Stop Performing Your Volume Work Like This For Strength
The best way to perform your volume work for squat, bench press, and deadlift requires an understanding of the goal of the sets, what drives strength gains, and individual differences to keep in mind. Zac Robinson breaks it all down for you in our new YouTube video!
Chapters
00:00 Backoff Sets
00:25 Contributors to Maximal Strength
02:00 Fitness and Fatigue
03:57 Individualizing Training Prescription
06:30 Practical Application
07:15 What We're Not Saying
08:55 Takeaway
Transcript
Modern strength programs often have lifters work up to a heavy top set, then reduce the load to perform a few additional sets, probably better known as "back-off sets." However, these back-off sets are sometimes programmed in a way that can be counterproductive, increasing the amount of fatigue accumulated without an increase in stimulus for strength gain. In today's video, we'll discuss the principles underlying the best way to program these back-off sets for strength.
As we've discussed on the channel before, the relative load or % of 1RM used is the most predictive factor of strength gains, such that heavier loads result in greater improvements in 1RM. This relationship perfectly demonstrates why "top sets" have become so popular in modern strength programming - frequent exposures to >85% of 1RM are a very efficient route to strength gains.
A study by Androlakis-Korkais and colleagues demonstrated that meaningful strength gains could be observed in well-trained powerlifters performing only 2, 3, or 1 heavy single(s) a week on the squat, bench press, and deadlift, respectively. Now, the obvious follow-up question is, Why don't we perform all our training this way?" It's an obvious implication of load's predictive capacity on strength gains. It comes down to two things: 1) unsustainability and 2) volume accumulation.
The first point is straightforward; in my experience, few lifters can physically or psychologically tolerate and sustain many sets performed with >85% of 1RM.
The second point is where back-off sets come into play. Since It's unrealistic to accumulate a meaningful amount of volume with only low-rep sets, you may not be able to perform a a sufficient number of repetitions to dial in technique or stimulate muscle growth (which likely contributes to strength to some degree). Thus, a reduction in load, followed by a few more sets with a moderate rep range, can make a meaningful impact.
As proof of concept, a study by Androlakis-Korkais, where they compared a group only performing the heavy singles versus a group that performed heavy singles plus two sets of three reps at 80% of the day's single. The group performing back-off sets had approximately a 20kg greater improvement in their powerlifting total compared to the singles-only group - average of 11.4 kg increase on their total vs. 33.7 kg - demonstrating the utility of back-off sets.
To most effectively program back-off sets for strength, one must have a good understanding of the balance of fitness and fatigue. Because the heavy top sets within a lifters program likely deliver the majority of the stimulus in the short to moderate term, our goal is to provide the cherry on top in regards to stimulus without derailing top set performance due to the additional fatigue.
We can turn to the research to gain insight into the primary factors contributing to stimulus and fatigue, respectively.
As I discussed in our recent video discussing the various components of “intensity”, the factors that drive strength seem to be pretty clear. After load has been taken out of the equation, the predominant predictive factor related to strength gains, proximity to failure doesn’t seem to impact strength gains much at all. Moreover, moving a submaximal load with maximal intended velocity seems to result in better strength gains than if you were to deliberately slow the concentric portion of a repetition. All of these factors point to force production as the best explanation of these findings. Thus, organizations of training variables that hurt our force production (i.e,. fatigue) are likely something we should avoid.
I think the most useful proxy of fatigue we have is velocity loss. At a given load, the % intraset velocity loss will be directly related to the decline in force production. Interestingly, both decreasing the load and taking sets close to failure seem to increase the velocity loss of a set; which suggests that low loads and training closer to failure might not only cause more fatigue but fail to provide an additional strength stimulus.
Thus, the basic idea for backoff sets is that we want to accumulate minimal velocity loss. This means training with as heavy of loads and as far from failure as one can logistically tolerate. Now you may be saying, does this mean we’re going to perform a bunch of cluster singles with 85% of 1RM? That would take forever! While I think you could make a compelling case for this, I think we can go a step further to make things a bit more logistically feasible.
While the body of velocity-loss research is limited due to not equating total repetitions, gains in strength seem to be optimized around somewhere in the range of a 0- 20% velocity loss threshold, with greater velocity loss harming strength gains. This may suggest that the window of 0-20% velocity loss does not result in sufficient fatigue to disrupt strength gain.
From a practical perspective we know that there is tons of variation repetition capacity at a given velocity loss threshold. It will be dependent on the individual, the exercise, the set number, the load, and the list goes on and on. As a very crude metric, I think terminating sets in the range of 70-85% of 1RM with >3 RIR will be a solid place to start. We know from other research the amount of repetitions individuals can perform at a given load is highly variable, thus the amount of repetitions an individual could perform prior to 3 RIR (or a 20% velocity loss is highly individual).
I actually think this is a feature and not a bug. In my coaching experience, some individuals seem to observe superior outcomes when accumulating more repetitions per set for strength, it could be that they A) require more volume and B) they have a slower rate of fatigue such that they are not reaching a disadvantageous level of velocity loss.
This brings us to the best way to integrate these principles to autoregulate your backoff sets.
A study by Iacono and colleagues investigated the effects of something they coined the “autoregulation cluster training method” compared to traditional and inter-repetition rest training. The point of the study that I think worth highlighting is that the autoregulation cluster training method was able to accumulate the same number of repetitions (24), at the same load (75% of 1RM), with the same total rest (240 sec), with less velocity loss than the other two conditions.
Each individual performed their first set to a 20% velocity loss then terminated the set after X repetitions. Then they would perform clusters of X-1 repetitions until they either A) reached 24 repetitions or B) they reached the 20% velocity loss threshold relative to the fastest repetition of the session again, upon which the following set would be performed with X-2 repetitions and the process would repeat.
You can see how this can lead to highly individualized training prescriptions allowing for those with greater endurance to perform more repetitions per set and those who fatigue more quickly to break up the work into more sets.
As a practical way to translate this concept into the gym I like the following principles:
Pick a backoff set load (e.g. 75% of 1RM)
Pick a number of total repetitions (e.g., 24 repetitions)
Perform your first set to a 20% velocity loss or ~4 RIR
Then perform sets of one less repetition until you reach the same velocity loss or RIR target
Subtract another repetition and repeat the process until you accumulate the correct number of total repetitions
If you perform a single repetition thats <4 RIR, drop the load by 5% and continue
I want to clarify a few things I’m NOT saying. Most of the data we have in this area is what I'd call “short to moderate term.” Basically, if you’re looking to maximize strength within 4-16 weeks, that's when I’d lean on some of these strategies related to minimizing velocity loss. The longer term we get, the more likely hypertrophy is going to be a much larger contributor to strength gains; and because the training variables that matter the most for hypertrophy are basically reversed (i.e,. load doesn't’ seem to matter much while training closer to failure is likely superior) training with minimal velocity loss may not be ideal.
Another thing is that there are absolutely benefits of taking moderate load sets close to failure / high velocity loss, particularly when you’re limited on time. A set like this will check a few boxes in a very time efficient manner:
Provide a solid hypertrophy stimulus
Provide an opportunity to practice with slow repetition velocities
Expose the lifter to what it feels like to “shift the loading demands” throughout the set, or in simpler words, find a way to grind through a tough rep
Ultimately, if you’re limited on time, taking a moderate load set close to failure might be the most efficient route you can take compared to the previously described top set + back-off approach, so by no means am I saying it's useless.
Returning to the study by Androlakis-Korkais for the final time, they did another investigation where they compared a group performing a heavy single plus backoffs to a group performing only one set of 70% of 1RM very close to failure (AMRAP). The AMRAP group actually did pretty well with a 15.3 kg increase in their total compared to a 26.8 kg increase in the singles + back-off group.
Backoff sets are a common part of modern strength programs. However, they can be approached in a counterproductive manner by increasing fatigue while failing to provide an additional strength stimulus. By minimizing velocity loss, we avoid these common pitfalls while allowing for further individualization.
If you liked the video, be sure to subscribe, leave a like, and let us know what you want to see from us next in the comments below. And if you want more free content like this directly in your inbox, sign up for our newsletter, which is the first link below.