Less exercises = more progress with less fatigueWhen did you discover this, /fit/?
>>76755105knowers have known this for a long time
>>76755105I only do one workout of 4 sets to failure per muscle group twice a week. Is this the right way to train?
>>76755105But i wanna bulk and gymratting enables my diet
>>76755114Less exercises means less variation but not necessarily sets
>>76755105I went the other way. Less sets more lifts targeting specific heads and prioritizing those over even compounds. The creep up on all those lifts has been more steady than even when I was only doing compounds starting out. Results haven't been super visible yet because I haven't exhausted my double lp but I'm running into sessions with one rep short at a higher weight so it'll probably happen soon.
>>76755118It probably is.Are you tired when you finish a session, and recharged and ready to lift heavier by the next (according to whatever periodisation you're using)? Then you're good.The most important part there is the periodisation, could you shorten each cycle? You've probably gotten to where you are now because any shorter cycle wasn't working anymore, so the answer is probably a no anyway.
>>76755118You could do less and more.It depends on what you call a "group" if it's a major group like "pushing" or if it's individual groups like triceps, pecs, serratus. Here's like a few differnt ways you could do the same 4 sets Strength focused with minor reinforcement. 3 sets barbell or db bench incline or flat then 1 set of chest fly or tricep extension depending on what is the weakest mover in that group. Body building 1 cable crossover clavicular head focused (hip heigh cams) 1 cable crossover sternal focus (shoulder height)1 Tricep pushdown1 Tricep extension Compact 2 bench of your preferred variation 1 tricep exercise 1 fly exercise It's a mostly a matter of where you're seeing progress and where you aren't. If your pec deck or whatever is climbing even a couple lbs a week with few sets keep doing it. If something isn't you might want to commit more sets to it and maybe a little rir. The box you're working in isn't the wrong size but the specificity of the work you're doing in there can change a lot depending on goals. If I pr on anything that's automatically one and done. It gotten novel stimulus time to look at what else I can do in that group.
>>76755219Something like that but if i were him I would do ppl x3 per week or something
>>76755244I think the most supported (by science and broscience) interval for a given muscle is every 3 to 5 days. A lot more fringe science people like Doug McGuff MD are saying that the interval is largely genetic some personal experimentation is usually nessisary to find it. The fomo of and arbitrary nature trying to make it exactly x amount a week is detriment to a process that doesn't care about calender weeks. I agree more than disagree with that but I can't stop doing 2x a week either.
>>76755105>this kills the white nationalist
its fewer you dumb cunts
>>76755277Sorry. Littlerer excercises
>>76755260TBF it depends on the number of sets you do each time. If we're talking about 'sets of compound exercises that hit maximally the muscle group in question, taken to failure or near so', there is a big range in what different trainees can do, but also a pretty definite linear correlation.It's 9 to 12 sets per week, more if you do them a bit everyday (2/day everyday), less if you go 1/week (do 9 serious sets of squats on Monday, it will take quite a bit of time and you'll be back the next Monday, not before)
>>76756058Can you rate my ppl? PushBench press - 2 sets to failureShoulder press machine - 1 set to failureTricep Pushdown - 2 sets to failureLateral raises - 2 sets to failurePullLat pulldown - 2 set to failureMachine row - 1 set to failurePreacher Curl - 1 or 2 sets to failureHammer Curl - 1 set to failureLegsBarbell Squats - 2 sets to failureHamstring curls (seated) 2 sets to failureLeg ext - 1 set to failureSome calves and absI do the above 3on 1off. so the frequency is x2
>>76756068Perfect if you did 2 on 1 off
>>76756132wait why?
>>76755244>Something like that but if i were him I would do ppl x3 per week or something"PPL" is worthless 3x unless maybe you're on a lot of gear. I've been doing 7x for like two months straight, pplpplpplpplppl... Low volume each day.
