Rest/Pause DC style vs Straight Sets discussion

[xpoc]

I was talking to a dude at the gym... not a competitor but he is advanced as far as hypertrophy goes. Ultimately we were discussing the merits of the DC style rest pause style of training. And the question came up as to what science (or anecdotal evidence) is out there to support rest pause over straight sets if you consider the following scenario. These are actual numbers from this guy I was talking to.

Week 1 he did DC style rest pause sets on the incline Smith taking all sets to failure:

275x 13

rest 20 seconds (5 deep breaths)

275x 6

rest 20 seconds (5 deep breaths)

275x 3

Done.

So he ultimately did 275x22 reps in just under 2 minutes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The next week he did Straight Sets all taken to failure

275x 13

rest 2 minutes

275x 9

rest 2 minutes

275 x 7

Done.

In this scenario he complete 275 x 29 reps (7 more than rest pause style) but he did it over 5 minutes rather than 2 minutes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I am not trying to overanalyze things but I would like to have some fodder for discussion because at face value it would appear the second scenario would be more conducive to hypertrophy given the increase in volume. That said, I know at least anecdotally, some of the biggest guys in the sport prefer scenario 1. Thoughts?

 

[airman]

Was just listening to Jordan Peters discussing rest pause. The difference is rest pause actually took the muscle "beyond failure". He talks about employing beyond failure techniques only when he is in a caloric surplus (as its a waste in a deficit, because you won't actually grow and it will impair recovery) and he will only do it on certain sets. Never on the first exercise as it will take away performance from the subsequent lifts. And because they are so demanding only when he feels good and knows he will be able to recover for the next workout.

Its a great hypertrophy technique but doesn't mean its all rest pause or nothing. I think (like Jordan) its great to use both straight sets, and beyond failure sets (rest pause, drop set, forced negative etc). The key is to know when and how to do it.

Not sure if that even answered your question

 

[USMuscle9403]

Where were you listening to it if you don't mind me asking?

And I'd agree, it's the fact that the mini sets are spaced so closely together and requires your muscles to fire on all cylinders as opposed to a prolonged rest period where you're only talking momentary muscular failure. You can't go to absolute failure on three sets, by then most are just taxing themselves too much. The three mini sets, or one long extended set, whatever you wanna call it, need to be used sparingly, as well. For instance, no way in hell am I going to go in there and try to do five different exercises for a muscle group and rest pause all of them. You'd have to have some pretty awesome recovery ability to get a away with that. I generally do two for one group, but three at the most and that's pushing it with me and not possible for some body parts.

 

[b-boy]

I was talking to a dude at the gym... not a competitor but he is advanced as far as hypertrophy goes. Ultimately we were discussing the merits of the DC style rest pause style of training. And the question came up as to what science (or anecdotal evidence) is out there to support rest pause over straight sets if you consider the following scenario. These are actual numbers from this guy I was talking to.

Week 1 he did DC style rest pause sets on the incline Smith taking all sets to failure:

275x 13

rest 20 seconds (5 deep breaths)

275x 6

rest 20 seconds (5 deep breaths)

275x 3

Done.

So he ultimately did 275x22 reps in just under 2 minutes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The next week he did Straight Sets all taken to failure

275x 13

rest 2 minutes

275x 9

rest 2 minutes

275 x 7

Done.

In this scenario he complete 275 x 29 reps (7 more than rest pause style) but he did it over 5 minutes rather than 2 minutes

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I am not trying to overanalyze things but I would like to have some fodder for discussion because at face value it would appear the second scenario would be more conducive to hypertrophy given the increase in volume. That said, I know at least anecdotally, some of the biggest guys in the sport prefer scenario 1. Thoughts?

The difference in the two is the amount of muscle damage that is happening IMHO, techniques such as rest pause and drop sets cause more muscle damage (my opinion after 30+ years of training) i do not have scientific studies to prove this (disclaimer)

 

[juggy38]

In the last 2 years most of the research and “gurus” advocate non-failure training, as it will limit per session volume with little to no benefit than taking a set within 2-3 reps shy of failure.

But that is the main battle right now. As one side says volume is they key driver of growth where the other side says it is not

 

[juggy38]

Lyle McDonald has some neat articles on his website where he tears into brad schoenfield, mike irasetel, James Krieger..

The other side of the fight is Eric helms, Lyle, bla bal.


Oh and disclaimer...I might of spelled every damn name wrong

 

[USMuscle9403]

I think the constant bickering is nonsense lol Why is Lyle tearing into Israetel? Mike's training obviously works really fuckin well for Mike. And I honestly think that's the end of it. If it works, do it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. Try it and find out. I know I need to go to failure if I want to even entertain the thought of any muscle growth. My level of volume may be too much for some, not enough for others.

 

[xpoc]

Good stuff... BBoy , airman, usmuscle that all seems logical. Like BBOY said, not necessarily backed by science, but heck, science is often times years behind anecdotal experience.

 

[airman]

Where were you listening to it if you don't mind me asking?

I was bored doing cardio yesterday and rewatched Fouads interview with Jordan. Lots of good gems in there if you haven't seen it.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I think the constant bickering is nonsense lol Why is Lyle tearing into Israetel? Mike's training obviously works really fuckin well for Mike. And I honestly think that's the end of it. If it works, do it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. Try it and find out. I know I need to go to failure if I want to even entertain the thought of any muscle growth. My level of volume may be too much for some, not enough for others.

Mostly because Mike tried to pass off a meta analysis on his "training not to failure" techniques and Lyle said he was cherry picking certain bits and pieces. Overall, it wasn't JUST lyle who thought this as well. Other dudes in the industry kinda give Mike a weird eye. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of Mike and think his programs and thoughts work great for beginners and intermediate lifters (basically those who don't know WHERE failure is and HOW to train to it), therefore volume needs to be the driving factor. As far as studies are concerned, Mike and Brad keep coming back to studies (some on UNTRAINED individuals) that are just strange and cannot be replicated. For instance, the big Brad study that he ALWAYS hypes...talks about basically full body training where guys were training to failure for 8 sets with something like 1 minute rest in between. Now explaining that to US....we would fucking puke...but somehow these trainees were ok with that and then did leg press 8 sets, 1 min rest to failure. Just from reading the studies you can tell this is some weird bullshit lol.

As far as DC vs traditional sets, I only use DC stuff when I'm in a big surplus and my recovery is 100% on point. Both can be used for progressive overload, but DC kicks my ass with how hard I train. This is just my understanding, but with the mini failures in 1 extended set, you are recruiting more muscle finders faster and using more for lack of a better term "effective reps." After 1 traditional set, those first 6 reps, you're in cruise mode. But after the 1st RP set, those next 6 reps is a fucking FIGHT. Recruiting more muscle fibers to fire harder. I know there are some studies out there, the problem is that the term REST PAUSE is used very liberally and has 4 diff explanations. Hell, John Meadows uses the term Rest Pause when he describes his Dead Stop sets.

 

[Dugbet]

I think the constant bickering is nonsense lol Why is Lyle tearing into Israetel? Mike's training obviously works really fuckin well for Mike. And I honestly think that's the end of it. If it works, do it. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. Try it and find out. I know I need to go to failure if I want to even entertain the thought of any muscle growth. My level of volume may be too much for some, not enough for others.

I like to train to failure, I don't care what science and its studies say.

 

[Dens228]

I've been using DC for years, starting with the basic, moving to the three way, upping the reps etc. It is my favorite way to train BUT my joints no longer like it after a short go.
I still do the same split but I do three sets of each exercise now with about a minutes rest, lowering the weight a bit to keep the reps up. This is a bit higher volume and seems to agree with me. My joints yell at me a lot less now.

 

[Mountolympus]

a question slightly off topic but since we are talking about Dante ... someone has by chance his old Hardcore Muscle Newsletter in pdf?

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I've been using DC for years, starting with the basic, moving to the three way, upping the reps etc. It is my favorite way to train BUT my joints no longer like it after a short go.
I still do the same split but I do three sets of each exercise now with about a minutes rest, lowering the weight a bit to keep the reps up. This is a bit higher volume and seems to agree with me. My joints yell at me a lot less now.

Dens, not to question what you say, but why do you think RP and 3 sets make "your joints" feel any different?
I assuming you are using the same poundage. But why would just shorter rest periods be detrimental to your joints.

 

[Dens228]

Dens, not to question what you say, but why do you think RP and 3 sets make "your joints" feel any different?
I assuming you are using the same poundage. But why would just shorter rest periods be detrimental to your joints.

No, I'm not only using more rest, I lower the weight between sets. If anything my reps are at least the same if not a bit higher on the second and third sets than they were on the first. So if bench is an example, RP may be 12-5-3, with the lowering the weight in between they may be 12-13-16......or something like that. I log the weight/reps for the first set but only the weight, not the reps for the 2nd and 3rd sets.
I guess the short answer is if I'm using 315 for all three sets on a RP set I'm using 315-285-255 with my current routine.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

ahhh ok, totally makes sense then.

No, I'm not only using more rest, I lower the weight between sets. If anything my reps are at least the same if not a bit higher on the second and third sets than they were on the first. So if bench is an example, RP may be 12-5-3, with the lowering the weight in between they may be 12-13-16......or something like that. I log the weight/reps for the first set but only the weight, not the reps for the 2nd and 3rd sets.
I guess the short answer is if I'm using 315 for all three sets on a RP set I'm using 315-285-255 with my current routine.

 

[Dens228]

a question slightly off topic but since we are talking about Dante ... someone has by chance his old Hardcore Muscle Newsletter in pdf?

I've been bugging Dante for about 20 years for a copy of the Muscle Newsletter!

 

[Mountolympus]

i've found only the issue #2 in pdf

 

[Dens228]

ahhh ok, totally makes sense then.

What really comes to light is how the reps change with the lowering of the weight depending on which bodypart. Lowering the weight by 10% between sets for chest usually results in the reps going up by 2 or 3 between sets, for back they tend to stay the same between sets, maybe one rep either way......now for legs, the 10% drop results in a fairly large increase in reps........like 8-10 reps. But it also resulted in better growth.....I like to think my genetic makeup causes that and therefore results in better response for each muscle group purely by accident on my part. Just an observation and my interpretation.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

What really comes to light is how the reps change with the lowering of the weight depending on which bodypart. Lowering the weight by 10% between sets for chest usually results in the reps going up by 2 or 3 between sets, for back they tend to stay the same between sets, maybe one rep either way......now for legs, the 10% drop results in a fairly large increase in reps........like 8-10 reps. But it also resulted in better growth.....I like to think my genetic makeup causes that and therefore results in better response for each muscle group purely by accident on my part. Just an observation and my interpretation.

very interesting. Are u still using progressive overload principles and trying to beat numbers and weight?