Strength training with the new 3/7 method provides more muscle mass and strength than strength training in the traditional way. This is probably because the 3/7 method results in more metabolic stress, write Belgian scientists from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. Study For 12 weeks, the researchers got 16 subjects to train their triceps twice a week with the 3/7 method. Another group of 15 test subjects trained the triceps twice a week for 12 weeks in the traditional way. They made 8 sets of 6 reps each. With the 3/7 method you first make a set of 3 reps, and then you rest for 15 seconds. Then you make a set of 4 reps, and then you rest again for 15 seconds. Then you make a set of 5 reps, you take 15 seconds of rest, then you make a set of 6 reps, you rest for another 15 seconds, and then you conclude with a set of 7 reps. After such a series you rest 2-3 minutes, and then you repeat the procedure. You do all sets with the same load. That is about 70 percent of the weight with which you can just make 1 rep. The test subjects in the 6X8 group trained with the same load as the test subjects in the 3/7 group. In the 6X8 group, the test subjects took 2 minutes of rest between sets. The subjects in both groups had not done any strength training in the six months preceding the study. Results Both groups gained muscle mass and strength, but the progression in the 3/7 group was more convincing than in the 8X6 group. Mechanism The researchers think that the 3/7 method leads to greater metabolic stress in the muscles than the 6X8 method. Making ever more intensive sets, with a particularly short rest period between sets, results in more lactic acid and a greater oxygen debt than with the regular method, while the mechanical stress is about the same. Therefore the growth stimulus is greater than with the 8X6 method. Source: Eur J Appl Physiol. 2019 May;119(5):1093-1104.
I don't know about this. 16 people, all of whom have done zero strength training for the previous six months make gains. No surprise there. Yes, the selected 3/7 group made great gains than the other. I'd like to see 1600 people, all of whom have been at least two years of strength training, and see those results before I'd be convinced of this, or any other method. All I know is in my one man study, me, doing fewer reps, fewer sets, more weight and longer rests in between sets and gym days has resulted in gains in strength and muscle mass that I haven't seen in quite some time.
I'm curious to know how they came up with this particular method. Sounds a bit like the kind of whiz-bang routines you'd find in muscle mags. And to that, I say: And: Just saying. My guess is that if someone has been training seriously for any length of time, the only thing that will likely change training outcomes is if the person was previously training too much, not enough, or otherwise incorrectly, and then adjusted accordingly. Assuming proper diet and so on.
The devil is in the details. The 3/7 method results in total of 25 reps per set. The process is repeated twice for a total of 75 reps. The 8/6 method only results in 48 total reps. There's no surprise that the 3/7 group gained more muscle based off the fact they were getting significantly more total work load. The study is definitely interesting. Progressive sets like this typically drop in number of reps instead of increase. I wonder what the results would've been if they would've done the same amount of total reps?
Good stuff. I’m always looking for an excuse to change things up at the gym. Will try it out for a few months.
I tried it this morning with leg presses, hamstring curls, and calf raises. It was interesting, especially in the beginning few sets because you really don't feel like your exerting much effort doing the 3-rep, 4-rep, and 5-rep sets. The six-rep and seven-rep sets were a different story. I'm curious to see what my soreness level will be like, and more importantly, what the crazy insane hypertrophy will be.
It's to be repeated once so 50 reps. I tried it this morning too. It is basically the same as the 'ladders' that Pavel Tsatsouline has been teaching for years, presumably originating from Russia. I liked it a lot especially how easily you rack up 25 reps.
That makes more sense as a valid comparison. I was going off of the wording from the original study: A new method (3/7 method) consisting of five sets of an increasing number of repetitions (3 to 7) during successive sets and brief inter-set intervals (15 s) was repeated two times after 150 s of recovery and compared to a method consisting of eight sets of six repetitions with an inter-set interval of 150 s (8 × 6 method). They probably just meant it was done twice instead of repeated twice.