"Heavy drop-sets"

[BigTomJ]

This shows that there is more than one way to skin a cat, because I absolutely define (absolute) intensity as load (weight used) & therefore intensity and volume as reciprocal.

With that definition, sure. Intensity and intraset volume are very closely linked.

However in the context of training methodology in terms of hypertrophy, when discussing the topic of "intensity" a more apt definition is "proximity to failure".

I find this to be far more useful for our purposes, in the discussion of hypertrophy focused training, since proximity to failure is one of the most important factors driving motor unit recruitment and hypertrophy in general, where selected load has almost no bareing on either so long as the load selected is appropriate to maintain intensity through a reasonable rep range (5-30ish reps)


You're clearly a very highly educated and intelligent member here, I've enjoyed a number of your more detailed, science driven posts, I'd be very much interested in your thoughts on the article I posted.

 

[buck]

I used to use that sort of training and found it effective. When it got to be to much i would just switch to something else to give my body a break to recover.

 

[Type-IIx]

That when I go into the gym, I'm either maintaining the rep range or exceeding it. Right now I am cutting so just maintain my strength and all is a win.

It has only been two weeks using these intensifiers.

I'm going on vacation this Thurs-Mon, so I'll be taking off training and dieting completely. I planned it this way; I've been dieting and training since March 1st without a real break. So tomorrow I'll train legs then off until Monday.

Good! I like intensifiers like these, the only thing that I believe makes their use in a training program difficult is that because they rely on effective reps more than load as a metric, it can be difficult to ensure that you're actually progressively increasing that which we care about most, which is single muscle pulling force * effective reps (that load at a moderate/high intensity serves as a good proxy for) over time unless you continue maintaining or exceeding the work that you can perform each session.

 

[Type-IIx]

With that definition, sure. Intensity and intraset volume are very closely linked.

However in the context of training methodology in terms of hypertrophy, when discussing the topic of "intensity" a more apt definition is "proximity to failure".

I find this to be far more useful for our purposes, in the discussion of hypertrophy focused training, since proximity to failure is one of the most important factors driving motor unit recruitment and hypertrophy in general, where selected load has almost no bareing on either so long as the load selected is appropriate to maintain intensity through a reasonable rep range (5-30ish reps)


You're clearly a very highly educated and intelligent member here, I've enjoyed a number of your more detailed, science driven posts, I'd be very much interested in your thoughts on the article I posted.

One should be able to switch between modes depending on context. I understand that intensity is defined differently, and can appreciate the differences between my definition & yours. Your definition is indeed the effective reps definition of intensity that I referred to in the post above [#23].

I believe that your definition of intensity more accurately reflects what is actually occurring - effective reps of single fiber muscle pulling force - than intensity as load (lb, kg; absolute) or relative (% 1RM), which reflects the adaptation that we aim for (hypertrophy) better than intensity as load (absolute or relative).

However, I believe that having a proxy that we can use on long time-frames like load, that is an OK proxy for what is actually occurring, that reflects progressive increases to the force element of what we actually care about.

Load becomes a better proxy for what is actually occurring (effective reps of single fiber muscle pulling force) with some reductive assumptions, like we do not use jerking forces to dissociate single fiber tension from external power, we always use moderate loads & exercises that target the key musculature well (with mechanical disadvantage), etc.

 

[BigTomJ]

One should be able to switch between modes depending on context. I understand that intensity is defined differently, and can appreciate the differences between my definition & yours. Your definition is indeed the effective reps definition of intensity that I referred to in the post above [#23].

I believe that your definition of intensity more accurately reflects what is actually occurring - effective reps of single fiber muscle pulling force - than intensity as load (lb, kg; absolute) or relative (% 1RM), which reflects the adaptation that we aim for (hypertrophy) better than intensity as load (absolute or relative).

However, I believe that having a proxy that we can use on long time-frames like load, that is an OK proxy for what is actually occurring, that reflects progressive increases to the force element of what we actually care about.

Load becomes a better proxy for what is actually occurring (effective reps of single fiber muscle pulling force) with some reductive assumptions, like we do not use jerking forces to dissociate single fiber tension from external power, we always use moderate loads & exercises that target the key musculature well (with mechanical disadvantage), etc.

I understand what youre saying.

I wonder if intensity is the best term we can use for what youre defining, given that intensity is so ingrained in the effective reps/proximity to failure use case.

I would think that this dual use for the term would lead to confusion if context wasnt very clear (such as me, just a few post ago, misinterpreting your post)


What youve outlined in the above post, if i am understanding you correctly, Ive always just simply referred to as relative load

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Good! I like intensifiers like these, the only thing that I believe makes their use in a training program difficult is that because they rely on effective reps more than load as a metric, it can be difficult to ensure that you're actually progressively increasing that which we care about most, which is single muscle pulling force * effective reps (that load at a moderate/high intensity serves as a good proxy for) over time unless you continue maintaining or exceeding the work that you can perform each session.

Correct. The only way I could think to "measure" progress on these intensifiers is to log the drop-set reps and see if they progressed, as well. But I think that would naturally happen:

If I can now take a weight that I used to do 8 reps with, to 12, it follows that I should be able to do the drop-set at a higher rep before. But I do agree it is certainly much easier to just log in straight sets, as I did when I followed the RPE method for my previous bulk.

I like to change training modalities between mesos, anyway. So I feel I get the best of both worlds, if there are any to get; if not, it at least the switch alleviates the different kinds of fatigue each training does produce.

 

[Type-IIx]

I understand what youre saying.

I wonder if intensity is the best term we can use for what youre defining, given that intensity is so ingrained in the effective reps/proximity to failure use case.

I would think that this dual use for the term would lead to confusion if context wasnt very clear (such as me, just a few post ago, misinterpreting your post)


What youve outlined in the above post, if i am understanding you correctly, Ive always just simply referred to as relative load

Characterizing a different definition than yours as a "dual use" implies that one definition (yours) is authoritative and must supersede all others.

The definition of intensity as load (absolute: kg, lb; relative: %1RM) should at least sound familiar. It is the definition of strength & conditioning scholarship, that has existed in the English language for the better part of a century, and that is international in scope.

Your definition, that I am familiar with, is nascent & nebulous, pieced together from some very recent bodybuilding literature (the scholarship of which has existed since the mid-2000s).

I am happy to meet you where you are with your definitions, but do not expect me to validate your ego (outsized in bodybuilding) by adopting your pet definitions of terms like intensity, failure, effort, etc. as if you speak authoritatively on the matter.

 

[BigTomJ]

Characterizing a different definition than yours as a "dual use" implies that one definition (yours) is authoritative and must supersede all others.

I meant no disrespect, only discussion.

I use the term dual use in that there are two valid use cases for the term, not that one is primary and one is alternative.

I simply have the position that in terms of discussion on the topic of training for hypertrophy, it is understood what we are actually referencing when using the term.

I'm not debating the validity or practical application of your definition.

The definition of intensity as load (absolute: kg, lb; relative: %1RM) should at least sound familiar. It is the definition of strength & conditioning scholarship, that has existed in the English language for the better part of a century, and that is international in scope.

Your definition, that I am familiar with, is nascent & nebulous, pieced together from some very recent bodybuilding literature (the scholarship of which has existed since the mid-2000s).

I am happy to meet you where you are with your definitions, but do not expect me to validate your ego (outsized in bodybuilding) by adopting your pet definitions of terms like intensity, failure, effort, etc. as if you speak authoritatively on the matter.

Given what we know from the various papers over the last handful of years on the subject,
That being that the last few reps before failure drive the majority of hypertrophic adaptation being the big one. And finding that absolute load, weight selection, or %1rm are not as direct factors in the relationship between intensity, volume, frequency, and recovery for the goal of hypertrophy as was once thought. But rather it is beginning to appear that proximity to failure is the bigger factor.
For this reason I've found intensity being used to describe training in proximity to failure to be more useful for my purposes on the topic of training specifically.

In my mind, assuming training is taken to failure or ACCURATELY taken 1-2rir, and that the targeted muscle failure is the cause of failure, not other limitations (such as metabolic, cardiovascular, auxiliary/support muscle failure ect), load selection doesn't particularly matter that much, so I don't find much of an important metric outside of our own personal tracking for logging and progression purposes.


Obviously there is far greater nuance than which can be easily expressed in simplified form, but that is why I enjoy discussions such as these.

 

[Type-IIx]

I meant no disrespect, only discussion.

I use the term dual use in that there are two valid use cases for the term, not that one is primary and one is alternative.

I simply have the position that in terms of discussion on the topic of training for hypertrophy, it is understood what we are actually referencing when using the term.

I'm not debating the validity or practical application of your definition.

Me too bro, I actually typed this reply out twice, making a concerted effort to avoid causing offense and to j strike the right balance in tone. On one hand, I want it to be clear that we all have big egos and that we need to be self-aware of that and able to take jestful proddings of ego in stride; and on the other, I want to be helpful and learn from you also.

Given what we know from the various papers over the last handful of years on the subject,
That being that the last few reps before failure drive the majority of hypertrophic adaptation being the big one. And finding that absolute load, weight selection, or %1rm are not as direct factors in the relationship between intensity, volume, frequency, and recovery for the goal of hypertrophy as was once thought. But rather it is beginning to appear that proximity to failure is the bigger factor.
For this reason I've found intensity being used to describe training in proximity to failure to be more useful for my purposes on the topic of training specifically.

I couldn't agree more. I must ask though, how do you, without referring to weight, define the force dimension of the tension stimulus besides referring to that which places the force on the fibers?

And then, practically, how do you make sure that on moderate time-frames (e.g., weeks), you are progressively overloading this force dimension?

In my mind, assuming training is taken to failure or ACCURATELY taken 1-2rir, and that the targeted muscle failure is the cause of failure, not other limitations (such as metabolic, cardiovascular, auxiliary/support muscle failure ect), load selection doesn't particularly matter that much,

Do you think that external stressors like psycho-social ones (e.g., relationships, occupational) can affect not only perceived but actual RIR?

so I don't find much of an important metric outside of our own personal tracking for logging and progression purposes.

So what are you tracking?

And then, what do you call that which you track?

Are you totally OK with a decrement in the weight used on an exercise on monthly time-frames?

Obviously there is far greater nuance than which can be easily expressed in simplified form, but that is why I enjoy discussions such as these.

 

[BigTomJ]

Me too bro, I actually typed this reply out twice, making a concerted effort to avoid causing offense and to j strike the right balance in tone. On one hand, I want it to be clear that we all have big egos and that we need to be self-aware of that and able to take jestful proddings of ego in stride; and on the other, I want to be helpful and learn from you also.

oh absolutely, i think our egos get in the way of useful discussion far too often, ive certainly been guilty in that regard on more than one occasion.

I couldn't agree more. I must ask though, how do you, without referring to weight, define the force dimension of the tension stimulus besides referring to that which places the force on the fibers?

And then, practically, how do you make sure that on moderate time-frames (e.g., weeks), you are progressively overloading this force dimension?

I want to be careful here and make sure its clear im not ignoring load/weight.
Naturally load/weight is a critical variable in force and tension, however i dont believe it to be as critical in the discussion of effective reps.
%1rm/weight/load is a fairly poor indicator of effort and (in my experience) do not correlate linearly to effort, or to effective reps.

I think once we get closer and closer to a theoretical 1rm, the principles of strength specificity play a huge role on perceived effort. Once we get heavier in loads relative to our own personal 1rm i believe it becomes less a function of effective reps, and more so of strength as a skill through strength specificity. While this is critically important for strength focused training, when it comes to hypertrophy i see this as a hinderance.

for personal anecdotal example, my maxx deadlift is 661 in competition, however 605 is a weight that i can take for multiple sets of 5-6.
This nonlinear curve in effort when approaching closer and closer to a theoretical 1rm in relation to load makes it a lot more complicated variable to gauge effort and effective reps in the framework that so many programs utilize, written as something like "80% 1rm, x reps, RIR2". I think this is redundant information, if you are targeting x reps with 2 in reserve, than the %1rm is irrelevant, for some individuals that theoretical % might be 75, others may be 90 in order to reach the prescribed rep range with reps in reserve, and the appropriate load can be derived through a function of the selected rep range, and proximity to failure (assuming that proximity is gauges accurately).

for this reason, when it comes to training with intensity (proximity to failure) for the goals of hypertrophy, its my opinion that load is not a critical variable, but a derived variable.
If you are taking a set to failure, to a targeted rep range, load will be naturally derived without having to be arbitrary defined.

Do you think that external stressors like psycho-social ones (e.g., relationships, occupational) can affect not only perceived but actual RIR?

yes absolutely, and i think there are a lot of avenues we can explore on that topic.
from physiological impacts, such as elevated cortisol on the CNS and recovery, i think its painfully clear that high stress can have a clear adverse effect on both performance and recovery/progress.

for mental aspects, absent of physiological impacts, i also believe this can negatively impact our training. weve all had acute bad days at work, or stressful morning with the kids, or whatever, that has carried over into our training. Training close to failure with intent isnt something thats done casually, its mentally taxing as much as it is physically and i believe social stressors can hinder the focus and will needed for effective, difficult training.

So what are you tracking?

And then, what do you call that which you track?

Are you totally OK with a decrement in the weight used on an exercise on monthly time-frames?

I track almost everything in the gym.
Weight, reps, speed, and perceived effort for every set.

I would call an increase in the first three or a decrease in perceived effort without a reduction in the first three as progress. I aim for some improvement each session, more weight, more reps, better controlled speed, or reduced perceived effort, so long as some improvement is made in one of these variables i consider myself progressing.

If i fail to progress or even regress for a few weeks, i reevaluate.
Is it my sleep? is it my general recovery? have i been adhering to my nutrition properly, do i need more food at this stage? Am i really training as hard as i think i am?
Almost always i can find the answer as to why progress has stalled from one of these questions.



Assuming all things are constant (same training block, same nutrition, same PEDs) I am not okay with a reduction in any performance metric in the long term. I see these reductions in performance as an indicator that there is something that needs to be changed.

 

[NineteenNor]

Characterizing a different definition than yours as a "dual use" implies that one definition (yours) is authoritative and must supersede all others.

The definition of intensity as load (absolute: kg, lb; relative: %1RM) should at least sound familiar. It is the definition of strength & conditioning scholarship, that has existed in the English language for the better part of a century, and that is international in scope.

Your definition, that I am familiar with, is nascent & nebulous, pieced together from some very recent bodybuilding literature (the scholarship of which has existed since the mid-2000s).

I am happy to meet you where you are with your definitions, but do not expect me to validate your ego (outsized in bodybuilding) by adopting your pet definitions of terms like intensity, failure, effort, etc. as if you speak authoritatively on the matter.

Gentlemen, I enjoy this discussion very much, please allow me to respectfully interpose my thoughts here:

Intensity, by the Oxford definition: the measurable amount of a property.

Intensity, as it relates to exercise, following the Oxford definition: the relative degree of momentary effort produced by a subject during a bout of exercise. (my definition, adapted from Arthur Jones')

I will also share this more accurately measurable definition when referring to the intensity of a single bout of exercise (a 'set'):

"Intensity is inroad over time; the rate of fatigue," (Ken Hutchins) where inroad is defined as the momentary fatigue generated during a bout of exercise, realized as diminishing force output. (Ellington Darden, PhD)

I believe accurate language is paramount. One mans subjective intensity, failure, etc could be very different than another. I think you both have acknowledged this as well. Having an accurate, clear definition to which we base further conclusions upon is very important to avoid misrepresentation and discrepancies in scientific understanding.

Otherwise, you get Brad Schoenfeld "training to failure" research. Footage of Schoenfeld training "to failure" is laughable at best, see the late John Meadow's YouTube video with him if you would like a good chuckle. You could not call that high intensity by the definitions I have proposed here.

Need not agree nor adhere to my definitions, just thought I would share my perspective.

As it relates to "RIR," I must share this excerpt from what I deem good science:

"Ability to predict repetitions to MF is not perfectly accurate among most trainees though may improve with experience. Thus, RIR should be used cautiously in prescription of RT. Trainers and trainees should be aware of this as it may have implications for the attainment of training goals, particularly muscular hypertrophy." [1]

I encourage you to try this with your clients/training partners/buddies, ask them to go to 2 RIR and then instruct them to keep going. With some verbal encouragement, I find that under my instruction the trainees almost always squeeze out more than they thought. Like @Type-IIx implies in his most recent post, a multitude of psychological factors can likely effect the perceived "RIR" with significance.

Additionally, in my opinion, repetition count is arbitrary at best, since unless specified, which it almost never is, there is no standard of cadence to quantify time under load. If one were to prescribe a trainee a common goal rep range of 8-12, this could result in 15 seconds TUL, 30 seconds TUL, 60, 90, 240... Hopefully you can see the problem is quite clear when put like that. Go to any commercial gym and observe the vast variance.

Tried to put a conscious effort in this to not speak with implied authority. You both have lot of quality posts. I'm new to this forum, looking forward to engaging with similarly enthusiastic individuals.

References
[1] Steele J, Endres A, Fisher J, Gentil P, Giessing J. Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience. PeerJ. 2017 Nov 30;5:e4105. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4105. PMID: 29204323; PMCID: PMC5712461.

Further reading, newer work by some of the same researchers:

Armes C, Standish-Hunt H, Androulakis-Korakakis P, Michalopoulos N, Georgieva T, Hammond A, Fisher JP, Gentil P, Giessing J, Steele J. "Just One More Rep!" - Ability to Predict Proximity to Task Failure in Resistance Trained Persons. Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 23;11:565416. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565416. PMID: 33424678; PMCID: PMC7785525.

 

[Type-IIx]

oh absolutely, i think our egos get in the way of useful discussion far too often, ive certainly been guilty in that regard on more than one occasion.




I want to be careful here and make sure its clear im not ignoring load/weight.
Naturally load/weight is a critical variable in force and tension, however i dont believe it to be as critical in the discussion of effective reps.
%1rm/weight/load is a fairly poor indicator of effort and (in my experience) do not correlate linearly to effort, or to effective reps.

I think once we get closer and closer to a theoretical 1rm, the principles of strength specificity play a huge role on perceived effort. Once we get heavier in loads relative to our own personal 1rm i believe it becomes less a function of effective reps, and more so of strength as a skill through strength specificity. While this is critically important for strength focused training, when it comes to hypertrophy i see this as a hinderance.

for personal anecdotal example, my maxx deadlift is 661 in competition, however 605 is a weight that i can take for multiple sets of 5-6.
This nonlinear curve in effort when approaching closer and closer to a theoretical 1rm in relation to load makes it a lot more complicated variable to gauge effort and effective reps in the framework that so many programs utilize, written as something like "80% 1rm, x reps, RIR2". I think this is redundant information, if you are targeting x reps with 2 in reserve, than the %1rm is irrelevant, for some individuals that theoretical % might be 75, others may be 90 in order to reach the prescribed rep range with reps in reserve, and the appropriate load can be derived through a function of the selected rep range, and proximity to failure (assuming that proximity is gauges accurately).

for this reason, when it comes to training with intensity (proximity to failure) for the goals of hypertrophy, its my opinion that load is not a critical variable, but a derived variable.
If you are taking a set to failure, to a targeted rep range, load will be naturally derived without having to be arbitrary defined.


yes absolutely, and i think there are a lot of avenues we can explore on that topic.
from physiological impacts, such as elevated cortisol on the CNS and recovery, i think its painfully clear that high stress can have a clear adverse effect on both performance and recovery/progress.

for mental aspects, absent of physiological impacts, i also believe this can negatively impact our training. weve all had acute bad days at work, or stressful morning with the kids, or whatever, that has carried over into our training. Training close to failure with intent isnt something thats done casually, its mentally taxing as much as it is physically and i believe social stressors can hinder the focus and will needed for effective, difficult training.




I track almost everything in the gym.
Weight, reps, speed, and perceived effort for every set.

I would call an increase in the first three or a decrease in perceived effort without a reduction in the first three as progress. I aim for some improvement each session, more weight, more reps, better controlled speed, or reduced perceived effort, so long as some improvement is made in one of these variables i consider myself progressing.

If i fail to progress or even regress for a few weeks, i reevaluate.
Is it my sleep? is it my general recovery? have i been adhering to my nutrition properly, do i need more food at this stage? Am i really training as hard as i think i am?
Almost always i can find the answer as to why progress has stalled from one of these questions.



Assuming all things are constant (same training block, same nutrition, same PEDs) I am not okay with a reduction in any performance metric in the long term. I see these reductions in performance as an indicator that there is something that needs to be changed.

Thank you for the excellent response bro.

So in your logbook you monitor perceived speed (you don't use a velocitometer), right?

I think we have just ended up completely in agreement.

Since you've been so completely thorough as well as patient, I'll describe generally how I manage long-term training planning for bodybuilders: I first, based on weak points assessed by looking at recent training & visual assessment, give the first week's exercises at a given sets & reps at a specified RIR. Then, after that first week, I start to give the weights to use and have the client report their RIR. I apply one of three load periodisation schemes depending on talent & training status (that reflect the rate of increase in strength & size increases). If I am wrong about talent (it happens), then I just adjust and apply a more appropriate periodisation scheme.

For advanced guys (like yourself), we use training methods that include intensifiers like DC-style rest-pause, or whichever suits the client better, between myo-reps, muscle rounds, clusters, etc. This reduces fatigue (despite being very intense efforts by your definition) and promotes adaptation in a time-efficient manner. I try to increase the weight used over time, but admit that it seems to matter less than changes in the mirror. Still, I find it frustrating at times to have uncertainty about progression besides gradually increasing total reps, e.g., 8+5+3+... at a given weight.

Still, it's in my nature to want to see that weight increase over time, and long periods of stagnation cause me some anxiety despite knowing that effective reps of a sufficient single fiber pulling force are what matter with respect to the training effect and changes to body composition are what matter with respect to the training outcome.

 

[BigTomJ]

So in your logbook you monitor perceived speed (you don't use a velocitometer), right?

Correct, i make notes on at what part of what rep that rep speed begins to slow and becomes "more grindy". Its highly subjective and not at all definitive, but if i look in my log and see last week i perceived reps slowing at rep 5, but this week felt like 7 reps went smooth, i consider that progress even load and reps hadnt increased.

Since you've been so completely thorough as well as patient, I'll describe generally how I manage long-term training planning for bodybuilders: I first, based on weak points assessed by looking at recent training & visual assessment, give the first week's exercises at a given sets & reps at a specified RIR. Then, after that first week, I start to give the weights to use and have the client report their RIR. I apply one of three load periodisation schemes depending on talent & training status (that reflect the rate of increase in strength & size increases). If I am wrong about talent (it happens), then I just adjust and apply a more appropriate periodisation scheme.

For my own beginner clients i adopt a similar principle, for intermediates i struggle with justifying RIR style periodization since its so common for people to misgauge their RIR without having extensive experience training to failure. More often then naught it seems that people drastically underestimate their RIR.

This reduces fatigue (despite being very intense efforts by your definition) and promotes adaptation in a time-efficient manner.

Fully agree, i find that volume, especially unnecessary volume is far more fatiguing than effort.
If we assume the current literature is correct, and that the last 5-7 reps before failure provide the bulk of hypertrophic response, and we consider these last 5-7 as the effective reps:

we can do 3 sets to 15 to failure, leading to around 15 effective, adaptation driving reps in total.

or

we can do 5 sets to 15, with 2 reps in reserve, also leading to a total of 15 effective reps total.

both theoretically should produce similar adaptation and hypertrophic stimulus in a super basic sense, but I would find the 5 sets to be FAR more fatiguing in an absolute sense than the 3 reps, and i would assume most others would as well.

Still, it's in my nature to want to see that weight increase over time, and long periods of stagnation cause me some anxiety despite knowing that effective reps of a sufficient single fiber pulling force are what matter.

tell me about it, i think this is where the old cliche of "trust the process comes in.
I often find myself getting into my head and over analyzing looking for a problem in the equation when i hit a period of stagnation.
These are uncommon for me, relatively speaking, but when they do happen, at the end of the day our ego wants us to progressively get bigger and stronger and get pretty frustrating

 

[NineteenNor]

For my own beginner clients i adopt a similar principle, for intermediates i struggle with justifying RIR style periodization since its so common for people to misgauge their RIR without having extensive experience training to failure. More often then naught it seems that people drastically underestimate their RIR.

Glad we have common ground here.

Fully agree, i find that volume, especially unnecessary volume is far more fatiguing than effort.
If we assume the current literature is correct, and that the last 5-7 reps before failure provide the bulk of hypertrophic response, and we consider these last 5-7 as the effective reps:

we can do 3 sets to 15 to failure, leading to around 15 effective, adaptation driving reps in total.

or

we can do 5 sets to 15, with 2 reps in reserve, also leading to a total of 15 effective reps total.

both theoretically should produce similar adaptation and hypertrophic stimulus in a super basic sense, but I would find the 5 sets to be FAR more fatiguing in an absolute sense than the 3 reps, and i would assume most others would as well.

There's conflicting ideas of what the 'stimulus' really is, and you're right that theres many ways to skin a cat.

One could also do a single bout of high-intensity, to momentary muscular failure, achieved at an effective TUL of perhaps between 60-130 seconds, in which we deeply inroad, recruiting and exhausting the high threshold motor units (Henneman's size principle) which have the greatest hypertrophy potential.

(I will probably stand alone in this belief, but I'm sure you two are at least aware of high-intensity training and the likes of Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates. It works.)

Training with this modality will also produce the optimal stimulus necessary to produce hypertrophic adaptation, but it is entirely possible that higher volumes with lower intensity of effort produce a similar stimulus (i.e., multiple 'set' training, 'effective reps' and RIR). [citation below]

I believe there is a ceiling based on the threshold model proposed in this study: de Souza, Daniel & Barbalho, Matheus & Gentil, Paulo. (2020). The impact of resistance training volume on muscle size and lean body mass: to infinity and beyond?. Human Movement. 21. 18-29. 10.5114/hm.2020.94199.

And based on that, I would lean towards the minimal effective dose that can produce optimal response, given that recovery is finite and additional fatigue & damage (unnecessary volume) is therefor counterproductive.

 

[BigTomJ]

Glad we have common ground here.


There's conflicting ideas of what the 'stimulus' really is, and you're right that theres many ways to skin a cat.

One could also do a single bout of high-intensity, to momentary muscular failure, achieved at an effective TUL of perhaps between 60-130 seconds, in which we deeply inroad, recruiting and exhausting the high threshold motor units (Henneman's size principle) which have the greatest hypertrophy potential.

(I will probably stand alone in this belief, but I'm sure you two are at least aware of high-intensity training and the likes of Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer, Dorian Yates. It works.)

Training with this modality will also produce the optimal stimulus necessary to produce hypertrophic adaptation, but it is entirely possible that higher volumes with lower intensity of effort produce a similar stimulus (i.e., multiple 'set' training, 'effective reps' and RIR). [citation below]

I believe there is a ceiling based on the threshold model proposed in this study: de Souza, Daniel & Barbalho, Matheus & Gentil, Paulo. (2020). The impact of resistance training volume on muscle size and lean body mass: to infinity and beyond?. Human Movement. 21. 18-29. 10.5114/hm.2020.94199.

And based on that, I would lean towards the minimal effective dose that can produce optimal response, given that recovery is finite and additional fatigue & damage (unnecessary volume) is therefor counterproductive.

Ive outlined what i believe (based on the most up to date literature ive seen) to be "optimal" training in my article on hypertrophy. Optimal meaning the most hypertrophic response in a given time frame.

in essence my philosophy on training, if maximum hypertrophy is the primary goal, can be summarized as such:

Train to failure to remove intensity as a variable, then adjust volume to make best use of recovery intervals, then adjust frequency when adjusting single session volume higher is no longer practical or realistic.

I train at a high intensity, and keep intensity as a constant in my training blocks, and use volume (number of sets) as my working variable to fill in what is reasonably recoverable.
I believe training at a high intensity (to failure) to not only be the most efficient in a time sense (less time actually doing the workout) but also in a recovery sense since its my belief that inefficient volume is the greater contributor to overall fatigue and injury risk while also unnecessarily increasing recovery intervals


for more detail on my thought process can be found in these two sections from my hypertrophy post.

How they all work together
Now that these terms have been fully defined and explained we can move on to how these pieces fit together.
Hypertrophy is a function of intensity and volume limited only by recovery.
As ive discussed, training intensity on working sets should be a constant IE you should be training to failure or at least in very close proximity to failure.
If we think of this function like an equation is would look something like Intensity * Volume / Recovery. If we consider intensity as a prerequisite and a constant, that leaves volume and recovery as our working variables. Additionally we can assume recovery is a constant or at least relatively constant, given proper recovery practices (nutrition, supplementation, sleep, PEDS, stress management, ect).
So now that we have two relative constants that shouldn't change much week to week, our only variable remaining is volume.
If you want the most out of your training the goal now is to achieve MRV. We achieve this by titrating up and down working volume such that we are getting the most work in, but still recovering.

How to leverage your recovery periods to get the most out of your split
As ive touched on already, if we want to make the most out of our training week or block, we need to properly manage recovery periods such that we are fully recovering by the next time we hit a specific muscle group, but not spending copious time fully recovered, we grow as we recover, so any time not spent recovering is time spent not growing.
To minimize the time spent fully recovered we have two options, 1) increase working single session volume, or 2) increase our frequency. Both are effective options and one may be more favorable depending on the number of training days you have in a block, length of your training block, and individual work capacity.

If you are someone who leaves the gym after a session with no gas left in the tank, meaning it would be exceptionally fatiguing and near impossible to add more single session working volume to your training session, or if you are someone whos training is time limited, increasing frequency is your best option to minimize that amount of time spent fully recovered.

Conversely if the opposite is true, and you typically leave the gym with some work capacity remaining, and do not have a time constraint, adding a few more working sets is a great way to make the most out of your recovery periods.

 

[NineteenNor]

Train to failure to remove intensity as a variable, then adjust volume to make best use of recovery intervals, then adjust frequency when adjusting single session volume higher is no longer practical or realistic.

I train at a high intensity, and keep intensity as a constant in my training blocks, and use volume (number of sets) as my working variable to fill in what is reasonably recoverable.
I believe training at a high intensity (to failure) to not only be the most efficient in a time sense (less time actually doing the workout) but also in a recovery sense since its my belief that inefficient volume is the greater contributor to overall fatigue and injury risk while also unnecessarily increasing recovery intervals

Great stuff sir. I appreciate this approach. There is a large degree of individual response and especially tolerance to training, and although I am a proponent of one (1) maximal set, the pros would clearly prove me wrong that what they're doing (and drugs haha) works.

I saw your post before actually, liked what I saw when I skimmed it, was just a whole lot to go through but I really do appreciate this discussion as we have different perspectives and grasp on literature + anecdotal experiences.

Cheers mate

 

[gauge22]

Additionally, in my opinion, repetition count is arbitrary at best, since unless specified, which it almost never is, there is no standard of cadence to quantify time under load. If one were to prescribe a trainee a common goal rep range of 8-12, this could result in 15 seconds TUL, 30 seconds TUL, 60, 90, 240... Hopefully you can see the problem is quite clear when put like that. Go to any commercial gym and observe the vast variance.

This was always a question in my head. Time is a very large variable. So you beat your log book, okay. Well were the reps quicker, slower? Did you 'rest' in a lockout or stretch position?

Almost guaranteed when a trainer is trying to exceed X reps with Y weight, as they get to X reps, I would be my shriveled left nut they rep speed increases...

 

[Deleted member 123722]

Thread turned out to be quite informative lol.

 

[BigTomJ]

Thread turned out to be quite informative lol.

I get hard over a good training discussion.

So sick of all the drug talk from people that aren't willing to actually train effectively.


Diet and training come first and foremost, drugs are just the icing on the cake, and forums like this one tend to put far too much energy into drug discussion while often neglecting the foundation of diet and training in my experience.



Test and primo
Test and npp
Test mast tren with an oral thrown in

Blah blah blah. Small changes in drug protocol aren't going to all of a sudden make a tremendous difference in your progress.

You know what will? Proper diet and training.



Okay that's enough from my soap box.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

I get hard over a good training discussion.

So sick of all the drug talk from people that aren't willing to actually train effectively.


Diet and training come first and foremost, drugs are just the icing on the cake, and forums like this one tend to put far too much energy into drug discussion while often neglecting the foundation of diet and training in my experience.



Test and primo
Test and npp
Test mast tren with an oral thrown in

Blah blah blah. Small changes in drug protocol aren't going to all of a sudden make a tremendous difference in your progress.

You know what will? Proper diet and training.



Okay that's enough from my soap box.

I agree 100%.