Conceptualizing My Theory On Set Count As A Means Of Calculating Volume.

So if you have watched any of my YouTube videos on programming, you would know I tend to equate my understanding of volume by set count, not total tonnage. If I have a lifter who squats 9 total sets a week, I will have them perform 9 sets regardless of the rep scheme, for the most part. Part of this is due to that I tend to not program above 6 reps outside of bench press (see my post on high rep deadlifts to see my theorization of how higher rep sets can be of benefit though). And the other part of it is that I’ve just never felt like equating volume through matching sets x reps has been truly effective. I think the main argument is due to absolute load increases, in that 3×7 @ 8 RPE versus 7×3 @ 8 RPE just isn’t the same due to the change in weight on the bar. That concept has been fairly agreed upon. But then is 3×3 @ 8 RPE really the same as 3×7 @ 8 RPE? I’ve gone back and forth with conceptualizing how and why 3×3 and 3×7 are similar and why I do not increase set count (due to the results I’ve seen with my lifters) to something like 4×3 or 5×3 to better match the total tonnage. To me seeing the results is great, but I also am striving to understand why the outcome is what it is. So let’s nerd out on some powerlifting programming theory.

What got me thinking about this originally was from the understanding of submaximal training and intra-set fatigue through the lens of the theories that the guys from @datadrivestrength have put out recently. This ideology allows us to see basically two parts within a set, at least in my understanding and what I’ve taken from their ideas. We have the reps that are specific to force production, and the reps that are more specific to the velocity of a 1RM, which these two parts can be the same thing at times. As well as velocity is not always 1RM specific based on the fatigued accumulated that creates the velocity loss. I do not really buy into the idea of “effective reps”, but instead would rather look at it as that there is a very obvious increase in fatigue as we reach closer to failure. @ 6 RPE, @ 7 RPE, @ 8 RPE, @ 9 RPE, and @ 10 RPE does not have some perfectly linear increase in fatigue. But instead as we reach closer and closer to a 10 RPE, fatigue starts to disproportionately increase. So as we accumulate reps of higher RPE, we accumulate some disproportionate level of fatigue. Just for sake of this conceptualized theory, let’s say anything below a 6 RPE does not accumulate any meaningful fatigue, and only 6 RPE and above really shows noticeable levels of fatigue accumulation or intra-set fatigue. If we do 3×7 @ 8 RPE and 3×3 @ 8 RPE, we have accumulated the same number of fatiguing reps of 6 RPE or above. This doesn’t mean effective reps though, as I am not sure that thought process applies to strength training near as well. In principle based on this concept, even though volume is not equated, fatigue is equated for the most part. Does the prior 4 prior reps before 6 RPE on the sets of 7 have some effect? Yes, but that will be independent of each individual lifter. And for many those reps will not be noticeable enough that I believe it then warrants us equating fatigue by adding another set or two to 4×3 or 5×3 to account for that. As well as that is most likely offset to some degree by 3×3 being completed with a heavier absolute load.

Some lifter’s may respond great to both 3×3 and 3×7, but what we do find though within these differences is that some lifters respond best to a certain level of volume. Have them do 3×3 instead of 3×7, and while fatigue is matched, some level of fitness is lost due to the need in some manner for those 12 accumulated non-fatiguing reps prior to 6 RPE. The need for these 12 non-fatiguing reps could be for multiple reasons such as skill practice, hypertrophy volume requirements, distance traveled requirements (see my high rep deadlift post), or the argument @datadrivestrength makes for high force production reps. So the general logic would then be the increase to 4×3 or 5×3 to account for this, but then we see the increase in fatiguing reps.

If we did 4×3 or 5×3, could we just make sure the extra 1 or 2 sets are very submax and back off let’s say 6-10% from the top set weight, which then equates to the same number of fatiguing reps? Possibly, but that’s where I then move into the argument of trying not to over complicate things. The less variables we have to change block to block, the more we can be able to track data of the what, how, and why things are working the way they are. As well as load wise, the load used for those back offs will still likely be heavier than what is used for 3×7 @ 8 RPE. So it just becomes a big list of variables that is hard to manage. And now for each phase of training you need a separate template of the training structure and what the lifter responds to. Instead I’d rather formulate a training structure that can be implemented and used year round, rather than introducing new variables with set count and volume every block.

The next drawback to this theory, is what is my solution if a lifter requires a certain level of volume, but also needs to satisfy heavier absolute loads for specificity? To make this easy and stick with the above example, we could simply have 1×3 @ 8 RPE, then 2×7 @ 8 RPE. We satisfy the need for heavier loads and motor unit recruitment, we equate fatiguing reps, and we satisfy the need for a certain volume level that an individual lifter needs to maintain their fitness level or adaptations occurred. Again this is just an example, and more than likely many lifters I have aren’t doing sets of 7, so equating sets in the 2-6 rep range is much easier and requires a lot less variable manipulation. Which as I’ve mentioned in my videos, is one of the main reasons I tend to stick with most movements being 6 reps or less for most people. It just plainly simplifies things to make it easier to figure out what works, and how to create that same progress block to block long term.

The last caveat to this theory is that I feel safe to say that the vast majority of coaches tend to stay within the 6-8 RPE range, and only at rare times push closer to 9-10 RPE. So in this theory of 6+ RPE being “fatiguing”, with most cases we are incurring 1-3 fatiguing reps. So equating sets of 2-3 to really any other rep scheme is fairly easy when matching fatiguing reps. But what about singles then? Again, if you have watched my YouTube series on programming, you would know I don’t actually count something like a top single towards total set count. It is so minimal in the sense of volume that it’s hard to equate that to any other sets. So while we may not count a top single as a set, we can count it as a fatiguing rep and factor that into average absolute intensity for the session.

Slack Pull: The 5 Best Techniques To Optimize Your Deadlift – CLICK HERE

How To Program Variations – CLICK HERE

The most popular article on my website month after month is “What Percentage Of Your 1RM To Use On Variations“. I know when I first got into powerlifting, a big question I had was how to use my competition squat, bench, and deadlift 1RM/training max to then calculate something like a tempo squat or 3 second pause bench press. And from my research, outside of a couple tidbits here and there in forum posts, nothing like that existed. So from my coaching experience I put together a list of all the squat, bench press, and deadlifts variations I have used, and where I generally find athlete’s strength on those movements. In my latest YouTube video, I dive deeper into this topic with how to actually program these variations. I briefly cover the general percentage of 1RM that these variations fall under, but more so I dive into how to actually calculate and program these variations within a percentage based or RPE based program. These will not be 100% universal, and there are going to be outliers from what I recommend. But this will hopefully give most people a great starting point rather than just completely guessing, as well as the ability to program these appropriately within their training program. Click the link above to view!

Benefits Of The Safety Bar Squat That Are Overlooked

I am a big fan of the Safety Squat Bar, and I actually wrote a whole article on its 4 primary benefits over on @powerliftingtechinque. These primary benefits included allowing shoulder mobility to be a non-factor, naturally creating a more neutral pelvic orientation, having a self limiting affect, and it can be used to address certain movement/muscle weaknesses in the squat. But I wanted to cover a bit more of the lesser known benefits of the SSB, much like I did with pause squats in a post last December. There are some very specific things with the SSB that provides high benefits that most other squat variants just cannot replicate.  

1.) For those proficient with the SSB, one of the things most people come to realize is how much less they have to cue certain patterns in their squat. The SSB tends to naturally create a more neutral pelvic position, it creates a forward weight bias that results in a natural forward torso lean as you descend, and it greatly simplifies your setup and bracing. There is no need for a complex setup and bracing routine, as outside of inhaling to create intra-abdominal pressure, it kind of just takes care of the rest. So when an athlete gets proficient with an SSB, they get to go on auto-pilot a bit more. Less overthinking and more squatting. For me in particular, when I use a SSB really the only thing I am thinking about is foot pressure. I find my mid-foot, I find medial pressure side to side, and I descend into that almost like the floor is a leg press platform. That “leg press” platform is lowering towards me as I descend, and then at the bottom I push it away through my feet. What the rest of my body does tends to take care of itself, so now I can worry more about that direct connection to the floor and really simplify my squat pattern. 

2.) 9 times out of 10 hip flexor pain is related to anterior pelvic orientation creating less room for femoral range of motion within the hip, creating this “pinching” in the front of the hip and causing hip flexor pain. And 9 times out of 10 the way to fix this is to improve pelvic orientation, which is easier said than done. A very common tool I use in these instances when hip flexor pain flare ups occur is increasing SSB frequency. Now if an athlete is struggling with pelvic orientation on a low bar squat, we need to fix that. But if the pain is bad enough that they can’t low bar squat, we will SSB instead, as the SSB naturally tends to create a more neutral pelvic orientation as I have mentioned. But probably more common than just completely taking out low bar squats, is that I will leave low bar squat in the program on a secondary or tertiary day. This allows technique to be continued to be worked on, while we use the SSB to drive intensity and volume on other days. I have found time and time again that this allows that hip flexor pain to decrease due to the improved positioning the SSB creates, yet never once did we have to lower volume or relative intensity to achieve that. 

3.) If you watched my video on YouTube “Understanding Hip Shift In The Squat”, you will understand that sometimes what the lower body does is a compensatory action to positioning errors with the shoulders. If we lack shoulder mobility on one specific side, this could create a chain reaction downwards, resulting in a hip shift. Well how can we know for sure with someone that shoulder mobility is the cause? Have them squat with a Safety Bar. This takes shoulder mobility out of the equation and allows us to see instead what the lower body does without the tug and pull of the shoulders/upper body. If we see a noticeable improvement with the hip shift, we can have a higher degree of confidence the shift on a low bar squat stems from asymmetrical shoulder mobility. And if this hip shift is correlating to any type of pain, then much like point number 2, we can continue to push intensity and volume on SSB while working on low bar technique during a secondary or tertiary day. 

6 Causes Of Knee Cave And Why A Hip Circle Isn’t Fixing It – CLICK HERE

Other than maybe back rounding in the deadlift, I don’t think there is anything else that triggers the form and injury police on social media more than knee cave/valgus. Go to @kingofthelifts and any post with just the slightest touch of knee cave will be followed by 17 people who probably don’t lift themselves having to point out how that lifter is going to tear their ACL. In my latest YouTube video, I take a deeper look into knee valgus to give a better understanding of why it occurs and from my experience, how it seems to have little correlation with injury. I work on debunking the myth of weak glutes being the primary cause, and instead give 6 potential reasons (including weak glutes, because that is a potential cause, albeit unlikely) you are experiencing knee valgus in your squat. I’ll give a hint….much of the time it is just the adductors doing their job and is just normal deviation from the norm. But with that, sometimes knee valgus can cause potential roadblocks in regards to top end strength output, so to optimize technique I look at what the potential causes are so we have an understanding of where the breakdown is occurring and what we can improve. From there, I show real life examples of 6 of my lifters that each experience 1 of the potential causes, so that you can see exactly what I am discussing throughout the video. Click the link above to view!