3 by 7 science backed lifting

[cincymma79]

So to be clear it’s a set of 3, 4,5,6,7 with 15 seconds rest in between and 2.5 minutes in between the two rounds. Showed better hyper trophy.

Limits
Participants Not representative of our group here
I’d prefer to see a year or so

Dig in

Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method - PubMed

The 3/7 method provides a better stimulus for strength gain and muscle hypertrophy than the 8 × 6 method.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[vision1]

So to be clear it’s a set of 3, 4,5,6,7 with 15 seconds rest in between and 2.5 minutes in between the two rounds. Showed better hyper trophy.

Limits
Participants Not representative of our group here
I’d prefer to see a year or so

Dig in

Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method - PubMed

The 3/7 method provides a better stimulus for strength gain and muscle hypertrophy than the 8 × 6 method.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

My dad sent this to me a year or two ago.
I wish they compared it to something more similar. 70% was likely too low % for 8 x 6

 

[deadshot138]

Isn't this just doggcrapp or myo reps?

 

[maximus__]

So to be clear it’s a set of 3, 4,5,6,7 with 15 seconds rest in between and 2.5 minutes in between the two rounds. Showed better hyper trophy.

Limits
Participants Not representative of our group here
I’d prefer to see a year or so

Dig in

Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method - PubMed

The 3/7 method provides a better stimulus for strength gain and muscle hypertrophy than the 8 × 6 method.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What a random rep scheme to compare it to...

I have never seen 8x6 programmed in anything ever and it only compares the two.

Why not go the classic 5x5, 3x10 or even a 4x12, which you will see in cookie cutter programs.

I guess they were trying to get a close to even total volume (50-48), why not pick 5x10 instead then and get an even 50 reps for each.

The 3,4,5,6,7 group were getting an extra 2 reps over the 8x6 group every single session. Over 12 weeks that adds up to an extra session effectively which may add to the hypertrophy increase, though maybe no that much.

 

[cincymma79]

My dad sent this to me a year or two ago.
I wish they compared it to something more similar. 70% was likely too low % for 8 x 6

I think it’s interesting. I’ve used it for bench a couple times now and for rows. It’s harder than you think (that’s what she said). Hard to say because the changes would be small and probably even smaller in trained people, but compelling

 

[cincymma79]

What a random rep scheme to compare it to...

I have never seen 8x6 programmed in anything ever and it only compares the two.

Why not go the classic 5x5, 3x10 or even a 4x12, which you will see in cookie cutter programs.

I guess they were trying to get a close to even total volume (50-48), why not pick 5x10 instead then and get an even 50 reps for each.

The 3,4,5,6,7 group were getting an extra 2 reps over the 8x6 group every single session. Over 12 weeks that adds up to an extra session effectively which may add to the hypertrophy increase, though maybe no that much.

The rest intervals are completely different though

 

[vision1]

I think it’s interesting. I’ve used it for bench a couple times now and for rows. It’s harder than you think (that’s what she said). Hard to say because the changes would be small and probably even smaller in trained people, but compelling

That's what I mean.
3+4+5+6+7 sounds way more difficult than 6 straight reps.
They were going much closer to failure if using the same 70% of max load.

 

[maximus__]

The rest intervals are completely different though

Not really. The rest intervals are the same between sets.

150 secs rest each "set"
3,4,5,6,7 is 25 reps x2=50 total reps.
8x6 group is 48 total reps.

The sets are the difference, rest is technically the same.

The 3,4,5,6,7 group are getting less rest overall, doing a more intense set and going closer to muscle failure though, but resting 150 secs between each set. 6 reps at 70%, is barely a warm up in comparison. It would be week 1 of a perecentaged based program or used as back off sets.

It's a decent difference though, so worth doing another study and comparing to more traditional rep schemes or IMO even just a 5x10, which would be a decent rep scheme for that level of intensity (70%).

 

[RedNeckJiuJitsu]

What are your goals? How long have you been training?

For strength combined with martial arts, as an intermediate to advanced program, 5/3/1 is most likey superior. For a beginning, Starting Strength is better.

If you want hypertrophy and still be able to move, for 5/3/1 with some accessory work, martial arts, and eat a lot.

 

[vision1]

What are your goals? How long have you been training?

For strength combined with martial arts, as an intermediate to advanced program, 5/3/1 is most likey superior. For a beginning, Starting Strength is better.

If you want hypertrophy and still be able to move, for 5/3/1 with some accessory work, martial arts, and eat a lot.

I don't think you can compare a rep scheme to a complete program.