# Best rep range for growth...



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Which is better using the same weight...?

4 x 10

or

1x 15

1x 10

1x 8

1 x 7


----------



## Stephen9069 (Dec 11, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Which is better using the same weight...?
> 
> 4 x 10
> 
> ...


they both work as long as there's progressive overload


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Personally I'd attempt 4 x 10, with the last set taken to failure - if I didn't complete all 10 reps, keep the weight the same next time; if I could, increase weight next workout.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

At the same weight 4x10 without question (it's much higher volume than the other options).

But no one would use the same weight for all of those rep. ranges...

Why are you asking? You're hardly a newbie and have clearly figured out what works!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ah, just realised I'd misread the OP! I read it as 4x10 or 1x15 or 1x10... Doh!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

What I do is sets across (4x10), but if the 1x15 etc scheme is going to failure on each set then I don't think anyone can clearly say whats best to be honest. Interesting question.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

I think it varies person to person. I seem to be making good progress with my PPL routine following 3x8 compounds and 3x12 isolations, if I have anything left after the last set ill go to failure, then up the weight next time.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah, just realised I'd misread the OP! I read it as 4x10 or 1x15 or 1x10... Doh!


my quoting is a bit messed up so bear with me.

I'll explain better my routine today which may help.

Incline press.

Warm up 20kg dumbells x 25reps

i'm now warm in the joints and ready to rock n roll with the 42.5's.

Set one I go for as many as I can, I'm sure I've done 18 in the past but my shoulders have been playing up the last 3months hence higher reps. So I did 15reps which there was maxed. Gun to head I'd probably drop the dumbell on my face for 16!!

set two, feels like I've done a workout but manage 10, really hard going but going for 11 it ain't moving.

Set three, there's not much left so it's 8(lucky I managed 8!!)

set four, I'm fooked but manage 7 reps. I'd probably be able to do 3 further sets of 7 or so but it doesn't feel productive.

I then move onto dips and do similar rep range with weights added to bodyweight.

If I did 4x10 then obviously I'd be holding back on set one n two but three n four would be tough.

The total volume is the same.

Another interesting thing to add in is the ONE SET workout would be similar to my 15 rep set and the next 3 sets are worthless as I've broken down the muscle fibres?


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ross1991 said:


> I think it varies person to person. I seem to be making good progress with my PPL routine following 3x8 compounds and 3x12 isolations, if I have anything left after the last set ill go to failure, then up the weight next time.


Or it could vary dependant upon ones experience/training level? I know for sure I couldn't push like I do now when I was 15-17years old(I'm 38 now).


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> my quoting is a bit messed up so bear with me.
> 
> I'll explain better my routine today which may help.
> 
> ...


i think you are doing the best approach, as you've utilised max effort. Sometimes I don't count reps, when it hurts I stop. I don't always approach my sets like this as it is overkill

Don't think this approach is for a beginner, maybe not intermediate either, as their idea of enough is not usually enough.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Dark sim said:


> i think you are doing the best approach, as you've utilised max effort. Sometimes I don't count reps, when it hurts I stop. I don't always approach my sets like this as it is overkill
> 
> Don't think this approach is for a beginner, maybe not intermediate either, as their idea of enough is not usually enough.


Do you think that the sets after the first set are a waste of time since I'm not hitting the same or higher reps in the given set or do you think that the first heavy set breaks down say 50% of the muscle fibres, next set say an additional 15%, next set additional 8% and final set an additional 4%(figures obviously random)?

So if we guess that the optimum training routine for growth, one is aiming for perhaps 75-85% muscle fibre breakdown per body part per week....saying that, everyone's recovery/repair/growth would be quite different depending upon genetics/diet and obviously AAS use.

I think think I should carry on obliviously rather than over think it!! Haha.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I very much doubt the extra sets are a waste of time. Firstly from the personal experience that more volume = more growth. Secondly, from a more scientific angle it's not just about breaking down fibres. The build-up of metabolic by-products and an increased pump are also factors in hypertrophy (more info. that you almost certainly want here).


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Do you think that the sets after the first set are a waste of time since I'm not hitting the same or higher reps in the given set or do you think that the first heavy set breaks down say 50% of the muscle fibres, next set say an additional 15%, next set additional 8% and final set an additional 4%(figures obviously random)?
> 
> So if we guess that the optimum training routine for growth, one is aiming for perhaps 75-85% muscle fibre breakdown per body part per week....saying that, everyone's recovery/repair/growth would be quite different depending upon genetics/diet and obviously AAS use.
> 
> I think think I should carry on obliviously rather than over think it!! Haha.


i wouldn't even begin to contemplate % of muscle fibre breakdown lol. It is another style of training where max effort is used, like a drop set, or forced reps. But I don't think it is healthy to approach every set with that mentality, you would blow out pretty quick, especially leg day. The more experienced one is the better.they are at understanding their body. Some people just cheat themselves though. Ive seen some people's effort level and it explains their lack of results. I say carry on training instinctively.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> i wouldn't even begin to contemplate % of muscle fibre breakdown lol. It is another style of training where max effort is used, like a drop set, or forced reps. But I don't think it is healthy to approach every set with that mentality, you would blow out pretty quick, especially leg day. The more experienced one is the better.they are at understanding their body. Some people just cheat themselves though. Ive seen some people's effort level and it explains their lack of results. I say carry on training instinctively.


Would I be right to think you probably would think the original 4 set approach would be better than a single 1x15 (or whatever)?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

It all boils down to muscle fibers and how you stress them.

Type 1- Slow twitch = Resistant to fatigue with the lowest potential for growth.

Type2- 2a and 2x Fast twitch = The most potential for growth but fatigue quickly. These are the fibers we concentrate on for maximum growth/hypertrophy

A simple way to look at it is training in the 4 - 6 rep range mainly hits Type 2x fibers, 10 - 12 reps hits Type 2a, and 30 - 40+ reps hits Type 1 fibers.

* Progressive tension overload

* Muscle damage

* Cellular fatigue

Progressive overload refers to progressively increasing tension levels in the muscle fibers over time. That is, lifting progressively heavier and heavier weights in the given rep range.

Muscle damage refers to just that-actual damage caused to the muscle fibers by high levels of tension. This damage necessitates repair, and if the body is provided with proper nutrition and rest, it will grow the fibers to better deal with future stimuli.

Cellular fatigue refers to pushing muscle fibers to their metabolic limits through the repetition of actions to muscular failure.

As a natural lifter I keep away from high reps which promotes cellar fatigue which hampers hypertrophy a posh word for growth, Heavy compounds from say in the six to 12 rep range is optimum for muscular development/growth/hypertrophy. I cant speak for ayone training assisted however I cant think why these rules would change when assisted.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Would I be right to think you probably would think the original 4 set approach would be better than a single 1x15 (or whatever)?


The original set being 4x10? The other being 4 sets of whatever managed?

I don't think one is better than the other. The rep range of both sets is still within a typical hypertrophy range, providing enough stimulus (effort) was provided to breakdown the muscle fibres.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> The original set being 4x10? The other being 4 sets of whatever managed?
> 
> I don't think one is better than the other. The rep range of both sets is still within a typical hypertrophy range, providing enough stimulus (effort) was provided to breakdown the muscle fibres.


I was referring to this question:



> Do you think that the sets after the first set are a waste of time since I'm not hitting the same or higher reps in the given set


Which I took to mean doing 1x15 rather than 1x15 followed by the other three sets of decreasing reps. My guess is you'd agree with me that 4 sets is likely to be better than one, right?


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Yes, I don't think you can achieve enough fibre damage with 1 straight set.


----------



## lew007 (Nov 7, 2003)

I have always decreased reps as I worked up the weight I.e warm up 20+ reps down to a set at 12, 10, 8, 6 and sometimes 3.

When I look at my workouts I can see that the most total weight moved in a set is usually my middle one, for example 8 reps at 100k is 800k total, but 3 at 140k is only 420k. Is there any relevance to this?

Seems if I did 3 sets at 100k aiming for 10 reps each time I am shifting a lot more kgs on that exercise. Just not sure if that counts for hypertrophy or just endurance

Lew


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Dark sim said:


> Yes, I don't think you can achieve enough fibre damage with 1 straight set.


Which brings me to Mentzer, Yates etc.

i know they didn't strictly do 1 set as such but more a load of 'warm up sets'.

All constructive replies for sure.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I have always decreased reps as I worked up the weight I.e warm up 20+ reps down to a set at 12, 10, 8, 6 and sometimes 3.
> 
> When I look at my workouts I can see that the most total weight moved in a set is usually my middle one, for example 8 reps at 100k is 800k total, but 3 at 140k is only 420k. Is there any relevance to this?
> 
> Seems if I did 3 sets at 100k aiming for 10 reps each time I am shifting a lot more kgs on that exercise. Just not sure if that counts for hypertrophy or just endurance


If your 8 reps @ 100k is going nowhere near failure (as I suspect is the case) then my guess would be that you'd be better off doing more reps at a higher weight. Usually the view I've heard expressed by people I respect is that sets across is better than pyramiding. I'm not personally aware of any clear evidence to back this up though.

The way to get more total volume when training at heavier weights is to do more sets e.g. 7 set of 3 reps (7x3). The significant downside is that this takes longer.

The following video doesn't directly answer your question but may be on interest if you're new to the idea of volume.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Which brings me to Mentzer, Yates etc.
> 
> i know they didn't strictly do 1 set as such but more a load of 'warm up sets'.
> 
> All constructive replies for sure.


I do find it very interesting and something I need to try. I'm not a sheep in anyway, but I have never seen any competing Bodybuilders, at any level, since Dorian, train like this and I do wonder why...?

To add to this, the other end of the scale you had Surge Nubret, who would do much lighter weights but 40-50+ sets, with little rest.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> Which brings me to Mentzer, Yates etc.
> 
> i know they didn't strictly do 1 set as such but more a load of 'warm up sets'.
> 
> All constructive replies for sure.


If you look at the muscle fiber post I submitted earlier you will find that Dorian's approach (which I'm a great believer in) hits the majority of the fibers in the right rep ranges for concentrating on the growth stimuli, intensity within the correct volume/rep range.

High volume is for marathon runners short intense bursts are for sprinters. Ask yourself who carries the most muscle mass?

Horses for courses.....


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Dark sim said:


> I do find it very interesting and something I need to try. I'm not a sheep in anyway, but I have never seen any competing Bodybuilders, at any level, since Dorian, train like this and I do wonder why...?
> 
> To add to this, the other end of the scale you had Surge Nubret, who would do much lighter weights but 40-50+ sets, with little rest.


Perhaps those we tend to know(more famous ones) switched their training styles around midway through their training career which created the opposite twitch fibres growth thus creating even more mass.

This is where I'm interested because I've always trained heavy, often with 1RM sets and surfing the waves of potential injury hence me looking at new styles of training although I'm reluctant to do high rep sets because I lose muscle as it seems does natty-Stevo. My usual rep range is 4-8reps but build up and down like pyramid.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Perhaps those we tend to know(more famous ones) switched their training styles around midway through their training career which created the opposite twitch fibres growth thus creating even more mass.
> 
> This is where I'm interested because I've always trained heavy, often with 1RM sets and surfing the waves of potential injury hence me looking at new styles of training although I'm reluctant to do high rep sets because I lose muscle as it seems does natty-Stevo. My usual rep range is 4-8reps but build up and down like pyramid.


Perhaps a Surge Nubret style would suit you then, reps are still within 4-12 range, just a ridiculous amount of sets.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Natty Steve'o said:


> If you look at the muscle fiber post I submitted earlier you will find that Dorian's approach (which I'm a great believer in) hits the majority of the fibers in the right rep ranges for concentrating on the growth stimuli, intensity within the correct volume/rep range.
> 
> High volume is for marathon runners short intense bursts are for sprinters. Ask yourself who carries the most muscle mass?
> 
> Horses for courses.....


yo, fellow natty, I read your post and whilst informative, it provided little to no information to me as I already knew what you wrote, not dismissing it because others could learn a lot from it. Hope this doesn't come across wrongly and I do appreciate your contribution for sure....that goes for everyone who's replied so far.

I think that me and you train in a very similar way, it could turn out to be the most effective way to train natty or even AAS users too but I'm trying to be open minded as I've trained a long time and my body knows it!! Haha.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Dark sim said:


> Perhaps a Surge Nubret style would suit you then, reps are still within 4-12 range, just a ridiculous amount of sets.


It might, but I really don't think my old body could take it.

Ive found that lately I'm only doing around 6 sets of squats whereas I always did around 10 sets.

I think old age is catching me up!! Haha.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

My rep range is general no lower than 6 reps and no higher than 12 These are always within progressive overload. Once in a blue moon I might do lighter sets of 20+ to hit slow twitch fibers which have very little to no potential for substantial growth.

For me going from six through to twelve reps in progressive overload hits the fibers whth the most potential for growth, the key being overload. I find the reps you struggle with while keeping good form are the reps which trigger growth.

However I always hit higher reps for abs to minimize to much thickness in the abdominal's 3 x 20


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

> I do find it very interesting and something I need to try. I'm not a sheep in anyway, but I have never seen any competing Bodybuilders, at any level, since Dorian, train like this and I do wonder why...?
> 
> To add to this, the other end of the scale you had Surge Nubret, who would do much lighter weights but 40-50+ sets, with little rest.


Most vids of the pro's I've seen normally show them ramping up to one top set to failure. Some then did a back off set in higher rep range. Maybe the only difference is some count their warm up sets as working sets and some do not.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> yo, fellow natty, I read your post and whilst informative, it provided little to no information to me as I already knew what you wrote, not dismissing it because others could learn a lot from it. Hope this doesn't come across wrongly and I do appreciate your contribution for sure....that goes for everyone who's replied so far.
> 
> I think that me and you train in a very similar way, it could turn out to be the most effective way to train natty or even AAS users too but I'm trying to be open minded as I've trained a long time and my body knows it!! Haha.


I know where your coming from. The body does adapt to the way you train. When I feel this happening I change it up. For example I do declines first then incline then flat. If I feel I'm stalling I go flat, incline, decline. Its surprising how the appendages change when you mix it up like this. Changing from DB to BB is also another way to change it up. If you have trained for as long as I have you probably already know this lol


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

FWIW there is growing evidence that high rep range training can be effective in natural trainees, including experienced lifters, provided sets are taken to failure. Part of the idea behind this is that a high proportion of all fibres will have been recruited if failure is reached, not just slow twitch fibres. Some discussion here:

http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/does-light-load-training-build-muscle-in-experienced-lifters/


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I know where your coming from. The body does adapt to the way you train. When I feel this happening I change it up. For example I do declines first then incline then flat. If I feel I'm stalling I go flat, incline, decline. Its surprising how the appendages change when you mix it up like this. Changing from DB to BB is also another way to change it up. If you have trained for as long as I have you probably already know this lol


Haha, we're the same in too many ways although I don't do declines as I do dips as declines fook me up before I'm even into position, and there's no way I can sit up with 80odd kg in my hands so end up chucking the dumbells.

I only use barbell for squats, bent over rows n cleans/shoulder press.


----------



## BTS93 (Sep 5, 2013)

Really enjoying the read on this thread.

A lot of information that newbies like me will for sure find interesting.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> FWIW there is growing evidence that high rep range training can be effective in natural trainees, including experienced lifters, provided sets are taken to failure. Part of the idea behind this is that a high proportion of all fibres will have been recruited if failure is reached, not just slow twitch fibres. Some discussion here:
> 
> http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/does-light-load-training-build-muscle-in-experienced-lifters/


I think that the issue I have with such studies is that they're usually short term thus any change will create change but after a set time it can become negative.

For example, I enjoy cycling but I don't go too often as I obviously get fitter lungs and more bike fit so I then lose muscle if I continue because I'll end up needing to do over 70miles per ride.

For that reason, yeah I cycle my cycling!! Haha.


----------



## BTS93 (Sep 5, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I think that the issue I have with such studies is that they're usually short term thus any change will create change but after a set time it can become negative.
> 
> For example, I enjoy cycling but I don't go too often as I obviously get fitter lungs and more bike fit so I then lose muscle if I continue because I'll end up needing to do over 70miles per ride.
> 
> For that reason, yeah I cycle my cycling!! Haha.


I feel this.

Really wanted to get out on the bike today and bang in some miles - but today is my genuine full day of rest and recovery.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

People often don't realize how important your recovery days are. This is a time for growth where your body repairs/adapts itself bigger and stronger ready for the next physical onslaught.

Stick to the same routine with the same poundage and the same reps you will become stagnant, in limbo as your body has adapted to that workload. Its really this simple.

Obviously you need to give your body the right fuel to sustain these onslaughts.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> It might, but I really don't think my old body could take it.
> 
> Ive found that lately I'm only doing around 6 sets of squats whereas I always did around 10 sets.
> 
> I think old age is catching me up!! Haha.


In what respect, recovery? You could a version of his workouts with slightly less volume, else recovery could be a problem I suspect. As for joint issues, I would of thought this style would help since it is lighter than normal approach. There are some natty advocates for this, when I was reading up.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I think that the issue I have with such studies is that they're usually short term thus any change will create change but after a set time it can become negative.


Agreed - this particular study was 8 weeks long. For me it still tells us two things.

1) If any of us did it for 8 weeks there is a fair chance we'd grow as a result.

2) The old idea of high reps being useless is at least open to question, and probably shouldn't be completely discounted.

I'm relatively inexperienced compared to you but FWIW what I do is train using a mix of 6x4, 4x8 and 4x15. I believe periodising in this way is likely to be beneficial in terms of stimulating different growth mechanisms, reducing liklihood of progression stalling and reducing the liklihood of injury compared to going heavy every time.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

I think the key in the study was going to failure. Otherwise I think training in high rep ranges are limited only recruiting type 1 fibers which have limited scope for growth as they are fundamentally endurance fibers.

The gains seen in the study are the Newb gains you would expect from training them for the first time which will be short lived. Type 1 fibers are designed not to hold bulk as exess weight is not a good thing for endurance athletes, marathon runners for example.

Why do Sh1t loads of reps to go to failure when you can get this buy using a heavier weight.

The wheel has already been invented.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I think the key in the study was going to failure.


Definitely. I stressed that point at the start very deliberately.



> The gains seen in the study are the Newb gains you would expect from training them for the first time which will be short lived.


Even if that's true (and neither of us know if it is or not), it still suggests training in this way may be beneficial if only for a short while. It might be productive in the long run as well. I think you saw this but note that the participants were not new to training, just new to this type of training.

I do think trying to specifically limit training to a single fibre type may be a mistake though. Even if there is greater growth potential for fast twitch fibres there is not zero growth potential for slow twitch fibres. To maximise hypertrophy it would make sense to me to optimise all available routes, if anything even more so for advanced natural lifters getting near their genetic limit.

Just my thoughts. I've not tried this sort of very high rep training, partly because right now I am also interesting in getting stronger and very high rep training is crap for that.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Why do Sh1t loads of reps to go to failure when you can get this buy using a heavier weight.


I forgot to say, one driver for research into this sort of training is the reduced liklihood of injury compared to using heavier weights.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> Definitely. I stressed that point at the start very deliberately.
> 
> Even if that's true (and neither of us know if it is or not), it still suggests training in this way may be beneficial if only for a short while. It might be productive in the long run as well. I think you saw this but note that the participants were not new to training, just new to this type of training.
> 
> ...


Hmm interesting.....I did mention that I do high reps on occasion earlier on in the thread for this very reason, to try and optimize growth in all types of fibers. I may only do two weeks out of 52 max. Which will be split as and when my body might need a rest from the heavy stuff.

I'm almost 100% sure that this will not work for the long term as both types of fast twitch fibers will not be getting activated to their maximum potential. The article you posted has a lot of hypothesis within it.

The goal here is to build muscle which targets these fast twitch fibers Type 2a and 2x . A big muscle is a strong muscle. Type 2x for strength lower reps say 4 -6 reps, Type 2a for hypertrophy 6 - 12 reps. Type1 slow twitch for endurance as high as 30 - 40 reps.

Remember going high reps means you need to go to failure to promote that growth. I cant see this being a very pleasant way to train with the amount of volume needed for this to work.

It will probably burn a shed load of calories though


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I totally agree that high rep training to failure won't be pleasant! But then ultimately no training that gets results really is.

(If you haven't read the article I posted in full it does discuss issues relating to fibre types that you may be interested in. And if you don't know him Brad Schoenfeld is very well respected in this field of research - he does actually know a thing or two about training and so is worth listening to IMHO.)


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

In the short term the approach that would likely work best is the approach least similar to what you've been doing previously - that novelty effect works wonders for a short while. In regards to long term, either approach is ok but I think you do best to periodize reps, relative loading, and intensity over time. Building up to a brief deliberate over-reaching phase over a few months then re-setting and starting again is a good way to go for hypertrophy IMO.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

> In the short term the approach that would likely work best is the approach least similar to what you've been doing previously - that novelty effect works wonders for a short while. In regards to long term, either approach is ok but I think you do best to periodize reps, relative loading, and intensity over time. Building up to a brief deliberate over-reaching phase over a few months then re-setting and starting again is a good way to go for hypertrophy IMO.


Do you think a higher volume when bulking and lower volume higher intensity when cutting would be a good approach then? Would go along with what Lyle says that the priority for muscle retention being keeping same weight on the bar


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Do you think a higher volume when bulking and lower volume higher intensity when cutting would be a good approach then? Would go along with what Lyle says that the priority for muscle retention being keeping same weight on the bar


I'll be very interested in what DTLV has to say on this but from my less experienced viewpoint I don't think it makes sense to change your training when cutting. My logic being I want my body to keep the adaptations that have been generated by the training to date, whereas if I signicantly change what I'm doing this removes some of the training stimulus for it to do this.

I'm not sure about others but personally I find strength suffers more than my ability to do lighter (higher volume) work when cutting. Right now I'm cutting and my toughest workout by far is when I do 4x4 squats followed by 3x4 deadlifts. I am just managing to keep doing this with the weight I was before I started cutting (despite a reduction is body weight making the true weight I'm moving a little smaller), but it's tough! 8 and 15 rep squats I'm adding 0.5 kg to the bar each session OK. Now it might be that I was closer to my true limit for the heaviest sets I guess, but I think there is more to it.


----------



## nbfootball65 (Nov 18, 2014)

I like to do 5 sets of 5-8 reps, Last set to failure. And weight where I can every week. For me this is the best


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

I've changed my thinking recently, although not in a position to try it out just yet. But I do think that the weight is less relevant than I used to.

Now if you take the 42.5kg incline press as an example where you can push 16 out to failure. I think you'd be better pushing out 12... but a better quality 12 than if you were doing the 16 (probably even with a lighter weight of say 35kg). So these 12 are then taking you closer to failure than they usually would (slower, deeper, more deliberate).

You then take a much shorter break than you would for strength training, and even engage the pecs while resting by tensing.

The main thing though as opposed to strength training is realising that you're not training the movement, but working the muscles. So your concentration has to be on activating the right muscles and using an optimal movement rather than concentration on just pushing the weight from a to b


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

For longevity of training and injury risk reduction, id be looking more at the 15 to 20 rep range for your working sets.

Training smarter using the most effective exercises for each muscle group offers the most benefits. IMO incline work if for chest is a waste of time as is dips for chest / Tri work. The risk v reward on these types of exercises simply make them not worth it.

20kg can be made to feel like 50kg when correct form, isolation and rep ranges are used. I would do a bit or research into the Bio mechanics of skeletal muscle including fibre direction and origin. Theres a lot of time waste in the gym by many (me included) in the past doing less than optimal exercises.

im an advocate of no less than 12 reps with warm ups of up to 50 reps per set decreasing as the weight increases.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> IMO incline work if for chest is a waste of time as is dips for chest / Tri work. The risk v reward on these types of exercises simply make them not worth it.


What is the risk from chest dips? I do these quite often as I find them very effective but I'd not considered them risky?


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> What is the risk from chest dips? I do these quite often as I find them very effective but I'd not considered them risky?


i would say theyre less than optimal for chest or tri development as they place the shoulders in a vulnerable position and dont isolate either chest or Tri's effectively.

Done them for many a year myself weighted also. Risk v reward they're not worth the hassle IMO. Neither is flat bench, deadlifts, chin ups for most as they dont do them correctly.

the function of the pec is to draw the arm across the body from origin to insertion. Decline dumbell press is far more effective with less risk of injury.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> i would say theyre less than optimal for chest or tri development as they place the shoulders in a vulnerable position and dont isolate either chest or Tri's effectively.
> 
> Done them for many a year myself weighted also. Risk v reward they're not worth the hassle IMO. Neither is flat bench, deadlifts, chin ups for most as they dont do them correctly.
> 
> the function of the pec is to draw the arm across the body from origin to insertion. Decline dumbell press is far more effective with less risk of injury.


Interesting. The two main chest exercises I do are decline dumbell press and chest dips, and I find both target the chest well. In my head I'd always thought of chest dips as placing the body in a similar geometry to decline presses, although there is less freedom to bring the upper arm inwards than with dumbells. I'd also thought chest dips put the shoulders in a less vulnerable position than e.g. flat bench pressing? But maybe I should consider doing more decline dumbell presses and fewer chest dips...

Must admit that chin-ups are one of my main exercises too!


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Interesting. The two main chest exercises I do are decline dumbell press and chest dips, and I find both target the chest well. In my head I'd always thought of chest dips as placing the body in a similar geometry to decline presses, although there is less freedom to bring the upper arm inwards than with dumbells. I'd also thought chest dips put the shoulders in a less vulnerable position than e.g. flat bench pressing? But maybe I should consider doing more decline dumbell presses and fewer chest dips...
> 
> Must admit that chin-ups are one of my main exercises too!


i like dips. I also like chin ups. I probably like the idea of doing them more than the effetiveness. Some can do them correctly, most cant

If you hold your arm out to the side and hold your pec muscle with your other hand, draw your arm towards your chest below the clavicle line and feel your pec contract. Do the same with the arm drawing towards your lower chest. Anything below the clavicle give a strong contraction with the strongest contraction when you emulate a decline postion.

Do the same with your arm above the clavicle line as if to emulate an incline press. Feel the difference? The pec hardly contracts at all. To me that demonstrates that incline work is mostly shoulders. 95% of your pec muscle is below this line. A muscle works from origin to insertion and in the exact opposite direction of the force applied along the resistance curve of the muscle function.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> If you hold your arm out to the side and hold your pec muscle with your other hand, draw your arm towards your chest below the clavicle line and feel your pec contract. Do the same with the arm drawing towards your lower chest. Anything below the clavicle give a strong contraction with the strongest contraction when you emulate a decline postion.
> 
> Do the same with your arm above the clavicle line as if to emulate an incline press. Feel the difference? The pec hardly contracts at all. To me that demonstrates that incline work is mostly shoulders. 95% of your pec muscle is below this line. A muscle works from origin to insertion and in the exact opposite direction of the force applied along the resistance curve of the muscle function.


LOL! I've posted similar things for others many times, I totally agree


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> LOL! I've posted similar things for others many times, I totally agree


lol, sorry if im preaching to the converted buddy!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> lol, sorry if im preaching to the converted buddy!


It's nice to see someone with a similar view  . Not as elegant as your post, but for amusement this is something I posted recently:



> Your pecs act to bring your upper arm (humerus) down and across the chest. If you don't bring the dumbbells together at the top you are unecessarily limiting the range of motion for the pec, and it won't reach the peak contraction that it could. I think you can see what I mean by just doing the following when sitting in a chair. Hold one arm out in front of you in the position where you end your current press. Now place your other hand on the pec on the side of the outstretched arm, and then bring the first arm closer to mid-line. You will feel the pec contract as you do this. For me dumbbells offer an advantage over barbbells precisely because they offer this greater range of motion for the pec, allowing a fuller contraction.
> 
> ...
> 
> If anyone does try my arm out in front of you test, try bringing the outstretched arm down after bringing it in as well, into the position it would be for a decline press. This causes the chest to contract even further, which is why I do db presses in the decline position.


I should perhaps have said above that the only chest exercises I currently do are decline dumbbell presses and chest dips. I was interested in your post as you were coming from a similar place to me, but were against chest dips. As I said, for me they seem to use a similar geometry to a decline press (barbell rather than dumbbell though I guess). What I currently do is use decline dumbell presses for higher rep work, and weighted chest dips for low reps (as low as 4 rep sets sometimes). The reason I do it this way is it's harder to get heavier dumbbell into position, and actually I thought it was probably safer for my shoulders to do dips. I certainly feel as if I'm putting more stress on my shoulders if I try to do heavier DB presses rather than dips.


----------



## DC1 (May 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's nice to see someone with a similar view  . Not as elegant as your post, but for amusement this is something I posted recently:
> 
> I should perhaps have said above that the only chest exercises I currently do are decline dumbbell presses and chest dips. I was interested in your post as you were coming from a similar place to me, but were against chest dips. As I said, for me they seem to use a similar geometry to a decline press (barbell rather than dumbbell though I guess). What I currently do is use decline dumbell presses for higher rep work, and weighted chest dips for low reps (as low as 4 rep sets sometimes). The reason I do it this way is it's harder to get heavier dumbbell into position, and actually I thought it was probably safer for my shoulders to do dips. I certainly feel as if I'm putting more stress on my shoulders if I try to do heavier DB presses rather than dips.


Agreed. One of the most difficult things about decline press is manoeuvring the dumbells into position.

If your form is good during dips then they will be effective to a degree. My point was that many have very poor form and positioning when doing dips. Too much shoulders, too much rotation on the rotor cuff, incorrect forearm and body positioning.

I do decline press and decline cables. Dumbell press is also effective but flyes are less than optimal.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

BrahmaBull said:


> Do you think a higher volume when bulking and lower volume higher intensity when cutting would be a good approach then? Would go along with what Lyle says that the priority for muscle retention being keeping same weight on the bar


I'm honestly not sure tbh. I think in general one thing that is vital when cutting is that the body is kept as receptive as possible to muscle hypertrophy, so my theory is that a higher frequency when cutting is perhaps more valuable than a lower frequency due to the limited time frame (30-48hrs depending on training experience) for a muscle to be primed to grow after a session - during that time the muscle is primed more towards anabolism than catabolism, so when you have an increased catabolic effect from limited energy intake permanently lurking in the background you want a muscle to be in that post-training 'more likely to be hypertrophic than catabolic' state as much as possible. So so long as training intensity is high, whether through a program based primarily on maintaining high mechanical stress/strength or metabolic stress/TUT/set or rep volume, then all is good.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I'm honestly not sure tbh. I think in general one thing that is vital when cutting is that the body is kept as receptive as possible to muscle hypertrophy, so my theory is that a higher frequency when cutting is perhaps more valuable than a lower frequency due to the limited time frame (30-48hrs depending on training experience) for a muscle to be primed to grow after a session - during that time the muscle is primed more towards anabolism than catabolism, so when you have an increased catabolic effect from limited energy intake permanently lurking in the background you want a muscle to be in that post-training 'more likely to be hypertrophic than catabolic' state as much as possible. So so long as training intensity is high, whether through a program based primarily on maintaining high mechanical stress/strength or metabolic stress/TUT/set or rep volume, then all is good.


Interesting POV re training frequency when cutting. I've never thought of that before but I see your logic.


----------



## Narcissus (Nov 18, 2012)

for me work best: heavy heavy weight and low reps (2,3,4,5), also using rest pause


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ultrasonic said:


> Interesting POV re training frequency when cutting. I've never thought of that before but I see your logic.


From anecdotal experience this way of going at cutting seems to work well for me... I also like using more exercise as an alternate to dropping kcals during a cut (sometimes I drop kcals, sometimes I just increase kcals burned - this is useful at the lean end of a cut when you start to risk metabolism slowing down and really feeling hungry/shitty) and when using exercise this way I'd rather add resistance training than add cardio - both burn calories, but while cardio is always less likely to have an additional anabolic effect, even HIIT, resistance training is always going to help the anabolic balance (unless done with almost zero effort of course).


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

Studies actually show if the ammount of work done is the same then there is the exact same ammount of muslce growth such as 2 groups were put on the same workouts vroup 1 lifted heavy 3-6 reps and group 2 did 8-12 reps what they found was the same ammount of muscle growth was the same...
However group 1 took 2 hours to complete the session and group2 took 45 minuits although muscle growth was the same group 1's strength increases were way larger than group2

To add to this going till failiure has been shown to actually be less effective than going good form stopping before failiure 
Going to failiure dors not cause any more motor neurons to be activated and it actually slows down recovery signifcantly putting people into an over trained state much faster. 
P.s there is such thing as over training for those that believe they can go forever


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> To add to this going till failiure has been shown to actually be less effective than going good form stopping before failiure Going to failiure dors not cause any more motor neurons to be activated and it actually slows down recovery signifcantly putting people into an over trained state much faster.


Could you post a link to a study or studies to support that statement please? It's not something I've heard, and I'd be interested to know the details of the study. Thanks.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Studies actually show if the ammount of work done is the same then there is the exact same ammount of muslce growth such as 2 groups were put on the same workouts vroup 1 lifted heavy 3-6 reps and group 2 did 8-12 reps what they found was the same ammount of muscle growth was the same... However group 1 took 2 hours to complete the session and group2 took 45 minuits although muscle growth was the same group 1's strength increases were way larger than group2


Actually, do you have a link to this study too? The conclusions sound similar to this study, but I've not come across the one you are talking about. Thanks.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> Actually, do you have a link to this study too? The conclusions sound similar to this study, but I've not come across the one you are talking about. Thanks.


I dont but im sure you can locate it its by the guy who runs lookgoodnaked. Com


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I dont but im sure you can locate it its by the guy who runs lookgoodnaked. Com


I think you were talking about the study I just gave a link to then, you'd just got the details a bit wrong. Brad Schoenfeld runs the website you mentioned and is first author on the paper I referred to. It compares 7x3 with 3x10 for info.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

How about the failure work @teenphysique? I'm sure you're remembering a real study but I'd really want to know the details. The statement you made is a very bold one so I'd want to see its basis before judging whether it should affect how I or others train.

FWIW what I currently normally do is go to failure on the final set for a body part. I do think going to failure on every set is likely to be a bad idea (mostly as it tends to limit volume), but equally I think going to failure definitely has value. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> How about the failure work @teenphysique? I'm sure you're remembering a real study but I'd really want to know the details. The statement you made is a very bold one so I'd want to see its basis before judging whether it should affect how I or others train.
> 
> FWIW what I currently normally do is go to failure on the final set for a body part. I do think going to failure on every set is likely to be a bad idea (mostly as it tends to limit volume), but equally I think going to failure definitely has value. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.


Its some ive gathered over a while mate i listen to superhuman radio with doctor jiovahni i think its spelt and the doctor that runs lookgoodnaked


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> How about the failure work @teenphysique? I'm sure you're remembering a real study but I'd really want to know the details. The statement you made is a very bold one so I'd want to see its basis before judging whether it should affect how I or others train.
> 
> FWIW what I currently normally do is go to failure on the final set for a body part. I do think going to failure on every set is likely to be a bad idea (mostly as it tends to limit volume), but equally I think going to failure definitely has value. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.


Going to failiure does have a value if your doing vo2 max or metabolic fatigue training but motor nuerons activated remain the same meaning muscle stimulation is no different all you do is push your body to take longer to recover


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Its some ive gathered over a while mate i listen to superhuman radio with doctor jiovahni i think its spelt and the doctor that runs lookgoodnaked


As above, the guy that runs lookgoodnaked is Dr Brad Schoenfeld. He is definitely an advocate of training to failure under some circumstances though. I posted a link to this earlier in the thread, but the study he describes here is an example.

If you ever remember or come across the details of the study you mentioned before I'd be interested, but for now I'd suggest you don't completely avoid training to failure. Never doing so is likely to lead to you not pushing yourself hard enough in the gym IMHO, and reaching failure likely does have further benefits too.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> As above, the guy that runs lookgoodnaked is Dr Brad Schoenfeld. He is definitely an advocate of training to failure under some circumstances though. I posted a link to this earlier in the thread, but the study he describes here is an example.
> 
> If you ever remember or come across the details of the study you mentioned before I'd be interested, but for now I'd suggest you don't completely avoid training to failure. Never doing so is likely to lead to you not pushing yourself hard enough in the gym IMHO, and reaching failure likely does have further benefits too.


He is the one where i read both studies i forgot his name and i losten to the radiowhere he appears occasionaly
Go to superhumanradio and scroll through the posted sessoions you will be able to find ones where he gyest appears its a great radio station


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Sorry, missed this reply earlier...



> Going to failiure does have a value if your doing vo2 max


I doubt going to failure during a heavy set does much if anything to improve vo2 max. Just possibly for something like squats but not for e.g. bicep curls.



> or metabolic fatigue training


Metabolic byproducts from reaching failure are certainly hypothesised to cause hypertrophy - this is one reason going to failure is likely to be of benefit. As you are apparently a fan of Brad Schoenfeld I suggest you take the time to read the following paper of his:

http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/articles/mechanisms_of_muscle_hypertrophy.pdf



> but motor nuerons activated remain the same meaning muscle stimulation is no different


I am sceptical that this is true, as it is definitely contrary to the common view, but I have not seen a study to show this one way or the other (and I must admit I'm not sure how you could test it - total activation yes, but not whether different fibres were being recruited or not).

What i suspect Brad said in the interview you heard is to not overuse training to failure, but not that it should never be done. This was his view when he wrote his mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy paper anyway.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> Sorry, missed this reply earlier...
> 
> I doubt going to failure during a heavy set does much if anything to improve vo2 max. Just possibly for something like squats but not for e.g. bicep curls.
> 
> ...


In relation to going to failiure you will be amazed at how many people have excelled in strength switching to a programme where they dont hit failiure .

In 3 weeks i took my bench 1 rep max up 14kg an guess what nob of it was going to failiute i did a loading pattern every other day and it worked i was so surprised !!!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> In relation to going to failiure you will be amazed at how many people have excelled in strength switching to a programme where they dont hit failiure . In 3 weeks i took my bench 1 rep max up 14kg an guess what nob of it was going to failiute i did a loading pattern every other day and it worked i was so surprised !!!


This thread is about size not strength.

I've just remembered that Brad Schoenfeld was involved in a study showing that taking a low load set to failure did not lead to as much muscle fibre recruitment as taking a heavy load to failure, was that possibly what you were remembering above?


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> This thread is about size not strength.
> 
> I've just remembered that Brad Schoenfeld was involved in a study showing that taking a low load set to failure did not lead to as much muscle fibre recruitment as taking a heavy load to failure, was that possibly what you were remembering above?


But we all know or should know that strength pre-ceeds size so...


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> But we all know or should know that strength pre-ceeds size so...


No. If any part of the interview you are remembering may have been relating to avoiding failure during strength training then that is a COMPLETELY different discussion.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> No. If any part of the interview you are remembering may have been relating to avoiding failure during strength training then that is a COMPLETELY different discussion.


Theres more than 1 interview and some of them arent always studies from schoenfield , my coach Rob regish mentioned a few of these studies .


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Theres more than 1 interview and some of them arent always studies from schoenfield , my Rob regish mentioned a few of these studies .


I strongly suspect you are either talking from a strength training respective, or miss-remembering someone who was. Without providing us with the actual evidence, or even someone respected talking about it, this is going nowhere I'm afraid.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> I strongly suspect you are either talking from a strength training respective, or miss-remembering someone who was. Without providing us with the actual evidence, or even someone respected talking about it, this is going nowhere I'm afraid.


Ill see if i cant find the article about motor neuron activation


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Ill see if i cant find the article about motor neuron activation


In case it helps you find it I'll mention that what would more normally be talked about is motor unit recruitment.


----------



## teenphysique (Jul 1, 2014)

> I strongly suspect you are either talking from a strength training respective, or miss-remembering someone who was. Without providing us with the actual evidence, or even someone respected talking about it, this is going nowhere I'm afraid.


Ill see if i cant find the article about motor neuron activation

Heres the video about rep ranges i wathced this and then found a page on his website but i think this has it in not sure


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm just about to train but I'll have a look at the video later, thanks.


----------



## lew007 (Nov 7, 2003)

Whoever it was who mentioned 7x3 the other day- what kinda rest between sets would you recommend?

I associate low reps with strength so assumed long rest. But for growth maybe short rest for intensity is better?

Thoughts please??


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

This topic is like a neverending love story.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Whoever it was who mentioned 7x3 the other day- what kinda rest between sets would you recommend?
> 
> I associate low reps with strength so assumed long rest. But for growth maybe short rest for intensity is better?
> 
> Thoughts please??


The study used 3 minute rests for 7x3 and 90s rests for 3x10. The idea was to compare typical strength based training based on maximising mechanical tension, to more typical bodybuilding training focusing on metabolic stress. Essentiallly rest periods for strength training need to be long enough to allow you to do the next set.

The study always gets represented as purely a 7x3 vs 3x10 comparison (and I'm guilty of this too), but there is another significant difference as well. Both groups trained three days per week, but the 7x3 group followed a whole body routine each workout whilst the 3x10 group followed a type of body part split. The 7x3 group did one leg, one back and one chest exercise per workout, whereas the 3x10 group did 3 different chest exercises one day, 3 back exercises the next and 3 leg exercises on the last day. Full details are in the paper here.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

@teenphysique I've watched the video you suggested (which I'll embed below in case anyone is curious). At about 4 minutes in Brad says what I'd expected - too much going to failure is a bad thing, but he doesn't say don't do it. As I've said already there are a number of studies that Brad himself has carried out using training to failure (some of which I've posted links to in this thread). Do read his Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy paper as it gives far more information that Brad ever will in interviews like this. Brad is an excellent guy to listen to BTW. He's been involved in many excellent studies and research reviews.

Here's the video, although the interviewer is pretty irritating!


----------



## zyphy (Jun 23, 2014)

> i would say theyre less than optimal for chest or tri development as they place the shoulders in a vulnerable position and dont isolate either chest or Tri's effectively.
> 
> Done them for many a year myself weighted also. Risk v reward they're not worth the hassle IMO. Neither is flat bench, deadlifts, chin ups for most as they dont do them correctly.
> 
> the function of the pec is to draw the arm across the body from origin to insertion. Decline dumbell press is far more effective with less risk of injury.


i find dips irritate my front delts a lot, dont get this issue with flat bench, incline etc. weird


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

using 100kg as the example load each scenario comes to 4000kg in volume. Assuming rest periods are the same you could expect roughly the same hypertrophy from both scenarios.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> using 100kg as the example load each scenario comes to 4000kg in volume. Assuming rest periods are the same you could expect roughly the same hypertrophy from both scenarios.


Which scenarios are you referring to?


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Which scenarios are you referring to?


ops original question


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> ops original question


Would have been best to quote it then, as the discussion had moved on a long way from there


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> using 100kg as the example load each scenario comes to 4000kg in volume. Assuming rest periods are the same you could expect roughly the same hypertrophy from both scenarios.


wrong


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Would have been best to quote it then, as the discussion had moved on a long way from there


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

Natty Steve'o said:


> wrong


 im afraid not, when volume is controlled for rep range is not significant in regards to hypertrophy (weiss et al 2007, schoenfeld 2015, mitchell 2012, alcaraz 2011, campos 2000)


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> im afraid not, when volume is controlled for rep range is not significant in regards to hypertrophy (weiss et al 2007, schoenfeld 2015, mitchell 2012, alcaraz 2011, campos 2000)


LOL

Grab 2.5kg DBs and press out X amount of sets to reach your 4000kg and see how much you grow or shrink against doing in the same exercise using 50kg DBs to hit the same 4000kg accumulative weight. You will find one exercise is endurance while the other is more hypertrophy orientated.


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

Natty Steve'o said:


> LOL
> 
> Grab 2.5kg DBs and press out X amount of sets to reach your 4000kg and see how much you grow or shrink against doing in the same exercise using 50kg DBs to hit the same 4000kg accumulative weight. You will find one exercise is endurance while the other is more hypertrophy orientated.


yes there has to be a given intensity. for example at least 65% of 1rm. But if you look at my original post i mentioned 100kg for both the 1st and 2nd scenario so intensity is the same in both scenarios. however for clarity i will restate. provided there is sufficient intensity (load) volume is an effective predictor of hypertrophy irrelevant of rep range.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> yes there has to be a given intensity. for example at least 65% of 1rm. But if you look at my original post i mentioned 100kg for both the 1st and 2nd scenario so intensity is the same in both scenarios. however for clarity i will restate. provided there is sufficient intensity (load) volume is an effective predictor of hypertrophy irrelevant of rep range.


So what your saying is 65% of 1rm which restricts rep vs set volume for a start. So in a nut shell your telling us nothing we don't already know. This has been answered a number of times already in this thread.

I still think this is flawed though, lets say I do 1 rep per set of 65% 1rm then have a rest for 3mins I then repeat this to hit my 4000kg It will not have the same effect as doing 3 sets of 8 - 10 reps with the same weight. Its bull chit IMO mate.


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

firstly i did not read all the posts on here i simply replied to the ops original question, whether what i had said had already been discussed i dont know. Secondly the sets must be taken near or at volitional fatigue. Doing 1 rep of 65% 1rm would only recruit small/slow motor units, you would need to go near volitional fatigue to fatigue the larger/faster motor units (largely responsible for size).


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> firstly i did not read all the posts on here i simply replied to the ops original question, whether what i had said had already been discussed i dont know. Secondly the sets must be taken near or at volitional fatigue. Doing 1 rep of 65% 1rm would only recruit small/slow motor units, you would need to go near volitional fatigue to fatigue the larger/faster motor units (largely responsible for size).


Do read the thread. Schoenfeld's 2015 paper has been discussed for example.


----------



## dwnutritionandfitness (Aug 6, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Do read the thread. Schoenfeld's 2015 paper has been discussed for example.


will do in future my friend


----------

