What the importance hierarchy when exercising?

[Ulfhednar]

So with my knowledge i understand it stems down to sets, intensity, and repetition but what is best for a well rounded exercise routine?

Reps < sets < intensity

Reps < intensity < sets

Sets < reps < intensity

Sets < intensity < reps

Intensity < sets < reps

Intensity < reps < sets

I understand consistency is the major key to long term gains, i only aim to balance my routine to keep consistent when i need/want to change over to another similar routine.

 

[jrock645]

I think intensity is always #1, personally. Doing a lot won’t accomplish much if it’s garbage.

 

[Whisky]

It’s a good question but one where imo the answer varies slight depending on both goal and the individual.

Generally speaking I agree with @jeock645 that intensity, for most people, will be up there in importance though.

 

[Ulfhednar]

I think intensity is always #1, personally. Doing a lot won’t accomplish much if it’s garbage.

It’s a good question but one where imo the answer varies slight depending on both goal and the individual.

Generally speaking I agree with @jeock645 that intensity, for most people, will be up there in importance though.

Yea good points. Intensity is a big key to workouts.

 

[HIT4ME]

The question is a little flawed. It isn't exactly that one is .ore important than another. You need a specific "dose" of stimulus and that dose can likely be obtained by varying mixtures of "volume" and "intensity" to stimulate growth.

You can have 100% intensity, but no volume and you will not stimulate growth.

You could do 1000 sets of 100 reps and you would not stimulate much growth (you would be training aerobically at a very low intensity to be able to obtain that volume).

And there are probably a number of spots where you can do a certain volume at less than 100% intensity and stimulate growth.

The issue is, how do you measure any intensity level other than 0% or 100% with any accuracy? When are you at 70% or 90%?

How do you adjust volume if your intensity is unmeasurable?

For this reason, it is easier to zero in on the volume you need if you are at 100% intensity. If you are at 70% intensity...how do you know if you are doing too little exercise to stimulate growth or too much to recover from?

From this, I think it is safe to say that it is easier to work too long but not easy to work too hard.

I've always been a low volume, low frequency, high intensity person for those reasons.

 

[JCR97]

The question is a little flawed. It isn't exactly that one is .ore important than another. You need a specific "dose" of stimulus and that dose can likely be obtained by varying mixtures of "volume" and "intensity" to stimulate growth.

You can have 100% intensity, but no volume and you will not stimulate growth.

You could do 1000 sets of 100 reps and you would not stimulate much growth (you would be training aerobically at a very low intensity to be able to obtain that volume).

And there are probably a number of spots where you can do a certain volume at less than 100% intensity and stimulate growth.

The issue is, how do you measure any intensity level other than 0% or 100% with any accuracy? When are you at 70% or 90%?

How do you adjust volume if your intensity is unmeasurable?

For this reason, it is easier to zero in on the volume you need if you are at 100% intensity. If you are at 70% intensity...how do you know if you are doing too little exercise to stimulate growth or too much to recover from?

From this, I think it is safe to say that it is easier to work too long but not easy to work too hard.

I've always been a low volume, low frequency, high intensity person for those reasons.

Very solid conclusion. IMO you can measure the right dosage of volume by assessing muscular fullness/soreness if you feel flat the next day or extremely sore you either:
1) didn’t eat enough and nutrition needs to be looked at.
2) did too much volume for the maximum capacity you can do at a given time (because by increasing athleticism you can increase volume or intensity by upping weight or increasing number of sets) so that being said measure your sets and macros then listen to your body.

 

[Ulfhednar]

The question is a little flawed. It isn't exactly that one is .ore important than another. You need a specific "dose" of stimulus and that dose can likely be obtained by varying mixtures of "volume" and "intensity" to stimulate growth.

You can have 100% intensity, but no volume and you will not stimulate growth.

You could do 1000 sets of 100 reps and you would not stimulate much growth (you would be training aerobically at a very low intensity to be able to obtain that volume).

And there are probably a number of spots where you can do a certain volume at less than 100% intensity and stimulate growth.

The issue is, how do you measure any intensity level other than 0% or 100% with any accuracy? When are you at 70% or 90%?

How do you adjust volume if your intensity is unmeasurable?

For this reason, it is easier to zero in on the volume you need if you are at 100% intensity. If you are at 70% intensity...how do you know if you are doing too little exercise to stimulate growth or too much to recover from?

From this, I think it is safe to say that it is easier to work too long but not easy to work too hard.

I've always been a low volume, low frequency, high intensity person for those reasons.

Very solid conclusion. IMO you can measure the right dosage of volume by assessing muscular fullness/soreness if you feel flat the next day or extremely sore you either:
1) didn’t eat enough and nutrition needs to be looked at.
2) did too much volume for the maximum capacity you can do at a given time (because by increasing athleticism you can increase volume or intensity by upping weight or increasing number of sets) so that being said measure your sets and macros then listen to your body.

Good point! Thanks!

 

[R1balla]

Intensity and diet