Straight sets vs. ramping sets for hypertrophy

[Soloshino]

Which do you think is better for hypertrophy for compound movements?

For example, for the bench press would it be better to do -
215x8, 230x8, 245x8, 265x8 (65%, 70%, 75%, 80% of 1 rm)
or
245x8, 245x8, 245x8, 245x8 (75% of 1 rm across)
(these numbers are estimates based on my 1 rep max)

I used to train to failure for every set for the last two years, but a week ago but I got completely burnt out and started to get a lot of joint pain as well. I have been taking it easy but don't think I want to return to that style of training since I've read it probably is not any more effective.

 

[Evom1]

Training to failure or very close to failure, 1-2 reps in reserve is best for growth. Make sure the movements are slow, controlled and focused on creating the maximum amount of tension on the target muscle as possible.

Don't be doing that kind of volume though (4 working sets). Do 1-2 per exercise. To take it easy on your joints you could do one set of like 6-8 or 8-10 and then a lighter set still to failure of around 10-15

Pick a few exercises per muscle group.

Avoid the high volume if you're training correctly

 

[Soloshino]

Training to failure or very close to failure, 1-2 reps in reserve is best for growth. Make sure the movements are slow, controlled and focused on creating the maximum amount of tension on the target muscle as possible.

Don't be doing that kind of volume though (4 working sets). Do 1-2 per exercise. To take it easy on your joints you could do one set of like 6-8 or 8-10 and then a lighter set still to failure of around 10-15

Pick a few exercises per muscle group.

Avoid the high volume if you're training correctly

In the example I gave, only the last set would be to technical failure. The second to last set would be 1-2 RIR.

 

[bornSkinny]

Have to disagree. If you’re focus is hypertrophy total volume is going to be more important than getting close to failure with few sets. They still need to be challenging, but not necessarily that close to stimulate growth.
Volume drives Hypertrophy.

Not sure that really answers your initial question though as it just depends which one hits the most volume with a weight that is effective. Straight sets are probably better if you happen to know exactly what weight will be perfect for you that session. I always pyramid up at least a bit to figure that out so I’m never perfectly efficient.

 

[Soloshino]

Have to disagree. If you’re focus is hypertrophy total volume is going to be more important than getting close to failure with few sets. They still need to be challenging, but not necessarily that close to stimulate growth.
Volume drives Hypertrophy.

Not sure that really answers your initial question though as it just depends which one hits the most volume with a weight that is effective. Straight sets are probably better if you happen to know exactly what weight will be perfect for you that session. I always pyramid up at least a bit to figure that out so I’m never perfectly efficient.

Yes, I was struggling to get enough volume in since my CNS was so fried from constantly taking everything to failure. I’m focusing more on volume now. However, rest times are the same for me (around 2.5 minutes). If I rest less than 2 minutes I experience a massive decrease in strength.

 

[Deadp007]

Yes, I was struggling to get enough volume in since my CNS was so fried from constantly taking everything to failure. I’m focusing more on volume now. However, rest times are the same for me (around 2.5 minutes). If I rest less than 2 minutes I experience a massive decrease in strength.

Have you ever tried DC or even DC "styled" programs. Myo-Reps is another one.
Basically very short resting periods between sets. This is built on the premise of increasing your "effective reps" ie the reps that increase hypertrophy & strength.
Sounds like you're burnt out on your current lifting protocol so maybe give one of them a go for a month and see what you think.

 

[freakyjacked29]

Have to disagree. If you’re focus is hypertrophy total volume is going to be more important than getting close to failure with few sets. They still need to be challenging, but not necessarily that close to stimulate growth.
Volume drives Hypertrophy.

Not sure that really answers your initial question though as it just depends which one hits the most volume with a weight that is effective. Straight sets are probably better if you happen to know exactly what weight will be perfect for you that session. I always pyramid up at least a bit to figure that out so I’m never perfectly efficient.

This is spot on.

 

[Evom1]

Have to disagree. If you’re focus is hypertrophy total volume is going to be more important than getting close to failure with few sets. They still need to be challenging, but not necessarily that close to stimulate growth.
Volume drives Hypertrophy.

Not sure that really answers your initial question though as it just depends which one hits the most volume with a weight that is effective. Straight sets are probably better if you happen to know exactly what weight will be perfect for you that session. I always pyramid up at least a bit to figure that out so I’m never perfectly efficient.

I disagree with you on this. Intensity is the main driver for hypertrophy, not volume.

 

[bornSkinny]

I disagree with you on this. Intensity is the main driver for hypertrophy, not volume.

Intensity is good and really important for strength training but not hypertrophy. If it was all the pros would train like Dorian Yates style. 30 years ago there wasn’t a lot of research on how training stimulates hypertrophy. Now there is. Intensity will train your CNS way before it builds muscle.

 

[Evom1]

Intensity is good and really important for strength training but not hypertrophy. If it was all the pros would train like Dorian Yates style. 30 years ago there wasn’t a lot of research on how training stimulates hypertrophy. Now there is. Intensity will train your CNS way before it builds muscle.

I would say the two need to be balanced and it's going to depend on the specific athlete. Some people can truly take the muscle to failure, where as others not so much. The last 4-5 reps approaching failure are the most stimulating for hypertrophy.

 

[Rido]

I ramp up but I stay in 1-2 reps of failure typically.

First two set of the workout is probably 1/4th and a 1/3rd of my real working set for 20-30 reps(not to failure). Just to get the blood pumping

 

[bornSkinny]

I would say the two need to be balanced and it's going to depend on the specific athlete. Some people can truly take the muscle to failure, where as others not so much. The last 4-5 reps approaching failure are the most stimulating for hypertrophy.

Never said don’t go to failure, never said staying close to failure where it’s challenging isn’t important.

I said hypertrophy is driven by volume.

Of course that volume needs to be productive and actually stimulate growth. So be challenging to some degree. But the original question was just about how reps and sets are organized and how to maximize hypertrophy. My answer is on paper straight sets seem better because you can get the most volume with the target weight therefore giving you the most volume.
But in practice I pyramid up because I don’t know exactly how strong I’ll feel each session, and I want to lift at exactly the best weight for at least a couple sets.

 

[Evom1]

I said hypertrophy is driven by volume

I still say intensity is the main driver for hypertrophy. Let's give two extremes here


Scenario 1
12 working sets for a muscle group with lots of reps, but not approaching failure, let's say 8 reps left in the tank

Scenario 2
4 total working sets taken to absolute failure

Which one would stimulate more hypertrophy?

While both intensity and volume are important for hypertrophy, my point was the main driver is intensity, not volume. If all that was needed was volume without intensity then long distance running would build huge legs

 

[Mac11wildcat]

Have to disagree. If you’re focus is hypertrophy total volume is going to be more important than getting close to failure with few sets. They still need to be challenging, but not necessarily that close to stimulate growth.
Volume drives Hypertrophy.

Not sure that really answers your initial question though as it just depends which one hits the most volume with a weight that is effective. Straight sets are probably better if you happen to know exactly what weight will be perfect for you that session. I always pyramid up at least a bit to figure that out so I’m never perfectly efficient.

This is factually incorrect.

You can skin the cat both ways, but the idea of hypertrophy based on volume is regulated by proximity to failure. You can do 1-2 sets per movement to mechanical failure or you can do 3+ to varying degrees of proximity to failure and get the same result. Some individuals may be better suited to growth with pure volume/no concern over failure but those people are exceptions.

The primary driver of hypertrophy is mechanical tension which is maximized, regardless of the load, near failure when reps slow.

OP, how many sets a day and per week per muscle group were you taking to failure? It isn’t mechanical failure that was the incorrect approach, it was likely your WAY overdoing the volume when going to failure. Training outside your ability to recover will always result in issues.

Both methods can work, but don’t choose to misunderstand or purposefully misinterpret the factors involved.

 

[bornSkinny]

This is factually incorrect.

You can skin the cat both ways, but the idea of hypertrophy based on volume is regulated by proximity to failure. You can do 1-2 sets per movement to mechanical failure or you can do 3+ to varying degrees of proximity to failure and get the same result. Some individuals may be better suited to growth with pure volume/no concern over failure but those people are exceptions.

The primary driver of hypertrophy is mechanical tension which is maximized, regardless of the load, near failure when reps slow.

OP, how many sets a day and per week per muscle group were you taking to failure? It isn’t mechanical failure that was the incorrect approach, it was likely your WAY overdoing the volume when going to failure. Training outside your ability to recover will always result in issues.

Both methods can work, but don’t choose to misunderstand or purposefully misinterpret the factors involved

If I’m understanding your point you’re saying it’s all about time under tension then?

I suppose if your “volume” is shit reps and you’re just throwing the weight around, not feeling the muscle contract and getting quality reps reps sure, volume is worthless.
Also if I walk in the gym and grab some 20lb dumbbells and do 12 sets of 25 reps that’s a lot of worthless volume. It’s not intense enough. That doesn’t mean volume isn’t the main driver of hypertrophy. It is.

And if you can get the same results by doing less sets, why ever do more sets? Why not just warm up and do one super hard set? It’s a serious question. I’ve done something similar and it will make you strong and preserve muscle but you won’t get bigger. Not unless you’re an a typical human. Aka a freak.

 

[Soloshino]

This is factually incorrect.

You can skin the cat both ways, but the idea of hypertrophy based on volume is regulated by proximity to failure. You can do 1-2 sets per movement to mechanical failure or you can do 3+ to varying degrees of proximity to failure and get the same result. Some individuals may be better suited to growth with pure volume/no concern over failure but those people are exceptions.

The primary driver of hypertrophy is mechanical tension which is maximized, regardless of the load, near failure when reps slow.

OP, how many sets a day and per week per muscle group were you taking to failure? It isn’t mechanical failure that was the incorrect approach, it was likely your WAY overdoing the volume when going to failure. Training outside your ability to recover will always result in issues.

Both methods can work, but don’t choose to misunderstand or purposefully misinterpret the factors involved.

I did around 10 sets to failure per body part per week.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

If I’m understanding your point you’re saying it’s all about time under tension then?

I suppose if your “volume” is shit reps and you’re just throwing the weight around, not feeling the muscle contract and getting quality reps reps sure, volume is worthless.
Also if I walk in the gym and grab some 20lb dumbbells and do 12 sets of 25 reps that’s a lot of worthless volume. It’s not intense enough. That doesn’t mean volume isn’t the main driver of hypertrophy. It is.

And if you can get the same results by doing less sets, why ever do more sets? Why not just warm up and do one super hard set? It’s a serious question. I’ve done something similar and it will make you strong and preserve muscle but you won’t get bigger. Not unless you’re an a typical human. Aka a freak.

It has almost nothing to do with time under tension. TUT principle says you need X amount of time under a load. TUT alone has been largely disproven.

Now, I believe in controlled movement which does increase the time a rep takes, but all recent studies show it is mechanical tension which is dictated by proximity to failure (as failure approaches reps slow and fiber tension increases). That failure could be at 6 reps (that’s a pretty short set) or 25 reps (pretty long set). The dominant factor is how close you get to failure on the set and that then relates to the volume necessary to provide ample stimulus to grow.

As far as your second comment, I’m by no means a freak genetic wise. I train 2 sets to failure per movement (after warmups which ascend in load but decrease in reps), ~6 movements per day, 5 days a week on a PPL scheme and have indeed gotten strong, but also grew very well at a time when growth should be harder and harder to come by (I’ve added close to 120lbs of muscle since I started i started lifting, peaked at 232lb at 5’5).

Mechanical tension always works when in bodybuilding rep ranges (6 and up for the most part) aside from maybe when a deload is needed or somebody just needs a change for enjoyment sake.

Now again this isn’t to say volume training can’t work because it clearly can. But aside from very few outliers who grow just looking or smelling iron, that relationship of volume is based on how far from failure you are.

 

[Deadp007]

...That failure could be at 6 reps (that’s a pretty short set) or 25 reps (pretty long set). The dominant factor is how close you get to failure on the set...

...I train 2 sets to failure per movement, ~6 movements per day, 5 days a week on a PPL scheme and have indeed gotten strong, but also grew very well at a time when growth should be harder and harder to come by (I’ve added close to 120lbs of muscle since I started i started lifting, peaked at 232lb at 5’5).

Mechanical tension always works when in bodybuilding rep ranges (6 and up for the most part) aside from maybe when a deload is needed or somebody just needs a change for enjoyment sake.

I'm gonna give this a go after my next deload.
How many sets before you go to failure or just 2 sets per movement to failure?

 

[Soloshino]

I think I will try roughly doubling my weekly volume per body part but reducing the number of sets to failure or near failure in half. This would be around 20 sets, with 5 to failure and another 5 1-2 RIR. I have been doing this so far and feel great and am not totally mentally destroyed after each workout.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

I'm gonna give this a go after my next deload.
How many sets before you go to failure or just 2 sets per movement to failure?

As many as needed to warm up. And they typically decrease as the workout goes on. Except when changing body parts like changing from chest to delts in a push day where I may go back to 3 warmups on the first movement for that body part.

May look like:

Movement 1
Warmup - bar x 15
Warmup - 135 x 10
Warmup - 225 x 6
Warmup - 275 x 3
Warmup - 315 x 1-2
Work - 365 x 8-12
Work - 335 x 8-12

Movement 2
Warmup
Warmup
Warmup
Work
Work

Movement 3
Warmup
Work
Work