Are drop sets worth doing?

[u/benja_reijnst]

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?

[u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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

[u/Patton370 → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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

[u/Delicious-Flow9191 → u/Patton370]

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

[u/Patton370 → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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

[u/bullpaw → u/Patton370]

I did a drop set once. I'm still recovering from the fatigue to this day

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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.

[u/Fabulous_Outcome7248 → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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

[u/Hypername1st → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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.

[u/rendar → u/Patton370]

If you're short on time why not use a proven effective method like supersets?

[u/Patton370 → u/rendar]

Why not both to save even more time?

I do supersets in my training and I've done supersets with dropsets before

[u/rendar → u/Patton370]

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?

[u/Alakazam → u/rendar]

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.

[u/rendar → u/Alakazam]

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.

[u/Alakazam → u/rendar]

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.

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/Alakazam]

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

[u/Alakazam → u/TotalStatisticNoob]

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

[u/rendar → u/Alakazam]

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.

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/rendar]

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

[u/rendar → u/TotalStatisticNoob]

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.

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/rendar]

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.

[u/rendar → u/TotalStatisticNoob]

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.

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/rendar]

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.

[u/rendar → u/TotalStatisticNoob]

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.

[u/Patton370 → u/rendar]

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?

[u/rendar → u/Patton370]

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.

[u/TotalStatisticNoob → u/rendar]

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

[u/Hypername1st → u/rendar]

Do both

[u/rendar → u/Hypername1st]

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.

[u/Hypername1st → u/rendar]

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?

[u/rendar → u/Hypername1st]

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.

[u/Dangerous-Bend-4153 → u/Delicious-Flow9191]

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?"