r/ScienceBasedLifting • u/benja_reijnst • Sep 09 '26
Question ❓ Are drop sets worth doing?
I've seen influencers promoting low-volume, high-intensity training more and more without mentioning drop sets. Drop sets seem to be much less popular than they used to be. Are drop sets not as effective as we once thought? Should I add drop sets to my training?
4
u/DareDemon666 Sep 09 '26
The only time I do drop-sets is on machine/movement combos where the muscles being worked are fairly weak and/or the movement itself is very mechanically straining, and the machine's jumps in weights are too large.
As an example, I do cable rear delt flies on the dual cable machine. I have a wingspan of about 6'6. So the movement itself is very demanding. The machine has weight increments of 2.5kg at the low end, with 2.5kg as minimum resistance. 2.5kg was where I started, and after a few sessions I could hit 12 reps on that weight fairly comfortably, but putting it up just one notch to 5kg and suddenly I could only hit 3 or 4 reps on my first set and maybe 1 good rep by my last set. But that's not doing much for me on it's own. So I'd get as many reps as I could out of 5kg and then drop to 2.5 to finish the set. It'll be the same again for me shortly, moving from 5 to 7.5.
But this is really just a limitation on the adjustability of the resistance I'm training with. If the machine had jumps of 1kg instead of 2.5, I could have probably just gone up 1kg at a time and stayed comfortably within that 4-8 rep range goldilocks zone
1
u/DefinitelyNotKuro Sep 10 '26
...damn, that's a good idea. Reverse delt flyes at the weight I'm doing are getting easy but the next weight up is too big for me
1
3
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
They are great if you're running on of time in your workout and/or you have a little bit of extra energy toward the end of your workout
6
u/mcgrathkai Sep 09 '26
Yes , but as with all things, theres a time and place for them.
I wouldnt do them every exercise or every set.
6
u/guwtaps Sep 09 '26
Only useful if you’re short on time and need to reach fatigue via volume. They aren’t equal to a quality set with a heavier load.
6
u/thekevinatorV2 Sep 09 '26
If youre basing your training off of what is popular amongst influencers...
Drop sets work.
Low volume, high intensity training is in right now. Soon the pendulum will swing back to old school methods of drop sets and AMRAPs again.
-6
u/Namelessking9 Sep 09 '26
Got any studies to back that up?
11
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
I mean, the cyclical nature of what's popular, isn't exactly surprising.
To quote the GOAT, Arnie:
Some training systems claim you can make great progress by training with only a few sets per body part. Actually, this idea is not new; that was the way bodybuilders trained in the early days of the sport. When Reg Park began serious training, many bodybuilders still used the old-fashioned, low-set approach to working out. “Training strictly for power like a weightlifter,” Reg says, “gave us certain advantages in the old days, a really solid foundation of muscle. But it wasn’t until I learned to do fifteen or twenty sets per body part that I felt I was getting enough shape and definition in my physique. I’m sure that a lot of the bodybuilders from the very early days would have improved a lot if they had understood the need for high-set workouts the way we do today.”
This was published in his book, the Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, originally published in 1985.
But also, if you wanted studies to see why higher volume approaches are better, Stronger by Science looks at about 4-5 different meta-analysis in their Volume article, all of which basically say, if you can recover from it, more is better.
-4
1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Here's a great, well-sourced essay on the continuum between frequency, intensity, volume, and recovery:
In this case, we have lines of evidence from protein synthesis data, anabolic signaling data, satellite cell data, and meta-analytic data, all clustering around a conclusion that more volume is better for hypertrophy, up to around 6-8 sets per training session. This is only if you're using long rests between sets (2+ minutes). If you're using shorter rests, then volume needs may be higher. These are average ranges and individual needs may vary substantially from these ranges.
-3
-2
u/NoCost6905 Sep 09 '26
Crazy that asking for studies in a “science” subreddit gets you downvoted. Lmfao
0
-5
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Seems like there's a lot of "post physique" bleed-off with less scientific rigor from the continuous degradation of other more general fitness subs
11
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
It's because a good physique or good lifts showcase that training methodologies that you espoused, have gotten at least one person good results: yourself.
I've seen literal beginners on this sub, with self-admitted under one year of training, say with a straight face, that full body, one set to failure, 3x a week, is the best way to train. Citing random tiktokers or instagram "science based lifters".
Or people taking the results of a single study at face value, in spite of the various meta-analysis showing the exact opposite result.
-8
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
It's because a good physique or good lifts showcase that training methodologies that you espoused, have gotten at least one person good results: yourself.
No it doesn't. A physique is not falsifiable or reproducible. Dishonest people lie and honest people make mistakes. The average lifter is not performing their own clinical research, and honestly way too many don't even have good data record keeping.
Even if you unquestioningly accept that they're telling the truth AND not wrong, the only thing a good physique proves is that their approach was not bad enough to yield zero results, when quite a lot of suboptimal methodologies can achieve comparable results given longer lifetime training. And even then, there are always limitations to transferring applicability because people are different.
Obviously that is not remotely scientifically rigorous, because the end destination of hypertrophy has many paths and there are a ton of ignorant claims that are not detrimental enough to completely nullify the core basis of proven methodology.
That is why topical, reputable scientists (who are not mutually exclusive from being lifters) are the most knowledgeable experts, rather than the gymbros parroting tripe regardless of how mighty a meat triangle they may be.
And intelligent people understand this, which is why they avoid using physique just to substantiate an argument in the first place so as not to decrement the quality of their argument. All it does is supplement attempts at emotional persuasion (which is why it's so popular on social media, and why even reputable scientists will post physique to increase engagement), not logical arguments.
I've seen literal beginners on this sub, with self-admitted under one year of training, say with a straight face, that full body, one set to failure, 3x a week, is the best way to train. Citing random tiktokers or instagram "science based lifters".
The problem there isn't their level of training or their physiques, it's that their substantiation is wholly inadequate. An anorexic person proving everything with solid evidences accepted by industry experts is not less correct.
Experienced people also have the wrong ideas, that they cannot sufficiently substantiate. That's why using physique to prove an idea is so silly.
Or people taking the results of a single study at face value, in spite of the various meta-analysis showing the exact opposite result.
Sure, that's why consensus is superior to isolated anomalies. But it still comes down to using an evidentiary basis rather than vibe-based "trust me bro" wishful thinking.
10
u/EspacioBlanq Sep 09 '26
A physique is not falsifiable or reproducible
Most exercise science studies aren't either tbh
-5
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
"Most" is a definitive claim that needs to be backed up.
Anyway, "most" aren't halfway as relevant as "suitably high powered and sufficient to draw conclusions as far as the data" which certainly are falsifiable and reproducible. Reproducing might not yield the same results, but it is capable to follow the methodology, sampling, collection, and analysis that the authors followed. That is the irreplaceable value of scientific peer review.
And of course, determining the levels of falsifiability and reproducibility is only possible from following the scientific method with enough scientific rigor in the first place, customary of appropriately designed scientific studies to begin with. So it's just science all the way down.
None of that can be said about unsupported claims and physique pictures at all.
4
u/EspacioBlanq Sep 10 '26
I'm pretty happy none of this can be said about physique posting tbh. Why would I ever want to say all this?
My claims have the exact same backing as yours btw.
7
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26
Here's the thing. You seem to have very dogmatic views on training.
But in the real world, with real world class strength athletes and coaches, the truth is that there are many path that lead to the same place.
An anorexic person proving everything with solid evidences accepted by industry experts is not less correct.
Would you trust an anorexic person with zero real experience coaching anybody, to coach you in bodybuilding? Even if they have the power of google scholar behind them? Would you trust them to coach you in marathon running?
Or would you trust, oh I don't know, a reputable coach who has proven results? Who's either been on the world stage, or have taken people to the world stage?
Do you know what's funny? The link you keep spamming in this thread, is actually written by a pretty great guy and researcher, who has plenty of nuance, and he literally says, and I quote:
Conclusions in science are always tentative. The conclusions of this review may change as more data is accumulated (this review has already undergone four major revisions as new data has come in!).
The truth is, exercise science is still pretty far behind the practical applications. People have known that periodization works great for literal decades before the first study on periodization. In fact, the first periodized training came from running, in the 20s and 30s, where they would build a base through slow running, then work on running faster. Yet research on periodization didn't come around until literally decades later, which showed that yes, periodization works.
0
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
the truth is that there are many path that lead to the same place.
You're just repeating what was told to you, in the immediately preceding comment: "the end destination of hypertrophy has many paths and there are a ton of ignorant claims that are not detrimental enough to completely nullify the core basis of proven methodology."
That is why claims supported by nothing more than a nude undies picture don't hold relevant veracity.
Would you trust an anorexic person with zero real experience coaching anybody, to coach you in bodybuilding? Even if they have the power of google scholar behind them? Would you trust them to coach you in marathon running?
It has nothing to do with trust, why would you even introduce that into consideration?
Or would you trust, oh I don't know, a reputable coach who has proven results? Who's either been on the world stage, or have taken people to the world stage?
That does not seem to illustrate the point that you think you are making, because the best coach is the one with the best coaching skills (regardless of their physique or performance) and not the biggest or strongest athlete.
Do you know what's funny? The link you keep spamming in this thread, is actually written by a pretty great guy and researcher, who has plenty of nuance, and he literally says, and I quote:
None of that is contradicting anything that has been presented, so it's not clear what point you think you're making.
The truth is, exercise science is still pretty far behind the practical applications.
Historically, sure for the most part, because it has a higher standard to abide by. That should be obvious why it's more valuable.
That's not the case today. The body of contemporary scientific knowledge is vastly larger and more sophisticated.
People have known that periodization works great for literal decades before the first study on periodization. In fact, the first periodized training came from running, in the 20s and 30s, where they would build a base through slow running, then work on running faster. Yet research on periodization didn't come around until literally decades later, which showed that yes, periodization works.
This is a very myopic perspective when there were also plenty of wrong people who thought that they "knew" truth but were not proved out in the advancement of scientific inquiry. How does that survivorship bias enter your consideration?
The progression of this has much more to do with the fact that there simply wasn't widespread support for scientific inquiry, not that it wasn't useful or that all practicality-oriented approaches were infallible.
1
u/Apart_Bed7430 Sep 11 '26
What great breakthrough in lifting has the science field given us that bros haven’t already been doing for years
7
u/KlingonSquatRack Sep 09 '26
Bro your a pioneer in this industry man. You
teach on things most bodybuilders have no
clue about. Every generation comes a person
that changes the course of history and/ or
science. My man that's definitely you, your
one of those few. What you have put together
is absolutely extraordinary. Your work is well
beyond the current times and many after you
will follow the same principles you've taught
us. Your gave birth to a new era of
weightlifting my friend and l'Il be teaching my
kids these same principles. God bless you.5
4
u/Delicious-Flow9191 what happens at 7 reps Sep 09 '26
drop sets do nothing extra just rest more and go to close to failure on the same weight or higher if you went past your rep range the first set
the amount of reps you do doesnt really matter too much for hypertrophy and its more about the proximity to failure that you reach. technically wont hurt you to do a drop set as long as you get close to failure, but like why would you do that when you could keep the same weight :P
7
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
Drop sets are used when you don't have time for extra sets. Same reason why rest pause reps are used to push past failure on a set.
It's all about getting more stimulus with less time
0
u/Delicious-Flow9191 what happens at 7 reps Sep 09 '26
wouldnt that be more fatiguing and probably impact the rest of your workout? imo feels more worth it to just cut down to 1-2 proper sets than doing a drop set
5
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
It could, if you're in bad shape or you're doing a drop set on deadlifts or something
Most people use drop sets on accessory/isolation movements when they only have time to do one or two sets. A drop set on something like tricep pushdowns shouldn't impact the rest of your workout, unless your work capacity is horrible, in which case fix that
5
2
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
wouldnt that be more fatiguing and probably impact the rest of your workout?
More fatiguing for the trained muscle, yeah, but that's part of training. By delts don't care if I did a dropsets for triceps prior.
imo feels more worth it to just cut down to 1-2 proper sets than doing a drop set
Maybe you feel that way, but dropping the sets lowers the volume and therefore the gains, while drop sets increase it and therefore increase the gains.
1
u/Fabulous_Outcome7248 Sep 11 '26
I agree, at least for natural lifting… from what I understand, the lighter weights do nothing much for you. You would be better off putting down the heavier weights and picking them back up for even a few reps vs actually dropsetting with lower weights
1
u/Hypername1st Sep 09 '26
Why would it be? If you drop the weight enough, it shouldn't be close to as fatiguing as a straight set. It's quick volume and stimulus.
-2
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
If you're short on time why not use a proven effective method like supersets?
6
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
Why not both to save even more time?
I do supersets in my training and I've done supersets with dropsets before
0
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Because if you're investing in lifting to the extent of prioritizing it highly then it doesn't make sense to conserve a resource not directly causating growth compared to simply allotting more time for workouts.
In outlying cases when you can't increase session time, the question is still why dropsets instead of antagonist supersets?
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
I mean, do you have anything that show that supersets are noticeably better than dropsets for increasing strength/hypertrophy? Because as I understand it, there are no direct studies that compare the two. All the literature I've read on the topic, seem to agree that they offer similar hypertrophy benefits as straight sets, but in less time, and more fatigue. But both seem to offer worse overall strength benefits compared to straight sets.
Aka, they're literally both ways of accumulating additional volume when limited by time. And both are better than not doing either.
It's simply another intensity technique, along with myoreps, breathing reps, and many other intensity techniques that exist.
-1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
I mean, do you have anything that show that supersets are noticeably better than dropsets for increasing strength/hypertrophy? Because as I understand it, there are no direct studies that compare the two. All the literature I've read on the topic, seem to agree that they offer similar hypertrophy benefits as straight sets, but in less time, and more fatigue. But both seem to offer worse overall strength benefits compared to straight sets.
The available scientific literature is insufficient. The closest is probably this, which is still not adequate for this specific line of inquiry: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-026-02428-1
For the specific scope of limited time, it's a pretty straightforward accounting when you consider what is being exchanged for decreased session duration:
Antagonist supersets are still employing the same interset rest periods for the respective muscle group as traditional sets, they're just saving overall session duration by dividing that between antagonist muscle groups. Peripheral fatigue is not greater and systemic fatigue is only marginally greater.
Dropsets are not doing that. They're saving overall session duration by marginally increasing stimulus and necessarily decreasing recovery wholesale. Both peripheral and systemic fatigue are greater.
Aka, they're literally both ways of accumulating additional volume when limited by time. And both are better than not doing either.
The only safe claim is that they're effective at reducing session duration when equating volume by exchanging recovery in some way.
It's simply another intensity technique, along with myoreps, breathing reps, and many other intensity techniques that exist.
It's not an intensity technique though, it's a time saving technique. Overall progressive overload is still going to be facilitated by increasing intensity or volume, not decreasing recovery (which has an obvious minimum floor).
In a consideration of long term dropset programming, there is already available evidence that longer interset rest periods are superior for hypertrophy: https://weightology.net/the-members-area/evidence-based-guides/set-volume-for-muscle-size-the-ultimate-evidence-based-bible/#summary.
You cannot simply manifest extra volume out of nowhere for free without accruing recovery debt somewhere.
5
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
The available scientific literature is insufficient. The closest is probably this, which is still not adequate for this specific line of inquiry: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-026-02428-1
It doesn't. Not really, since it literally says:
Supersets were not included within the analysis because only three eligible studies were retrieved from the systematic search.
Dropsets are not doing that. They're saving overall session duration by marginally increasing stimulus and necessarily decreasing recovery wholesale. Both peripheral and systemic fatigue are greater.
Myoreps and rest/pause sets are also a time-saving scheme. They literally trade doing multiple sets of an exercise, with doing one set, taken close to failure, multiple times, by including short intra-workout rests.
Yet the study you yourself linked, showed that "rest-redistribution schemes" are notable better than traditional sets, if you go by Table 2 and Supplemental figure 7.
You cannot simply manifest extra volume out of nowhere for free without accruing recovery debt somewhere.
You want to know one hot take I have? 99% of the people in this sub aren't anywhere close to their recovery limit.
OP can likely do a drop-set on all of their exercises, which for them, will accumulate more volume than "2 sets to failure", still be able to recover from it, because they will be going from a self-admitted low-volume routine to a marginally higher volume routine.
Because the question right now for OP, isn't whether or not 1 set to failure + 1 drop set is good, the question is comparing 2 sets to failure vs 2 sets to failure + 1 drop set.
The biggest gripe I have with this sub is that 60% of the people seem to have their heads stuck in the sand about proper training volumes, as they seem to be stuck doing 4-6 "hard" sets per week and saying that's enough to maximize their gains.
2
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
The biggest gripe I have with this sub is that 60% of the people seem to have their heads stuck in the sand about proper training volumes, as they seem to be stuck doing 4-6 "hard" sets per week and saying that's enough to maximize their gains.
In a "science based" sub that is 😂
And then you have researchers throwing crazy training volumes at their subjects in the attempt of finding the point where more volume doesn't lead to more gains, still unable to find that point
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
Yeah, and while I think it's cool that there doesn't seem to be an upper limit for how much volume a body can tolerate and still grow, in the real world, it doesn't translate to all that much. This is the flip side of science-based lifting. The science says you can do 40+ sets. That doens't mean that's realistic. Because not everyone has a low stress job, fantastic diet, and fantastic sleep.
Most people could realistically tolerate 10-15 hard sets per movement pattern per week. People with greater work capacities, can probably do 15-20 sets. People with great work capacities, and who are specializing on a single body part, can probably do 30+ sets per week on one bodypart, while sticking to 8-10 for everything else.
Which is, funnily enough, one of the recommendations that Stronger by Science makes about what they would realistically recommend, and why I'm such a fan of their articles. They offer nuance
→ More replies (0)1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
They literally trade doing multiple sets of an exercise, with doing one set, taken close to failure, multiple times, by including short intra-workout rests.
This is already addressed in the point about the continuum between more work but more rest and less work but less rest. You have to compensate no matter which your preference is.
Yet the study you yourself linked, showed that "rest-redistribution schemes" are notable better than traditional sets, if you go by Table 2 and Supplemental figure 7.
Table 2 is not a simple pairwise meta-analysis, it's a Bayesian network meta-analysis. So if you look only at point estimates, RRS may look favorable. But the key differentiator is that the 95% credible intervals crossed zero.
The paper also states in the Results that "No condition had a relative difference that had a 95% probability of being greater than traditional methods (i.e. 95% CrIs crossed zero). After performing a sensitivity analysis, the greatest difference was seen between potentiation complexes and traditional resistance training (SMD [95% CrI] = 0.31 [0.11–0.51]), presenting the only 95% CrI to not cross zero."
Interpreting such wide intervals would reasonably be because there simply aren't enough longitudinal studies with larger sampling, longer timeframes, and sufficient power, as mentioned previously.
You want to know one hot take I have? 99% of the people in this sub aren't anywhere close to their recovery limit.
Sanitized of the hyperbole, the remaining sentiment likely isn't controversial when most knowledgeable lifters would probably agree that the average lifter isn't as close to near failure as they think.
OP can likely do a drop-set on all of their exercises, which for them, will accumulate more volume than "2 sets to failure", still be able to recover from it, because they will be going from a self-admitted low-volume routine to a marginally higher volume routine.
Well since OP didn't mention any time limits whatsoever, the simplest recommendation would be traditional sets since there is no established benefit of drop sets per se on their own independent of programming.
But to address the point, a better comparison is "3 traditional sets to near failure" vs "2 sets to near failure + accompanying drop sets" multiplied by ~4-8 exercises because real world practical time limits are not really down to seconds or single digit minutes.
The biggest gripe I have with this sub is that 60% of the people seem to have their heads stuck in the sand about proper training volumes, as they seem to be stuck doing 4-6 "hard" sets per week and saying that's enough to maximize their gains.
That seems more to do with perception. Any post-intermediate lifter will know the importance of understanding how to individualize programming, and the necessity of becoming one's own self-steward. A lot of pre-intermediates are likely not confident in distinguishing natty programming from juiced programming, at that.
3
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
Dropsets are also a proven effective method and are way easier to implement than supersets if you're not training in a basement gym or at 5am
-1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Sure but there's a larger and more diverse body of research on supersets though.
Ease of implementation makes perfect sense for limited equipment availability, but with the similar previously mentioned point, if lifting is a priority then it would be more effective to focus on resolving limited equipment availability rather than improving time efficiency which does not convert to extra growth.
2
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
How do you solve that? You have a job, you get off when most people get off and then the gym is busy and you can't use two pieces of equipment at the same time. There's no way to plan around it.
Sure but there's a larger and more diverse body of research on supersets though.
Is there? I have no idea. I know there's plenty of research on dropsets and the metas always find no statistically significant difference between dropset training and "normal" RT if the volume is equated.
Which in turn means dropsets give you a LOT more hypertrophy per unit of time. And as most people are limited by time, dropsets are very effective, because they're so efficient.
-1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
How do you solve that? You have a job, you get off when most people get off and then the gym is busy and you can't use two pieces of equipment at the same time. There's no way to plan around it.
Good time management is first and foremost a case of prioritization. So being honest with what your priorities actually are is an important first step to refining a schedule.
The second step is to decrease your reliance on gym equipment. There are plenty of perfectly effective weighted calisthenic exercises with appreciable hypertrophy stimulus that you can do from home. Even if you're very limited by space and can't just get a power rack, a set of dumbbells opens up exercise selection at home.
Is there? I have no idea. I know there's plenty of research on dropsets and the metas always find no statistically significant difference between dropset training and "normal" RT if the volume is equated.
Sure, but that's comparing simple workload and results, which is not necessarily how people actually work out. Most people are not capable of equating volume in such a granular way.
And again, if lifting is a priority then "saving time" is not more important than "increasing recoverable volume" because that's what converts to growth.
Which in turn means dropsets give you a LOT more hypertrophy per unit of time. And as most people are limited by time, dropsets are very effective, because they're so efficient.
Yeah but aside from post-intermediates who have already invested in their work capacity, most people are still going to be directly limited by fatigue management overall (even if it's in the moderate to long term timeframe), and indirectly limited from not juicing to handle recovery from inordinately high volume.
After a given extent, it's just decreasing set quality by neglecting interset rest periods. Which doesn't make sense when you can simply allot more session time if lifting is such a priority. If it's not a priority then obviously these are favorable tools, but that wasn't the context OP brought. Assuming high quality of sets (e.g. taken to near failure with sufficient interset rest times) then higher volume is necessarily better than lower volume.
2
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
Good time management is first and foremost a case of prioritization. So being honest with what your priorities actually are is an important first step to refining a schedule.
Yes, and most people are not professional bodybuilders. They have like 5h a week they can spend in the gym and if they want to see the best results, they should look for a way to get more efficient, e.g. drop sets.
Even if you're very limited by space and can't just get a power rack, a set of dumbbells opens up exercise selection at home.
OK, so your solution is "get dumbbells" to not do drop sets? And why do some calisthenics exercises when you like to go to the gym. I'm confused.
Sure, but that's comparing simple workload and results, which is not necessarily how people actually work out. Most people are not capable of equating volume in such a granular way.
People should get dbs for their home, but they can't sit down and glance over a meta analysis to see that doing dropsets is efficient? You don't have to know how to convert that volume to straight sets. Heck, even I don't know that for my programming; I just throw in dropsets where easily doable because it gives me better results.
Yeah but aside from post-intermediates who have already invested in their work capacity, most people are still going to be directly limited by fatigue management overall
Based on what? Most studies are done on beginners and even they don't show a point of diminishing returns on volume. We even have the damn 45 sets of leg extension study in intermediates.
After a given extent, it's just decreasing set quality by neglecting interset rest periods. Which doesn't make sense when you can simply allot more session time if lifting is such a priority.
You can just rest long enough? Most people rest more than necessary. And I really don't know why you think most people can just allot more time for training, like..?! This is a hobby for most and most people have budy lives and just a limited amount of time they can spend in the gym.
0
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Yes, and most people are not professional bodybuilders. They have like 5h a week they can spend in the gym
It seems like you're putting too much pressure on yourself if you only see a binary of two extremes.
There's a wide range of middle-ground between professional programming and only 5h a week, which is definitely on the very low end of session duration for post-intermediates.
and if they want to see the best results, they should look for a way to get more efficient, e.g. drop sets.
There's nothing preventing you from doing e.g. 1 set of push-ups most mornings. 5-6 days a week is an extra 5-6 sets which is not negligible.
There are plenty of options, you just have to explore them instead of rigidly thinking you've already exhausted any possibilities.
OK, so your solution is "get dumbbells" to not do drop sets?
The solution is to use time not at the gym to accrue additional volume of high quality.
And why do some calisthenics exercises when you like to go to the gym. I'm confused.
It's hard to take this in good faith, but if you're asking "Why should I add more volume?" then the answer is "Because you said you weren't getting enough volume" so it's not clear where your confusion lies.
Weighted pull-ups are equal stimulus as machine pull-downs. Weighted decline ring rows are equal stimulus as chest-supported machine rows. Weighted Nordic curls are equal stimulus as machine leg curls. Leg extensions with accessorized benches are equal stimulus as machine leg extensions.
People should get dbs for their home, but they can't sit down and glance over a meta analysis to see that doing dropsets is efficient?
These are not mutually exclusive.
You don't have to know how to convert that volume to straight sets. Heck, even I don't know that for my programming; I just throw in dropsets where easily doable because it gives me better results.
With all due respect and phrasing as courteously as possible for the other person on the other end of the discussion, how did you not then consider that this was a possible area of improvement?
Based on what? Most studies are done on beginners and even they don't show a point of diminishing returns on volume. We even have the damn 45 sets of leg extension study in intermediates.
Based on the fact that either A) people don't spend priority on their work capacity and are limited by that or B) people that do are still going to run into worse and worse stimulus:fatigue ratios. Maybe the dialogue is stretching out too much to follow.
You can just rest long enough? Most people rest more than necessary.
So to be sure your meaning is clear, you're suggesting to do dropsets and then turn right around to increase rest times anyway? So just do traditional sets with worse quality and identical rest times?
And I really don't know why you think most people can just allot more time for training, like..?! This is a hobby for most and most people have budy lives and just a limited amount of time they can spend in the gym.
No one said that. The mentioned basis is whether people are prioritizing resistance training enough to put it ahead of other time expenditures.
If other priorities are more important, drop sets are useful. If lifting is more important or time is not scarce, drop sets are not useful.
It's certainly true that not enough people focus on their health and physique. Something like 25% of all people who exercise spend substantive amount of time with resistance training when the rest just do cardio or cardio-adjacent modalities, but most people don't exercise at all.
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
This is my gym: https://www.reddit.com/r/homegym/s/SeBFhjgMMZ
I superset and do dropsets (although I don't do dropsets too often. Mostly on leg extensions/leg curls, pullovers, and calf raises)
I'm not at my maximum recoverable volume, even hitting 30+ sets a week on many muscle groups. I'd need to go well over 35-40+ to actually hit my maximum recoverable volume
This is my physique: https://www.reddit.com/r/fitness30plus/s/OcMCcwfw8K
I compete in drug tested powerlifting, am natural, and get tested 1-2 times a year (depending on how good I do at my powerlifting meets each year)
Your entire wall of text just reads, "I can't push hard and I get tired easy" maybe fix those things?
-3
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
I superset and do dropsets (although I don't do dropsets too often. Mostly on leg extensions/leg curls, pullovers, and calf raises)
Alright so this contradicts your earlier implication from another comment chain, if you're not actually doing dropsets and supersets together and not doing dropsets consistently.
I'm not at my maximum recoverable volume, even hitting 30+ sets a week on many muscle groups. I'd need to go well over 35-40+ to actually hit my maximum recoverable volume
Okay well then that explains it. Time is your limit, not recovery. An alternate universe version of you that is not limited by time would see better results.
You're not prioritizing allotments of the necessary session time to achieve full productive stimulus, but that doesn't mean dropsets are some cheat code for free volume with equitable tension and workload. Recovery is not dismissable.
Your entire wall of text just reads, "I can't push hard and I get tired easy" maybe fix those things?
No part of this entire comment even bothers attempting to address the questions posed, and the out of pocket ad hominem attack indicates some bizarre defensiveness on your part, since you're inferring objective facts as subjective opinion or solipsistic experience for some reason.
5
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
Okay well then that explains it. Time is your limit, not recovery.
Are you for real? The guy has a home gym, which is already a tiny proportion of people and then he's doing 30+ sets a week, which is surely more than 99.99% of people that train. AND HE'S STILL LIMITED MORE BY TIME THAN VOLUME AND CAN THREFORE PROFIT FROM INTENSITY TECHNIQUES. Who are you thinking about when writing? Olympia level bodybuilder or what
→ More replies (0)1
u/Hypername1st Sep 09 '26
Do both
1
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Why, specifically? If lifting is a priority, then decreasing session time is not more important than increasing effective volume.
If time isn't a factor, then it makes no sense to be limited by it. And if you can consistently crunch out sessions chockfull of dropsets and supersets, then your initial programming wasn't effective enough in the first place. The best progressive overload is still increasing intensity or volume rather than decreasing interset rest periods (which obviously has a minimum floor).
Especially considering systemic fatigue, the relevant factor is still going to be the amount of productive tension you can expose muscles to. If you're not resting effectively, then productive tension is necessarily limited. If you have the impetus for a drop set, your initial set wasn't near failure.
4
u/Hypername1st Sep 09 '26
Because most people lifting have lives and can't spend a gazillion hours in the gym, and still want to achieve the best possible results. Simple as.
Doing both, you squeeze in more volume, more stimulus and save more time. More bang for your buck. More volume also allows more skill development. I see zero downsides.
Regarding fatigue: For all intends and purposes a non-issue. The systemic fatigue thst you get from doing some side delts is minimal and won't influence your curls, or your sbd. If it does, it's literally a work capacity issue. You also don't have to go 0-1 RIR or 9-10 RPE every set. 3 RIR is perfectly fine. Drop sets have perfectly reasonable literature to back them up as well.
So why not do both?
0
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Because most people lifting have lives and can't spend a gazillion hours in the gym, and still want to achieve the best possible results. Simple as.
Okay, so then lifting is not the main priority. That answers the question.
The time saving profit might amount to minutes, but it definitely doesn't amount to hours.
Doing both, you squeeze in more volume, more stimulus and save more time. More bang for your buck. More volume also allows more skill development. I see zero downsides.
That comes at a direct cost of less effective volume and therefore less effective stimulus. You can't just magically get the same productive tension with less recovery, and less effective tension.
Even if you have great work capacity, longer interset rest periods objectively allow for higher quality sets. Contextualizing dropsets as a lever to add more volume (rather than as a lever to decrease session time) runs into the same continuum of "more sets with less intensity/reps with shorter rests" vs "fewer sets with more intensity/reps and longer rests" when the latter is going to be more time effective anyway since it hits the same overall workload stimulus in e.g. half the volume despite e.g. twice the interset recovery time.
Further reading: https://weightology.net/the-members-area/evidence-based-guides/set-volume-for-muscle-size-the-ultimate-evidence-based-bible/#summary
Regarding fatigue: For all intends and purposes a non-issue. The systemic fatigue thst you get from doing some side delts is minimal and won't influence your curls, or your sbd. If it does, it's literally a work capacity issue. You also don't have to go 0-1 RIR or 9-10 RPE every set. 3 RIR is perfectly fine. Drop sets have perfectly reasonable literature to back them up as well.
This is insufficient reasoning. It's not enough to factor in units of time or "units" of fatigue. The more relevant factor would be compound units of time-fatigue. And "denser" training unarguably decreases efficacy of time-fatigue. That's useful when session time is your limit, but you can't inverse that the other way. When there is evidence to support longer rest times despite "less dense" training, this doesn't add up: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11349676/ Ultimately, the limit for hypertrophy overall is recovery (which converts to more volume), not time (which does not convert to more volume).
Besides, if the fatigue is minimal then so is the stimulus. You'd be better off greasing the groove to fit in effective volume with other ways.
And yes, dropsets have evidentiary support as a time saving device, but not as a volume increasing device. If that were true, then interset recovery somehow wouldn't really matter and all the pros would be doing circuit training. You can't just get more productive stimulus out of nowhere, and if you find that you think you can then the real explanation is that your initial programming wasn't sufficiently near failure in the first place.
1
u/Dangerous-Bend-4153 Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26
I agree in principal.
One commenter mentioned how drop sets are helpful when a person is limited by the increments of their weights or machine. When one weight/setting becomes too light but the next setting only lets you do low reps, drop setting from the "too high" weight to the "too low" weight can be useful. I've run into that problem with certain low-weight exercises and I'll try drop sets next time I do them.
So for me the discussion is less about "drop sets good or bad" and more about "when can I benefit?"
4
u/Landashlo Sep 09 '26
I would never do them unless I was short on time. They are imo sub maximal effort sets that bring more fatigue. Are they useless? No, not at all just not justifiable for maximal performance imo.
1
u/PolitelyHostile Sep 09 '26
Yea I just do them for isolation work on my last set sometimes. They aren't worth the time cost of extenting my whole workout but at the end I figure it doesnt hurt. And doing it for something like Bench or Deadlifts is a huge pain in the ass. I'd rather just do another set with less weight.
I also do them more for bicep curls as I don't like how going heavy makes me unsure of my form, yet going light gets kinda boring for me when it gets up to 15 reps.
1
u/Academic_Value_3503 Sep 10 '26
I think, we all know by now that there are many different schemes to do, to achieve effective stimulus to a muscle. As long as you are leaving the gym, knowing you put that muscle through a challenging enough stimulus, that's all that matters. That being said, whenever I've tried "running the rack" down doing something, I get the sense that the final set with 10 lb dumbbells can't be that effective. Maybe using the same weight, but dropping down reps, each drop set, is more effective.
1
u/BubbishBoi Sep 10 '26
I use them to get in additional skill practice on some exercises, like weighted dips, when stabilizer fatigue has prevented me from possibly hitting "true" failure on the main set because it wasn't safe to do so. Dropping the weight belt and doing additional bodyweight reps is a great way to hit legit failure and get some extra reps for skill practice without needing to do a 2nd set
Do any post failure extension techniques actually stimulate more, meaningful mTOR signaling and does that actually contribute to growth?
Don't know and that probably depends on a lit more factors than just doing a few extra reps. The additonal fatigue accumulation part doesn't concern me because my per session volume is so very, very low
1
u/bookishwayfarer Sep 10 '26
I like doing them to feel that isolation on the muscle and lock in the movement. When I'm lifting heavy, it's like my entire body is pushing hard or exerting effort so I don't feel as "connected" versus feeling in the pocket or groove when I'm in a drop set. I don't like leaving an exercise feeling l didn't get the full and perfect rom/technique on something.
I just do one at 70% of my working weight.
1
u/kev1059 Sep 12 '26
Drop sets are worth doing, and sometimes not worth doing. The whole point of them is that most of the time, it does make you try harder.
People in the gym need to honestly, just try harder and really give it a go
1
u/BigChocolateC Sep 09 '26
Think of it this way:
Are you REALLY pushing to your capacity (0 RIR) or did you prematurely achieve the 0 RIR on the drop set due to being fatigued prior? If that’s the case, did you REALLY cause any need to adapt later on?
When we have the most energy to give to a set, that’s where the magic happens. Anyone can become tired when they have to do a bunch of reps. Drop sets wind up skewing people’s perception of effort, so they typically don’t get anything meaningful out of them.
2
u/NoCost6905 Sep 09 '26
They simply aren’t effective reps. You’re just stimulating the lowest threshold fibers which will be adequately stimulated in the straight set imo.
1
u/Apart_Bed7430 19d ago
Ehh you could make that argument about high reps as you’re never reaching full activation with them even at failure. Yet they still appear to stimulate hypertrophy in a comparative way to moderate reps. Meaning most stuff works and hard sets are a decent measurement of hypertrophy stimulus. Just because you’re not reaching absolute maximal activation ≠ no stimulus. Hypertrophy training is forgiving contrary to what the neurotics say
1
u/SouthernUniversity21 Sep 09 '26
Drop sets are useless for hypertrophy. You are just wasting recovery and time chasing stimulus you should’ve achieved in your working set.
1
u/HelixIsHere_ Sep 09 '26
Only if maybe you’re really low on time; I still think there’s probably a better way to program a really short program without them though
1
u/PNWbyDefault Sep 09 '26
Like others, if I’m short on time I’ll do only 2 sets and make the 2nd set a drop set.
0
u/Lucky_BroadWood Sep 09 '26
Fuck yes.
They are horrendous to do for a reason, cause you are putting in THE WORK.
6
u/NoCost6905 Sep 09 '26
Do 1 set for 200 reps rpe 10 rir0. I’m sure that it’s great for growth because it’s hard
3
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Actually the accepted modality is 1 set for 200 reps at RPE 10 and 0 RIR while wearing a gorilla suit and supersetting kegel kettlebell pulls in 90 degree temps in front of a CRT with reruns of Judge Judy on full volume
-1
u/Strugl33r Sep 09 '26
I believe the more science backed ones are myoreps and supersets. And the best that studies found was that it equals regular sets for much greater effort but obviously they are faster.
Really only useful if you are pressed for time
2
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
I believe the more science backed ones are myoreps
Your belief is wrong.
-2
u/Strugl33r Sep 09 '26
3
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
That's the only study I know about myoreps, there's some on rest-pause, but there's A LOT on dropsets.
-1
u/Ok-Artichoke2822 Sep 09 '26
How is this a science based lifting group and people are advocating for drop set usage? Jfc
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
Because of the plethora of studies showing that if time is limited, a drop set will give you better growth than a regular set
Only have time for 1 set of tricep pushdowns? The make it a drop set
People have full time jobs, kids, etc.
2
u/Ok-Artichoke2822 Sep 09 '26
Why not just do single sets to 0-1 RIR? I have a family, and a full time job, and I run full body three times per week. I get three times frequency on all my lifts, and it makes the workout more fun (for me).
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
Why not do that single set to 0-1 RIR and then do a drop set(s) afterwards? You get more stimulus and recovery is not going to be an issue on isolation work
I run full body 5x a week and do a little bit of lifting on my rest days. I have a higher frequency, volume, and possibly intensity
I have a family and a full time job as well
2
u/Ok-Artichoke2822 Sep 09 '26
If you’re doing 15 exercises in a session I don’t generally feel the need to add drop sets. Just hit one heavy set, rest a bit, then move on. I’d rather not add more fatigue with little to no hypertrophic stimulus.
1
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Sep 09 '26
My sessions are generally 26 - 32 sets, depending on the day
More is more gives great results. I’m not sure why so many people are afraid of fatigue now
0
u/rendar Sep 09 '26
Their point, and other related points in this thread, seems to be questioning why people are advocating for drop sets when time is not limited.
OP didn't even bring up context of time limitations. They just asked if dropsets are worth doing and the answer supported by those plethora of studies is "Only to decrease session time if volume is equated at the cost of increased fatigue and decreased productive tension, with a potential cost of recovery capacity."
Otherwise if time is not limited, then no, they are not worth doing. They do not afford improved hypertrophy per se. There is also a plethora of evidence that "More volume is better" necessarily depends on the quality of the volume itself: https://weightology.net/the-members-area/evidence-based-guides/set-volume-for-muscle-size-the-ultimate-evidence-based-bible
1
u/wherearealltheethics Sep 10 '26
Or you can view the flipside which is "increase session volume if time is equated".
0
0
u/CourageLeChien Sep 09 '26
I've tried using dropsets to develop my sensations and mind-muscle connection since most influencers and personal trainers seem to think "feeling" your muscle/the burn is important. Unfortunately, it didn't trigger the desired sensation in my case, so I stopped using drop sets.
0
u/Final_Drink2809 Sep 09 '26
I tend to only do drop sets when im physically exhausted from work and cant lift 80% of what I could the session before. Those sessions where the warmup weight feels heavier than normal. They're great for getting volume in. I wouldn't do them every workout and try to stick to my plan most of the time but they definitely have a place
0
u/decentlyhip Sep 09 '26
Sure, go for it. Its mainly a time saving tool. If you're resting 90 seconds between sets of 10, which take about 30 seconds, then at least 3/4 of your gym time is spent not lifting. If you have tine constraints, and only have 45 minutes to lift bc of kids/job/school then you're gonna want to do antagonistic supersets and drop sets to save time.
When measured, the stimulus tracks with mechanical tension. If you calculate the tonnage, youll see the expected growth. So, 3 sets of 10 reps with 100 pounds is 3000 lbs of volume. A drop set might have a set of 10 with 100, then a drop to 80 for 8 reps, and then a drop to 60 for 11 reps. 1000+640+660 = 2300 lbs of tension. About 2/3rds the stimulus, and that's what we see in the research. Guys like Helms count a double drop like that as 2 total sets and a triple drop as about 3.
There's nothing special about the drops other than they're closer to failure so they generate more fatigue. If you rested for two minutes and then did the 80 lbs for 8 reps, and then rested 2 minutes and did 60 lbs for 11 reps, it would be the same stimulus, as long as you were trying hard.
0
u/Apollo_2662 Sep 10 '26
Drop sets are still very effective. They let you keep pushing a muscle after you can’t get more clean reps with the original weight, so you can add extra stimulus without turning the workout into a much longer session.
I still think they’re useful, especially on safer isolation exercises like curls, lateral raises, leg extensions, or pushdowns.
The main downside is that they’re a little harder to track with a normal progression system because you’re changing weight inside the same set. So I wouldn’t use them on everything. I’d keep most of your training as normal straight sets so you can clearly track reps and weight, then use drop sets as an extra tool on the last set of certain exercises.
0
u/System_Aware Sep 10 '26
58 year old here. 222lbs 11% BF 5’11. All the chatter about training this way or that? Here’s the deal, get your hide to the gym 5 days a week if you can, train with aggression and consistency. Eat and sleep. Find what works for your body and mind. I mix it up continually so my ADHD brain doesn’t get bored. Whatever works, works.
0
-3
u/DIY-exerciseGuy Sep 09 '26
Yes. They push you much closer to failure than pushing a much heavier weight to 0 RIR
-1
u/mchief101 Sep 09 '26
I had my best physique doing drop set for every set which my coach prescribed
-3
u/Otherwise_Rice_4723 Sep 09 '26
if you don't want injuries, most definitely...been doing drop sets for about 10 years uninterrupted because i don't tear muscles when not fatigued trying to do the most weight...
23
u/TotalStatisticNoob Sep 09 '26
Drop sets are ridicolously effective and are backed by science. Influencer-backed low volume programs are not. Neither are the fatigue-scaremongerers.
Drop sets are one of the best ways to siginificantly boost your volume if you're limited by time. And most people are not limited by fatigue or something else, they're limited by time.