A study I saw recently gave me an idea...

A study I saw recently gave me an idea. It said that doing multiple sets doesn't seem to increase strength as long as you take the last set to failure in both cases, but doing more sets does increase hypertrophy. Combine that with the common knowledge that your total volume lifted has the biggest influence on hypertrophy, and doesn't that mean you could get the maximum benefit in a given day by doing some higher rep hypertrophy sets and ending with a lower rep strength set? Instead of having hyper and strength be separate days or training phases or what have you.

Attached: 1532382250509.png (320x240, 7K)

Just do your sets normally with 3 sets where you push 8-12 without reaching failure and end with one set to failure. Rinse and repeat

That's what I was thinking but also increasing the weight on the last set and only aiming for 4-6 reps.

>A study I saw recently gave me an idea. It said that doing multiple sets doesn't seem to increase strength as long as you take the last set to failure in both cases, but doing more sets does increase hypertrophy.

yeah, and that study (if it's the one i'm thinking about) was methodologically totally fucking retarded and contradicts the other 20+ studies that show otherwise

you need to be very careful with exercise science studies, because most of them are run by total brainlets (who else would go into exercise science?) and are either totally fucked up to begin with, have too few participants to draw any real conclusions, or are done on untrained undergrads and end up having zero external validity (as in, you can't apply their results to a trained population)

Good luck doing that strength set, don't let the barbell crush your chest all at once.

Well separate from that study I read about the theory of strength building (not muscle building) and it also said the last rep is what matters most because it's when your body finds out for certain it needs to be stronger and some neural process is activated.

I don't think it'd be harder than doing a last set when the others were strength. In fact I usually have to rest longer after strength sets than hyper ones.

are you trying to meme Fresco on Jow Forums now?
if so, you've got my support 100%

dude if you want to get stronger just look at what top level powerlifters are doing programming wise, don't rely on some meme book written by some nobody or some garbage study

getting stronger is all about handling a lot of volume in the 70-85% intensity range, building a lot of muscle, and developing technical proficiency, every successful powerlifting program has these features, don't look for magic set x rep schemes or pyramids or reverse pyramids, just look at the general foundations of all of these programs

I don't know I just thought the frog was appropriate

Well I'm not trying to get as strong as a powerlifter, and the fact that the high intensity and volume matters is actually what I'm trying to take advantage of with this. I don't consider it magic it just sounds like it'd be efficient

Yeah but what rep range is the best?

I do six sets with a reverse pyramid
2 warm up sets
4 sets of 3-5
1 set of 6-8
1 set of 10-15

The conventional wisdom is 8-12 for hypertrophy, 4-6 for neural recruitment strength

You're basically describing a pyramid set without gradual ramp up.

>doing some higher rep hypertrophy sets and ending with a lower rep strength set
For the sake of argument, let's assume your hypothesis isn't completely retarded. If you put this in practice, the "hypertrophy sets" will most likely fatigue you enough to negatively affect your performance on your "strength set".

Are you trying to concurrently train strength and hypertrophy? Because it's possible, and believe it or not, people have been doing this for quite some time now.

Yeah that's my goal. Just trying to do both at the same time.

Triangle sets are the best for this.

Have you run or are currently running SS/SL/GSLP/any program?

Nope. Part of my goal here is simplification.

>Nope
Please tell me you've actually gone to the gym at least once...

Yeah I've just been playing it by ear though. What do SS, SL, and GSLP stand for?

Oh boy

Most "studies" in exercise "science" are garbage. Untrained people get bigger and stronger from just about any exercise.

Thank you. OP, stop reaching for what you want to hear and just fucking listen to the people who know better. 'but' nothing.

I work Up to my 3 rep max, do my 1x3 and then either reload or 5x5 or 3x8 depending on the lift

Or you can just do your heavy set in the beginning, and then the volume work at the end, since it's best to lift heavy weights when you're fresh

this is standard practise in bodybuilding/powerlifting circles since the 1970's.

That's why we have studies done on trained male subjects now to draw conclusions from.
Training volume(ammount of sets done with enough effort) is what matters for muscle, weight is literally irrelevant, as such if you want to train for muscle size you need to do a lot of work, which is hard to do when you're trying to train with really heavy weights, as such there is a specific way to train for both strength and size but it isn't like what OP describes, literally everyh fucking powerlifter since the 1970s has warmed up to a heavy set(single, double, triple or set of 5 doesn't really matter), then some volume afterwards with lighter weights and then some variation of the lift in question.

No, and your question highlights why this "research" is so idiotic.

These studies comparing sets control for intensity, which isn't realistic. People training one set like HIT train totally different to people doing 5 sets per exercise.

If you want to get the best of both worlds try doing a single drop set lasting 60-90 seconds. Each rep will feel like a strength set but the set duration will be as long as multiple normal sets.

there's more than one study showing that massive strength gains can be achieved(sometimes even more strength gains) with a single set of a given exercise even in trained subjects, the problem is that these studies are all short term, and just putting weight on a barbell doesn't mean you are actually making progress, it just means you are causing so little damage and trauma and stress in your body that of course you are able to get better at an exercise with barely training it in the short term, but then it's gonna stall because you are not actually getting bigger objectively stronger muscles.

>massive strength gains can be achieved(sometimes even more strength gains) with a single set of a given exercise even in trained subjects

Never read this study, but I wouldn't be surprised if the subjects just peaked, considering they're "trained" in the first place.

On the flip side, if you put untrained subjects in a single set exercise, they'd still have some nonzero improvement since the single set would still constitute as stimulus, albeit a very small one.

That study sounds like a huge waste of time now that I think of it.

>doing some higher rep hypertrophy sets and ending with a lower rep strength set
you just described reverse pyramid

someone tell op that they figured this out 100 fucking years ago

What are SS/SL/GSLP?

Starting Strength/Stronglifts/Grekyskull's Lifting Program

My favorite is a small triangle where I do my longest set, then my shortest set, then increase in length on the next to. It keeps you from being too fatigued for the short strength set (which is the most important) but still gives you a warmup. A bigger triangle would probably be the absolute best but if you're trying to maximize gains-per-minute and spend less time I think it's the most efficient.

*two

Also, for example

Set 1: 15 reps not to failure but reasonably close
Set 2: 4-6 reps to failure
Set 3: 8-12 reps to failure
Set 4: 8-12 reps to failure