I super set all of my lifts. It doesn’t matter if it’s arms, legs, chest or back. Usually 3 sets per muscle group. So, for example, I super set biceps and triceps. One set of triceps, superset with one set of biceps, then repeat two more times. Hardly any rest in between sets or supersets.
I’m curious on everyone’s thoughts on supersets. Should I be resting more? Should I not be doing so many supersets?
Saves time but, not ideal for hypertrophy.
I can’t imagine your second exercise is executed like your first for example a row after a bench press especially with little to no rest in between.
If it weren’t for supersets and giant sets, I wouldn’t be able to train.
One of the hardest parts about DoggCrapp was NOT being able to do those.
I’m with you. I do it for the time savings. I just didn’t want to leave gains on the table.
If this is really true: embrace your inner Bruce Randall and leave NOTHING on the table.
I feel I go all out, so hopefully not leaving gains. The question on if supersetting everything was my main concern/question.
It was a joke about eating 
Really, the idea of “maximizing gains” is more damaging than it is beneficial. Think of it from a math perspective.
A natural trainee putting on 40lbs of muscle would be a LIFECHANGING amount of muscle. Not 40lbs of lean mass, but actual, legit, dry muscle tissue. 40lbs of muscle would most likely be like 70-80lbs of lean mass, when we factor in water/glycogen weight.
So let’s say 40lbs is the “max” for a natural trainee, and the only way to do that is to not leave any gains on the table. Well let’s say we leave 10% of the gains on the table? That means we ONLY gain 36lbs of muscle. How big a difference is 4lbs of muscle stretched across your entire frame? Let’s say you’re 6’ tall. That’s 72 inches. 4lbs (64oz) over 72 inches is .88 oz per inch. So you lost .88oz of “size” across your whole body. I realize we don’t put on much muscle in our face and feet, but you get the point. So that’s if you trained 10% sub-optimal…that’s STILL a VERY jacked dude to be up 36lbs of muscle.
Only training 80% optimally? You “only” put on 32lbs of muscle. Once again: is that THAT big of a deal?
You honestly have to train VERY poorly to start to see a point where the returns diminish here. It’s why you can go to any gym in the world and find jacked dudes: you get graded on attendance rather than performance at one point. You just have to keep showing up and the gains will come.
10-4! I’ll keep doing what I’m doing! I’m consistent and always show up.
Supersets were never a critical aspect of my muscle hypertrophy strategy. But I used them to bring stimulation into my protocol when I reached a plateau in my straight sets program.
I have long held the believe that “the best program is the one you are not currently doing.” Once I plateaued it was a loud signal to change things up.
If I used supersets to stimulate plateaued muscle gains, I only did so for 2 or 3 weeks. I performed supersets as a volume adder and never did so to failure. I was seeking an enormous pump. BTW, I would never try supersetting a compound chest exercise with a compound back exercise.
I like this explanation. I’d also take it a step further: I’d argue it’s not even a question of if you get that 10%, but when. Eventually you’ll hit that 40lbs, so who cares if it takes you 10% more of your lifetime to get there? And it’s not even 10% of the whole, because no matter what we blow up at the beginning, so it’s 10% of those last couple pounds you’re grinding out: a double dose of not noticeable
I’m a big volume lifter. This is my main reason for the supersets as well as for saving time.
I have no comment here as time was always dedicated for working out.
But I understand your concern to best use your allotted time.
I never really understood the point of supersets.
If the goal is to make a muscle stronger, and the best way to do that is to lift heavy weights to failure, why would I let my limiting factor be my cardio?
I want the muscle to fail, not my lungs.
According to the data, when you do a set for your chest the limiting factor is your clumsy back muscles.
So if you do a set for chest, then a set for back, you get BETTER engagement and recruitment of your chest the 2nd time. And BETTER engagement than that on the 3rd set if you do it again.
Shocking!
I’ll take the risk of disagreeing a bit, if only for the sake of argument…
I get this assumption, and it’s from a very educated point of view, but I don’t consider it a universal truth. So if we’re not in total alignment on the baseline assumption, then different approaches are reasonable.
I do agree with the point here, but we could also take it to an extreme and say this may be an indicator you’re in too poor cardiovascular condition to even recover between workouts… so it is your limiting factor either way.
I realize there’s a difference between super setting squats and deadlifts vs curls and push downs for this one.
Very much concur.
Get fit enough you can do both!
I understand your approach worked for you, but i know precicely 0 people who can train the way you do.
I’m saying that while your training is awesome, it is damn near unreplicatable in practice.
Lets assume cardio is up to par.
At best, supersetting allows you to save a little bit of time.
At worst, it limits your effectiveness during your next set.
My opinion here is that the potential cost does outweigh the benefit.
Unnecessary… if time is limited…antagonistic SS work…otherwise straight sets are optimal
