Quick question regarding the number of sets

adpowah

adpowah

Active Member
So I am in my 5th week of my first HST cycle and I am really enjoying it. I have read the e-Book and most of Bryan/Blade's posts in the HST FAQ forum however I don't entirely understand the progression of sets. If I was doing an exercise for 1 set during the 15s, should I also only do 1 set during the 5s or 2 sets so that the total volume is closer to the 15's and similar to the 10s?
 
There are various ways to handle volume, depending on how advanced you are, how many exercises you are doing and how well you handle volume.
I prefer to keep volume fairly steady, but it does drop as the loads get really heavy. Something like 1x15, 2x10, 3x5 is the classic setup that works well for most people. If you are doing a lot of exercises, you can do 1 set for all ranges, or if you are doing only a few exercises, you can bump up the sets doing 2x15, 3x10, 5x5, but this is only recommended for abbreviated programs where you are only doing a handful of big compound lifts for your whole body.
 
According to the most recent information,or reclarification of Hancoks theory of muscular hpertrophy,volume has nothing,except in a negative sense to the success of the HST program.Once the initial stimulation to growth has occured further effort only suceeds in either further release of cotisol or CNS exhaustion,therefore one set if done properly is sufficient to achieve ones goals.The human body cares little about the Protestant ethic ,only true hard work produces result.,The least amount of stress required to bring about the desired results is what should be applied.
 
When you say volume matters little, I presume you mean for the sake of hypertrophy only, and not necessarily for strength gains, right?
 
adpowah said:
So I am in my 5th week of my first HST cycle and I am really enjoying it. I have read the e-Book and most of Bryan/Blade's posts in the HST FAQ forum however I don't entirely understand the progression of sets. If I was doing an exercise for 1 set during the 15s, should I also only do 1 set during the 5s or 2 sets so that the total volume is closer to the 15's and similar to the 10s?
Click to expand...

From my understanding you should be doing 3 sets of 5s x 3 times a week. Should look something like this:

week 1&2 1 set 15 reps
week 3&4 2 sets 8 or 10 reps
week 5&6 3 sets 5 reps

*** optional weeks ***

2 weeks 3 sets 5 reps
or
2 weeks negatives or

going into the reconditioning period
 
There is no hard and fast rule. It just depends. Total volume typically should be decreasing as the loads increase. I would suggest you start with 2-3 sets during the 5s for most lifts and see how that goes. Keep in mind that overlapping exercises will result in fewer sets being needed. Example, you do squats and either romanian deads, leg curls or leg extensions, you can do 2-3 sets for squats and 1-2 for the other leg exercise. There is enough overlap that you don't need to do 3 sets for both lifts.
 
Last edited:
Well I suppose it depends on the subjective value of my statement. To me, that data in that study is accepted but I still find it mattering "very, very little", when put into the greater context.

It's also dealing with volume in terms of 'sets' only - worth noting IMO.
 
HDLou said:
Heres another recent study with different results:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/10/e3.60.abstract
Click to expand...

Interesting, would be curious to see the full text. What I linked above is a meta-analysis looking at a bunch of studies on the topic (8), though, as opposed to a single study in isolation (which can be misleading).

"One group performed high-intensity training (n=16) and did only one drop-set of each exercise to the point of momentary muscular failure (HIT), whereas the other group (n=14) performed as many repetitions as possible in each set and did three sets of each exercise (3ST)."

I'm a little confused by their terminology. How is a single set to failure a "drop-set?"

"Furthermore, HIT increased to a significantly greater extent than 3ST while simultaneously decreasing body fat."

So the group that did less work also lost more fat?

I mean, I guess this is possible, but this sounds pretty weird imo.
 
Last edited:
HDLou said:
Heres another recent study with different results:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/10/e3.60.abstract
Click to expand...

Most likely done on beginners. Bryan has stated that most of the confusion/arguments over 1 set vs multiple sets come from the fact that most studies showing 1 set as good or better than multiple sets are done on beginners. Studies done on trained individuals show multiple sets superior.

http://www.flexonline.com/training/how-big-should-you-go

also, bioelectrical impedance used for lbm/bf% measurements = fail
 
First of all thank you for all of the feedback.

Based on what was said and what I read, I think I will try and apply two primary principles; 1) from the above article, "you can be confident that if you use 75% to 85% of your 1RM and perform enough sets to equal 30 total reps per upper-body muscle group and 60 total reps for leg muscle groups, you will be pretty close to the ideal combination of intensity and volume" and 2) from Tote's ebook, "As a general rule of thumb, you should increase volume only if you are never sore, you are never tired after your workouts and you are not growing despite steadily gaining weight."

That being said I will have to grow into this adjustment since I am still making great newbie gains and right now and I'm not convinced my body can handle that volume. Right now my main 3 day a week workout is:
Deadlift
Squat
RDL
Pull Down machine
Incline bench (dumbell/barbell alternating)

And recently 3 days a week (off days) I am doing:
Curls
Triceps
Dips (body weight)
Pullups (body weight)
Calves

In the 15s and 10s I had only done one set at the goal weight (not counting warm-ups) for each exercise. At the 5s I started doing two sets for Dead Lifts and Squats but kept everything else the same. (In the future I will likely have to split Deads and Squats but for now it seems to be working and convenient) Based on what Bryan said I am way under the optimum volume however I am adequately fatigued and I am definitely growing so I think there is a balance there.

Again thank you for the feedback.
 
FistOfFury said:
Most likely done on beginners. Bryan has stated that most of the confusion/arguments over 1 set vs multiple sets come from the fact that most studies showing 1 set as good or better than multiple sets are done on beginners. Studies done on trained individuals show multiple sets superior.

http://www.flexonline.com/training/how-big-should-you-go

also, bioelectrical impedance used for lbm/bf% measurements = fail
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the volume recommendations (30 reps per upper body muscle group per session, double that for lower body) Bryan is giving there are way, way above how most people run HST. Food for thought.
 
mikeynov said:
It's worth noting that the volume recommendations (30 reps per upper body muscle group per session, double that for lower body) Bryan is giving there are way, way above how most people run HST. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

I think total volume per week is the way to count it. With vanilla HST, there are 3 sessions/ week, so doing 2 sets of 10 reps, 3x/week is 60 reps total weekly volume. A guy doing a one-bodypart/week split from FLEX magazine may be doing 6 sets of 10, but since it's once/week it's the same total weekly volume as the HST guy... Bryan brings this point up in the original HST website way back when.
 
Sci said:
I think total volume per week is the way to count it. With vanilla HST, there are 3 sessions/ week, so doing 2 sets of 10 reps, 3x/week is 60 reps total weekly volume. A guy doing a one-bodypart/week split from FLEX magazine may be doing 6 sets of 10, but since it's once/week it's the same total weekly volume as the HST guy... Bryan brings this point up in the original HST website way back when.
Click to expand...

Two thoughts:

1) Bryan is pretty explicit that those are volume recommendations per session, and the Wernbom review didn't look exclusively at bro splits afaik.

2) It is plausible that there is a growth threshold that is reached by doing enough work at enough weight in enough time. So what happens if you don't reach that threshold?

For example, if you had a beginner do a ~10 RM three times a week per lift, you'd expect that person to increase in strength and size, yes? What if they did 1 rep of that 10 RM 10 separate times over the day? You could say "they both did 10 reps (the same workload) at their 10 RM in a given day," and conclude they should be comparable for growth. The reality is the 10 separate singles probably wouldn't do jack and ****, because it's not nearly high enough of a "right now" stimulus to achieve much of a training effect.

Same deal for weekly volume. If you just look at "volume per week," you may be missing the fact that growth is happening/not happening on a per session basis. I mean, growth happens for ~24-36 (up to 48) hours after an acute bout, right? In order for that to happen, you have to do enough, at that time, to trigger that. I think it's entirely plausible that if you fail to cross this acute stimulus threshold, you aren't going to grow, even if the "weekly volume" adds up to be the same.

Note also that that famous study looking at 9 sets of leg press once per week vs. 3 sets 3 times per week was used in novices, part of the basis for our ideas of partitioning out our workload. For them, 3 sets was enough per-session to trigger growth. What happens if 3 sets isn't enough? Eventually, the 9 sets guy is at least growing once per week, and the 3 sets 3 times per week may be growing zero times per week. If these particular numbers seem unrealistic (3 sets is still a decent amount), imagine it's 3 sets once per week vs. 1 set 3 times a week (e.g. how most people run the 15's), and the trainee in question is intermediate/advanced.
 
Last edited:
It seems like we still don't know what the minimum amount of volume required is. Wernbom tells us what is likely the ideal amount of volume but even then, what intensity level is that supposed to be at? Bryan seems to be suggesting in the article that it is primarily for the 8-12 rep range, which would make sense. You're talking around 3 sets for upper body, 3-5 sets for lower body with overlapping exercises, that seems totally reasonable.
However... I still believe that heavier loads likely require less total volume to cause growth. Perhaps with a 5 RM load, the threshold might only be 20 reps? Who knows. There is even evidence that you can go even lighter than what we typically assume is the minimum effective load and still get growth, but I'm pretty sure volume would need to be ass high for that to work. I'm pretty sure Borge was talking about this on his site, about how it is total work done that causes growth and not load.
"Training age" obviously has an effect on the required volume as well. I grew plenty well on 1-2 sets of standard HST when I first started out, because the minimum needed at that time was so damn low. Now that level of volume seems to only maintain unless I add in more exercises to where I am actually getting enough volume per muscle group to stimulate growth.

Regardless, I think this is a big reason why so many of us find an upper/lower or similar split performed 4 times a week seems to work better than fullbody 3 times a week. We get more volume in each session so we are pretty sure we are getting enough of the "right now" volume and the frequency is still high enough that we are getting that growth effect more than just once a week as in a typical bro split.
 
Totentanz said:
It seems like we still don't know what the minimum amount of volume required is. Wernbom tells us what is likely the ideal amount of volume but even then, what intensity level is that supposed to be at? Bryan seems to be suggesting in the article that it is primarily for the 8-12 rep range, which would make sense. You're talking around 3 sets for upper body, 3-5 sets for lower body with overlapping exercises, that seems totally reasonable.
However... I still believe that heavier loads likely require less total volume to cause growth. Perhaps with a 5 RM load, the threshold might only be 20 reps? Who knows. There is even evidence that you can go even lighter than what we typically assume is the minimum effective load and still get growth, but I'm pretty sure volume would need to be ass high for that to work. I'm pretty sure Borge was talking about this on his site, about how it is total work done that causes growth and not load.
"Training age" obviously has an effect on the required volume as well. I grew plenty well on 1-2 sets of standard HST when I first started out, because the minimum needed at that time was so damn low. Now that level of volume seems to only maintain unless I add in more exercises to where I am actually getting enough volume per muscle group to stimulate growth.

Regardless, I think this is a big reason why so many of us find an upper/lower or similar split performed 4 times a week seems to work better than fullbody 3 times a week. We get more volume in each session so we are pretty sure we are getting enough of the "right now" volume and the frequency is still high enough that we are getting that growth effect more than just once a week as in a typical bro split.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all points. In terms of the frequency research, the effect seems to top out at twice per week frequency, too, assuming total volume is otherwise the same (e.g. 2 sets thrice weekly vs. 3 sets twice weekly). Three times per week frequency is fine for beginners but I'm not entirely sure why we still seem to prioritize that, given A) the above, that twice per week frequency seems to work every bit as well when volume-matched and B) the other point that you may start running into real difficulties getting enough volume per session to drive growth. Imo the default HST "intermediate" type routine should probably be an upper/lower split with a little more acute volume per session. Quite frankly, I don't think beginners should even be doing HST, they should be doing some form of linear progression with all the basic lifts (ingraining solid technique), since they will be able to add weight to the bar frequently enough to do everything HST would be doing anyways.
 
mikeynov said:
Two thoughts:

1) Bryan is pretty explicit that those are volume recommendations per session, and the Wernborn review didn't look exclusively at bro splits afaik.

2) It is plausible that there is a growth threshold that is reached by doing enough work at enough weight in enough time. So what happens if you don't reach that threshold?

For example, if you had a beginner do a ~10 RM three times a week per lift, you'd expect that person to increase in strength and size, yes? What if they did 1 rep of that 10 RM 10 separate times over the day? You could say "they both did 10 reps (the same workload) at their 10 RM in a given day," and conclude they should be comparable for growth. The reality is the 10 separate singles probably wouldn't do jack and ****, because it's not nearly high enough of a "right now" stimulus to achieve much of a training effect.

Same deal for weekly volume. If you just look at "volume per week," you may be missing the fact that growth is happening/not happening on a per session basis. I mean, growth happens for ~24-36 (up to 48) hours after an acute bout, right? In order for that to happen, you have to do enough, at that time, to trigger that. I think it's entirely plausible that if you fail to cross this acute stimulus threshold, you aren't going to grow, even if the "weekly volume" adds up to be the same.

Note also that that famous study looking at 9 sets of leg press once per week vs. 3 sets 3 times per week was used in novices, part of the basis for our ideas of partitioning out our workload. For them, 3 sets was enough per-session to trigger growth. What happens if 3 sets isn't enough? Eventually, the 9 sets guy is at least growing once per week, and the 3 sets 3 times per week may be growing zero times per week. If these particular numbers seem unrealistic (3 sets is still a decent amount), imagine it's 3 sets once per week vs. 1 set 3 times a week (e.g. how most people run the 15's), and the trainee in question is intermediate/advanced.
Click to expand...

I agree with these points, especially since we are talking about experienced lifters and not newbies. But, then basically aren't we all agreeing that "HST" as originally laid out by Bryan is basically faulty? I mean, it seems we are all agreeing at this point (including Bryan himself, based on his latest articles) that the best way to train is to not to do 3x/week vanilla HST, but rather to do some sort of split, drop frequency to twice/week, and increase volume? It seems you, Brtan, Totentanz, Wernbom, we are all agreeing that the latest scientific insights demonstrate that " vanilla HST " is wrong, and the " neo-HST " would be a twice/week upper/lower split, higher volume, less frequent SD periods.... Basically Lyle McDonald's bulking program, it seems Lyle was right all along... ;)
 
Sci said:
I agree with these points, especially since we are talking about experienced lifters and not newbies. But, then basically aren't we all agreeing that "HST" as originally laid out by Bryan is basically faulty? I mean, it seems we are all agreeing at this point (including Bryan himself, based on his latest articles) that the best way to train is to not to do 3x/week vanilla HST, but rather to do some sort of split, drop frequency to twice/week, and increase volume? It seems you, Brtan, Totentanz, Wernbom, we are all agreeing that the latest scientific insights demonstrate that " vanilla HST " is wrong, and the " neo-HST " would be a twice/week upper/lower split, higher volume, less frequent SD periods.... Basically Lyle McDonald's bulking program, it seems Lyle was right all along... ;)
Click to expand...

Lyle was always very good about keeping up with the latest research.

http://www.jcdfitness.com/2009/01/lyle-mcdonalds-bulking-routine/

On the higher side of his volume recommendations I'd have to say yah, they're definitely more in the right ballpark.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top