Is a rep a rep? Singles vs sets

[ImbalancedLife]

Good evening, docs

A pretty unimportant question, but today I had a thought that got me curious and couldn't find any good answers searching myself. Part of my training today was doing pull ups and as usual I warmed up by starting with a bodyweight single. Then a double, then a triple, then a quadruple. Then I did my working sets of five reps, and today that was just two sets. Then I wondered, did I just do two sets of five, or did I do 20 reps?

This is just a theoretical question, and I don't expect there to be high quality studies on the subject, nor would any high quality studies change the way I do my pull ups currently. Just interested in your thoughts on it. Basically, is a rep a rep? Or does doing them in sets change things? They weight is the same, the work done is the same, the volume is the same. But obviously, the last reps on a set are much harder. Is my workout above equivalent to four sets of five (assuming being warmed up first)?

Thanks in advance

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

You did 20 reps. With respect to strength, I think that anything over ~70% 1RM is about the same for development regardless of rep schemes or proximity to failure, which tend to determine the cost of the set fatigue-wise. From a hypertrophy perspective, I think any set ~4-5 RIR or less probably counts about the same, though total volume matters too.

I don't think the last few reps of a set are the most useful reps of the set, no. Perhaps the opposite!

[ImbalancedLife]

Thanks, interesting. Would it follow then that the heavy singles programmed for your powerlifting programs should be regarded more as skill work than strength development? As they are significantly heavier than 70% and therefor (I assume) have pretty high fatigue costs, but shouldn't give much more strength development than a much lower RPE single. I understand it's neither 100% either or, obviously.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Thanks, interesting. Would it follow then that the heavy singles programmed for your powerlifting programs should be regarded more as skill work than strength development? As they are significantly heavier than 70% and therefor (I assume) have pretty high fatigue costs, but shouldn't give much more strength development than a much lower RPE single. I understand it's neither 100% either or, obviously.

I don't think we can separate skill development from strength development, as strength is specific to the skill. At higher intensities, e.g. > 85-90%, we get some unique adaptations with respect to voluntary contraction potential, antagonist muscle relaxation, muscle/tendon stiffness, etc. Thus, I think that singles need to be heavy enough to do this and it's probably in the ~ RPE 7 range with decent sized error bars around it.

[UserName]

Interesting!

If I may: does this mean that doing ramp-up sets when working up to the working set results in more productive work vs not doing them? I've noticed ramp-up sets are no longer specified in the PB I program so I tend not to do them. Am I missing out on some useful sets?

Thank you!

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Interesting!

If I may: does this mean that doing ramp-up sets when working up to the working set results in more productive work vs not doing them? I've noticed ramp-up sets are no longer specified in the PB I program so I tend not to do them. Am I missing out on some useful sets?

Thank you!

Let's use the Socratic method here a bit. What benefits, if any, do you think doing the ramp up sets would have vs. not doing them?

[UserName]

What benefits, if any, do you think doing the ramp up sets would have vs. not doing them?

1. Better gauge of RPE coming into the work set
2. More sets and reps that contribute to strength/hypertrophy (i.e. they are not just warm-up)

So my question was regarding point 2: if they do in fact represent productive work towards strength/hypertrophy, how come they were removed from the PB I template (I ran the older and more recent versions of the template). Maybe the work sets @8 are enough work and we don't want to overdo the (volume) dose for the individual.

Thank you doctor!

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

1. Better gauge of RPE coming into the work set
2. More sets and reps that contribute to strength/hypertrophy (i.e. they are not just warm-up)

So my question was regarding point 2: if they do in fact represent productive work towards strength/hypertrophy, how come they were removed from the PB I template (I ran the older and more recent versions of the template). Maybe the work sets @8 are enough work and we don't want to overdo the (volume) dose for the individual.

Thank you doctor!

I had them in their for Home After a good amount of feedback, I concluded that people were confused about what was the target top set and subsequent work sets, so I changed it. I do think the volume in that template is enough, though folks are likely getting a somewhat variable amount of training stimulus from their warm up.

[UserName]

I had them in their for Home After a good amount of feedback, I concluded that people were confused about what was the target top set and subsequent work sets, so I changed it. I do think the volume in that template is enough, though folks are likely getting a somewhat variable amount of training stimulus from their warm up.

Ohh, I see now! Thanks for clearing that up for me