FT Questions....

[Scott Stevenson]

Scott
Altamir with his new idea made me think and
I would like to ask about the core of FT

1. why you have build FT the way it is

separate days for loading, for MR and for pump - speaking of course about the same bodypart
not mixing thing every day

e.g. one session: Tier 3 for back - 1 set of loading, 1 set of MR, 1-2 sets pump ?

Sermolupi addressed on aspect I considered, in that you'd be combining different hypertrophic stimuli and thus not truly using a DUP approach. I had some concern that there might be some interference effect that could occur here (and dug around looking for data without finding any).

I'd love to see someone do a study comparing DUP approaches where there is a:

High Load one day, low load the other.
High load preceding low load (both days)
Low load preceding high load (all workouts).

[Of course, then one could also consider training high then low some days and reversing it on other days... )

We're far from that in the research now, as there needs to be more research simply examining the effects of DUP in and of itself.

------
Really, though, there were a few mostly practical reasons I didn't combine set types

• Mindset and Psychology: It's a different mindset doing the different Set Types in FT, and I was aware that one has to prepare oneself psychologically for each of them differently to some degree.

Also, if, let's say, every day involved a heavy loading set, for every muscle group, this could burdensome psychologically.

• Practicality / Programming: Time can be a factor. If doing different set types for each muscle group, this would generally mean different exercises and more difficulty in securing machines and setting up. Some exercises (e.g., Barbell back squats) lend themselves to loading sets, but not MR's or Pump sets, so doing "back off" sets in the form of Pump sets (to save time) wouldn't really be an option.

• Overall volume and exercise selection in the context of training frequency: I knew there would be folks for whom a low volume was plenty for an exercise (Tier I), so on those days, doing just 1 loading set and a MR (or a Pump set) might have been too much, whereas doing just a MR, or just a pump set, or just loading sets (with isolation sets in there for the sake of targeting muscle groups, pre-fatiguing, etc.) made more sense.

• Simplicity: Looking across Tiers, It would have made for a hodgepodge of combinations of Set Types comparing larger with smaller muscle groups. I could have worked it out, I'm sure, but I have the strong sense it would have created confusion and forced people to constantly refer back to the Overview sheets to keep things straight. I also wanted people to be able to move between Tiers easily or, possibly, use different tiers for upper vs. Lower body. Doing things in this more simplistic way makes that easier. If there were some blend of Different set types that varied across both Tiers and muscle groups, this would have complicated things a good bit. ("KISS.")

2. MR took place of RP DC Style - we know - only one failure point - but do you think it would be a good idea to implement (from time to time - autoregulation) for some exercises/bodyparts also DC style RPes ?

For sure - I think people do REALLY well with RP sets. Frankly, some exercises (where starting and stopping is a bit of a PITA) lend themselves better to RP than MR cluster sets. Variety of training is important and the extent to which the multiple failure points of an RP set impacts someone varies, too. DC style RP sets also can be done in different rep ranges (11-15 could be used one day and 25-30 another), so there's an advantage in that, too. This is not standard DC methodology per se, but someone could use a DC RP set starting off in the 11-15 RP range and slowly, over time, allow those reps to creep up to a rep total closer to 30, for instance. (This is the same idea that could be used with picking a load that caused failure in the 4th set of an MR and sticking with it until one can get 4+ reps in the 6th set before failure.).

So, yes, RP sets are definitely a phenomenal tool. I've got no problem with someone using those if it suits them - none whatsoever. (I'd only be a "FT Nazi" if someone is doing so and not clarifying that, as people can become confused easily when the fidelity of information is compromised. Just yesterday, someone posted a "Fortitude Training Muscle Round" that was *4* sets of *6* reps using a *7* breath rest interval, which he'd seen on a "meme" somewhere about a year ago... LOL. )

-S