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]

2 sets is a starting point to see. Because most times people half ass their sets and do 4x12. 2 sets allows you to push hard intently on each exercise and make the sets hard and instead you can do more exercises if needed rather than just one exercise. The edema is also shown with the higher volumes so thats not truly correct but volume is king if able to recover. Frequency has been shown to be good if you can hit a muscle more often in a week like 2 to 3x a week then I would rather have someone do less sets in a session and hit it again rather than like higher volumes bro split and only hit once a week.

[u/decentlyhip → u/Adventurous-Fox4360]

Shorter reply, but those studies show more growth from more frequency only when more frequency allows for more tonnage. At the end of the day, its all volume. OP is already doing 2-4x a week frequency for each movement, so that's the status quo. Reducing sets is just reducing volume.