Are supersets a waste of time?

[dan18]

I noticed that I use supersets to shorten a workout. If I want to do 8 exercises but can only focus for 5 exercises worth of time, i'll superset the remaining 3. But this just degrades my focus even more and lowers the quality of over half the workout.

For chest you do 40 pound db flys with db press
shoulders 30 pound db raises with db press     
alternating you may not go as heavy as you usually do on the compound movement but its a great pump and it shocks the muscle

[Dave D]

Where did he say it was worthless?

He didn't.

I incorrectly read his response.

[Hulkotron]

Eddie Guiliani on supersetting:

https://www.greatestphysiques.com/eddie-giuliani/

"when Eddie wasn’t in a pre-contest phase, he would only do singular exercises with no supersets or drop sets."

"Supersetting the Right Way

Eddie always believed that supersetting is the way to go for competition training. However, when it came to training for growth, he says supersetting isn’t the best option.

According to Eddie, it’s hard to grow a muscle from rapid supersetting, as it only pushes a lot of blood into the muscle, and doesn’t break it down. He believes it’s crucial to break down the muscle tissue in order to grow, because only pumping blood in it won’t necessarily make it grow.

This is Eddie talking on supersets; “I can make a guy pump with a 20-lb dumbbell, but he’ll never get big arms that way. I can make him do enough reps that he can’t even curl it anymore because there’s so much blood in the area, but he’s not breaking down muscle tissue.”

For everyone who likes supersets, Eddie advises going for antagonistic muscle groups. Such as chest and back, quadriceps and hamstring, or triceps and biceps. While Eddie says this can be problematic for people with low stamina, it’s great for anyone who wants a bigger challenge, or simply wants to save time."

This makes a lot of sense to me.

[The Scott]

I've done supersets for both opposing muscle groups (e.g., back and chest) and in training the same area (e.g. biceps).  I have also done tri and giant sets for the same muscle with the latter allowing me to do 30 sets in under a half hour.  Of course the weight isn't a lot but it gets to feeling heavy pretty fast.  I will also do things like 5 sets of curls for 50 reps and 10 sets of tricep pushdowns for sets of 50 reps.  I do them Tricep 50 - Bicep 50 - Tricep 50.  Great pump and in a way, just as hard as H.I.T.


I will use these methods when I am just not in the mood to do H.I.T. and that being for whatever reason.  I get in, get a good pump and then get out. Of course some days I just don't train at all because I don't feel like it.  I'm not competing with anyone but myself, so I figure I win no matter how I train or not train. 

[NotMrAverage]

I used triple drop sets when I got to my best. That was 240 at 5.9 with 6% bf. Never got much from super sets...

[Viking11]

I do them but not exclusively,  some of the reasons given above are why.  I learned to train different ways, and a huge influence was Mike Mentzer whom I trained with as a client over a few years. Early on he was all about pre exhausting  all body parts which he learned from Arthur Jones. Later on, he realized that it wasn't necessary to pre exhaust all the time.  i sometimes do pre ex sequences, sometimes do straight sets, occasionally do tri sets or a giant set.  Whatever helps you raise the intensity of the workout is  a technique I would consider at least some of the time.

[NotMrAverage]

Cool! I was also a client of his but his modern heavy duty approach was way to overthought. Still a very interesting person.

[Dave D]

Eddie Guiliani on supersetting:

https://www.greatestphysiques.com/eddie-giuliani/

"when Eddie wasn’t in a pre-contest phase, he would only do singular exercises with no supersets or drop sets."

"Supersetting the Right Way

Eddie always believed that supersetting is the way to go for competition training. However, when it came to training for growth, he says supersetting isn’t the best option.

According to Eddie, it’s hard to grow a muscle from rapid supersetting, as it only pushes a lot of blood into the muscle, and doesn’t break it down. He believes it’s crucial to break down the muscle tissue in order to grow, because only pumping blood in it won’t necessarily make it grow.

This is Eddie talking on supersets; “I can make a guy pump with a 20-lb dumbbell, but he’ll never get big arms that way. I can make him do enough reps that he can’t even curl it anymore because there’s so much blood in the area, but he’s not breaking down muscle tissue.”

For everyone who likes supersets, Eddie advises going for antagonistic muscle groups. Such as chest and back, quadriceps and hamstring, or triceps and biceps. While Eddie says this can be problematic for people with low stamina, it’s great for anyone who wants a bigger challenge, or simply wants to save time."

What's the science behind this? Is there a certain weight rep scheme that guarantees muscle breakdown?

Wouldn't multiple reps eventually break down the muscle?

[IroNat]

What's the science behind this? Is there a certain weight rep scheme that guarantees muscle breakdown?

Wouldn't multiple reps eventually break down the muscle?

[Dave D]

I'm asking why super setting wouldn't break down/build muscle. The article posted said it only fatigues the muscle.

Wouldn't failure, regardless of rep scheme, break down the muscle?

[IroNat]

I'm asking why super setting wouldn't break down/build muscle. The article posted said it only fatigues the muscle.

Wouldn't failure, regardless of rep scheme, break down the muscle?

Nobody really does real science on this stuff.  It's all bro-science.

[Dave D]

Nobody really does real science on this stuff.  It's all bro-science.

LOL fair enough. I thought I missed some common knowledge training teaching.

[Parker]

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Flex Wheeler was a big proponent of Supersetting bis and tris. And I think Kevin Levrone would superset chest and tris, and Arnold would do back and chest.

[Ted SuperSet]

Love supersetzzzzz

[wes]

I sear by Super-Sets........they`re great in lots of ways.

[IRON CROSS]

Gironda : 8x8 

[chaos]

well put it there then u fucking librarian

LMAO!!

[IroNat]

LMAO!!

Reported!

 

[Hulkotron]

Dropsets, "super"sets, and "giant sets" ( ) are things I mostly see the smaller guys doing at the gym.

[funk51]

wwjwd

[ChristopherA]

u gays make shit complicated they use analogies to step outside retarded thinking and to continue problem solving. im at ease knowing how your retarded minds all think alike.

You have nothing to offer as far as training or diet. You're obese

[ProudVirgin69]

Supersets with alternating bodyparts are a great way to condense one's workout, keep the heart rate up, and just keep yourself from sitting at the gym not doing anything.  It's probably not optimal for building maximal muscle/strength, but at this point I'm just trying to keep what I have and make sure I don't end up injured.  I get a good workout, end up panting & dripping sweat, and I'm in and out in 30 minutes or less.

For heavier/bigger exercises, I'll alternate them with some kind of ab or calf exercise.  Otherwise I'll just pair two different exercises together and go back and forth for a couple sets

Bench press/crunches
Rows/calf raises
DB pullovers/BB curls
Flies/DB rows
etc. 

It works well for me.

[Marty Champions]

You have nothing to offer as far as training or diet. You're obese

i already explained my diet, high protien keep carbs n fat low as u can , u can only go but so low really depends on how much flavor u want

[CalvinH]

Only if you want them to be.

[Marty Champions]

I'm asking why super setting wouldn't break down/build muscle. The article posted said it only fatigues the muscle.

Wouldn't failure, regardless of rep scheme, break down the muscle?

if u really broke down the muscle you would tear it. Even walking breaks down a muscle, moreso the heavyier you are.  Thus any traing is breaking down the muscle