|While all subjects in the study at hand were men, there's no reason to believe that the results for women would be fundamentally different.|
What? Yes, you cannot train to failure and with a volume of 40 sets daily - probably not even if you're doing drugs. But before we got lost in the implications, let's rather take a look at the latest study from Spain. After all, it has more to offer than a warning you all have read before:
"The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies.
Synergistic vs. Antagonistic Supersetting - Is One a Better Fat Burner? Rather NOT, Data From New Study Shows
During four weeks, seventeen participants (23.2 ± 3.6 years), [who voluntary participated] with experience in resistance training [least two years of resistance training experience, and an 1RM in the bench pressSo far, so good, but now for the less impressive part of the study description. With this design, you cannot make a statement about the previously referred to strength and size gains. Why's that? Well, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding.
greater than 100 kg] performed a once-a-week resistance training session, differing the methodology (traditional, pyramid, agonist supersets and reciprocal supersets)" (Sabido. 2016).
|Table 1: Training sessions volume and intensity by methodology (Sabido. 2016).|
- Training intensity during all sets when using the traditional and the reciprocal superset methodologies was set at 70% of 1 RM, which was similar to other studies (Kelleher. 2010; Smilios. 2002).
- For the agonist superset methodology, the intensity was 60% of 1 RM, with the goal of having the participants reach a number of repetitions close to 10 during the second exercise.
- In the reversed pyramid methodology, the intensity decreased from 80% (first set) to 60% (last set) of 1 RM.
- Total volume of each training session was matched to 240 repetitions, while rest intervals between sets were set at 90 s (Schoenfeld. 2014). Finally, repetition execution was performed in a cycle of 2 s for the concentric phase and 2 s for the eccentric phase in all of the exercises.
|Figure 1: Lactate and rate of perceived exertion after the four different styles of working out. Only, the reciprocal superset (antagonistic) showed sign. elevated levels over traditional training (as indicated by # | Sabido. 2016).|
|Figure 2: Number of reps where the subjects required assistance to get up to the standardized volume of 240 reps; note: * = significant difference with traditional methodology; # = significant difference with pyramid methodology (Sabido. 2016).|
- Kelleher, Andrew R., et al. "The metabolic costs of reciprocal supersets vs. traditional resistance exercise in young recreationally active adults." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.4 (2010): 1043-1051.
- Sabido, Rafael, Marcelo Peñaranda, and Jose Luis Hernández-Davó. "Comparison of acute responses to four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies." European Journal of Human Movement 37 (2016): 109-121.
- Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.10 (2014): 2909-2918.
- Smilios, I. L. I. A. S., et al. "Hormonal responses after various resistance exercise protocols." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 35.4 (2003): 644-654.