because this is coaching/programming content, science in training is very very new so not many people at all know how to base their progress on science, like i use RPE and i see very good progress but i dont compete and i cant tell you or demonstrate why what im doing is the most optimal method or is super factual, for non world class competitors just training, having fun and use rpe normally is sufficient
Note that the Forever Program is half off for this week, at 12.99 a month for all of my current and future programs (Candito 6 Week V2 coming next) - www.supersetapp.com/storefronts/candito-forever-program-527 If I get 100 new people joining for this week's sale, I'll just make that the permanent price. So share with anyone who wants to hop in -
Candito I agree with you with regards to BBing periodization EXCEPT, most (natural especially) bodybuilders are going to utilize certain staple compound movements for the purpose of hypertrophy--e.g., squat and variations, bench, OHP, etc. Several movements are used as in powerlifting (squat, bench, deadlift), and these movements are indeed progressively overloaded to continually facilitate ever increasing loads needed for appropriate muscular tension, in turn...hypertrophy. It's very clear that for a natural bodybuilder...strength and hypertrophy track fairly WITHIN the individual (not necessarily the same degree of relationship across several people). That is to say...I'm often at my biggest and most muscular when my lifts happen to be at the stronger end of my strength capability continuum. So getting stronger on those lifts is directly correlated with me growing...which of course is my ultimate goal. So in this regard...if my strength stagnated on squat for many weeks and adding additional sets a volume stimulus was ineffective...wouldn't it stand to reason I might benefit from some form of periodization tools...even as small as a deload on the main movements? Of course it does. So, although technically you could just endlessly provide novel stimulus for trainees and never train any movement patterns sufficiently to get stronger in them (and above I explain why this benefits from periodization or at least strategies developed via periodization science)...you would 1. run out of practical movements quickly in any serious long-term bodybuilders in for many years. 2. would be exceedingly impractical and not fun for most people in the gym.
That's the chicken and the egg problem. Are you getting stronger because you are getting bigger or are you getting bigger because you are getting stronger? The simple answer is that all, or at least most, gains you are doing training near failure, at moderate to higher reps, with movements that are NOT novel, are probably due to hypertrophy. Likewise, all gains you are making training further from failure, at lower reps, with novel or not novel movements, are probably due to neural adaptations. I think the best course of action for a recreational lifter is just to focus on hypertrophy most of the time, and track strength gains over the long term. It's just a side effect in a bodybuidling context.
@@MrCatgroove You are totally correct, IMO, that it is indeed a side-effect of bodybuilding. All the more reason to gauge your progress by strength gains on most movements. Even the barbell curl I look to add a rep to or increase the load over time--it's as you said not the goal in itself...but, it is a proxy for progress on a slow/moderate gaining phase. You need some bio-feedback outside of just bodyweight on the scale when you're deep into a massing phase...you need some landmarks along the way to indicate you're progressing. The best landmarks for me are related to strength. This is much more the case, as I mentioned, for the natural lifter, because PEDs in themselves alter neural activation favorably. The natural bodybuilder should include some form of periodization in their training. I certainly would concede to our great Liege Candito that the degree of complexity is likely a lot less than bodybuilding, but it is still beneficial (IMO). When you look at research, such as that cited by Candito in the vid, you need to contextualize it appropriately. I can tell you from personal experience as not only a subject in several studies at FAU, as well as a PhD Candidate/researcher myself...there are a lot of shortcomings with exercise science research--the training status of the subjects is often defined differently between studies/labs...the duration of those studies are at most 12 weeks due to logistics of human subjects (college students and semester start/end dates). It's not as cut and dry to just extrapolate 1, 2 or even more studies to real-world application. So again, I want to re-iterate that I do not disagree with anything Candito says for the duration of this entire video...if anything, I'm grateful he'd release such valuable information in the context of powerlifting. But, I do disagree with his take on bodybuilding/periodization. This is not something he's totally alone on...Dr. Loenneke (BFR guy) has published a review questioning periodization for bodybuilding as well. I just think much of these conclusions are due to looking primarily at the body of ex science lit we currently have, and as I said, there are major shortcomings to that. In real-world...when you're looking at advanced or even intermediate bodybuilders who are passed the novice gain phase...it becomes much more difficult to grow tissue, and in turn, strength on lifts are much slower to progress. This actually goes well with your point of the chicken or egg. Perhaps those lifts are not progressing because new muscle tissue is not accumulating, all the more reason to incorporate things such as tapering training stress (volume, intensity, both w.e.). Last point--there are individuals who feel periodization even for powerlifting is somewhat over-rated. That is not to say useless, but over-rated. The reason being...the lifts themselves are the competition. In all other sports where periodization science has been born from (track sports, gymnastics, team sports etc.) the lifts and training are often not the competitive event itself, and thus periodization becomes much more pivotal AND much more complex. Specialization in those types of events involve going all the way from something as basic barbel training in off-season to highly specific skill acquisition such as positional soccer. Compare that circumstance to periodizing for powerlifting...or even periodizing for running...where the training is the sport...and periodization is in reality a glorified version of volume/intensity manipulation. Or perhaps in a conjugate system, moving closer to the actual competition lifts and away from more of the assistance or alternate movements. It's a huge difference in complexity. So, I could argue periodization for powerlifting, at least at the intermediate level, is probably not that complex as one would lead you to believe. But, I wouldn't say it's useless...and I wouldn't say it's useless for bodybuilding either.
I ran the forever program, but had to cancel for broke student reasons as I'm not using it all year round. Was looking to run it again from next week, guess i get the discounted price this time :)
Thinking of going for my first meet in powerlifting. Currently 9 weeks out. would you recommend a program from your app in case I don't get it together myself
Hey jonnie, i've been paying $13 since you released the 8 week program. If I unsubscribed (i will be leaving the country for a bit), and resubscribe, do I keep the price i had before?
Johney, how many cans of tuna I need to drink in a shake to grow all of a sudden like you did? Currently I'm up to 8, blending with water only, first thing in the morning. But little gains. Please help.
Depends on what you mean by "difference." Do you mean for hypertrophy or do you mean for your 1rm. The program you outlined is a great hypertrophy style program and it will improve your 1rm, but it won't maximise your 1rm. To do that you have to train close to it and adapt over time.
@@liamsloan5410 so what if you just add in some singles and do the main compound movement at the start of the workout in the 5-8 rep range? For example each day you have your main powerlift hit a top single then do 3x5-7 then continue on with whatever accessories. It just seems to me like all this complicated programming is just a way to feel like you’re making progress at a faster rate
@jaymcn I get. This would be more of what is considered a "powerbuilding" program. This again is not optimal for producing your best 1rm. Those heavy singles will produce a lot of systemic fatigue and axial fatigue (fatigue of the lower back) this will need to be recovered from to achieve maximum hypertrophy. For example a lot of body builders will do hard and heavy leg extensions or hamstring curls prior to doing squats or deadlift movements. This allows them to pre-fatigue these muscles for the compound movement which means they can go lighter on the compound. This then drives down the axial and systemic fatigue from squats and deads which means recovery time is reduced and they can hit that muscle group multiple times throughout the week. I can't as a powerlifter repeat my best deadlift effort 2 to 3 times a week. It would just bring on too much systemic fatigue. I can't even replicate my best effort once a week over several weeks.
@@liamsloan5410 what about just heavy singles ranging from rpe 5-7 then? Then the sets being in the 6-9 range? With maybe an occasional pr if you feel good. Like squat single@6 then 3x5-7@7 then hack squats or leg extensions 3 sets rpe 7-9 and repeat twice a week with the aim to add weight every month or other month and switching the accessories just based on feel and weak points. What’s the reasoning for going more complex than that?
@jaymcn it's still not maximising either your hypertrophy or your 1rm. There is always a trade off to some degree when you are talking about maximising. I recommend Mike israetels video on powerbuidling, because most of what I am saying is just reiterating what he said in his video. Another good youtuber on the subject would be Allen thrall, but I don't know if he has a specific video on it. When powerlifting you are likely to want to stay in rpe 7+, with 3-5 reps and the occasional AMRAP or rpe 9+ single. Below that will struggle to achieve the adaptation required for most people to maximise their 1rms
How far would you go on the rep ranges being more nuero fatiguing though? A true Max effort lift is incredibly fatiguing. I would think medium rep ranges at RPE 7-8 aren't nearly as fatiguing.
You don’t hit true max efforts in training. Unless of course your entire plan revolves around it like Westside. With that said, 1 @8 is less fatiguing than 8 @8.
@@casperthegst Definitely recommend you check out “Why you should use singles to increase your max” by Brazos Valley Strength (David Woolson). He covers this topic in a lot of depth (singles being fatiguing or not as much as traditionally though).
.)•(..}•{..]•[../•\..)•(..}•{..]•[../•\. Just some more comments and a Like for the algo. *************** Stay shredded, brahs (and brahettes). *************** We're all gonna make it. *************** Peace.
Part 1 would be better if you didn't just assume everyone knew what you were talking about. A lot of topics were very hard to understand, and I've probably watched every single video on strength training programming on UA-cam. Maybe you can clarify these points from part 1 so everyone can see? 1. On the volume section, you say that 7x3 = 3x10, but your premise is that these are not the same for hypertrophy, since you claim right before that lower reps produce less hypertrophy but moderate and high reps produce the same, so you concluding with 7x3 = 3x10 seems a bit weird. You also say that equating sets does not work for powerlifting, but you never explain why. It's just a very confusing presentation. You also say that there is a study where if you flip the reps and sets, the hypertrophy is the same, but this goes against the previous point of moderate to higher reps being better for hypertrophy. So which one is it? 2. Then you start the discussion about everything above 7 is the same, in your framework. That would've been useful to know before you equated 7x3 to 3x10, because that makes a lot more sense now, because 3x10 is essentially 3x7 to you, and based on what you said before, 7x3 = 3x7 because of the Brad Schoenfeld study. It still doesn't answer the contradiction laid out before though with the moderate to high reps. 3. The example with Greg Nuckols, comparing 3x12 to a 7x4, and Greg saying that they should've had a 3x4 group in there, and if they re-did the study enough times, it would be a 5x4 that's equal to 3x12 instead of a 7x4. You explained this extremely poorly. What am I to learn from this if I don't go to Greg himself? There's nothing to go on here. Why would it equal to 5x4 and not a 7x4? It makes zero sense, given the information that you have laid out. I understand but I'm just giving you the prespective from someone that's new to this. 4. The repeating cycle with the overlap makes no sense to me. You should have given an example. This is what you said: "You do 7's for 2 weeks, then 4's for 2 weeks, then 3's for 2 weeks then they taper down and hit a single. If that goes well, I overlap the rep ranges more, at least 50% will be the same as the last cycle with +10 lbs, but overall I add 5-15 lbs.". What the hell does this mean? Is it the most convoluted way of saying that you just repeat the cycle with more weight? Or do you only add weight to 50% of the sets? Or what are you saying here? I saw a lot of comments regarding this and I don't think many people understood this.
1. Although lower reps sets are less hypertrophic, more volume directly corelates with muscle growth. Therefore doing more of lower rep sets can equate less of higher rep sets in terms of outcomes.
@@FilipGustawWojcik Nah, he's saying that 3x10 = 7x3 because 3x10 = 3x7 and thus 3x7 = 7x3. The problem is that he explained that 3x10 = 3x7 much later in the video.
@@MrCatgroove I don't think there is any problem with this model. We have evidence that sets below circa 5 reps are less hypertrophic per set, but within the higher rep ranges you do not see much difference (roughly 3x10 = 3x7 = 3x20, but 3x7 != 3x3 - you have to do more sets of 3 for similar result)
first
Congratulations. You get the pinned comment of honor.
I look forward to part 3 in 2027
You need to be a tad more patient than that!!
Too little powerlifting content online with actual concrete advice like this, very appreciated!
Bromley is great as well
Yeah I wish Matt vena made more long form content
because this is coaching/programming content, science in training is very very new so not many people at all know how to base their progress on science, like i use RPE and i see very good progress but i dont compete and i cant tell you or demonstrate why what im doing is the most optimal method or is super factual, for non world class competitors just training, having fun and use rpe normally is sufficient
Candito turning us into Candito HQ brick by brick
Fully bricked!
@@buffetline2605 I am personally super bricked
Note that the Forever Program is half off for this week, at 12.99 a month for all of my current and future programs (Candito 6 Week V2 coming next) - www.supersetapp.com/storefronts/candito-forever-program-527
If I get 100 new people joining for this week's sale, I'll just make that the permanent price. So share with anyone who wants to hop in -
As someone that can't afford coaching, I'm so grateful for your videos!
babe wake up....
new candito video just dropped!
I beat you to it.
😏
remember, remember the Candito program of forever, the bench, deadlift, and squat. I know of no reason why the Candito teachings should ever be forgot
We love you!
U know someone’s been training for over ten years when they refer to the natural bodybuilding community as the “Matt Ogus“ community😂
Candito I agree with you with regards to BBing periodization EXCEPT, most (natural especially) bodybuilders are going to utilize certain staple compound movements for the purpose of hypertrophy--e.g., squat and variations, bench, OHP, etc. Several movements are used as in powerlifting (squat, bench, deadlift), and these movements are indeed progressively overloaded to continually facilitate ever increasing loads needed for appropriate muscular tension, in turn...hypertrophy. It's very clear that for a natural bodybuilder...strength and hypertrophy track fairly WITHIN the individual (not necessarily the same degree of relationship across several people). That is to say...I'm often at my biggest and most muscular when my lifts happen to be at the stronger end of my strength capability continuum. So getting stronger on those lifts is directly correlated with me growing...which of course is my ultimate goal. So in this regard...if my strength stagnated on squat for many weeks and adding additional sets a volume stimulus was ineffective...wouldn't it stand to reason I might benefit from some form of periodization tools...even as small as a deload on the main movements? Of course it does. So, although technically you could just endlessly provide novel stimulus for trainees and never train any movement patterns sufficiently to get stronger in them (and above I explain why this benefits from periodization or at least strategies developed via periodization science)...you would 1. run out of practical movements quickly in any serious long-term bodybuilders in for many years. 2. would be exceedingly impractical and not fun for most people in the gym.
That's the chicken and the egg problem. Are you getting stronger because you are getting bigger or are you getting bigger because you are getting stronger?
The simple answer is that all, or at least most, gains you are doing training near failure, at moderate to higher reps, with movements that are NOT novel, are probably due to hypertrophy.
Likewise, all gains you are making training further from failure, at lower reps, with novel or not novel movements, are probably due to neural adaptations.
I think the best course of action for a recreational lifter is just to focus on hypertrophy most of the time, and track strength gains over the long term. It's just a side effect in a bodybuidling context.
@@MrCatgroove You are totally correct, IMO, that it is indeed a side-effect of bodybuilding. All the more reason to gauge your progress by strength gains on most movements. Even the barbell curl I look to add a rep to or increase the load over time--it's as you said not the goal in itself...but, it is a proxy for progress on a slow/moderate gaining phase. You need some bio-feedback outside of just bodyweight on the scale when you're deep into a massing phase...you need some landmarks along the way to indicate you're progressing. The best landmarks for me are related to strength. This is much more the case, as I mentioned, for the natural lifter, because PEDs in themselves alter neural activation favorably.
The natural bodybuilder should include some form of periodization in their training. I certainly would concede to our great Liege Candito that the degree of complexity is likely a lot less than bodybuilding, but it is still beneficial (IMO). When you look at research, such as that cited by Candito in the vid, you need to contextualize it appropriately. I can tell you from personal experience as not only a subject in several studies at FAU, as well as a PhD Candidate/researcher myself...there are a lot of shortcomings with exercise science research--the training status of the subjects is often defined differently between studies/labs...the duration of those studies are at most 12 weeks due to logistics of human subjects (college students and semester start/end dates). It's not as cut and dry to just extrapolate 1, 2 or even more studies to real-world application. So again, I want to re-iterate that I do not disagree with anything Candito says for the duration of this entire video...if anything, I'm grateful he'd release such valuable information in the context of powerlifting. But, I do disagree with his take on bodybuilding/periodization. This is not something he's totally alone on...Dr. Loenneke (BFR guy) has published a review questioning periodization for bodybuilding as well.
I just think much of these conclusions are due to looking primarily at the body of ex science lit we currently have, and as I said, there are major shortcomings to that. In real-world...when you're looking at advanced or even intermediate bodybuilders who are passed the novice gain phase...it becomes much more difficult to grow tissue, and in turn, strength on lifts are much slower to progress. This actually goes well with your point of the chicken or egg. Perhaps those lifts are not progressing because new muscle tissue is not accumulating, all the more reason to incorporate things such as tapering training stress (volume, intensity, both w.e.).
Last point--there are individuals who feel periodization even for powerlifting is somewhat over-rated. That is not to say useless, but over-rated. The reason being...the lifts themselves are the competition. In all other sports where periodization science has been born from (track sports, gymnastics, team sports etc.) the lifts and training are often not the competitive event itself, and thus periodization becomes much more pivotal AND much more complex. Specialization in those types of events involve going all the way from something as basic barbel training in off-season to highly specific skill acquisition such as positional soccer. Compare that circumstance to periodizing for powerlifting...or even periodizing for running...where the training is the sport...and periodization is in reality a glorified version of volume/intensity manipulation. Or perhaps in a conjugate system, moving closer to the actual competition lifts and away from more of the assistance or alternate movements. It's a huge difference in complexity. So, I could argue periodization for powerlifting, at least at the intermediate level, is probably not that complex as one would lead you to believe. But, I wouldn't say it's useless...and I wouldn't say it's useless for bodybuilding either.
Jito, good seeing you back! 💪🏽🙏
Banger video. I personally love static RPEs
I ran the forever program, but had to cancel for broke student reasons as I'm not using it all year round. Was looking to run it again from next week, guess i get the discounted price this time :)
Excellent! Glad to have you back. When the 6 week sheet is out, I'll also open up Q and A submissions so be on the look out for that on Sunday.
I LOVE JONNIE CANDITO
can you do a video for total beginner where you explain every basic?
Hello Candito
Thinking of going for my first meet in powerlifting. Currently 9 weeks out. would you recommend a program from your app in case I don't get it together myself
Hey jonnie, i've been paying $13 since you released the 8 week program. If I unsubscribed (i will be leaving the country for a bit), and resubscribe, do I keep the price i had before?
Thanks johnny a huge haack fan aswell. How can I purchase you as coach?
Do you sell programms for cycling individuals? I dialed my recovery and I find your legacy programs a bit on the soft side.
Johney, how many cans of tuna I need to drink in a shake to grow all of a sudden like you did? Currently I'm up to 8, blending with water only, first thing in the morning. But little gains.
Please help.
What happened to your usual website with the free programs and shit I saw it looked like under renovation and now it gone
Two?
How much of a difference does all this stuff make vs just doing 10-20 sets/wk per muscle group, 1-3 RIR, 5-30 reps a set and good recovery
Depends on what you mean by "difference." Do you mean for hypertrophy or do you mean for your 1rm. The program you outlined is a great hypertrophy style program and it will improve your 1rm, but it won't maximise your 1rm. To do that you have to train close to it and adapt over time.
@@liamsloan5410 so what if you just add in some singles and do the main compound movement at the start of the workout in the 5-8 rep range? For example each day you have your main powerlift hit a top single then do 3x5-7 then continue on with whatever accessories. It just seems to me like all this complicated programming is just a way to feel like you’re making progress at a faster rate
@jaymcn I get. This would be more of what is considered a "powerbuilding" program. This again is not optimal for producing your best 1rm. Those heavy singles will produce a lot of systemic fatigue and axial fatigue (fatigue of the lower back) this will need to be recovered from to achieve maximum hypertrophy.
For example a lot of body builders will do hard and heavy leg extensions or hamstring curls prior to doing squats or deadlift movements. This allows them to pre-fatigue these muscles for the compound movement which means they can go lighter on the compound. This then drives down the axial and systemic fatigue from squats and deads which means recovery time is reduced and they can hit that muscle group multiple times throughout the week.
I can't as a powerlifter repeat my best deadlift effort 2 to 3 times a week. It would just bring on too much systemic fatigue. I can't even replicate my best effort once a week over several weeks.
@@liamsloan5410 what about just heavy singles ranging from rpe 5-7 then? Then the sets being in the 6-9 range? With maybe an occasional pr if you feel good. Like squat single@6 then 3x5-7@7 then hack squats or leg extensions 3 sets rpe 7-9 and repeat twice a week with the aim to add weight every month or other month and switching the accessories just based on feel and weak points. What’s the reasoning for going more complex than that?
@jaymcn it's still not maximising either your hypertrophy or your 1rm. There is always a trade off to some degree when you are talking about maximising. I recommend Mike israetels video on powerbuidling, because most of what I am saying is just reiterating what he said in his video. Another good youtuber on the subject would be Allen thrall, but I don't know if he has a specific video on it.
When powerlifting you are likely to want to stay in rpe 7+, with 3-5 reps and the occasional AMRAP or rpe 9+ single. Below that will struggle to achieve the adaptation required for most people to maximise their 1rms
How far would you go on the rep ranges being more nuero fatiguing though? A true Max effort lift is incredibly fatiguing. I would think medium rep ranges at RPE 7-8 aren't nearly as fatiguing.
You don’t hit true max efforts in training. Unless of course your entire plan revolves around it like Westside.
With that said, 1 @8 is less fatiguing than 8 @8.
@@tmapplesgaming2271 yep I was referring to westside but you dont have to do westside with true max effort either on the other hand
@@casperthegst Definitely recommend you check out “Why you should use singles to increase your max” by Brazos Valley Strength (David Woolson).
He covers this topic in a lot of depth (singles being fatiguing or not as much as traditionally though).
Higher reps and higher RPE both increases fatigue. The most fatiguing is very high reps at a high RPE.
Steve Buscemi powerlifts now?
I just pick up and put down weights. I’m too dumb for this
3 years, BOJ
Holy shit I'm early.
Jonnie man, great stuff, but where are you recording this? Sounds like you’re in a completely empty house 😂😂😂
lol right 😂
HELLOOOOOOOO
w
Ayo candytoe
hi jonnie
You look very scary now
.)•(..}•{..]•[../•\..)•(..}•{..]•[../•\.
Just some more comments and a Like for the algo.
***************
Stay shredded, brahs (and brahettes).
***************
We're all gonna make it.
***************
Peace.
Part 1 would be better if you didn't just assume everyone knew what you were talking about. A lot of topics were very hard to understand, and I've probably watched every single video on strength training programming on UA-cam.
Maybe you can clarify these points from part 1 so everyone can see?
1. On the volume section, you say that 7x3 = 3x10, but your premise is that these are not the same for hypertrophy, since you claim right before that lower reps produce less hypertrophy but moderate and high reps produce the same, so you concluding with 7x3 = 3x10 seems a bit weird. You also say that equating sets does not work for powerlifting, but you never explain why. It's just a very confusing presentation. You also say that there is a study where if you flip the reps and sets, the hypertrophy is the same, but this goes against the previous point of moderate to higher reps being better for hypertrophy. So which one is it?
2. Then you start the discussion about everything above 7 is the same, in your framework. That would've been useful to know before you equated 7x3 to 3x10, because that makes a lot more sense now, because 3x10 is essentially 3x7 to you, and based on what you said before, 7x3 = 3x7 because of the Brad Schoenfeld study. It still doesn't answer the contradiction laid out before though with the moderate to high reps.
3. The example with Greg Nuckols, comparing 3x12 to a 7x4, and Greg saying that they should've had a 3x4 group in there, and if they re-did the study enough times, it would be a 5x4 that's equal to 3x12 instead of a 7x4. You explained this extremely poorly. What am I to learn from this if I don't go to Greg himself? There's nothing to go on here. Why would it equal to 5x4 and not a 7x4? It makes zero sense, given the information that you have laid out. I understand but I'm just giving you the prespective from someone that's new to this.
4. The repeating cycle with the overlap makes no sense to me. You should have given an example. This is what you said: "You do 7's for 2 weeks, then 4's for 2 weeks, then 3's for 2 weeks then they taper down and hit a single. If that goes well, I overlap the rep ranges more, at least 50% will be the same as the last cycle with +10 lbs, but overall I add 5-15 lbs.". What the hell does this mean? Is it the most convoluted way of saying that you just repeat the cycle with more weight? Or do you only add weight to 50% of the sets? Or what are you saying here? I saw a lot of comments regarding this and I don't think many people understood this.
I felt exactly the same regarding #4 back when I originally heard it, and listening to it again recently even after I've learned a lot since then.
1. Although lower reps sets are less hypertrophic, more volume directly corelates with muscle growth. Therefore doing more of lower rep sets can equate less of higher rep sets in terms of outcomes.
@@FilipGustawWojcik Nah, he's saying that 3x10 = 7x3 because 3x10 = 3x7 and thus 3x7 = 7x3. The problem is that he explained that 3x10 = 3x7 much later in the video.
@@MrCatgroove I don't think there is any problem with this model. We have evidence that sets below circa 5 reps are less hypertrophic per set, but within the higher rep ranges you do not see much difference (roughly 3x10 = 3x7 = 3x20, but 3x7 != 3x3 - you have to do more sets of 3 for similar result)
@@FilipGustawWojcik Yes. I never said that there is a problem with the model. I'm critiquing the presentation.
His arms are so thick it could barely fit the video