Three sets? No logical reason at all other than that's what coach said to do when I was in high school. No shit. I also add weight to each set and try to hit the same reps on the first two sets, fewer on the last set. I also do the first two sets one ecercise after another and then go back and do the last set for everything all over again. My personal experience is that I can go heavier on that third set in this manner. First two sets might be considered a warm up. This guy I was referring too is 67 and has a build similar to Jack LaLane. Very fit guy. Real positive attitude about life in general. Anyway, I'll keep at this pre exhaustion for chest only and see if there's any noticeable improvement in my physique.
Pre-exhaustion and set extension techniques don't appear to add value
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Most people who recommend 3 sets do so either because someone else told them to or because of "research" that often cites a 1962 poorly conducted and poorly interpreted study by Richard Berger. Here is an assessment of that study:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full
Please read the piece and then consider the cross referencing by "experts" who recommend multiple sets, relying either directly or indirectly on Berger's study:
Fascinating, isn't it? I've posted this link in the past but I thought I'd do so again because it bears repeating. If nothing else, it should serve as an impetus to disengage autopilot. No arguments against warm-ups, though. I prefer to keep them to a minimum, but that's a personal choice.
Please keep us posted.
Last edited:
Yeah, what's taken for gospel often falls apart on closer scrutiny. None the less many people, most gym rats I'd say, are doing some version of the three set philosophy, and getting decent results. Who knows what the perfect system is? I do however like trying new ideas that are well thought out.Most people who recommend 3 sets do so either because someone else told them to or because of "research" that orientee1962 poorly conducted and poorly interpreted study by Richard Berger. Here is an assessment of that study:
htthhhh htp://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/5/319.full
Please read the piece and then consider the cross referencing by "experts" who recommend multiple sets, relying either directly or indirectly on Berger's study:
Fascinating, isn't it? I've posted this link in the past but I thought I'd do so again because it bears repeating. If nothing else, it should serve as an impetus to disengage autopilot. No arguments against warm-ups, though. I prefer to keep them to a minimum, but that's a personal choice.
Please keep us posted.
Okay, I've done this long enough to update. On upper body day I have been doing dumbbell fly's and tricep curls before going to bench. 2 sets of tricep, followed by 2 sets of fly's, 2 more sets of tricep and then 2 more sets of fly's. 12 reps for the fly's 10 for the triceps.
My bench has seen significant reduction in what I can lift. Putting a number to it, I used to be able to bench 200 lbs. four times. Good, clean reps. Now I struggle with 3 and the third one is sloppy. Go down to 180, used to do 8, now 6 and 5&6 are a struggle.
The good news is, my chest has taken on much better definition. My shoulders have pulled back some and my overall chest seems to have widened a bit. I am happy with those results. On the more curious side of things. All other areas, every single one, I have been able to add weight to the lift. Everything except the bench. I have also added pull ups and dips to my workout routine and I do those regardless of what other exercises I'm doing. I have also gained 8 lbs. without adding anything to my waist line. All in all, I'm satisfied with the results I'm getting from this particular method.
Glad to hear you're getting good results. I am not a PreEX guy, but I'm curious to know why you would do tricep work before chest. As I understand it, the point of pre-exhaust is to work the larger muscles (i.e., pecs) in isolation first so that those muscles are fully taxed before the smaller muscles (i.e., triceps) give out during the compound exercise. So while I understand the idea of doing flies (flys?) before bench press, I don't quite understand the rationale for doing tricep work beforehand.
The idea, as it was explained to me, is to get the triceps to give out earlier thereby putting more of the strain on your chest. Take the arms out of it as much as possible. I really feel my chest taking a bigger part of the load. Took awhile to actually feel it in earnest, but it is a definite change. Can't say the science of it. Just my experience.
Edit. I should also clarify that my bench weakness is only during the workout routine. If I just go see how much I can bench after a brief, normal warm-up, I can bench as much, and a little more than before.
Last edited:
Since the triceps are a smaller muscle group, I would think that they give out sooner anyway. The idea of preEX is to prevent the smaller muscles from being the weak link in the exercise, and thereby not allowing the pecs to be worked to their limit. The way to do that is to "pre-exhaust" the chest before putting the triceps in play. At least in theory, anyway. But I don't do preEX, so I can't speak from experience here.
All I know is that this morning I did the triceps and fly's, and the bench had my chest feeling the burn. Could be other things at play regarding the actual chest development. No doubt pull ups and dips have helped and I once again have been doing military press which I had abandoned for nearly two years. Who the hell really knows? All bodies are not created equally.