Hard sets done w/ declining weights due to fatigue viable for hypertrophy?

[Animal2692]

I don't see much in the literature on this but I find the community to be divided on this just like it was divided on the low reps vs. high reps for size. When I'm focusing on knocking out the sets for an exercise (in fact all exercises), I find that I'm getting weaker on every set even when I stop short of failure (as some of you know my history regarding failure). Either I maintain the weight and fall to the low end of the rep range or have to take the weight down by a little bit to dwell within my rep range of choice. Sounds a lot like drop sets I know, but it's not 100% drop sets as I'm taking full rests between each set. I know drop sets and myo reps are done on isolations to save time and to get enough "effective volume" in. Obviously it's not as feasible doing this on compounds but getting close to failure still generates enough fatigue to have to make load drops. For hypertrophy purposes, how bad is it to say, take 10lbs off each set when squatting? I have completely disregarded the weight in favor of relative intensity+form but that doesn't mean I'm removing a **** load of weight with each set as I take full rests between each set. I know some people here like doing the rep goal method but I like having a static amount of sets and a fixed rep range so it becomes inevitable reducing the load as a result. Brian Minor advocates this method and I've instinctively always done it this way myself.

[MyEgoProblem]

It works.
I program my Mrs 8@8 repeats
Work up to top set of 8@8 and repeat it x number of times. Pull 3-5% off if rpe rises.

Just apply the principles of hard sets in their most basic form.. If its all still in the 3-30@6-10 "most efficient" range (i prefer 6-15@8 but I digress)

For me I'd rather drop reps than weight for hyp crap. Who can be arsed to pull wheels or write more in a log if you dont have to.

https://ibb.co/vwrRC4G

[Heisman2]

I don't see much in the literature on this but I find the community to be divided on this just like it was divided on the low reps vs. high reps for size.

The research community is not currently divided on low vs high reps for size. Current approach is anywhere from 30-90% of 1RM can be effective for sets (providing going close enough to failure), though when going heavy you will be using fewer reps and thus requiring more sets which can beat up the joints. What constitutes "close enough to failure" is not completely clear; it's generally thought the lighter the load the closer to failure one needs to go (ie, 1-2 RIR for closer to 30%, perhaps 3-4 RIR is ok closer to 80% or so)

When I'm focusing on knocking out the sets for an exercise (in fact all exercises), I find that I'm getting weaker on every set even when I stop short of failure (as some of you know my history regarding failure). Either I maintain the weight and fall to the low end of the rep range or have to take the weight down by a little bit to dwell within my rep range of choice.

This is very normal unless your sets are far from failure. It can take 5-7 minutes to fully restore phosphocreatine so if you're resting less than this some drop off in performance is not unexpected. Resting 5-7 minutes won't necessarily be long enough to fully restore the other factors at play for strength production.

Sounds a lot like drop sets I know, but it's not 100% drop sets as I'm taking full rests between each set. I know drop sets and myo reps are done on isolations to save time and to get enough "effective volume" in.

Actually as you are resting fully what you are doing are separate sets. Drop sets and myo reps are not going to be considered separate sets. So what you are describing is completely different.

Obviously it's not as feasible doing this on compounds but getting close to failure still generates enough fatigue to have to make load drops. For hypertrophy purposes, how bad is it to say, take 10lbs off each set when squatting? I have completely disregarded the weight in favor of relative intensity+form but that doesn't mean I'm removing a **** load of weight with each set as I take full rests between each set.

This is completely 100% fine. In fact almost all of the studies that use autoregulation do this in some capacity (ie, adjust the weight to maintain in a desired RPE range).

I know some people here like doing the rep goal method but I like having a static amount of sets and a fixed rep range so it becomes inevitable reducing the load as a result. Brian Minor advocates this method and I've instinctively always done it this way myself.

Then you have nothing to worry about assuming you can stick with this long enough to give yourself a chance to see progress. This is definitely viable for hypertrophy.

[air2fakie]

Read a post on here a few weeks ago that was a tutorial on something like this, called dynamic bubble progression maybe. You should look it up.

[daghetto]

Read a post on here a few weeks ago that was a tutorial on something like this, called dynamic bubble progression maybe. You should look it up.

https://www.jpshealthandfitness.com....e-progression/

Problem solved for op. Brian minor is my coach too, and that’s how he makes me do it.

[Animal2692]

Read a post on here a few weeks ago that was a tutorial on something like this, called dynamic bubble progression maybe. You should look it up.

This isn't about DDP. It's about the fact that anyone doing hard sets eventually leads to bringing the weight down and I was wondering if it still counts as a hard set going near failure by leaving that absolute intensity window.

[Animal2692]

The research community is not currently divided on low vs high reps for size. Current approach is anywhere from 30-90% of 1RM can be effective for sets (providing going close enough to failure), though when going heavy you will be using fewer reps and thus requiring more sets which can beat up the joints. What constitutes "close enough to failure" is not completely clear; it's generally thought the lighter the load the closer to failure one needs to go (ie, 1-2 RIR for closer to 30%, perhaps 3-4 RIR is ok closer to 80% or so)



This is very normal unless your sets are far from failure. It can take 5-7 minutes to fully restore phosphocreatine so if you're resting less than this some drop off in performance is not unexpected. Resting 5-7 minutes won't necessarily be long enough to fully restore the other factors at play for strength production.



Actually as you are resting fully what you are doing are separate sets. Drop sets and myo reps are not going to be considered separate sets. So what you are describing is completely different.



This is completely 100% fine. In fact almost all of the studies that use autoregulation do this in some capacity (ie, adjust the weight to maintain in a desired RPE range).



Then you have nothing to worry about assuming you can stick with this long enough to give yourself a chance to see progress. This is definitely viable for hypertrophy.

Sweet, that's a relief to hear then. Maybe resting between sets has more of a practical value just like doing lower reps on compounds so stamina doesn't become a limiting factor.

Would a rep goal across x sets be more effective for hypertrophy compared to letting the weight drop since having a rep goal uses the same weight so you remain within that absolute intensity window?

[Animal2692]

It works.
I program my Mrs 8@8 repeats
Work up to top set of 8@8 and repeat it x number of times. Pull 3-5% off if rpe rises.

Just apply the principles of hard sets in their most basic form.. If its all still in the 3-30@6-10 "most efficient" range (i prefer 6-15@8 but I digress)

For me I'd rather drop reps than weight for hyp crap. Who can be arsed to pull wheels or write more in a log if you dont have to.

https://ibb.co/vwrRC4G

I see. My workout weights and reps were all over the map yesterday for the sake of rpe and form. One other pitfall I've had in the past with hypertrophy other than trying to slap on weight for progressive overload, was trying to maintain working weights set to set based on the absolute intensity so that would inevitably lead to taking all subsequent sets to failure and form breakdown because I wouldn't have anymore reps to drop within the rep range I was in.

[air2fakie]

This isn't about DDP.

I didn't say your Q was specifically about DDP, I suggested you literally read your own "tutorial" post from a few weeks ago that I just referenced. Or whatever you got the info from.

It's about the fact that anyone doing hard sets eventually leads to bringing the weight down and I was wondering if it still counts as a hard set using less weight and going near failure.

Your own Q also answers itself, which you know already anyway because people have said this to you before.

[Animal2692]

I didn't say your Q was specifically about DDP, I suggested you literally read your own "tutorial" post from a few weeks ago that I just referenced. Or whatever you got the info from.



Your own Q also answers itself, which you know already anyway because people have said this to you before.

Damn, so hypertrophy training really all just comes down to relative intensity then. I was just skeptical about it because some make it out to be that using weights based off absolute intensity is more important but that again ends up being a trap.

[air2fakie]

Damn, so hypertrophy training really all just comes down to relative intensity then. I was just skeptical about it because some make it out to be that using weights based off absolute intensity is more important but that again ends up being a trap.

Nothing is a trap or "all just comes down to" anything... you gotta stop thinking in terms of black and white extremes all the time. All these concepts are related.

Just lift and stop trying to improve your workout 50 times between each session. If you're not confident in your program or knowledge, do proper programs until you have enough practical experience to apply what you know works for you personally, rather than basing everything on what you read online.

[Animal2692]

Nothing is a trap or "all just comes down to" anything... you gotta stop thinking in terms of black and white extremes all the time. All these concepts are related.

Just lift and stop trying to improve your workout 50 times between each session. If you're not confident in your program or knowledge, do proper programs until you have enough practical experience to apply what you know works for you personally, rather than basing everything on what you read online.

Yeah they're all related but based on your training goal, you still have to prioritize one over the other and that's what I'm trying to do-prioritize the right one for my goal.

About the proper program thing I get what you're saying. It probably would of saved me a ton of trial & error if I did that from the getgo but instead I ended up taking a different approach and trying to learn about programming to make my own. Only program I really did was stronglifts. I'm still playing around with exercise variations to see what I like more but that's not a big deal. If I do a different type of row to try it out next workout, it still counts towards weekly pulling volume, it doesn't change the way I do my sets or anything.

At least instead of having the bad habit of program hopping, I've been changing variables around to make it work. I don't believe in program hopping, only getting the variables dialed in.

[MyEgoProblem]

Damn, so hypertrophy training really all just comes down to relative intensity then. I was just skeptical about it because some make it out to be that using weights based off absolute intensity is more important but that again ends up being a trap.

Its grey...
But basically...

Anything in the 3_30@6-10 is classed as a "hard set" and will pretty efficiently build muscle given enough stimulus/sets done
*see heismans post above for nuance*

The only time absolute intensity matters for hyp is if you want to do low intra set fatigue work.. Then you want to be over 75% 1rm .... That way any set is full going to recruit all muscle fibres and motor units basically from the start so you can go sets well below @6 and still grow pretty damn well provided you do more sets.

This doesnt mean you cant grow with super high vol , ultra low rpe.. It's just not efficient. Think jumping rope or cycling for calfs.

Note to self *stop opening cans of worms*

[PTzFree]

I would propose another solution. Rather than adapting your muscles to decreasing sets, take more of a crossfit-style approach.
When you approach hypertrophy, keep the set/reps and weight goal the same, but put the weight down mid set if you have to, rest a few seconds and continue until you finish the set. Then take a full rest before the next set.

I don't have any research on this, but logic would serve to reason that telling the muscle it is required to lift this weight and forcing it to finish the set one way or another is a better road to progressive overload than deloading. I just feel like the muscle would adapt and almost expect a deload when it got too hard.

[Animal2692]

Its grey...
But basically...

Anything in the 3_30@6-10 is classed as a "hard set" and will pretty efficiently build muscle given enough stimulus/sets done
*see heismans post above for nuance*

The only time absolute intensity matters for hyp is if you want to do low intra set fatigue work.. Then you want to be over 75% 1rm .... That way any set is full going to recruit all muscle fibres and motor units basically from the start so you can go sets well below @6 and still grow pretty damn well provided you do more sets.

This doesnt mean you cant grow with super high vol , ultra low rpe.. It's just not efficient. Think jumping rope or cycling for calfs.

Note to self *stop opening cans of worms*

No, I get that where a high enough intensity will recruit all fibers right out of the gate. The skepticism was more about the absolute intensity itself changing from set to set as you get weaker. If you do sets with 70%, eventually the later sets at 70% will be based off a much lower 1RM so that 70% is technically calling for a lower weight than the original. With the rep goal method, you would do more volume with that initial 70% because you're not tied to a rep range and amount of sets anymore. You could be doing doubles on later sets, without any load drops. So does that make any difference for size? Better for strength gains?

[air2fakie]

This may not be obvious from your perspective, but it often seems like you use more info and knowledge to your disadvantage. And why when you say "I used to do..." you're literally talking about last week, and "I'm now doing..." you're literally referring to this week. And it's a repeating pattern.

You do seem like you're going in the right direction finally, but at some point the changes in your program and philosophy have to stop for at least a cycle. Just food for thought.

[Animal2692]

This may not be obvious from your perspective, but it often seems like you use more info and knowledge to your disadvantage. And why when you say "I used to do..." you're literally talking about last week, and "I'm now doing..." you're literally referring to this week. And it's a repeating pattern.

You do seem like you're going in the right direction finally, but at some point the changes in your program and philosophy have to stop for at least a cycle. Just food for thought.

I appreciate the feedback. I'm not looking forward to making anymore changes, I just have questions at this point. Lifting has become enjoyable again, it's gotten to a point where it's just a matter of punching the clock and letting it all run its course with time. I've been able to really dial in my form and mmc. Just yesterday I got compliments on my squatting because I like going down all the way and pausing on my calves for a bit before coming back out of the hole. People see that in the gym out of all the squatting and it's like that's what really matters, not how much weight you can throw around even though some simply don't have the biomechanics to go that low. I'd say most guys' goal in the gym is hypertrophy over strength and it's really made a difference in the way I go about things having aligned the right priorities with my goal for the first time.

[Animal2692]

I would propose another solution. Rather than adapting your muscles to decreasing sets, take more of a crossfit-style approach.
When you approach hypertrophy, keep the set/reps and weight goal the same, but put the weight down mid set if you have to, rest a few seconds and continue until you finish the set. Then take a full rest before the next set.

I don't have any research on this, but logic would serve to reason that telling the muscle it is required to lift this weight and forcing it to finish the set one way or another is a better road to progressive overload than deloading. I just feel like the muscle would adapt and almost expect a deload when it got too hard.

A deload is more of a proactive approach to when you've put yourself in enough recovery debt that you need a lower stress week. What you mean is probably dropping the load instead?

The way you describe resting for a few seconds to "force yourself to finish the set" sounds like you're putting a lot of emphasis on the numbers. Progression will go at its own pace from sufficient work. What you're describing is cluster sets which is a form of compensation for the weight being too heavy to complete a traditional set within a rep range. I'm sure they have their use but aren't necessary.

Progressive overload has been pushed so much these days that it's caused many including myself to go off the deep end with it. Progressive overload is both an effect and a cause. You have to overload to provide sufficient stimulus to progress but the amount of overload required is a result of the previous stimulus provided. Muscles don't know numbers, they only know overload since numbers only really serve as proxies.

[MyEgoProblem]

Progressive overload isnt pushed too hard. It's just not explained properly with how it actually works.. It occurs regardless if you are doing appropriate work.

If you dont get it you need to increase your volume or change a parameter ect.

What people THINK progressive overload is..is pushed too hard and its wrong
Thinking that you must "do more than last time" Adding reps/load to force adaptations is the issue, they have it backwards.

It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum, except we know that actually it's using the appropriate (load x vol) that causes the overload and thus the growth/adaptations, which let's you use more (load & volume) so you can keep pace with your gains in your desired arbitrary loading parameters (set/rep/load/int)

[Animal2692]

Progressive overload isnt pushed too hard. It's just not explained properly with how it actually works.. It occurs regardless if you are doing appropriate work.

If you dont get it you need to increase your volume or change a parameter ect.

What people THINK progressive overload is..is pushed too hard and its wrong
Thinking that you must "do more than last time" Adding reps/load to force adaptations is the issue, they have it backwards.

It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum, except we know that actually it's using the appropriate (load x vol) that causes the overload and thus the growth/adaptations, which let's you use more (load & volume) so you can keep pace with your gains in your desired arbitrary loading parameters (set/rep/load/int)

Yes, it's definitely not explained properly.

My main question here that I can use a clear example for to get what I'm asking is, is there any benefit to doing the rep goal method over DDP? With the rep goal method, you're using the same weight going off the initial absolute intensity to the point that you can be doing 6 sets with doubles at the very end aiming for a total of say 30 reps across all sets. In DDP, the absolute intensity drops with each set so 70% doesn't remain the same 70% later on since the 1RM drops and therefore all other percentages that scale off of it drop too. I know you and others mentioned it's fine if the weight drops for hypertrophy, but how does it compare to using a rep goal without any load drops? Does it offer any benefits or is it strictly preferential?

[WolfRose7]

Yes, it's definitely not explained properly.

My main question here that I can use a clear example for to get what I'm asking is, is there any benefit to doing the rep goal method over DDP? With the rep goal method, you're using the same weight going off the initial absolute intensity to the point that you can be doing 6 sets with doubles at the very end aiming for a total of say 30 reps across all sets. In DDP, the absolute intensity drops with each set so 70% doesn't remain the same 70% later on since the 1RM drops and therefore all other percentages that scale off of it drop too. I know you and others mentioned it's fine if the weight drops for hypertrophy, but how does it compare to using a rep goal without any load drops? Does it offer any benefits or is it strictly preferential?

For strength I'd do with the rep drop with the same %.

For hypertrophy I doubt it matters either way, hypertrophy is easy.

[MyEgoProblem]

Yes, it's definitely not explained properly.

My main question here that I can use a clear example for to get what I'm asking is, is there any benefit to doing the rep goal method over DDP?

not really

With the rep goal method, you're using the same weight going off the initial absolute intensity to the point that you can be doing 6 sets with doubles at the very end aiming for a total of say 30 reps across all sets.

back to chasing numbers again

In DDP, the absolute intensity drops with each set so 70% doesn't remain the same 70% later on since the 1RM drops and therefore all other percentages that scale off of it drop too.

not a universal truth. Many people can repeat sets @8 2, 3 or 4 times. And most can probably crank out half a dozen sets @7 with no to minimal raise in rep so no load drop

I know you and others mentioned it's fine if the weight drops for hypertrophy, but how does it compare to using a rep goal without any load drops? Does it offer any benefits or is it strictly preferential?

doesn't matter so long as you are within the guidelines. given grindy sets of 2 in the example earlier. I'll wager just inferior

Just apply the principles that you know.
3-30@6-10 (or 6-15@8~ average ish)
As low as 30% 1rm
And you ler your adaptations show over time somehow to show you are getting them.

and the answer is obvious.. No benefits.

Get your head down and give something 6-12 weeks. No changes

[Animal2692]

For strength I'd do with the rep drop with the same %.

For hypertrophy I doubt it matters either way, hypertrophy is easy.

I see, my gut was telling me the same. That's what I was really trying to get at. If hypertrophy is so easy, then more things can go whereas there's got to be some merit to using the same % for strength at the very least. It's a relief more and more everyday seeing how many things don't really matter that much for hypertrophy. I can just go in and punch that clock with zero thought other than thinking about the muscles working.

[blue9steel]

Damn, so hypertrophy training really all just comes down to relative intensity then. I was just skeptical about it because some make it out to be that using weights based off absolute intensity is more important but that again ends up being a trap.

Not quite that simple, but it's not too much more complicated. Your intensity needs to be between 30%-90% of 1RM, reps in the 5-30 range, RIR 3-0. Pretty much anything that matches those ranges will generate decent hypertrophy if you get sufficient volume. As you get tired you can drop reps (staying at or over 5) or weight (staying at or over 30%) to keep your RIR in the right range.

[air2fakie]

Must not... think about muscles.

Must not... listen to gut talking to me about muscles.

Must not... read online about muscles.

Must train... for more than one day without thinking, listening or reading.

[Animal2692]

Must not... think about muscles.

Must not... listen to gut talking to me about muscles.

Must not... read online about muscles.

Must train... for more than one day without thinking, listening or reading.

I finally put 2 and 2 together. I think deep down you just wanna see some serious shirtless gains of me by the end of the year already. You're tired of hearing anything, you just want to see. I get it now.

[air2fakie]

I finally put 2 and 2 together. I think deep down you just wanna see some serious shirtless gains of me by the end of the year already. You're tired of hearing anything, you just want to see. I get it now.

Must rip... eyes from sockets.

[MyEgoProblem]

I finally put 2 and 2 together. I think deep down you just wanna see some serious shirtless gains of me by the end of the year already. You're tired of hearing anything, you just want to see. I get it now.

Sounds like a no-homo challenge...

Time served consistently with no ****arounditis, that will be the outcome!!

[paulinkansas]

Must change avatar....every two weeks.

[Animal2692]

I think you're trying to see if there's any knowledge out there that will substitute for the pain and hard work.

The fact is, heavy weight is always going to feel heavy. Getting really strong or jacked is a s.o.b. You are looking at a very difficult road ahead if you want to be elite in PL or BB. You're going to walk through relative hell many times in the process. The question isn't whether sets of 2 or sets of 6 is better. The question is whether you have the intestinal fortitude to put yourself into a temporary state of exhaustion, and then push forward as your body adapts and climbs out of the mess you self-inflicted. It requires incredible mental toughness to carry on with daily stressors and activities while your body is down-regulating it's adrenal system and catecholamines because you ramped them up to extreme levels in your training. You will feel fatigued, cranky, irrational, and mentally foggy. The question is, can you take the pain?

Someone made a good quote about boxing, but it has a lot of carryover to lifting. It read, "Everyone hears that boxing is 90% mental and 10% physical. What many people don't realize is that that 10% is going to require every bit of effort you've got."

I never thought there would be a post I'd want to read everytime before working out.