Do 5 Reps MAXIMIZE Hypertrophy? (NEW STUDY)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Do 5 reps build muscle optimally? That is, how do 5 repetitions fair for hypertrophy?
In this video we explore a recent study that helps us answer this.
References:
Vann et al. - www.frontiersi...
Cholewa et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Weiss et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Mangine et al. - www.ncbi.nlm.n...
Campos et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Kubo et al. - pubmed.ncbi.nl...
Music:
1) Song L'Indécis - Soulful chll.to/64a098ba
- / lindecis
Thank you for watching! I hope the video was interesting and informative in some way!
Thanks for all you do!
It's my pleasure. thank you for checking out the videos :)
A bit surprising and interesting.. I'm sad that they don't test strength also while they're at it.. it would be so little effort and pretty much double the takeaway. 😕
They did test strength, I just did not mention it, haha. In the Vann et al. study, leg press one-rep max increases were similar between both the high volume and high load conditions. However, increases in leg extension one-rep max were greater for the high load condition versus the high volume condition.
In general, the research (journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2015/10000/Effects_of_Low__vs__High_Load_Resistance_Training.36.aspx) does quite strongly show that for increasing one-rep max on an exercise training with 5 or fewer reps (85% one-rep max or heavier loads) is better than higher rep (and light loads).
Hope this is clear :)
the most mind blowing thing coming out of this study in my opinion is that the higher volume group made such good gains when training up to 10 reps away from failure
The biggest limitation not mentioned is how these 15 people trained before the study, it's well established that training using a different stimulus can increase results.
Rep periodization? Yeah
This is not new it’s old technology
Bill Starr a strength and conditioning coach and he created this system of 5-5-3 years ago!
It says "trained" but no specifics. Exercise "science" leaves a lot to be desired.
They both have their value. Doing under 6 reps while going to failure typically means you're inducing a CNS adaptation. Making you stronger with the contractile tissue you already have. Which then means that when you go into your hypertrophy block you can use heavier weight for your sets of 10-12.
So for 3 weeks 1- 5 reps block , followed by a 3 weeks 6- 20 reps block followed again by a 1-5 reps block etc.?
@@incorectulpolitic I would extend the blocks a few more weeks and narrow down the rep ranges while adding a block. So first 5 weeks will be 1-5 rep range, second five week block would be 6-12 and the third five week block would be 12-20+. Then I'd restart. Also worth considering is a change in exercise selection for higher rep ranges. Trying to deadlift more than 8 times in a set is just so taxing you may have more chance of injury then even a one rep max.
Plus…who the hell just starts with enough weight to fail at 5 reps?…that shit takes some build up sets. I don’t know anyone who goes in and sets the bar on the first set of squats to work in a 5 rep range. Unless you don’t like your joints.
@@enntense yeah but if I'm planning on going that heavy. I'm not going to exceed 5 reps in the warm ups leading to my 5 rep max sets.
@@enntense warmups don’t count as sets, so say 3/4 warmup sets and THEN count your working sets
My experience, for those who are regular lifters is rotating set number, rep and weight amount optimizes muscle hypertrophy
Which is something studies like this can never capture. I program 12 week meso cycles. Studies like this look at 6 weeks. I'm looking at 6 months to complete 2 meso cycles 1 max effort 1 max volume and see how well they complement each other. Its completely apples and oranges to do 6 week studies and extrapolate that to people who train for years.
From personal experience, I’d say that for beginners, low reps are best for overall physique development and recognition of movement patterns. It also induced muscular hyperplasia, which is the accumulation of muscle cells. Once you switch over to hypertrophy training with 8-20 reps per set, that’s when you get an explosive amount of muscle growth. However, to start with high reps and eschewing heavy weight won’t give you the desired gains long term.
I’m doing lower reps now from strength training.
@Bad Example Tension can vary so it matters how much tension your muscles were under
@@GoldKingsMan yeah it’s great for building a foundation.
beginners should spend a good amount of time doing high volume low intensity, for technique and tendon adaptation
Someone's been watching too much genetic beast lmao, muscle fiber hyperplasia is not really understood that well yet
I switched to 5-6 reps after being a 10-15 guy for YEARS and I have gotten soo soo much stronger QUICKLY. I am no longer tired and recover much quicker with lower rep range.
Very interesting. Did you also had substantial muscle growth that came with the quick strength gains?
Did you get a good amount of muscle mass as well?
I'm learning how to stay in the "failure zone". My experience is that the hardest, most intense reps are the ones stimulating muscle growth. So, those are the reps I do, using dropsets, slow eccentrics, forced reps, restpause, etc.
Get yourself warmed up, take the first working set to fail (I prefer 8-12 reps for this) and after that just do reps that are a struggle.
I used to take 2-3 minute rests between sets, and I did progress and grow. But now I'm basically just doing 1-3 working sets, 30 second rest at the most. Usually the rest is simply to drop the weight a little.
Check out his Time Under Tension video. I could be wrong but I think longer rest between sets was more productive than shorter rest periods for hypertrophy. Don't quote me, but check that out. 😁✌🏼
@@boblaser7385 long rest for strength (power lifters)
Mid rest for hipertrophy (body building)
Short rest for gain pump and definition.
@@maurosbrighi9222 yeah that's not accurate , check out some more of his videos on the subject.
I'm really enjoying your videos. They're a breath of fresh air in UA-cam fitness communities.
Thank you so much my friend, this is awesome to hear!
Good stuff. Interested to see if it's replicated, and to what extent. The 3-->10 day changes are certainly fascinating, perhaps there's a sarco vs myo type of thing going on. I've always found that training with higher reps/volumes left a "bloat" that subsided after a week or so. Could also perhaps be glycogen supercompensation.
The delayed hypertrophy finding in the 5 rep group is also interesting. I'm guessing for optimal results a variety of rep ranges are best, to stimulate adaptations via different pathways.
I think those are some great points. Something that sucks with the current research is very minimal data exists comparing how muscle growth at the fiber level compares better higher and lower reps.
Like you said, maybe myofibril and sarcoplasm growth differs between these different rep numbers, and thus training with a variety of reps could be advantageous :)
Hopefully this changes, and like you said, it would also be very interesting to see whether this Vann et al. study can be repeated!
There may be sarco/myo fiber differences when doing high vs low reps. But it’s mostly theory. The initial hypertrophy often experienced from high reps must be from the muscle inflammation caused by metabolic by-products which then caused muscle damage, which increases blood to the specific area thus causing extra water/glycogen stored. It’s all my opinion though. But I do use Arachidonic Acid which causes inflammation and I often get powerful pumps following a workout and initially during a workout. As for the low rep group, I also doubt it was true muscle hypertrophy. I believe it is accumulated volume which caused more muscle damage and then through inflammation. This is why when I do a HIT training, I am pumped for a good few days following a workout out(possibly due to muscle inflammation) then after three to four days, gradually decreases along with the pump/soreness. Strength and endurance is still the same even after a week or two long rest. There needs to be a very long study on this topic followed by a muscle biopsy to determine the true results of either. I still believe in 5-30 rep range all in all until proven otherwise.
This is common. Neural gains always happen before hypertrophy occurs but when it appears it's very solid dense muscle yeah
@@nickvillalobos8249 So for 3 weeks 1- 5 reps block , followed by a 3 weeks 6- 20 reps block followed again by a 1-5 reps block etc.?
@@HouseofHypertrophyhat if I do a rep range where i start at 3 sets of 5, then go up in weight after I can do the same weight for 3 sets of 8? I'm a beginner btw and enjoy lower reps 😎👍
Dang, making me think. Low reps at high weight can induce more joint stress and a longer recovery as well and is something to consider. I like 8-12, but recently I hit a plateau on bench and went for 6-8 instead just to see progress. Then I did a deload last week, excited to see how I perform this week. Great info as always, thank you.
Awesome, did you manage to see gains once you switched to 6-8reps? Also, thank you for your kind words :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy I was struggling to get 10 reps at 195 lb for over a month, and by doing less reps on the warmup sets (5x) I was able to get it. I don't know that this qualifies as gains but it did feel good. Then I was consistently doing 7x at 205 lb. This was only done for one week before the deload so only time will tell in this N=1 experiment! I think the deload will help.
As I am closer to 59 than 58 years old, I have noticed that I seem stronger if occasionally taking 5 days off between workouts rather than the customary four days, which use to be more than adequate...
No, More reps create more fatigue thus more recovery time, less reps do not create more joint stress y done correctly, and produce less fatigue
In my experience, 5 reps tips the balance somewhat towards strength than hypertrophy, which as I understand is also consistent with most studies on the topic.
That's what I was thinking
I just vary the rep range every workout; sometimes 3 heavy sets of 5 ( last set AMRAP), sometimes straight sets to failure at 10,8,6 reps, sometimes lighter weights for straight sets of 10 or 12, last set always AMRAP.
The 10 day after training increase/decrease findings is significant. I believe that the size resulting from volume training is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The heavy load, on the other hand, produced myofibrillar hypertrophy. While the pump deflated with time and no training, the muscle fibers stimulated from heavy training benefited from the rest.
It's possible, however, the researchers did take within fiber measures, and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy was not what occured for the volume group, it was myofibrillar growth. I plan to make more content on this in the future :)
Heavy load is at least anti katabolic, so if you take off after let's say a month of consistent training, maybe it helps to heavy load the last couple trainings sessions to bridge the resting week/weeks after that
My understanding from reading Barry Ross is that reps of 5 act to stimulate myofibrillar hypertrophy in type 2b muscle fibers which use phosphagen for energy. This type of hypertrophy does not cause an increase in mass because the muscle fibers are highly anaerobic and can only fire for 7 seconds at max output, so there is no packing of more glycogen and growth of mitochondria in the muscle like with sarcoplasmic hypertrophy that involves anaerobic glycolysis or aerobic glycolysis.
Nutrition and rest play a big part in growth too. I'm now 60 and train much differently than I did 30 years ago. Now it's more higher rep's to failure, lighter weight to avoid injury. But I still do an occasional heavy weight/lower rep day. I also work with slam balls and bands, on the heavy punching bag.
I’m in my early 50s and still train fairly heavy with as little as 6 reps….but I sure as hell don’t start with 6 reps…I don’t want my shoulders to fall of…
While I was watching the video and saw the part where the high load leg didn't get any gains, that sounded to me like a syptom of overtraining, as overtraining is the only way to train and not get any gains... And then I saw that the same high load leg had an increase in muscle after a week, then I knew it was overtraining, because overtraining is basically a state where the muscles are not given enough time to recover from the previous session, and all you need to get those gains and stop overtraining is more rest, so he got that extra week of rest on that leg was able to finally recover properly a bit bigger and stronger.
I switched to 3-5 rep sets over the last month and a half and I need at least 1-2 more additional days rest compared to higher reps in order to be back to full strength. However my strength is significantly improved each time I recover. There's a possibility that generally speaking, 5 rep sets simply require more time to recover and therefore cannot be compared to higher rep sets without accounting for recovery time. This would explain why the 5 rep group in the study saw increased results after the 10 days of rest.
The study should have compared total reps to total reps. 6x5 to 3x10 Total reps equal. Muscle increase will be fairly equal, but the 5 rep group will carry more strength gain with the muscle gain compared to the 10 rep group.
It's not rocket science why these results are what they are,
although, many details were either, left out, or not part of the particulars/focus
when performing their reps for each camp.
1) The higher volume immediately has an advantage
when it comes to a "mind/muscle" connection; leading to better contractions,
which can be easily lost/displaced (on to other muscles/joint, etc) when going heavy/5 reps/sub 5.
2) The higher volume will also have more "tut" which responds/corrilates to hypertrophy.
3) The VL will get more work/results when performimg these types of exercises
over the VMO, which is dependent/more beneficial with a elevated heel squat/shallow hack/sissy/Paloquin, etc.
Simple.. Think protein breakdown. Week 3 3x5 group 45 total reps vs Week 3 3x10 group 70 total reps, final week 100! Over double the protein breakdown. Once tension, or % of 1rm is within acceptable ranges total reps accumulated is the driver. Start looking at sets as just the rest break marker and start looking at total reps as the volume metric for stimulus. The way to compare properly would have been 6x5 vs 3x10 total reps vs total reps matched
This pretty much echoes my own findings.
I did 5x5r3 (5 sets, 5 reps, rest 3mins) for 2yrs for major core movements (bench, dips, chins, squats etc) and I was even using anabolic steroids periodically at times throughout those 2yrs, but I changed minimally but got very strong to the point that my strength to bodyweight ratio was pretty decent. at 5'10 and fluctuating around 70-77kg I could bench 120kg for reps, dip 40kg for reps, chin with 20kg for reps but also run 10k in 40mins. I was not much to look at but people were quite amazed I could shift that much weight.
So yeh, I think up those reps a bit if Hypertrophy is the goal, around 5 reps seems to be very good for keeping the weight down and increasing neuro muscular efficiency (useful for some sports where weight gain is disadvantageous).
Different kinds of muscle is built with each. If you do high reps you're building sarcoplasmic muscle i believe it's called, which is why you get a pump, you get a lot of fluid in there. Low reps will build more actual muscle fiber, less fluid. That is why I think lower reps are superior, though I think one should also do higher reps too, but as you stated, you performed well, you didn't build much muscle but the muscle you did build was actually useful in performing.
@@areyouusingthatsquatrack8256 I think there's also a different hormonal response between high and low rep work. My research suggested a combination of releasing both types during training would be better than focusing on just one or the other, so eventually my workouts consisted of some 5x5 training and 1x20 (1-2 sets of all out 20 rep work).
Pump wise it was very curious, the low rep work whilst not leading to feeling very pumped at the time seemed to give a longer sustained low 'glow' pump to the muscles post workout (almost an anabolic feeling), whereas high rep work gave intense pumps in the gym at the time but were fleeting. On days I did just high rep work I felt 1-2hrs post gym sessions the 'buzz' and pump gone completely whereas on the low rep day work I felt that effort last longer post session, sometimes feeling mildly pumped for hours after.
Great video. Like all your videos. Long time ago i did 5 x5. That's the classic program, 2 sets more than in the research. I trained the musle twice a week, not 3 times a week. I did experience less hypertrophy than using other (higer) rep ranges.
Awesome! :)
I started doing high volume squats for physiotherapy on my hip and continued doing so increasing the volume gradually and there is a great deal of hypertrophy to be found.
If anybody tells you volume doesn't work look at professional cyclists.
dont forget about the doping hahha
10:50
Bro, how'd you get this picture of me sleeping? 😂😂
Haha :)
This is really a body build building vs power lifting comparison.
Follow up question. I'm currently doing 3-5 reps for 3 sets and doing double progression method.
For Example:
Day One 3x3
Day Two 3x4
Day Three 3x5
Add Weight, Repeat
I alternate exercises on different days Day A and Day B three days a week. Week 1 is A-B-A. Week 2 is B-A-B. Repeat. So every 2 weeks I had 2.5 lbs to the compound exercises (minus pull up which is 1.25 lbs).
Am I the only one who finds low rep ranges work best on compound exercises? I was originally doing 6-8 reps with the same progression method and sets but I couldnt get those last reps. And I don't lift anything crazy either. My squat is 205 lbs, deadlift is 230 lbs, and bench press is 160 lbs, so it's nothing that heavy.
I know 8 is considered low reps for some. But I always struggle with progression even at 8 reps despite not lifting heavy compared to others.
What are your thoughts and/or suggestions? My goal is hypertrophy for bodybuilding.
It's interesting to hear you find overloading easier with heavier loads (fewer than 8 reps). Though I can't be certain, maybe training with heavier loads is producing greater neural and/or movement efficiency adaptations, thereby explaining why you can overload more with lower reps . This is great for the purposes of building strength, but it does not neccessarily relate so much for hypertrophy.
Rememeber, your ablity to overload across session does not neccessarily mean it's hypertrophy causing it, other factors (such as the aforementioned neural and movement efficiency adaptations) play a role too.
Overall, I think you're program outline is nothing bad. I think it will certainly develop strength well, and in the long-term, I'm sure you can develop mass too. However, based on what was detailed in this video, I'm unsure if these rep ranges you use (3-5) would truly be optimal/efficient for hypertrophy.
Hope this makes sense! :)
I have the opposite experience, I gain strength faster in the 10-20 range than less than 8 reps. I feel doing less than 8 its very hard to progress, interesting.
Do a weight you are comfortable doing 8 change tempo or resting..
Leg extensions and unilateral leg press were terrible choices for testing.
Should have just used 3x5 back squat vs 3x10 back squat.
Nothing new here. But this is good to show other ppl. esp. girls who are worried about getting big muscles.
This is an interesting study, I remember when I read it my theory was that not many people can maintain their depth with heavier load and something like the vastus lateralis being more active at higher degree of knee flexion there is a chance that the low rep group didn't manage to get to the point to get enough VL stimulation. But of course it is just a theory, we can't really tell how they performed the exercise. Really great video!
I think that's an interesting theory! Though I feel the researchers would have probably picked up on this if it happened and corrected them. But who knows!
there was a study done in 2010 at University of Washington, they took 300 mice half they fed 3 big fat calorie meals the other eat 7 small meals, to run a maze
150 mice who eat 3 big fat calorie meals could not complete the maze and died of heart disease
150 mice who eat eat 7 small meals, they find the to have elite Fitness and health, they also run the maze for hours
then in 2012 after listening to people saying don't need 5-7 small meals ,all need to do eat big fat calorie meals to build muscle and fitness
they deciding to get 300 people split the group in half
discovered that 150 people did not go to the gym, were lazy unfit and have heart disease
other 150 went to gym 4-6 times a week, fit healthy and build muscle
It's an interesting study, but I think it depends--among other things--on your muscle fiber make-up. People with lots of fast-twitch fibers will probably do better with higher loads and lower reps. People with lots of slow-twitch fibers will probably do better with medium to high(er) reps. However, there are very few people with purely fast-twitch and purely slow-twitch fibers. Moreover, this study focused only on one body part and one exercise, and, as someone indicated below, we don't know what kind of workout the trainees did before this study. Were the trainees advanced, were they overtraining...we don't know that. But if they were overtraining, backing off in volume would probably help their recovery and might even cause them to grow a bit. Again, lots of factors to consider.
Most trainees do at least two or three exercises per body part for at least 8-10 total sets if not more. And they do more than one body part per session, such as a split of: chest/shoulders/tris, back/bis, legs...that is a popular one. (I'm leaving out people who use steroids as they change the equations). And most will do a mix of heavy, low-rep sets for power (i.e. squats or front squats) and high(er) rep sets for hypertrophy (i.e. leg extensions, curls, lunges). Same deal for other body parts.
For low-rep trainees, such as powerlifters or Olympics weightlifters, they use the 'repeated bouts of effort' concept (that Russians advocate) on a fairly limited number of exercises per session. They grow, but is the growth optimal? And their goals are different. They're after strength; size is a byproduct, along with eating more. For those who want hypertrophy, perhaps a mix of low and high reps is best, but that's JMO.
If your stuck on a Plateau, I think occasionally to do a 1RP Max for the next weight you would plan to progress to is a good idea, to have familiarity with that weight
5 rep average weight lifted was 89% so lets say 89lbs, 45x89= 4,005lbs per week times 6 weeks = 24,030. 10 rep is 60% so lets say 60lbs so 450 reps x 60lbs= 27,000lbs. So overall More reps lifted 3000 more pounds over the 6 weeks, maybe this explains the difference? We need a similar study where overall weight lifted is the same.
Ive trained both. I do get better growth lifting heavy , but i also get joint pain . So theres a ceiling as to how far you can go that way. At Least if you have a normal skeleton. From time to time ill still use it for a little while when things get stale
I don't take body measurements, but I've found only doing 3-5 reps for only one set has mostly just produced consistent strength gains for my deadlift. I do that 2-3 times a week, so I'm actually only getting in about 10 reps a week in total. I don't know anyone else that does such little volume, but it's working for me without any plateaus yet this year.
How do you implement this with the rest of your training...is this done at the start or end of your workout...do you warmup or just go with the heaviest weight immediately...do you max out or use a weight that would allow a couple extra reps?
@@ericlanthier5442 I'm new to lifting, so no expertise here. I warm up with cardio (usually just hitting the speed bag) and then when I feel ready to deadlift I'll lift as much as I comfortably can for 3-5 reps. Every 2 weeks I go up 5 pounds. I'm pretty lazy and don't want to be sore either. I guess it's a proof of concept that low volume training works (for me anyways). It's not as efficient as high volume I guess, but at least I can commit to it.
Hey everyone, regarding rest between sets in the 2022 Van et al study, I emailed the authors and they said:
"Rest between sets was ~2-3 minutes with justification coming from Schoenfeld et al, 2016 (PMID: 26605807) and Grgic et al, 2019 (PMID: 28933024) showing in general, for both muscle hypertrophy and strength, a “longer” rest period is more fruitful."
Hope this helps!
Awesome stuff dude, thank you for doing that! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for all the hard work, dude!
I think under 8 reps its hard to train to as close to failure as with higher reps. When you fail with the low reps, you often have a decent bit left in the tank. Stopping with 1 left in the tank for low reps still leaves a lot more in tank than stopping with 1 left in the tank for low weight - high reps.
Say I cant bench 1 more rep of 275, I probably have more strength left than if I can't bench one more rep of 185. When the increments of strength used are smaller, I'd imagine you an get closer to failure, more easily
I think see what you're saying. That's an interesting point. However, I'm not sure performance deficit decreases (as a result of fatigue) is truly a great indicator of how effective a set is, or even how close to failure you were. For instance, you could probably run a marathon and your strength will probably be decreased way more than performing sets of squats with 5 reps in reserve, but for building muscle the latter would be better. Hope this makes sense.
@@HouseofHypertrophy i understand what youre but a marathon and squats arent comparable like how I'm thinking bc the rom is so incredibly different and mechanical tension is still definitely a factor. I'm thinking more along the lines of doing a set of 10 with 5 reps in reserve vs that same set+a drop set or a set of 30 with 5 reps in reserve. 10/15 of total possible reps would be 2/3 of the way to failure whereas 30/35 would be 85% of the way to failure. Like you said, im not sure how much of a factor it is, but i could see it being a much larger factor in those really low rep ranges (like
I understand, yep I think that's a very interesting point! :)
That's where intensity comes in to play. Low reps are for maximum athletic power to weight ratio, effective strength gains, not just mass. You need to get super-warmed up with 2-3 light sets and then psyche up for each heavy set to failure. You need a good spotter on some lifts. You tend to yell and make grunting noises. Yes you can easily mess up your spine with heavy lifts. It's not something you can do well while prancing around with headphones on and checking in on cell phone social sites.
I think this really gets at your other video talking about Myofibrilar Hypertrophy/Packing vs Sarcoplazmic Hpyertrophy
The pumped up muscles deflated quickly without the stimulus of training
But the High Load group probably incurred increased muscle damage, and other factors that had to be repaired.
Thus highliting the IMPORTANCE of deload weeks, ESP for High Load programming- give your muscles time to recover from those heavy sets!
Very interesting video man :)
Another very great and interesting video! I haven't watched you first video yet on rep range, but as you pointed because most studies on low reps add more sets, I was never convinced when people were pointing those studies about training heavily to maximize hypertrophy. That being said, as much as I would like to say that this study confirms what I thought, I think it was not well done to make solid conclusion, though. I have the feeling that the 3x5 leg was mostly just overtrained, because even though 5 rep might not be optimal, it should still produce some hypertrophy, but it didn't (at least at first). Now if it was the case, it would explain, in my opinion, why after 10 days both legs were almost the same.
First thing first, the high rep leg was definitely further away from being over trained because there were very far from failure, so at minimum we can't deny that one leg was more likely to get overtrained than the other just because of the failure component, but they also did more sets, which means more hard sets (possibly very hard sets). Also, and I'll talk about if the difference should be significant right after, I don't know if there is anything about that from a scientific point of view, but I feel like when you are overtrained (not the hardcore version when you need 1 year to recover your hormone level, but just when you train too much for a short period), I think it mostly delay the result. Therefore, the fact that 3 days showed no result but 10 days showed some pretty good results from not training for 10 days, is, in my opinion, a good indicator that there is a case of overtraining. Sure the number of sets does not seem very high, but still, that rep range can create more central fatigue and were performed 3x times a week with the same exact exercises.
Regarding the quality of the paper, I must say that it is odd how they defined the "non-significant difference". I mean, after 10 days there is less difference between both legs than there are differences between the same leg after 3 and 10 days. Still they consider insignificant the difference after those periods… Am I missing something?
Also, the leg extension is probably not a good exercise at 85% or more. The quads are probably more difficult to feel and isolate at this intensity for this exercise . In my opinion, it's similar to comparing rep range, but using deadlift for 15-20 reps vs 4-6 reps deadlift. Even though 15-20 reps is possibly more hypertrophic in average than 4-6 reps, we might see more muscle gains in the 4-6 range just because of the exercise selection. So long story short, I think that most exercises have different windows for optimal rep ranges and at least some studies do not seem to take that in considerations.
I think you make many excellent and interesting points!
With regards to the non-significance between the 3 and 10 days measures, these were done via statistical tests. Statistical tests fundamentally answer whether the difference between two or more things is a result of a true difference between them, or a random chance.
In our case, I reckon the reason there was no sigificant difference between the 3 and 10 days was simply due to small sample sizes. In the maths behind the statistical tests, small sample sizes compromise your ablity to detect "true" differences.
I hope this makes sense :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thanks for you answer! I think I understand a bit more how they proceed, but I'm still not sure that it is a good method. I mean at the end of the 10 days, both legs have the same growth, but they find a way to conclude one leg achieve hypertrophy and the other achieved none... I feel like their method to evaluate real difference is not very useful, at least in those kinds of situations. Shouldn't a good method to evaluate significance in difference prevent from that kind of situation?
I think I probably muddled things up, haha.
By the 10th day after the final training session, the differences between the high load and high volume condition were indeed not statistically different between one another (I did not actually note this in the video). However, the changes in EACH of these conditions, from 3 to 10 days after the final training session, were not statistically different (this was noted in the video).
However, the reason I don't think we should interpret this study as saying high volume was equal to high load as by the 10th day, hypertrophy was similar, was simply because measurements 10 days after the final training session opens the chance of detraining. Using the measurements taken 3 days after the final training session is more reliable and informative for indicating how hypertrophy compared between the conditions. Hope this makes sense!
@@HouseofHypertrophy A yeah, it's clearer now, thanks again!
I have so many questions regarding this study.
Specifically how one group was training so much harder (0-3 RIR) but saw no gains at all?
How was the form from group to group (did the group with the lighter load have a higher ROM due to feeling more comfortable doing so with the lighter weight?
What were the tools used for measurements, and did they use any sort of muscle biopsy?
I think it's a lot going on with this study that go against what many other studies have conflicted these results (especially with the RIR conundrum).
Could there be some difference in performance a full compound lift (with both legs) compared to more of an isolation type structure we see in this study as the protocol was unilaterally based?
Last, what were the nutritional guidelines given to each participants? What if one group consumed more calories or protein due to there being a spike in hunger training with higher reps compared to lower reps.
I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can in order:
1) The speculation is that maybe 5 reps are suboptimal for hypertrophy. Thus, though it's true they're training closer to failure, perhaps training to closer with higher reps is needed.
2) The researchers were not specific on how they instructed subjects to perform their reps. But I imagine all subjects used a more or less full ROM. I'm sure the researchers would have mentioned/corrected the subjects if any of them slacked on ROM, much of the researchers that conducted this study are experienced/highly knowlegable regarding resistance training
3) MRI was used from vastus lateralis cross-sectional area. This is typically considered the "gold standard" for measuring hypertrophy.
4) I agree with your take on this study somewhat conflicting with other studies in so far as RIR. But again, maybe it's just 5 reps is suboptimal, explaining why training further from failure with higher reps is better. It's possible if another group performed sets of 10 with 0-3 RIR, they would have experienced the most hypertrophy (but this is merely speculation).
5) I can't think of any reason as to why training with both legs would change anything. The fact that each subject performed BOTH conditions (one on each leg), in my view, strengthens the data. This removes potential confounding differences such as genetics and nutritional differences.
6) As noted in the above point, each particpant performed BOTH condtions (one on each leg), so there were no groups (i.e. there was NOT one group of subjects training with the high volume and another group subjects training with the high load.) As a result, nutrition differences cannot confound the study. I hope this makes sense :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy amazing thank you so much!
Dude I really like your content , Salute
Thank you my friend, that means a lot to me!
Sets of 5 in my opinion fall more into the category of training the central nervous system as opposed to higher rep training which seems to tax the muscles more than the central nervous system through various mechanisms. The other thing is that the loads involved in 3-5 rep training are so heavy that it’s much easier to cheat and not realize you’re cheating whereas with higher rep training it’s easier to maintain mind muscle connection and use proper form.
The central nervous system is linked to the muscle mind connection .
@@TrynagetJacked for sure……heavier weights and lighter weights both involve the cns. I just have lots of anecdotal experience from spending the past 20 years as a weight lifter that leads me to believe that heavier weights with lower reps definitely taxes my cns faster than lighter weights with more reps. I’ve never had involuntary eye twitches or muscle spasms from working in an 8 to 30 rep range but I’ve definitely had some crazy involuntary eye twitches and spasms after doing weighted dips and pull ups in the 3 to 5 rep range or deadlifts in the 1 to 5 rep range. I understand that’s anecdotal and based on my personal experience but it makes sense when you think about how increases in strength don’t necessarily correlate with increases in muscle size. A person has to dig deeper into some internal source of power to lift some of the heavier weights required for lower rep ranges. To me that’s when it feels like my body is taxing my nervous system more than the muscle itself.
The MAX OT Training, focuses in the 4-6 rep range, which is about the same thing as using 5 reps. It WORKS! 💪😉
Genetics throws a wrench in studies because some subjects will respond to any and all resistance better than other subjects.
Keep up the good work amigos!! Cheers !!
Thank you dude, I appreciate you!
The real question is how this would change if you controlled for work load. Muscle fibers don't know that they are doing sets of reps. Those are just ways to distribute total work load.
I think the high load group just needed more recovery days to grow, and that's why 10 days later they show progress.
I think it is interesting that if I can get x amount of results by lower load and needing less time to recover, or, the other option, same x amount of results by higher load and needing more time to recover. If that's what I can learn from this video, I think I prefer lower load, less time to recover option even if it means higher volume.
@@MlvnJournal it's most likely the time it took them to repair. Everyone thinks 24h/48h is all that's needed. But taking diet and each person being different it can take longer as even shown by this program. Also some of them could squat 1.9x their body weight, how do we know those guys tested were clean, it's not a fair study if that's the case. Otherwise higher reps, blood pumps, you get the pump, goes away afterawhile, you get some gains, heavy load, sames story, maybe less pump but more growth. Just saying.
5-reps dome with what speed/how much time under tension? Same as the high rep speeds? Lots NOT known from this. Like to see a 20-second/ 40-second/80 second set DURATION. Let the loads accommodate the TIME frames.
I feel like it is important to understand how certain muscle groups respond to different stimulus. In my experience and the experience of many others, legs tend to respond extremely well to high volume low-moderate load stimulus compared to other muscle groups.
6:03 If over 10 days there was a decrease in hypertrophy in the "high volume" group, then this most likely indicates a decrease in edema. Therefore, even on the tenth day there could still be swelling. But in this case, we cannot be sure that it was real myofibrillar hypertrophy. However, I think that the increase in strength may be a more informative indicator of myofibrillar hypertrophy and if the strength was greater in the 80% group, then it is quite possible that the real hypertrophy in this group was greater. Also, 18 sets per week, which is a lot even for an experienced athlete, why there was no hypertrophy at all (although if there was an increase in strength, then it is most likely that hypertrophy was also existed). On the other hand, another situation is possible. 80% for the leg press in some studies, people with this weight did about 18 reps PMID: 17194239 . That is, perhaps the 80% group worked long before muscle failure.
I think it's possible detraining (and legit myofibril/sarcoplasm size decrease) can take place in 10 days. The size decrease was small anyway. But, it is true, the researchers did not take any swelling measurements unfortunately.
The high load group progressed their training loads though. They started training with 82.5% one-rep max and progressed to 95% one-rep max loads (both these values are relative to their pre-study one-rep maxes). It is possible, like you said, some individuals would have been training further from failure than others, due to the variablity in the number of reps a person can achieve with a given percentage of their one-rep max. However, the high volume condition itself was training far from failure (10 or so reps in reserve). So I'm not too sure this chnages anything.
@@HouseofHypertrophy "high volume condition itself was training far from failure (10 or so reps in reserve)" on the first sets, yes, but if the rest was short, then fatigue accumulated and each subsequent set was performed with a greater recruitment of motor units. From this point of view, there could well be a situation in which the 60% group worked closer to muscle failure.
They did not state rest intervals unfortuately. But the fatigue generated from leaving 10 rir would not be so much anyway, and they only performed 2-4 sets, so I doubt any of their sets would have been signficantly close to failure (3 or fewer reps away from failure).
@@HouseofHypertrophy fatigue with a short rest of less than a minute, even with 10 RIR, could be enough that each subsequent set was performed with more recruitment of motor units (i.e. motor unit cycling).
@@HouseofHypertrophy and also if 4 sets in two exercises, then this is already 8 sets.
I have no idea how you don’t have more followers
I appreciate your kind sentiment :)
ITS BECAUSE OF RECOVERY. IT TOOK LONGER TO RECOVER FROM THE HIGH INTENSITY, AND SO THERE WAS SOME GROWTH, JUST DELAYED ,PLUS NUTRITION PLAYS A HUGE ROLE IN HYPERTROPHY. SO WHOS TO SAY ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS WERE EATING,DRINKING OR SLEEPING ENOUGH , THATS THE PROBLEM WITH STUDYS LIKE THIS , THERE ARE SO MANY REAL WORLD VARIABLES THAT GO INTO IT , THEY RARELY ISOLATE ANY ONE VARIABLE PROPERLY
i did the 5x5 workout and double almost all lifts i have worked out for many years the problem with your study is there is no sleep and diet to go along with it one may get better results if they were getting better quality in these areas even though the workout wasn't as good
The old tried and true system of 3 sets 10 reps M-W-F has been proven over and over again to work best for size gains. However in my case a single set of 25 reps for squat and calf raise...... and single set of 20 reps upper body works even slightly better. I picked 5 exercises. Full-body. Take all of 7 mins total. Fast easy fun. Never feel worn out. Recover fast. Always eager for next trip to gym. Wish I had known this yrs ago.
something to do with the total weight lifted
4x10 @ 60% is way more in total weight lifted than 3x5 @ 95%
what, this video flew in the face of everything I knew
Here is a fact study done upon Myself 10yrs ago. Due to a torn rotator cuff.
18 month squats only experiment.
Day1
I would choose a weight to maximal failure to 20reps
Deep breathing full squats.
3sets
Day6
Choosing a weight to fail around 3rd rep
3xsets
Alternating above every 5th day
I done no other movements for upper or lower.
Kept in a kcal surplus and increased the quality of nutrition.
I gained nearly 2st
Added 1” to arm’s
3/4” to calves
Nearly 2” chest
1&3/4” to thighs
What they should've done is lower the percentage on the high load days slightly and doubled up on the sets so that the total amount of reps per week were closer to that of the higher rep group
This is a great example of asking the wrong question. High intensity-style training requires fewer reps _and_ fewer _sets._ The theory is that lifting to failure on the 4th through 6th rep of 1 set causes more hypertrophy than 2-3 sets of 8-12 reps. Doing 2-3 sets of high-weight/low-rep is counter to the philosophy of HIT and therefore does not answer the question of whether it is more or less effective than the classic 2-3 sets of 8-12 reps method.
Further, part of the philosophy of high intensity training is max effort for few reps, just enough exercises to get all the muscles and then get out of the gym and into lots of recovery time. Since the muscles (and everything else) are worked so hard so quickly, lots of sets are counterproductive since they are just overtraining. Likewise, split routines and going to the gym every day is viewed with suspicion for the same reason: time for recovery and avoidance of overtraining.
In science, when a theory is proved wrong by an experiment, *_that is not a failed experiment._* That is a _successful_ experiment. Experiments are not for _confirming_ theories, they are for _testing_ them.
By failing to test actual high intensity-style training, this experiment failed to demonstrate whether it is more or less effective than "classic" style training.
This is not a measurement of HIT.
I like both. 5-7 reps for adapting to heavier loads(strength). 10-15 for hypertrophy. With lower reps the closer you get to failure the more you risk injury because of the strain on joints, ligaments, tendons, and muscle. I try to warm up good to avoid injuries.
I am 48 and when I go heavy low rep, I keep getting injured. Pec, shoulder, lower back, etc. It just isn't worth it for me to risk it. I'd rather do 30 reps to failure safely than 5 reps, and be laid up for 4 to 6 weeks recovering.
Here's the problem w/ this study. Legs usually need higher rep counts since there are more fibers, while upper body needs lower reps...... typically 8 reps for upper body and 12-20 reps for lower body.... but the key is rest periods, which is why Vince Gironda perfectly nailed the summation with his 8x8 rep training for back and chest, 6x6 for arms, and upwards of 6-8 sets for legs up to 20 reps. All of this is done with sets prescribed with 30 seconds or less of rest. Done each body part twice/week, and you have no choice but to grow
30 seconds of rest on compound movements taking every set to failure? Not on this planet how about 3 minutes? Vince girona did steroids so of course he could only rest for 30 seconds and be fine 2 minutes for isolations for me it's a myth that you can't rest longer than 30 seconds, to a minute it's all about when you're recovered enough to do your set to failure that matters 😎👍
I thought this was already settled that lower reps is great for strength and higher reps are great for size. Ideally, there should come a time for mixture of both whether block or undulating. Doesn't Dan Green on the powerlifting side do both high reps for awhile then low reps? Doesn't Chris Bumstead on the bodybuilding side do both low reps and high reps?
the high load grew after 10 days because it takes the body longer to respond to higher loads. Think Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer
anyone that has done insane amounts of high volume, high rep work KNOWS its superior for muscle gains. The difference can be felt immediately.
Yes agree just like Tom Platz squats 25-30 rep range and then when you hit the failure point or almost failure he will ask you to 5 more! Just watch his videos
A six week study tells you what works best over 6 weeks. It has very little bearing over what works best over years and years.
The high volume group probably just had an increase in glycogen and not muscle tissue (you don’t lose muscle that fast). The low volume group’s routine seems to be too intense and didn’t allow for proper recovery- which explains the delayed supercompensation (which is likely more muscle than glycogen).
Wonder what Chris Beardsley has to say about this...I believe he recommends 5-7 reps and going higher causes a lot more fatigue
Yep it would be interesting to hear his thoughts!
Paul Carter and Joe Bennet recommends 6-8 ;) maybe that one rep makes all the difference lol
My greatest gains were between the 5-8 rep range.
Another potential mitigating factor...doing 3 heavy sets of 5, there might be insufficient time to recover in just 48 hours...(heck, I take 4, and not infrequently
sometimes 5 days off between bench/dips/flies day, and I seem stronger after 5 days off....)
One very important point not covered in the first study is the amount of rest time between sets.
The 10 rep group could shorten the rest period such that the subsequent sets could be to near failure.
Eg. If the rest period was say just 15 - 30s then sets 2, 3 & 4 could be near to failure but if the rest periods were 60+s then like you said no set would be anywhere near failure.
Either way though this is great to know!
Also interesting to see just how quickly we lose any gains when stopping exercise!
Though I love training and will keep doing it, it just goes to show in the big scheme of things (apart from for ego and aesthetics) what a waste of time hypertrophy training really is!
I emailed the authors and they said they kept it constant to 2-3 mins for all participants
I wish I remembered who it was but there was a fitness UA-camr that tried training his legs hard everyday, and was getting little mass addition considering his output. He gave up and started focusing on chest and then his legs started blowing up
it takes about 6 minutes for creatine phosphate levels to normalise so best thing to do if you want to max out of your workout would be to do circuit training.
It would be interesting to see up to date experiences on people doing hi rep to failure training vs. studies and theories. Along with other styles.
Higher reps 8-12 are better for size, muscles adapt by increasing its capacity for more glycogen and water. Bodybuilder puffy muscles
In low reps/heavy weight, muscles adapt by increasing size of the actual muscle fiber so we can lift heavier. This kind muscles growth are less noticable. Weightlifter dense muscles
So it depends on your goal
When programming, I like adding sets and reps for hypertrophy while autoregulating load and giving a target rpe
Just do pyramid training on each sesh at the gym i.e. start at your weight at 15 rep range, for warm up, then add more plates for an 8 rep then range set, then add more plates for the 4-5 rep range set, before adding maximum weight for your 1rpm, then take all the plates off and go back to your 15 rep range for a warm down. All these studies are theory, the proof is in the pudding, anecdotal experience.
I used to train for 5 sets 5 reps for muscle groups so l could life heavy because l used to be somewhat an ego lifter and powerlifter. Then l dropped the ego, lowered the weight and did rep range of 10-12 for 5 sets and my god l've put on a lot of muscle in one year consistent training. I think the low volume but heavy weight gave me the muscle density and base to lift more, and the high volume just give me the stimulus my muscles needed to actually grow larger
5×5 isn't ego lifting as long as you choose a weight you can go to failure with for those reps there's not much of a difference between 5, and 10 reps as long as you go to failure the main difference would be that you would get stronger with 5 reps 😎👍
@@kingadjust6201oh for sure 5x5 is still good, just for my case l went too heavy and didn't go full range of motion until l lowered the weight and did higher reps.
The high volume group are what we used to call "the pump boys". They would come back off vacation all flat and had to start all over again to get pumped up. It was all just temporary fluid build up. Did anybody notice that at the 10 days after mark the 2 studies resulted in the SAME growth? The load group healed up and grew real muscle tissue.
1.9 times bodyweight in back squat, thats damn impressive
I postulate 13 out of 15 are on gear and everybody knows on gear you can do gymnastics and yoga to get big
Mean at 167kg max and you assume they're on gear. Sigh... What an incredibly lost generation I live in. Here is some food for thought. They're either weightlifters or powerlifters with a few years of experience. No need for gear hitting 167kg @ 1.9x BW.
My back squat is @1.75x bw and I don't even train to improve back squat (strictly front squat to perform olympic lifts). Its not even impressive. My squat is pretty shit for what I want it to be. Front squat too. It's @1.41x BW ass to grass and its pretty garbage in comparison to what I need to perform at amateur-level olympic lifting events. My goal is a 1.6x BW front squat by the end of this year.
I really hope you are just a bodybuilder and not used to the world of strength sport. Go accuse bodybuilders of gear. Thinking 1.9x BW = gear is simply deluded. I pray you get stronger so your mind realize strength is not as limited as hypertrophy.
I recall about 30yrs ago reading a study that workout out if you are fast or slow twitch dominant. I think they used 85% of 1rep max, if you could only do 5-8reps? or less you were fast twitch dominant if you did more than 8reps you were slow twitch dominant. So they said if fast twitch dominant use lower rep ranges and if slow twitch dominant use high rep ranges.
I fit the fast twitch group and found it impossible to add wt consistently to the bar when using say 10reps but when using 5reps or even singles I could progress my poundage alot easier. I found i put size on the stronger I got. If I just used the same wt for 10reps and increased the volume I doubt I'd get far. But I've seen other guys need high volume, so it seems very individual to me.
why do these studies always fail to isolate a single variable. if the reps remained the same between both, but they varied each leg by either increasing the % of 1rm or increasing the number of sets, you could actually know what is doing what. who comes up with these
I do 5x5 for squats and only squats because any more than 5 reps a set and I start to lose focus. Ever since I started doing 5x5 I don't hate squats anymore.
Your body doesn't know what reps, sets, heavy or light is.
All it knows is stimulus.
How you give it that stimulus is up to you.
Another good video. I wonder of the heavy leg didnt have enough rest at 3 days per week, for a large muscle near max
Can you do a study review on taking break between reps less than 1min (for example 20 sec), some people claim it is superior than long break
If all things are equal, then go with what’s safer. Also, I get a better mind muscle connection when I can really control the weight. So imho, 8-15
So many unique variables in studies makes them very generic. Seems like most experienced lifters know thrugh expereience how this works. If you do the lows workouts for power, on the last set or two, after positive failure, have a spotter assist on the positive and blast the negative part for a couple more reps.
Why do all of three studies only look at the lateralis and never the vastis medialis? I think the medialis is even more important for a more full look (from a body building perspective).
Great info! Would like to see a study done on 5x5 training
Agreed, thank you!
Great video I never do less than 10 reps but I don't count I think about the muscle working I worry about moving the weights slowly and controlled and keeping tension on the muscle and eccentric movements this was a great video thanks ❤️🙏👍🏼
Awesome, thank you my friend. I wish you continued gainz!
Hi I really like your videos... just discovered your channel. One thing, can you start uploading onto Spotify and Apple Podcasts? I would like to listen to your videos during work, however, I don't have UA-cam Premium and don't want to deal with the ads?
Hey, thank you for your kind words. I'm not sure it would be worth uploading everything to those platforms, as the animations are intended to go along with the voiceover.
However, I understand that you can pretty much understand everything without the animations. If you'd like, feel free to email me at contact@houseofhypertrophy.com, and I can send you the video itself (and any other video you like). That way you can listen to it all without the ads.
Interesting study, thanks for sharing. Out of curiosity, what rest structure between sets did they follow? Were there any 1rpm or testing to failure produced? Id put money the high load being stronger over the 6 week period.
Unfortunately, the researchers did not mention rest interval duration's between sets. 1rm was tested before and after the study for the leg extension and leg press. Both conditions saw similar 1RM leg press gains, but 1rm leg extension gains were greater for the high load condition.
Sorry bro but this is not new. The 5set of 5 reps was created by Bill Starr a strength and conditioning coach long time ago. I hate it when you tubers try to steal something that was done a long time ago they think we don’t know well we do
It not a new study nice try.
Doing a range of rep ranges works best - obviously. I jam out 3 sets of 12, 2 sets of 8 then finish on one set of 5 for a lot of exercises. Pushing up that strength so I can do a higher weight for my sets of 12 in the future. Jamming the same sets and reps and exercises week after week just ends in plateaus and destroys your joints.
What is exactly is a Rep? How many seconds up and down? These studies are so irritating leaving so many variables on the table. Why is the time under tension never taken into account? You can make 5 reps last as long as you want from 10 seconds to over a minute, might a variable worth accounting for.
New study shows that sprinting at maximum effort results in fastest times.
To test which level of effort produced the fastest running times scientists tested 3 separate groups in a 100m. Group A sprinted at maximum effort. Group B jogged. Group C walked. Of the 3 groups group A recorded the fastest 100m times. Based on this data scientists have concluded that a full max effort sprint produces the fastest times and should be applied across all distances of running.
A six week study only tells you what produces the best results over 6 weeks nothing more nothing less.
I love 5 reps sett and long ROM
the high load condition seems much more likely to be overtrained... they are using trained men and going to 5 reps at 95% by the 6th week? average number of reps to failure at 60% is 20 reps, so they probably never came close to failure, allowing them to recover from 3 times per week training, whereas the high load group was consistently overtrained, and only recovered after the study allowed them to rest and grew in hypertrophy
I mean if you are training for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy this study makes sense. Doing more reps will increase metabolites and cause swelling. I do not consider swelling muscle growth but people looking from the outside will think differently.
The high volulme's growth was not neccessarily sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. In fact, upon re-checking now, the researchers took some measures within the muscle fiber level, and these indicate myofibrillar hypertrohy (proportional growth of the sarcoplasm and myofibrils).
Also, although swelling can technically be considered sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, there are other potential ways sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs independent of swelling. For example, an increase in sarcoplasmic proteins or other energy components within the muscle fiber could drive water in to the cell, causing sarcoplasm growth. This type of growth would not be as transient as swelling, and would quality as a legit form of hypertrohy in my view. Hope this makes sense :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Did they examine the strength group because there would be Microfibillar Hypertrophy as well right? Which wouldnt indicate muscle growth from a circumference externally. The type of growth that is measured is more skewed towards sarcroplasmic. Heck just getting more protein can make muscles grow lol.
The high load group saw no hypertrophy on average (by the 3rd day after the study). But, the relative amount of myofibrils and sarcoplasm space remained unchanged for them too.
@@HouseofHypertrophy it seems to me that volume increase did not match their true strength potential and mearly was an estimate. We know factually that the more power a muscle produces the more microfibilar hypertrophy matters. I havent looked at these studies but there is something amist if there was no change.
Wow, very interesting. It is a huge volume difference, there is much greater time under tension. Is it time under tension differences that brings maximum hypertrophy and increases TUT as you cycle your workouts? Thought provoking.
I have a video on time under tension on the channel, I don't think it's all that important (as in longer TUT does not always equal more gains)
What does the research show on best rest time between sets? I typically rest 2m for 8-12 reps and 3-4 mins when lifting heavier 5 rep sets.
I will say this is did notice increased gains and strength even faster recovery going lighter/more sets. However, I have hit a plateau doing this for 4months. Going low rep heavy weight for a couple months to switch it up.
tries *to, or vary close to failure*:
"AAAAAAAAHHHHHRRR MY SPINE!"
*DIES*
Very well done Video! Thanks
Thank YOU for checking out the video!
Content creators: eternally arguing low load high rep vs. High load low rep. Trying to be optimal.
The reality: consistently moving moderate load for moderate reps close to failure has always worked just fine.