Sets, Reps & Weight

[oneeyejak]

The following is an article written by Tom Venuto. It is just some easy to understand principles on set, reps, and weight.




Here is his Bio: [ QUOTE ]
Tom Venuto is a lifetime natural bodybuilder, personal trainer, gym owner, freelance writer and author of Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle: Fat Burning Secrets of the World's Best Bodybuilders and Fitness Models. Tom has written over 140 articles and has been featured in IRONMAN magazine, Natural Bodybuilding, Muscular Development, Muscle-Zine, Exercise for Men and Men's Exercise. Tom is the Fat Loss Expert for Global-Fitness.com and the nutrition editor for Femalemuscle.com and his articles are featured regularly on literally dozens of other websites.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sets, Reps & Weight: How Many For Gaining Mass?




The number of sets and reps you use depends entirely on what your goals are. For example, a football player would use an entirely different set and rep pattern than a bodybuilder would. Even bodybuilders use different set and rep ranges depending on what phase of their training they are in (pre-contest vs. strength/bulk phase).

Here are some guidelines to help you select the best set & rep range for you:

Rep ranges:
Strength/power: 1-5 reps (optimal strength range)
Strength and size: 6-8 reps
Size with some strength: 8-12 reps (optimal body-building range)
Local endurance with little strength or size: 13-20+


For bodybuilding purposes, it is beneficial to use ALL rep ranges, with emphasis on 8-12 reps. If you want to get really strong, plan on spending a substantial amount of time in the 3-5 rep range. If you want to get really big, spend a lot of time in the 6 - 10 rep range.

Load (amount of weight):
Strength/power: 85% or more of 1 rep max
Bodybuilding/Muscle mass: 70-75% of 1 rep max

It is well documented that maximal strength is increased by working somewhere between 85% and 100% of your one rep maximum. If you are working for muscle mass (bodybuilding) and not pure strength, your best bet is to use a variety of loads within the 70% - 95% range.

Volume (# of sets)
10-12 sets large muscle groups (back, chest etc)
6-9 sets small muscle groups (biceps, etc)

Training volume will vary greatly based on intensity of training and on the size of the muscle group. Large muscle groups like the back can handle 12 sets or sometimes even more. If you think about it, "Back" isn’t just one muscle like the bicep. The back is a group of muscles including the latissimus dorsi, rhomboids, teres minor and major, trapezius and spinal erectors. Because of the mass of muscles involved, you can do more sets without overtraining. A small muscle group like biceps is much more easily overtrained. 12-15 sets is just complete overkill for smaller muscles. If you’re doing that many sets, you’re probably not training hard enough (because if you were training hard enough, you’d be "smoked" by 8 or 9 sets.)

Frequency (days per week)

Train each muscle group with high intensity (to failure or just short of failure) once every 5 - 7 days. Whether it is once every 5 days or once every 7 days depends on your personal recuperative abilities. You be the judge - you know your body better than anyone.

Do not train with high intensity more than 2 days in a row unless you are genetically gifted with excellent recuperative abilities. Take the days off and allow yourself to GROW!

Split Routine:
Day 1: Chest, biceps
Day 2: Back, abs
Day 3: Off (cardio only or complete rest)
Day 4: Shoulders, Triceps
Day 5: Quads, Hamstrings, calves
Day 6: Off (cardio only or complete rest)
Day 7:Repeat cycle

This split works each muscle group once every 6 days. The body part groupings are just a suggestion - you can combine them other ways, (back & biceps, etc) but try to pair one large muscle group and one small muscle group together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is helpful.


Here is a link to more good articles. The whole site is worth bookmarking and exploring.

Articles

[Thremp]

That article is really bad and dated.

[Bond18]

Thremp,

Do you still agree with the portions on rep quantity and their use? I was under the same impression but if things have changed i'd like to know what i should be doing alternatively.

[thirddan]

i can't speak for thremp, but i imagine his main problem is the volume and split portions of the article...

most of the people on this board are not bodybuilders, we are fatties and skin fat people that are looking to establish a base level of fitness and strength...this isn't really something that a standard body part split routine with high volume will accomplish...

most people on here, and most people in general would be better off following a 3x/week full body routine or some kind of upper/lower or push/pull workout focusing on major compound movements...rather than a body part split routine that uses a lot of assistance exercises...

also, it might not be optimal to reach total muscle failure on more than a couple sets if at all during the course of a session...

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Thremp,

Do you still agree with the portions on rep quantity and their use? I was under the same impression but if things have changed i'd like to know what i should be doing alternatively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Rep ranges are all moving downward now with increased sets. You see more 8x3 and 7x5 style sets or just more volume included each week in modern programming. There is very little failure training thats used.

Enhanced "athletes" can do a lot more since their recovery is so much greatly increased, but this article is basically the conventional wisdom from the early 1990s. You can take a look at the program I do currently or Starting Strength or even Bill Starr's original program for what is more appropriate for beginners or intermediate lifters still doing linear periodization.

Most of the failure stuff thats super taxing on the CNS is completely gone from most programs and their is more active recovery suggested for most everything. I think I tried to start a discussion on feeder workouts previously that didn't really take off.

[Efourdee]

Not sure about your program, but Starting Strength and Bill Starr's program are only focused on building strength.

Higher rep ranges (6-12) work well for hypertrophy, and you don't have to be on steriods to get results working in these rep ranges.

Training to failure might not be optimal for strength training, but its very important for hypertrophy. With proper nutrition and rest, CNS will be a non issue.

Article might be old, but all the info there is correct.

[SmileyEH]

Hello,

I do not train to failure.

Sincerely,

Pyros Dimas

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure about your program, but Starting Strength and Bill Starr's program are only focused on building strength.

Higher rep ranges (6-12) work well for hypertrophy, and you don't have to be on steriods to get results working in these rep ranges.

Training to failure might not be optimal for strength training, but its very important for hypertrophy. With proper nutrition and rest, CNS will be a non issue.

Article might be old, but all the info there is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this totally. 5x5 are great programs to get strong and big.

[oneeyejak]

The article describes techniques that have been utilized by almost every top bodybuilder. Literally every competitive bodybuilder in the world uses these techniques and have done so for over 40 years. To discount these training methods out of hand is, in my opinion, is laughable at best and arrogant at worst.

How anyone can look at the hard evidence of the thousands of bodybuilders who have used and still do use these techniques with phenomonal success, and say they don't work, is beyond comprehension.

And "oudtaded"? What the hell does that mean? If all the people who used these techniques to sculpt a great musclular physiqe in the past were to use the same techniques today, they wouldn't work because they are outdated? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone with this forum.

There are lots of way to skin a fish. Other training programs and techniques do work. But, as far as bodybuilding is concerned, the techniques listed in the article are #1. Period.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The article describes techniques that have been utilized by almost every top bodybuilder. Literally every competitive bodybuilder in the world uses these techniques and have done so for over 40 years. To discount these training methods out of hand is, in my opinion, is laughable at best and arrogant at worst.

How anyone can look at the hard evidence of the thousands of bodybuilders who have used and still do use these techniques with phenomonal success, and say they don't work, is beyond comprehension.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually ideas don't necessarily stick around forever because of their worth, so this isn't a good argument. 40 years is a drop in the bucket. Long-lived ideas on diet, exercise, and medicine through the ages have been bizarre, to say the least. Indian wrestlers, for instance, sometimes said to be the best in the world, do almost endless rounds of light bodyweight exercises, with their goals actually being strength. Many martial arts systems profit by demanding high-rep fitness and practice routines, but mistakenly try to credit them as also being particularly effective in building strength. Others insist that using weights can only lend to reductions in speed of physical movement -- also false.

An idea's popularity is not necessarily proof of anything. And, as noted, 40 years of anecdotal evidence is still just 40 years of anecdotal evidence. It's hardly science.