Assuming you're using the same weight, is there any difference in muscle growth between the following:
2x12 = 24 total reps
3x8 = 24 total reps
4x6 = 24 total reps
Same weight, same total reps with the difference being the total reps divided into more sets.
Other urls found in this thread:
data-drivenstrength.com
twitter.com
Post the obviously unsh00ped version you triplenigger
yes
What then?
What about rest time then?
Let's say 60-90 seconds
Depends on what the intensity is. If the 12 is just 70% of your 1rm then 6s are going to be ~55% which is just going to be way too easy, given a standard execution.
/thread
big weights + high intensity = muscle growth. it’s not rocket science literally a nigger can do it
1-5 = strength
8-12 = strength + muscle grow
15-20 = muscle grow (more pump than 8-12 but less strength)
>....group training with an estimated 5-7 RIR saw the same muscle growth as a group training to failure
Still reading but seems to align with what I'm experiencing. RIR I assume is "reps in reserve" since the dipship 'researcher' was too much of a fucking idiot to even include the definition of the acronym.
That's pertaining to different percentages of one rep max. You're not going to do 15-20 reps (per set) at 90% of 1RM
From one of the studies
>Twenty-five untrained men participated in the 8-week study.
I hate this shit so fucking much.
How long have you been training for/how strong are you?
Since you guys can't read, I explicitly stated "ASSUMING THE SAME WEIGHT". Not doing 70% 1RM here and 50% 1RM there.
>same weight
why would you use the same weight for sets of 6 than you do for sets of 12? obviously in this fake scenario the sets of 12 are better, but IRL when you do smaller sets with more breaks between it's so you can lift closer to your 1RM
Intensity changes/decreases as you reduce reps. A 12 RM (assuming you are going to failure) is around 70% of a 1 RM. Using 70% then as a baseline you might be looking at an intensity decrease of 3% per rep reduced from then on, so 8 reps would be around 58% and 6 would be 52% of a 1RM.
I know this goes against dogmatic laws of Any Forums I'm trying to investigate the hypothesis that total volume is more important than reps pure set. From what I've read, form and "good" sets and form are more important that strictly adhering to a reps-per-set program. I am more than happy to be proven wrong but I have yet to hear a compelling argument.
Sorry fucked that post up. No proofreading.
Only reps that matter are the tough ones you grind out, all the others are just to get you to those reps.
Goddamn you are a fucking retard.
total volume is the same, what changes is intensity across all of those numbers you gave. your question isn't about volume/workload/tonnage, its about intensity.
you are an idiot, please watch a few videos about the basics of weight training before trying to engage in conversations about the topic
Whatever retard. My sets approach infinity reps and my weight approaches zero. Learn basic calculus
I don't think your muscles can tell a difference. I think putting X amount of load on your muscles for X number of reps will do a certain amount of damage to them, regardless of the rep/set scheme.
Is there a difference between doing 8 reps, then 6, then 4, vs 3x6 with the same weight? I don't think so.
Anecdotal, but I get the best results from straight sets.
You get better gains by doing rep sets you enjoy doing. If you dont like doing 15-30 and prefer 6-8 or whatever, do them the majority of the time and progress with weight and cycle in some higher rep sets every once in a while
stop compromising, you're trying to make your work outs easier. if you are using a weight with which you can do 2x12, then you are in the "endurance" intensity range. it doesn't matter if you break it up in shorter sets, you are not going to get strength gains unless you increase weight.
imagine doing a 5x5 work out with the same weight you could do 1x25 with. does that sound like you'd get any gains ?
getdafuckouttahere with dat shit, no one falls for your jewish schemes anymore math man
Feel free to link me your proofs. More than happy to be proven wrong.
