number of sets VS total reps

[TheChemist]

I have been watching your podcasts on programming and things are starting to make a lot more sense to me (I’m beginning to understand why in the last couple of months I have been making more progress than the 8 months prior ).

Your recommendations on volume and intensity got me thinking: is there data about a possible difference in efficacy (as far as hypertrophy goes) between a classical sets x reps scheme workout, and a workout in which you choose the number of total reps and the intensity (eg 40 reps at 75% of your 1RM) and you do amrap always leaving a couple in the tank, taking a break when needed until all the reps are completed?
These looks like an easy way to progressively add volume to your workouts (add 5 reps total next week... if the more strength-oriented part of your training suggests you are getting stronger, calculate your new 1RM and use 75% of that number as your new weight... then start again adding reps progressively).

[Austin Baraki]

The more useful parameter/predictor is the number of sets you perform in which you achieve sufficient motor unit recruitment -- which requires some amount of fatigue to be generated.

In practical terms, this means that the number of "challenging" sets you do.

[TheChemist]

The more useful parameter/predictor is the number of sets you perform in which you achieve sufficient motor unit recruitment -- which requires some amount of fatigue to be generated.

In practical terms, this means that the number of "challenging" sets you do.

So would you suggest choosing an above-70% intensity, do as many reps as possible for n sets (I don't mean going to failure), and increasing the number of sets over time to maximize hypertrophy?

[TheChemist]

The more useful parameter/predictor is the number of sets you perform in which you achieve sufficient motor unit recruitment -- which requires some amount of fatigue to be generated.

In practical terms, this means that the number of "challenging" sets you do.

So would you suggest choosing an above-70% intensity, do as many reps as possible for n sets (I don't mean going to failure), and increasing the number of sets over time to maximize hypertrophy?

[Huffman_Tree]

Accidentally posted twice

[Huffman_Tree]

Would that mean that hypertrophy-wise a set of [email protected] (intensity = 83.7%) is somewhat equal to a set of [email protected] (intensity = 70.7%) even though the volume (as defined in The Bridge as number of reps x sets) in the latter set is twice as much? Assuming the trainee is equally sensitive to both rep schemes at that point in time.

[Tim K]

When you say “challenging” do you have a minimum RPE threshold in mind?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

So would you suggest choosing an above-70% intensity, do as many reps as possible for n sets (I don't mean going to failure), and increasing the number of sets over time to maximize hypertrophy?

I think it is difficult to sign off on this method without you being more specific to your parameters and context.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Would that mean that hypertrophy-wise a set of [email protected] (intensity = 83.7%) is somewhat equal to a set of [email protected] (intensity = 70.7%) even though the volume (as defined in The Bridge as number of reps x sets) in the latter set is twice as much? Assuming the trainee is equally sensitive to both rep schemes at that point in time.

No. I would expect the 10 @ 9 to produce more hypertrophy - though looking at single sets and subsequent responses are not terribly useful IMO.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

When you say “challenging” do you have a minimum RPE threshold in mind?

Not at all.

For hypertrophy, if the volume is sufficient then relative intensity can go pretty low- off the RPE charts even.