latestnews
New member
@seekingchristiancommunity Thanks man 
I think that most of us have to go through this.
I think that most of us have to go through this.
Minimum and the best number of sets for muscle mass - Based on science
- Thread starter latestnews
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bodyweight fitness
@latestnews Holy shit dude. Wow what an amazing post. Real MVP. Im considering upping my sets now.... recently changed my workout and have started bulking too.
Friday I just do a quick set of Max pull-ups (just to maintain high rep range)
Saturday I do 3 sets of 15kg+ pull-ups each to failure. 3 sets of 15kg+ chin ups each to failure. 3 sets of 10kg+ dips each to failure.
Sunday 3-5 sets of 40kg squats, then some ab exercises.
Monday 5 sets of push-ups, 20 reps each of different variations (archer, dive bomber, decline, pseudo planche, diamond). But sometimes I switch it up where yesterday I did 9 sets in total, 3/3/3 of archer/dive bomber/pseudo planche. Chucked in 1 rep of one arm push-up for each side too just for the fun of it.
But after reading this I might up my weighted pull/chin ups and dips to sets of 5...
Friday I just do a quick set of Max pull-ups (just to maintain high rep range)
Saturday I do 3 sets of 15kg+ pull-ups each to failure. 3 sets of 15kg+ chin ups each to failure. 3 sets of 10kg+ dips each to failure.
Sunday 3-5 sets of 40kg squats, then some ab exercises.
Monday 5 sets of push-ups, 20 reps each of different variations (archer, dive bomber, decline, pseudo planche, diamond). But sometimes I switch it up where yesterday I did 9 sets in total, 3/3/3 of archer/dive bomber/pseudo planche. Chucked in 1 rep of one arm push-up for each side too just for the fun of it.
But after reading this I might up my weighted pull/chin ups and dips to sets of 5...
@latestnews Ah, your point number 2. You better do at least one set to failure or you’ve guaranteed suboptimal muscle stimulation.
jeffwilly001
New member
@jeffwilly001 From your own source: “Conclusion: Overall, the results suggest that despite statistically significant effects on muscular strength being found for non-failure compared with failure training, the small percentage of improvement shown for non-failure training is unlikely to be meaningful.” Not to mention that 4 of the 8 studies cited did NOT CONTROL FOR VOLUME.
jeffwilly001
New member
@nusue So doing an additional thing which increases the risk of injury has no advantage over simply not doing that thing?
Don't let your haste to cherrypick to suit your agenda stop you from reading literally the next few sentences:
"Non-failure training resulted in a 0.6-1.3% greater strength increase than failure training. A small pooled effect favouring non-failure training was found (ES = 0.34; p = 0.02). Significant small pooled effects on muscular strength were also found for non-failure versus failure training with compound exercises (ES = 0.37-0.38; p = 0.03) and trained participants (ES = 0.37; p = 0.049). A slightly larger pooled effect favouring non-failure training was observed when volume-uncontrolled studies were included (ES = 0.41; p = 0.047). No significant effect was found for the volume-controlled studies, although there was a trend favouring non-failure training. The methodological quality of the included studies in the review was found to be moderate. Exercise compliance was high for the studies where this was reported (n = 5), although limited information on adverse events was provided. "
Don't let your haste to cherrypick to suit your agenda stop you from reading literally the next few sentences:
"Non-failure training resulted in a 0.6-1.3% greater strength increase than failure training. A small pooled effect favouring non-failure training was found (ES = 0.34; p = 0.02). Significant small pooled effects on muscular strength were also found for non-failure versus failure training with compound exercises (ES = 0.37-0.38; p = 0.03) and trained participants (ES = 0.37; p = 0.049). A slightly larger pooled effect favouring non-failure training was observed when volume-uncontrolled studies were included (ES = 0.41; p = 0.047). No significant effect was found for the volume-controlled studies, although there was a trend favouring non-failure training. The methodological quality of the included studies in the review was found to be moderate. Exercise compliance was high for the studies where this was reported (n = 5), although limited information on adverse events was provided. "
@jeffwilly001 The main study you cite is a META analysis. Meta analysis is the definition of cherry picking. Meta analysis is not original research. An author chooses other’s research studies and tries to “prove” a point. Each study has different sizes, different groups, different protocols, different definitions of “intensity”. The studies are chosen so they “prove” whatever the author is seeking to prove. Just read the words you are quoting. “The methodological quality of the included studies was found to be moderate.”
In other words, the methodology of other researchers’ studies the authors CHOSE to include was “so-so”. What do you think the words “No significant effect was found for volume controlled studies, although there was a trend for non-failure training” means? It means that when they looked at volume controlled studies they found no statistically significant results. Their “trend” is nothing but their opinion.
In other words, the methodology of other researchers’ studies the authors CHOSE to include was “so-so”. What do you think the words “No significant effect was found for volume controlled studies, although there was a trend for non-failure training” means? It means that when they looked at volume controlled studies they found no statistically significant results. Their “trend” is nothing but their opinion.
jeffwilly001
New member
@nusue Meta-analyses are the exact opposite of cherrypicking, and if you have some peer review to offer the authors of the systematic review, don't hesitate to contact them with your constructive criticism.
It's obvious you're not familiar with scientific vocabulary, or scientific studies in general, so try to avoid the reflex knee-jerk reaction from having your own personal biases contradicted with evidence-based science, and open your mind to new ideas. You're better off for it.
It's obvious you're not familiar with scientific vocabulary, or scientific studies in general, so try to avoid the reflex knee-jerk reaction from having your own personal biases contradicted with evidence-based science, and open your mind to new ideas. You're better off for it.
@jeffwilly001 Without seeing all the detail (article is blocked), I think it is tricky to say conclusively. I wonder how intelligently designed the programs were and how experienced those taking part.
There has been a lot of talk in sports science around the concept of "effective reps", i.e the repetitions which drive hypertrophy. You only get to these repetitions as you approach failure.
There has been a lot of talk in sports science around the concept of "effective reps", i.e the repetitions which drive hypertrophy. You only get to these repetitions as you approach failure.
jeffwilly001
New member
@dawn16 It's a pretty straightforward conclusion: taking anything but the very last set of your workout to failure decreases your ability to go hard in subsequent sets. Even if it did provide some modicum of benefit, it wouldn't be worth it for most people's purposes.
Try this link if it's blocked in your country: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3 (what country blocks PubMed?)
Here's the summaries if that link doesn't work for you either:
Try this link if it's blocked in your country: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-015-0451-3 (what country blocks PubMed?)
Here's the summaries if that link doesn't work for you either:
@jeffwilly001 Cheers, I was able to access the abstract you copied but not the full text. I'm curious because I could see how training to failure would lead to overtraining in a high volume or high frequency routine. But if you had people do only 3 sets of leg extensions once a week and nothing else, one group to failure and one group just short, I struggle to see how the failure group wouldn't get better results.
@dawn16 If the person is doing three sets of only one exercise per week I doubt they could overtrain.
My point is the only way to be certain you have stimulated all the muscle fibers in a given muscle or group of muscles is to take the set to positive momentary muscular failure. At that point you have temporarily exhausted all muscle fibers (low threshold, high threshold motor units) because you can’t move the weight. Once you have done that there is no need for more sets for that muscle. It will “build back stronger” during recovery. To continue to perform more sets for a muscle after failure is just digging a deeper recovery hole without any further benefit of stimulation.
If you stop a set or all sets short of failure you are basing your sense of muscle stimulation on a “feeling” that the set was hard. There is no way to be certain you’ve hit all the muscle fibers. You can do multiple sets of a moderate load never reaching failure and never optimally stimulate the muscle for growth.
My point is the only way to be certain you have stimulated all the muscle fibers in a given muscle or group of muscles is to take the set to positive momentary muscular failure. At that point you have temporarily exhausted all muscle fibers (low threshold, high threshold motor units) because you can’t move the weight. Once you have done that there is no need for more sets for that muscle. It will “build back stronger” during recovery. To continue to perform more sets for a muscle after failure is just digging a deeper recovery hole without any further benefit of stimulation.
If you stop a set or all sets short of failure you are basing your sense of muscle stimulation on a “feeling” that the set was hard. There is no way to be certain you’ve hit all the muscle fibers. You can do multiple sets of a moderate load never reaching failure and never optimally stimulate the muscle for growth.
jeffwilly001
New member
@dawn16 Unless the the circumstances you're describing truly are near-failure for beginners or similar experience levels, then that would probably be otherwise classified as under-failure for post-beginner athletes.
Failure and near-failure are very relative, just like %1RM. One person's failure criteria would be someone else's under-failure criteria. You can't really assign an objective quantity, it is by definition a dynamic and subjective modality.
Failure and near-failure are very relative, just like %1RM. One person's failure criteria would be someone else's under-failure criteria. You can't really assign an objective quantity, it is by definition a dynamic and subjective modality.
latestnews
New member
@latestnews See my other comment. For strength and hypertrophy you have to stimulate the high threshold Type II muscle fibers. You MAY be able to stimulate them at some reps less than failure. But how many reps less? One, two three? How do you know? The only way to be certain you have stimulated all the muscle fibers (types I, II) is to reach failure. At failure there are no more fibers left to stimulate. And you only have to stimulate them once thoroughly. Do more sets for a muscle group after you have reached momentary failure just drains your central nervous system.
latestnews
New member
@nusue Chris Beardsley - Fatigue, failure
"The only way to be certain you have stimulated all the muscle fibers (types I, II) is to reach failure."
No, that's not true too E.g. I know that with +50kg on belt I can do 6 dips because I've tested this. Thus I know that when I do 5 reps I've got 1 RIR. From time to time you test it + you can feel it. If you track your workouts it's not that hard to pretty accurately measure your RIR.
"The only way to be certain you have stimulated all the muscle fibers (types I, II) is to reach failure."
No, that's not true too
E.g. I know that with +50kg on belt I can do 6 dips because I've tested this. Thus I know that when I do 5 reps I've got 1 RIR. From time to time you test it + you can feel it. If you track your workouts it's not that hard to pretty accurately measure your RIR.@latestnews Chris, if you’re the Chris Breardsley I’m thinking of, I have read your book, Hypertrophy. I respect your thinking. However, even your book posits that full fiber stimulation requires muscle fibers to be under “high tension and moving slowly.” In other words approaching failure.
My point is that, short of failure, you are basing “full stimulation” on a feeling. There is no way to know for certain that a 1RIR or 2RIR set has stimulated all motor units including low threshold and high threshold. If you reach momentary muscular failure by definition you have stimulated all muscle fibers because you cannot move the weight positively AT ALL. All muscle fibers are momentarily exhausted.
My point is that, short of failure, you are basing “full stimulation” on a feeling. There is no way to know for certain that a 1RIR or 2RIR set has stimulated all motor units including low threshold and high threshold. If you reach momentary muscular failure by definition you have stimulated all muscle fibers because you cannot move the weight positively AT ALL. All muscle fibers are momentarily exhausted.
latestnews
New member
@nusue Man, I'm not a Chris Beardsley xD
“high tension and moving slowly.” In other words approaching failure.
What? Nice interpretation. Another info from Chris:
Infographic
Man, it's not only the last one rep that recruits all high treshold motor units.
“high tension and moving slowly.” In other words approaching failure.
What? Nice interpretation. Another info from Chris:
Infographic
Man, it's not only the last one rep that recruits all high treshold motor units.
@latestnews So say 5 sets per week, do I do like 1 set per day to failure? Or 2 sets every other day to failure or what? Sorry a bit confused