Whats the difference between 10 sets of 3 and 3 sets of 10?

you get more rest with 10 sets of 3. so 3 sets of 10 is more hardcore

Resilience

One sit up is easy, but 100 sit ups isn't.

>>40672112
There will always be a better alternative to 10 sets of 3, no matter what your goal is.

>>40672112

3 sets of 10 will build mass fast.

10 sets of 3 will build a cut size, especially because its 1,2,3 stop then 1,2,3 stop vs 3 sets of 10 its;

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

but rest periods vary.

With 10 sets of 3 you can probably knock out half and rest and then get back to it.

>>40672112
3x10=10x3

basic math

>>40672122
>>40672123
>>40672145
With 10x3 you can add a fucking ton of more weight to the bar. You'd build insane strength.

>40672118
>being this stupid

>>40672112
same volume different intencity
with 3sets of 10 you should be working with about 70% of your 1rm
and with 10sets of 3 you sould be working with 88-94% of your 1rm

>>40672145
>cut size

>>40672206
you had one job

>>40672221
Best answer

>>40672221
so the 10x3 is better if done right

>>40672112
Intensity

>>40672221
>the same volume
Its not the same volume if you have diffrent percentage on the bar 10×3 has way more volume

Done with the same weight it doesn't really matter if your goal is to increase strength

Sometimes my program says 5 sets of 3 but if I always try to do 5 reps on the first set, if I can I do 3 sets of 5 reps. The result is the same for my goal anyway

>>40672713
Different potential results.
If done correctly of course.

The weight you can only move for 3 (or maybe 4, because leaving a rep in the tank is smart), you could never dream of moving for 10.
With such a heavy weight you will get strength gains of size. You do so many sets to achieve requisite volume.

3x10 should get you some size, and you won't get weaker. But your strength gains will not be optimal. Honestly 3 sets sounds too few for hypertrophy, but is a start I guess.


>>40672752
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
30 total reps is 30 total reps.
The intensity is hugely different.

>>40672835
>leaving a rep in the tank is smart

can you give me the quick rundown? ive been going to failure on nearly everything, gives me a boner

File: 7FFBEZ0C_normal[1].jpg (2KB, 48x48px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 48x48px

>>40672112
> do 15 sets of 3 reps with 65% 1rm 60 sec rest
> every workout decrease the rest time by 5 seconds
> when hit 20 seconds rest, increase wheight and reset the rest to 60 sec

this is lelele magic strenght-endurance workout

File: printer.jpg (37KB, 640x627px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x627px

Everyone is getting retarded over numbers and autistic over details

The reality is that there isn't much difference and that the combination of weight + TUT is 95% of what matters. There's some small evidence to show that TUT before rest periods is an important factor so you could argue 3x10 is better on the bellcurve but ultimately it's essentially the same for anyone but those at the top

File: 1487617576989.jpg (29KB, 480x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x458px

Some more detailed data/answers

http://www.theissnscoop.com/1-vs-3-vs-5-vs-100-sets/

>>40672177
>Thinking the set product is a commutative operation
ISHYGDDT

>>40672841
Best reason is form preservation.

Better form means less injury risk.

And you want to drill the proper form into your muscle memory. Along with completing reps with full range of motion.

The obvious difference is 1rm. Failing 1rm is something you can learn from. But failing regular working reps is not good practice, and is suboptimal use of your time.

>>40672112
Thats a stupid question because you are missing the third core number which is weight

>>40672835
>The intensity is hugely different.
And so is the fucking volume (sets x reps x weight) what do you think while have a higher volume 3 x 10 at 130kg or 10 x 3 at 190 kg

10 x 3 is my favorite rep scheme

I used to do lots of 5x5 and texas method shit

Now I model my workouts after some shit from doug hepburn.

When you do doubles and triples you can get a ton of volume with substantially heavier weight.

>>40673077
adding on, you basically don't get tired if your workout is doubles and triples.

I am shocked at the volume I can get without feeling worn out, also you don't fuckup your form on the lifts because you aren't "tired" with reps left in your set.

>>40672112

>Zoidberg lifting weights
>More weight!
>starts to scream

>mfw that's exactly what happens when the pre-workout supplements kick in

>>40672112
10 sets of 3 is for muscle strength
3 sets of 10 is for muscle endurance

>not doing everything to 4xFaliure

never gonna make it

>>40672145
>build a cut size

beginner question" what does this mean?

File: Fine Read.jpg (80KB, 400x560px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x560px

>>40672118
>>40672122
>>40672123
>>40672145
>>40672177
>>40672928
>>40673054
>>40673267
Wrong

>>40672189
>>40672206
>>40672221
>>40672700
>>40672713
>>40672835
>>40673046
>>40673077
Correct

Basically 10x3 is optimal for both strength and size gains, while on 3x10 you will get nearly the same or less results only on size gains and much inferior strength gains.

>>40672112
10x3 is way higher intensity than 3x10 so your total volume is also way higher. You also need to take at least 9, rest with 10x3 while you only have to take 2 rests with 3x10. Your best bet would be to split 10x3 into multiple workouts, which is why there are programs that's designed in that particular way. High intensity and high weekly volume but split into multiple workouts.

>>40672221
>>40672752
Is right. Volume is how much weight*reps lifted not how many reps.

>>40673854
Some schools of thought read volume as sets*reps, other sets*reps*weight, but I've never seen reps*weight. Personally I read sets*reps*weight as tonnage.

Why not just do 30 at once and go home to spend rest of my day in my room

>>40673832

dude, if you think 10*3 needs to be split into multiple workouts, you're fucked.

the whole point of 10*3 for most people is going to be short rest periods like a bodybuilder. You can go heavier and longer rests, but doing that makes a high set program more like GVT; the rep/set scheme is when you add weight.

8-12*3 is real easy once you get your endurance up. 24-36 working reps is actually low-moderate volume. 2-4x/week on that plus a bit of accessory plus good food equals gains

>>40672112
10x3 is alot more volume than 3x10, given you adjust the weight accordingly.

3x10 low intensity
10x3 high intensity

Not that fucking complicated

>>40674522
This. I do one set of 100 and call it a day.

>>40672221
>thinks you can do 10 triples with 94% of your 1rm

I got news for you, if you can do over 90% of your 1rm for sets of trips, that's not your 1rm

>>40673773

So 10x3 is the most recommended?