Barbell Total volume approach for hypertrophy

[Spartan Agoge]

Pavel has said that we must (almost) never get our sets to failure and that the optimal reps to hit are 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps.

I totally agree that it works for strength gains. Sets of 3 reps @ 80% 1rm are great for building strength.

Now I want to see if this approach works for hypertrophy too. I have done the RB in the past, with very good results, but RB has also the 2 heavier sets, which are closer to failure.

Now I will try just lighter sets at 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps for very high total volume. Something like 15-20 sets of 5 reps with my 10rm. Maybe also a few sets of 10 with my 20rm.

As far as I know some old school wrestlers used to train like that. Light weights, low rep sets, but with insane amounts of total daily volume.

I see it as an experiment. I hope it will work.

 

[Steve Freides]

@Spartan Agoge, rest periods are an important variable. Look into the Bear protocol from PTTP - you'll see it's sets of 5 but with relatively short rests between them and a lighter-but-still-heavy weight.

-S-

 

[Spartan Agoge]

@Spartan Agoge, rest periods are an important variable. Look into the Bear protocol from PTTP - you'll see it's sets of 5 but with relatively short rests between them and a lighter-but-still-heavy weight.

-S-

Thank you for your response. Yes, I know the rest periods of RB.
I will start with 60'' rest between sets.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Pavel has said that we must (almost) never get our sets to failure and that the optimal reps to hit are 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps.

I totally agree that it works for strength gains. Sets of 3 reps @ 80% 1rm are great for building strength.

Now I want to see if this approach works for hypertrophy too. I have done the RB in the past, with very good results, but RB has also the 2 heavier sets, which are closer to failure.

Now I will try just lighter sets at 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps for very high total volume. Something like 15-20 sets of 5 reps with my 10rm. Maybe also a few sets of 10 with my 20rm.

As far as I know some old school wrestlers used to train like that. Light weights, low rep sets, but with insane amounts of total daily volume.

I see it as an experiment. I hope it will work.

This approach sounds very much akin to Cluster Sets, which will def generate some hypertrophy. Moreso if you run the number of sets out a bit, to where perhaps you cannot hit another full rep count. Example using 3 reps of a 6 rep max, you finish set (4,5 whatever) and do not believe you can hit another full 3 reps on your next attempt - the Cluster is terminated.

One crucial variable with Clusters is the relatively short recovery interval, typically < 40 seconds per.

 

[Spartan Agoge]

This approach sounds very much akin to Cluster Sets, which will def generate some hypertrophy. Moreso if you run the number of sets out a bit, to where perhaps you cannot hit another full rep count. Example using 3 reps of a 6 rep max, you finish set (4,5 whatever) and do not believe you can hit another full 3 reps on your next attempt - the Cluster is terminated.

One crucial variable with Clusters is the relatively short recovery interval, typically < 40 seconds per.

Very informative, thank you.

 

[3letterslong]

I'm under the impression that you must get within a few reps of failure with light weights for hypertrophy, but I am not an expert.

 

[3letterslong]

Now I will try just lighter sets at 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps for very high total volume. Something like 15-20 sets of 5 reps with my 10rm. Maybe also a few sets of 10 with my 20rm.

You might want to check out Tom Furman's Armour Of War program. It's 10 x 5 and the progression he lays out is fantastic.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I'm under the impression that you must get within a few reps of failure with light weights for hypertrophy, but I am not an expert.

My experience with Clusters, I got a very strong hypertrophic response using rep/loads as low as single reps of a 2 rep max ( although most were in the 3-5 rep range of a 5-10 rep max). In that case they become similar maybe to a Mentzer myo-rep. Very heavy loads compared to traditional BB approach.

But, unlike the textbook Cluster approach that has you stop before too much fatigue, I ran my sets out to technical failure. Is a very interesting way to look at "failure", one cannot complete the next multiple rep effort, rather than bonking on a single rep.

Speed of execution is also important, it should be crisp if not with outright explosive intent. I was autoregulating based on the last rep I could complete with no detectable drop in speed. Most of the time this is about 1/2 of a rep max with a given weight. I would then use that rep count for all following repeats in a Cluster even if the rep speed dropped. Take 30 sec between repeats. Terminate when you (think you) cannot do another full rep count.

 

[3letterslong]

My experience with Clusters, I got a very strong hypertrophic response using rep/loads as low as single reps of a 2 rep max ( although most were in the 3-5 rep range of a 5-10 rep max). In that case they become similar maybe to a Mentzer myo-rep. Very heavy loads compared to traditional BB approach.

But, unlike the textbook Cluster approach that has you stop before too much fatigue, I ran my sets out to technical failure. Is a very interesting way to look at "failure", one cannot complete the next multiple rep effort, rather than bonking on a single rep.

Speed of execution is also important, it should be crisp if not with outright explosive intent. I was autoregulating based on the last rep I could complete with no detectable drop in speed. Most of the time this is about 1/2 of a rep max with a given weight. I would then use that rep count for all following repeats in a Cluster even if the rep speed dropped. Take 30 sec between repeats. Terminate when you (think you) cannot do another full rep count.

I've been wanting to play with clusters. Do you feel like they could be used long-term or do you think their effectiveness diminishes and need to be programmed in blocks?

 

[Spartan Agoge]

You might want to check out Tom Furman's Armour Of War program. It's 10 x 5 and the progression he lays out is fantastic.

I will definitely check it, thank you.

 

[james_1127]

Look into built strong minimalist... Same programming but geared towards hypertrophy

 

[Hung]

I ran a similar protocol last few week, but with a first heavy set (but not as close to my max), then max sets of 6/5 with a strict rest. I choose sumo dl, squat and close grip spoto press. It looks like this in week 3:
- sumo: 180 x 6, then 165 x 6 x at least 10 sets (maybe more)
- squat: 120 x 6, then 105 x 5 x 5
- spoto press: 85 x 6, then 70 x 6 x 3
I could get a lot of more sets in sumo dl if my lats do not scream to stop. Legs and erectors are fine, med glutes are pump a bit. In the squat the erectors give up first and the legs are still fresh. In spoto press the triceps give up first while chest and front delt still have plenty of juice.
What I mean is with this type of training (bunch of sets with compound lift), sometime only a small muscle group will force us to stop and we may not have the stimulus that we want (for instance, planning doing multi sets squat of 5 at 75% 1rm for quads and adductor development, but the lower back gives up first before the legs get enough stimulus).

 

[North Coast Miller]

I've been wanting to play with clusters. Do you feel like they could be used long-term or do you think their effectiveness diminishes and need to be programmed in blocks?

Def could be used long term but with a wavy plan for volume and intensity. I was going at it pretty hard and wound up breaking my ABA into A1, B1, A2, B2, training 6 days a week. Volume for legs was very high since my loads were somewhat modest - clusters of single leg squats with 120lb bag, my legs were always sore.

 

[3letterslong]

Def could be used long term but with a wavy plan for volume and intensity. I was going at it pretty hard and wound up breaking my ABA into A1, B1, A2, B2, training 6 days a week. Volume for legs was very high since my loads were somewhat modest - clusters of single leg squats with 120lb bag, my legs were always sore.

Thanks for the info! If you were doing a 2-day split, did you add more exercises than you normally would do? Or did you just split a full-body workout? I was thinking of doing a push/pull/leg split, but only doing one real lift per day. You and Kenny have had me thinking about this for awhile. I'd like to take a cluster strategy to Tom Furman's Armour of War progressions.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Thanks for the info! If you were doing a 2-day split, did you add more exercises than you normally would do? Or did you just split a full-body workout? I was thinking of doing a push/pull/leg split, but only doing one real lift per day. You and Kenny have had me thinking about this for awhile. I'd like to take a cluster strategy to Tom Furman's Armour of War progressions.

I normally do 4 lifts per, plus abs, bicep or triceps. With Clusters I busted it out to 2 lifts per, abs daily, bi or tri daily. I did not blast my bis or tris with the same gusto, so a bit easier to increase weekly volume.

I ultimately did NOT appreciate the 6 days on programming, if approaching this again, I'd do A1, B1, off, A2, B2, off etc.

 

[LukeV]

Pavel has said that we must (almost) never get our sets to failure and that the optimal reps to hit are 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps.

I totally agree that it works for strength gains. Sets of 3 reps @ 80% 1rm are great for building strength.

Now I want to see if this approach works for hypertrophy too. I have done the RB in the past, with very good results, but RB has also the 2 heavier sets, which are closer to failure.

Now I will try just lighter sets at 1/3 - 2/3 of max reps for very high total volume. Something like 15-20 sets of 5 reps with my 10rm. Maybe also a few sets of 10 with my 20rm.

As far as I know some old school wrestlers used to train like that. Light weights, low rep sets, but with insane amounts of total daily volume.

I see it as an experiment. I hope it will work.

The science has progressed and our ‘new’ understanding of hypertrophy is pretty much what you’re suggesting - growth stimulus can be achieved at lower intensities and without going anywhere near failure. I read recently that about 1/3 of your possible reps is now considered the threshold (which sounds impossibly relaxing to me given my indoctrination into close to failure training over decades). of course this new science needs to explain all those gym junkies who’ve been messing about in the gym for years but haven’t got huge. Are they really not lifting more than 1/3 of their possible reps? Or are their DNA, diets, sleep patterns etc so stuffed that they couldn’t build muscle if they tried? If the new science is correct then all of you lifting 5 reps at your 10 rep max ought to look better than you do (no offence)!

Certainly my own approach has moved away from failure or even RIR to focusing on that point where the smooth lifting cadence breaks (that’s my last rep). I find it very hard psychologically to terminate the set any earlier but given that’s usually with three or four still in the tank my approach is still close enough to failure to be orthodox. I’m building muscle for sure but maybe I can do it easier.

 

[North Coast Miller]

The science has progressed and our ‘new’ understanding of hypertrophy is pretty much what you’re suggesting - growth stimulus can be achieved at lower intensities and without going anywhere near failure. I read recently that about 1/3 of your possible reps is now considered the threshold (which sounds impossibly relaxing to me given my indoctrination into close to failure training over decades). of course this new science needs to explain all those gym junkies who’ve been messing about in the gym for years but haven’t got huge. Are they really not lifting more than 1/3 of their possible reps? Or are their DNA, diets, sleep patterns etc so stuffed that they couldn’t build muscle if they tried? If the new science is correct then all of you lifting 5 reps at your 10 rep max ought to look better than you do (no offence)!

Certainly my own approach has moved away from failure or even RIR to focusing on that point where the smooth lifting cadence breaks (that’s my last rep). I find it very hard psychologically to terminate the set any earlier but given that’s usually with three or four still in the tank my approach is still close enough to failure to be orthodox. I’m building muscle for sure but maybe I can do it easier.

I'd have to look at the groups and timespan of these people progressing at 1/3 of their capacity. If that were true, every teenager that messed around with their older brother's weights would get huge instead of disillusioned.

My experience with Clusters is that I managed about 1/3 more reps with the same weight than I would have gotten doing straight sets with the same load.

I would believe one could get swole doing a very low volume of heavy load combined with a lot of relatively easy volume. Just easy volume? Very skeptical...

 

[silveraw]

The science has progressed and our ‘new’ understanding of hypertrophy is pretty much what you’re suggesting - growth stimulus can be achieved at lower intensities and without going anywhere near failure.

Huh, I thought it had swung back over to “increase the number of hard sets close to failure, reps don’t matter”.

But also I haven’t done a hypertrophy specific program in a long time

 

[Ege]

Look into built strong minimalist... Same programming but geared towards hypertrophy

I echo this.

 

[LukeV]

The science has progressed and our ‘new’ understanding of hypertrophy is pretty much what you’re suggesting - growth stimulus can be achieved at lower intensities and without going anywhere near failure. I read recently that about 1/3 of your possible reps is now considered the threshold (which sounds impossibly relaxing to me given my indoctrination into close to failure training over decades). of course this new science needs to explain all those gym junkies who’ve been messing about in the gym for years but haven’t got huge. Are they really not lifting more than 1/3 of their possible reps? Or are their DNA, diets, sleep patterns etc so stuffed that they couldn’t build muscle if they tried? If the new science is correct then all of you lifting 5 reps at your 10 rep max ought to look better than you do (no offence)!

Certainly my own approach has moved away from failure or even RIR to focusing on that point where the smooth lifting cadence breaks (that’s my last rep). I find it very hard psychologically to terminate the set any earlier but given that’s usually with three or four still in the tank my approach is still close enough to failure to be orthodox. I’m building muscle for sure but maybe I can do it easier.

For the life of me I cannot find the study I read on hypertrophy at low rep counts (i thought 30% of total possible reps but maybe it was 50%, still low). It was earlier this year - does anyone else recall it? It may have been on older lifters and I believe it also found that weekly volume was more significant for hypertrophy than getting close to failure each set. When I read it I immediately thought "that explains Delorme" where the first two sets are miles from failure yet appear to contribute to the overall hypertrophy effect