# 3x5 + 2x8-12



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

Been cracking on the 5x5 for a while now and on 3x5 due ti failing 5x5. I want more size as well so keeping the routine the same (stronglifts) can i do the routine 3x5 and add two high rep sets so 5 sets total 3 heavy 2 lighter.??

I want to pile on size and strength at same time preferably but can only train three days a week (mrs)

Lifts are currently

Bench 85kg

Squat 105

Deadlift 180

Press 50 struggle tho

Row 70kg

Diet eating 3000 calories daily desk job 29 years old weigh 92kg 6ft

Ty


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

richengineer said:


> Been cracking on the 5x5 for a while now and on 3x5 due ti failing 5x5. I want more size as well so keeping the routine the same (stronglifts) can i do the routine 3x5 and add two high rep sets so 5 sets total 3 heavy 2 lighter.??
> 
> I want to pile on size and strength at same time preferably but can only train three days a week (mrs)
> 
> ...


 No point fu**ing around with five sets of three, just move onto madcows 5X5 and crack on with that. No need to add anything either, it's designed as a strength/bulking program so bear that in mind.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Can you? Of course you can. Will you pack on size and strength... since you're eating 14.8 cal/lbs I wouldn't think so... it's about maintenance calories (or just over) I would have though.

Tweaking a routine here or there really won't make a massive difference to anyone.


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

so that would work but I need to eat more??

madcows has been recommended but I want some size reps in there.... 8-12.

I want a 3 day routine that will get me stronger but mainly size...

cheers for replys so far


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Short answer, yes.

If size is your priority I'd personally move away from 5 reps sets, towards maybe an 8 rep minimum.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quackerz said:


> No point fu**ing around with five sets of three, just move onto madcows 5X5 and crack on with that. No need to add anything either, it's designed as a strength/bulking program so bear that in mind.


 I suspect he meant 3 sets of 5? That's what I'd mean by 3x5 anyway.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> I suspect he meant 3 sets of 5? That's what I'd mean by 3x5 anyway.


 stronglifts progression goes from five sets of five to five sets of three. Most strength templates usually list the reps before the sets also so I just assumed.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

richengineer said:


> so that would work but I need to eat more??


 Calorie consumption is probably the main factor in hitting any goal, then drugs, then training.

I'd be doing a 2 day split split, or PPL keeping reps at 8 (absolute minimum) and concentrating more on things like tut and tempo of reps than weight if I were looking to add size as my primary goal.


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

might have a crack at ppl as it seems to be a common step after full body. it will have to be 3 day instead of 6 tho


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

richengineer said:


> might have a crack at ppl as it seems to be a common step after full body. it will have to be 3 day instead of 6 tho


 I don't know why 6 sessions is all of a sudden considered the norm for PPL... few years back when PPL seemed to be the in thing it was 3 sessions


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

just from what you see posted around

I think people go 6 days a week to escape the mrs


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

richengineer said:


> just from what you see posted around
> 
> I think people go 6 days a week to escape the mrs


 :lol:


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quackerz said:


> stronglifts progression goes from five sets of five to five sets of three.


 Are you sure? I thought it reduced to 3 sets of 5.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

people still believe anything outside of extremes of high or low rep ranges has any significant impact on hypertrophy...

percentages will eventually need to be phased in blocks but for as long as you can 80-85% will always reign supreme at building strength over 70% and will match it in hypertrophy providing the same reps are hit (5x5 = 25, 3x8 = 24)

"In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that high-intensity (3-5 RM), low-volume resistance training program utilizing a long rest interval (3 min) is more advantageous than a moderate intensity, high-volume (10-12 RM) program utilizing a short rest interval (1 min) for stimulating upper body strength gains and muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained men during an 8-week study."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/

EDIT- as quackerz said run madcows

add in weighted pull ups and dips after wednesdays workout for the mental masturbation of 'hypertropic rep range'


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

swole troll said:


> people still believe anything outside of extremes of high or low rep ranges has any significant impact on hypertrophy...
> 
> percentages will eventually need to be phased in blocks but for as long as you can 80-85% will always reign supreme at building strength over 70% and will match it in hypertrophy providing the same reps are hit (5x5 = 25, 3x8 = 24)
> 
> ...


 cheers. il do both ranges hopefully that would be optimal. hense my original comment of few sets of 5 then few high sets


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

richengineer said:


> cheers. il do both ranges hopefully that would be optimal


 strength = size

anyone that says otherwise is talking crap

you do get some neural adaptation for newly accrued muscle which along with joint health is why we cycle intensities and rep ranges as you become more advanced but to put it simply find me anyone that deadlifts 6 plates, squats 5 and benches 4 that isnt heavily muscled


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

ill run madcows then. only just saw your edit.. see how I get on


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> people still believe anything outside of extremes of high or low rep ranges has any significant impact on hypertrophy...
> 
> percentages will eventually need to be phased in blocks but for as long as you can 80-85% will always reign supreme at building strength over 70% and will match it in hypertrophy providing the same reps are hit (5x5 = 25, 3x8 = 24)
> 
> ...


 I think the OP is after size not strength though?


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> I think the OP is after size not strength though?


 Then he should stop going to the gym and just eat in a calorie surplus as you cannot exclusively gain muscle whilst progressing in total tonnage lifted and eating in a surplus

Strength is a byproduct as is muscle to strength


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> Then he should stop going to the gym and just eat in a calorie surplus as you cannot exclusively gain muscle whilst progressing in total tonnage lifted and eating in a surplus
> 
> Strength is a byproduct as is muscle to strength


 That's true to an extent but not exclusively, due in part to the neurological component of high 1RM strength. The recently posted video of the tiny woman squating IIRC 200 kg proves this.

I'm not going to get into a long debate tonight but FWIW the reasons I made the suggestion I did above include:

1) It's now fairly widely accepted that total volume (sets x reps x weight) is the single biggest factor correlating with size gain, and higher volume is easier to achieve with higher reps. (Although from a quick scan I note that the study you posted above presents some evidence to the contrary. I haven't seen this study before and will give it a proper read at some point.)

2) The reduced injury risk of higher rep training, the significance of which I personally think is underestimated.

3) There is an ever growing body of evidence that size gain can be achieved over an extremely wide variety of rep ranges, provided failure is reached.

4) Anecdotally, I've reasonably commonly heard of at least relatively new lifters complaining of poor size gains whilst focusing on strength gains, but who achieve much better size gains when switching to a higher rep/volume approach. You also have the like of banzi who achieve great physiques without ever really focusing on strength gains.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> That's true to an extent but not exclusively, due in part to the neurological component of high 1RM strength. The recently posted video of the tiny woman squating IIRC 200 kg proves this.
> 
> *I'm not going to get into a long debate tonight* but FWIW the reasons I made the suggestion I did above include:
> 
> ...


 *to the part in bold i'll understand if you dont reply however i'll still put forward my counter argument and we can just agree to disagree on some points *

to the tiny woman squatting 200kg yes there will always be genetic outliers but when advise is given its generally assumed the person asking is fairly average as giving advice relevant only to the genetic outliers would be wasted on 99% of those reading it

when i post on here i assume im talking to an average joe.

1) total tonnage then as i said above, 5x5 with 100kg one week then 5x5 with 105kg the next is merely an increase in total tonnage as is 5x6 with 100kg or alternatively 3x10 with x weight one week followed the next with 3x12 and so on

as long as the reps or weight is increasing you are stressing the muscle to a point of adaptation, this is why 3x8-12 (the supposed holy grail of bodybuilding rep ranges) with 100kg for 12 months straight will net 0 progress past the initial adaptation to the load

increase in total tonnage lifted = adaptation = progression = size AND strength increase (provided sufficient calories)

2) this is the only benefit but even then its arguable that form will deteriorate at higher rep ranges causing an increased risk of injury, particularly in the newer lifter

3) this is correct however strength increase will be a byproduct of that size increase

4) the anecdote is poor in new lifters as they seldom adhere to the fundamentals like calorie surplus, staying hydrated and getting enough sleep

not to mention they often have little patience and want to program hop every 5 minutes which f**ks with progression

lastly why in the world would you want size only anyway? if you could somehow magically only get bigger one way or you could get just as big plus stronger another why would you opt for the former?

its like asking for a ferrari body kit for your vauxhall astra


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Are you sure? I thought it reduced to 3 sets of 5.


 Yes you are right. I had to check, it progresses to 3X3 from there.



Ultrasonic said:


> That's true to an extent but not exclusively, due in part to the neurological component of high 1RM strength. The recently posted video of the tiny woman squating IIRC 200 kg proves this.
> 
> I'm not going to get into a long debate tonight but FWIW the reasons I made the suggestion I did above include:
> 
> ...


 1) That is in reference to total tonnage, the volume is arbitrary.

2) Yes, this is why rep ranges are often cycled through different training blocks to avoid this. Most hypertrophy blocks will have you performing volume work under 80% for the most part, working regularly in the 70%-80% intensity range is very common in programming. Also most lifters will for the most part never train to failure within *any* given training block, working off an RPE. The only time when people should be pushing themselves to a failed lift is when they are testing their 1RM.

3) That is true, however basic progressive overload has been proven to work at a much faster pace than simply working to failure every time you lift. There is a reason it is favored as a means to bulk up athletes.

4) Most often they will not be performing the lifts correctly as far as I can see, I see countless people squatting 5X5 in the gym with a rounded back or benching with flared elbows.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

swole troll said:


> *to the part in bold i'll understand if you dont reply however i'll still put forward my counter argument and we can just agree to disagree on some points *
> 
> to the tiny woman squatting 200kg yes there will always be genetic outliers but when advise is given its generally assumed the person asking is fairly average as giving advice relevant only to the genetic outliers would be wasted on 99% of those reading it
> 
> ...


 LOL

You beat me to it, I was typing mine out as yours came up on the screen. :lol:


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

swole troll said:


> its like asking for a ferrari body kit for your vauxhall astra


 This.

If you had a choice between looking like you could bench 200kg, and looking like you can bench 200kg and being able to do so, I know which option I would choose.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> to the tiny woman squatting 200kg yes there will always be genetic outliers but when advise is given its generally assumed the person asking is fairly average as giving advice relevant only to the genetic outliers would be wasted on 99% of those reading it
> 
> when i post on here i assume im talking to an average joe.


 I'll quickly respond to this bit as I was being much more general than you suggest (I started to skim the rest but may come back for a more detailed discussion of this over the weekend). My comment applies to a much broader comparison of powerlifters vs bodybuilders. Impressive looking bodybuilders are invariably embarrassed in the strength department by much smaller powerlifters.

I was very much aiming my suggestion to an 'average Joe' audience, of which I'm a member.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

the following footage is all of bodybuilders, judged on stage only by their physiques NOT their strength

5 reps

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/index.php?app=core&module=system&controller=embed&url=https://www.instagram.com/p/BPnXx10D6yi/?taken-by=trainedbyjp%26hl=en

2 reps






5 reps

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/index.php?app=core&module=system&controller=embed&url=https://www.instagram.com/p/BFc1pkELrHf/?taken-by=aaronclarkifbbpro%26hl=en

2 reps

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/index.php?app=core&module=system&controller=embed&url=https://www.instagram.com/p/BOc_v7yAB9c/?taken-by=hollingshead89%26hl=en

all the above are bodybuilders that cant afford to be injured yet still pushing in the higher intensity with heavy weights

surely if they can just use light weight to get to these kinds of sizes they wouldnt bother with these high intensity sets
also they wouldnt be strong enough to perform them if you can build exclusively muscle or strength as bodybuilders their only focus is size so they wouldnt waste any effort on getting stronger

unless its like i said above "Strength is a byproduct of muscle as is muscle to strength"


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Props to all who posted either studies or embedded stuff on this one, this is one of the better threads to emerge on here lately.... @Ultrasonic, @swole troll, @Quackerz.....its good to see we can still have productive intelligent discussions!

Ive not much to add really other than my own observations, i have ALWAYS found in myself and others i have trained with that a significant increase in muscle size followed a increase in strength....no surprises to anyone there....however in terms of how long a period of progression could be sustained i found lower reps far more effective.

The exercises most suited to lower reps and higher loads are also some of the more effective at adding overall strength and size....think deadlifts over lat pulldowns....

Interesting stuff though and tbf i have never invested a significant amount of time pursuing higher repetition training....i may be missing out...


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

i as at the gym last night and saw three huge older blokes training and just had a chat with em. they warm up high reps but 99% of the time will train heavy for low reps but warm up light. they also finish chest say for example on 3 sets of 15 pec flys. but primarily bench, incline bench etc is always 2-5 reps. they where big f**kers aswell one being around 22 stone and was solid not fluffy. he gave me the same old talk about stick with a strength routine for a prolonged period 3 days a week and then when recovery goes balls up hit a push pull or split but always hit main lifts low reps


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

richengineer said:


> i as at the gym last night and saw three huge older blokes training and just had a chat with em. they warm up high reps but 99% of the time will train heavy for low reps but warm up light. they also finish chest say for example on 3 sets of 15 pec flys. but primarily bench, incline bench etc is always 2-5 reps. they where big f**kers aswell one being around 22 stone and was solid not fluffy. he gave me the same old talk about stick with a strength routine for a prolonged period 3 days a week and then when recovery goes balls up hit a push pull or split but always hit main lifts low reps


 Can you clarify what your priority is please? (I'll find time to respond properly over the weekend.)


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Can you clarify what your priority is please? (I'll find time to respond properly over the weekend.)


 I want to be as strong and big as I can get.. I don't want to be really strong if I can be slightly weaker (lift heavy as I can still) but be as big as possible.

so lets be honest both ideally. I'm a victim of over reading s**t on line and thinking size will come from lower weight so just need clarification


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

richengineer said:


> I want to be as strong and big as I can get.. I don't want to be really strong if I can be slightly weaker (lift heavy as I can still) but be as big as possible.
> 
> so lets be honest both ideally. I'm a victim of over reading s**t on line and thinking size will come from lower weight so just need clarification


 OK. As I said at the time my original suggestion to increase to a minimum of 8 reps was only if size was the priority. If you care about strength then ignore this, and follow the other advice given in this thread.

(Personally I have zero interest in my 1RM in any exercise.)


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> OK. As I said at the time my original suggestion to increase to a minimum of 8 reps was only if size was the priority. If you care about strength then ignore this, and follow the other advice given in this thread.
> 
> (Personally I have zero interest in my 1RM in any exercise.)


 so 5x5 with 80% on squats progressing every session whilst eating in a surplus will keep your legs just as big as the day you started despite the fact youve added 80kg to your max?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> so 5x5 with 80% on squats progressing every session whilst eating in a surplus will keep your legs just as big as the day you started despite the fact youve added 80kg to your max?


 Don't quite follow that but I suspect the answer is no. Let me reply in more detail to this thread over the weekend - there are lots of issues in this thread that I need to try to address properly.


----------



## theBEAST2002 (Oct 16, 2011)

Switch to Greyskull LP and *stick to the program.*

Do not try to "customise" the program.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

It means if someone were to stick to only sets of 5 and manage to add 80kg to their squat over a year whilst eating in a calorie surplus their legs would pack on a lot of muscle

Your post I quoted said that you'd only go as low as 8 reps to build muscle yet many have packed on the most muscle of their training career in the first year of training running something like stronglifts that is exclusively 5x5

I get 8 reps will work but why would you want to gain the same amount of muscle (if not less) but be weaker? Plus progression will be slower

Also the less reps you are doing per set the easier it is to add weight each session

An extreme example would be to try adding 2.5kg to your 3rm and then try adding 2.5kg to your 25rm, I can guarantee you'd progress for longer week after week by running the 3 rep increase protocol

Whilst writing this I remembered Eric helms made a video on the exact topic were discussing (Google his credentials if unaware who Eric helms is)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> It means if someone were to stick to only sets of 5 and manage to add 80kg to their squat over a year whilst eating in a calorie surplus their legs would pack on a lot of muscle
> 
> Your post I quoted said that you'd only go as low as 8 reps to build muscle yet many have packed on the most muscle of their training career in the first year of training running something like stronglifts that is exclusively 5x5
> 
> ...


 I refer to Eric Helms on this forum regularly and have watched the video you've linked to at least once in the past, and that from memory I don't disagree with any of it (not going to open it at work). Please understand I've never suggested you can't gain size with 5 rep sets, and let me reply properly before trying to continue this duscussion.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

OK. I hadn't expected what I posted in this thread to be the least bit controversial but apparently I was wrong! Let's see if I can explain where I'm coming from rather better, which I'll do in two parts. I hope this helps rather than confuses things further...

STRENGTH ISN'T ONLY ABOUT SIZE

First let me address the aspects of 1RM strength that do not relate to muscle size:



1) 1RM strength depends not just on muscle fibre recruitment (which maxes out at lighter weights) but also neurological rate-coding. This is where nerve impulses are sent more rapidly to increase the strength of the contraction.


2) There is a significant skill aspect to completing a 1RM. This is essentially neurological as well, and relates to how well somebody is able to recreate a particular movement pattern under heavy load.


3) I suspect there is also a psychological aspect of actually being able to make yourself put forth your true maximum effort.


Now the point is that training induced adaptations that improve these elements improve strength but do not increase muscle size. Muscle hypertrophy will almost certainly happen as well but crucially it is not the only factor in increasing strength.

The point of all of this is that it is flawed logic to look for papers that conclude what is best for 1RM strength and then inferring that the same must also therefore be best for gaining size. This was the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread.

It could of course be that what is best for strength gains is also best for size gains, but it needs to be assessed separately, which I'll discuss below.

WHAT IS BEST FOR SIZE THEN?

(The two are inter-related but I'll try to break this down by focusing on reps first and then moving onto volume/total sets.)

In terms of reps per set there is increasing evidence that it doesn't really matter. (The 'progressive overload is all you need to worry about' argument if you like.)

Here's one paper showing that the growth from 7x3 (sets x reps) isn't significantly different to 3 x 10:

https://bretcontreras.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-different-volume-equated-resistance-training-loading-strategies-on-muscular-adaptations-in-well-trained-men.pdf

And below is another comparing 3 x 8-12 to 3 x 20-25, where all sets were taken to failure. Again, no significant difference was seen in size gains.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129.long

Combined that's sets of 3 to 25 reps all being capable of producing similar growth. For people who are primarily interested in size I therefore now feel there is an argument to avoid low rep training, since it apparently offers no growth advantage but does have an increased injury risk. (You do still get strength gains from higher rep training of course (bigger muscles are stronger), but it's not optimised in terms of 1RM performance as I discussed above.)

Playing devil's advocate there is one reasonable objection to the above argument though. All studies are of limited duration, and so it can always be challenged whether the results they show would continue long term. There isn't really a good research based way to address this shortcoming, and so we're reduced to a combination of hypothesising whether there's reason to believe things would be different long term, and discussing what people's longer term experiences actually are. Everyone has to make up their own mind on this, but my personal take on it is while I'm still making progress using higher rep training, I'll stick with it.

[This paper that @swole troll posted earlier in this thread and quoted strength related conclusions from does actually also look at size effects. I hadn't seen this study before and it does potentially provide additional information. Looking at it quickly I'll be honest that I've yet to get my head around the numbers presented, since there doesn't appear to be simple before/after data. The arm size data in the abstract also suggests that a number of people got smaller muscles from training!]

Finally let's move onto the volume argument. The 7x3 vs 3x10 paper I linked to above was deliberately set up to try to match volume (sets x reps x weight) between the two groups - that's why it wasn't say 3x3 vs 3x10. This is because it is thought that volume is a significant factor in determining hypertrophy (more volume = more growth) which they therefore wanted to control for. Have a read of the paper for more discussion on this. Eric Helms refers to exactly the same principle in the video that @swole troll posted above. (The video also raises the issue of non-muscle fibre related growth but that's a whole other debate!)

A crucial idea that comes out of the 7x3 vs 3x10 is that whilst you can get the same growth doing lots of low rep sets, it takes a lot longer. It is also likely to be more fatiguing for the CNS (which could limit training frequency), and there is also the injury risk argument. Most would also typically do more than 3 sets if they were doing higher rep sets, meaning that greater volume would be achieved.

A related piece of evidence for the volume argument is the following meta-analysis, which looked at total sets per week and provides evidence that broadly more sets is better:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Schoenfeld/publication/305455324_Dose-response_relationship_between_weekly_resistance_training_volume_and_increases_in_muscle_mass_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/57921c1d08ae33e89f74ef0c.pdf

And for the really keen here is a letter challenging it, and the original author's reply (backing up their original position):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paulo_Gentil/publication/309673355_Reliability_of_meta-analyses_to_evaluate_resistance_training_programmes/links/581c96d308aea429b291d976.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Schoenfeld/publication/309642510_The_dose-response_relationship_between_resistance_training_volume_and_muscle_hypertrophy_are_there_really_still_any_doubts/links/581b369b08aeccc08aea44cc.pdf

Now I am absolutely NOT saying that volume is the only thing that matters, or that the evidence suggests that it is. There are a HUGE number of inter-related factors here, that I'd suggest no-one fully understands. I hope I've managed to prove there is some evidence base and logic behind my earlier comments in this thread though.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> lastly why in the world would you want size only anyway? if you could somehow magically only get bigger one way or you could get just as big plus stronger another why would you opt for the former?


 This is perhaps worth responding to directly.

Any training that increases muscle fibre size increases strength across all rep ranges, but it does not optimally improve 1RM strength as it doesn't improve the neurological aspects that also contribute to 1RM performance. It is 1RM strength that I have zero interest in, but I do appreciate having more strength for the repeated lifts more relevant to day-to-day life.


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

@Ultrasonic how do you train? from noob to now just curiosity really. how big and strong have you got from working in higher rep ranges?


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

your post whilst being very in depth has still essentially echoed what ive said all along

'total tonnage progression is all that matters in either endeavor'

whether you do sets of 3 or sets of 15 provided the reps or weight lifted is going up you are progressing, you are building muscle and you are building strength

no matter how you break it down if you are lifting more weight than the last session youve adapted to the previous stimulus and gotten bigger and stronger whether you like it or not

find me one person that benches 140kg for sets of 8 with a small chest, equally try find someone that benches 160kg for sets of 3 with a small chest

you wont, regardless of their goal both will gain size and strength as a byproduct of the other

and with all that said the guy working with sets of 3 wont be doing it year round, even powerlifters periodize their training to allow CNS fatigue to dissipate, offer new stimulus and to allow the joints to recover

i see no good reason why bodybuilders should stick to lower intensities and powerlifters to higher intensities, both will benefit from a mixture for the reasons i listed above and both will gain size and strength in either range irrelevant of their goals

(you can in some circumstances gain a small amount of strength without muscle in very specific phases but this will be short lived neural adaptations and form tweaks as you mentioned, this cannot be sustained for any lengthy amount of time)

EDIT - @Ultrasonic sorry i forgot to quote you


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

literally watching videos on the tube of you and literally again it saying if you want size and bodybuilders physique work within 8-15 reps and for powerlifting and strength 3-5.

so with that being said if there is minimal difference between rep ranges why is it so out there about the rep ranges mattering? just normal bro science bs?


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

thanks again for the explanations @swole troll @Ultrasonic


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

richengineer said:


> literally watching videos on the tube of you and literally again it saying if you want size and bodybuilders physique work within 8-15 reps and for powerlifting and strength 3-5.
> 
> so with that being said if there is minimal difference between rep ranges why is it so out there about the rep ranges mattering? just normal bro science bs?


 watch the video i linked

not some gym shark that weighs 70kg and drinks pre workout for a calf session


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

swole troll said:


> your post whilst being very in depth has still essentially echoed what ive said all along
> 
> 'total tonnage progression is all that matters in either endeavor'
> 
> whether you do sets of 3 or sets of 15 provided the reps or weight lifted is going up you are progressing, you are building muscle and you are building strength


 I don't disagree with any of that. We may have got our wires crossed somewhere. I posted a suggestion to increase from 5 rep sets to a minimum of 8, which you appeared to be disagreeing with by posting a study advocating lower rep sets for strength gains and advocating Madcows. There was then definitely some confusion over the strength/size relationship that hopefully I've now cleared up.

Anyway, rich isn't just interested in size so it's somewhat moot  .


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

richengineer said:


> literally watching videos on the tube of you and literally again it saying if you want size and bodybuilders physique work within 8-15 reps and for powerlifting and strength 3-5.
> 
> so with that being said if there is minimal difference between rep ranges why is it so out there about the rep ranges mattering? just normal bro science bs?


 As I tried to explain above there are reasons for powerlifters to focus on lower rep sets and for people interested in size to do more high rep work. What is taking longer to change are people who hold views that low reps is only for strength and that higher reps is only for size.

Where research has moved on recently is in the area of quite how high rep you can go whilst still stimulating good growth.


----------



## richengineer (Oct 9, 2013)

cheers guys cleared some stuff up for me


----------

