Compounds vs Isolations

Training Q&A [Moderated]
1

Hey guys,

I’ve been reading the progressive loading article and also watching your programming YT videos. I get why taking isolations to failure is not as big a deal as compounds, but how are we defining a ‘compound movement’?

My traditional definition is multiple joint + many muscleZz = compound movement, but can we really put something like a lat pull down and a deadlift in the same category when talking about taking sets close to/to RPE 10 in terms of fatigue?

Also, is it that taking isolations to failure is ‘better’ for hypertrophy or is just saying you can do, if you want, since the negatives aren’t as significant?

Thanks!

2

Compound movement does refer to a multi-joint exercise. That said, I don’t think a lat pull down should necessarily be programmed the same way as a deadlift. I tend to classify machine-based exercises in the same bucket as isolation exercises.

I don’t think there’s a clear signal that isolation exercises taken to failure (e.g. RPE 10) are better than going just shy of failure (RPE 7-9) for most people. Best evidence is for untrained individuals and, as you said, it probably isn’t too big of a deal to do it.

A general rule of thumb:

If you can fall over doing the exercise and/or you want to get stronger, leave a few reps left in the tank. If you’re using a machine or a single joint, go to failure (or close).

1 Like
3

Thanks Jordan!

Why do you put machine exercises in the same group as isolations?

Would you also say dumbbell movements and barbell movements for higher reps (hypertrophy focused not max strength) could be taken a little closer too as long as safety isn’t a factor?

4

Less degrees of freedom, muscles being used, and less risk of issue when pushing it to failure on machines. Admittedly, this is all arbitrary.

I don’t going a little closer to failure, e.g, RPE 9 is better than RPE 7, no. If you’re talking 6 RIR vs 1 RIR, maybe. I really feel like a lot of folks are overcomplicating this with little practical implication on their own training.

5

I am that person.

How much do you think time between hitting movement patterns/muscle groups matters for either strength or hypertrophy? For example, 12 sets of bench once a week, 4 sets Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 6 sets Monday Friday etc.

Total volume is same but does the muscle really need to “recover”?

Thanks for all you do and your time.

6

I don’t think training frequency has a big impact on hypertrophy outcomes outside of logistical considerations. I write about this here:

Frequency refers to how often a person exercises a particular muscle or muscle group in a given time frame. By convention, frequency is usually assessed per week. For example, a person doing one chest exercise per week has a training frequency of one for the chest muscles, whereas a person performing two chest exercises per week has a training frequency of two. The frequency goes higher and higher the more chest exercises someone does in a single session and/or the more often they exercise their chest in the course of the week. In general, as the frequency increases for a particular movement or muscle group, training volume typically – though not always- increases.

Given the dose-dependent relationship between training volume and exercise adaptations described above, the impact of different training frequencies must be done carefully by comparing programs with the same weekly volume, but different frequencies. If the frequency of an exercise program goes up, thereby increasing exercise volume, we would predict a greater improvement in strength, muscle size, and so on. However, we couldn’t determine if this was due to the changed frequency itself or the increase in volume.

For example, a recent meta-analysis reviewed 22 studies on exercise frequency and initially found that there was a graded dose-response relationship between training frequency and strength improvements. When volume was equated between the programs however, no significant effects were found. Additionally, the studies included in the review that did have the same volume and only differed in training frequency did not show a significant effect on strength development. [7] Another study using machines found similar results, as training the chest press and hack squat 1-time per week produced the same hypertrophy and strength results as training the movements 3-times per week with the same total weekly volume. [8]

Taken together, these data suggest exercise frequency doesn’t seem to matter unless it changes exercise volume. However, the data presented so far is limited to exercise sessions with volumes less than 10 to 12 sets per muscle group. Less than a handful of studies have looked at whether higher volume programs respond differently to altered exercise frequency, but the results don’t seem to indicate much of a benefit to increasing exercise frequency for strength or hypertrophy when the volume is greater than 10 to 12 sets per muscle group or movement. [9,10]

Doing a higher number of sets in a single session (low frequency) likely produces more fatigue than spreading the same number of sets over many days (high frequency). [10,11] As fatigue goes up, it becomes harder to improve skills and movement efficiency through motor learning, which are important to strength performance. [11,12] Additionally, splitting up the same amount of training into more sessions (high frequency) may be a practical strategy to keep the amount of time spent training manageable.

I do not think complete recovery is something that is necessary for muscle growth, no.

1 Like