8-8-8 vs. 10-8-6?

[jlells01]

Which do you feel is the best pick for someone who is trying to gain mass?

Three sets of 8

OR

One set of 10
One set of 8
One set of 6

[John Prophet]

IMO, though obviously I dont know anything, I doubt theres a ton of difference between those 2...they are pretty close with only slight differences

[Kiknskreem]

When walking should I go left-right-left......

or right-left-right?

There is no single answer.

[jlells01]

Well, to expand, the fundamental difference between the two is that with the 3 x 8 approach, your weight stays static throughout each set.

On the other hand, with the stepped/pyramid approach, you'd start with a lighter weight (10), increase a bit (8), and finally, increase a bit more for your last set (6).

Just explaining for those who may have been confused by my initial post...

[John Prophet]

yes, but you are only going 2 reps in each direction..so its not that big of a difference

personally, though it means nothing, I like the straight sets approach better for most bodyparts....the other way id feel like I was either holding back on the first sets or cheating myself by wearing myself down before the last set

[Protobuilder]

yes, but you are only going 2 reps in each direction..so its not that big of a difference

personally, though it means nothing, I like the straight sets approach better for most bodyparts....the other way id feel like I was either holding back on the first sets or cheating myself by wearing myself down before the last set

+1

If you want to know more, add up the weightxreps and divide by the number of minutes it takes to complete all reps. That's a quick way to compare work over time.

[Kane Fan]

I personally prefer pyramiding but that's preference not that I think it's necessarily 'better'

[ferbie]

I personally prefer pyramiding but that's preference not that I think it's necessarily 'better'

that's just the point, it's about personal preference, how it integrates in your progression plan etc.

anyway i guess for someone who has mental issues in a specific exercise pyramiding is better.

[Uriel_da_man]

If you're lifting 100lbs for 8 reps...

3*8*100=2400 total lbs lifted

If you can do 90lbs for 10 reps and 110 for 6...

10*90+8*100+6*110=2 360 total lbs lifted

40 total pounds of difference, which is next to nothing. Those 40lbs make the 3*8 slightly better for size because you get more total weight lifted, and the fact that you do one set with 10lbs more makes the pyramid slightly better for strength.

Eyther way it's not a huge difference, so just pick whichever you like best.

[Pooh Bear]

Here is another school of thought to consider.

My first set 8 or 10? If I go to 10 then I have to lift with more intensity my first set, as opposed to 8.

Is not intensity the key to creating an adaptive response?

Since I exhausted more ATP doing 10 reps my first set, vs. 8 then if my second set is 8, it will be more difficult than if my first set were 8, thus requiring more intesity. This translates into bring in the most intensity (10 and 8).

Finally, after doing 10, and 8 my first two sets ( 18 reps vs. 16), I may only have enought ATP to force the weight 6 reps. MY 8-8-8 protocol would call for only my last set as going all out.

Its the difference between going all out for 3 sets vs. going all out for one, or maybe two.

Which of these would force more stimulus to grow? My guess would be the sets that require the most intensity...10, 8, 6.

What do you think guys?

[Kiknskreem]

Here is another school of thought to consider.

My first set 8 or 10? If I go to 10 then I have to lift with more intensity my first set, as opposed to 8.

Is not intensity the key to creating an adaptive response?

The word "intensity" has no meaning the way you are using it. For it to have a useful meaning in a training context it should be defined as the % of a given rep max (usually 1RM). You are talking about percieved exertion.
So the way you use it, no, intensity is not the key to creating an adaptive response, force production and workload are more important Intensity as a %of 1RM is a way of controlling the amount of force your muscles produce (you can also use dynamic effort for the same effect). Workload will obviously depend on the amound of sets and reps you do, which will vary according to the intensity you lift at and other program parameters.

[ferbie]

The word "intensity" has no meaning the way you are using it. For it to have a useful meaning in a training context it should be defined as the % of a given rep max (usually 1RM). You are talking about percieved exertion.

since you DID know what he meant, why be so dogmatic? before the sport-science community settled for that 1RM definition, "intensity" was used with other meanings and people could live with it... finally, words are means of communication, and as long as communication works, i don't see no problem...

[DallasLynx]

How about you do 3 sets of 6-10 reps. Once you can do 10 reps at the weight for three sets you up the weight to where you stay in the 6-10 range for another 3 sets. Once you can do that weight for 3x10, up the weight again.

As John P was saying, I don't know that 10-8-6 and 3x8 are really all that different.

[Mikey1]

Which do you feel is the best pick for someone who is trying to gain mass?

Three sets of 8

OR

One set of 10
One set of 8
One set of 6

i normally increase weight and lower reps every set.....i start at 12 reps and end when i cant get 6

[Kiknskreem]

since you DID know what he meant, why be so dogmatic? before the sport-science community settled for that 1RM definition, "intensity" was used with other meanings and people could live with it... finally, words are means of communication, and as long as communication works, i don't see no problem...

Intensity still is used with other meanings. Unfortunately none of them have any practical application, nor connection with actual progress.

So why relieve him of his ignorance? Why give him the proper information that he can use to apply to his training in the future? That is what you are asking here.

[GeTTiN B1G]

when im benching i usually will do 4 sets, reps going from 10,10,8,6 adding weight to every set

[tsmack202]

which rep scheme adds size

[Pooh Bear]

Kiknskreen,

Why do you think my use of the word intensity would refer to 1RM?

Suppose this gentleman's question is refering to the bench press and a weight of 225 Ibs. If he can lift 225 for 10 reps with good form to positive failure, and not a rep more regardless how hard he exerts himself then he is working to 100% intensity. Question is will his body be more primed to adapt to the next workout exerting 100% intensity, or 80% intensity? One can answer this simple question as to what causes our body to be forced to adapt to the previous workout in the first place. Thus the logical course of action would be to do 10 reps.

If you want to play around with perceived exertion then the client would refer to a set as discribed above as "very hard." So?

The bottom line is the same thing has been accomplished. What difference does it mean how you display it in words? My point is that your body will be forced adapt from an intense workout. Not from a less intense set of less intense reps. If we did we might as well go to the gym, do several 'warm ups' and call it good. Unless we are speaking of a newbee, then the rules change.

[DRP7]

the "pyramid"-approach (e.g. 10-8-6) provides one substantial difference when compared to the "flat".approach (e.g. 8-8-8):

although total working load may be similar between the two approaches, pyramiding delivers higher peak intensities. if your 10rep max is 100 lbs and your 6-rep max is 115 lbs than you will have an inclining peak intensity with every further set. for me, this approach is definitely more effective because it covers a different rep-range durig one exercise and pushes me faster to gain strength.

the pyramide approach is especially useful to break a plateau, e.g. when you are stuck at a certain weight for several weeks wothout any significant improvements.

furthermore, the pyramiding is more "high-intensity" (HIT) oriented will lead to higher neuromuscular fatigue and thus to longer regeneration times. If you do it to often and without sufficient regeneration you can potentially easier run into overtraining.

[Kiknskreem]

Kiknskreen,

Why do you think my use of the word intensity would refer to 1RM?

Suppose this gentleman's question is refering to the bench press and a weight of 225 Ibs. If he can lift 225 for 10 reps with good form to positive failure, and not a rep more regardless how hard he exerts himself then he is working to 100% intensity. Question is will his body be more primed to adapt to the next workout exerting 100% intensity, or 80% intensity? One can answer this simple question as to what causes our body to be forced to adapt to the previous workout in the first place. Thus the logical course of action would be to do 10 reps.

Read my post more carefully, I clearly say your use does NOT revolve around the Rep Max definition of intensity. So even in the example of training to positive failure, you can do that at 50 pounds, 135 pounds, 225 pounds.... are all "100%" intensity?" Well, the way you use it I suppose so, but each is not equal nor opmtimal for stimulating growth. If you think the "logical course" is to train to failure, because it ensures "100%" intensity, you need a basic primer in effective training.

If you want to play around with perceived exertion then the client would refer to a set as discribed above as "very hard." So?

"very hard" is what your use of the word "intense" is tantamount to. I could curl 10 pounds til failure and it might be very hard, but it would not elicit a useful training response. By your definition however it would be "intense". If you use the Rep Max definition, you see clearly why your definition is not useful.

The bottom line is the same thing has been accomplished. My point is that your body will be forced adapt from an intense workout. Not from a less intense set of less intense reps. If we did we might as well go to the gym, do several 'warm ups' and call it good.

The bottom line is you are using common vernacular that is neither relevant nor particularly useful. Sort of like "toning". As for your comment in regards to "a less intense set of less intense reps".... seems like you have not gathered how to manipulate the relationship between things like volume, intensity (obviously), and workload.

[Pooh Bear]

I take it you are not fond of HIT?

[Kiknskreem]

HIT works for some people. That being said, based on today's knowledge, both laboratory and experience based, HIT is based on some flawed truths. Mainly his entire focus on supercompensation before training again. Dual factor has pretty much usurped that idea in almost all foreign sport and much of professional american sports. But if something is working succesfully for you, at a rate comprabale to the most efficient means, more power to ya.

[John Prophet]

basically in most every sport EXCEPT bb'ing, "intensity" means % of 1rm.

But for bodybuilding the word is often used for more like "percived exertion"....or I use it for how close to failure does the person go to. for example if a person stops approx 2 reps short of failure he is using less intensity than if someone goes to failure

---

HIT?

hit sux, lol

[XIII]

Some say it can also be judge by the different hues of blue, a person's face will turn, while training!

[TheCore]

Well, to expand, the fundamental difference between the two is that with the 3 x 8 approach, your weight stays static throughout each set.

On the other hand, with the stepped/pyramid approach, you'd start with a lighter weight (10), increase a bit (8), and finally, increase a bit more for your last set (6).

Just explaining for those who may have been confused by my initial post...

Not necerssary, you could also do something like this with the 3x8; for example squat, first set x 8 with 150kg, second set x 8 with 175kg, last set x 8 with 200kg...

Reps and sets and weights are just playthings...

[John Prophet]

yeah...while there are some logical ways to structure sets and reps...the bottom line is that the body likes variety and there is a lot of guesswork involved anyway

I can probably think of 20 different ways to structure 4 sets. even wack ideas such as wave loading. Probably ALL of those ways have some benefit

me personally, I have always sort of hated pyramiding, lol..but I also know that some people swear by it. Probably if I tried it id get a good boost, lol.

I feel that if one takes those first sets too seriously that he wastes his effort on those light sets and 'shoots his load' before he gets to the good heavy weights. So if he is going to "hold back" some on the light sets, he may as well just do easier warm up sets and then go to the heavy sets for his actual work.

to me THAT is way more logical...but like I said, pyramiding has its uses and people like Lee Haney swore by it. Pyramiding is a very safe way to workout since you are really warmed up by the time you hit the heavy stuff


probably, you could take 5 index cards and write down certain set and reps...throw them into a hat...reach down an dpull on eout, load the bar and hit it. Then reach down and pull out another one at random for the next set. THAT would probably work just fine. Then Joe Weider would hear about it and call it the "weider random effort principle"

[Stephawn52]

Go with 10-8-6, this allows you to get a good build-up set with 10 reps, then go heavy on your last 6 rep set to build strength. They say that you build strength with 4-6 reps and size with 8-12 (if i remember correctly), so with this rep scheme you incorperate both size and stregnth. But the real fact of the matter is that both work, as long as you just work out and cause good muscle fatigue then your body is going to build bigger and stronger muscles.

[TheCore]

Go with 10-8-6, this allows you to get a good build-up set with 10 reps, then go heavy on your last 6 rep set to build strength. They say that you build strength with 4-6 reps and size with 8-12 (if i remember correctly), so with this rep scheme you incorperate both size and stregnth. But the real fact of the matter is that both work, as long as you just work out and cause good muscle fatigue then your body is going to build bigger and stronger muscles.

Muscle fatique is only a small factor, it doesn't really matter what you do! As long as you aim in getting better in it, eat well and sleep enough you will progress...

The only thing that matters is results! Progression in whatever you do, add more weight or volume or both!

If you choose a certain rep range to work with, just aim in adding more weight with those reps ranges...

It isn't rocket science, if I would do 3x3, 5x5, 4x8 3x10, 10x3 whatever... My only goal would to be to add more weight! If I'm not adding weight, I'm not moving forward, I need to change things...

If I use the same weight, I need to add volume, do more work...

Sets and reps are just parameters, tools! The only thing that really matters is result!

[Kane Fan]

since you DID know what he meant, why be so dogmatic? before the sport-science community settled for that 1RM definition, "intensity" was used with other meanings and people could live with it... finally, words are means of communication, and as long as communication works, i don't see no problem...

on the other hand, it's rude to leave someone ignorant when you are capable of educating them

someone could easily turn it around on you and say "you know he knew what the guy ment and you know why he told him, so the other guy would know what the word ment in the iron world" and so why post?

[Kane Fan]

Kiknskreen,

Why do you think my use of the word intensity would refer to 1RM?

Suppose this gentleman's question is refering to the bench press and a weight of 225 Ibs. If he can lift 225 for 10 reps with good form to positive failure, and not a rep more regardless how hard he exerts himself then he is working to 100% intensity. Question is will his body be more primed to adapt to the next workout exerting 100% intensity, or 80% intensity? One can answer this simple question as to what causes our body to be forced to adapt to the previous workout in the first place. Thus the logical course of action would be to do 10 reps.

If you want to play around with perceived exertion then the client would refer to a set as discribed above as "very hard." So?

The bottom line is the same thing has been accomplished. What difference does it mean how you display it in words? My point is that your body will be forced adapt from an intense workout. Not from a less intense set of less intense reps. If we did we might as well go to the gym, do several 'warm ups' and call it good. Unless we are speaking of a newbee, then the rules change.

you are confused
he wasn't saying you ment Intensity as % of 1RM he was telling you that's what the meaning IS

and actually in your description 100% Intensity has been used
100% Intensity of 10RM
but you can't get confused by missusing terms
see if you say 100% Intensity has been used people would think he did his 1RM 10 times
and that's not the way of it
generally 1RM is the usage of Intensity but you could tweak it to any RM
tho most often it's 1

also this is not the thread to discuss HIT propaganda which is what your doing
no one is asking about HIT here so don't hijack