number of sets VS total reps

I have been watching your podcasts on programming and things are starting to make a lot more sense to me (I’m beginning to understand why in the last couple of months I have been making more progress than the 8 months prior :smile:).

Your recommendations on volume and intensity got me thinking: is there data about a possible difference in efficacy (as far as hypertrophy goes) between a classical sets x reps scheme workout, and a workout in which you choose the number of total reps and the intensity (eg 40 reps at 75% of your 1RM) and you do amrap always leaving a couple in the tank, taking a break when needed until all the reps are completed?
These looks like an easy way to progressively add volume to your workouts (add 5 reps total next week… if the more strength-oriented part of your training suggests you are getting stronger, calculate your new 1RM and use 75% of that number as your new weight… then start again adding reps progressively).

The more useful parameter/predictor is the number of sets you perform in which you achieve sufficient motor unit recruitment – which requires some amount of fatigue to be generated.

In practical terms, this means that the number of “challenging” sets you do.

3 Likes

So would you suggest choosing an above-70% intensity, do as many reps as possible for n sets (I don’t mean going to failure), and increasing the number of sets over time to maximize hypertrophy?

So would you suggest choosing an above-70% intensity, do as many reps as possible for n sets (I don’t mean going to failure), and increasing the number of sets over time to maximize hypertrophy?

Accidentally posted twice

Would that mean that hypertrophy-wise a set of 5@9 (intensity = 83.7%) is somewhat equal to a set of 10@9 (intensity = 70.7%) even though the volume (as defined in The Bridge as number of reps x sets) in the latter set is twice as much? Assuming the trainee is equally sensitive to both rep schemes at that point in time.

When you say “challenging” do you have a minimum RPE threshold in mind?

I think it is difficult to sign off on this method without you being more specific to your parameters and context.

No. I would expect the 10 @ 9 to produce more hypertrophy - though looking at single sets and subsequent responses are not terribly useful IMO.

Not at all.

For hypertrophy, if the volume is sufficient then relative intensity can go pretty low- off the RPE charts even.

I thought I’d give you a bit more context, although, at this point, I guess I’m presenting an idea more than asking you a direct question. But given the number of replies on the thread maybe other people will find it interesting too.

After wasting months grinding reps in a “novice linear progression” that led me nowhere (I was no longer a novice, actually, but I resisted switching to an intermediate program because I felt like my numbers were to low for not being a novice… dumb, I know) I started an intermediate program and weights started going up pretty quickly.

I chose to do 531 (I know, I know… but as long as it keeps working I’m not changing it :smile:). However, I’m absolutely sold on the idea that volume drives hypertrophy and strength for an intermediate lifter, both because I trust science :wink: and because I experienced it firsthand. So I’m arranging things in order to do assistance work that is a little more than just “assistance”. Hypertrophy being my main goal at the moment, and based on the information you shared in your podcast, my idea would be to do something like this:

main: 531 on one of the main lifts ——> use “plus set” to extrapolate 1RM for the day

assistance: take 75(ish)% of that number and do 3 sets amrap (stopping a couple of reps short of failure) - add some other assistance exercise (pull ups, rows…)

how to progress: add sets over time (as Austin said: "The more useful parameter/predictor is the number of sets you perform in which you achieve sufficient motor unit recruitment)

——

I’ve never tried RPE training, but I think this approach is not completely different, in that it uses a parameter that accounts for your daily performance: instead of prescribing n reps @ RPE x it prescribe a certain intensity (75% of your 1RM of the day, which is the optimal range for hypertrophy, based on what I’ve found in the literature), and you do amrap for that day… maybe you do 8 one day, 6 another and 10 another still…

Any thoughts would be highly appreciated.

I was about to post this exact question - it seems that a lot of people like Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols and Brad Schoenfeld now use number of hard sets versus total reps in a week as a proxy of useful volume. I think that makes sense from experience.

Does this mean that the hypertrophic response from someone doing, say ten sets of 4 vs. ten sets of 8 be the same (assuming RPE equated sets) despite the latter doing double the total volume? Obviously the first person would gain more strength since it’s more specific but I’ve always wondered about other training responses.

Jordan and you seem to have some disagreement here, or my understanding is wrong(more likely to be the case)

In your podcast, Jordan states volume you guys were talking about is repsXsets https://youtu.be/kI6QwgKLP0M?t=7m

Greg Nuckols agree with you on this matter, https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/, for hypertrophy, the number of “challenging” sets instead of repsXsets matters.

However, if that is the case, why all those 10-rep sets in templates? Why can’t we just do the same sets on lower number rep ranges while maintain the same RPE range? To lower average intensity or just add some variants? I seem to remember for the similar RPE, higher rep range sets create more fatigue