5×10 versus 10×5 in training
“Words are the outward form of thoughts,” as the saying goes. In fact, all the articles I “pen” for Fitness.ee are nothing more than my own thoughts and reflections. What matters is thinking and analyzing, because that is how we make connections, develop understanding and knowledge, and form opinions. Today, I’m sharing another thought with you: a comparison of 5×10 and 10×5.
I’ve long wondered which set and rep scheme requires more recovery time: 10×5 or 5×10.
In other words, which is more challenging, takes more out of you and requires more recovery time: squatting 10×5 (10 heavy sets of 5) or 5×10 (five sets of 10 to failure) in a workout? The reason I bring this up is that training articles often discuss how short sets with heavy weights are particularly taxing on the nervous system and therefore require a longer recovery period than usual.
Here is just one example:
“From extensive empirical evidence it can be concluded that training to failure with low reps and heavy weights is much more taxing on the central nervous system than training to failure with high reps and lighter weights.”
In principle, I agree. Heavy sets of five are no easy task, especially at a high training volume. But I don’t understand how 10×5 at, say, 75-80% of your maximum can be harder than 5×10 at 65-70%. In practice, if your best squat is 200 kg (= 1 rep), does that mean a 10×5 150-160 kg workout is supposedly harder than a 5×10 130-140 kg workout? Taking the midpoint of the two ranges, is a 10×5 155 kg workout supposedly more taxing than a 5×10 135 kg workout? That certainly isn’t how it feels to me. I should also make clear that in both cases, regardless of set length, I’m talking about an effort that brings you more or less to failure by the end of the set. Of course, many factors affect recovery and tax the nervous system: the nature of the exercise, how you perform it, rest periods between sets, and, to a large extent, the perceived degree of voluntary effort when training to failure. Here, I’m talking about one exercise, equal training volume, the same execution and even the same rest intervals. Only the set lengths differ. Why and how do I think a longer set with a lighter weight (10 reps) can be even more taxing than a shorter set with a heavier weight (5 reps)? As I understand it, alongside all the other factors, the degree of nervous system fatigue is largely determined by perceived effort. Clearly, the hypothesis that heavier weights cause more nervous system fatigue rests on the idea that “the heavier the weight, the more taxing it is.” Yet if you take a set to failure, there’s no difference, is there? Maximal voluntary effort is maximal voluntary effort. My thinking is that I can recruit all my fastest muscle fibers with the highest activation thresholds even with a weight I can lift for 25 reps. It’s a question of time. When you perform a set of five or six at 85%, the full complement of motor units involved in the effort (including muscle fibers) simply comes into play much sooner than it does during a 25-rep set to failure. But if I reach failure at the end of that 25-rep set, with the same maximal voluntary effort as in a set of five at 85%, those largest motor units are still recruited to help—just much later. That is why, in my view, a long set taken to failure with maximal voluntary effort has exactly the same fatiguing effect on the nervous system as a set half as long with a considerably heavier weight.
What’s more, performing sets involves both neural and metabolic components. In other words, both the nervous system and the metabolic system that supplies energy for mechanical muscle work are responsible for how effectively you perform. The longer the set, the greater the burden on the metabolic component supporting that muscle work. During a short set of five, the metabolic component involved remains largely unaffected, or the stimulus from the work and effort still has a relatively small effect on it. The same certainly cannot be said of sets of ten taken to failure.
So where does that leave us?
5×10 vs 10×5: the same exercise (a squat, for example), the same set tempo (the speed and manner in which you perform the reps), equal rest intervals between sets (for example, 2 minutes), and the same perceived degree of voluntary effort (reaching the same proximity to failure in each set). What differs is the weight used and the set length. So is the “score” 2 : 1??? With 5×10, both the nervous system and the metabolic component get “hammered.” With 10×5, the nervous system is under a heavy training load, but the metabolic component does not face as much of a demand as it does with 5×10. Of course, since the total training volume is equal (50 reps), that immediately opens up another debate…
Ultimately, I cannot agree that 10×5 is somehow more taxing and requires more recovery time than 5×10. Or am I wrong? Let’s debate…
Author: Janar Rückenberg
Come and train! ArtGym
