PDA

View Full Version : Sets and Reps for Growth



UKwildcat
03-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Have there been any real studies on this? Dr Pangloss I would really like to hear your input.

Ninja Loco
03-26-2009, 06:41 PM
There have been many studies, bro. And I get asked this question from a lot of my more knowledgable clients. Here's what I tell them.


In my experience (and indeed, if you look around) the reason for most, if not all of these studies is that not everyone is, for lack of simple explanation, made up of the same muscle fibres. That is why you have one group claiming to grow with 6-8, another with 8-10, and yet others with higher and still higher reps. The trick is to experiment with different protocols and keep a detailed diary/log of your progress. Yes.... it will take time. And it will be worth it because one thing that you might find is something similar to what I found about myself. For the most part, I seem to respond better to low reps and low sets. say 1-3 sets @ 6-8 rep range. The number of sets is dictated solely by the intensity of the workout. But not all of my body parts respond to the same rep and set scheme. My biceps, for instance, dont respond to low reps and sets, they respond to volume. Thats why I hate training them. My traps respond the most favorably to extremely low volume. I only train them once every couple of months.

Did I help, or did I completely misunderstand?

Dr Pangloss
03-26-2009, 07:03 PM
There is some work on inter-set interval and the transient Test level increases after training. Turns out shorter intervals, like less than 2 minutes, are better for increasing those transients. However, it turns out that over time there is no difference in muscle mass or gains in strength between using a short interval (1-2 minutes) and a 3-4 minute interval. In the short term, however, the shorter interval works better.

Also, practically and scientifically speaking, strength and size training is occluded by endurance training, and visa versa.

the above is based on many papers. What this would guide me to do is follow two general rules:

1) Dont do too much volume because it becomes an endurance stress, but don't do too little volume because you won't stress the muscle; ultimately it can occlude muscle growth. 5 to 15 sets max per body part is a reasonable range.

2) Vary the number of reps and the inter-set interval to give yourself the best opportunity for growth. This is for the reasons above and for the fact that varying the repetitions stresses different cellular aspects of muscle cells.

Dr Pangloss
03-26-2009, 07:19 PM
I will post papers on the subject here and just let the thread and the conversation evolve. here's one that shows that moderate set volume is best for strength:

: J Strength Cond Res. (javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'J Strength Cond Res.');) 2005 Aug;19(3):689-97. Links (javascript:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu16095427);)

Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle.

González-Badillo JJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gonz%C3%A1lez-Badillo%20JJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Gorostiaga EM (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gorostiaga%20EM%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Arellano R (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Arellano%20R%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Izquierdo M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Izquierdo%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain. jjgbadi@arrakis.es
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 3 resistance training volumes on maximal strength in the snatch (Sn), clean & jerk (C&J), and squat (Sq) exercises during a 10-week training period. Fifty-one experienced (>3 years), trained junior lifters were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: a low-volume group (LVG, n = 16), a moderate-volume group (MVG, n = 17), and a high-volume group (HVG, n = 18). All subjects trained 4-5 days a week with a periodized routine using the same exercises and relative intensities but a different total number of sets and repetitions at each relative load: LVG (1,923 repetitions), MVG (2,481 repetitions), and HVG (3,030 repetitions). The training was periodized from moderate intensity (60- 80% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and high number of repetitions per set (2-6) to high intensity (90-100% of 1RM) and low number of repetitions per set (1-3). During the training period, the MVG showed a significant increase for the Sn, C&J, and Sq exercises (6.1, 3.7, and 4.2%, respectively, p < 0.01), whereas in the LVG and HVG, the increase took place only with the C&J exercise (3.7 and 3%, respectively, p < 0.05) and the Sq exercise (4.6%, p < 0.05, and 4.8%, p < 0.01, respectively). The increase in the Sn exercise for the MVG was significantly higher than in the LVG (p = 0.015). Calculation of effect sizes showed higher strength gains in the MVG than in the HVG or LVG. There were no significant differences between the LVG and HVG training volume-induced strength gains. The present results indicate that junior experienced lifters can optimize performance by exercising with only 85% or less of the maximal volume that they can tolerate. These observations may have important practical relevance for the optimal design of strength training programs for resistance-trained athletes, since we have shown that performing at a moderate volume is more effective and efficient than performing at a higher volume.

Dr Pangloss
03-26-2009, 08:03 PM
This one finds greater gains with 3-11 reps versus 20-28, although the latter group was better adapted in time-to exhaustion and aerobic fitness.

1: Eur J Appl Physiol. (javascript:AL_get(this, 'jour', 'Eur J Appl Physiol.');) 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60. Epub 2002 Aug 15.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--production.springer.de-OnlineResources-Logos-springerlink.gif (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?PrId=3055&itool=AbstractPlus-def&uid=12436270&db=pubmed&url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6) Links (javascript:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu12436270);)

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

Campos GE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Campos%20GE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Luecke TJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Luecke%20TJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Wendeln HK (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Wendeln%20HK%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Toma K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Toma%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Hagerman FC (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Hagerman%20FC%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Murray TF (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Murray%20TF%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Ragg KE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Ragg%20KE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Ratamess NA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Ratamess%20NA%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Kraemer WJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Kraemer%20WJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Staron RS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Staron%20RS%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5.8) years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

UKwildcat
03-27-2009, 10:27 AM
There have been many studies, bro. And I get asked this question from a lot of my more knowledgable clients. Here's what I tell them.


In my experience (and indeed, if you look around) the reason for most, if not all of these studies is that not everyone is, for lack of simple explanation, made up of the same muscle fibres. That is why you have one group claiming to grow with 6-8, another with 8-10, and yet others with higher and still higher reps. The trick is to experiment with different protocols and keep a detailed diary/log of your progress. Yes.... it will take time. And it will be worth it because one thing that you might find is something similar to what I found about myself. For the most part, I seem to respond better to low reps and low sets. say 1-3 sets @ 6-8 rep range. The number of sets is dictated solely by the intensity of the workout. But not all of my body parts respond to the same rep and set scheme. My biceps, for instance, dont respond to low reps and sets, they respond to volume. Thats why I hate training them. My traps respond the most favorably to extremely low volume. I only train them once every couple of months.

Did I help, or did I completely misunderstand?

You completely understood. Thanks for the help. I have found working through wide range of reps works best for me. Anywhere from 5 to 50. Thanks again.

UKwildcat
03-27-2009, 10:37 AM
There is some work on inter-set interval and the transient Test level increases after training. Turns out shorter intervals, like less than 2 minutes, are better for increasing those transients. However, it turns out that over time there is no difference in muscle mass or gains in strength between using a short interval (1-2 minutes) and a 3-4 minute interval. In the short term, however, the shorter interval works better.

Also, practically and scientifically speaking, strength and size training is occluded by endurance training, and visa versa.

the above is based on many papers. What this would guide me to do is follow two general rules:

1) Dont do too much volume because it becomes an endurance stress, but don't do too little volume because you won't stress the muscle; ultimately it can occlude muscle growth. 5 to 15 sets max per body part is a reasonable range.

2) Vary the number of reps and the inter-set interval to give yourself the best opportunity for growth. This is for the reasons above and for the fact that varying the repetitions stresses different cellular aspects of muscle cells.

Thanks Dr. I do employee these concepts in my works but not because of scientific study. More like my life dictates shorter workouts and I have to change the rep range often or I get bored. I found the papers very interesting and thank you for all you do to fight the gym science that gets tossed around.

Mr. Shoulders
04-09-2009, 10:51 AM
A Scientific Look at Reps & Sets …When planning a workout you should first determine the desired training effect and select a repetition bracket to suit that goal. The following illustrates the typical training effect of various rep ranges . 1-5 Reps = Maximal strength increases through enhanced neural drive 6–8 Reps = Optimal compromise of maximal strength and hypertrophy gains 9-12 Reps = Maximal hypertrophy gains leading to increased maximal strength 13-20 Reps = Strength-endurance gains and lower hypertrophy gains Using this table we can see that the best gains in strength are made using very low reps (1 to 5) whilst the best gains in muscle size (hypertrophy) are made using medium to high reps (6 to 12). The weight you lift will be dictated by the rep range you choose. If you are looking to gain muscle size you would select a weight that allowed you to perform between 6 and 12 reps. If you can only complete 3 reps the weight is too heavy. If you can do more than the chosen number of reps, the weight is too light. In addition to the above it should be noted that the fibers in your muscles are "typed" according to their oxidative capacities and how fast they fatigue. In simplistic terms you have slow twitch fibers (type-I) and fast twitch fibers (type-II). Fast twitch fibers respond best to low-rep training whilst slow twitch fibers respond better to high-rep training. Therefore, you should periodically juggle low-rep training, intermediate-rep training, and high-rep training to make the best progress. A Scientific Look at Sets A set is a group of consecutive reps. There are a number of factors to consider in determining how many sets to include in a workout; assuming that nutrition and rest are in check the most important factors are as follows. 1. Number of Reps Selected It is generally accepted that there is minimum amount of time a muscle must be stimulated for maximum size and strength gains. Conversely there is a maximum amount of time a muscle can be stimulated before overtraining sets in. Basically the more reps per set you perform the lower the number of work sets you should perform and vice versa. 2. Number of Exercises Per Training Session The more exercises you perform per muscle part, the fewer sets you need to achieve an optimal training effect for each exercise. 3. Muscle Size The number of sets performed should be proportionate to the size of the muscle mass trained. You would therefore expect to use more sets when training larger muscle groups than you would with smaller muscle groups. In direct conflict with this is the fact that smaller muscle groups recover more quickly than larger groups; it should be remembered that many smaller muscle groups are worked when training larger muscle groups e.g. biceps when training back. 4. Training Level One or two sets per exercise are usually enough for beginners whilst experienced trainees will often require increased volume. 5. Muscle Composition Muscles that are inherently fast-twitch respond best to more sets. Muscles that are inherently slow-twitch respond best to fewer sets.

Koubs
04-09-2009, 02:45 PM
There have been many studies, bro. And I get asked this question from a lot of my more knowledgable clients. Here's what I tell them.


In my experience (and indeed, if you look around) the reason for most, if not all of these studies is that not everyone is, for lack of simple explanation, made up of the same muscle fibres. That is why you have one group claiming to grow with 6-8, another with 8-10, and yet others with higher and still higher reps. The trick is to experiment with different protocols and keep a detailed diary/log of your progress. Yes.... it will take time. And it will be worth it because one thing that you might find is something similar to what I found about myself. For the most part, I seem to respond better to low reps and low sets. say 1-3 sets @ 6-8 rep range. The number of sets is dictated solely by the intensity of the workout. But not all of my body parts respond to the same rep and set scheme. My biceps, for instance, dont respond to low reps and sets, they respond to volume. Thats why I hate training them. My traps respond the most favorably to extremely low volume. I only train them once every couple of months.

Did I help, or did I completely misunderstand?

I am exactly the same... same rep range (sometimes as low as 4 reps), 1-3 sets, lower overall volume.... BUT, my biceps respond to high volume... MY chest on the otherhand has responded best when i only do like 6-7 total working sets...

I find it very interesting that even different body parts on the same person can respond to different rep ranges and/or volume of training.. I wonder if any studies have shown that??

juggernaut
05-20-2009, 05:27 PM
I'd take a looksy at non-linear periodization. Great stuff and very interesting.