Who's idea was it that 3 sets is the rule?

Who's idea was it that 3 sets is the rule?

Attached: 1587506052262.jpg (640x492, 74.27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

researchgate.net/publication/224971482_Thomas_L_DeLorme_and_the_Science_of_Progressive_Resistance_Exercise
google.com/amp/s/www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/amp/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

A retard? 5x5 is ideal.

10 sets all to failure.. 5x5 is shit

3 sets has always been considered the minimum, and its much easier to convince someone who doesn't exercise to just do 3 sets of anything rather than 5. Its never been considered the standard or anything, but I would say its a rule that you should do at least 3 sets of anything.

t. person who has never trained

Whatever fag I train 4 days a week

After a few month of training when I first started, I began doing this but would limit myself at like 14 reps. After the newbie gains stopped I had relatively slow progress, but then I limited myself to a maximum of 7 sets but mostly aimed for 5 and started to notice better results.

I'm not sure if you're baiting or whatever, but there are very few exercises you should be doing to failure and I believe they are all calisthenics.

>Who's idea was it that 3 sets is the rule?
Forgot the name it was some US doc who rehabilitated veterans after WW2. He stole most of his shit from German books on physical education, interpreted it wrong and added his own shit.

Sounds made up? It isn't.

yes yes
10x10 on squats
then 10x10 on pullups
then 10x10 overheadpress
everyday
lets go

Found it:
>In the latter years of the Second World War, the number of American servicemen who had sustained orthopedic injuries was overwhelming the nation's military hospitals. The backlog of patients was partly because of the sheer number of soldiers involved in the war effort, but it was exacerbated by rehabilitation protocols that required lengthy recovery times. In 1945, an army physician, Dr. Thomas L. DeLorme experimented with a new rehabilitation technique. DeLorme had used strength training to recover from a childhood illness and reasoned that such heavy training would prove beneficial for the injured servicemen. DeLorme's new protocol consisted of multiple sets of resistance exercises in which patients lifted their 10-repetition maximum. DeLorme refined the system by 1948 to include 3 progressively heavier sets of 10 repetitions, and he referred to the program as "Progressive Resistance Exercise." The high-intensity program was markedly more successful than older protocols and was quickly adopted as the standard in both military and civilian physical therapy programs. In 1951, DeLorme published the text Progressive Resistance Exercise: Technic and Medical Application, which was widely read by other physicians and medical professionals. The book, and DeLorme's academic publications on progressive resistance exercise, helped legitimize strength training and played a key role in laying the foundation for the science of resistance exercise.

researchgate.net/publication/224971482_Thomas_L_DeLorme_and_the_Science_of_Progressive_Resistance_Exercise

i want to cum inside taylor swift

Who the fuck does 3 sets past linear progression?
You're not supposed to stay on SS your whole life brah.

So what you're saying is that 3 sets worked?

obviously going to failure on bench press is not a good idea

[not him] for strength apparently. For hypertrophy you need to add more volume over time, which means more sets, but 3 sets is a good start.

Nor is it with curling, weighted squats, deadlifts, ohp, etc.

Its not about exhausting your muscles, its more like stimulating your muscles to grow, and if you do weighted exercises to failure you're just over working them. Its so much more effective to do 8-12 reps of the vast majority of exercises, and if you do weighted exercises to failure you're eventually going to really damage your bones and muscles.

If you want to be a badass or whatever and do weighted exercises to failure, be my guest, but you'll plateau and then injure yourself inevitably.

any reason as to why that is?
no reason is given in PP or SS to add more weekly volume in fact only a mere change in volume distribution is recommended

Why not stay at 3 sets and add more reps?

Is 4x8 really better than 3x11

I'm no expert, but I would imagine that its actually the rest time between sets that truly what causes gains. So with an extra set but slightly lower reps, you've stimulated your muscles to grow for an extra set and have added an extra 2 minutes of cool down. I would personally typically do a 3x10 with an extra set at the end of 7-8 reps to cool down though in that example.

Volume = weight x reps
You can lift more weight for 8 that you can for 11.

Mh, in PP most of the programs have 5 sets, don't they?
But to answer your question, first off it's better to think of volume as "number of hard sets" rather than the usual "sets x reps", second tests tend to show that more volume is pretty much always better.
Here is one of stronger by science post about it : google.com/amp/s/www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/amp/

But doing weighted exercises to failure would still mean doing less reps compared to bodyweight exercises though? Or is the difference in weights a source of injury

>10 sets all to failure
>10x10
hmm

the exact number of reps doesn;t matter that much. The important thing is that the last reps should be hard enough (for hypertrophy)

If you can do sets of 11, then sets of 8 with the same weight are warm up sets, they don't have the intensity to drive muscle growth.
The consensus, as far as muscle growth is concerned, is that rep range doesn't matter much, as long as you reach an RPE 8 or more.

I straight don't have time to explain fully, I have to walk out the door in 5 minutes, but basically calisthenics uses a larger amount of different muscles at once whereas weighted exercises usually target very specific muscles, maybe 2-3 at a time while mostly focusing on one. Putting that amount of strain on one muscle is simply not a good idea.

3x10 is just a safe ball park. SS recommends 5x5 for strength build and ideal hypertrophy is 4x12. Everyone is different and the flux of reps to set varies on rest, form, and knowing your limits.

Right, I had not thought about that. Thanks anyway

>does 4 lifts
>in gym for 3 hours

Day 1 :
3x3
Day 2 :
3x4
Day 3 :
3x5
Day 4 :
4x3
Day 5 :
4x4
Day 6 :
4x5
Day 7 :
5x3
Day 8 :
5x4
Day 9 :
5x5
Add 5kg and repeat the process

Why would you open up your big fat lying mouth about exercising when you don't even know what a compound is

Don't listen to him, there is nothing about calisthenics that make it magically safer to go to failure. The only times I hurt myself was doing calisthenics stuff.
Also who the fuck ever hurt themselves doing curls to failure?