Re: full body program - one rep percentage



"Tom Anderson" <twic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0811202032320.31413@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Steve Freides wrote:

"Tom Anderson" <twic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

I recall reading some research that showed that doing three sets was
only ~25% better at building strength than two sets, and that more
than three was no better than three. Hence, two sets. There was also
some research that showed that supplementing low-to-medium rep sets
with even just one high-rep led to improved gains, which is why i've
mixed that in where i really need it.

That's not true for an experienced strength trainee - volume is king,
and workouts like 10 or more sets of 2-3 reps are quite common.
While said study may have been done according to its own rules, my
suspicion is that the participants were not experienced lifters or,
if they were, they hadn't done any serious strength training.

You're right - for people at that end of the game, micro-sets are the
way.

Nothing "micro" about them, IMHO. If you goal is the biggest number for
a single rep, then training 2-3 reps makes a lot of sense.

You have to be really quite 'experienced', though, right?

No. Anyone can, e.g., try Pavel's "Power To The People!" program:
deadlift and overhead press, 2 sets of 5 each lift, 5 days a week. No
experience needed. It's how I started lifting freeweights after a few
years of machines. I gradually, over the course of a month or two, gave
up the machines and did the 2 exercise x 2 sets x 5 reps thing - worked
great for me. More important, the few years of machines didn't do
anything to prepare me - could have started this program cold because I
gained zero strength/mass/anything from my work on machines.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

tom

--
Also, a 'dark future where there is only war!' ... have you seen the
news lately? -- applez


.