A Sets & Reps

The main idea of this information is that sets and reps are inverted, meaning that if sets are high, reps are low, and vice versa. The optimal number of sets and reps depends on the desired outcome and the specific exercise being performed. Higher set protocols are recommended for increasing variability and architectural changes, while higher rep protocols are better for increasing cross-sectional muscle area. Exercise order should prioritize exercises that require more sets and higher intensity earlier in the training session. The length of sets and the number of sets should be adjusted based on the specific goals and desired outcomes. The importance of managing time under tension and understanding the needs of each exercise is emphasized. The concept of doing one set to failure is discussed, highlighting the potential for achieving adequate stress and stimulus response with fewer sets. Overall, the focus should be on maximizing the value and effectiveness of each training session by So top of the line, sets and reps are inverted, that's it, right? That mean if we're gonna break down this entire principle session, and we're gonna go through how to optimize with the optimal number of sets, optimal number of reps, just first off that, they're just gonna be inverted. So if sets are high, reps are low. If reps are high, sets are low. That's it, right? So we can go elaborate on that and why that is. But the truth of the matter is, is if you have high reps, high sets, you're probably gonna break down. If you have low reps, low sets, you gotta be pushing maximal intensity. And we'll go through examples of why we might use both. And we might need to talk about contingencies off that from a exercise selection standpoint, or from a exercise order standpoint, or a training session organization standpoint. But let's open up with what high sets, low reps means, and let's go through what low sets, high reps means. So if we're gonna do a higher set protocol, which to be honest, I don't know how many people really do, which I think is a shame. And again, this comes down to a couple things that we gotta go backtrack on, right, so first premise is we wanna increase variability. We wanna increase the bandwidth to have as much preparedness for a random chaotic world. Second one is once you figure out what you need to do, you need to do it. You need to do it as aggressively as humanly possible, right, like trim the fat. If you have OKRs and KPIs, you know what you need to do, and you need to go to work. This comes into a high set protocol, right, so 10, even 20 sets, right? And that goes into this like dynamic of like, you're basically putting all your chips on one number. You better know if you're gonna win big or not. That's why we have such detailed evals. That's why we have such a comprehensive screening method, right, looking at everything from biomechanics to physiology to even just performance. And then dialing in that prescription to best alter that. So if you read the book Strength Deficit, essentially it's this idea of continuums. And if we have a low deficit athlete, what do I need to do from a concentric standpoint? If I have a large deficit athlete, what do I need to do from an eccentric standpoint? And one of the things that we talk about in the course, and if you haven't taken the course or you haven't read the book, you should definitely do that, because I definitely think it will give you some sort of context in setting up continuum-based training, a more look at, there's multiple directions we can go, but once you pick out where you need to go, you need to go. But the idea of, if I'm going to do a high or increase in the deficit protocol, it's going to come down to, I need to increase the deficit by utilizing more eccentric means. So movement-wise, plyos that have more of an elastic component, so bounding over box jumps, or seated box jumps. Hang snatch over power clean, weight release hooks over accommodating resistance, work in top end speed or max velocity over acceleration, extended eccentrics over overcoming isos or a inertial squat. The continuum is just trying to get more eccentric or elastic type of impression. And just invert that for if you're trying to decrease the deficit. But then the other idea is, once I know what I need to do, I need to create enough stimulus and stress to create architectural changes. So one of the things that we talk about in strength deficit is this idea of increasing titan formation, increasing sarcomere myogenesis, increasing the connective tissue from a series elastic component to have a much more robust stretch shortening cycle. And architectural changes take a lot of stress, right? We are the product of what we repeatedly do, mechanical advantage or disadvantage. Go through the mechanical advantage module we have in movement, go through the gear ratio in movement. Because the end of the day is we are trying to change from a physiologically and biomechanically level and we need enough stress to do that. But let's say that not all exercises are created equal. We can go an extreme example that like a Scott curl, comparatively speaking to doing extended eccentric pull-ups with 125% of your max. Is going to have a different output from a global muscular development and eccentric strength perspective, right? It's going to be a lot higher load. It's going to be a lot more motor units recruited. It's going to be a lot more variables to manage. But let's say that I want to incorporate Scott curl in there because I want to work bicep in a flexed or shoulder flexed position in conjunction with working eccentric loaded pull-ups. I want to increase the length or I want to increase the function of my lats at length or I want to get the distal fibers of my lats really trained up, whatever. Well, I'm going to have to acquire a lot more sets for the extended eccentric pull-up over the Scott curl to create the necessary stimulus from an architectural and physiological perspective, relatively speaking to the Scott curl. A single isolated joint exercise versus a multi-joint exercise that recruits infinite number of motor units and is way more threshold is going to have a much, much more need for a lot more overall time allocated to it. And that should come in the form of potentially sets and reps. And when we break down an extended eccentric, which is going to be a high, high CNS load, there is a rapid point of diminishing returns. So instead of doing these elongated sets and doing multiple reps, you might need to look at it from, I have a small window at a given time that I need to repeat over and over and over again. So I might need to incorporate a higher set protocol over a higher rep protocol. And if we're going to go back to the original rule, if I'm going to do higher sets, then I'm going to use a lot of the lower reps. And that's kind of an example of why, when I think about from doing these, these capacity-based things, like if we're still functioning in this, like this, this phosphagen glycogen and oxidative system type of format, and each is going into this power versus capacity, and we can go the extended duration, right? It can go up to 10 seconds for a lactic or for a lactic phosphagen system, or I can do a three second repeated over and over and over again, while maintaining that level of intensity or output. It gets into this conversation of, okay, well, apples to apples, if I'm going to get exposure, more volume, or more of this, this stress through this higher intensity mechanism, it means that the outcome over a period of time is going to be greater. I just think it's a huge missed opportunity where people don't utilize higher set protocols. But aside from that point, it comes down again, the function and the demand and the, and the actual physical requirements of certain things like bounding or maximal sprinting or Olympic lifts that have a small window where you can actually do it at a high level needs to be focused on in terms of accruing more volume and more volume through sets as opposed to more volume through extending time or duration or distance or overall, like repetitions in some way, right? And you could argue we can increase time under tension, but it has a, again, a point of diminishing returns as well, which we should still utilize that. But it's not necessarily something that is as a low hanging fruit as increasing sets, but let's go on the other end of the spectrum. Let's look at both of those, right? So we want to increase someone's cross-sectional muscle area, right? So we have someone who's a body mass focused athlete. We have 140 pound running back that we need to gain 30 pounds this off season. Well, what you think you realize is, okay, we're probably going to have to utilize higher time under tension. Maybe this 40 to 70 second window, or even 20 to 40 second window, because they're just super fast, which, and we can only do so much at a given time before they just completely burn out. And we start to think about it from, okay, well, I can only do so much exposure to this before they're just technical starts to break down like that is, that is the heart of the issue is when I'm looking at developing these qualities, I have to realize that there's only so much I can do, or there's only so long I can do something, but I still need to match that. So maybe I utilize a strategy where I do higher repetitions or higher time under tensions, that's going to come at the expense of how many sets I can do, right? From a, just an overall density perspective, like the more time it takes to do an individual set, the less I can actually do in a training session, the less time it takes to do something, the more I can do of that. But there is this work to rest ratio and the amount of density I can accomplish. Then we could work through this idea of antagonist pairings and all this other stuff, but truth of the matter is, is very simple, is the longer a set takes, the less sets I can do and the less, the shorter the set takes, the more I can do within an hour training session, but quality and diminishing returns and work to rest ratios have a big impact on that. But from an exercise order perspective, we're thinking about the stuff that requires more sets probably should go earlier because it's going to be a lot more CNS, the stuff that requires less sets should probably go later because it's less CNS. If you're doing a straight just body mass or body composition, that protocol, the thing that has the most motor units associated should always be earlier. Even if I'm doing higher rep things like 20, 20 reps on squat or, or high rep, high volume kettlebell swings, even if it's utilizing big global muscle, muscle groups, or a lot of threshold, a lot of high threshold motor units, I still should be putting that early and I should still have that bandwidth to associate. Okay. Like there's a higher risk associated with certain movements, certain, certain high, uh, high threshold motor unit type of activities. And that comes with, comes at a certain level of, of what I need to be responsible with allocating stress here. So I need to place that early. So exercise order wise, they're still following the same rules, but I do think the stuff that requires more sets should always be placed earlier. Right. And I think it goes into this other dynamic. It's probably just more important. You look at the windows of opportunity. We have training, usually small, and we look at the opportunity to get more bang for your buck or more value from the time that we have higher threshold, multi joint compound exercises are probably always going to be king in some regards, unless there's a direct functional need from a rehabilitation standpoint or from a, uh, I know this person has some serious deficiencies, so we need to work these more isolated patterns and trying to allocate stress deliberately to this one area, which is great. It's fine. But at the end of the day, it goes into, all right, this is going to bring me more value from the time that I have. So it should go earlier and it should have as much time allocated to that as possible, but then we can start to look through this other level of, of, okay, well, rate of force development, absolute load, uh, potentially different coordinated skills, right? So if I'm going to do a dynamic effort squat protocol, or if I'm going to do plyometrics, or if I'm going to do Olympic lifts, all these things either have a high rate of force development and a lot of coordinated skill throw in their maximal absolute strength type lifts. All these things are going to recruit a higher threshold. Chances are that the safer play is going to be this higher set, lower actual rep method and protocol. Chances are, and I'm, I'm, what I'm talking to right now is the, is the, uh, strength coach working with athletes trying to check a lot of boxes, right? And let's say that you adhere to this, what I call a grenade approach, conjugate method. We're going to hit something fast, something heavy, something long within every training session, right? So with that being said, then you have to start to make some decisions. Okay. Well, if I have something fast and something heavy, those are both very high CNS intensive things. Okay. Something fast might be a place early, but it might not be as valued based off this dogma of strength is King or the mother of all qualities. So therefore you should only be focusing on that. It might go into this level of, it's hard to assess effort on, right? It's, I mean, we have such great technology now between dbt and force plate, but the truth is man, like you're watching someone doing plyos or dynamic effort and their body weight or a 30 to 40% intensity. I'm like, Oh, well, yeah, it's good. Um, but I can definitively see you when something's heavy and someone's training for that. So chances are, you probably are. Organically spending more time on a heavier thing, but may not be the best call, right? Like, and then we'll go through this enforced velocity and work. Like it's, it's addressing weaknesses is addressing underlying issues. It's looking at it from a direct standpoint of like, this person needs to do something fast, more frequently, but also to, they need to do something fast at a higher overall volume, but there's a point of diminishing returns from going over lower. So you get volume through doing higher sets. You accrue volume through these intermittent bouts of high intensity efforts, but again, it goes into this like idea of like, if you follow this grenade approach and you're looking at it from higher set stuff placed earlier, but I don't value the stuff at the place first. Okay. Well, I'm going to put all my sets in this, in this, like what I call B series or the, the absolute strength or the max effort type of type of block in a training session that might not be the right call, right? And if it is more important, let's say that the person is just very weak and they need to develop force. You might, might want to skip the dynamic effort altogether and just think about rate of force development coming from intent from trying to move something heavy, really fast. Might come in from, hey, we're going to do some speed work outside. So we're just going to do some, some maximal sprinting and some plyometrics and some med ball work. And that's going to constitute our dynamic effort on that given day. It might mean coming in the warmup sets, moving something really fast. And I talk about that a lot with in-season training, but I think the, I think the concept of where we allocate our time is so underrated and the outcomes razor, which we talk about in our coaching modules is so important because if it's incredibly obvious what we should do, we should absolutely do it. And we need to figure out what are the better strategy to accrue as much or aggregate as much as we possibly can within the time that we have. And it might come in the form of sets or reps. And if it's more CNS, it's probably better served to focus on sets over reps. If it's more muscular, it's probably better served to focus on reps over sets. And certain exercises from an isolated standpoint, because you're thinking about size principle as well too, right? Like, you know, I can recruit higher threshold motor units doing things that require it a lot more aggressively, right? So if I'm looking at it from the context of I'm trying to do a counter movement jump or a snatch, chances are there's only one way to get the point B and that's moving it with as much physical intent as possible. Like there's like sharp spike in rate of force development and the sharp spike of size going through the size principle to getting to these type two X muscle fibers, but that means a large drop off versus if I'm going to do an isolated joint action, chances are I'm trying to change the actual physical structure, not necessarily the connective tissue, but the muscular tissue. So I'm trying to add sarcomeres. I'm trying to add cross sectional area. That's probably going to come in the form of an elongated size principle of getting through all the type two, type two A, two B, and then probably finishing off with more or less morphine seed resistant type one to really tack that muscle cell and that muscle group as fully and completely as possible. But then it goes into this idea of like, is one set of anything even worth it? Do I need multiple exposures? And you can go through the history of this where in the sixties and I should say seventies, there was a big movement for doing one set to failure. And then Dr. Kramer, formerly at Penn State and now UConn pretty much debunked it, but the pendulum swung really far in the opposite direction. I'm sure this probably sounds like contradicting to what I just said, but the truth of the matter is, is we have to manage this swing of momentum with things like isolated joint actions and machines and stuff that we can still leverage, pushing someone to absolute failure in our training. It doesn't necessarily need to come in high set. I mean, if anyone ever really has gone through an isolated joint action to failure, like a bicep curl or a leg extension to failure, you know, you realize you don't need as much exposure through sets. So if I'm going to do something maybe as a corrective or maybe as like a preliminary thing, maybe it's a activation or priming type of thing. Like maybe I don't need as much exposure. Maybe I do. Cause I look at it, the needs analysis and I say, okay, this person just needs to move faster a lot more often. And then I get through this like strength period or, or this like period where I'm doing functional hypertrophy. And then I got to like the, the, the post or the, the C series or the stuff that is going to be more simple and just a little grind it out. And at this point we've depleted some glycogen, we've developed some cortisol. Uh, we are at the tail end of something. So it's just about finishing. Do we need a high set protocol for something like, like forearm curls or, or, um, tip raises or calf raises or, uh, a buy or try exercise or isolated shoulder exercise? Do we need a lot of volume there? Yeah, probably. But do we need a lot of sets? Probably not. And you think about the emotional bandwidth and how to handle like four to six sets of, of tip raises. I probably not. Right. And I, at the point of the principal section is to go through what is absolutely true. And the truth is, is sets and reps are inverted always. But then on top of it, it goes into this dynamic of if I'm going to invert sets and reps, well, what's going to have a higher set and lower rep, and then what's going to have a lower rep or higher rep and lower set and early higher set. Cause it's probably the more important thing later, lower set. Cause it's not necessarily unimportant. It's just not necessarily as risky or as mission critical. Uh, and then the other end of, can we get the same value from doing lower number of sets? If I can just do one set of something and I can get the adequate stress, stimulus response, and I can get out of there earlier and I can get recovered faster. Why wouldn't I at least try for that? Maybe. I think that's something to think about. And then the other really big thing about sets and reps and looking at this from the level, it's like, I think we get pretty locked in on certain sets and reps. Um, you know, you're a five by five person or you're a alternating accumulation intensification blocks of, of six by three and four by 10 or whatever, right? You just get into this like locked in thing where I would come back and say is if you understand time and attention and how to best manage that time based off the goal, the reps become less important and the sets become a little bit more important. And I think that's the concept that as we break down, you know, just training in general, you know, and I get this people who are strict rep people, like a hat, it's all reps all the time. That's all good. That's great. But the truth is, is, or I'm sorry, rep people like I'm just rep count, right? And I don't know if it's just me trying to be different to be different. And I don't know if it's just me trying to be different to be different, but I look at people that just walk in on rep schemes as kind of antiquated. Um, and I apologize if that comes off as insulting, but truth is like, I, if I just know what time of attention I need to hit based off the targeted goal of zero to 20 seconds for power and relative strength, I felt like I have 20, 40 for functional hypertrophy, 47 for hypertrophy, 70 plus for muscular endurance, zero to 10 for phosphogen, 30 to 60 for glycolytic 60 or 90 and above for oxidative, you know, this, this like, all right, that's my goal. And then either high end or low end high end for capacity, low end for power or repeat low end for capacity as well. Okay. Then I have a really good idea of what my parameters I need to stay within to get to a targeted outcome. And then I focus on the overall time I needed to be on the retention or, or exert effort. And then I look at it from, if it's less time, I'm just gonna do more sets. I don't care about the reps to be honest. It's really not that important to me. And I'm sure there's a lot of folks out there that like time and attention doesn't matter and that stuff's all nonsense. It's not really a, uh, a substantiated science and there's a lot of like, I guess, um, Liberty's taken with that, but I'll be honest, man. Like if I'm looking at this from a scientific experiment standpoint and all of this, just an educated guess hypothesis of what I want to do to get to a certain outcome and I could put a control on there. Like I know how long every set took over the course of 48 training sessions and I did or did not reach the mark. I think it's just good scientific methods to have good controls on your, your inputs. And I can say that prescription of time under tension or exerting effort was adequate or inadequate more directly. And then I just, okay. If it's longer time under tension and I can't do as many sets and vice versa, but as all go through it, like, you know, just look at the Kramer work, look at the Ostrovsky work, look at the, the, uh, the overall premise of, of just looking at sets and reps and saying deliberately, like, all right, like what are my go-to set and rep protocols? And if I'm, if you think it's just effort within that, then I think you're missing a good opportunity or you have a really good opportunity to expand your thoughts and look at this a little bit more in a different lens, to be honest, because it's just a great opportunity. I'm a break here. We'll get to practical here next. Um, and yeah, just go through that. And anyone who's ever looked at my programming, um, ever wondered why I do certain set rep protocols. Like I'll just tell you the reps really don't really matter to me that much. It's just the time under tension and what allows for a certain amount of sets or doesn't, or what is the, what is the effort it takes to do that from a rate of force development and absolute load perspective and the sets and the time of attention I can do with that. And the sets are the product of that. All right, guys, I hope this is helping. Um, thank you guys for listening and we'll see you guys, uh, for the next module.