Your take/thoughts on Hard Sets (e.g: 0-2 RIR)

[theodor98]

Hi all,

Recently been seeing lots of social media posts (by reputable coaches / subject matter experts) discussing hard sets, say a top set at 0-2 RIR (often 0-1 RIR) and then some back offs with similar failure ranges to elicit 'effective reps' or stimulus, but overall still subscribing to that 10-20 hard sets a week recommendation.

Personally, the above theory makes sense to me, as opposed to programs where you just see generic 4x12 of A,B and C exercise. This to me suggests that there may not be an actual 'hard' set that elicits proper mechanical tension and you're really just doing the exercise/sets for the sake of doing it.

Additionally, any more of these sets are just accumulating fatigue, while most of the stimulus/benefits have already been extracted, so it becomes diminishing returns.

Plus the former (with the hard set) would reduce time in the gym and you get out faster

----

Nonetheless, curious to hear what you fellas/madams think of this!

 

[dawn16]

@theodor98 I can’t comment on wether or not this style of training is better but I switched to it about 2 years back (top set, back off set) and it definitely taught me to make the most out of each set.

It’s now my preferred training style and I’ve seen great leaps in strength with it - but I think it’s probably as good as any other thoughtfully planned progression/rep scheme.

Many paths to the same goal.

 

[theodor98]

@dawn16 what is your preferred top set and back off set rep range?

 

[dawn16]

@theodor98 6-10, 8-15

 

[nick714]

@theodor98 I've had far more success going close to failure than staying shy of it.

 

[boyboy999]

@theodor98 Does 6 sets at RPE 6-8 provide more total hypertrophic stimulus than 3 sets at 10? Yes. Does it provide less fatigue than 3 sets at 10? Also yes. The idea is to increase volume and help manage systemic fatigue. This is a very effective strategy to do so. The recommendation isn’t to do a bunch of junk volume though. If you’re going to the point volume wise where there is diminishing returns then you’re just doing too much volume in general and that has nothing to do with this strategy. This strategy will take more time in the gym though because you have to do more sets, but for more advanced lifters that generate a lot of systemic fatigue lifting heavy loads this is a worthy tradeoff to pay as recovery is their main bottleneck to progress. Fatigue is the cost you pay for adaptation. So when you reach a point where recovery is the bottleneck the more stimulus you can get for the least amount of fatigue, the better. This is probably not the ideal way for a beginner or early intermediate to train. But for late intermediate to advanced it’s a really really effective strategy.

 

[leena2016]

@theodor98 Agree on all counts. I train like this, having gone from the other method, & I've got nothing but good things to say about it from a results standpoint. Though I only do 5-11 sets a week per muscle. When I think about set difficulty on a spectrum I think it goes from being useful in helping with recovery (i.e 12 reps with a weight you could do 30 times & just getting blood in the area), to being basically unproductive volume, (i.e. training with like 7 reps in reserve - it's enough to impact your recovery just a little bit but doesn't really contribute to hypertrophy in a meaningful way), to being productive volume, (more impactful on recovery for each set, but you can be sure each set has a hypertrophic stimulus).

 

[4everu]

@theodor98 That’s all my sets. I’m not stopping if I feel like I have over 2 reps left. I feel like this elicits the best progress.

 

[nikki103]

@theodor98 Please note that most people are very bad at assessing real RIRs. So a subjective 0-1 RIR can be an objective 1-3.
Also, different body parts react differently to 0 RIR. Get to know your body's tolerances. It can result in a huge recovery cost.
Despite that training to failure is advocated as the real man's real hardcore way to train, please remember that headbutting a freight train is only cool if you can walk away after it.

 

[bronsontaur]

@theodor98 You get better at going to failure. I can do past failure side delts for like 5 sets in a row.

 

[johnc101]

@theodor98 i'm not convinced proximity to failure matters - imo it's all about finding the amount of volume (total reps) with a given intensity (% of 1rm) and a given frequency (how often muscle is trained) that facilitates progressive overload. if you're training at a productive combination of the above parameters and progressing, you're going to be training effectively, whether you're getting close to failure or not.

mechanical tension is elicited by simply performing a rep, how close to failure that rep is doesn't matter. if it did - why are we all not running a marathon before resistance training so we are exhausted or taking 20 seconds to do every rep and failing every set with 135lbs for 5 instead of 315lbs for 5? that'd be healthier for the joints (i'd love to be able to get jacked off 5lb dumbbells) and if failure or proximity to failure was what mattered, that should be enough. no, we understand that if someone does 315lbs for 5, they're putting more mechanical tension on the muscle groups than 135lbs for 5 given same form, so we set up our programs to keep facilitating that progression from 135 to 315.

imo if you go to failure all the time and your numbers are not going up, you're just spending a lot of extra effort and fatigue doing a bunch of nothing. similarly, if you're training with 4x10 and your workouts are long and you get great pumps and feel good, but your numbers aren't going up very quickly if at all - very likely you're just spinning your wheels. proper route is to find the volume/intensity/frequency that has you progressing with the proximity to failure you like to train with. if you enjoy training every set to failure - probably you're going to see success with lower volume. if you don't like going to failure - probably you're gonna need higher volumes to compensate. for example at 75% 1RM (lets say 60lbs) you can only recover from 30 reps, say. if you take your sets to failure - maybe 12,10, then 8 reps - that's only 3 sets. but if you're taking sets far from failure (like 3-4+ RIR) with that 60lbs (still 75% of your 1RM), you need to do maybe 10,7,7,6 to hit the required volume at that intensity - that's 4 sets. that might end up being an extra 5-10 sets during the week - which is why the range of how many hard sets you should do is so broad. but the point is - both methods above are putting in the same mechanical tension of 30 total reps with 75% of their 1rm. the failure group is generating more fatigue per set, but the non-failure group is doing more total work which generates the fatigue by doing more sets. in effect, they'll likely even out and it won't end up making a difference. sorry to keep driving this home, but stop getting caught up in the failure/non-failure/etc. and get caught up in doing whatever it takes to add weight to the bar as frequently as possible - that is what is driving muscle growth and what the people discussing all this are actually trying to figure out how to optimize.

 

[orangetabbycat]

@theodor98 I push my last set of each exercise to 0 RIR, stopping at 1-2 RIR for the previous sets.

Ex. 20 sets of back per week, 4-6 of those are taken to 0 RIR.

I used to push harder but I'm progressing a lot better this way, recovering way better.

 

[mella]

@theodor98 I believe in the effective reps model. 5 sets to failure would be 25 effective reps where as 12 sets of 3rir or 7rpe would be 12*2 effective reps = 24 effective reps