October 20, 2020, 12:01:46 AM

Author Topic: ''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?  (Read 2969 times)

memainmon

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?
« on: July 03, 2015, 01:57:44 PM »
If time is not a issue would it alter the desired response of say an 8 repper to switch it to 2 sets of 4, I know some are turning to a total volume approach to training rather than a reps and sets approach (at reasonable intensity's of course). If I'm being an idiot (probably) I would be interested to know why none the less :)

Robert Frederick

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
    • View Profile
Re: ''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2015, 02:48:22 PM »
You stress different energy systems with 8 and 4 reps.

I think the total volume thing that's going around is a bit too strong of an oversimplification. For example, look at an Olympic weightlifting program and a bodybuilding program. Both have high volume (overall). But they accumulate volume in totally different ways and the lifter's bodies reflect that.

If that anecdotal tale isn't good enough, metabolic studies of muscles show that lactic acid accumulates linearly over the course of the set. Ammonia, on the other hand, shows a biphasic curve where it is initially steady up until some point in the set where it decides to move upwards. Interestingly, this point is right around where Prilepin says it is optimal to stop the set. In practice, preventing the rise of ammonia means you need less recovery time between workouts, since there is less mechanical damage to the muscles. That lets you train Olympic style. With bodybuilding style you're going to go way past that point and need a bit more recovery time. That's not to say both groups don't venture to the other respective side once in a while. All successful programs, that I am aware of, mix a little bit of both at times.

One could take that last statement I made and say "when you look at the big picture volume is the only thing that matters". But I think that misses some of the details. And it is possible to intelligently manage those details.

memainmon

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: ''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2015, 04:29:21 PM »
Thanks for the reply, your point about all training styles sharing facets with differing emphasis reminded me of the following article i'd be interested in your thoughts on it http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/  Sheiko has provided the mist important evidence (the medalist) i'm just now gaining in an interest in the underpinnings, hopefully the books provide some context here too.

Robert Frederick

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
    • View Profile
Re: ''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2015, 03:56:06 PM »
I just skimmed it but in the intro he says "number of hard sets" as opposed to simply tonnage when it comes to muscle growth. By hard sets I'm assuming he means at least close to failure. I also saw a note that said to do this in certain intensity zones depending on what you want to achieve.

"For strength + size, it’s a simple issue of the number of heavy (80-85ish%+) sets you do, for size + muscular endurance, it’s a matter of the number of relatively light (65% and below) sets you do, and for a blend of the two, it’s just about the number of hard sets you do in the intermediate intensity range."

So I'm not really sure what's new here.

memainmon

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: ''Splitting'' a high rep set into two sets?
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2015, 02:16:27 PM »
I found the point of proximity to failure (you guessed right on what constitutes a hard set) an interesting approach even if it just defining ''hard training'', i feel the majority of sheiko's programming in my (limited) experience keeps away from approaching failure but i have seen undeniable hypertrophy, more than one way to skin a cat i guess and the author notes that there is ''holes in the boat''.