I've realized that "sets" aren't even necessary.You only need one. If you try hard enough, you can damn sure get enough stimulus from one set, and your recovery is amazing. I was skeptical at first, but my gains have never been better.
>>77517187You forgot to post body
>>77517187Be a lot more convincing with a picture of your body or a vid of a lift. Why do you think anyone gives a shit about your opinion without that?I do 2 sets since the second set is usually stronger than the first
May we see these gains?
>>77517206>>77517201>>77517199Unfortunately though my recovery and performance in the gym have been better than ever, I cannot put the fork down and my physique is pathetic
>>77517201I like priming the nervous system with a lower-reps heavy set of 3, and then going for a set of 8.
>>77517187>but my gains have never been betterare your gains in this thread with us now?
>>77517201>the second set is usually stronger than the firstBased knower
>>775171871 set works if ur blasting to failure but if ur gonna be a fag ur probably looking at like 3-7 sets to fully wring out as much stimulus. ie ur a pussy
>>77517187Maybe I’m an idiot but 1 set to failure sounds like higher risk of injury
>>77517227Oh, so your entire thread is irrelevant.Actually I didn't even need your physique to dismiss this retarded nonsense. Every few years the entire "le high intensity le low reps is better" narrative creeps up, ruins gains and its instantly btfo the moment you actually do higher rep work in the gym
>>77517227Well in that case you must be strong at least, right?>>77517429High reps are gay. 5s are most productive.
>>77517201I do three work sets across, so the "intensity" is like 6, 5, 7. The second set is *always* easier, but the third set is harder than either the first or second set. I think that's what the "to failure" people pretend not to understand. Also, that work capacity increases as you increase the area under the curve. I train for strength, not "pec growth".
>>77517466>5s are most productive.fahves you mean
>>77517187Im not one of you autistic retards who write diaries and shit about how much you love lifting weights and how much your gym crush cucks you with some pokemon nerd. I pick/set whatever weight feels good for about 10 reps, which can be more or less reps, i go to failure on every set and when i cant go on i just switch exercise. If my second set is shit, i lower the weight and try again. I literally mog every single living being including trees in a 30 square miles radius. Unironically, bee urself
>>77517662Knower
>>77517665Samefagging retard. You look like total shit.
>>77517662based
>>77517630yesfives are a nigger because they're heavy enough that each rep is a pain. Perfect balance between heavy and repetitive. Toughest rep range there is.>>77517662I don't suppose you'll post body
my fucking shoulder makes noises when I bench i had to switch to dumbells and lighter weight, this article is bad advice you need to train your joints as well as your muscle
i did a pushup once back in middle school with perfect form and ever since ive filled a triple D cup bra
>>77517187One or two sets, done to absolute failure, with reasonable frequency, is all I need. Imagine wasting more than 30 minutes on your "workout routine", get a hobby.
>>77517187This is pure bro-science, but bear with me bros:In theory, the number of sets is only important in terms of total number of effective/stimulating reps, which are the 2-3 last slow ones preceding failure in each set. Let's say you do 3 sets to failure - that's what, 6-9 effective lasting maybe a minute, if that? How stimulating is it, really?That's pretty much how I've always been training (2x week per muscle group) but for the past few months my gains have stalled, so I tried an experiment with taking DB bench press way past failure:>8 RM weight>did 8 reps to concentric failure (where you can't push past the sticking point no matter how hard you grind)>instead of ending the set here, I cranked a few partial reps in the bottom part of the movement till I could barely make the weight move at all>immediately dropped the weight by 20% and repeated both steps (could only do 4 or so full reps this time)>immediately dropped the weight by another 20% and did it againThe result is 8 failures in a single set (which takes less time than 3 straight sets, too) and a fuckton of time under tension/fatigue, most likely recruiting every single fiber possible, resulting in massive fucking DOMS in every single part of the pecs that last for a week and inability to hit chest again for 10 days or so.Now, "teh science" would tell you this is accumulation of unnecessary muscle damage, that protein synthesis only lasts 24-48h, that higher frequency is better and all that shit. But I've been training my pecs like that for the past 1.5 month (5 sessions approximately 10 days apart) and not only do I get stronger session to session, but my tits visibly grew after months of no change.Make of it what you will.
Sure you only "need" one set. You will grow but you leave gains on the table.You can't get that many stimulating reps in one set, and you can't increase frequency enough without running into other issues. you should do more sets or something like myoreps or doggcrapp
>>77517950Here's my broscience thought on the matter: "intensifiers" don't take all your muscle fibres to failure, they take the muscle fibres that can recover fastest (the type II of the type II) to failure, while the rest stay in an inactive, unrecovered state, until full rest allows them also to slowly recover.I don't know if this means you'll get extra fibre-specific hypertrophy of the fastest-recovering fibres by doing this; if so, it would definitely be better than them being bottlenecked by the slower ones, so it would be a style of training that is worth it. I'm just saying that type of failure is different to full muscle failure after more complete recovery. The fact that you get weaker per set as you do more sets implies the existence of a lower end to the gradient of recovery speed, so some fibres progressively aren't recovered even after normal rest times, so I reckon that my theory of the top end of fibres recovering first and being the only ones involved in the intensifiers "set" failures is pretty good.
>>77517187Daily reminder Mike Mentzer's "warm up sets" were a lot harder than the average normalfag dyel's working sets.
>>77518067My broscience thought on the matter is that it's not as much about rate of recovery as it is about rate of exhaustion. Failing to complete a rep means some fibers were exhausted, but the fact that you can immediately continue the movement with a lower weight means many of them weren't - until you exhaust them too with that lower weight, at which point you can still continue with even lower, baby weight that now feels challenging.You know how people try to isolate certain parts of their pecs (inner, outer, upper, lower) with weird shit like decline presses etc.? After a big dropset like that with partials inbetween I get DOMS in literally every single part - something I've never felt with straight sets to failure.
>>77517950I mean... isn't that literally what drop sets are? You're not theory crafting something new here.
>>77517662>Im not one of you autistic retards who write diariesyour post says otherwise
>>77517187Why only focus on one aspect of muscular development?
>>77518178Yeah, it is a drop set, but with partials to failure between each drop for extra intensity. Regular dropsets are still only done to concentric failure. What I'd like to experiment with (not really possible with DB bench specifically) is something like:>reps to concentric failure>assisted reps with controlled negatives to eccentric failure>drop the weight and repeat
>>77517187Dude, you can just sit and jerk off, take shits and eat like trash and grow muscles when you're roiding.You're a growing tumor, you don't need any sets.
>>77517206
>>77517662I've been telling /fit/ for years; you need intensity and consistency in the gym along with a proper diet.ie, what you said. To failure every set (maybe 1 rep in reserve). Lower the weight on the next set if you must or just live with the lower volume.
>>77517466>t. Rippletits
>sit on a chair>stand up to go to the bathroomHey guys I just did a set of squats!>no no no it has to be a certain percentage to failure to cointOh, it's almost like what actually matters is intensity and volume is just some arbitrary, unitless measure of actions.
>>77518596>volume is just some arbitrary, unitless measureDefine intensity in a non-arbitrary, objectively quantifiable way, then.
>>775171871 set for life
>>77517811You're the least funny person alive>>77518200What other aspects do you focus on
>>77518596>what is relativity
>>77518634>>77518856Literally covered both in that text you illiterates.Intensity = percentage to failureRelativity = the whole last sentenceI made that post ironically but you guys actually are that dumb. These are the fitness experts!
>>77518860>Intensity = percentage to failurejej
>>77518896>still no responseThe thing with you illiterate tards is that you are habitual energy vampires who try to drag an explanation out only to continue being retarded and unable to read 1-2 sentences. It's simply the case of how you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.Just want to point out, neither of you even addressed the point either. You guys can't because you're absolutely wrong. When tards (you) are talking about "1 sets! 2 sets! 5 sets!" none of that even stops to consider what a "set" is. 99% of fitness discussion are youtuber addicted idiots, at best reading the conclusion page on a random study they found on google scholar that has a title that somewhat relates to their point. In one of the Mentzer bot threads someone linked a study that disproved their own point. You're all actually stupid.
>>77518860>percentage to failure"Percentage" of what, you tard? Measured how? What kind of failure? Technical? Momentary? Concentric? Eccentric? Static?
>>77517187>I’ve realized that reps aren’t even necessery
