I see a lot of talk about HIT (1-2 sets to max effort) vs higher volumes (3-4 sets a movement but further from failure). As much as I agree with what you guys say regarding increased training stress, mostly in the form of volume, as a lifter becomes more advanced, but by how much difference do you think doing multiple sets does long-term?
My 5RM DL right now is about 180kg - I find it unreasonable that if I were to go in, once per week for the next 10 years and try to get more reps, that it wouldnât happen provided things are OK outside of the gym. Would you agree? If not, why?
Basically, Iâm wondering if whether these programming variables that are often prioritised even come close to âeffort + timeâ.
I think it matters a lot, especially as a lifter becomes more trained.
I do not think that your 1RM DL is likely to go up significantly with 1x/wk training in this manner.
While I do think programming variables are very important, there is an underlying assumption that people are trying and are mostly adherent. I do not think going to failure is an example of trying âharderâ anymore than staying a few reps shy of failure and doing more sets (volume) is.
I have a follow-up questions based on that response:
I also see the same said people saying itâs fine to train further from failure but more volume is needed to make up for it. To me, this make more sense from a volume perspective rather than higher RPEs being superior for either strength or hypertrophy:
1x6@10 = 2x3@7 (6 total reps)
But I think these people base this off the effective reps model. I did listen to podcast 300 where Greg spoke about how itâs flawed, but a lot of what he said went over my head!
Q) Is more volume (sets) necessary when training away from failure, or is it just a smart idea given the dose dependent relationship and lower fatigue cost?
I just wanna take a moment to show my appreciation to you and the whole BBM team for the content you put out on such a regular basis. Youâve significantly helped with my GainzZ in the gym, but also my whole perspective on pain, health and just overall wellbeing.
Iâm from UK so am patiently waiting for your (hopefully soon) next visit here for a seminar, but love the States so may book a 2 week holiday when your 2025 dates are released!
I donât think thereâs evidence to support that people need more volume when further away from failure, but rather they do about the same (if not better in the case of strength) using the same volume. The example you give has 6 reps in both examples. I do not think the effective reps model as defined by only the last few reps of a set taken close to failure âbeing effectiveâ is well supported by evidence.
The amount of volume needed is mostly related to the individualâs current level of fitness and goals. I think that the results given equal volume are about the same for hypertrophy, but better for strength when sets are further away from failure, e.g. RPE 4-6 vs 8+. I think this allows people to do more volume if they need to, which can be useful.
Thanks for the kind words. We hope to see you at one of our events
This is interesting, it leads nicely onto my next thought.
Iâve often heard that the number 1 reason why people donât make progress in the gym (strength/muscle gainzzz) do so because they donât train âhard enoughâ. These people are often those who strongly recommend training to failure and anything below isnât useful.
Maybe itâs just the commercial gyms I train at, but it is true that a lot of people arenât overly muscular/strong, and more often than not do not train with a close proximity to failure - do you think this is the main culprit?
For someone who has trained at strictly RPE 10 for many years, RPE 6/7 or even (4-6) in your case seems really easy, but I guess to the average gym goer, this is still pretty challenging and uncomfortable.
Unlikely. The number one reason most people donât progress is likely that they donât train consistently enough for long enough. This is an answerable question using data. When we compare known rates of participation, adherence, and so on against outcomes from training programs taken to failure vs shy of failure, itâs apparent that training to failure do not generally do better than training short of failure.
One thought here is that if training to failure automatically yielded awesome gains, Iâm not sure youâd be here asking questions, in addition to their being a clearly signal of superiority across multiple lines of evidence.
This is true. I honestly exclusively only use BBMâs advice for anything gym/nutrition/health related, but I think as of late, my IG newsfeed has been full of people saying âyouâre doing too much volumeâ, âyouâre not training hard enoughâ, âthis study shows you need 1setâŚâ blah blah. Itâs easy to get lost in the weeds.
These posts are from people like Paul Carter, who in my experience, I probably shouldnât be consuming information from.
I think the evidence is what it is. Itâs fine to hypothesize and have a preferred approach based on available data. I suspect thereâs a reason most of the well educated people you follow have arrived at a similar view on proximity to failure.
Thanks once again Jordan, I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand this!
Had a few days holiday in Amsterdam (cool place, would recommend) - back to the gym tomorrow, looking forward to implementing your programming advice to see what gainzzz 2024 has left in-store!
