Hey,
I’ve recently been experimenting with working up to a top set of, let’s say, 8@8, keeping the weight the same but doing one less rep, so 7@7 for back offs.
Are there any cons to doing this instead of doing multiple sets of 8 with ~5% less weight?
Thanks,
CT
If we consider the two following situations:
#1 8 @ 8, then 7 reps @ 7 with the same load for ~ 2 sets until it becomes 7 @ 8 or so
Volume= 22 reps
Average intensity 73.9% of 1RM
Training Stress Score (TSS)*= 486
vs
#2 8 @ 8, -5% x 8 reps x 2 sets
Volume= 24 reps
Average intensity 71.3% of 1RM
Training Stress Score (TSS)*= 400
I would expect similar types of adaptations given the overall similarity in average intensity, proximity to failure, etc., but a greater training load due to the higher TSS in example 1. This may be a relatively unproductive increase in training load, e.g. no real increase in training adaptations despite an increase in stress and subsequent fatigue. Alternatively, if there’s a need to increase training load slightly, doing it via the method in example 1 may not be preferable given the reduction in volume without notable increase in intensity. In simple terms, it’s a little heavier and is closer to failure, but I would not expect this to drive more (or different) adaptations in this context.
*TSS is the product of RPE, Reps, and an “intensity modifier” for different zones of intensity, e.g. 1 for 50-60%, 2 for 60-70%…5 for 90-100% to represent the increase in fatigue with loading. I made this up as a way to compare different protocols and get a sense for the total training load. Other individual factors almost certainly contribute, but are less fun/clean to play with. The score is unit-less, as again, it is entirely made up.
Great explanation, Jordan!
I have a follow-up question regarding counting volume: in both examples, as you stated, volume is roughly equal, both in terms of reps and ‘hard sets’. Now let’s say two people were squatting 3x/week, one doing 4x15 and the other doing 4x5 each day within 2-3 reps of failure. I know the intensity is different in each, but to my knowledge, when talking about hypertrophy, we can almost dismiss intensity as there’s a huge rep range in which it can occur.
At the end of the week, person A would have done 180 reps for squats and person B would have done 60 reps, a 3 fold difference, yet the number of ‘hard sets’, 12, is the same. Following that volume drives gainz, and assuming they can tolerate both fine, would you expect any difference in adaptations?
TL;DR: is sets x reps a poor way of tracking volume if hard sets are matched?
Also, I started another thread a few weeks back to which I replied a few days ago but I’m assuming the response has gotten lost. Would you be able to answer here? https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forums/training-q-a-with-dr-jordan-feigenbaum-and-dr-austin-baraki/83730-proximity-to-failure
Thank you in advance! Your input is great appreciated.
“Hi Jordan,
What role does fatigue play in driving both strength and hypertrophy adaptations?
I’m trying to move away from the effective reps model, whereby previously if given a 10RM, I’d say the first 5 reps were useless and only the final 5 brought gainz to the table. I now think, based on the information you put out, that every rep is effective, to some degree.
Let’s consider one exercise prescription in isolation, say 1@8followed by 5x5 70% 1RM, a fairly typical protocol. My assumption is that, for most, the first few sets if not all of the back-off work would be greater than 4-5 RIR. Most people in the industry would consider this ‘junk volume’, however, despite exceeding the maximum RIR threshold, there is obviously some stress generated from that. Whether that stress is enough comes down to the individual, their training history, etc.
So, could it be said that reaching 4-5 RIR on every set is highly likely to maximize gainzz (assuming tolerable volume, of course), and anything less might not be as good but still isn’t ‘useless’.
I know it’s difficult to talk in absolutes about programming variables, but I feel like I’m missing the forest for the trees and giving an exact proximity to failure greater priority than is necessary.
Thanks
CT“
We absolutely cannot dismiss intensity, as it effects total training load.
[quote=“calvintrotter, post:3, topic:13212, username:calvintrotter”]
At the end of the week, person A would have done 180 reps for squats and person B would have done 60 reps, a 3 fold difference, yet the number of ‘hard sets’,
[/quote]
I do not think “hard sets” is a useful metric for comparing training programs. The higher volume program would likely produce more hypertrophy - thought how much more is a different conversation.
Most people in the industry would consider this ‘junk volume’,
They would be wrong.
could it be said that reaching 4-5 RIR on every set is highly likely to maximize gainzz (assuming tolerable volume, of course), and anything less might not be as good but still isn’t ‘useless’.,
It’s definitely not useless before that, but I don’t think 4-5 RIR maximizes hypertrophy in all contexts either, e.g. isolation exercises or metabolically-fatiguing protocols.
This is one of the most helpful replies I’ve encountered. I’m constantly just amazed by how much high quality free information you all give out for free.
I know you’re probably tired of hearing this, but thank you all for everything that you do. BBM has had an immeasurably positive influence on my life, and I am deeply grateful to each of you.
If you saw my DMs and the youtube comments, you’d appreciate the kind words more than you know. Thank you, I really appreciate it and hope it helps.