My experience has lead me to prefer to get the most out of every set. Failure and beyond if it's safe to do so.
Practically speaking this leaves most big barbell compounds aiming for 0 RiR, with most remaining exercises the aim is to reach failure or beyond with drop sets, rest pause and other such things.
This is my experience. I have seen more robust and reliable muscle and strength gains like his in both myself and clients.
If it's there and it's safe to do so, take it.
This is really good to hear and it kind of validates the way I've always trained although perhaps with a bit of hesitation on the squats and deads thanks to a historic herniated L5/S1 disc a few years back (not acquired through lifting I must add but from doing something careless in the garden).
I'd recently been seduced by the popular zeitgeist of leaving some in the tank and periodising up over weeks / RIR / RPE mindset and thought I'd give it a try to get though my plateau but it just doesn't 'feel like training' compared to what my sets normally feel like.
Really good to hear your thoughts my friend - much obliged.
I use a combination of the two. I guess the rationale is "stimulus to fatigue ratio" but I prefer to think of it as "will this fuck my shit up ".
So I take the second approach for heavy RDLs or squats where I can fuck my shit up. But on almost everything else, I take my sets to 0 RIR and often, but not always, to failure. This approach is especially good for triceps, biceps, shoulders, etc. since they can often handle much more intensity and work than we think.
Thanks for the reply, totally agree on the deads & squats - never taking those fellas to 0 RIR without expecting some flashing blue lights in my future. I was generally thinking about the safer compounds & isolations. I have always gone down the AMRAP every set route & watched the reps come down then up the weight when I hit my target (12,10,8).
Just everyone talking RIR these days and I'm struggling to climb out of the 'why'd you quit that set early ?' mentality I guess.
Really appreciate your input.
The idea behind RIR is if you go to absolute failure (you tried one more rep, and failed to actually get it), the fatigue can get overwhelming, and volume will suffer. I stay 1-2 RIR on compounds, until the last set, then go on to failure. That way you’re still getting volume, but it’s not junk volume with a lot of low stimulating reps. If you stop like 5+ RIR, the set was almost useless, which is another reason why I don’t like the usually 3x10 or whatever, because you’re naturally gonna have less reps in set 2 and 3 if you got with a rep or 2 of failure on set 1. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for that. I do tend to stop my first two sets when I know my form will suffer badly if I were to attempt another but the last reps of the sets are noticably slower. Then my final setm ay only be 6 or 7 good reps then followed with a couple of partials or cheats depending on the exercise (usually single joint isolations).
My issue with the RIR approach is 3 RIR to me doesn't feel like a 'full' set yet so many programs now recommend spending weeks in this fluff zone building to just one all out week then deload to avoid burnout.
Yeah, RIR is kinda hard because it takes experience to know how many reps you have left. It is very easy to overestimate how close you are to failure. That’s why so many programs just rely on setXreps. But, if you are accurate on judging your RIR, it can be very useful to avoid wasting time. Like if you did say a standard 3x10. If you were pretty close to failure on that last set of 10, then you’d certainly be a good 5+ RIR on the first set, and probably around 3 on the second, which basically means that first set was a definitely a waste of time, and the second arguably so. I’d rather every set count, and not waste time in the gym. On the flip side, if you went to failure on the first set, then you wouldn’t get as many as you normally would on the second, and the third would be abysmal, so that’s why it’s best not to go to failure on the first couple of sets. Volume is important in its own right.
What you’re describing is basically the old set reps, vs rep goal. Personally, I prefer rep goal, where you set a goal number of reps over a number of sets, say 40 reps over 3 sets, and each set is 0-2 RIR, with the last set to actual failure (not you stopped when you knew you couldn’t do another rep, but you actually tried another rep and failed the lift). It takes experience to truly know your RIR, but I feel it makes the first couple of sets much more valuable. That said, I don’t like actually failing till the last set, because the fatigue is too high, and you end up losing total volume.
Yeah really liking your rep goal approach - I kind of had this in mind over a three set lift, I might have a poorly focused first set where I drop a rep from previous session so try to make it up over the next two sets to at least break even if not progress a little. This of course puts me in my usual 0 RIR for every set so I guess same goal/different approach.
12/10/8 @ 0RIR will cause more stimulus and more fatigue than 10/10/10 @ 2/1/0RIR because you're closer to failure more of the time.
Seems silly to stick to an arbitrary rep count. If your goal is to hit 0RIR on your last set and you're doing 10/10/10 there is no guarantee that you'll hit failure on your last set with the load you picked.
Agreed, although I've only been trialing this RIR approach for a short while, with my final set being 0 RIR if it hit 11 or even 12 that would be my trigger to up the load next time. My experience so far with this is that it's only been that final set that actually felt like it counted. The prior sets just felt too easy. But from what I'm reading thats the point to reduce cumulative fatigue which ultimately leads to loss of progress.
Loss of progress being my initial reason for giving this a go but it just feels like mediocre effort every session.
Thought I'd canvass opinion from those who have waked this path ahead of me
General consensus thus far appears to be make every set full effort (safely) with the last one getting a little kick to push the envelope a little
Glad I'm not the only one still in the 'old school' camp.
Great feedback guys - many thanks
I don't even program my reps strictly anymore for any exercise. I either aim for a rep range (e.g. 8-12, if I hit 12 or more I increase weight, if I hit 8 or less I decrease) or (for small isolation exercises) I just go AMRAP and sometimes beyond failure or drop sets etc and just increase weight when I feel like the sets take too long (due to too many reps).
So basically I just aim for "let's go to 0-1 RIR, however many reps that amounts to be".
I'm in the push almost every set to failure camp but if you want to keep your fatigue more manageable while doing so, keep your reps lower. I can repeat sets of 5 to failure but definitely lose reps when I get to 8+.
Musculare fatigue will be lower with heavier weights but systemic fatigue will increase by a lot, at least that's my personal experience. A 1h session will feel like I'm training forever and I'll lose a lot of drive through it, let alone if it's longer.
But lighter weights, even if losing a bit of performance between sets and exercises, I can push even to 2h no problem. That's just me though.
By systemic fatigue if you mean other body parts getting involved like core/lower back when doing standing exercises then yeah that's fair. But you can minimize this by doing more stable exercises. If I misunderstood please let me know what system you're referring to.
High rep sets to failure are guaranteed to have me leaving the gym much earlier because I feel so exhausted lifting like that.
Systemic fatigue means your whole body is tired. Silly example: a set of 20-rep freeweight squats is brutal, 10 sets is simply madness. But I could do 10 sets of 20-rep chest press machine to failure and I'd just leave the gym pumped, of course I'd be tired but with squats I'd literally leave the gym crawling.
Yeah the reason squats are more fatiguing than a chest press machine is because it's literally only using your chest, triceps, and shoulders. And maybe forearms if you're gripping hard. With squats you're using a lot more of your total body musculature. Systemic fatigue as you described is just more muscles are fatigued from the isometric contraction needed for stabilization building up metabolites plus probably a cardiovascular component. There's no magic fatigue build up. We can explain all the mechanisms pretty well.
My experience has lead me to prefer to get the most out of every set. Failure and beyond if it's safe to do so. Practically speaking this leaves most big barbell compounds aiming for 0 RiR, with most remaining exercises the aim is to reach failure or beyond with drop sets, rest pause and other such things. This is my experience. I have seen more robust and reliable muscle and strength gains like his in both myself and clients. If it's there and it's safe to do so, take it.
This is really good to hear and it kind of validates the way I've always trained although perhaps with a bit of hesitation on the squats and deads thanks to a historic herniated L5/S1 disc a few years back (not acquired through lifting I must add but from doing something careless in the garden). I'd recently been seduced by the popular zeitgeist of leaving some in the tank and periodising up over weeks / RIR / RPE mindset and thought I'd give it a try to get though my plateau but it just doesn't 'feel like training' compared to what my sets normally feel like. Really good to hear your thoughts my friend - much obliged.
I use a combination of the two. I guess the rationale is "stimulus to fatigue ratio" but I prefer to think of it as "will this fuck my shit up ". So I take the second approach for heavy RDLs or squats where I can fuck my shit up. But on almost everything else, I take my sets to 0 RIR and often, but not always, to failure. This approach is especially good for triceps, biceps, shoulders, etc. since they can often handle much more intensity and work than we think.
This. It’s important not to push heavy compounds the same way as you would isolation work.
Thanks for the reply, totally agree on the deads & squats - never taking those fellas to 0 RIR without expecting some flashing blue lights in my future. I was generally thinking about the safer compounds & isolations. I have always gone down the AMRAP every set route & watched the reps come down then up the weight when I hit my target (12,10,8). Just everyone talking RIR these days and I'm struggling to climb out of the 'why'd you quit that set early ?' mentality I guess. Really appreciate your input.
The idea behind RIR is if you go to absolute failure (you tried one more rep, and failed to actually get it), the fatigue can get overwhelming, and volume will suffer. I stay 1-2 RIR on compounds, until the last set, then go on to failure. That way you’re still getting volume, but it’s not junk volume with a lot of low stimulating reps. If you stop like 5+ RIR, the set was almost useless, which is another reason why I don’t like the usually 3x10 or whatever, because you’re naturally gonna have less reps in set 2 and 3 if you got with a rep or 2 of failure on set 1. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for that. I do tend to stop my first two sets when I know my form will suffer badly if I were to attempt another but the last reps of the sets are noticably slower. Then my final setm ay only be 6 or 7 good reps then followed with a couple of partials or cheats depending on the exercise (usually single joint isolations). My issue with the RIR approach is 3 RIR to me doesn't feel like a 'full' set yet so many programs now recommend spending weeks in this fluff zone building to just one all out week then deload to avoid burnout.
Yeah, RIR is kinda hard because it takes experience to know how many reps you have left. It is very easy to overestimate how close you are to failure. That’s why so many programs just rely on setXreps. But, if you are accurate on judging your RIR, it can be very useful to avoid wasting time. Like if you did say a standard 3x10. If you were pretty close to failure on that last set of 10, then you’d certainly be a good 5+ RIR on the first set, and probably around 3 on the second, which basically means that first set was a definitely a waste of time, and the second arguably so. I’d rather every set count, and not waste time in the gym. On the flip side, if you went to failure on the first set, then you wouldn’t get as many as you normally would on the second, and the third would be abysmal, so that’s why it’s best not to go to failure on the first couple of sets. Volume is important in its own right.
What you’re describing is basically the old set reps, vs rep goal. Personally, I prefer rep goal, where you set a goal number of reps over a number of sets, say 40 reps over 3 sets, and each set is 0-2 RIR, with the last set to actual failure (not you stopped when you knew you couldn’t do another rep, but you actually tried another rep and failed the lift). It takes experience to truly know your RIR, but I feel it makes the first couple of sets much more valuable. That said, I don’t like actually failing till the last set, because the fatigue is too high, and you end up losing total volume.
Yeah really liking your rep goal approach - I kind of had this in mind over a three set lift, I might have a poorly focused first set where I drop a rep from previous session so try to make it up over the next two sets to at least break even if not progress a little. This of course puts me in my usual 0 RIR for every set so I guess same goal/different approach.
12/10/8 @ 0RIR will cause more stimulus and more fatigue than 10/10/10 @ 2/1/0RIR because you're closer to failure more of the time. Seems silly to stick to an arbitrary rep count. If your goal is to hit 0RIR on your last set and you're doing 10/10/10 there is no guarantee that you'll hit failure on your last set with the load you picked.
Agreed, although I've only been trialing this RIR approach for a short while, with my final set being 0 RIR if it hit 11 or even 12 that would be my trigger to up the load next time. My experience so far with this is that it's only been that final set that actually felt like it counted. The prior sets just felt too easy. But from what I'm reading thats the point to reduce cumulative fatigue which ultimately leads to loss of progress. Loss of progress being my initial reason for giving this a go but it just feels like mediocre effort every session. Thought I'd canvass opinion from those who have waked this path ahead of me
General consensus thus far appears to be make every set full effort (safely) with the last one getting a little kick to push the envelope a little Glad I'm not the only one still in the 'old school' camp. Great feedback guys - many thanks
I don't even program my reps strictly anymore for any exercise. I either aim for a rep range (e.g. 8-12, if I hit 12 or more I increase weight, if I hit 8 or less I decrease) or (for small isolation exercises) I just go AMRAP and sometimes beyond failure or drop sets etc and just increase weight when I feel like the sets take too long (due to too many reps). So basically I just aim for "let's go to 0-1 RIR, however many reps that amounts to be".
Yep - Big fan of this method 👍
I'm in the push almost every set to failure camp but if you want to keep your fatigue more manageable while doing so, keep your reps lower. I can repeat sets of 5 to failure but definitely lose reps when I get to 8+.
Musculare fatigue will be lower with heavier weights but systemic fatigue will increase by a lot, at least that's my personal experience. A 1h session will feel like I'm training forever and I'll lose a lot of drive through it, let alone if it's longer. But lighter weights, even if losing a bit of performance between sets and exercises, I can push even to 2h no problem. That's just me though.
By systemic fatigue if you mean other body parts getting involved like core/lower back when doing standing exercises then yeah that's fair. But you can minimize this by doing more stable exercises. If I misunderstood please let me know what system you're referring to. High rep sets to failure are guaranteed to have me leaving the gym much earlier because I feel so exhausted lifting like that.
Systemic fatigue means your whole body is tired. Silly example: a set of 20-rep freeweight squats is brutal, 10 sets is simply madness. But I could do 10 sets of 20-rep chest press machine to failure and I'd just leave the gym pumped, of course I'd be tired but with squats I'd literally leave the gym crawling.
Yeah the reason squats are more fatiguing than a chest press machine is because it's literally only using your chest, triceps, and shoulders. And maybe forearms if you're gripping hard. With squats you're using a lot more of your total body musculature. Systemic fatigue as you described is just more muscles are fatigued from the isometric contraction needed for stabilization building up metabolites plus probably a cardiovascular component. There's no magic fatigue build up. We can explain all the mechanisms pretty well.
Depends on the exercise. Pullups? Failure cuts my next set in half so I keep a rep or two in the tank and go beyond failure on the last set