Hypertrohpy vs. strength - rep ranges
Hello guys!
I've just watched Jeff Nippard videos about rep ranges. He compared (about 5:20) low reps vs. moderate reps vs. high reps. What he said, is that in all cases hypertrophy was almost the same. So it's not that 6-15 reps is the best for hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is almost the same, no matter which rep range you target for.
BUT
Strength is better in heavy weights.
Does it mean, that 6-15 rep range is useless? Who'd want to target this range if he can target ~3 reps, same hypertrophy but better strength development? I don't mean about "endurance", very high rep range.
PS.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
Highest strength development demands heavy weight because we increase our neuromuscular connections?
Whenever me or anyone I know get's down the rep-range rabbit hole I always turn to Greg Nuckols' article on the topic. Where he finds lists the following keypoints;
1: The “hypertrophy range” of roughly 6-15 reps per set may produce slightly better results per unit of time invested than low rep and high rep work. However, on the whole, the advantage you get from working in the hypertrophy range isn’t nearly as big as people seem to think; maybe a ~10-15% advantage per unit of effort invested at most.
2: You can absolutely grow effectively when training with low reps and high reps. In fact, mechanistic work has shown that although different rep ranges trigger similar elevations in protein synthesis, the signaling pathways activated to produce that growth response are actually somewhat different. You’re probably missing out on some growth if you confine yourself to a single rep range, even the “hypertrophy range.” My assumption is that individual signaling pathways would habituate to a single stimulus faster than multiple signaling pathways would habituate to slightly different stimuli.
3: Due to the sheer amount of variability we’re looking at, both within studies and between studies, it’s probably not wise to assume that a single rep range will be the best for everyone. Some people and some exercises just seem to do better with higher reps or lower reps.
He also comments that working exclusively in low reps will be tough on your Central Nervous System, I know I couldn't do 15 sets of 5 reps on squats, but by using a variety of rep ranges I can do 15 high intensity sets. Personally I think just train with a variety of methods and see what works for you. People's physiology varies so much and there's so many different mechanisms of strength and hypertrophy that most rep ranges and intensities have a chance to work.
However, on the whole, the advantage you get from working in the hypertrophy range isn’t nearly as big as people seem to think; maybe a ~10-15% advantage per unit of effort invested at most.
Anyone have a link to that graph that has "Rep ranges: what people think vs reality?" It's basically saying the same thing, but in a meme.
People act like it's this huge difference. "Bro 5x5 is no good for bodybuilding you just won't build mass" and "Bodybuilding just builds show muscles if you want to get strong you have to lift heavy."
Riiiight.
I've been doing high high rep super low weight elbow pt-until-I-fucking-die for over a year and my forearms are fucking huge.
Man, I tried going 5x3 on pike push up and pull up almost maxing out... Didn't end up well. Was sore almost as Ive torn something for the whole day afterwards every time I did it, and incapable of performing the next workout...
Hear hear! I struggled with the bench press when I first started exercising. I was doing barbell press 1.5x per week and had been plateaued for close to a year. I ditched the gym for p90x which had me doing tons of pushups: lower weight but more volume. After 3 months of that I went back to the gym and my bench press had improved by 40 pounds.
its better because it has easier recovery demands, it is safer from long term perspective and can give you better work capacity to support higher intensity work later and some people can respond better to it
even powerlifters do more than 3 reps per set
Yeah its not that it speficially causes hypertrophy
Its just not very taxing on the CNS like low reps, its low injury risk, and it doesn't take a grueling long time like high reps.
It ends up being the best "Middle of the road" compromise for someone who's just looking to rack up volume.
I will try to give a simple answer to you.
6-15 rep range is not useless. It is popular and imo better for hypertrophy goals because of the following reasons :
6-15 reps means lighter weights being used which means less CNS fatigue. This allows for more frequency. You cannot do heavy singles, doubles or triples of the squat 3 days a week but you can do 10 rep sets 3 days a week.
Easier to achieve the desired volume for hypertrophy (compare 10 sets of 3 reps vs 4 sets of 8 reps). This allows for more exercises to be done in the same session and thus it saves time.
Less rest time between sets is required. You will need somewhere around 2-5 minutes rest between low rep sets but only 1-2 minutes between moderate rep sets. This again saves time.
There is actually no point of doing low rep sets of isolation exercises like curls, side delt raises etc.
However including all the rep ranges in your routine is the best way to train!
You cannot do heavy singles, doubles or triples of the squat 3 days a week but you can do 10 rep sets 3 days a week.
yeah you can. It’s a different kind of training ideology that deviates from what BWF provides. Pretty common in PL and weightlifting, especially with elites, to squat below 5 reps in different variations 2-4 days a week. In fact would could argue that as an athlete progresses in a strength sport, that it’s increasingly useless to squat > 6-8 reps ever.
more than 800k+ people on this sub. How many do you believe are elites? And also it is a bwf sub!
But you’re talking squats, which isn’t bwf. From my experience with this sub, most people accept that it’s extremely difficult (although not impossible) for your average person to train legs/posterior with a purely bwf routine. I said “especially” to be more specific
You specifically mentioned doing heavy singles on squats, which can in fact be done multiple times a week.
it was just an example goddamnit.. and by the way you can do anything! but is that sustainable?
There is actually no point of doing low rep sets of isolation exercises like curls, side delt raises etc
Why? I do now curls like this:
5 sets: 1-3 sets, 3 reps with heavy weight; 4-5 sets 6 reps with lighter weight and on the last set much lighter 10-12 reps to end my workout. 3 min rest between sets. I think the results are fine.
i like doing weighted chins.. plus my goals are different..
But you said there's no point of doing low heavy reps for isolation exercises. Why?
My biceps were too weak and too small comparing to my entire body so I gotta work on them. I don't wanna be so huge. It's not my goal too. I want them to be a bit bigger and stronger.
Using heavy weights and low reps for isolation is more likely to lead to injury. You can do that for compound movements because you have multiple muscle groups supporting the weight. With isolation you're putting unneeded stress on muscles and joints and not getting much marginal benefit relative to other rep ranges. You simply can't progress an isolation movement the same as a compound movement because you're targeting a single, smaller muscle vs. multiple, larger muscles.
Maximizing strength for muscle groups like biceps isn't critical because they aren't significant contributors to major movements. You can get enough strength gains and better hypertrophy to biceps in higher rep ranges with lower risk. If you want to target biceps with heavy weight, low reps then do a compound movement like pull-ups or barbell rows where multiple muscle groups are involved.
Yes but if given the choice between weighted chins and heavy bicep curls, I will always choose chins.
No it’s not useless. They all work for different reasons so if your goal is to be huge, use all of them.
Total volume is one of the main factors and getting that volume is much easier with higher reps. Doing 3x10 is much easier to get 30 reps than doing 10x3.
The 3x10 would also leave lots of room for other things in your program like assistance work.
I understand volume to be amount of sets. Reps of varying intensities are not equivalent. If you are doing high intensity but low reps your set is somewhat equivalent to a low intensity but high rep set. That's why judging volume by sets is better than by reps. If number of reps was what was important than you could just walk for leg day.
Volume is your reps x your intensity. So 10x3 at 100 pounds would be a total of 3000. On the other hand, 3x10 at 50 pounds would be 1,500.
That’s actually a better method than sets because it lets you track the volume from cycle to cycle. With sets, your sets of 3 this cycle and your sets of 10 next cycle won’t allow for an even comparison.
3x10 to 10x3 is a bad comparison though, you don't lift the same weight at 10 reps per set than you do at 3 reps per set.
Afaik "benefits" = volume * intensity
10x3 might seem like a waste of time untill you realize you don't have to rest between sets, just work a different muscle group and rotate the sets.
you don't lift the same weight at 10 reps per set than you do at 3 reps per set.
It’s not really a comparison. I’m not saying one is better or worse than the other but I am saying it’s easier to do 3 sets of 10 reps rather than 10x3. By easier, I mean the first one will take you less than 15 minutes. You still have PLENTY of time for other work. The second will probably take more like 30-40. You might not have as much time for other movements.
10x3 might seem like a waste of time
Never said it was a waste of time. I’m just showing the differences. 10x3 is one of my favorite programs.
10x3 might seem like a waste of time untill you realize you don't have to rest between sets, just work a different muscle group and rotate the sets.
Depends on what you’re doing. If it’s upper, you can pair things together. If it’s like squats or DL, probably not.
Depends on what you’re doing. If it’s upper, you can pair things together. If it’s like squats or DL, probably not.
That's true, setting up DL, squats or bench press is too long for this.
I do those (when I can, only 1 smith machine at my gym) at the begining of the workout after warmup, then i do sets of 3's rotating between cable machines without rest. I begun lifting not long ago, but my progression has been pretty nice so far...
And yet no scientific citations in the comments just people talking out their asses
Low reps, many sets, high intensity - strength
Even more extreme than above - power
Higher reps, less sets, lower intensity - more optimal for hypertrophy, less stress on nervous system
More extreme than above - endurance
Low volume allows for more frequency
More volume stimulates hypertrophy better. This means that both 3x8, 5x5, and 8x3 shooould cause the same muscle growth, but you can't go to extremes keeping the same volume (total reps) IF you change intensity (weigh) extremely, by a lot.
Rep range means reps per set, and intensity of the set should be so that you can perform 2-3 (or 4-5 on higher reps) more reps before giving out.
Extremely light exercises, performed for loots of reps (30-50 or even 100) serve for endirance, but can be a great prehab or rehab for the joints if you dont go even close to failure.
Heavy weight is hard on your body tho.
So if you have to rest more because you lift heavy more often, its not always better then lighter weights.
Volume equated work means that hypertrophy gains in the "strength" range are as good as the "hypertrophy" range.
That is to say 6x5 will give you similar hypertrophy to 3x10 (I would argue potentially more due to the greater load you would be able to use).
However the former will probably take at least twice long to perform, is more systemically fatiguing due to greater loads and is tougher on your joints.
Therefore it is still intelligent to do some work in higher rep ranges and perhaps entire blocks of training where you don't do low rep work.
This is the answer right here. 6 - 15 rep range its just more practical and safer if the goal is hypertrophy.
Fuck the rep ranges. Train on what gives you the most progress at the moment. I did my bench strength progression ever doing heavy 8-20 rep sets often. George Leeman and Jesse Norris are pretty good example of this
I did my bench strength progression ever doing heavy 8-20 rep s
good range to cover your bases bro
65% of your max intensity is enough to stimulate hypertrophy adaptations, given adequate RPE per set; roughly correlates to about 8-12+ reps
Strength adaptations take slightly higher intensities - 75-80=%
The primary driver for hypertrophy is gradually increasing total volume
Less fatigue is accumulated at lower intensities for equal volumes; hence it is easier to manage fatigue, continue progressive overload, and accumulate greater overall total volume, when working with lower intensities
Hence if hypertrophy is the primary goal, it is generally recommended to work within a 8-12 rep range/65-75% intensity while progressively overloading volume
YOu can achieve the same hypertrophy with a higher intensity and lower reps, given equal volume, but you will fatigue quicker and your progressive overload throughout a cycle will be limited
The muscle hypertrophy that is a result of following a "Training for strength" routine is not the same as the results of following a "Training for hypertrophy" routine. A "training for strength" routine produces what medical professionals call "Myofibrillar, muscle, hypertrophy." A "Training for hypertrophy" routine produce what medical professionals call "Sarcoplasmic, muscle, hypertrophy."
With heavy amounts of weight/resistance, fewer repetitions is more common than with less. Additional neuromuscular connections and myofibrils is a result of a "Training for strength" routine.
I am 99.85511% sure that iamgoldeneagle is not a bot.
I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot <username> | /r/spambotdetector | Optout | Original Github
Seriously he posts the same thing over and over, sometimes without even understanding the post.
I understand the post more than you think.
Feel free to talk with a medical professional about myofibrillar, muscle, hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic, muscle, hypertrophy.
Thanks to a scar in my neck I can only maintain "Myofibrillar, muscle, hypertrophy."
Feel free to talk with a medical professional about myofibrillar, muscle, hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic, muscle, hypertrophy.
Medical professionals dont pay any attention to educating themselves in helping athletes pack in muscle... they have bigger things to worry about
https://andersnedergaard.dk/en/kropblog/sarcoplasmic-hypertrophy/
Read the sources cited in this article
Thanks to a scar in my neck I can only maintain "Myofibrillar, muscle, hypertrophy."
Dude...come on
Holy crap you just keep saying the same thing over and over. You sound like a bot.
Medical professionals are focused in keeping people healthy. Not helping athletes pack on size. They dont know anymore then what's required to keep the general public healthy and treat muscle wasting diseases.
In which, by the way, sarcoplasmic and myrofibilar hypertrophy are not factors that are at all considered when treating muscle wasting diseases. It's just muscle mass.
You trying to be super "proper" and using only "medical terminology" plus the fact that you repeat the same copy and paste message makes you come off as if you have no idea what your talking about
You have no verifiable source for any of the information you post besides "go talk to a medical professional" even though anyone in research who's worth half their salt will tell you that what your saying is incorrect.
You eventually have to start changing your rep range so you don't plateau, but if you're able to do 12 push ups and over the course of some months you only keep on doing that same 12 reps and you eventually can do 12 one arm push ups, you are stronger than you were before, so, you can get stronger with every rep range, but certain ones (Fewer reps with higher intensity) are better than others
All rep ranges have their place. There is no singular approach that works for everyone. You have to figure out your end goal and align your training methodology to that.
I don't give a shit about this stuff. I just grab a weight that is hard to do 10 times and do 3 to 5 sets of that. However many total reps I did, I'll try to do a few more. If I can hit that rep count, I'll add more again. After that, I'll add weight and start over. It's not fucking hard. I'm not looking to be a bodybuilder or model. I just want to exercise.
Yeah. If i hit 12 reps with a weight, i increase the weight. Simple enough.
I do it differently. I go by total reps of a movement that workout. When I start a new weight, I start with 40 reps. Definitely not something I can do 40 reps in one go. More like four or five or even six goes. Depending on what my next OCR calls for, I'll do up to 100 reps for a movement (pull-ups, step-ups, squats, burpees, etc.).
What’s the advantage or disadvantage of doing like 200 reps with 3-6 lbs?
The problem is if you’re always doing sets of 3-5 you would need to do a lot of sets to make up the same volume as sets of 8+. But practically speaking 3x10 isn’t too different from 10x3 when it comes to hypertrophy.
If you want a one-liner, Not everybody responds to sets of 6 as well as they respond to sets of 12 in terms of hypertrophy and the best way to figure out what's best for you is to have a 4-12 week block that focuses on one of those rep ranges so that you let your body tell you what it needs.
*As a bonus edited-in piece of context to address your 3-rep question, it appears that the best results seem to come from a minimum of 5 reps in a set. Why that may be, I will be talking about at LCF.*
Just make sure you are careful to eat plenty of calories and protein during both of those, and also make sure you have similar amounts of extra activity and are including that in your eating plan. I've seen tons of people who screw themselves out of gains by messing one of those things up, and I've also seen people make the wrong decision about the best rep range for themselves because they ate plenty during one cycle and not during another... it happens more often than you think, which is why good coaching that looks for these variables is very valuable.
You also find that people can do almost anything when they are new, and that research shows that people who are very well-trained tend to get more out of working with at least 60% of their 1RM than lower weights... but within every study there are people who respond very differently than the other people in their group, which you can see in the recent Schoenfeld study because they included the individual lines for each subject.
It is worth knowing and remembering that research, by nature, takes many people and turns them into one number with a range of expected variation, but studies often don't show individual plots within groups and even studies that do so will rarely discuss the practical importance of noticing that several people did not follow the trend.
Because it often takes 6-12 weeks to figure out if you are actually responding to a particular protocol (assuming a good diet) it can easily take up to a year to figure out what is best for you, personally. The good news is that you'll make gains that whole time, and when you dial it all in for yourself you will really enjoy the results!
This is also not meant to address peaking, which is 100% necessary to actually achieve your ultimate expression of strength.
I am addressing general strength and conditioning, or basic strength, which is the process by which you build the body that you then peak at a later date for a targeted ultimate performance.
Every time someone talks about this they over look such an obvious factor. None of these guys were very good at math I guess.
Yes, 5 reps is not different from 10, IF YOU EQUATE THE VOLUME. so that means if the 10 reps was 100, the 5 reps would have to be 200. But you know it’s not a linear relationship like that.
So there’s no way someone who’s lifting heavy enough to do 3 reps only, is going to ever do as much volume as the guy in the 10 rep range. No way. So yea the point is that the rep range doesn’t matter as long as volume is the same.
But VOLUME is what causes more hypertrophy, within reason. And the best way to get the most volume is by doing higher reps (but not so high that it’s just endurance).
Because if you’re only doing 3 reps you’re not going to do the same volume as the 10 rep guy. 0 times out of 10.
Here is a thought for you... While completing heavy weighted low repetition sets, you have to contract you muscles harder than you might with less weight and more repetitions.
873k
Subscribers
1.1k
Reading the FAQ
Bodyweightfitness is for redditors who like to use their own body to train, from the simple pullups, pushups, and squats to the advanced bodyweight movements like the planche, one arm chin-ups, or single leg squats. Start your fitness journey with our Recommended Routine and wiki.
Please read our official FAQ before creating new posts or use the Daily Discussion threads
Check out our /r/BWF Wiki
Try the Recommended Routine (or RR)
129,869 subscribers
10,959 subscribers
44,080 subscribers
1,199,039 subscribers
217,640 subscribers