Pyramid training has become a buzzword in the resistance training community, with many claiming it can unlock new gains in both muscle strength and size. But is it truly superior to traditional training methods?
Pyramid training manipulates load and repetitions across sets, typically in two main forms:
- Crescent Pyramid: Increasing load while decreasing reps as the sets progress.
- Decrescent Pyramid: The opposite approach, decreasing load while increasing reps as the sets progress.
The theory behind these methods is that the variation in stimulus could lead to superior adaptations in strength and muscle growth compared to more static traditional set structures. However, despite its popularity among bodybuilders and athletes, the scientific support for pyramid training’s superiority has been mixed.
Cardozo et al conducted a narrative review, looking at 15 studies spanning from 2010 to 2021. These studies investigated both acute and long-term effects of pyramid training. Acute effects included immediate physiological responses like hormonal fluctuations, muscle damage markers, and metabolic reactions. Long-term effects examined strength and hypertrophy changes over a minimum of eight weeks of training. The studies in the review featured a variety of populations, including older adults and younger individuals, and primarily focused on the crescent pyramid protocol, with only one study exploring the decrescent and double pyramid formats.
There were no significant differences in acute responses between pyramid and traditional training. Markers like hormonal shifts, muscle damage indicators, and metabolic reactions were similar regardless of the training protocol used. This suggests that, in the short term, both approaches are equally viable for eliciting the desired physiological response to training.
The long-term adaptations mirrored the acute findings: pyramid training effectively increased strength and hypertrophy, but showed no greater benefits than traditional training. This was consistent across a variety of populations and pyramid approaches.
The review supports the broader body of research emphasizing that the main players of muscle growth and strength gains are volume, load, and proximity to failure. Although pyramid training inherently includes these elements by covering a range of loads and rep ranges, it does not appear to supercharge gains.
Like many advanced training techniques, such as drop sets or supersets, pyramid training can be an enjoyable way to add variety to your routine and potentially save some time. This makes it appealing for individuals who want to maximize their time in the gym without losing out on overall training volume.
However, as with any approach, personal preference and recovery ability are crucial factors to consider. If your main goal is strength, traditional set structures that allow for maximal force production may be more optimal than pyramid training. Because pyramid protocols typically involve higher fatigue accumulation due to the variation in load and reps, they might not be as effective for pure strength development.
Conversely, for hypertrophy, pyramid training’s mix of rep ranges and loads can provide a comprehensive stimulus for muscle growth, particularly if sets are taken close to failure. However, across a whole training routine, performing different exercises in different repetition ranges would likely offer the same benefits.
The findings of this review highlight that pyramid training is a viable method for developing both strength and hypertrophy, but not a magic bullet. If you enjoy pyramid training or want to introduce novelty into your workouts, it can be an effective tool but it stands on par with traditional training for muscle and strength gains.