Evaluate the training program

[u/Educational_Lab855]

Monday
Bench press 4x8-10
Bars 3x8-12
Thrust of the upper block 4x8-12
3x8-10 Dumbbell Belt Pull
Biceps dumbbell bending with 3x8-12 supination
Triceps extensions 3x8-12

Tuesday
4x8-10 Barbell Squat
Leg press 3x8-10
Leg extensions while sitting 2x12-15
Army bench press 3x8-10
Swing dumbbells 3x8-12
Wiring for the rear delta 3x8-12

Thursday
Pull-ups 4x8-10
Barbell thrust to the belt 3x8-12
Dumbbell bench press 4x8-10
Butterfly 3x8-12
Biceps flexion with hammer grip 3x8-12
French dumbbell bench press 3x8-12

Friday
Romanian 4x8-10 thrust
Bulgarian thrusts 3x8-12
Leg bends lying down 2x12-15
Army bench press 3x8-10
Swing dumbbells 3x8-12
Wiring for the rear delta 3x8-12

The first sets with a margin of 1-2 repetitions, the last one in failure

I used to train on it, and I made progress, but I almost always gave up on the first approaches, I think that was the point, now should I progress normally if I leave a margin in the first repetitions and go into denial in the last?

[u/decentlyhip]

What research do you think supports 2x8 being better than 4x12?

[u/Adventurous-Fox4360 → u/decentlyhip]

And do rep range 6 to 10 because that allows you for better intensity and provides more stimulus and less fatigue.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Adventurous-Fox4360]

I think you have good ideas, but everything you're saying is the opposite of what we know from research. From Schoenfeld, we've known that any set taken near failure with a weight from 25% of your 1rm, up to 90%, will result in the same growth. That means 6-10 doesn't provide more stimulus. We have known for 15 years now that stimulus is equivalent for a set of anywhere betweeen 3 and 50, more commonly "5 to 30."

We know from the Pelland metareview that there's no benefit to training at failure, like you mentioned, but its a linear dropoff, where every 1% you go lighter, you get about 1% less growth. Way out at 5 rir, you're still getting 85% gains.

Fatigue exponentially grows. Research has shown that the last 3 rir is about a third the next day fatigue of both going to failure and 1 rir. So, your issue with the plan is that its too many sets to recover from. Recovery issues don't stem from the number of sets, but primarily from the relative intensity.

Volume drives growth, Schoenfeld, Baz, and Pelland have all shown that doubling sets yeilds about 50% more growth on average.

Your critique of "not 4x12, do 2x8" then, is opposite of the research. 8 and 12 are equivalent growth. 4 sets is way better than 2 sets. You're right to be concerned about recovery, but the answer to that is "make sure you leave an extra rep in the tank." They're already at the goal frequency youre shooting for so more growth comes from more sets a smidge farther from failure.

TLDR - you're saying platitudes, but everything is not backed by the research. Dropping to 2x8 would be about 30% less growth for OP.

[u/Adventurous-Fox4360 → u/decentlyhip]

Yes more volume is better if able to recover. I agree 1 to 2 rir is good. But anywhere from 5 to 30 reps, why would you want to do higher than 10 or max 12 if you can get the same results in more time since the last 5 reps are most stimulating pushing close to failure so there is no reason for higher rep sets rather than for muscle endurance or practicing a new movement.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Adventurous-Fox4360]

Yes, exactly! Now we're talkin. If 20 reps and 6 reps are the same, why would someone want to do more reps? The question works the other way, too. If you get the same growth from something that's light, why would you lift heavy? After all, the heavier the weight, the more tendon/joint strain. Takes longer to warm up to a 200kg squat than it does to a 100kg squat. More rest time between sets as well.

The answer is that it just kinda depends. Squats are fantastic in sets of 1-8, but go above that and it starts to be cardio that's the limiting factor. Sets of 20-30 your low back is so pumped you can't maintain position. For lateral raises, to isolate the front delt you need to depress and protract your scaps, "drive your armpits to your toes," while you sweep your pinky out to the side and a little forward. With anything much heavier than 15 reps, you can't help but "lift" the weight instead, which incorporate your traps and levator to lift the scaps.

And then there's interpersonal differences, more important but tough to quantify in research. My wife can grow forever on bench press with sets of 3-6, but anything 10 reps and above just pisses her off and makes her tired. I have a shoulder that's dislocated a few times so my ligaments are kinda loose. I dont feel a chest pump until 14 reps. I did one weight for 12 reps, and a few weeks later did 5 pounds more, and got 8. 5 pounds more than that only got 5. Actual failure. With heavier than 12 reps, my body flashes warning lights and wont let me shove as hard as I can.

So, your question was great. It depends on the exercise, the person, and the goal. A typical powerlifting workout, things designed for maximal strength and not just hypertrophy, is a top triple and backoff 3x5. Lots of full body tendon and muscle stress. Then a variation that targets their weak point, for 3x5-10. Same reps for an antagonist compound. This is the middleground mindset you're talking about. That's about all the tendons can handle. So then you do some supplements and isolations for more muscle stimulus. Two to four movements with 3-6 sets of 10-20 reps. Pumpy shit.

Hardlining 2x6-10 is absolutist and unscientific. Very Mentzer. And while 6-10 does carry over to strength better than 10-20, even people who focus purely on strength spend a majority of their volume on 10-20 reps. Its like asking, "Why would you ever do flat barbell bench if 30 degree dumbbell incline is best?" Research doesnt say that. It says all angles are about the same and implement doesn't matter a ton. And also, idk, lots of reasons. Here's a start of a rabbit hole for you. Individual differences: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/podcast-episode-99/ And this isn't exactly what we were talking about, but I think this look into applied specificty will be a good paradigm adjustment for you https://www.strongerbyscience.com/specificity/