Understanding "PRE-EXHAUST" and "POST-EXHAUST"!!!

[Soundness]

The idea behind pre-exhaust is that it ensures the larger muscles involved are indeed fully exhausted.

The theory is that in a compound lift, the smaller, weaker muscles that are involved in lifting the weight can fail before the larger ones, causing you to fail before the larger muscles are thoroughly exhausted. For example, on the bench press when you reach failure, your triceps and anterior delts may be the muscles causing you to fail at that point, not your chest. Obviously this is a major problem if the reason you're benching in the first place is to stimulate your chest! You may end your chest workout without fully stimulating your chest(!).

So, pre-exhaust is designed to solve this problem by exhausting the larger, target muscle first, with an isolation movement before the compound, that will exhaust that muscle and only that muscle. The compound would immediately follow, stimulating the larger muscle to the absolute max. For example, you may start your chest workout by doing a set of flyes (or crossovers) to failure to first make sure your chest is exhausted. THEN, immediately, with no rest, hop on the bench (or dipping bars) and do a set to failure on that. This way, you would "pre-exhaust" your chest before you even do the compound, ensuring that when you reach failure on the compound, your chest is, indeed, exhausted and therefore stimulated for growth.

From to


So, you do the isolation immediately before the compound to pre-exhaust the larger muscle(s), ensuring that when you do fail on the compound movement you have, without a doubt, brought your larger target muscle(s) to the point of exhaustion. You have now ensured that your larger, target muscles are without a doubt stimulated for growth.

(Pre-exhaust can obviously be applied to any isolation/compound pair that involves the same target muscles. For example, if you think you're reaching failure on the military press because of your triceps, you can do lateral raises to failure first then jump immediately to military presses to ensure your shoulders have indeed reached failure. Or, if you suspect you're reaching failure on pulldowns/chins because of biceps rather than lats but want to stimulate your lats, can do straight-arm pulldowns to failure to isolate the lats first then jump immediately into the pulldowns.

In my own experience, I have found the "post-exhaust" technique in the reply below to be even more effective than "pre-exhaust." I would recommend it instead. Either work best not if utilized every single workout, but periodically.

NOTE: When using pre-exhaust, expect to use a lot less weight on the compound than you do without pre-exhaust, obviously. Experience will tell you what weight to use.)

[Soundness]

There is one perceived weakness to pre-exhaust...it may limit the intensity of the compound movement by limiting the weight you use on it. This may hinder overall growth stimulation, as it is the compounds that are known to stimulate the most growth. GOOD NEWS! There's a way to combat this downfall perfectly, yielding the benefit of a pre-exhaust while still allowing maximum intensity on the compound...enter "POST-EXHAUST."  It is very similar to pre-exhaust, only the order of movements is opposite...

In post-exhaust, like, pre-exhaust, you ensure your larger muscle groups in a compound movement are fully stimulated. However, instead of doing the isolation exercise first, you do it last. This way, you can go heavy on the compound movement like you normally do in your workouts, only you still get to ensure that the larger muscles are indeed stimulated. You're still targeting your larger muscles, only now you can go heavy on the compound! It is the compound movements that are known to stimulate the most overall growth, so this way you can get the most out of your compound movement, rather than allowing the isolation to hinder its intensity as may in pre-exhaust.

For example, for your chest workout you could flip the above pre-exhaust order (flyes then dips) to a post-exhaust instead by doing your Dips (or Bench  Press) first to failure then immediately, with no rest, jumping into your Flyes (or Crossovers). Again, this maximizes the intensity of the compound movement while yet ensuring that you've indeed stimulated your larger muscles. In this example, chest.

From to


(NOTE: Don't forget, like "pre-exhaust," you can apply "post-exhaust" to any pairing of a compound and an isolation that involve similar target muscles. For example, if you think you're reaching failure on the military press because of your triceps, you can first do a set of military press to failure then jump immediately to a set of lateral raises to failure in order to ensure your shoulders have indeed reached failure. Or, if you suspect you're reaching failure on pulldowns/chins because of biceps rather than lats but want to stimulate your lats, can do your set of pulldowns (or chins) to failure then immediately jump to straight-arm pulldowns to failure in order to to isolate your lats and guaruntee they've been exhausted.

In my own experience, I've found "post-exhaust" to work even better than "pre-exhaust." I also believe pre-exhaust and/or post-exhaust are useful if utilized not regularly, but periodically. For instance, I may utilize it every fourth workout on a particular muscle, such as the dips/flyes pairing above. This way, I can get gain "spurts" then just before it begins to slow I can break ground with the post-exhaust, returning stronger the workout following the post-exhaust. However, if I were to do that every workout rate of gain would decrease; if I use post-exaust every single workout I won't gain as much as I would if used periodically. So, post-exhaust good but my personal advice is to use it but not every single workout.  Again, I would recommend doing this only periodically. I try to incorporate it atleast in my chest workout once every 4 workouts and I would certainly recommend doing so in order to allow your muscles to continue to delve into new realms of intensity. Good luck!  )

[Bobby]

Very good and informative thread!

In my own experience, I've found "post-exhaust" to work even better than "pre-exhaust." I also believe pre-exhaust and/or post-exhaust are useful if utilized not regularly, but periodically. For instance, I may utilize it every fourth workout on a particular muscle, such as the dips/flyes pairing above. This way, I can get gain "spurts" then just before it begins to slow I can break ground with the post-exhaust, returning stronger the workout following the post-exhaust. However, if I were to do that every workout rate of gain would decrease; if I use post-exaust every single workout I won't gain as much as I would if used periodically. So, post-exhaust good but my personal advice is to use it but not every single workout.  Again, I would recommend doing this only periodically. I try to incorporate it atleast in my chest workout once every 4 workouts and I would certainly recommend doing so in order to allow your muscles to continue to delve into new realms of intensity. Good luck!  )[/i]

Indeed, heavy compound movements first and then finishing exercises
the only exception is muscle groups where it's easy to cheat like biceps, i always start with an isolation movement there.
Then again there is no such thing as a good compound movement for biceps, you can't press or pull.

[pumpster]

There is one perceived weakness to pre-exhaust...it may limit the intensity of the compound movement by limiting the weight you use on it. This may hinder overall growth stimulation

There's no real drawback there, because whether the weight used in the second exercise is reduced a little isn't as important as the fact that the overall fatigue to the muscle goes up by using supersets. That's the primary driver of growth stimulation.

As far as the amount of weight used on the second exercise, it's a given that in a superset the second exercise weight will always be slightly diminished no matter what the exercise. That doesn't matter as much as the overall intensity on the muscle, which is the point of supersets.

Concerning the actual weight lifted and any hormonal advantage that in theory accrues to doing compounds, that's (1) just a theory and (2) using a little less weight by doing the compound second has not been established as making any differences within that theory.

As to which is better pre or post, theory doesn't matter as much as practice. What matters is the after-effects. Try each approach for a few weeks at least, then assess what the benefits are.

[tbombz]

There's no real drawback there, because whether the weight used in the second exercise is reduced a little isn't as important as the fact that the overall fatigue to the muscle goes up by using supersets. That's the primary driver of growth stimulation.

As far as the amount of weight used on the second exercise, it's a given that in a superset the second exercise weight will always be slightly diminished no matter what the exercise. That doesn't matter as much as the overall intensity on the muscle, which is the point of supersets.

Concerning the actual weight lifted and any hormonal advantage that in theory accrues to doing compounds, that's (1) just a theory and (2) using a little less weight by doing the compound second has not been established as making any differences within that theory.

As to which is better pre or post, theory doesn't matter as much as practice. What matters is the after-effects. Try each approach for a few weeks at least, then assess what the benefits are.

i totally agree that pre exhaust in no way diminishes gains. in fact, IMO pre exhaust when used properly, for some people, might just help speed up gains.

[pumpster]

i totally agree that pre exhaust in no way diminishes gains. in fact, IMO pre exhaust when used properly, for some people, might just help speed up gains.

One of the best ways of all to train is to use what're called "compound supersets". The name is a little misleading, it means any 2 exercises done consecutively for the same muscle, not opposing muscles, whether isolation or compound exercises. They're incredibly intense and effective and over-rule any theories to the contrary.

Whether it's better to combine 2 compound exercises or 2 isolations or 1 of each should be left to trial and error to find which work better, not to theory.

[Soundness]

Very good and informative thread!

Indeed, heavy compound movements first and then finishing exercises
the only exception is muscle groups where it's easy to cheat like biceps, i always start with an isolation movement there.
Then again there is no such thing as a good compound movement for biceps, you can't press or pull.

Thanks, Bobby! And I want to mention, there is an excellent compound movement for biceps, the "Close-Grip, Underhand-Grip, Palms-Up Pulldown."

Here is a very interesting triple superset if you want a VERY intense experience to stimulate both your lats and your biceps...

Start with a set of straight-arm pulldowns to failure. This is an overhand grip lat pulldown keeping your arms completely straight. You can do it either standing or on your knees on the floor, just back away from the pulldown machine enough that your reach straight out doesn't touch the machine, obviously. This exercise will stimulate your lats. Once you reach failure, immediately jump to Close-Grip Pulldowns. This is the compound that will hit your biceps, among a ton of other muscles such as lats, rear delts, middle traps, etc.... (Studies show Close-Grip Pulldowns actually involve the biceps moreso than any other exercise.) So, you'll quickly adjust your grip to underhand, adjust the weight if needed, and body position if needed. It should only take a couple seconds. Once you reach failure in those, immediately jump to a set of Biceps Curls to failure in order to make sure your biceps are also fully exhausted. I should note, however, that because you've exhausted your lats before the pulldowns, it is likely your biceps will be fully stimulated after the pulldowns, since they then have much more responsibility in that movement. So, I wouldn't personally recommend this "triple-superset," but it is something you can do if you truly feel you need to hit the biceps further.

What is great about this particular combination is that if you're at a pulley machine that can be adjusted for either high-pulley or low-pulley, these sets can all be done smoothly and quickly right at the same spot. So, you won't have to worry about someone jumping on the bench you'll need for your second exercise and things like that. So, this triple-superset would work like this:
 
From to to

However, I would personally recommend either only taking it this far:
From to

or instead doing this post-exhaust pairing and order:
From to

Again, studies have shown that Close-Grip, Underhand-Grip Pulldowns actually involve the biceps to a greater extent than any other exercise, including Curls. So, after the pulldowns they're stimulated for growth and further volume will only add recovery demands.

[Soundness]

There's no real drawback there, because whether the weight used in the second exercise is reduced a little isn't as important as the fact that the overall fatigue to the muscle goes up by using supersets. That's the primary driver of growth stimulation.

As far as the amount of weight used on the second exercise, it's a given that in a superset the second exercise weight will always be slightly diminished no matter what the exercise. That doesn't matter as much as the overall intensity on the muscle, which is the point of supersets.

Concerning the actual weight lifted and any hormonal advantage that in theory accrues to doing compounds, that's (1) just a theory and (2) using a little less weight by doing the compound second has not been established as making any differences within that theory.

As to which is better pre or post, theory doesn't matter as much as practice. What matters is the after-effects. Try each approach for a few weeks at least, then assess what the benefits are.

Well of course the idea that compounds stimulate more growth is a theory, but so is gravity. Would you bet people can grow as much or even more with multiple isolations to target all the muscles that are involved in a compound as opposed to doing the compound only? I sure as shit wouldn't, something special certainly happens in a compound, that's why a set of squats to failure can make your whole body grow... I'd bet compounds cause the body to produce larger amounts of growth-producing biochemical resources compared to isolations.

Honest question, Pumpster... Are you taking drugs to faciliate muscle growth? Your attitude is as if the manner in which you execute your training doesn't matter much, and it doesn't if you're taking drugs. However, if you train drug free for a considerable number of years, experimenting with different training methods, journaling it all and analyzing results, one thing you sure as shit will discover is that your training does matter, there are limits to the amount of work you can do in a workout and still gain, and that factors such as the movements you utilize, order of those movements do matter to a great extent and they are the difference between making gains and not making gains. No offense, I appreciate the knowledge you share, but I get the impression you and tbombz are on drugs and lack an understanding of the necessities of DRUG-FREE gains.

I certainly agree that theory doesn't matter as much as practice, that's why I give advice from my experience; it's not just theory. That's exactly how I came to the conclusion that post-exhaust was more effective than pre-exhaust, and it just so happens that it both yields better results in practice and makes sense in theory.

i totally agree that pre exhaust in no way diminishes gains. in fact, IMO pre exhaust when used properly, for some people, might just help speed up gains.

I agree with you that pre-exhaust can speed up progress for someone who doesn't normally utilize it, tbombz, but like I stated above, post-exhaust as opposed to pre-exhaust may be more effective for a drug-free trainee due to higher intensity on the compound. Again, allowing a higher intensity on the compound likely causes the body to produce larger amounts of growth-producing biochemical resources compared to isolations. In fact, post-exhaust would likely be even more effective for a drug user, not just the drug-free. No offense, but you've admitted to using drugs and therefore it doesn't matter a whole lot how you train. What I told pumpster about this topic above applies to your situation as well.

You've also mentioned you don't write your workouts down, but rather "train on instinct." Your drugs are the only reason you're getting away with this. Only after someone spends years of documenting workouts ON PAPER, experimenting, and analyzing the numbers can they determine what is absolutely optimal. Why? Say you do pre-exhaust every third workout for 3 months...then say you do post-exhaust every third workout for the next 3 months...YOU WILL HAVE NO CLUE ON HOW THEY COMPARE UNLESS YOU CAN GO BACK AND ANALYZE THE NUMBERS IN YOUR BOOKS. The same concept applies to any variation in training.

You don't have to depend on your training to stimulate the body to release biochemical growth resources, you depend on drugs for that. For drug-free lifters, it is an entirely different world. They must train in a way that stimulates the production of these growth-producing resources while simltaneously minimizing recovery demands, as the same "pool" of resources for growth will be "dipped into" for recovery. So, drug-free lifters reach a point of diminishing returns as far as volume (the amount of work done during a workout). They must be very careful, they must record every workout and analyze the numbers in order to make necessary adjustments in order to ensure gains will continue.

[tbombz]

okay soundess however i suggest you go read some jounrals of strength training. you know, studies and scence. because yoll find that most of your theories on hypertophy are incorrrect. and what im talking about = has nothing to do with drugs

your a good guy but i cant respond to a bunch of theoretical nonsense when i know the science and the fact and ive told it t you and ya just wont listen

[Parker]

One of the best ways of all to train is to use what're called "compound supersets". The name is a little misleading, it means any 2 exercises done consecutively for the same muscle, not opposing muscles, whether isolation or compound exercises. They're incredibly intense and effective and over-rule any theories to the contrary.

Whether it's better to combine 2 compound exercises or 2 isolations or 1 of each should be left to trial and error to find which work better, not to theory.

Linda like doing supersetting the pec deck with dips.  at the end of a chest workout...And let me tell you, that is a serious pump!