Adjusting Set Quantity When Altering Rep Ranges

[buzztreadwell]

Hello!

My question is, what method is most useful for calculating the appropriate number of sets when making a switch in rep ranges? For example, if I am switching from fives to threes on a lift, and have had positive results (up to this point) from performing 5 sets, how do I adjust the set count to ensure that I am getting the appropriate volume from the new rep range? Should I simply increase the number of sets to match the total number of reps (within 1 or 2)? So, if I have been doing 5 x 5, move to 3 x 8? This seems like it could work well, but not sure if any consideration should be made for the increase in weight that will come from reducing the reps per set? In this instance, would tonnage be a useful metric to consider?

Additionally, can you comment on the below method for weight selection when switching rep ranges?
I have been using about 70% of my projected 1RM for my 5 x 5 work. I use the BBM method of a heavy single, double, or tripple at rpe 7 or 8 to calculate my projected 1RM using the rpe chart. I then take 70% of my projected 1 RM and complete my sets. When altering rep ranges, I planned to add about 2.5% each time I reduced my rep range by one rep. So if performing sets of 4, I would use 72.5% of my projected 1 RM. For 3’s I would use 75% and so on. Logic would tell me that tonnage should be considered, as performing 25 total reps with a heavier weight would potentially create more fatigue, or does the reduction in reps per set address this so that all I should consider is total reps performed after all sets have been completed?

Thanks in advance for the response. I love all of the great objective content that you guys put out. Keep it up!

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

These are good questions, though they are admittedly difficult to answer confidently without fully evaluating the program. A few thoughts that should be considered:

• What is the current training stimulus and resultant stress for a particular movement pattern (e.g. squat, hinge, press, row) and muscle group?
  • To evaluate this, you'd could use many different metrics such as volume load, total number of training sets (and their proximity to failure), total work, time under tension, etc. and how does it correlate to workload, session RPE, rating of fatigue, or a made-up a sort of "stress index".
  • I don't think straight tonnage or volume alone are likely to provide much insight.
• Is the current training stress working well to drive adaptations? If so, why change? If no, does the analysis seem to point to too much fatigue, too little stress, or other issues (e.g. environment) being the main cause?
• When adjusting total volume, volume load, or similar, what is the goal? In other words, are we wanting to increase or decrease training stimulus in order to increase or decrease training stress? Or, are we trying to modify training stimulus to better suit our current goals?
• Do the proposed changes actually work (retrospectively)?

In this hypothetical 1st question, I can't really compare 5 reps x 5 sets to 3 reps x 5 sets or 8 reps x 3 sets because I don't know the intensity or how the rest of the program looks to generate any of the above information.

In the second question, you state that you've been doing 70% of your e1RM for 5 sets x 5 reps. That puts your proximity to failure around 5-6 RIR or RPE 4 to 5. In short, you're doing 5 sets to 5-6 RIRAdding 2.5% each time while maintaining proximity to failure, and thus RPE, does not really increase the training stress- rather, it's matching the current training stimulus to maintain the training stress and is a demonstrable improvement in performance.

If RPE is going up for these sets week by week, it doesn't appear that the programming is working despite adding weight. Rather, you're just getting close to failure.

Reducing rep count (to 4 or 3) while increasing intensity preserves the proximity to failure, e.g. each set is still 5 to 6 RIR. If you do the same number of sets, the stress should be about the same. I don't think this creates more fatigue- probably about the same.

So, the real questions are how is your programming working now, why are you changing rep schemes (e.g. what's the goal), and what does the total program look like? I think this is likely best suited to a consultation given the particulars, but hopefully this shed some light on the situation.

-Jordan


.

[buzztreadwell]

• What is the current training stimulus and resultant stress for a particular movement pattern (e.g. squat, hinge, press, row) and muscle group?

Squat and Pin Squat, touch and go bench & pin bench, press and dumbell press, Deadlift & rack pulls from mid shin. Currently 5 sets of 5 on bench and press movements, 3 sets of 5 on squat and deadlift. I work up to a single or double at rpe 7-9 on all of these and then calculate my volume work weight based on performance (70% of estimated 1RM.

• To evaluate this, you'd could use many different metrics such as volume load, total number of training sets (and their proximity to failure), total work, time under tension, etc. and how does it correlate to workload, session RPE, rating of fatigue, or a made-up a sort of "stress index".
• I don't think straight tonnage or volume alone are likely to provide much insight.
• Is the current training stress working well to drive adaptations? If so, why change? If no, does the analysis seem to point to too much fatigue, too little stress, or other issues (e.g. environment) being the main cause?

I am about 4 weeks in to this current block, so I am still evaluating. Press seems to be doing well. Squat started off pretty good, but I dropped a set out of my squat work as my hips are getting too beat up. I am not necessarily changing anything now regarding rep count. I just know at some point I would like to work in lower rep ranges to increase my strength within those ranges. Trying to proactively plan.

• When adjusting total volume, volume load, or similar, what is the goal? In other words, are we wanting to increase or decrease training stimulus in order to increase or decrease training stress? Or, are we trying to modify training stimulus to better suit our current goals?

The desired goal when adjusting any of these things would be to continue progress. I plan to find the intensity and volume that result in progress and only make changes once progress stalls.

• Do the proposed changes actually work (retrospectively)?

In this hypothetical 1st question, I can't really compare 5 reps x 5 sets to 3 reps x 5 sets or 8 reps x 3 sets because I don't know the intensity or how the rest of the program looks to generate any of the above information.

In the second question, you state that you've been doing 70% of your e1RM for 5 sets x 5 reps. That puts your proximity to failure around 5-6 RIR or RPE 4 to 5. In short, you're doing 5 sets to 5-6 RIRAdding 2.5% each time while maintaining proximity to failure, and thus RPE, does not really increase the training stress- rather, it's matching the current training stimulus to maintain the training stress and is a demonstrable improvement in performance.

If RPE is going up for these sets week by week, it doesn't appear that the programming is working despite adding weight. Rather, you're just getting close to failure.

RPE isn't really moving up from week to week. I have seen some movement in the opposite direction actually on my "feeler sets." I have currently made no changes. Just doing the sets and reps outlined above and select the weight for my volume work by applying RPE to my double or single for that lift. I need to learn more about myself in terms of when it's time to change things up due to no progress, or how long I should give something to work before pivoting.

Reducing rep count (to 4 or 3) while increasing intensity preserves the proximity to failure, e.g. each set is still 5 to 6 RIR. If you do the same number of sets, the stress should be about the same. I don't think this creates more fatigue- probably about the same.

This is helpful, but I wonder how far I can take this. Would you say the same thing if I performed 5 sets of singles at the same RPE? Would the stimulus be comparable to what I am getting even though the volume has been drastically decreased? I am guessing no, but wonder how to gauge this? Probably trial and error...

So, the real questions are how is your programming working now, why are you changing rep schemes (e.g. what's the goal), and what does the total program look like? I think this is likely best suited to a consultation given the particulars, but hopefully this shed some light on the situation.

I am in the middle of assessing my current plan. Honestly I am pretty frustrated with progress over the last 5 years or so. I feel I should be much further along than I currently am despite having a decent understanding of strength training/programming. I am confident that par of my problem has been working with higher than ideal relative intensity, which has kept me in an over fatigued state and not allowed for needed increases in volume and frequency. I would greatly value more input from you and your team in order to get me headed in the right direction. My goals are just to keep getting stronger (and more jacked!) through varying rep ranges, and to build up a respectable 1rm in the main competition lifts. I do not plan to compete, but would still like to hit some nice numbers for my own sake. I am in my upper 30's and feel like I need to sort this out now while I still have some time to make appreciable gains. I would love to set up a consultation if I am able to make that work in my budget. Let me know next steps and I will look into this.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insight. I am excited to take the next step.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

BTW,

I'm not sure a proactive plan works without current data, though general periodization ideas may be useful, sure. A few additional thoughts:

- Sounds like the total loading for the squat may be too high given the hip discomfort
- Continued progress would mean you're currently progressing. If not, then we'd want to adjust the formulation, dose, or potentially both going forward
- 5 singles at the same relative RIR may induce the same fatigue as 5 x 5, though the type of fatigue and subsequent manifestations (adaptations) may be slightly different

We are available for consultation through the contact form on our website to help sort this out

-Jordan