Amount of sets

W

wobbles

New Member
After reading the FAQ about how many sets per exercise as seen here:
http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?12723-How-many-sets-and-how-to-determine-it

The main method of the standard 15/10/5/5 is told to be:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><colgroup><col style="width:48pt" span="3" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64">
</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Reps</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Sets</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 1</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 2</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 3</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 4</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 5</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 6</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 7</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 8</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
However, After the last thread I made I was guided more towards:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><colgroup><col style="width:48pt" span="3" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64">
</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Reps</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Sets</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 1</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 2</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 3</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 4</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 5</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">3</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 6</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">3</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 7</td> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">5</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 8</td> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">5</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I'm just curious as to why? Wouldn't this result in being unable to complete some of the working sets and pushing the limits of fatigue. The FAQ seems to utilize 2 sets during the first week of your 2 week block, then back off to 1 set during the 2nd week of the two week block. This makes sense, as the second week is leading up to your rep max and it seems unlikely that you will be able to duplicate your RM for a second set. Is there any reason why the table above ignores this principle? Would appreciate if anyone could shed some light on this issue.

I'm now currently leaning towards (after reading the FAQ), but will wait for responses before i make any final decisions:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><colgroup><col style="width:48pt" span="3" width="64"> </colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64">
</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Reps</td> <td style="width:48pt" align="center" width="64">Sets</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 1</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="mso-height-source:userset;height:15.75pt" height="21"> <td style="height:15.75pt" height="21">Week 2</td> <td align="center">15</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 3</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 4</td> <td align="center">10</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 5</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 6</td> <td align="center">5</td> <td align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 7</td> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">3</td> </tr> <tr style="height:15.0pt" height="20"> <td style="height:15.0pt" height="20">Week 8</td> <td align="center">3</td> <td align="center">2</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
(During the 3's I've included more sets as I'm assuming my strength would have increased enough in the 8 weeks to duplicate my initial RM's for multiple sets.)
 
Last edited:
OK wobbles,

I've been pondering this also whilst working towards creating my first HST routine. I believe it depends on the number and type of exercises you will be doing and the amount of time you can spend in the gym.

I've decided on 9 exercises and have give them a trial run in the gym for 15's ,10's, and 5's to find my RM's.

What I found was that certain exercises can be completed quicker with a shorter rest time between reps and others especially on the 5's and some of the 10's took longer to recover and could take too long to get through if doing a larger volume.

I believe from what I have read it would simplify things to keep the number of reps constant throughout the cycle for each exercise and just focus on the increase in mechanical load.

So for most of my exercises I will be doing the standard 1x15 2x10 3x5 3x5RM, which will keep the volume to between 15 and 20 reps for every session in the gym, meaning the change in mechanical load is the important changing factor throughout the 8 weeks.

I have picked a couple of exercises I will do 2x15 3x10 5x5 5x5RM (between 25 and 30 reps per session) because they can be completed quicker or I feel I need to work these muscles more.

I was all up for hitting 30 reps a session for each exercise which would have been a doddle at the early stages of the 15's, and possibly 10's. However after plenty of consideration I chose to go for the above plan and I'm going to stick with it. If it needs tweaking which it probably will, I will sort it for the next cycle.

Hope this helps.
 
My main concern is that by pushing extra sets on the second week of your two week blocks. Wouldn't that exceed your initial RM by the second or third set?

For arguments sake, during your 5's your doing 3 x 5. Now lets say your up workout #5 on 5's. At the start of your program, you determined that your 5rm is 100kg for dead lifts. So you complete the first set successfully, The second set you complete barely and the third set you are only able to complete 3 successful reps.

This would mean that you've taken that workout to 100% when the workout was supposed to be at 95%. This would go against the principles of HST wouldn't it?

Aka
Workout 1: 75%
Workout 2: 80%
Workout 3: 85%
Workout 4: 90%
Workout 5: 95%
Workout 6: 100%
 
I would have thought by the end of the 5's the strength gains would be enough to complete 3 sets of 95% of your 5RM.

You are right in that you shouldn't be going to failure on this day, so if you we're struggling you could increase the rest period and cluster your reps so do 2 then rest then 2 more then a little rest and then complete your final rep.
 
Yeah, that's basically what i want to know. Are the strength gains enough to carry the average person through 3 or 5 sets at that stage in the program?
Because if there not, I'd prefer to lower the sets to keep to the basic principles of HST.
Last thing i wanna do is have to stop during the program to begin SD.

Would appreciate input from anyone who has already ran a HST cycle.

EDIT: Just realized there's already a massive thread on this stickied up top.
 
Last edited:
Does this make sense?

After a lot of reading in this forum, I've decided to concentrate on total reps per lift instead of a strict reps/set scheme. Since I'm trying to get rid of fat, I've eliminated the 15's per one of Tot's posts and shooting for 20-30 reps during the 10's, and 10-20 reps during the 5's. My take is that with the lower weights at the outset of each mini cycle easily doable, reps should be higher and, as the weight increases, the reps would necessarily have to be reduced as the RM approaches. Weight progression over the mini cycles is 80%-80%-85%-90%-95%-100%. So here's how I've set up my current cycle:

10's (first "set" at least 10 reps)
day 1 30 reps
day 2 28 reps
day 3 26 reps
day 4 24 reps
day 5 22 reps
day 6 20 reps

(5's (first "set" at least 20 reps)
day 1 20 reps
day 2 18 reps
day 3 16 reps
day 4 14 reps
day 5 12 reps
day 6 10 reps

repeat 5's with each day the same as day 6, then find new RM's prior to SD.

Does this fit HST principles?
 
Last edited:
The idea is to keep progressing the working load over time. This means that why the reps stay the same (within the micro cycle), the weight increases over time to allow constant progression. However, if your lowering the reps and increasing the weight then your not increasing the working load and rather just keeping it the same.
 
From Bryan's HST FAQ book:

I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s.

So, with vanilla HST, the volume during the 10's & 5's decreases by 50% for the 2nd week. My plan above gradually decreases volume as the load increases. How can this not be better than vanilla HST? Just trying to get a better understanding of the reps/sets concept.
 
Last edited:
T-man said:
From Bryan's HST FAQ book:

I suggest you do 2 sets per exercise during the 15s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 10s, and 1 set during the second week of 10s. Then do 2 sets during the first week of 5s, and finish doing one set (after warm ups of course) during the last week of 5s.

So, with vanilla HST, the volume during the 10's & 5's decreases by 50% for the 2nd week. My plan above gradually decreases volume as the load increases. How can this not be better than vanilla HST? Just trying to get a better understanding of the reps/sets concept.
Click to expand...

I think it pretty subjective when it comes to how many sets or volume, because i thinks its feel thing? I just did my 1st cycle of 15s and boy it was great, i did 4 sets(total reps 60) of 10 exercises, with 1 minute rest between sets and 2 minutes between each exercises. It took 1 hr and 20mins to finish and my CNS was almost fatigue. So, its either u split them up into 2 sessions but keep the rep the SAME or reduce they reps as how u indicated above and increase load... I don't know so this is my 2cents, hope it helps, feel free to critique my knowledge too :)
 
wobbles said:
The idea is to keep progressing the working load over time. This means that why the reps stay the same (within the micro cycle), the weight increases over time to allow constant progression. However, if your lowering the reps and increasing the weight then your not increasing the working load and rather just keeping it the same.
Click to expand...

This has been my belief for a long time. I was doing 20 reps every workout per exercise and increasing the weight every workout. I thought this was the perfect application of HST. True progressive overload. I didn't bother doing those 20 reps in a particular number of sets because sets shouldn't matter...it's just the total time under tension.

Starting to think now I was/am totally wrong in the belief that I needed to keep the reps while increasing weights to progress with the workload. As you add weight to the bar it seems to become exponentially more work. Benching 95 lbs isn't only half as hard as benching 190 lbs. I'm sure I can rep 95lbs 20 times, but I can't rep 190 once.

I think it depends on your strength level. An experienced, strong lifter may not feel much of a difference between 135 lbs and 150 lbs. Much like I probably wouldn't feel much of a difference between 45 lbs and 60 lbs. But 135 to 150 for me is like night and day. As you get toward the high side of your limits, the work seems to be exponentially more difficult as you add even small amounts of weight. At least that is my experience.

It just leads me to believe that you can or must reduce volume as the weights increase so as to not totally fry your CNS and horribly injure yourself. But it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't increasing the workload when increasing the weight 10 pounds on an exercise but dropping the reps by 20%. I think it all depends on the experience of the lifter.

And of course I may be totally 100% wrong.
 
Last edited:
T-man said:
After a lot of reading in this forum, I've decided to concentrate on total reps per lift instead of a strict reps/set scheme. Since I'm trying to get rid of fat, I've eliminated the 15's per one of Tot's posts and shooting for 20-30 reps during the 10's, and 10-20 reps during the 5's. My take is that with the lower weights at the outset of each mini cycle easily doable, reps should be higher and, as the weight increases, the reps would necessarily have to be reduced as the RM approaches. Weight progression over the mini cycles is 80%-80%-85%-90%-95%-100%. So here's how I've set up my current cycle:

10's (first "set" at least 10 reps)
day 1 30 reps
day 2 28 reps
day 3 26 reps
day 4 24 reps
day 5 22 reps
day 6 20 reps

(5's (first "set" at least 20 reps)
day 1 20 reps
day 2 18 reps
day 3 16 reps
day 4 14 reps
day 5 12 reps
day 6 10 reps

repeat 5's with each day the same as day 6, then find new RM's prior to SD.

Does this fit HST principles?
Click to expand...

Yes, that does fit with HST principles. Remember, the key is to progress the load over time, meaning the amount of weight you are lifting. Volume as in number of total reps will likely decrease as the weight increases. It is simply not possible for most people to lift their 5 RM as many times as their 15 RM without spending hours in the gym and/or burning themselves out.
 
Totentanz said:
Yes, that does fit with HST principles. Remember, the key is to progress the load over time, meaning the amount of weight you are lifting. Volume as in number of total reps will likely decrease as the weight increases. It is simply not possible for most people to lift their 5 RM as many times as their 15 RM without spending hours in the gym and/or burning themselves out.
Click to expand...

I second u Tot :) ur my idoollllll :) hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top