Hey all :) - Here's access to the FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/ Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:32 Part I: Better Performance With Antagonist Supersets 3:56 Part II: Antagonist Stretching 5:56 Part III: Antagonist Long-Term Research 10:33 Part IV: Summary
The title of the e-mail that contains the link is "Thank you for subscribing" It arrives straight after the confirmation email. You may want to double check your spam folders. Finally, if you have not recieved any e-mails, are you sure you typed in your email correctly? If still no luck, let me know your email address and I can sort it out :) (you can send me an email at contact@houseofhypertrophy.com or message me on IG: instagram.com/houseofhypertrophy/
This video dropped before I went to the gym, so I decided I try it for myself. In 1h 15min I did 12 exercises for 3 sets each. It was really good. I focused on chest and back. I did incline row with incline bench press, and so on. It was a really efficient workout. This channel is a gem, I hope it blows up.
In my opinion the thing that impaired performance and muscle gains on the Japanese study is the rest period. 1 minute of rest between 2 sets of back to back to failure, especially when you are doing 30+ reps for each, is simply very little. Your cardiovascular capacity has not recovered, neither your muscles.
No rest between the supersets is best, with a small rest after for best results based on my personal experience. The second you rest in between the supersets, you lose the tension that makes it worth while doing. Else you might as well just train a single exercise/muscle group like normal.
I think the biggest benefit has got to be the time savings. Even if supersets are slightly inferior on a set per set basis, the time savings definitely allow for more volume as you can squeeze in a workout in with less guilt about what else in life you are neglecting
In my own experience, when using antagonist supersets, my training quality goes up. If I do a antagonist superset with no rest or minimal rest, my second exercise will suffer. Great video!
In my experience, super-setting antagonist exercises gives me much better results strength wise, and my joints, muscles and overall body feel better balanced, and of course the added benefit of saving a significant amount of time is also a great plus. I would definitely recommend to at least try it out for a while.
I have always done bicep and triceps superset together and always had good looking arms. It give you an insane pump and because its a smaller muscle you dont get gassed
Really well done! I appreciate your ability to consider a topic from multiple angles rather that hunting for info that confirms a pre-existing bias. I agree that antagonist s.s. are a definite improvement in time efficiency, due to central fatigue dissipating sooner than proximal fatigue in most cases. Though not agonists, I'll often perform non-interfering super sets to take advantage of this effect. ex: a set of abs in between sets of bench.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I tend to do the same, as it widens the range of exercises you can combine. That happens to be practical, the required instruments are not always co-located/transportable, and you reduce the chance of not being able to do a particular superset due to just one of the devices being in use. Are you aware of any research regarding non-antagonistic supersets being efficient at all (beyond time-efficient)?
As always, good work at trying to draw conclusions from studies with samples sizes that are way to small to be meaningful. That said, I started doing antagonist workouts over 30 years ago, not so much because I was worried about results but more because I hated doing nothing between sets and wanted to get some cardio while lifting. Obviously, I have no way of knowing if my strength and size gains would have been better if I used a more conventional approach, but I will tell you that for a man in his 40's, 50's and 60's, I was routinely moving much more weight than most people. When I started lifting at 30 (I'm 67 now), I was pathetically weak but at 60, I was able to do 5 dumbbell presses with 135# and 10 bent over rows with the same weight...always back to back. I left the gym because of COVID and now work out in my own gym with lighter weights and much more intensity and sets, and I'm still seeing results. I'm now of the mind that all the hubbub about which routines and which exercises are the best for this and that are fairly meaningless, rather, it's the effort and consistency that pays off.
I totally agree and it's good to hear from you that if I make it to 67 I will be even stronger. I've been doing antagonistic training since my late 20's. Now at 59 I also find myself stronger and more developed than most others around me. Just be careful not to get into fights over the equipment. LOL!
I always train two exercises at once to save time. Not necessarily antagonistic, just whatever is free at the gym that I have to do and doesn't use the same muscles. For example, I might do bench press and squats at the same time. I rest until I catch my breath. It seems to have virtually no effect on performance provided I do catch my breath. If I do it immediately after, my performance indeed drops, but it might be psychological. I'm still mentally fatigued from e.g. squats and can't do max effort in BP.
Great video. However, I think one limitation to the studies is training experience. Superset training is much more problematic if you are extremely strong and/or advanced. It makes much more sense for a beginner lifter as the loads being lifting are much lower, and thus less taxing on the body and central nervous system than it does for an advanced lifter who may be lifting 3 or 4 times what they were as a beginner. I know with myself for example, there's no way I could superset say bench press with heavy barbell rows and not see an eventual reduction in performance. However, I do think superset training is still beneficial for most people due to the reasons you described. I think if a compound movement is paired with a less demanding isolation movement it's more viable for advanced lifters.
as not very strong individual I want to say that I need to catch my breath for at least 1-2 minutes after finishing pullups / pushups if I reach 1-2 reps till failure, so I dunno about that. Maybe more cardio is needed to do supersets optimally
man this is a very useful information,right on time,i was just thinking about giving up on superset and rest-pause and wanna try the traditional set again,the hard thing about antagonistic superset for me is to find antagonistic exercise that is fit with the agonist one
I switched from a PPL rest to a Chest/Back Shoulder/Arms Legs Rest (Arnold split) and I've noticed this changes so far. -I can overhead press and bench press in different workouts -The rest day at the end of every 3 day cycle really helps recovery wise -The workouts are fun as fuck, I superset pullups with dips, calves with hamstrings and so on -My arms were my weak point compared to my chest and back because of my calisthenics background (not anymore) -The only downside is that you don't have scheduled rest days, you just rest at the end of each cycle or whenever you feel like which for me it's not really a bad thing. Having a fixed day split really mess up your head when you miss a workout because of daily responsibilities. Sorry if my English wasn't the best
Hey man! I have an Arnold split as well, but I don’t think my setup is optimal for it. Is there anywhere I can look at where you found your split? Great English by the way!!
I do this Chest - Biceps, Back - Triceps Legs - Shoulders 30 seconds rest between exercises, 2 minutes rest between supersets I'm not sure if it was a good idea to do legs with shoulders, but I usually do isolated shoulder exercises along with leg press, for example. Military Press -> I do it at the beginning, before doing squats.
I superset the dips with the pull ups, the dumbell OHP with the dumbell rows, biceps/triceps and leg extention with leg curls. It is very time efficient.
i superset dips with upright row, ohp with pullup, seated row with bench and the rest is the same. time efficiency makes me feel amazing. it nearly takes half the time making full body sessions a normal length (1.5 hours). which makes it possible to work out each muscle 3 times a week.
@@purgedsoy9518 that's awesome. I train upper lower split, but the time efficiency factor still applies. I try to be carefull with the cardiovascular capacity though.
Wow this video/channel is amazing. You have a like and subscription from me! Also with the Japense study, 30 to 60 repetitions is well beyond the optimal range for hypertrophy and muscle growth and peogressive overlead with resistance bands is much harder to track over machine or weighted movements. Furthermore, at 30 to 60 repetitions, cardiovascular fatigue preventing optimal failurw on the supersetted exercise could definitely be a contributing factor to the stark decrease in long term muscle growth.
I've been using a circuit with legs, pull, push, auxiliary. For example, our first circuit is usually Squats, Pullups, Overhead Press, Calf Raises, for 5 rounds of 5rep sets, except on the auxiliary exercise. Lotta sweat.
I would not do pullups after squats. Your effort on the pullups will suffer, better to do the OHP, which will not wind you and uses less muscle mass in between.
@@nunninkav If you saw me doing weighted chest to bar pullups after squats you might change your tune We train hard, for conditioning and strength. When we started training this way my workout buddy threw up on two occasions but immediately went and grabbed the bar for the next lift. No Twinkies can hang with these homies. Strength is built from the inside. Thanks for the advice, but folks are always telling me to be careful, don't train so hard. They are fat and weak, I'm still hard as iron at 63.
@@nunninkav Certainly you don't imagine that I haven't trained that way for many years? If I'm going for a PR, I want to be fresh. But we are doing whole body workouts, and the squats provide the hormone boost that gives us more adaptive response to the other lifts. I think this channel has done an article on that. I try to combine lifts judiciously, for example, it's front squats with pullups because good form for back squats involves pulling the bar down hard with the lats. We don't train fresh, we are sucking wind the whole time, to develop determination and work capacity. It's intense, exhilarating, and exhausting. But you stick with your thing, that's fine for you.
Great work as always, thanks. I have a question though. How was the superset group in the Paz et al 2015 able to do more reps on both exercises than the group that rest between exercises done separately? Oh. I got the answer later in the video with the reduced coactivation of the antagonist...wow! You're so good, you answer my questions before the video ends....Great going.
Nice video! Calisthenics beginner here. The concept of antagonist supersets should apply to calisthenics exercises as well, no? I was thinking of applying it to push ups/body rows in my workout. If I understand the video correctly, as long as the exercises are hard enough that my rep maximum isn't too high, I should at least be able to save time without losing any gains.
Yes. You can do anything with bodyweight exercises you can do with free weights or machines. The principles remain the same. Supersets, circuits, drop sets, forced reps etc. are all possible.
I have trouble doing supersets of pushups and chinups because the latter engage my pecs, but pike pushups seem ok. I'm still too weak/heavy for pronated pullups. It's great for the core and legs at least, it raises the cardio value of your workout and those are all muscles that tolerate (or need) higher volume than the upper body.
In part Antagonist Supersets trick your muscles to some degree. When you push or pull in one direction to such a difficult extent and then reverse that direction it feels simpler to accomplish. Not saying it actually is, but mentally and muscle memory wise it feels easier. Based on personal experience, the weight or difficulty is a large part of this being effective. I never trained this specifically with body weight/calisthenics but in principle I would agree with your assessment. The difficulty needs to remain relatively high. One alternative I thought of would be to train a superset with weights first to expel energy and tire the muscles, followed by a body weight/calisthenics superset. This could be useful when body weight/calisthenics are not yielding enough difficulty aside from high rep counts. The time saving aspect is real and you will tend to maintain your energy throughout to a higher degree.
Seen as everyone is sharing, i tend to do an an antagonist s.s as a secondary muscle focus on the 1st day then switch that to the primary focus muscle group on the 2nd day.
Also make a video about supersets of upper body with lower body. For example, pull ups with squat, dips with deadlift, etc. I think it is a better superset than antagonist supersets particularly for strength gains and when you aim for PRs in both exercises. My personal experience is that when I paired weighted pull ups with weighted dips, my performance was not as good on either. One reason is that fatigued back can't supports the dips as well although dips are not a back exercise. But when PRs are the goal, every little detail matters.
General advice is that you should lead your workout with lagging muscles as that is where your best effort can be input. Would it make sense is an antagonist superset to lead with your better area first if it improves performance of the antagonist area? For example, if you want to work on triceps you would do your sets as bicep, tricep, rest, repeat . . . To get the best results out of your tricep sets as possible?
I always do supersets to save time. (Super effective at saving time for sure.) But I don't do them on the powerlifts because I was under the impression they'll compromise strength gains. But if the researches are true then I guess I can superset everything if I want to. It has no statistical difference after all. Will save me even more time.
I should probably note with exercises like deadlift and squat, supersetting them may not always be the best idea. It depends on how precisely you go about it, but I'd say experiement around with whatever you're comfortable with :)
An alternative theory to reducing antagonist co-activation is, the muscles have received a warm up and increased blood flow without experiencing any work fatigue. Allowing them to be at peak performance for the exercise. This theory probably has more details to it but that's my quick thoughts.
Great video, as always but I really liked this topic extra much! If the performance gain is due to inhibition of the antagonist, then the increase in performance wouldn't necessarily constitue an increase in agonist muscle tension load in practice, since tension from the antagonist went down, but they didn't measure that when they calculated tension load only using the external source of tension.
Yeah, I'm not sure. If the agonist ultimately produces greater force because it's not held back, this greater contractile force could be a better hypertrophy stimulus. But I'm not sure :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy isn't that sentence on it's head? The agonist would produce less contractile force if the antagonist produce less contractile force, wouldn't you agree? An agonist have as resistance both the external weight and any contraction of the antagonist to be overcome. That would be equivalent to more reps with less weight. But since rep range is generally insignificant in relation to hypertrophy, it would make sense that besides some systemic fatigue there may not be an impact on hypertrophy. I'm still going to utilize it for the time saving. I've been doing antagonist circuits for time saving, but with this info I'll be able to cut my already quite short workouts even shorter, or do more volume in the same time.
This is a great video, but I personally have noticed reduced performance by doing isolation + compound supersets. For example, when I superset bicep curls with dumbbell bench, my biceps will give out during bench, even with a minute of rest. Its also not like I'm new to these exercises either. I've been doing both for over 2 years now. I think it makes sense to avoid isolations, especially to failure during supersets and compounds should mainly be used, because the antagonist stabilizers don't really get that close to failure, unlike in isolations. Maybe that's why performance could've decreased for me.
I think it also depends on the exercise. Grip fatigue from the curls could be coming into play, leading to less stability when you hold the bar, and thus reduced performance. However that's just a hypothesis.
@@HerculesFit it can't be grip fatigue, because my biceps got to failure from boing dumbbell bench, as the bicep stabilize your elbow during bench. It was sort of like a drop set. Compounds are just less likely to take those muscles to failure.
I have trained like this for years. Only thing is that it is pretty metabolically taxing. And you can be more prone to injury because of a higher heart rate it can be harder to focus on the exercise and brace your core properly.
What about supersetting two exercises that don’t work similar muscles, but aren’t antagonists of each other? Like chest fly with tricep extension, or lat pullover with curls?
There really are no special tricks, most of the videos I have on the channel cover the essentials. and when you do this overtime consistently, you get great gains :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yes i like your video's i watch them all but i would think its nice to make 1 video with the best ways/ frequenties / rep ranges if you get the best results out of all the studies
supersets in a commercial gym when its high tide is just something that doesnt work out for me, shit is crowded and people will just take over the machine when im not there
HoH, random q- Do you think mini cuts intermittent throughout a long re comp phase would be beneficial? Also, is training 30 days on and 10 off a viable training phase (not necessarily concurrent with the recomp?)
I think it depends on your goals, but I see no reason as to why it would not further help fat loss. I'd say experiement around with it if you wish! Also, 30 days on and 10 days off is certainly viable :)
Don't antagonist coactivation just add more resistance to the agonist movement? If that's the case, then yes, you will do more reps with less antagonist activation as it's like you are lifting less weight, but it won't cause more hipertrophy.
Another speculation about why no muscle or strength gains were found: When the additional reps could not be achieved because the target muscle was able to produce more fore, but because the antagonist produced less counter force, the stimulus was still the same resulting in similar results. Remember, it's not about the reps or the weight, it's about the stimulus of the muscle. When you can create the same stimulus with lower weight but better execution, it will not compromise the results. However, it would reduce the change of getting hurt. This method does not lead to more force being produced by the muscle. Instead, one tricks himself to do more reps using the same strength, similar to cheating in the execution.
It’s kinda funny, that’s how I worked out when I first started lifting. I had moved away from that prioritizing more rest and focusing on one muscle at a time, but it would be an interesting thing to revisit.
Can you do a video listing about which muscles produce more hypertrophy using CONCENTRIC AND ECCENTRIC movements/contractions. Thank you. (Example BICEPS are better trained using an eccentric approach. GLUTES however CONCENTRIC)
Yeah, I'm not too sure there's much evidence on this? There's evidence concentric and eccentric training produce different types of hypertrophy, not that they grow different muscles more or less.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Interesting, I posed this question because a coach at the gym who is also a physiotherapist told me that different muscle groups responded better with a focus on either concentric and eccentric movements, isometrics by the way, were almost no difference. Also quote: “the further the joints from your the center of your body the better hypertrophy eccentric focus is”. Obviously with some exceptions.
My Upper/Lower splits cannot function without antagonistic supersets. Especially upper. At this point it doesn't make sense not to superset biceps/triceps, or chest/back.
@Andre Leite da Silva exactly. this way you can work out each muscle 3 times a week which feels way better than push pull legs split cuz you could only workout a muscle 2 times a week. And a big plus you have 4 rest days with 3 days of full body workouts.
honestly I do supersets mainly for efficiency and to get a "pump" I really don't think that it's any better for strength or growth but that's just been experience.
@@almostbutno9263 I only think it's better for efficiency in that one can save time but ANY other method given the proper intensity, volume and form will get as good results as any other. At least that's been my experience.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Are there any studies you know of that address this difference in genetics capacity and bias? Out of curiosity, the science makes so... hahahaha
It would be interesting to see if Supersets elevate the risk of injury, given the possible reduced joint stability if the antagonists are activated less.
My own experience says that even if I don't know if it changes performance in the long run, it saves time, does more training volume and prevents injuries.
I do find that when I do antagonistic exercises one after another, it just feels right. Like my body is already primed for the second movement or something.
can anyone tell if there is a difference to do: bench press -> cable row, overhead press -> pulldown OR bench press -> pulldown, overhead press -> cable row?
I have almost always trained like this. However, when in a commercial gym, I found I often lost one of the machines or stations. I have always tried to do it with no rest between groups. IMO this will extend to giant sets, such as doing upper/lower.
Hey HoH ! I love your work and i was wondering something. I'm planing on creating a huge encyclopedia for training and i wanted to use your work for the hypertrophia part. Would you mind if i use it ? I want to help people that want to increase their performances. Definitly downloading the ebook haha ! Keep it up mate you're doing really great :)
i will definitely try to implement this , but i want to know what will be Antagonist set against the deadlift set ? ..... please reply fast my deadlift session is tomorrow
I've had good success supersetting calf raises with romanian deadlifts. Perhaps some upper body exercises could work also. Just make sure you superset with a minimally-fatiguing isolation exercise, as the deadlift is already very fatiguing.
To expect results in muscle hypertrophy by suppressing antagonist activation is illogical IMHO. Hypertrophy increase is the result of the TOTAL EFFORT that was put into the exercise, to contrast a total of " *E* xternal *R* esistance" (= the Weight) + *I* nternal *R* esistance (= Antagonist Reaction)" and if you eliminate one, the other has to increase to maintain the TOTAL a constant. Performance increase is justified; after all you eliminate or reduce one of the factors playing against: the *IR* . But even so, remaining the TOTAL EFFORT a constant (albeit with different contribution of both *ER* and *IR* ) the hypertrophy increase also remains a constant. Plus: performance increase WHEN MEASURED "apples with apples" is probably balanced. Otherwise you're just measuring different things: a "gross" and a "net" force production.
@@HouseofHypertrophy nope; when the antagonist does not work against the agonist, the tension on the agonist is *reduced* - and that's precisely why you can perform the exercise with more external resistance, after antagonist deactivation. it's simple arithmetics, really... 🙂
@@diemme568 Ah I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure this is actually what's happening. Here's what I'm thinking: the antagonist reduces activation, thereby not holding the agonist back as much enabling it to produce more tension. This is partly support by some EMG data finding the agonist increases in activation via antagonistic work prior to it: thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=kss_fac :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy well ... I read the study you link, thank you! ;-) but... the "hyperactivation of the agonist" hypothesis is somewhat superfluous: all of the experimental result may just indicate that the agonist can exert its force unhindered by the antagonist, which has its activation lowered, in APS protocols. say: the External Resistance (ER) is 100. the agonist action (AA) must overcome the ER AND the antagonist reaction (AR), so AA = ER + AR. if ER is 100, and AR is 20, AA is 120. Once the stabilizing antagonist action is or lowered, say to 10, AA unchanged = 120, the ER *can* be 110, but it still is 100. The dynamics of the exercise change, and muscle action is also dependent on the velocity of contraction. this explains also the power increase, via both the excess in force AND in velocity (further in the study) AA can exert more force against the external load, at a CONSTANT MECHANICAL TENSION in the agonist. The only difference is that now, the antagonist action is lower and the agonist can use the force it would have exerted to overcome the antagonist's force also against ER without the antagonist holding it back. To try to invoke higher activation in the agonist would imply higher total effort, which would necessarily result in higher Hypertrophy of the agonist, don't you think? IMHO it's the dynamics of the exercise, that have changed, and explain the difference in muscle activation.
@@diemme568 I understand your position, but the fact some data finds increased EMG perhaps suggests the agonist muscle actually ends up producing greater NET forces, thus potentially sees greater mechanical tension :)
Great video. Off topic but something I found interesting was bruce lee, he to this day has probably one of the strongest kicks in history and was extremely fast, yet he was easily able to run over a hour everyday? I just don’t understand how such strong leg muscles could also have stamina since I assumed, that since bruce lee was light and didn’t have a ton of muscle, he must have had a extreme amount of fast twitch fibers. I just find it weird how a fast twitch can behave like a slow twitch.
It's not super uncommon to see jacked dudes with good endurance. It's certainly possible to achieve. Ultimately everyone has slow and fast-twitch fibers :)
what if i have 6 exercises total on a certain day, can i do 3 supersets or would be too much? (Ex: bench press+squat/ dumbell row+Overhead Press/ Bicep curl+Romanian deadlift)? Any of you guys tried it? is it too tiring or seems good?
I do a couple sets of deadlift before bench and my bench is so warmed up from the start I feel like I could throw the bar into the air. Dunno if it’s the pull on the arms or warming up nervous system but would reccomdend
Minimal rest between the two supersetted movements but normal rest durations (2-3 mins for example) between the supersets. Hope this makes sense, in other words, you're still resting 2 to 3 mins between the identical exercise
>elastic band triceps extension Oof, screwed up my shoulders with that one. For the triceps, it's nothing but free weights for me. Edit: elastic bands offer greater resistance at max contraction but the movement feels almost linear somehow, thus minimizing coactivation since the movement feels so simple. Thus there may be less difference between supersetting and not. Also previous studies have shown greater results with longer rest periods so that may be the only difference between the two groups
@@HouseofHypertrophy oh yeah, this happened years ago! I thought the bands were the ultimate hack and really loaded up the weight, and then something went CRUNCH against the acromion. Took at least a month before I felt 100 percent again...
One thing to also note on that Japanese study is that the trainees were untrained they maybe be don't had that cardio adaptations to do two exercises back to back with short rest.
Hey all :) - Here's access to the FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:32 Part I: Better Performance With Antagonist Supersets
3:56 Part II: Antagonist Stretching
5:56 Part III: Antagonist Long-Term Research
10:33 Part IV: Summary
I love this BTW.
Thank YOU!
Hey dude. I subscribed for the E-book,am i going to receive the second email after a while? How long should i wait?
@@thatweakpowerlifter2515 yeah same question
The title of the e-mail that contains the link is "Thank you for subscribing"
It arrives straight after the confirmation email. You may want to double check your spam folders. Finally, if you have not recieved any e-mails, are you sure you typed in your email correctly?
If still no luck, let me know your email address and I can sort it out :) (you can send me an email at contact@houseofhypertrophy.com or message me on IG: instagram.com/houseofhypertrophy/
This video dropped before I went to the gym, so I decided I try it for myself. In 1h 15min I did 12 exercises for 3 sets each. It was really good. I focused on chest and back. I did incline row with incline bench press, and so on. It was a really efficient workout. This channel is a gem, I hope it blows up.
Awesome stuff, very interesting to hear dude. Thank YOU for the kind words
12 exercises :0 sounds like half too many
36 sets in one session?
I'm 1 hr 15?
In my opinion the thing that impaired performance and muscle gains on the Japanese study is the rest period. 1 minute of rest between 2 sets of back to back to failure, especially when you are doing 30+ reps for each, is simply very little. Your cardiovascular capacity has not recovered, neither your muscles.
Agreed. Your 2nd set will be limited by your cardiac and central nervous system, rather than local muscle fiber failure
This is a very good point!
No rest between the supersets is best, with a small rest after for best results based on my personal experience. The second you rest in between the supersets, you lose the tension that makes it worth while doing. Else you might as well just train a single exercise/muscle group like normal.
@@seanregehr4921 he’s talking about the rest period after the superset before the second superset.
@@seanregehr4921 No. Cardiovascular system is not recovered with no rest time.
I think the biggest benefit has got to be the time savings. Even if supersets are slightly inferior on a set per set basis, the time savings definitely allow for more volume as you can squeeze in a workout in with less guilt about what else in life you are neglecting
exactly.
Agreed!
In my own experience, when using antagonist supersets, my training quality goes up. If I do a antagonist superset with no rest or minimal rest, my second exercise will suffer.
Great video!
Very interesting stuff, thank YOU for sharing!
In my experience, super-setting antagonist exercises gives me much better results strength wise, and my joints, muscles and overall body feel better balanced, and of course the added benefit of saving a significant amount of time is also a great plus. I would definitely recommend to at least try it out for a while.
Very interesting to hear, thank YOU for sharing!
I have always done bicep and triceps superset together and always had good looking arms. It give you an insane pump and because its a smaller muscle you dont get gassed
Really well done! I appreciate your ability to consider a topic from multiple angles rather that hunting for info that confirms a pre-existing bias. I agree that antagonist s.s. are a definite improvement in time efficiency, due to central fatigue dissipating sooner than proximal fatigue in most cases. Though not agonists, I'll often perform non-interfering super sets to take advantage of this effect. ex: a set of abs in between sets of bench.
Non intefering super sets can also be great, awesome stuff!
@@HouseofHypertrophy I tend to do the same, as it widens the range of exercises you can combine. That happens to be practical, the required instruments are not always co-located/transportable, and you reduce the chance of not being able to do a particular superset due to just one of the devices being in use. Are you aware of any research regarding non-antagonistic supersets being efficient at all (beyond time-efficient)?
As always, good work at trying to draw conclusions from studies with samples sizes that are way to small to be meaningful. That said, I started doing antagonist workouts over 30 years ago, not so much because I was worried about results but more because I hated doing nothing between sets and wanted to get some cardio while lifting. Obviously, I have no way of knowing if my strength and size gains would have been better if I used a more conventional approach, but I will tell you that for a man in his 40's, 50's and 60's, I was routinely moving much more weight than most people. When I started lifting at 30 (I'm 67 now), I was pathetically weak but at 60, I was able to do 5 dumbbell presses with 135# and 10 bent over rows with the same weight...always back to back. I left the gym because of COVID and now work out in my own gym with lighter weights and much more intensity and sets, and I'm still seeing results.
I'm now of the mind that all the hubbub about which routines and which exercises are the best for this and that are fairly meaningless, rather, it's the effort and consistency that pays off.
Very intriguing to hear, thank YOU for sharing :)
I totally agree and it's good to hear from you that if I make it to 67 I will be even stronger. I've been doing antagonistic training since my late 20's. Now at 59 I also find myself stronger and more developed than most others around me. Just be careful not to get into fights over the equipment. LOL!
I always train two exercises at once to save time. Not necessarily antagonistic, just whatever is free at the gym that I have to do and doesn't use the same muscles. For example, I might do bench press and squats at the same time. I rest until I catch my breath. It seems to have virtually no effect on performance provided I do catch my breath. If I do it immediately after, my performance indeed drops, but it might be psychological. I'm still mentally fatigued from e.g. squats and can't do max effort in BP.
Awesome to hear, great stuff dude!
Great video. However, I think one limitation to the studies is training experience. Superset training is much more problematic if you are extremely strong and/or advanced. It makes much more sense for a beginner lifter as the loads being lifting are much lower, and thus less taxing on the body and central nervous system than it does for an advanced lifter who may be lifting 3 or 4 times what they were as a beginner.
I know with myself for example, there's no way I could superset say bench press with heavy barbell rows and not see an eventual reduction in performance.
However, I do think superset training is still beneficial for most people due to the reasons you described. I think if a compound movement is paired with a less demanding isolation movement it's more viable for advanced lifters.
Interesting to hear that!
Speaking facts
as not very strong individual I want to say that I need to catch my breath for at least 1-2 minutes after finishing pullups / pushups if I reach 1-2 reps till failure, so I dunno about that. Maybe more cardio is needed to do supersets optimally
I feel validated by this video, having just redesigned my workout regimen around antagonist supersets!
Haha, sweet!
man this is a very useful information,right on time,i was just thinking about giving up on superset and rest-pause and wanna try the traditional set again,the hard thing about antagonistic superset for me is to find antagonistic exercise that is fit with the agonist one
Awesome :)
You always somehow manage to find the most interesting topics for videos.
Nice.
Thank you dude, I truly appreciate your support!
I’ve been preaching this since I started working out. I’m glad it’s catching on.
Awesome stuff!
I switched from a PPL rest to a Chest/Back Shoulder/Arms Legs Rest (Arnold split) and I've noticed this changes so far.
-I can overhead press and bench press in different workouts
-The rest day at the end of every 3 day cycle really helps recovery wise
-The workouts are fun as fuck, I superset pullups with dips, calves with hamstrings and so on
-My arms were my weak point compared to my chest and back because of my calisthenics background (not anymore)
-The only downside is that you don't have scheduled rest days, you just rest at the end of each cycle or whenever you feel like which for me it's not really a bad thing. Having a fixed day split really mess up your head when you miss a workout because of daily responsibilities.
Sorry if my English wasn't the best
Your English is fantastic. Very awesome to hear your experience, I wish you continued gains!!!
Hey man! I have an Arnold split as well, but I don’t think my setup is optimal for it. Is there anywhere I can look at where you found your split? Great English by the way!!
@Andre Leite da Silva Upper Lower is perfect for a 4 day split
I do this
Chest - Biceps,
Back - Triceps
Legs - Shoulders
30 seconds rest between exercises, 2 minutes rest between supersets
I'm not sure if it was a good idea to do legs with shoulders, but I usually do isolated shoulder exercises along with leg press, for example.
Military Press -> I do it at the beginning, before doing squats.
Awesome stuff, I hope it continues to being you awesome gains :)
What is the antagonist to squats? There is no direct one, because knees do not bent forwards, only backwards!
I superset the dips with the pull ups, the dumbell OHP with the dumbell rows, biceps/triceps and leg extention with leg curls. It is very time efficient.
i superset dips with upright row, ohp with pullup, seated row with bench and the rest is the same. time efficiency makes me feel amazing. it nearly takes half the time making full body sessions a normal length (1.5 hours). which makes it possible to work out each muscle 3 times a week.
@@purgedsoy9518 that's awesome. I train upper lower split, but the time efficiency factor still applies. I try to be carefull with the cardiovascular capacity though.
Great stuff dude!
You're easily a top 3 fitness channel
I appreciate that dude! :)
This channel is something else. Thank you for sharing all this information!
It's no problem, thank YOU for checking the videos out!!!
Wow this video/channel is amazing. You have a like and subscription from me! Also with the Japense study, 30 to 60 repetitions is well beyond the optimal range for hypertrophy and muscle growth and peogressive overlead with resistance bands is much harder to track over machine or weighted movements. Furthermore, at 30 to 60 repetitions, cardiovascular fatigue preventing optimal failurw on the supersetted exercise could definitely be a contributing factor to the stark decrease in long term muscle growth.
This explains why my bench always feels easier everytime I do deadlifts before. Good to know 💪🏽
Awesome :)
What do you think about compound/isolation supersets? For example, bicep curl -> Bench Press, Overhead Tricep Extension -> Pull Up, Leg Curl -> Squat
I think they can work fine!
Been trying this method for years. Yes did increase performance and under less time and no wasted energy.
Awesome stuff, thank YOU for sharing :)
I've been using a circuit with legs, pull, push, auxiliary. For example, our first circuit is usually Squats, Pullups, Overhead Press, Calf Raises, for 5 rounds of 5rep sets, except on the auxiliary exercise. Lotta sweat.
Very interesting stuff, awesome to hear!!!
I would not do pullups after squats. Your effort on the pullups will suffer, better to do the OHP, which will not wind you and uses less muscle mass in between.
@@nunninkav If you saw me doing weighted chest to bar pullups after squats you might change your tune We train hard, for conditioning and strength. When we started training this way my workout buddy threw up on two occasions but immediately went and grabbed the bar for the next lift. No Twinkies can hang with these homies. Strength is built from the inside. Thanks for the advice, but folks are always telling me to be careful, don't train so hard. They are fat and weak, I'm still hard as iron at 63.
@@JohnBullard i would assert, you would still get more out if the pullups, no matter what state you are in, if you do them with a break after squats.
@@nunninkav Certainly you don't imagine that I haven't trained that way for many years? If I'm going for a PR, I want to be fresh. But we are doing whole body workouts, and the squats provide the hormone boost that gives us more adaptive response to the other lifts. I think this channel has done an article on that. I try to combine lifts judiciously, for example, it's front squats with pullups because good form for back squats involves pulling the bar down hard with the lats. We don't train fresh, we are sucking wind the whole time, to develop determination and work capacity. It's intense, exhilarating, and exhausting. But you stick with your thing, that's fine for you.
Great work as always, thanks.
I have a question though. How was the superset group in the Paz et al 2015 able to do more reps on both exercises than the group that rest between exercises done separately?
Oh. I got the answer later in the video with the reduced coactivation of the antagonist...wow! You're so good, you answer my questions before the video ends....Great going.
Haha, awesome stuff, thank YOU
Great video as always. Keep them coming.
Thank YOU my friend!
Would love to see these principles applied to runners, from 5K races to marathons. Hope you decide to do videos re running. Cheers.
Nice video! Calisthenics beginner here. The concept of antagonist supersets should apply to calisthenics exercises as well, no? I was thinking of applying it to push ups/body rows in my workout. If I understand the video correctly, as long as the exercises are hard enough that my rep maximum isn't too high, I should at least be able to save time without losing any gains.
I see no reason as to why it would not apply to bodyweight stuff! I'd say try it out and see what you think of it! :)
Yes. You can do anything with bodyweight exercises you can do with free weights or machines. The principles remain the same. Supersets, circuits, drop sets, forced reps etc. are all possible.
I have trouble doing supersets of pushups and chinups because the latter engage my pecs, but pike pushups seem ok. I'm still too weak/heavy for pronated pullups. It's great for the core and legs at least, it raises the cardio value of your workout and those are all muscles that tolerate (or need) higher volume than the upper body.
In part Antagonist Supersets trick your muscles to some degree. When you push or pull in one direction to such a difficult extent and then reverse that direction it feels simpler to accomplish. Not saying it actually is, but mentally and muscle memory wise it feels easier. Based on personal experience, the weight or difficulty is a large part of this being effective.
I never trained this specifically with body weight/calisthenics but in principle I would agree with your assessment. The difficulty needs to remain relatively high. One alternative I thought of would be to train a superset with weights first to expel energy and tire the muscles, followed by a body weight/calisthenics superset. This could be useful when body weight/calisthenics are not yielding enough difficulty aside from high rep counts.
The time saving aspect is real and you will tend to maintain your energy throughout to a higher degree.
I have used antagonist supersets for years and the method works for me. One thing is certain - it makes better use of my workout time.
Awesome stuff!
This is how I always train
Ain't nobody got time for training otherwise
Haha, awesome stuff! :)
I'm gonna do chest and back day on the same day from now on and essentially double my volume
I usually always do back first. I feel it prevents me from using to much delts when pressing.
Hope it goes well! :)
Seen as everyone is sharing, i tend to do an an antagonist s.s as a secondary muscle focus on the 1st day then switch that to the primary focus muscle group on the 2nd day.
Great stuff dude :)
Also make a video about supersets of upper body with lower body. For example, pull ups with squat, dips with deadlift, etc.
I think it is a better superset than antagonist supersets particularly for strength gains and when you aim for PRs in both exercises.
My personal experience is that when I paired weighted pull ups with weighted dips, my performance was not as good on either. One reason is that fatigued back can't supports the dips as well although dips are not a back exercise. But when PRs are the goal, every little detail matters.
General advice is that you should lead your workout with lagging muscles as that is where your best effort can be input. Would it make sense is an antagonist superset to lead with your better area first if it improves performance of the antagonist area?
For example, if you want to work on triceps you would do your sets as bicep, tricep, rest, repeat . . . To get the best results out of your tricep sets as possible?
Yep, I think this potentially the case!
I always do supersets to save time. (Super effective at saving time for sure.) But I don't do them on the powerlifts because I was under the impression they'll compromise strength gains.
But if the researches are true then I guess I can superset everything if I want to. It has no statistical difference after all. Will save me even more time.
I should probably note with exercises like deadlift and squat, supersetting them may not always be the best idea. It depends on how precisely you go about it, but I'd say experiement around with whatever you're comfortable with :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yep. Definitely, proceed with caution for safety reasons. Thanks, dude. Great vid as usual.
i do rotator cuff’s exercises between chest sets, and i feel like it helps with strength and stability
Awesome stuff! :)
I really love this channel. From the animations, the info and the conculusions ! keep ut the good work
Thank you so much my friend!
An alternative theory to reducing antagonist co-activation is, the muscles have received a warm up and increased blood flow without experiencing any work fatigue. Allowing them to be at peak performance for the exercise. This theory probably has more details to it but that's my quick thoughts.
Commenting for algorithm!
Love from 🇺🇸
Thank YOU my friend!
That's what Natural Hypertrophy says and that's what i do every time.
Awesome! :)
Great video, as always but I really liked this topic extra much!
If the performance gain is due to inhibition of the antagonist, then the increase in performance wouldn't necessarily constitue an increase in agonist muscle tension load in practice, since tension from the antagonist went down, but they didn't measure that when they calculated tension load only using the external source of tension.
Yeah, I'm not sure. If the agonist ultimately produces greater force because it's not held back, this greater contractile force could be a better hypertrophy stimulus. But I'm not sure :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy isn't that sentence on it's head? The agonist would produce less contractile force if the antagonist produce less contractile force, wouldn't you agree?
An agonist have as resistance both the external weight and any contraction of the antagonist to be overcome. That would be equivalent to more reps with less weight. But since rep range is generally insignificant in relation to hypertrophy, it would make sense that besides some systemic fatigue there may not be an impact on hypertrophy.
I'm still going to utilize it for the time saving. I've been doing antagonist circuits for time saving, but with this info I'll be able to cut my already quite short workouts even shorter, or do more volume in the same time.
Hi, great video! Could you do a video on the effects of creatine in performance and muscle mass gains? Thank You!
Hey, I'll add it to the list. If you're looking for something fast, there's this great article: www.strongerbyscience.com/creatine/
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you!
This is a great video, but I personally have noticed reduced performance by doing isolation + compound supersets. For example, when I superset bicep curls with dumbbell bench, my biceps will give out during bench, even with a minute of rest. Its also not like I'm new to these exercises either. I've been doing both for over 2 years now. I think it makes sense to avoid isolations, especially to failure during supersets and compounds should mainly be used, because the antagonist stabilizers don't really get that close to failure, unlike in isolations. Maybe that's why performance could've decreased for me.
That's super interesting to hear, thank YOU for sharing! :)
I think it also depends on the exercise. Grip fatigue from the curls could be coming into play, leading to less stability when you hold the bar, and thus reduced performance. However that's just a hypothesis.
@@HerculesFit it can't be grip fatigue, because my biceps got to failure from boing dumbbell bench, as the bicep stabilize your elbow during bench. It was sort of like a drop set. Compounds are just less likely to take those muscles to failure.
I enjoy antagonist supersets to get my gym time down while still getting my work in.
Sweet dude, awesome!
U should probably start a nutrition playlist for obvious reasons - hypertrophy!
I'll think about it :)
I have trained like this for years. Only thing is that it is pretty metabolically taxing. And you can be more prone to injury because of a higher heart rate it can be harder to focus on the exercise and brace your core properly.
Good points!
Antagonist supersets also increase flexibility by stimulating the muscle spindles when you use full ROM
Interesting, I had not thought of that :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy look up AITs (advanced inhibition techniques) it's one of the tactics physiotherapists use.
What about supersetting two exercises that don’t work similar muscles, but aren’t antagonists of each other? Like chest fly with tricep extension, or lat pullover with curls?
I think that should be a great way to save time, and I don't think it would compromise peformance :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy thought that would be the case. Thanks for the reply 🤩
Can you make a video of only things that do work... what are the the best trics to grow the best muscles
There really are no special tricks, most of the videos I have on the channel cover the essentials. and when you do this overtime consistently, you get great gains :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yes i like your video's i watch them all but i would think its nice to make 1 video with the best ways/ frequenties / rep ranges if you get the best results out of all the studies
oh wow i already do this,,, random exercises with no rest,,,
I do supersets and sometimes giant sets, usually a push/pull and abs
I do full-body. I always trained antagonistic muscles.
imagine being able to do the same work in 2 days(full body) a week compared to 6 days(push pull legs).
@@purgedsoy9518 I do low volume high frequency.
Love supersets.
They are awesome! :)
gregg valentiono was a big fan of pumping blood into the antagonist muscle before training, example: tricep pushdowns before training biceps
Interesting stuff!
supersets in a commercial gym when its high tide is just something that doesnt work out for me, shit is crowded and people will just take over the machine when im not there
Yeah, unfortunately this can be the case :(
The best dude.
Thank YOU dude, I appreciate your support!
HoH, random q- Do you think mini cuts intermittent throughout a long re comp phase would be beneficial? Also, is training 30 days on and 10 off a viable training phase (not necessarily concurrent with the recomp?)
I think it depends on your goals, but I see no reason as to why it would not further help fat loss. I'd say experiement around with it if you wish! Also, 30 days on and 10 days off is certainly viable :)
Don't antagonist coactivation just add more resistance to the agonist movement?
If that's the case, then yes, you will do more reps with less antagonist activation as it's like you are lifting less weight, but it won't cause more hipertrophy.
If it allows the agonist to produce greater force (more tension and contractile force), perhaps it could? Not sure though :)
Metabolic training and resistance bands are the future.
Great videos!
Thank YOU again my friend!
Another speculation about why no muscle or strength gains were found:
When the additional reps could not be achieved because the target muscle was able to produce more fore, but because the antagonist produced less counter force, the stimulus was still the same resulting in similar results.
Remember, it's not about the reps or the weight, it's about the stimulus of the muscle. When you can create the same stimulus with lower weight but better execution, it will not compromise the results. However, it would reduce the change of getting hurt. This method does not lead to more force being produced by the muscle. Instead, one tricks himself to do more reps using the same strength, similar to cheating in the execution.
It’s kinda funny, that’s how I worked out when I first started lifting. I had moved away from that prioritizing more rest and focusing on one muscle at a time, but it would be an interesting thing to revisit.
In some years Brazil will be reference on fisiculturism and body building. A lot os studies in this area.
Ever considered making a tiktok page to condense these videos ? I feel you could take over the tiktok game with this info!
Yep: www.tiktok.com/@houseofhypertrophy/ :)
Can you do a video listing about which muscles produce more hypertrophy using CONCENTRIC AND ECCENTRIC movements/contractions. Thank you. (Example BICEPS are better trained using an eccentric approach. GLUTES however CONCENTRIC)
Yeah, I'm not too sure there's much evidence on this? There's evidence concentric and eccentric training produce different types of hypertrophy, not that they grow different muscles more or less.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Interesting,
I posed this question because a coach at the gym who is also a physiotherapist told me that different muscle groups responded better with a focus on either concentric and eccentric movements, isometrics by the way, were almost no difference. Also quote: “the further the joints from your the center of your body the better hypertrophy eccentric focus is”. Obviously with some exceptions.
Notif squad 🔔
I appreciate you dude, as always!!!
My Upper/Lower splits cannot function without antagonistic supersets. Especially upper. At this point it doesn't make sense not to superset biceps/triceps, or chest/back.
Great stuff dude! :)
@Andre Leite da Silva exactly. this way you can work out each muscle 3 times a week which feels way better than push pull legs split cuz you could only workout a muscle 2 times a week. And a big plus you have 4 rest days with 3 days of full body workouts.
I do this as a circle in the summer months since the 80s. I don't wanna spend much time in the gym when it's hot. No AC in Germany.
Very interesting to hear, great stuff dude!
honestly I do supersets mainly for efficiency and to get a "pump" I really don't think that it's any better for strength or growth but that's just been experience.
Very interesting to hear!
@@almostbutno9263 I only think it's better for efficiency in that one can save time but ANY other method given the proper intensity, volume and form will get as good results as any other. At least that's been my experience.
Can you do a video on overcoming isometric on a long term set of time??
I do plan to make a video on isometric training :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy thx
I'm curious about one variable. Different gene pools have different biases naturally as well as body type. What do think about this?
Individual differences certainly exist. It's why experimenting on yourself and seeing what works and what does not is important :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy
Are there any studies you know of that address this difference in genetics capacity and bias? Out of curiosity, the science makes so... hahahaha
This is how those guys get so good at bench press and curls.
It would be interesting to see if Supersets elevate the risk of injury, given the possible reduced joint stability if the antagonists are activated less.
Agreed!
This is what I do without even knowing just go with what my body feels is building muscle 💪
My own experience says that even if I don't know if it changes performance in the long run, it saves time, does more training volume and prevents injuries.
Interesting to hear, thank YOU for sharing dude!
I do find that when I do antagonistic exercises one after another, it just feels right. Like my body is already primed for the second movement or something.
can anyone tell if there is a difference to do:
bench press -> cable row, overhead press -> pulldown
OR
bench press -> pulldown, overhead press -> cable row?
I've been training this way for decades.
Very interesting, awesome!
I have almost always trained like this. However, when in a commercial gym, I found I often lost one of the machines or stations. I have always tried to do it with no rest between groups. IMO this will extend to giant sets, such as doing upper/lower.
Yeah, it can be difficult to do these in a gym, haha. Also, giant sets can be great :)
Hey HoH ! I love your work and i was wondering something. I'm planing on creating a huge encyclopedia for training and i wanted to use your work for the hypertrophia part. Would you mind if i use it ? I want to help people that want to increase their performances. Definitly downloading the ebook haha ! Keep it up mate you're doing really great :)
Hey my friend, feel free to use any of the content :) any credit would be appreciated if possible!
@@HouseofHypertrophy Ty very much ! Of course you ll be credited !
This is actually a very interesting protocol opposing the crossfit bs
Thank u bro
Thank YOU for checking it out!
Your body knows Best.
i will definitely try to implement this , but i want to know what will be Antagonist set against the deadlift set ? ..... please reply fast my deadlift session is tomorrow
I think it's probably best not to superset the deadlift, as that exercise is taxing enough on its own :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy thank you for quick response , no doubt it is , it become common for me to see stars at my last set
I've had good success supersetting calf raises with romanian deadlifts. Perhaps some upper body exercises could work also. Just make sure you superset with a minimally-fatiguing isolation exercise, as the deadlift is already very fatiguing.
@@thenew4559 how much did that improve performance , i'm curious comparing to regular set rest
To expect results in muscle hypertrophy by suppressing antagonist activation is illogical IMHO. Hypertrophy increase is the result of the TOTAL EFFORT that was put into the exercise, to contrast a total of " *E* xternal *R* esistance" (= the Weight) + *I* nternal *R* esistance (= Antagonist Reaction)" and if you eliminate one, the other has to increase to maintain the TOTAL a constant.
Performance increase is justified; after all you eliminate or reduce one of the factors playing against: the *IR* .
But even so, remaining the TOTAL EFFORT a constant (albeit with different contribution of both *ER* and *IR* ) the hypertrophy increase also remains a constant. Plus: performance increase WHEN MEASURED "apples with apples" is probably balanced. Otherwise you're just measuring different things: a "gross" and a "net" force production.
Ultimately hypertrophy is driven by tension on the muscle, reducing antagonist activation will likely actually increase tension on the agonist muscle
@@HouseofHypertrophy nope; when the antagonist does not work against the agonist, the tension on the agonist is *reduced* - and that's precisely why you can perform the exercise with more external resistance, after antagonist deactivation. it's simple arithmetics, really... 🙂
@@diemme568 Ah I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure this is actually what's happening. Here's what I'm thinking: the antagonist reduces activation, thereby not holding the agonist back as much enabling it to produce more tension. This is partly support by some EMG data finding the agonist increases in activation via antagonistic work prior to it: thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=kss_fac :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy well ... I read the study you link, thank you! ;-) but... the "hyperactivation of the agonist" hypothesis is somewhat superfluous: all of the experimental result may just indicate that the agonist can exert its force unhindered by the antagonist, which has its activation lowered, in APS protocols.
say: the External Resistance (ER) is 100. the agonist action (AA) must overcome the ER AND the antagonist reaction (AR), so AA = ER + AR. if ER is 100, and AR is 20, AA is 120.
Once the stabilizing antagonist action is or lowered, say to 10, AA unchanged = 120, the ER *can* be 110, but it still is 100.
The dynamics of the exercise change, and muscle action is also dependent on the velocity of contraction. this explains also the power increase, via both the excess in force AND in velocity (further in the study)
AA can exert more force against the external load, at a CONSTANT MECHANICAL TENSION in the agonist. The only difference is that now, the antagonist action is lower and the agonist can use the force it would have exerted to overcome the antagonist's force also against ER without the antagonist holding it back.
To try to invoke higher activation in the agonist would imply higher total effort, which would necessarily result in higher Hypertrophy of the agonist, don't you think? IMHO it's the dynamics of the exercise, that have changed, and explain the difference in muscle activation.
@@diemme568 I understand your position, but the fact some data finds increased EMG perhaps suggests the agonist muscle actually ends up producing greater NET forces, thus potentially sees greater mechanical tension :)
Great video. Off topic but something I found interesting was bruce lee, he to this day has probably one of the strongest kicks in history and was extremely fast, yet he was easily able to run over a hour everyday? I just don’t understand how such strong leg muscles could also have stamina since I assumed, that since bruce lee was light and didn’t have a ton of muscle, he must have had a extreme amount of fast twitch fibers. I just find it weird how a fast twitch can behave like a slow twitch.
It's not super uncommon to see jacked dudes with good endurance. It's certainly possible to achieve. Ultimately everyone has slow and fast-twitch fibers :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy yah lol
How much rest after secound excercise in superseria? This thing missing for me.
Hey you should check Natural Hypertrophy, he made a video on you
Oh snap, sweet. I'll check that out, haha. Thank you for letting me know! :)
Is it possible to achieve a similar result doing antagonist supersets, but in different planes of motion? For example a OHP w/ body weight rows
I think so! try it out :)
Can you do a video on weight training fasted vs unfasted
I'm not sure there's much research out there, i'll have to take a look :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy I know theres at least 1 pakistani study but there was a russian one as well I believe
what if i have 6 exercises total on a certain day, can i do 3 supersets or would be too much? (Ex: bench press+squat/ dumbell row+Overhead Press/ Bicep curl+Romanian deadlift)?
Any of you guys tried it? is it too tiring or seems good?
It could work, although supersetting very taxing movement (with bench pressing and squats) may be quite tiring and limit performance!
I do what I feel a building muscle
I do a couple sets of deadlift before bench and my bench is so warmed up from the start I feel like I could throw the bar into the air. Dunno if it’s the pull on the arms or warming up nervous system but would reccomdend
Very interesting to hear, awesome stuff! :)
Do you think I can superset 2 exercises that I do heavy reps like 3 to 5 reps?
I'd say try it out and see how you find it !
Stretching first seems to ruin my pump, it increases range of motion, and makes contractions harder to achieve
But is that the case with antagonist stretching?
How is that minimal rest for supersets is ideal but when comparing to normal sets we see that 2-3 min of rest is optimal for growth??
Minimal rest between the two supersetted movements but normal rest durations (2-3 mins for example) between the supersets. Hope this makes sense, in other words, you're still resting 2 to 3 mins between the identical exercise
>elastic band triceps extension
Oof, screwed up my shoulders with that one. For the triceps, it's nothing but free weights for me.
Edit: elastic bands offer greater resistance at max contraction but the movement feels almost linear somehow, thus minimizing coactivation since the movement feels so simple. Thus there may be less difference between supersetting and not. Also previous studies have shown greater results with longer rest periods so that may be the only difference between the two groups
Sorry to thear that man, hope your shoulders are doing all well!
@@HouseofHypertrophy oh yeah, this happened years ago! I thought the bands were the ultimate hack and really loaded up the weight, and then something went CRUNCH against the acromion. Took at least a month before I felt 100 percent again...
These days I try to get a full body workout within 75 minutes. So, supersets are a must for me.
Awesome :)
One thing to also note on that Japanese study is that the trainees were untrained they maybe be don't had that cardio adaptations to do two exercises back to back with short rest.
That's potentially a great point!!!