just a bit and do more sets at a slightly lower intensity then my training might be more beneficial long term. I think training at a moderate/high intensity year round would be better than training at a high/super high intensity for a few months and then getting injured or quitting.
It appears this training thing takes a bit more trial and error than most people think. It’s a balancing act and each individual has to figure it out for themselves.
If I don’t train to failure then I don’t grow, I’ve got 15 years worth of training logs to show that.
Maybe that’s just me or just how my body is but 4 sets of averageness does nothing for me personally. I’ve had to take the last set to failure to see results.
I’m confused by the talk of only taking a certain number of sets to absolute failure. For the years I have actually been seriously lifting and seeing progress, I never considered NOT taking a set to failure unless I was doing warmups or rehabbing an injury (or 1-2 reps short if going heavier for fear of missing the last rep on squats/bench with no spotter) . It never felt right to purposely bail on a set when I had more in me. I consider going to failure just part of proper training, which therein most likely lies the overarching issue I see common in these forums of people simply not pushing themselves hard enough to make progress then complaining about it.
To clarify, if you were doing 3 sets of squat, at the end of set 1 you would get to the point where you’d attempt to do a squat, fail, let the bar crash onto the pins, then unload all the weight, put the bar on the j-hooks, load it all up again, do another set just like that, unload it all, etc etc for the 3rd and final set?
No, that’s why I specified that for movements like that I stop short of failure when I know I cannot get the next rep, where failure could result in injury.
My mistake: I interpreted that sentence to mean it was ONLY when going heavier (like singles and doubles) and that, for work sets, you’d still go to failure. There’s not a whole lot of risk with the squat: just a pain in the butt to keep reloading the weight.
The stopping 1-2 reps short on those movements are what I interpret “leaving reps in reserve” to mean.
Correct. I should have also pointed out the relevant fact that I never target under 5 reps on any movement. Mainly work in 5-10 range, a little higher sometimes, so the weight/rep ranges/exercises used lend themselves to being able to go to failure. After blowing my bicep tendon clear off the bone on the third rep of pushing my limits on deads, I shy away from low rep weight. Just seeing the weights you throw around makes me ache.
No understand what your saying, I was implying sometimes at the end of the higher volume session I didn’t think those last sets were even being loaded enough to create adaptation.
I agree 10 good sets could be better than 6 hard sets, I was just saying in my mind those last sets were shit during my workout. Probably due to neural fatigue and/or complete liver glycogen depletion.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but RPE is rating of perceived exertion. It has nothing to do with performance. If you were still going all out on those last sets then the RPE would still be 9-10 even if the load dropped. Using your example and numbers, did you mean something like this?
Set 1: 10 plates on the stack, RPE 9
Set 2: 10 plates on the stack, RPE 9
Set 3: 8 plates on the stack, RPE 10
Set 4: 6 plates on the stack, RPE 10
I meant I struggle to find a weight I can lift for 3 sets of 12 if I’m hitting failure on each set.
So I get it’s a rep range but if you are using the same weight for each set and going to failure there’s no way (me at least) would achieve the same amount of reps each set.
Yeah I don’t think i could hit my 10 rm 3-4 time in same workout. If it was my true 10 rm that is. There’s 2 ways of accomplishing what you’re after though.
Set 1: 10 reps RPE 8
Set 2: 10 reps RPE 8
Set 3: 10 reps RPE 9
Set 4: 10 reps RPE 10
realistically you’re using your 12 rep max and as fatigue builds you’re simply increasing the RPE when using hat load.
You could also set rep ranges like 8-12
Set 1: 12 reps rpe 10
Set 2: 10 reps RPE 10
Set 3: 8 reps RPE 10
Something like that. If you took full rest breaks 2-3 minutes between sets you could most likely hit these numbers.
Personally I’d prefer the first option. I believe you create the stimulus for hypertrophy in the rpe 8 range. Plus you have better fatigue management and decreased risk of injury because of crappy form.