Do you consider rest-pause sets (three sets to positive failure, with sets 2 and 3 follow 30 second rest) to be closer to a single set our three sets?
Or, framed in terms of programming, how would you assess three rest-pause sets per week in a muscle group in terms of working sets and hypertrophy versus 10-15 conventional working sets?
If you add up the effective reps (according to the current theory that the last 5 reps to failure are the most growth stimulating), then a rest pause set would equate two about two regular sets done to failure.
This estimation lines up quite well with popular rest pause programs like DC training, which if total volume is added up, and assuming every exercise is done rest pause, the weekly volume could be counted as 4 working sets, which follows the minimum effective volume requirements seen in current body of scientific research.
I am trying different approaches, and maybe it's age, but trying to balance recovery and still make progress/avoid injury has me circling back to this as a program where I can make gains.
Push: bench, overhead, isolation (rotate between triceps, anterior raise, traps)
Pull: pullup, row, isolation (rotate between curls, forearms, posterior delt)
Legs: split squats, rear lunge/DL, quad extension, leg curls, calfs
All exercises except the DL and some of the isolation work rest-pause, 3 x per week
Based on the heuristic you outlined, this would give me 12 "working set equivalents" on the compound movements, and based on my experience, this matches my load/recovery/gain capacity.
Do you consider rest-pause sets (three sets to positive failure, with sets 2 and 3 follow 30 second rest) to be closer to a single set our three sets?
Or, framed in terms of programming, how would you assess three rest-pause sets per week in a muscle group in terms of working sets and hypertrophy versus 10-15 conventional working sets?
If you add up the effective reps (according to the current theory that the last 5 reps to failure are the most growth stimulating), then a rest pause set would equate two about two regular sets done to failure.
This estimation lines up quite well with popular rest pause programs like DC training, which if total volume is added up, and assuming every exercise is done rest pause, the weekly volume could be counted as 4 working sets, which follows the minimum effective volume requirements seen in current body of scientific research.
Thanks!
I am trying different approaches, and maybe it's age, but trying to balance recovery and still make progress/avoid injury has me circling back to this as a program where I can make gains.
Push: bench, overhead, isolation (rotate between triceps, anterior raise, traps)
Pull: pullup, row, isolation (rotate between curls, forearms, posterior delt)
Legs: split squats, rear lunge/DL, quad extension, leg curls, calfs
All exercises except the DL and some of the isolation work rest-pause, 3 x per week
Based on the heuristic you outlined, this would give me 12 "working set equivalents" on the compound movements, and based on my experience, this matches my load/recovery/gain capacity.
Cheers.
Ajac why did you block me on twitter? I apologize if I did anything wrong
Or said anything stupid
My apologies!! What’s your handle?
So to be clear in a Mike Mentzer type of training warm up sets do not "count", only the set done to failure?
Yes