Zig-zagging vs circuit training

[Scott Stevenson]

What are the benefits/drawbacks of zigzag vs circuit training, in the context of hypertrophy training. 

For example, a Tier II zigzag chest/back workout might look like:

Set 1: vertical pull, Set 2: horizontal pull, Set 3: vertical pull, Set 4: compound chest, Set 5: isolation chest. 

Performing the same exercises in a circuit fashion might look like:

Set 1: vertical pull, Set 2: compound chest, Set 3: horizontal pull, Set 4: isolation chest, Set 5: vertical pull. 

I'm about one year into bodybuilding style training, after about 7 years of doing mostly Russian kettlebell training, as well as bodyweight exercises. I previously did many years of hypertrophy training, but stopped about ten years ago due to a lumbar disc injury, marriage, and other reasons. I was probably what you'd consider an intermediate lifter, before I stopped training (20 reps of 225 bench at 185lb natural at ~30 years old). 

During the time I spent practicing Russian kettlebell training, I became accustomed to doing circuit training. An example would be a 3 exercise circuit of double overhead clean and presses with two 32kg bells, followed by front squats with the same bells, followed by pull-ups, for several rounds. 

My question relates to whether the zigzag approach, which is similar to methods employed by Mentzer and Yates, where you annihilate a muscle, before moving on to the next, is theoretically superior to doing the same exercises in a circuit. 

It seems that a zigzag or one body part followed by the next approach, would produce more metabolic stress and expedited fatigue, while a circuit approach with longer rest between hitting a muscle again would allow for more reps at the same weight, which would mean more work done and possibly more effective reps. 

Any thoughts on the topic are much appreciated. I have experimented with both approaches, and the experience is quite different, since the muscle is relatively fresh on the subsequent bout, when doing a circuit compared to doing the exercises in series. 

I'm just beginning the 3rd week of my 2nd blast of Fortitude training. I do have a lot of questions and many insights I've gained from trying this style of training for the first time, after a year of higher volume training. I can post some of those in separate threads, although I'm trying to answer as many questions myself, before seeking outside input.

For some background on the exercise science behind the Russian approach to rest intervals, this article by Pavel Tsatsouline is a decent primer with several references. One caveat is that this style of training is typically focused on either strength or endurance, and not hypertrophy. https://www.strongfirst.com/patience-of-strength/

Hey Elevens,

You might read through the zig-zagging section in the FT e-book, as it will answer at least some of what you're asking about here, I suspect.

(That first example of zig-zagging would need a break and lat / back musculature stress before continuing on to chest.  You seem to be mixing how pump sets are supersetted with how loading sets are zig-zagged..(?))

One purpose of the zig-zagging is to pre-fatigue a muscle with an isolation exercise preceding a compound exercise (if ordered correctly).  That wouldn't be a goal of circuit training and certainly not if you're reducing fatigue by spacing out exercises for give muscle as you note above.    There is a lot I could say here about this, but practically speaking this approach could make a given compound exercise that is marginally beneficial to target a give "weak" muscle group a much more effective one, given that the pre-fatigued "weak" muscle is now targeted.

Most folks won't be able to reliably circuit train in this way in any gym other than their own at home.  Other people would want to use the machines.

You didn't mention rest intervals in your circuit training example, but for many, especially very large, strong bodybuilders, trying to move though those exercises one after another will be limited by cardiovascular capacity (they will "gas out") before the reach a muscular limitation (and gather effective reps).  The pump sets could be performed in this fashion (depending on exercise selection).

Also, progress is progress, but for someone who's advanced and really looking to gain a rep or two a/o add a bit of weight,  having relatively consistent rest intervals can be very helpful, and preceding set performance can impact latter performance.  So if, considering chest in your circuit training example, if you not intersperse a horizontal pull in between the compound chest movement, you've got greater variability potentially d/t the rest interval both before and after the chest isolation movement and the possibility that the back movement (consider rack deads here) might impact your isolation chest movement performance.  (Also, here with the chest iso combing after the compound movement, you've not taken advantage of a pre-fatiguing effect).

The idea of the Loading sets is to standardize rest interval and as you note, really nail the muscle (group) of those sets.  (The rest interval can be longer than what I have there, but that will preclude the utility of having a pre-fatiguing isolation exercise at least in part.) The pump sets are at the other end of the spectrum (what's called density training in the article you linked).  

I have no doubt one could progress with circuit training, but unless you're in a group where the circuit is set up, it's not practical and likely limited in terms of how you could progressively overload in terms of weight or produce focused metabolic stress (ala pump set) d/t the cardiovascular limitation that would come with doing many compound movements.   In other words, what can be had from a heavy row and deadlift differs from doing a 5's into the hole style Pump set on a seated row machine.  If you tried the later approach with the exercises of the former (on a regular basis), this would not be sustainable for long nor prudent from an injury risk standpoint. 

Hope this helps and I'd love to see what progress you've made with the FT you've done!

-S