Of dumbbells and muscle imbalances
Options
stumblinthrulife
Posts: 2,558 Member
So, I read that dumbbells are a great way to address muscle imbalances - just do a couple extra reps per set on your weaker side.
But that doesn't seem to quite ring true when considered in conjunction with what we know about rep ranges. I mean, if I'm doing 8 reps on my right side, and 12 on my left, I'm surely working hypertrophy on one side, and endurance on the other, right?
Doesn't it make more sense to keep the reps the same, but do an extra set or two on the weak side?
But that doesn't seem to quite ring true when considered in conjunction with what we know about rep ranges. I mean, if I'm doing 8 reps on my right side, and 12 on my left, I'm surely working hypertrophy on one side, and endurance on the other, right?
Doesn't it make more sense to keep the reps the same, but do an extra set or two on the weak side?
0
Replies
-
Do your sets with the weak side first, then match the numbers with the strong side. Should even things out.0
-
n3ver3nder wrote: »Do your sets with the weak side first, then match the numbers with the strong side. Should even things out.
Good advice. This is exactly what I do with any DB movement.0 -
Ditto to above.
Besides, thinking about this, if you can do extra reps or sets on the weak side with the same weight the strong side is getting for less reps and sets, then you really are using too light of weight on the strong side and weak side.
Normal to failure routine on the weak side, strong side isn't challenged for awhile and just maintains then.0 -
I just wanted to add that (IIRC) Shchoenfeld recently got a study published where total training volume was matched under conditions with different rep ranges per set and similar amounts of hypertrophy were shown.
I only mention this because of the comment/question regarding rep ranges and the adaptations that occur --- this obviously has nothing to do with imbalances but the above dudes covered that nicely
0 -
I just wanted to add that (IIRC) Shchoenfeld recently got a study published where total training volume was matched under conditions with different rep ranges per set and similar amounts of hypertrophy were shown.
I only mention this because of the comment/question regarding rep ranges and the adaptations that occur --- this obviously has nothing to do with imbalances but the above dudes covered that nicely
Very interesting. So conclusion is that considering hypertrophy only, 50 reps is 50 reps, regardless of whether it's 5 x 10 or 10 x 5? Presumably need to be normalizing the weight to keep intensity the same, e.g. benching 225 x 5 vs. 205 x 10 (strstd.com equates these both to a ~265 1RM).
Were any measures taken of overall stress on the body caused by each? If two workouts produce the same results (again considering hypertrophy only since that's the limit of the study), then the best one in my eyes is the one that leaves you freshest with the lowest injury potential.
Alas, it's of little concern to me, since I'm not much interested in hypertrophy. But if they ever do a similar study measuring strength gains, I'd really like to hear about that.0 -
stumblinthrulife wrote: »I just wanted to add that (IIRC) Shchoenfeld recently got a study published where total training volume was matched under conditions with different rep ranges per set and similar amounts of hypertrophy were shown.
I only mention this because of the comment/question regarding rep ranges and the adaptations that occur --- this obviously has nothing to do with imbalances but the above dudes covered that nicely
Very interesting. So conclusion is that considering hypertrophy only, 50 reps is 50 reps, regardless of whether it's 5 x 10 or 10 x 5? Presumably need to be normalizing the weight to keep intensity the same, e.g. benching 225 x 5 vs. 205 x 10 (strstd.com equates these both to a ~265 1RM).
Were any measures taken of overall stress on the body caused by each? If two workouts produce the same results (again considering hypertrophy only since that's the limit of the study), then the best one in my eyes is the one that leaves you freshest with the lowest injury potential.
Alas, it's of little concern to me, since I'm not much interested in hypertrophy. But if they ever do a similar study measuring strength gains, I'd really like to hear about that.
I don't have any scientific backing but I would say with 99% certainty that doing 10x5x225 versus 5x10x205, the former will be more stressful. Just imagine throwing 50x1x265 into that mix and think about how stressful that would be (if even possible). Nevermind the time it would take. Which is why people who are focusing on hypertrophy focus on getting the volume from much lower weights. Saves a lot of stress, injury risk and time.0
