If you’re not only training to failure, the more sets the better. Optimal hypertrophy guidelines advise 10-20 sets a week, after which may yield diminishing returns regarding recovery. But that’s the thing, this discussion has always been about weekly volume. Not necessarily within a single session or even prescribing an exact number of sets per exercise. And even when analyzing various training styles whether bro-inspired or higher frequency, hypertrophy outcomes remain comparable when volume is equated. That said, there is still nuance to workload, specifically in a serious Bodybuilding context. Because if total sets were the only variable that mattered, then why would we not all stick to one optimal exercise per area to reach maximum volume? Instead of doing 3 sets of quad biased barbell squats and 3 sets of hack squats, why not just do 6 sets of the barbell squats? Actually, why don’t any bodybuilders train this way, and why is German Volume training aka 10×10 less effective than 5 sets when looking at the studies? Why is there always exercise diversity for those who care about physique development including in the low volume camp? The answer is simple. Muscle biasing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be real. It can be induced in a non complex muscle like the calves by altering foot placement, developing different divisions of the pecs via bench adjustment, and back like the lower lats relating to upper arm path with torso lean. Therefore, if one seeks to craft an aesthetic, symmetrical, flowing physique where there are no weak links, the solution is having a healthy diversity of exercise variety. Not going crazy to the point of generating junk volume or attacking every angle possible, but rather, following the precise hypertrophy guidelines aforementioned. In other words, want you to do those 10-20 sets a week! Just with one caveat, having ever so slightly less sets per exercise, but doing MORE EXERCISES.
The -1/+1 Technique
The simplest hack to guarantee proper balance, is the -1/+1 technique. Basically, if a normal upper body workout features 2 presses and 2 pulls, both of which are 3 sets each which constitutes 90% of most lifters’ programming. I’d instead consider doing 2 sets each exercise, but adding an additional push and pull, resulting in 3 presses and 3 pulls. Like incline bench, flat bench, and hammer strength press, with weighted pullups, ghetto pulldowns, and inverted rows. It’s still 6 sets! You may also apply this to isolation work, so if you did 2 curls for biceps and 2 extensions (again for 3 sets), instead favor 3 curls and 3 extensions but just do 2 sets. Or if it was 1 curl and 1 extension, then do 2 sets each which would result in a +1 set for this workout, but then for your higher volume workout you can remove that addition for say your finisher exercise. Maybe you’ll do 2 sets of curls and extensions, followed by 1 set for your third curl or extension. For example, 2 sets of dumbbell curls, 2 sets of cable curls, then 1 set of hammer curls with 2 sets of pushdowns, 2 sets of decline dumbbell extensions, and 1 set of expander extensions. Remember, each muscle does not require an equal number of sets per exercise. Get rid of this idea that you need 3 sets of this, 3 sets for that. 5×10 bench, then 5×10 rows, mirroring everything to be 1:1. Just like it’s not necessary to feature the same rep range per exercise even if hypertrophy outcomes are the same, so can we extend this to the number of sets. If you want to do more exercises, understand that it’s NOT synonymous with doing more volume. Now if your volume was already low, then sure feel free to keep a constant number of sets and call it a day. But assuming you’re already in the optimal zone for you, then consider adding or subtracting sets depending on the exercises.
This is a phenomenal way of managing volume, because due to individual recoverability and programming, we can’t always do all the exercises we want in a single week. Sometimes, your staples have to be rotated through with time. But by reducing the number of sets per exercise, we can now keep in some of these staples for far longer. For example, I’m a massive fan of vertical pressing.. but with the program I was running previously, I didn’t have any pressing slots left to do more than one per week. I had to make a decision, was I going to favor the barbell or dumbbell overhead press? I genuinely wanted to do both, but couldn’t handle the volume.. which got me thinking. Originally, I was doing 6 sets of non isolation chest on both days, but including 3 sets for shoulders on the volume day. Now.. what if I kept that setup, but just did 1 set of overhead press as a finisher on day 1, and two sets on day 2? It’s not like there isn’t overlap from the other compounds, since anterior delts always get hammered. Heck, I even get indirect upper chest stimulation so why would this problematic? Guess what, it wasn’t. It just took ONE SET to solve a programming dilemma for an exercise that was already, not overprioritized. But now I have more vertical pressing frequency. So you essentially get more frequency for low frequency exercises. Alternatively, I could have done 2 sets of shoulders on both days, but subtracted 1 set for chest on the least important exercise from the volume day if I wanted marginally emphasize more broadness.
Progression Benefits
Which leads me onto another discussion, the specialization benefits of dividing the sets. Muscle biasing aside which automatically maximizes general strength so I won’t cover that much today, there are two more significant implications. The first is Progression and the second is Minimizing Overuse. Let’s break these down. Regarding progressive overload for hypertrophy, most lifters follow a double progression approach, not periodization. Meaning we’re given window of sets/reps, of which we only add load after fulfilling the upper extremity of that range across all the given sets. For example, 3 sets of 8-12 and 3 sets of 6-10. If you did three typical sets, you may get 11 10 8 or 10 8 6. With double progression, you would only add load after acquiring 12 12 12 or 10 10 10. Now here’s the thing, if your proximity to failure high, meaning you’re within 0-1 reps in reserve, then you can expect more of a drop-off on a set per set basis. In fact, it’s possible to get 10-12 reps on set 1, and 6-8 on the second. Or you’re one rep shy of the bottom range. Which decreases the likelihood of succeeding on your last set unless you extend the rep window which would only make progression take that much longer. Now how does one typically compensate around this? Well believe it or not, it’s by instinctively lowering intensity to around 2-3 reps in reserve. Or, your first set is not to failure especially if you’re already starting with the top number. Which will only be exacerbated as you continue this double progression because if you’re getting stronger on set 2 and 3 with higher intensity, then by default, the first set must be getting far less intense. Each rep added on subsequent sets could be 1 rep down on the RPE scale for the first set to which eventually, the stimulus is not as potent. Of course, dynamic double progression is an option, by which you individually adjust weight if the target was already achieved on x set… But what if you didn’t want to change this simple programming and acquire similar results? The answer is the same as what I mentioned before, just do two sets then add the -1 elsewhere. Because now, it forever autoregulates the fact that the first set will be a high RPE. See….. even when your second set is getting stronger, the intensity of the first will not be diminished such that the load must be modified – or extra volume be added for the lack of intensity which is why we add volume in the first place IN the context of effective reps. In addition, because the range has been narrowed, you should notice faster double progression progress PER exercise. Keep in mind, net volume was not lowered, so there’s enough to drive adaptations without plateauing. Training hard enough is practically guaranteed, and you don’t have to break your head with complex programming. Is your mind blown? I would like to coin this method, and let me know if you like the name… Reductionist Double Progression. Since there’s literally two sets to focus on, using double progression that unconsciously autoregulates RPE. Alternatively, you can employ what some Bodybuilders like Jordan Peters and Hypertrophy Coach recommend, which is doing one peak set, followed by one back-off set. Again, you don’t always need three sets- and all rep ranges work so this is another approach to achieving the growth response in a somewhat disconnected sense, where there the goal is shooting for PRs. You might have a 5 rep PR, and a 10 rep PR of which you attempt to add +1 per session until you feel like resuming the initial rep count. This can continue indefinitely, or be capped at specific rep goals before making the next weight jumps which again can be separate from one another. So on the first set maybe the 5 rep max becomes a 10 rep max, but for the second the initial 10 rep max hasn’t hit 15 yet (perhaps you’re at 13) which was the goal. Doesn’t mean you now have to increase weight for that second set. Just do a 5 rep PR on set one, then continue where you left off from on set two. Done deal! Here, volume and relative intensity are equalized through different means.
Minimizing Overuse
Finally, there’s the important consideration of overuse. Let’s assume everything I’ve suggested today doesn’t make that much of a difference for size. That it’s grasping at straws, at best being 5-10% more effective for hypertrophy and most applicable to advanced lifters with unique weaknesses. Guess what? It still doesn’t change the fact that you’re training through more joint angles and strength curves, thereby reducing repetitive stresses. Remember, high specificity minimalism makes it harder to fulfill proper load management in the localized muscles hence the incredibly high injury rate among those who never rotate exercises. By keeping the same number of total sets, but diversifying the movement patterns where you’re training multiple strength curves, changing the muscular bias, or not overworking the tissue by evenly spreading the volume across say, the upper, mid, and lower chest or upper back and lats, same for mixing in the shortened, mid, and lengthened range.. this entire process minimizes overuse. It’s the dummy proof way and in my sincere opinion, is optimal which is why in a strength training context, I’m pro conjugate. It’s not even about gains at this point, it really is the longevity aspect. It’s the same thing here. My arguments are all about simplicity and getting you to the end destination with the least amount of risk, and with overuse, there are some exercises in your training career that you’ll wish you didn’t do high volume on. Having one less set per exercise gives you time to feel if this is working for your build or not. Like I’m grateful that I never trained multiple sets of Conventional Deadlifts. At this stage, I know for a fact that my lower back wouldn’t be able to handle it. Here I can’t even handle two sets, but one is doable, after which I’ll make up for that volume with more RDLs or Good Mornings. Or just do block pulls for a couple of sets. Same for machines at the gym, some may not agree with you and to just “oh do 3-5 sets” is traditionalist, cookie cutter nonsense. You see what I’m saying? There IS an optimal number of total reps when it comes to hypertrophy, but that same optimal may not apply to injury risk, particularly for disadvantaged movements. For those, you’ll want to cut back a bit. So when you’re hesitant about an exercise, always shoot for the minimum effective dose rather than allocating a ton of volume towards right off the bat. With time, the ratios can shift, but at least you’ll be playing it smart thus keeping you in the game long term. Seems logical enough? With that said, you should be all set to make more gains doing fewer sets with more exercises per session. Enjoy, and here’s the article in video form:
