Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Time between sets vs intensity
#11
(07-18-2019, 06:08 AM)Brett Wrote: 100 push--ups done in one set or 10 sets of 10 spread throughout the day, to be honest, for a natty anyway, the difference in results is probably minimal.
It depends whether these sets were relatively hard to finish or not. If a set consists of 10 reps but you can do 50 push-ups in a set, then there is no sufficient stimuli your body should adapt to through hypertrophy. Not that these adaptations are huge for natty, that's besides the point. We want to maximize whatever mediocre gains we can make, right?
Reply
#12
(07-18-2019, 08:19 AM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: It depends whether these sets were relatively hard to finish or not. If a set consists of 10 reps but you can do 50 push-ups in a set, then there is no sufficient stimuli your body should adapt to through hypertrophy. Not that these adaptations are huge for natty, that's besides the point. We want to maximize whatever mediocre gains we can make, right?

If the total volume for the day is super high, it will be felt even if every set is easy. For example, if you can do 20 pull-ups in a row, doing sets of 5 throughout the day can kill you if the overall workload is insane. It will get to you. A set may be easy, but the body cannot ignore the total amount of work. 200 pull-ups a day are 200 pull-ups a day.
Reply
#13
(07-18-2019, 12:46 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote: If the total volume for the day is super high, it will be felt even if every set is easy. For example, if you can do 20 pull-ups in a row, doing sets of 5 throughout the day can kill you if the overall workload is insane. It will get to you. A set may be easy, but the body cannot ignore the total amount of work. 200 pull-ups a day are 200 pull-ups a day.
I wouldn't be so sure. There are sports that require ridiculous amounts of workload, but do little for actual hypertrophy (all endurance sports basically). I don't know where the cutoff is where gains start to kick in, but certainly the workload alone is not enough.
Reply
#14
(07-18-2019, 06:09 PM)impatient_undertaker Wrote: I wouldn't be so sure. There are sports that require ridiculous amounts of workload, but do little for actual hypertrophy (all endurance sports basically). I don't know where the cutoff is where gains start to kick in, but certainly the workload alone is not enough.

Overthinking things is a natural lifters biggest enemy.

Reply
#15
(07-19-2019, 05:49 AM)Brett Wrote: Overthinking things is a natural lifters biggest enemy.
It's true if you one tries to unlock some secret source if unlimited gains. Here it's good to filter what actually works and what doesn't. Workload, intensity, frequency - it all matters. Don't let the fear of overanalyzing stop you seeking what's the most efficient for you. Especially considering that it may save you from choosing insane training options.
Reply
#16
Multiple sets are a scam. Eg. Arnold's twenty sets a body part.

One set under control to failure is sufficient to stimulate growth.
Reply
#17
(07-22-2019, 06:52 AM)Simple Simon Wrote: Multiple sets are a scam. Eg. Arnold's twenty sets a body part.
It's even a common sense it's not a scam. Like with the most things in life there is a dose response. That said, it doesn't mean that the growth pattern is linear or gains can be unlimited. The law of diminishing returns hits hard eventually and probably 20 sets per body part per week is too much, unless you're on gear. However all research clearly shows that multiple sets trump 1 set pretty significantly.

(07-22-2019, 06:52 AM)Simple Simon Wrote: One set under control to failure is sufficient to stimulate growth.
Some growth, yeah. And each subsequent set is worth less than the previous one. It doesn't mean one should stop after the first one. It all depends on one's goals and how much time one is willing to put in. It's hard to imagine that someone who wants to train can't handle more than 1 set in his schedule though.
Reply
#18
So Brad Schoenfeld just released results of a study that show that it's actually better to rest longer:

"It had long been claimed that short rest periods were best to maximize hypertrophy. The belief was based on the fact that limiting between-set rest jacked up acute increases in anabolic hormones (GH, IGF, and testosterone). Our study found otherwise. We showed that resting 3 minutes produced greater increases in muscle thickness of the biceps, triceps, and mid-thigh compared to performing the same total body routine with a 1-minute rest interval. The issue appears to be that very short rest periods reduce the amount of weight that can be used on the subsequent set. Thus, when the same number of sets are performed in short- versus longer rest period training, this attenuation in volume load impairs gains. We soon will be presenting evidence that the hypertrophic disadvantage of short rest intervals disappears when additional sets are performed to equate volume load with longer rest periods."

So this sort of thing makes me wonder - is volume more important? Would 6 sets of 6 with the same weight give you the same results as 3x12 even if you maintained that 3 minute rest interval where doing 6 reps feels sorta light for the first 3-4 sets... Heck, if you picked up a dumbbell and did 1 or 2 reps every 10 minutes throughout the day, would that yield similar results as if you did 3 sets of 10 within a 10 minute period? (assuming the load is in the 60-70 percent 1RM range)
Reply
#19
I rest 1 minute to 40 seconds your just go when am ready I stop overthinking it, long time ago. I do 18 sets once a week . if your lifting heavy just rest little more . mabey 3 minutes

the gym is most simple thing you can do tbh it all load of bull . I know guy how go gym 5 times a week blue bill drug user ,what a loser.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)