2 hard sets VS 10

[gruntjc]

G'day fellow Iron Warriors,

Over the last couple of years, I have come to appreciate the benefits associated with an abbreaviated routine.

To give you an example, my leg workout for god knows how long now has been a staple of squats and stiff leg deadlifts, with some calf raises thrown in for good measure.

My workout may go something like this...

Set 1: 60K x 10
Set 2: 100K x 5
Set 3: 120 x 3-4
Set 4: 140 x 2
Set 5: 150 x 1
Set 6: 160 x 12
Set 7: 165 x 8-9

That's it for quads. 2 very hard, balls to the wall sets.

* Bear in mind that I am JUST WARMING UP in those first 5 sets. I would refer to them as assimilation sets, as I'm merely allowing my body to get used to the heavy weight.

I then move on to a couple sets of stiff leg deads and same for calves, but obviously those bodyparts require fewer warm up sets than quads.

So..... when I read about guys doing 10 or more (supposedly) all out sets just for quads.. it raises an eyebrow.

Can someone please explain, as after my 2 'work' sets of squats.. I am f***d and cant possibly imagine doing another 2 sets, let alone 8!!

 

[Bob Smith]

I think you do too many warmup sets, but overall it is a much more reasonable leg program that what most people recommend. I prefer fewer sets and more frequent exposure, ie. 2-3 sets of X, 2-3x per week.

 

[Ramstein II]

This works fine, especially with the working warmups. Research shows that volume is important for hormone release and for calorie expenditure. You're getting plenty of that and then plenty of time under tension with the hard sets. I personally like to cycle volume and frequency in a periodized programs.