Hi Anthony I have a query that i hope you can help me with.

I'm coming to the end of a current workout plan based basically on bodyweight exercises. My weight has stayed the same at 10 stones 4 and I have noticed that I have lost some fat from my waist (thus ensuring me I have put some muscle on oevr the past 9 weeks)

I'm looking to start a bulking programme towards the beginning of September. I've been looking on here and other sites about the whole high volume vs high intensity thing.

Basically with each exercise i plan to do I want to do 3 sets maximum. 1st set @ 8 reps. 2nd set @ 6 reps, then 3rd set @ 4 reps.

On each set i will be pushing to total failure. None of this "finally hitting failure on the last set" thing. It will be so that the last rep on each set is a real effort to finish.

But, in your opinion, would I still get the same rewards and stimulate the muscle enough if i only do one set to total failure, rather than 3? I've heard people say this, but i kind of think you would stimulate the muscle and tear it more by pushing another two sets out to total failure.

Would like to know your opinion on it please.

Rob.

    ^top

Hi Mate

If you're going to failure, the penultimate 2-3 reps will be a real effort to finish, and the last rep you wont finish at all despite your best efforts.

Remember that, because there's quite a big difference between the last rep being a real struggle, and pushing a set all the way to failure. In fact for most people, there's a good couple of reps difference!

So far it's been studied up to 4 sets, and there's no significant diference in gains between doing 1 set of an exercise and doing up to 4. So the number of sets you do per exercise is largely irreleavant since the results are basically the same, so it's really down to personal preference. What's important is the overall volume and intensity.

You have to be pushing yourself past your curent limits on a regular basis, and you need to keep the volume low enough to allow you to do that.

If you're doing 3 exercises, I'd stick to no more than 5 exercises. 3 Compound moves, and a couple of isolatio moves will work well in this scenario.

If you're doing 1 set, I'd do no more than 12 exercises. In this case, you can choose a selection of compound and isolation exercises, and go about half and half in your routine.

Good Luck!

Anthony

    ^top

So, as long as you go to failure then that's all that matters? Does it really matter then, what cadence you use? As long as it's slow enough for you to control and not use any momentum or cheating, does it really matter?

    ^top

You won't able to achieve 100% effort training on your own. Very few people, if any, can.

I know I can't. However if I had Anthony pushing me through every workout then I know that 7 or 8 exercises, 1 set each, would be all I could stand.

But I don't have Anthony there to push me, so I cut back on the number of exercises and do one or two more sets per exercise. Not on every exercise, but certainly on squats, deadlifts, dips and pulldowns.

There are 2 reasons that people stop short of failure. Fear or pain.

Fear = fear of hurting themselves. This is the reason I will never be able to do one all out set of squats or deadlifts straight off the bat.I know that my form won't be as tight as it could be and I'll get hurt.

However stick me on a decent leg press machine and fear goes out of the window. I know I'm not going to be crushed by the bar or screw my back up with a crappy pull. Instead, what does become the issue is the massively increased localised burning and muscular discomfort in my thighs. It will reach a point when this "pain" becomes so intense that's it's unbearable, and I will stop the set. The fact is, when I do that, I probably have 1 or 2 reps left in the tank. Those are the reps where the positive would take at least 10 seconds if not twice that. Those are the reps where having someone next to you barking instructions on breathing, effort and form really helps, because at that point I'm barely aware of anything that's going on, other than the burning in my thighs, how much it hurts, and how much I want it to stop. Now, if i was training on my own, I'd stop, rest a bit then do another set. If you or Anthony, or whoever were there egging me on, then I may only need the one set.

I'll say this. Regardless of what rep speed you use for the first few reps of any given set, if your positive on the final rep is about the same speed, then that ain't failure. Sorry. You're wrong.

Also, if you're breathing is anything but panting (like a freight train) then it's not failure. Trust me, even on small movements like leg extensions or pec deck, if the muscular exertion is hard enough, you'll be breathing and then some. This is why anybody who holds their breath and then braces for that final push is kidding themselves. They'll run out of air long before they spent long enough pushing to know whether or not it's going to be the final rep.

How can I say this with such certainty?

When training alone, the longest a "final" positive has ever taken is about 10 seconds. Inch by inch.

When being trained by Anthony, on a few exercises, that 10 second positive was on the penultimate or third from last rep. The REAL final rep, that positive took well over 20 seconds to ease out.

I couldn't actually believe that I had the rep in me, and I know that training alone I would never have taken a set that far.

I believe that it's only possible to train this hard, when training alone on isolation exercises. With compound exercises, the added hell of greater systematic and cardiovascular demand make it impossible.

Rather than get upset about not being able to use one set to failure alone, I have accepted it, and have adjusted accordingly and do more sets.

One set definitely does work, and work as well as people say it does, but only when you're training in a totally distraction free environment and you're in the hands of someone who understands what this type of training involves, and is going to make sure that you get those fcking reps!

I'm always wary of people talking about what number of sets is best. The automatically seem to assume that a set is a set, and it's all about how many you do. Wrong. A set can be performed in a multitude of different ways. It's not really about numbers because half the time people are comparing chalk and cheese.

Many people who go for the one set thing and report that it didn't work probably executed their single all out set to failure in the same manner that they would any of their multiple sets i.e. fast reps, loose form, stopping well short of what they're capable of.

Training all out is not something that you can just start doing. It takes a long time to learn. I'm definitely still learning.

    ^top

Hmm, that's interesting. I always enjoy reading your posts Gary and get a lot of stuff that I can apply in my training. I take it you've trained with Anthony then? Have you used any other personal trainers? Would just anybody be able to spur you on or does it have to be someone with an explicit knowledge of HIT?

    ^top

Yep. He trained me 2 or 3 times making EMB and then there have been a bunch of other random times.

Nope. Wouldn't trust them as far as I can shit unless they were HIT.

Not saying I'm die hard HIT, but I am definitely more in line with that way of thinking, i.e. work hard, not much, not too often.

I could never do the reverse.

If I do 3 sets, it's because I feel I need to, because I've been skimping on the effort in the first 2 sets.

So many folk do 3 sets, because they do 3 sets. FFS.

I've done multiple sets and violated other so called HIT principles from time to time. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There's theory and there's practice. The two are never exactly the same. I have found that in the environments in which I have trained, free weights at home alone or gyms alone - "perfect HIT" isn't impossible, but it's incredibly hard to execute. That's why Matt Bentley in his videos is trained one-on-one by an HIT trainer in the best equipped gym in the country. Stick me in that gym with a trainer and I'd love it. Hell even without the trainer I'd love it. Will that ever happen? Probably not.

Me, I'm in a crowded commercial chain gym, with mediocre equipment surrounded by sweaty fuckwits, trying to do the best I can.

I've had to adapt the idealistic theory to suit my circumstances. I don't look upon it as having abandoned my favoured training methodology, merely altered as necessary. Purists would have a fit and call me a heathen etc, but I know what works for me.

If I did work with another personal trainer and they glossed over the issue of repetition performance as if it was nothing, did something on a swiss ball, or advocated cardio just because they wouldn't see me for dust.

The explicit knowledge would help as I wouldn't have to explain failure/forced reps and how I want their help. I'd just get on with it and they'd do their thing.

I have used my mates in the past, and after a bit of pre - set instrcution they'ev been a massive help.

A couple of years back, I was training in a mates back garden. He had a a 300 pound olympic barbell set and some dumbbells. All on his patio. Nice set up.

So on the bench press, I reach "failure". He leaves me to push for a few seconds and then steps in. He places an index finger lightly under the bar, just inside where my hands are. He then helps me to lift the bar. I got 3 more reps. The last one was painfully slow.

Afterward, he told me that he was doing nothing to help me. In fairness, it was obvious because he was just using 2 fingers. There was no way that he could have supported the weight I was benching on 2 fingers, not even for a second. If he really had needed to help me out and take a good portion of the weight, he would have been using 2 whole hands and would have shifted his stance accordingly.

So, if he, physically was doing fck all to help me lift those final 3 reps, it shows that failure, or what you think is failure is purely mental, not physical.

Seeing his fingers under the bar was a massive relief to me, and his "vocal support" was all I really needed.

These days I can train a lot harder than I could back then, because I've been doing it for longer, but a training partner would still make a hell of a difference. if they know about what I'm going through and have been there themselves then that helps that little bit more.

    ^top

Hi Mate

I wont add to what Mr I has already said, I'll just address these points for you.

Not quite. Progression is all that matters. Failure on a set, when appropriately balanced with volume and frequency, is just the quickest way to get from A to B in terms of results. You'll get out results wise almost in direct proportion to what you put in, again provided the volume and frequency are appropriate too.

In terms of simply a case of how many sets to do, I don't believe that in all the studies comparing single sets and multiple sets to date the trainees trained to failure on each exercise. There's been far too many really to say with any certainty that they did. Given in the studies the subjects ranged from untrained to 6 years + training experience, it's fair to say that it's unlikely alot of the untrained subjects trained to failure.

So the key point here is progression. Failure on a work set is more a desirable goal for quickest results rather than a necessity.

Needless to say, if you look around your gym next time you’re there, failure or not, most people would benefit greatly from working harder!

Provided it's slow enough to take out the injury potential as best we can, what really matters is effort and consistency. We've covered effort, but in terms of consistency what I mean is using the same speed when comparing.

For example, you might start at a 5/5 and for arguments sake do 6 reps. Then you might do 7 reps, but sped up, say the last 3 when they were getting hard so you could push through. In the first set you had a time under tension of 60 seconds. In the second set, you did more reps but had a time under tension of 48 seconds. So you haven't actually progressed, you've regressed.

Obviously with the last reps taking far longer than the first ones it's not an exact example, but you see the basic point.

Under the right circumstances (weight used and time under tension) standard reps as slow as 10 seconds on the positive have shown to be more effective than faster reps, so are worth experimenting with. But provided the reps are slow enough to provide the muscle with adequate loading, and not provide the joints and tendons with too much force, then being consistent in your speed is more important than the specifics.

Anthony

    ^top

Thanks for the posts chaps. They have given me some very useful information.

I guess in laymans terms, it doesn't matter how many sets you do, just as long as you give each set your fucking all and no less, and also do the reps slowly.

    ^top

In what time frame does time under tension have an effect? Say you do 3 sets to perceived failure and another person does 1 set to actual failure, both at the same cadence, how would the effects differ? The first would have had a greater time under tension, but wouldn't have reached failure. Say they both did this and both progressed, how would their results differ (presuming their genetics etc were the same)? I'm wondering because, as Gary said, it's not really possible to train to actual failure on your own, so would more sets benefit a person training on their own?

    ^top

Depends on what degree of failure you class percieved failure as. You need to be thinking more in line of how hard you work a set rather than there being a specific point known as failure. The harder you work a set (provided all other things to facilitate musdcle growth are in place relative to that set) the more you'll get out of it.

In your actual example, assuming you're saying you work the single set to failure harder than you work the 3 sets, then the single set will create a bigger need for muscle growth.

Turn it on its head, and the 3 sets will create the bigger need because you worked them harder.

Work them both the same, and both will produce basicaly the same results.

Incidently, the TUT isn't greater in the 3 set example than it is in the 1 set example. In the 3 set example, you have the same TUT repeated 3 times.

That depends on what you class as failure. There's nothing stopping you working to failure on your own. It might not be the same degree of failure, but you can still work to failure.

For example, if I'm pushing into a weight on my last set, and it's stopped moving, but to make sure, I've been effectively holding that weight isometrically for (let's say) 15 odd seconds. If I didn't push into that weight for a further 15 seconds, I'll have still reached failure. I'll have still worked harder in the second example though despite working to failure in both.

Anthony

    ^top