@arisha Just start with 135 x 10, then move up from there. Once you get to 135 x 10 add either 10 pounds or extra rep for all the sets. Just do that each time and you will get there.
Usually i divvy it up to 5 sets of 20, but on the days you feel on fire... just go for it!
@kent1956 That's an actual routine, one of the first routines I did some 15 years ago. Fucked if i can remember what its called. If I do I'll edit this with the name
Edit: sorry, I didnt see the 4 sets. The routine I did only called for 1
@kent1956 Looks like a standard silver era full body workout, was very popular in the 40’s/50’s. The only difference with yours is a lot of extra chest/back volume and the saturday workout, if you dropped that it’d be a much better routine, but it clearly works for you
@tom9831 Yes, it would. It would require him to go to complete muscular failure on each lift (example), though, something few people are capable or knowledgable enough to do at first (which is often why people add additional volume in to make up for it).
Once you achieve muscular failure, there's no need to do additional sets for that session, you've already fully signaled to the muscles that they need to rebuild.
The whole idea of "three sets" came from a rehabilitation program for seriously injured patients, called the DeLorme-Watkins protocol. The first and second sets were meant to be warmups at 50% and 75% intensity, respectively, while the third set was taken to failure. Somehow, over the years (and through influence of Reg Park and Arnold Schwarzenegger), this got warped and now your average gymgoer is doing three sets at near-full intensity.
@tom9831 However many reps it takes to achieve failure (=you literally are contracting as hard as you can't and cannot move the weight another millimeter)
@dolphinsdream Could you provide some studies from reputable peer-reviewed journals that support single set to failure training? I’d like to read up on it
