Supersets just for definition, not size?

Tonto86

Was in the gym yesterday and some fella told me that supersetting wont build mass but only make definition.

How true is this?

Hanley

Tonto86 wrote: »

Was in the gym yesterday and some fella told me that supersetting wont build mass but only make definition.

How true is this?

Incredibly false. Depending on how you program them, you can do anything with them.

...anything except "define" ironically. That comes thru diet and fat loss. I suppose you could argue that using supersets burns kcals and leads to definition as a result, but it's tenuous at best. A good diet is far more important.

Parsley

Tonto86 wrote: »

Was in the gym yesterday and some fella told me that supersetting wont build mass but only make definition.

How true is this?

well as hanley said it's false, the benefit of supersets depends on what kind you're doing. if supersetting antagonistic pairs e.g. biceps & triceps, or chest & back, it's just to work at higher intensity. In the case of biceps/triceps, an added benefit is that when your biceps are full and pumped, the tricep work becomes easier as you can get a bit of spring/bounce from the pumped bicep.

If you're doing something like supersetting bench with DB flies, the idea there is to just work the chest muscles to failure, involving as much fibre as possible, so you'll elicit more muscle growth there.

Hanley

Technically supersets work opposing muslce groups, and giant sets work the same?!


Or did I just make that up?

Parsley

Hanley wrote: »

Technically supersets work opposing muslce groups, and giant sets work the same?!


Or did I just make that up?

well i've never heard of 'giant sets' before. so either you made it up or i'm a n00b. trademark it for your personal training practice? :pac:

Hanley

Parsley wrote: »

well i've never heard of 'giant sets' before. so either you made it up or i'm a n00b. trademark it for your personal training practice? :pac:

I'm probably making it up tbh. I also plan on using "continuous sets" and "extended sets" as buzz words

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

Technically supersets work opposing muslce groups, and giant sets work the same?!


Or did I just make that up?

I think you just made that up, I like it though.

If you're working the same muscle group aren't they pre/post exhaust supersets. Something for the Dorian Yates of the world.

Owen_S

OP, as mentioned it is bull. I've heard of various types of supersets including giant sets, but I thought a giant set was a superset with more than 2 exercises, almost like a circuit.
A regular superset is doing two similar movements, while pre-exhaustion supersets are like the one Parsley mentioned above, usually involving a compound and isolation that work the same target muscles(i.e flys and bench press, curls and rows).

The only ones I like and feel are actually worth doing are antagonist supersets, working two opposing muscles in a superset(usually done with isolations like curls and tricep extensions).

itsallaboutheL

Hanley wrote: »

Technically supersets work opposing muslce groups, and giant sets work the same?!


Or did I just make that up?

Super set is two exercises done back to back. Giant set is three or more.

I can't believe we're having this conversation.

deadlybuzzman

briankeating wrote: »

I think you just made that up, I like it though.

If you're working the same muscle group aren't they pre/post exhaust supersets. Something for the Dorian Yates of the world.

Thats something I wondered about for a while-is the idea of pre exhaust to hit a muscle extra hard or is it to tire it to make a different muscle work harder than normal? e.g. pre exhaust tris so pecs are forced to activate more muscle fibres when benching?

Brian?

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

Thats something I wondered about for a while-is the idea of pre exhaust to hit a muscle extra hard or is it to tire it to make a different muscle work harder than normal? e.g. pre exhaust tris so pecs are forced to activate more muscle fibres when benching?

That's the idea AFAIK, I am not sure there is any proof it works though.

Mellor

Another way it was described to be was that if your triceps fail first your chest never gets to failure, so you do some flys before hand to work the chest so they both reach failure together.

Again, no idea if it works, might just mean lifts go way down

Tonto86

thought it smelled a bit like bull alright!

So what i've been trying is supersetting

barbell curls with isolated dumbell curls
dumbell press with dumbell flies
dumbell row with seated cable row
dumbell shoulder press with dumbell lateral raise

how these sound? I think i can train my body harder this way, leaving muscles feeling more exhausted than before... but again im no expert!

Outa curiosity, if supersets are a good way to train your body harder, how come everyone doesnt use them all the time?

Owen_S

Tonto86 wrote: »

thought it smelled a bit like bull alright!

So what i've been trying is supersetting

barbell curls with isolated dumbell curls
dumbell press with dumbell flies
dumbell row with seated cable row
dumbell shoulder press with dumbell lateral raise

how these sound? I think i can train my body harder this way, leaving muscles feeling more exhausted than before... but again im no expert!

Outa curiosity, if supersets are a good way to train your body harder, how come everyone doesnt use them all the time?

This method is usually only recommended to fairly advanced lifters, even then there is debate that it actually works(the concept isn't as simple as it looks). I would just stick to a normal routine, possibly making use of antagonist supersets to save a bit of time.

Mellor

Tonto86 wrote: »

thought it smelled a bit like bull alright!

So what i've been trying is supersetting

barbell curls with isolated dumbell curls
dumbell press with dumbell flies
dumbell row with seated cable row
dumbell shoulder press with dumbell lateral raise

how these sound? I think i can train my body harder this way, leaving muscles feeling more exhausted than before... but again im no expert!

Outa curiosity, if supersets are a good way to train your body harder, how come everyone doesnt use them all the time?

I think it's jsut over complicating it tbh.

Take the first pair, BB curls are an isolation excercise anyway, dumbell curls are working the same muscles individually. It's just two isolation exercises, I don't see the point. I don't see how you are working harder as if you still have the energy for more curls imediately after the barbell, then you didn't do enough there.

Post exhaustion supersets like that are normally, a compound followed by an isolation to finsh off a secondary muscle

Brian?

Tonto86 wrote: »

thought it smelled a bit like bull alright!

So what i've been trying is supersetting

barbell curls with isolated dumbell curls
dumbell press with dumbell flies
dumbell row with seated cable row
dumbell shoulder press with dumbell lateral raise

how these sound? I think i can train my body harder this way, leaving muscles feeling more exhausted than before... but again im no expert!

Sounds counter productive. On the first one you're supersetting 2 isolation excercises that do exactly the same thing, you're effectively doing a drop set. The 2nd one makes a bit of sense, but only if post exhaustion supersets actually do work. The 3rd one you are supersetting 2 compound lifts that do exactly the same thing. The 4th=2nd in terms of benefit, questionable.

Outa curiosity, if supersets are a good way to train your body harder, how come everyone doesnt use them all the time?

The simple answer is because they're not. You seem to be working on the premise that you want to completly exhaust each muscle in every workout, you don't. What you want to do is progressivly load the muscle making it stronger.

Tonto86

ah.... learn something new everyday!

So at the mo im working on sets of 3, i might raise that to 4 and aim for complete failure at the last 2. This should bring muscles to exhaustion, right?

Hanley

Tonto86 wrote: »

ah.... learn something new everyday!

So at the mo im working on sets of 3, i might raise that to 4 and aim for complete failure at the last 2. This should bring muscles to exhaustion, right?

You don't want to bring your muscles to exhaustion. It's unnecessary, inefficient and dangerous.

Tonto86

ok... now i am confused!
I thought I should always push myself on my 2 last sets to do as many reps as possible.


i.e. lift till i cant lift no more <---- bad popeye impression :pac:


Dont get me wrong, i get all ye points on supersets, im scrapping them out of my routine, but im just a bit confused now on how hard i should push myself! I do see results and have thrown on weight over the last year but im always up for doin better!

Is it ok to superset abs? At the mo im combining bicycle crunch, robe crunch and a ab machine at the gym.

I hate working my abs but find this leaves my abs feeling more worked.... but again.... could be wrong

d'Oracle

Tonto86 wrote: »

ok... now i am confused!
I thought I should always push myself on my 2 last sets to do as many reps as possible.


i.e. lift till i cant lift no more <---- bad popeye impression :pac:

that would be "cantss lifts no more"....
You can still go for reps and not go to exhaustion, basically stop when the form gets dodgy or a rep or two shy of complete failure.

Tonto86 wrote: »

Is it ok to superset abs? At the mo im combining bicycle crunch, robe crunch and a ab machine at the gym.

I hate working my abs but find this leaves my abs feeling more worked.... but again.... could be wrong

If I were supersetting abs, I would super set them with an exercise that works some other bit of the middle. Like rope crunches with side bends or twists. Because they need love too.

Brian?

Tonto86 wrote: »

ok... now i am confused!
I thought I should always push myself on my 2 last sets to do as many reps as possible.


i.e. lift till i cant lift no more <---- bad popeye impression :pac:

I think you are measuring yourself againest the wrong metric. You're lifting until you can do no more on one day, when you should be trying to lift more than you did the last time you did the same excercise. Meaning that you're working based on something subjective when you should be working on something objective i.e. strength gains. If you're getting stronger week by week, then it's a job well done.

Edit: Man that's waffley.

It sounds to me like you don't have a properly structured program either, what are you currently doing?

Tonto86

briankeating wrote: »

Tonto86 wrote: »

ok... now i am confused!
I thought I should always push myself on my 2 last sets to do as many reps as possible.


i.e. lift till i cant lift no more <---- bad popeye impression :pac:

I think you are measuring yourself againest the wrong metric. You're lifting until you can do no more on one day, when you should be trying to lift more than you did the last time you did the same excercise. Meaning that you're working based on something subjective when you should be working on something objective i.e. strength gains. If you're getting stronger week by week, then it's a job well done.

Edit: Man that's waffley.

It sounds to me like you don't have a properly structured program either, what are you currently doing?

Ya know wat, you hit the nail on the head. I stopped concentrating on wat I was lifting. I'm gonna start using me notepad to track progress again.

Have meself a routine alright, have a goo below

www.boards.ie/thread/2056362196?page=1