From experience I can say 8-12 reps does build size but you barely get stronger. Adding 1rm builds more overall mass and strength due to hormonal release that only occurs at 100% effort. Not to mention the appetite it gives you, the gains come slower in the mirror than pumped up muscles that go away in a few hours. But they come and they come bigger. So conclusion, do both.
I do medium-high reps 1st set, 1-6 reps 2nd and 3rd set. Low rep training is great with ppl twice a week as it requires minimum effort. I went from bb rowing 40kg 3.5 months ago to now rowing 60kg for reps.
Thank you! I really needed this. I just settled my mind on how I should be training for bother strength and size. Working up to a very heavy single at close or actually is my 1 rep max, is a waste of my time personally, as it seems to be for demonstration of strength which is not my goal, and I believe 100% about the neural adaptions. Though I am currently using single pause reps in bench press, I'm gonna concentrate on upping the number of perfect form singles and not worry so much about weight. Thank you!
Who the fuck does 1RMs on dumbbell curls? Comparing maxing out on squats or deadlift with doing those exercises with 8-12 reps 1-2 times a week would be more interesting
I think the problem with these studies there is no accurate way to compare workout workload. For example 1 rep max does it equal 5 reps at 80% lifts or does it equal 10 reps at 80% lifts? Because it is obvious the group that "works harder" will get more muscle growth regardless of lifting load. If you can't compare the underlining workload the conclusion of the studies is that more training was done in one group versus the other and this resulted in the muscle growth. That's the weakness of such studies. For studies to be done more effectively the baseline needs to be actually something else. The baseline could be the time to complete the workouts. It does take more time to complete a volume workout than it does a 1 rep max workout. The baseline could be the biologically measuring the muscle damage done to see it if is equal in both groups. The baseline could be reaching fatigue for both groups. For example 1 rep max workout can include doing a 1 rep max and reaching failure doing partial lifts until the weight cannot be moved anymore. Because if both groups don't reach fatigue the study could be actually comparing if training to fatigue is more effective than not training to fatigue. There are other problems with the study in that 1 rep max normally needs a warm up period before the exercise can be down safely and at maximum performance. I doubt these studies because from personal experience once your 1 rep max increases not just "training" the 1 rep max but an actual increase in your 1 rep max it can allow you to have greater workload in the training volume and not reaching fatigue. This can indirectly help you gain muscle faster in the long term. Because common sense tells you people that can lift heavier need bigger looking muscles. Anyway I like this video you deserve more views I can see you took the time to read the studies.
Hey, thanks for the interesting comment. The problem is it's not clear what workload matters for hypertrophy, thus we do not know if there's a point in equating workload. For instance, last month I made a video detailing how volume load (the product of sets x reps x load), which is a workload measure, is not related to muscle growth. Some of your other points are interesting, however, muscle damage does not appear to be strongly related to muscle growth in the research (thus there doesn't seem to be a rationale to equate it between groups), failure also does not appear to be necessary for hypertrophy, and duration of your workouts is murky (and I highly doubt is a solid indicator for muscle hypertrophy - there are way to many other factors like sets, proximity to failure, rest intervals, etc.) Therefore, I think the design of these studies is probably fine, and probably more realistic in the real world setting. Bigger muscles do not neccessarily mean stronger. The research on the relationship between strength and size demonstrates this, very rarely is there a perfectly postivie relationship between the two (more nuanced factors come into play, like leverages, specific tension, neural adaptations).
For long term though, is it possible that your body gets to a point where it can't improve is neural efficiency anymore, and thus needs to improve muscle size to increase weight further?
Yeah, I believe this is likely the case! Though other things like technique and movement efficiency can also play a role once neural adaptations are limited :)
I would always concern of intensity as you grow bigger the intensity needs to be more also focus on the negative reps 40% strengths are in the lowering of a weight 😉
Maxing out each workout is only effective for beginners. Once you plateau on all your lifts, you've reached intermediate status and need to switch to a block periodization program.
From experience I can say 8-12 reps does build size but you barely get stronger. Adding 1rm builds more overall mass and strength due to hormonal release that only occurs at 100% effort. Not to mention the appetite it gives you, the gains come slower in the mirror than pumped up muscles that go away in a few hours. But they come and they come bigger. So conclusion, do both.
Your content is great, and the style of presentation is really unique.
Awesome to hear, thank you!
I'm calling it. This channel will blow up upwards of 300k subs very soon
Thank you dude, I appreicate you!!!
Not yet!
@@bd.2386Soon soon
End of this year? Or earlier
how you have such few subs for such high quality videos i'll never understand
Haha, thank you. I appreciate your kind words :)
He will get there. Very good quality vids. Keep up the great work.
It's because most viewers would rather watch ripped guys with no shirts tell them what they should do without applying critical thought.
I always share your videos, it's great content
Thank you so much, that means a lot! :)
very underrated channel !
Thank you dude! :)
I do medium-high reps 1st set, 1-6 reps 2nd and 3rd set. Low rep training is great with ppl twice a week as it requires minimum effort. I went from bb rowing 40kg 3.5 months ago to now rowing 60kg for reps.
Ano he is awesome and speaks truth unlike pt trainers and bodybuilders thanks alit for your work and time
Thank you dude!
My first execirse is always one rep max. Like squats or deadlift then a decress the load on the next ones
Thank you! I really needed this. I just settled my mind on how I should be training for bother strength and size. Working up to a very heavy single at close or actually is my 1 rep max, is a waste of my time personally, as it seems to be for demonstration of strength which is not my goal, and I believe 100% about the neural adaptions. Though I am currently using single pause reps in bench press, I'm gonna concentrate on upping the number of perfect form singles and not worry so much about weight. Thank you!
No problem, I wish you the best with your lifting journey!
Good info!
Thank you, nice to hear :)
Probably at least 3 reps are needed to induce significant hypertrophy, and it would be better to stick to a 4-15~ rep range for maximum hypertrophy
Who the fuck does 1RMs on dumbbell curls? Comparing maxing out on squats or deadlift with doing those exercises with 8-12 reps 1-2 times a week would be more interesting
Lmaoo 😂 had to do 1rm bicep curl today
I think the problem with these studies there is no accurate way to compare workout workload. For example 1 rep max does it equal 5 reps at 80% lifts or does it equal 10 reps at 80% lifts? Because it is obvious the group that "works harder" will get more muscle growth regardless of lifting load. If you can't compare the underlining workload the conclusion of the studies is that more training was done in one group versus the other and this resulted in the muscle growth. That's the weakness of such studies.
For studies to be done more effectively the baseline needs to be actually something else. The baseline could be the time to complete the workouts. It does take more time to complete a volume workout than it does a 1 rep max workout. The baseline could be the biologically measuring the muscle damage done to see it if is equal in both groups. The baseline could be reaching fatigue for both groups. For example 1 rep max workout can include doing a 1 rep max and reaching failure doing partial lifts until the weight cannot be moved anymore.
Because if both groups don't reach fatigue the study could be actually comparing if training to fatigue is more effective than not training to fatigue.
There are other problems with the study in that 1 rep max normally needs a warm up period before the exercise can be down safely and at maximum performance.
I doubt these studies because from personal experience once your 1 rep max increases not just "training" the 1 rep max but an actual increase in your 1 rep max it can allow you to have greater workload in the training volume and not reaching fatigue. This can indirectly help you gain muscle faster in the long term. Because common sense tells you people that can lift heavier need bigger looking muscles.
Anyway I like this video you deserve more views I can see you took the time to read the studies.
Hey, thanks for the interesting comment. The problem is it's not clear what workload matters for hypertrophy, thus we do not know if there's a point in equating workload. For instance, last month I made a video detailing how volume load (the product of sets x reps x load), which is a workload measure, is not related to muscle growth.
Some of your other points are interesting, however, muscle damage does not appear to be strongly related to muscle growth in the research (thus there doesn't seem to be a rationale to equate it between groups), failure also does not appear to be necessary for hypertrophy, and duration of your workouts is murky (and I highly doubt is a solid indicator for muscle hypertrophy - there are way to many other factors like sets, proximity to failure, rest intervals, etc.)
Therefore, I think the design of these studies is probably fine, and probably more realistic in the real world setting.
Bigger muscles do not neccessarily mean stronger. The research on the relationship between strength and size demonstrates this, very rarely is there a perfectly postivie relationship between the two (more nuanced factors come into play, like leverages, specific tension, neural adaptations).
For long term though, is it possible that your body gets to a point where it can't improve is neural efficiency anymore, and thus needs to improve muscle size to increase weight further?
Yeah, I believe this is likely the case! Though other things like technique and movement efficiency can also play a role once neural adaptations are limited :)
I would always concern of intensity as you grow bigger the intensity needs to be more also focus on the negative reps 40% strengths are in the lowering of a weight 😉
Maxing out each workout is only effective for beginners. Once you plateau on all your lifts, you've reached intermediate status and need to switch to a block periodization program.