2 sets

[OLYMPIAN]

hi guys


when 2 sets or more are require for certain loading sets , lets say barbell rows I hit 315 for 10...should I stay with that weight or go heavier and get 6 reps at least on my 2nd ( last) set???

[Scott Stevenson]

hi guys


when 2 sets or more are require for certain loading sets , lets say barbell rows I hit 315 for 10...should I stay with that weight or go heavier and get 6 reps at least on my 2nd ( last) set???

What would be the reasons for doing it that way, versus another way (say, boing lighter for the same number of reps, or even closer to 12 reps)?...

-S

[Stewilliams]

hi guys


when 2 sets or more are require for certain loading sets , lets say barbell rows I hit 315 for 10...should I stay with that weight or go heavier and get 6 reps at least on my 2nd ( last) set???

Personally I would take the first set 1 or 2 reps short of failure and then use the same weight for the next set and take it to failure. This is assuming that there isn't a back width exercise in between the 2 sets. If there was then I would likely lighten the load for the second set.

[OLYMPIAN]

Personally I would take the first set 1 or 2 reps short of failure and then use the same weight for the next set and take it to failure. This is assuming that there isn't a back width exercise in between the 2 sets. If there was then I would likely lighten the load for the second set.
[/quo


so how do I know its time to make progress or add weight on that exercise load set( barbell row) if I never take myself to failure??

---

[quote='Scott Stevenson' pid='20442' dateline='1548941679']

What would be the reasons for doing it that way, versus another way (say, boing lighter for the same number of reps, or even closer to 12 reps)?...

-S

isn't the goal to get stronger. bigger???

so 2 sets of 315 for 10-12 rps short of failure will actually induce more growth than 1 set of 315 x 10 and 1 of 365 x 8??

[Scott Stevenson]

isn't the goal to get stronger. bigger???

so 2 sets of 315 for 10-12 rps short of failure will actually induce more growth than 1 set of 315 x 10 and 1 of 365 x 8??

Yes, that's the goal, of course.

Which of those two options would get you stronger?... Do you find that strength gains come along with size gains?...

Do you feel you're lacking in strength relative to size, i.e., would getting stronger using a lower rep range be a better path for you for gaining size, or do you personally do better with higher reps?...

Does the exercise you're doing matter for the reps you'll use, and the mind-muscle connection? For instance, do you find that using a higher rep range for lat pulldowns makes for a better stimulus, but rack deads work better for strength and size gains in a lower range...

Maybe, also, you could try[/quote], in successive Blasts, doing a "back-off" style (reducing the load) strategy for one Blast and in the next Blast see if you prefer to keep load higher (same for each set) and thus work more so on the loading / mechanical stress aspect of those Loading sets.

-S

[Stewilliams]

isn't the goal to get stronger. bigger???

so 2 sets of 315 for 10-12 rps short of failure will actually induce more growth than 1 set of 315 x 10 and 1 of 365 x 8??

I didn't say W won't take any sets to failure, I just would only take the final one to failure as instructed in the book. This would likely enable you to make better strength and size gains versus two sets to failure (it at least has in my experience). Imagine that your 10 rep max on barbell row is 220lbs. First set you take to failure with 220lbs and get 10 reps. Then the second set you get 6 or 7 due to the fatigue accumulated from the first set. Would this be more beneficial than getting 9 on the first set and leaving a rep in the tank, then going to failure and getting 9 reps again on the 2nd set?