Kettlebell Difference in training adaptations - higher rep sets Vs higher volume of low rep sets?

[kiwipete]

OK, so for double kettlebell front squats... I would not expect much difference in adaptation between 5x5 vs. 8 sets of 3. The stimulus comes from giving your legs (and whole body, really) a certain amount of work at a hard-ish weight. Not much difference probably between the two scenarios. Although, worth noting, you get in 3 more double kettlebell cleans in with the 8 sets than you do with 5 sets!

True!

 

[Bauer]

I can't find the study, but there was one (I think from Spain) where they compared something like 4x8 to 8x4 with a 8-10RM or something similar. IIRC 8x4 was slightly MORE effective for stength gains and even similar for hypertrophy - with less side effects (such as excessive DOMS). But as I said, I can't find it at the moment, so I might be off a bit. But the bottom line was: Overall volume is more important than reps per set (in line with A+A, ladders in RoP, etc.).

 

[North Coast Miller]

If using the same load throughout, more sets with more weight will yield a better response. Eg- 3x5 with your 7 repmax load will not be as effective as 5x3 with your 5 repmax load. 5x3 with your 7 repmax load will not be as effective as either.

Other factors will also play a roll and influence adaptive response, such as lifting speed, rest between sets etc. Doing any of the above in a Cluster will be different from taking 3 minutes between sets.

 

[Nate]

4x10 vs 4x(2x5)

 

[Steve Freides]

@kiwipete, to my mind, this discussion is unnecessarily complicated. Volume is a key determinant - shorter sets, more sets takes longer to do but will allow a heavier weight. Keep your average set length at 50% max reps (vary between 1/3 and 2/3 RM).

-S-

 

[Erik Hournou]

@kiwipete, to my mind, this discussion is unnecessarily complicated. Volume is a key determinant - shorter sets, more sets takes longer to do but will allow a heavier weight. Keep your average set length at 50% max reps (vary between 1/3 and 2/3 RM).

-S-

Sounds a lot like oldtime strongmen training, where they went by feel rather than structure.

 

[Steve Freides]

Sounds a lot like oldtime strongmen training, where they went by feel rather than structure.

Yes and no - those are good guidelines for training by feel, but they're also things I learned at PlanStrong about preparing very specific programs. They're just good guidelines - train hard enough to produce a result but not so hard as to burn yourself out.

For me, it's been an interesting last month or two, where I've been training by feel after doing several months of PlanStrong programming - my training by feel is better because I think PlanStrong really informed me about what good programming feels like (if that makes any sense).

-S-

 

[Bauer]

For me, it's been an interesting last month or two, where I've been training by feel after doing several months of PlanStrong programming - my training by feel is better because I think PlanStrong really informed me about what good programming feels like (if that makes any sense).

That is a great way to put it

Informed intuition.

 

[Steve Freides]

That is a great way to put it

Informed intuition.

Informed intuition - yeah, I think just trusting your intuition in all circumstances is a bit too simple a way of looking at things. That intuition needs to improve over time, and even if one isn't always a student, it's completely arrogant to think you know everything about how to improve or even maintain yourself. I've come to realize that, while I'm pretty quick at learning lots of things, I'm also so slow as to rightly be classified as self-delusional at others.



-S-

 

[masa]

Dr. Michael Mosley did the test on natural trainees. Other half of the body did short set and heavier weights and other side longer sets and lower weights. Outcome: same strength levels and measurements on both sides.

 

[kiwipete]

@Steve Freides

"I've come to realize that, while I'm pretty quick at learning lots of things, I'm also so slow as to rightly be classified as self-delusional at others."

You, me and everyone else! ha ha

 

[Alexander Halford]

Outcome: same strength levels and measurements on both sides.

?
Do you have a link to the experiment with data? My mind can't come around supposition that one group will deadlift 100 kg sets of 8, and another - 150 kg sets of 3-5, and, given the fact that they hit the same volume, at the end they will have the same 1rm attempt.

 

[Kozushi]

I'd appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong, but the overall impression I've gotten following SF instructions through the books and forums is that it's the overall number of reps you do in a given day that is the main thing. So, 5 sets of 3 or 3 sets of 5 shouldn't really make a big difference.

 

[Hung]

I'd appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong, but the overall impression I've gotten following SF instructions through the books and forums is that it's the overall number of reps you do in a given day that is the main thing. So, 5 sets of 3 or 3 sets of 5 shouldn't really make a big difference.

I doubt that. I remember in Dan John & Pavel's Easy Strength, you do about 10 reps per day but when using single you only do about 6.

When the weight is heavier (at the end of the training cycle or in heavy day) you will want - and will need to be more precise with numbers.

 

[Kozushi]

I doubt that. I remember in Dan John & Pavel's Easy Strength, you do about 10 reps per day but when using single you only do about 6.

When the weight is heavier (at the end of the training cycle or in heavy day) you will want - and will need to be more precise with numbers.

I don't deal with truly heavy weights - as you could probably tell, haha! I know guys who do and they are VERY careful with the exact numbers!

 

[masa]

?
Do you have a link to the experiment with data? My mind can't come around supposition that one group will deadlift 100 kg sets of 8, and another - 150 kg sets of 3-5, and, given the fact that they hit the same volume, at the end they will have the same 1rm attempt.

It was a BBC telly episode, but I’m sure there’s a paper for that. I’ll try to find it for you.

 

[Erik Hournou]

I'd appreciate someone correcting me if I'm wrong, but the overall impression I've gotten following SF instructions through the books and forums is that it's the overall number of reps you do in a given day that is the main thing. So, 5 sets of 3 or 3 sets of 5 shouldn't really make a big difference.

I'd say with a given weight, it's the weekly volume that counts.

 

[DuncanGB]

Dr. Michael Mosley did the test on natural trainees. Other half of the body did short set and heavier weights and other side longer sets and lower weights. Outcome: same strength levels and measurements on both sides.

It was a BBC telly episode, but I’m sure there’s a paper for that. I’ll try to find it for you.

Crikey - a paper-doctor living off the teet of a mass-media sow with her snout in the governmental trough: the anti-recipe for reliable science...

Good grief - could this be the "new normal" in microcosm?

 

[masa]

There’s no such thing like reliable science.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Alexander Halford, PlanStrong and BuiltStrong have figured out all this.

-S-