Thread: How many sets for back?

i usually do 10-12

Monday I do 3 sets of 8 repetitions with something like 75% of my 1RM. Wednesday I do 4 sets of 6 repetitions with around 80% of my 1RM. Friday I do 8 sets of 3 repetitions with about 83-85% of my 1RM. I also throw in the occasional couple sets of upper back work at the end of 1-2 workouts per week with 2 sets of 12 repetitions with 65-70% of my 1RM.

Depends on the phase and type of periodization I'm doing (accumulation/intensification vs. undulating vs conjugate).

If alternating accumulation and intensification phases probably 9-12 during the accumulation phase and less during an intensification phase, although frequency increases in that case.

If following an undulating model I split back up into horizontal and vertical workouts and treat it as two muscles - one lat/width dominant and one mid back/thickness dominant.

Sets and reps depend on loading parameters. When reps are low, I do more sets to get the volume high enough. When reps are higher, sets are lower.

I look at volume more in terms of total reps rather than sets, since 8x3 and 3x8 both equal 24 reps. So I'm shooting for a minimum rep total in a workout depending on the phase or where in the block of training I'm in.

Originally Posted by Thunder

If following an undulating model I split back up into horizontal and vertical workouts and treat it as two muscles - one lat/width dominant and one mid back/thickness dominant.

This is what I do. I alternate between horizontal and vertical pulling movements. So one week contains 2 horizontal and 1 vertical pulling movements, the next week contains 2 vertical and 1 horizontal pulling movements. Then I throw in that bit up upper back work that kind of randomly alternates plane of motion.

Sets and reps depend on loading parameters. When reps are low, I do more sets to get the volume high enough. When reps are higher, sets are lower.

I look at volume more in terms of total reps rather than sets, since 8x3 and 3x8 both equal 24 reps. So I'm shooting for a minimum rep total in a workout depending on the phase or where in the block of training I'm in.

Yeah, I do the same. All of the schemes I use come out to 24 repetitions total. However, the actual time under tension in each session will be slightly different depending on my natural tempo with the movement.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Yeah, I do the same. All of the schemes I use come out to 24 repetitions total. However, the actual time under tension in each session will be slightly different depending on my natural tempo with the movement.

I actually only used 24 as an example. That's probably the bare minimum volume in my opinion - at least if you're after structural changes. Then again, there's obviously other variables/parameters to consider.

You could just step load the volume over four weeks and then unload in the fourth week.

As an example (just random numbers selected to show a pattern)

Week 1 - 30 reps
Week 2 - 40 reps
Week 3 - 50 reps
Week 4 - 20 reps

Originally Posted by Thunder

I actually only used 24 as an example. That's probably the bare minimum volume in my opinion - at least if you're after structural changes. Then again, there's obviously other variables/parameters to consider.

You could just step load the volume over four weeks and then unload in the fourth week.

As an example (just random numbers selected to show a pattern)

Week 1 - 30 reps
Week 2 - 40 reps
Week 3 - 50 reps
Week 4 - 20 reps

Yeah, 24-50 is generally a healthy range. I prefer lower volume. In fact, this is high volume for me because my previous routine was straight HIT. Also, like I said, I throw in some additional work for my upper back sometimes. So, some sessions hit 48 repetitions.

And then you have the... well... 'special' people like me. I hit my back three days a week with a bunch of different exercises but each only with fifteen repetitions including the warm ups. That's on the very low volume side, of course. I also do three light days with extremely light days and thirty repetitions total. So I really hit by back six days a week but three of them don't really tax it very much.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I actually only used 24 as an example. That's probably the bare minimum volume in my opinion - at least if you're after structural changes. Then again, there's obviously other variables/parameters to consider.

You could just step load the volume over four weeks and then unload in the fourth week.

As an example (just random numbers selected to show a pattern)

Week 1 - 30 reps
Week 2 - 40 reps
Week 3 - 50 reps
Week 4 - 20 reps

If you were looking purely for hypertrophy, 50 would be too low if you consider 3 reps of 3 exercises for 8-10 reps to be the optimal volume for hypertrophy, which is inline with current theory. If strength is a consideration then i would say 25-50 would be fine.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If you were looking purely for hypertrophy, 50 would be too low if you consider 3 reps of 3 exercises for 8-10 reps to be the optimal volume for hypertrophy, which is inline with current theory. If strength is a consideration then i would say 25-50 would be fine.

Really? Want me to post a back picture to prove it's not too low? Keep in mind as well, I don't train bodyparts once a week like bodybuilding mags tell you to either.

Post a reference that says that 3 sets of 3 exercises for 8-10 reps is the optimal volume for hypertrophy according to 'current theory'. And nothing from the NSCA textbook.

How is that optimal when it pretty much ignores Type IIB MU activity? Do you see too many powerlifters, with all the muscle they have, spending the majority of their training doing 3 sets of 3 exercises in the 8-10 rep range? That's current theory according to Flex magazine.

So some of you guys work your back 3 times a weeK? I work my back once a week with about 12 sets. Do you think this is sufficent?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

If you were looking purely for hypertrophy, 50 would be too low if you consider 3 reps of 3 exercises for 8-10 reps to be the optimal volume for hypertrophy, which is inline with current theory. If strength is a consideration then i would say 25-50 would be fine.

When I say 25-50, I am talking on a per exercise basis. Throughout the week I will generally perform 3-4 exercises per body part complex.

McDonagh, M.J.N and C.T.M Davies. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. European Journal of Applied Physiology 52:139-155, 1984.

Hendrick A., Training for Hypertrophy. Strength & Conditioning 17(3):22-29, 1995.

Hather, B.M., P.A. Teach, P. Buchanan, and G.A. Dudley. Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Act Physiologica Scandinavia, 143:177-185, 1992.

Ostrowsky, K.J, G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D. Lyttle. The Effect of weight trainingvolume on hormonal outputand muscular size and function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning research 11(3): 148-154, 1997.


You may post a back picture if you wish, but I don't care how large your back is and that is all it would show.

Type IIB motor unit activation isn't the only variable in hypertrophy, fortunately there are other things (Hormonal secretions being one) that need to be taken into account. Besides, with training, IIB fibers convert to IIA to a large extent.

Originally Posted by Milkyway777

So some of you guys work your back 3 times a weeK? I work my back once a week with about 12 sets. Do you think this is sufficent?

Yes, that's most likely fine, although it is impossible to tell without knowing how many repetitions you perform each set, what intensity you use, and how balanced you train the various functions of muscles on the back: primarily scapular retraction/elevation and shoulder adduction/extension.

I work my back 3 times per week, but each session has a total repetition volume of 24-50 repetitions. Here is a link to the routine I am currently performing:

I am woman hear me roa... Er... What?

When I used to train like "normal" person I did what thunder and cowpimp are suggesting and shifted my volume around depending on the phase of training I was in or the type of periodization I was using. My volume was always pretty low since my frequency of training was greater.

Now, since i do so much pulling through the week with the o-lifts, I only do about a total of 3-8 sets for back per week. (I don't care about hypertrophy though).

To build a Titanium Back, you perform 50 sets by 50 reps mainly targetting the back area. This is what I workout consists of when I work volume.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

You may post a back picture if you wish, but I don't care how large your back is and that is all it would show.

Well, you did say my training volume was too low for hypertrophy didn't you?

Type IIB motor unit activation isn't the only variable in hypertrophy, fortunately there are other things (Hormonal secretions being one) that need to be taken into account. Besides, with training, IIB fibers convert to IIA to a large extent.

Are you familiar with other forms of periodization? Conjugate? Undulating for example?

The primary triggers for muscle hypertrophy are mechanical load/tension, density, and total time under tension. Load and tension is simply the amount of weight lifted. The more you lift, the greater the level of intramuscular tension. The greater the intramuscular tension, the greater the amount of protein degradation and resultant amino acid uptake by your muscles. Training with low reps (and therefore very heavy loads) improves myogenic (and neurogenic) tone by way of myofibrillar hypertrophy. People don’t spend enough time lifting in the low-rep ranges because they think this kind of training is just for strength. While low-rep training does obviously promote strength gains, with the right training parameters and program design (ie. enough volume), it will also contribute to significant size gains.

Hypertrophy can either be functional (increasing the size of the muscle fibers) or non-functional (increasing the volume of the non-contractile elements of the muscle) and the training triggers for each are different.

An adjunct to the mistake of not training in the lower rep ranges is simply not training across multiple rep ranges. Doing so will allow you to train muscles with greater frequency and will target different motor units and muscle fiber types with the end result being a more complete stimulation of your entire muscular system.

There is no one best rep range.

At least that's my beliefs on the matter.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

McDonagh, M.J.N and C.T.M Davies. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. European Journal of Applied Physiology 52:139-155, 1984.

Hendrick A., Training for Hypertrophy. Strength & Conditioning 17(3):22-29, 1995.

Hather, B.M., P.A. Teach, P. Buchanan, and G.A. Dudley. Influence of eccentric actions on skeletal muscle adaptations to resistance training. Act Physiologica Scandinavia, 143:177-185, 1992.

Ostrowsky, K.J, G.J. Wilson, R. Weatherby, P.W. Murphy, and A.D. Lyttle. The Effect of weight trainingvolume on hormonal outputand muscular size and function. Journal of Strength and Conditioning research 11(3): 148-154, 1997.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said nothing from the NSCA textbook. These are all from a little section on hypertropy in the NSCA's CSCS text. Not to mention, one of the studies is 20 years old and the most recent quoted is 9 years old. Not so sure that jives with the use of the terms 'current theory'.

Originally Posted by Lee Delroy

To build a Titanium Back, you perform 50 sets by 50 reps mainly targetting the back area. This is what I workout consists of when I work volume.

Who is this ass-clown? If you don't have constructive advice to give, please refrain from posting in the training section.

ok question i do my pull ups till i hit a certain number how do i count that as sets......soemtimes it takes 10 sets some times 4 dependin on the number i pick for that week my pull ups suck...so how do i count it

Originally Posted by WantItBad

ok question i do my pull ups till i hit a certain number how do i count that as sets......soemtimes it takes 10 sets some times 4 dependin on the number i pick for that week my pull ups suck...so how do i count it

Each time you do a number of reps and then have to stop would be a set. So if you did 20 pullups, and it went like this: 4,6,5,5; that would be 4 sets. Make sense?

ya but than am i seriously over training my backk when i pick like 40 and it takes me 8 sets

along with my deadlifts, bent rows, tbar rows, back exe,

Originally Posted by Thunder

Perhaps you missed the part where I said nothing from the NSCA textbook. These are all from a little section on hypertropy in the NSCA's CSCS text. Not to mention, one of the studies is 20 years old and the most recent quoted is 9 years old. Not so sure that jives with the use of the terms 'current theory'.

I did miss that, just glanced over it. Perhaps you can show me a study supporting your stance?

I use conjugate periodization myself, but I am not concerned with hypertrophy.

Originally Posted by Thunder

The greater the intramuscular tension, the greater the amount of protein degradation and resultant amino acid uptake by your muscles.

So if you perform an isometric action at the length at which greatest tension occurs then you would consider that optimal for hypertrophy?

Originally Posted by Thunder

There is no one best rep range.

At least that's my beliefs on the matter.

That is where we differ, I agree that there is not one optimal rep range, you should train them all, but I do believe there is an optimal rep range for elliciting certain outcomes (Power, hypertrophy, endurance, etc.)

I am not saying your method would not lead to hypertrophy, I am saying it is suboptimal for it.

Here is the abstract to one such study showing this, from PubMed, 5 years old.

Interestingly, the 2 higher rep ranges yielded better results in net thigh girth, but the quad femoris girth was slightly greater in the 3-5 rep range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...510&query_hl=1

Could be a bit excessive. Maybe cut out the T-bar rows.

An abstract on hormonal response...

http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw2/ovidweb.cgi

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I did miss that, just glanced over it. Perhaps you can show me a study supporting your stance?

Look up the undulating research. It was presented at this year's annual NSCA conference.

At the same time, it's not about formal research more often than not since study design is the limiting factor. As are the subjects more often than not. Published literature is just one aspect of it. How long did it take the scientific community to admit steroids worked?

I use conjugate periodization myself, but I am not concerned with hypertrophy.

Can the conjugate system be used for hypertrophy?

So if you perform an isometric action at the length at which greatest tension occurs then you would consider that optimal for hypertrophy?

I don't see the relevance. You have to be careful with the use of the word 'optimal'.

Intramuscular tension refers to the effort of the muscle necessary to produce a certain force output. F=ma, so it should be evident that intramuscular tension will be influenced by the magnitude of the load and the acceleration one has to transfer to the resistance.

Are you saying my explanation for the primary triggers for muscle growth is wrong?

1. Mechanical load
2. Density
3. Total time under tension/volume

But since you brought them up, do you think isometics (functional and overcoming) aren't good for hypertrophy training?

That is where we differ, I agree that there is not one optimal rep range, you should train them all, but I do believe there is an optimal rep range for elliciting certain outcomes (Power, hypertrophy, endurance, etc.)

We're not really disagreeing then are we? Not to mention this really doesn't have much to do with the topic of volume. Well, it does, but volume is about more than just rep range. 3x8 and 8x3 both result in 24 reps.

I am not saying your method would not lead to hypertrophy, I am saying it is suboptimal for it.

You'd have to explain why so many people get such good results including a lot of low rep training - look to powerlifters for starters; more muscle than most bodybuilders. Is it because they do 3 sets of 3 exercise for 8-10 reps? This is such cookie cutter thinking. Not to mention your body adapts to reps performed faster than anything. Look how 99% of people in gyms train today - just as you said - 3 sets of 3 exercises for 8-10 reps - and it's odd that most people in gyms these days look pretty much untrained and make little gains after their first year or two of training. It seems for every one person that this one size fits all approach works for, there are 10 (random selection) that it doesn't work for.

Even though a huge range of loading prescriptions can lead to hypertrophy, it's best to keep loading on the upper end of the intensity spectrum. Would you disagree that the greater the number of MU recruited the better?

You're saying 72-100 reps is 'optimal' based on 'current theory' (whatever current theory means). I'm pretty sure I said I train muscle groups more often than once a week. Where is the huge disagreement in the context of overall volume. If I'm doing 36-50 reps in a workout for example, yet doing it twice per week, how is my volume too low for hypertrophy? Or maybe even 24 to 33 reps three times per week using different (undulating) loading parameters each workout?

The problem with this 72-100 reps per workout thing, unless you're in an accumulation phase, is that the frequency (likely the most misunderstood aspect of program design) is too low.

Well, it does, but volume is about more than just rep range. 3x8 and 8x3 both result in 24 reps.

I agree and disagree at the same time. While yes, they are both 24 reps, volume (to me at least) is load x reps x sets. If I am using something like 3 reps x 8 sets I can use great amount of weight, leading to a graeter amount of total volume, then if I am performing 8 reps x 3 sets.

Originally Posted by P-funk

I agree and disagree at the same time. While yes, they are both 24 reps, volume (to me at least) is load x reps x sets. If I am using something like 3 reps x 8 sets I can use great amount of weight, leading to a graeter amount of total volume, then if I am performing 8 reps x 3 sets.

Correct. I use the term 'tonnage' for that, but technically you're right. Still, in my mind that maximizes the growth stimulus - far more tonnage. Potentially the same total reps performed but with far greater loads.