Hey all! Here's access to the FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/ Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 3:26 Part I: Support for Rep Ranges Impacting Density vs Puffy Muscles 7:43 Part II: Limitations of the Overviewed Data 10:17 Part III: Data Opposing Rep Ranges Impact Density vs Puffy Muscles 14:40 Part IV: So What Causes Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy? 17:15 Part V: Summary
Specific tension is not really an argument for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Muscles become more inefficient at contraction as they grow further away from the bone (larger). It's also unsurprising power athletes have way better neural pathways for contracting harder. The study comparing 90% 1RM with 30% 1RM is more relevant, though pointless, since as you said it's not a long term analysis, as well as the fact that sarcoplasm percentage has been estimated to be a small proportion of the muscle anyways (estimates range from
I like how you mention all limitations, and to remind viewers not to take all this information to heart considering that the the topic is very nuanced and contains a lot of results that aren't completely clear to us yet.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I sincerely applaud you for that, because it seems people take research in terms of fitness very seriously (and that’s obviously a good thing) but it really does come down to experimentation along with research, not research alone.
I've done both powerlifting and bodybuilding. As I go to higher rep ranges my 1rm decreases because I'm not training for it, but when I go back to powerlifting and train with lower rep ranges my strength goes back up and I end up stronger. The whole it's a skill and had to be trained for me is likely the confounding factor.
I see what you're saying, but that skill needs to be consistently trained. When you train high reps, some of your skill and comfort with heavier loads may decrease, explaining why sometime training with lower reps again is required. This is me just speculating though :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy lol stupid autocorrect I was agreeing. I believe it is the the confounding factor like what you said. I was walking while posting and didn't reread it before posting. I fixed it.
Actually your comment almost confirms my suspicion. When he explained the sarcoplasma and myceofibers. In order to get MORE microfiber, you intact have to first grow your sarcoplasm. That intern let's you grow MORE microfibers. So the reason you got stronger over all is because you grew your sarcoplasm. So it'd best to switch back and forth between the styles.
With poor joints from decades of contact sports I train in a high rep range now (15-30) to good effect all around. It supports what's left of the cartilage in my joints, develops very good muscle size and exceptional every day strength. I'm 52 years old 6ft / 240lb The only weights I use now are adjustable dumbbells.
I've been investing/collecting a really nice collection of dumbbells and I love them. Rogue Fitness offers some moderately priced stuff and so far everything I've gotten seems pretty solid. I didn't realize weights were so expensive .. especially in the heavier ranges. I like the dumbbells because of the small space they occupy ... I feel like all I need are those and my small adjustable bench. I may try getting some adjustable weights, but I'm worried the mechanics might make them break eventually.
I’ll add that (as an even older dude) I also work on stabilizers, balance, and flexibility. I believe those will be helpful as I age. Some of my targets are the erector spinae, teres minor, soleus, anterior tibialis, and multifidus.
@@cbcsucks2205 My next pair will be 55s ... bought a pair of 50s about 3 months ago. ... Nothing beats working out in your room, watching a movie or listening to some conspiracy radio. I don't care about the gym.
Still love the way you present these. I feel like anyone could watch one of your videos and be able to keep up and apply it to their training in some way.
The swelling may die down as you continue training with high volumes week after week anyway. But in those first few weeks, cell swelling may very much be present. In fact, in one of the studies finding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by Haun et al. (it can be seen in the table here: 14:46 ), I think it's possible their "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" was more so swelling as the study was only 6 weeks and they found large decreases in myofibril relative space (30%), which was much more versus the other studies.
@@HouseofHypertrophy How can the sacroplasm experience actual hypertrophy from training when it's non-contractible? I don't understand the premise of this theory.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Hi, this research ignores the fact that the tendons, joints and nervous system bear the burden of load in Heavy Low rep ranges, but the muscles bear the burden of load in Light High rep ranges. This means that the joints, tendons and nervous system assist the muscles with heavy lifting. Hence, this is not a fair comparison.
Great video as always! Ty for dissecting these studies. I am pretty sure noone was surprised by the results but ex-science needs to step up I feel. At least we need to see a video provided to see what RIR a lot of these studies are done at. Maybe someday ex-sci guys will actually care more about studying a subject properly and less about pushing another paper out
I'm really glad you brought up the illegal drug use in bodybuilders. I've worked around these people for many years and they minimize the power of illegal drugs when I'd say they are responsible for MOST of the growth in these people. Usually the biggest, most jacked guys in my gym (usually competitive bodybuilders) have the easiest looking workouts (usually fluff n pump). Meanwhile natties like myself are busting our humps for every inch gained.
Yeah, there's data showing exogenous testosterone usage WITHOUT lifting weights causes more hypertrophy than the average natty training for 10 weeks ( www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleTop )
The whole "hard vs puffy" muscle appearance may have more to do with residual muscle tension (aka muscle tone) than the structure of the muscle. Basically, your muscles are always partially flexed, and residual muscle tension is just an indicator of how much they're flexed at rest. I've noticed that heavy sets leave my muscles a lot harder, sometimes for days.
Agree, muscle "should" look soft when fully rested, they are 79% water on average. after all Jay Cutler legendary Quad Stomp is a good example, his muscles "jiggle" a bit until he flexes them.
I remember Pavel in his book 'Power to the People' touting this hard look due to muscle tension as a good thing, but is it? Should we be all tensed up? It's the nerves after all which would keep the muscles partially tensed, which might mean that the body is anticipating danger
Tonus is residual tension in "relaxed" muscle tissue. Like when you wake up in the middle of the night and happen to touch your relaxed vastus lateralis and it feels as hard as iron. But do a long layoff, and after a couple of weeks that leg feels like eel shit, mushy and soft.
Excellent and clear overview, introduction, discussion and summary. I particularly like how you clarify the definitions up front. BTW recent findings suggest that strength is developed by daily training of the same muscle even if sets are as low as one.
Can you please tell me about these recent findings? Where can I read about these findings? Do they talk about how much volume at what intensity should the workouts be done if one trains every day?
@@incorectulpolitic Since it's research the findings are limited to the study protocols. There are several studies. All based on maximal voluntary contraction. "How much volume", as I mentioned it was one set only. Six maximal voluntary eccentric contractions five days a week on one exercise. This protocol was compared to one with 30 repetitions once a week. After four weeks both protocols showed hypertrophy, but only the five day protocol increased strength. Another study showed that performing ONE eccentric 3s repetition once a day, five days a week, during four weeks, increases isometric, concentric and eccentric strength, , but doesn't produce hypertrophy. They compared it to isometric, and concentric protocols, where the isometric only produced increased eccentric strength, and the concentric only isometric strength. In these studies the subjects were sedentary, not previously working out.
Amazing video yet again. I began working out again after 4 years about 3 months ago. Your videos and Andrew Huberman's podcasts have made me take a whole new approach to it than before.
Why not both? This is what I love about the Bioneer's approach. It's focused on function over aesthetics, but of course form follows function. It will make you bigger. It focuses primarily on strength endurance, but it trains your muscles in basically all the ways you can. Start with overcoming isometrics. Then mechanical drop sets, aiming for a number of reps that's 20~50 or more depending on the exercise. But I try to do the hardest exercise I can (might be plyometric, or advanced calisthenics like planche pushups), and I often end up able to do only do a number of reps that's in the strength range, like 6 or less. Then immediately switch to an easier progression or different exercise that works the same muscles and do as many as you can, which for me often ends up being in exactly the bodybuilder rep range. Then switch to an even easier version etc until you can complete a total target number of reps that's in the strength endurance range. Only 2 sets, but then you'll do several others that use basically the same muscles in different ways. And finish the workout with a quasi-isometric, like a 1-minute long pushup. So you'll have done lots of different exercises and trained at every point on the force-velocity curve, having done strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Strength endurance is often overlooked because everyone wants to look more buff, but an argument to made that it's more useful everyday strength than your one-rep max, is better for your connective tissues etc. But with this approach, you can do all the kinds of strength training in way that's interesting and fun with a lot of variety, in a workout that takes a little over an hour. If you want to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder of course, then train for that. But if you want overall fitness and athleticism, longevity, everyday functional strength etc, and want a better physique but aren't desperate to look like the Hulk, I think it pays to be a jack of all trades.
This is very interesting. I’m gonna start doing this. It makes sense to train both high reps and low reps. And also the super slow reps as you listed above w the 1 min push up. So I should search “Bioneers approach”? To get the info
And would maybe doing a 2:1:1 method in terms of weeks in the month? 1 week strength; 1 week hypertrophic, 1 week strength training, 1 week endurance, repeat?
@@daysl33per I don't know... I switched back to Gymnastic Bodies, because I realized I'd never be able to do a planche etc with a split like that, and with so much time spent on endurance, I had none left for stretching.
I have, for lack of a better term, described to trainees that the muscles are not only muscle fibers, but have a "container" component. Ronnie Coleman did 75 reps with 225lbs on the bench press, Ronnie had very big containers to store enough fuel to do that kind of work output. The weight lifters do very, very, short work sets which do not require high work output aka "power".
So long as it's 12-15 *struggle reps!* Those last few reps have to take you to hell and back for that range to be effective, however, if they do, and you compound 2 or 3 more exercises of that scheme, you will grow *phenomenally* in both strength and size (obviously size moreso since 12-15 rep schemes are volume sets).
I like low reps of 3 using controlled movement with a moderate weight to both stimulate the muscles and feeling intensity every 7 to 10 days, this has produced excellent results for me.
Perhaps this is true, I typically tend to lift in the 8-15 rep range. I have had to take the past 4 months off due to an elbow injury (didn't happen while weight lifting). I've lost most of my size entirely (wasn't small). I've always liked high volume training with a lower weight, since I found in my early 20's I'd get hurt more frequently with higher weight. So I reduced the weight, increased the reps and just focused on being able to lift weights long term.
Same, doing a 1 rep max is dodgy af, i dnt think i ever met an older powerlifter who wasnt full of injurys, so far ive kept myself relatively injury free doing exactly 8-15 on 99% of my lifts ! and im in my 40s.
@@ridlasab ive been lifting about 15 years but only since 2017 with a ;long gap, idk my 1 rep max, i dont traion for strenght i train for muscle building ! heres a rough list of my compound lifts, im 75 kg 5 ft 10, 44 yrs old, squats 5 sets of roughly 15, 12, 8, 8 , vertical reps 90 kg, full ROM 76kg roughly same reps ! bench is tough because i do lots of super sets and dips before iosteart my flat bench but after dips i do 50 kg on the smith including the bar (dont be miean im slim and chest is my worst muscle) ! back is good i do pull ups assisted ! how about you ?>
I think Sarcoplasm assists muscular endurance . Sarcoplasm stores ATP in it so maybe higher reps tell the body that it needs better muscular endurance and starts to undergo sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Which would explain how body builders have more sarcoplasm as their repetitions are higher.
Yeah that's possible, though I should note as mentioned in this video, higher reps per se don't seem to cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, rather perhaps high volumes :)
@@KtWrldGaming distance cyclists / climbing specialists don't have huge legs neither do long distance runners. The cyclists with the huge legs are usually only the sprinters or time trail specialists and they also do a lot of strength training like squatting
ABSOLUTELY AWESOME VIDEO!!! I've been interested is sarcoplasmic and myofiberal hypertrophy for a long time, but I was never sure not relevant it really was. This video was extremely insightful!
The nervous system aspect is also not accounted for. Power lifters and other types of athletes that use explosive power on a regular basis also develop a much more efficient nervous system. Theoretically one could move more weight faster, just from developing technique and adjusting the nervous system, without actually creating any more muscle fiber or muscle fiber strength.
High reps may increase the sarcoplasma size due to higher need for glycogen storage. Also power lifters focus A LOT on producing power rather than just doing the reps, neurological parameters needs to be researched. Awesome video! Ty for everything.
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.
Just train multiple rep ranges each workout and get the best of all worlds. I warm up and then work up to a set of 5 at 90% of 1rm. Then I back down to 85% for a set of five, then down to 70% for two or three sets of ten, and then down to 55% for a set of 20. Then I retest my maxes once a month and adjust my percentages accordingly for the next month. If I feel I can hit a set of 3-5 over 90%, I'll do that occasionally too. This is obviously for the main compound lifts. For accessories I just go balls to the wall as heavy as I can get, usually working up in weight with sets of ten, then when I don't think I can hit a set of ten at the next weight up, I do sets of five still increasing the weight, until I'm exhausted.
I don't want to confuse anybody. I just want to make sure I understood it right. Do you mean with high(er) volume more sets or more weight in general. Both could be the answer, too, though. But in general, I'm grateful that you make such interesting videos that aren't hard to understand. 😊
Really great video again. Do you have any videos that deal specifically with the concept of overtraining? Is it really possible for a normal person to train so much that it actually hinders their progress or is more almost always better?
I appreciate that my friend! I don't have any current videos on overtraining, but I do plan to eventually. I'm going to dive into that literature more at some point. At this point in time, I believe overtraining in some form is certainly possible for natural indivduals. The question though is that point far greater than most people presume. Also, other factors such as indivdual differences, diet, sleep, stress, etc. also factor in, so I think it's probably quite a nuanced area overall.
I think it is more likely to happen with athletes who play, train, and practice as they have to find a balance. Basically, pushing their bodies close to failure in a sense. For us normals, I think we’re more likely to be under recovered. I guess CrossFit begs to differ but during their hype days in 2014, they were just doing random workouts of the day so it wasn’t really training with a goal. To me, they were just exercising, which isn’t training.
"Is it really possible for a normal person to train so much that it actually hinders their progress" - depends on what you consider "overtraining" and what you consider "progress". First, yes, it is very possible to train too much. Not that hard, actually, a lot of people can unknowingly do it. Second. Define progress. You can even train every day and have progress, but it doesn't mean it is the best time efficient method, and doesn't mean you will see that progress immediately. Usually if your frequency is too high your muscles are not repaired 100% every time you train, so if you wanted to see and measure the full extent of your "progress" after such type of training, you will need to rest eventually. Third. You will have a lot higher risk of getting overuse injury(tendonitis) if you overtrain unprepared. But, you can train a lot more the more you accustom your body(and especially tendons) to it. So in conclusion - highly depends on the person in question. Possible to overtrain? Very easy for most people. Training is a spectrum. The most (hypertrophy?) gains seems to be in the middle(just the right intensity/frequency), while undertraining and overtraining to some extent will also work, but not that great. If you go too far right(into the overtraining) you will either get injured or have no progress or even lose muscle(in worst case). But if you progressively up the intensity/frequency, a human body is capable of doing far more things than you can imagine. So if you really wanted to, you can go into the "overtraining" territory, without getting too far as to injuring yourself, but this is a hard thing to manage for little to no real benefit.
yeah id like to know as well, im new to the gym and have almost finished a 10 week block of doing full body three times a week, but i spend 2 and a half hours in the gym each session and feel im probably doing to much even though i do feel particularly over worked by the sessions, just satisfied with my effort etc. that being said i really dont know what im doing at this stage ? i am overweight at 112.5kgs and what seems to be happening is that the weight isnt really changing but i do feel new muscle seems to be growing all over my body and eating up the fat (im not calorie counting yet) . when this week finishes im going to take two weeks off and do lots of research on 4 day splits, as i really dont want to over do things if its actually detrimental to what im trying to achieve yeah ? it just feels like im not actually doing much when i cut the session down to 8-10 excercises so i just keep adding other stuff yeah lol
For upper grade hypertrophy one suggested mechanism is the inside of myofibril packaging issue. Force output decreases when the actin and myosin are too densely packed inside the myofibril.
I believe cardiorespiratory capacity can best be developed using multi-joint exercises that are a moderate to heavy load. So It is ALL about intensity . I developed a Training method that goes like this: I perform five sets of an exercise. In the first set it's just activation I do 15 and 20 repetitions until close to failure. Second set and third set I do 8 to 12 reps more load.. In the fourth series I get heavier about six reps and go drop set or rest pause.And finally in fifth grade I do a minute non-stop. Rest about 2 minutes. 8-10 sets muscle/ workout. Great progress strength and HIPERTROFy
As a guy with engineering background, I am very happy to see your videos. Since studies on this field are limited, it is really hard to come to a robust conclusion, however I still benefit from information in between lines you mentioned. Keep up the great work, appreciated 👍
I suggest adding another limitation: there is no direct evidence to even suggest that there is something like sarkoplasmic or myodibrillar hypertrophy. Or I missed it in the video. The things you showed were all correlational in nature and confounded by neural adaptation (where I actually don't have proof for either) It would need a study to assess actual muscle fibers after a specific training regimen to show that these concepts exist. I like your style of video production! It is calm and very nuanced. Please keep it on :)
Thank YOU for the kind words! In the video we did detail studies that have directly measured myofibrillar hypertrophy or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The myofibrillar hypertrophy studies are shown here: 10:22 The sarcoplasmic hypertrophy studies are detailed here: 14:50
At 10:37, all findings of the studies involve an increase in vastus lateralis fiber CSA but no effect on its specific tension.Doesn't that suggest a more puffy muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) proving the point made in Part I?
I co-sign this, it’s been my secret sauce. I’m fat now trying to lose weight, but when I was lean, I was huge as the juicers and half as strong on the strong lifts, because I used serge nubrets pump method of training. Very light weights, done very fast, with very little rest between sets. The secret is, you never go to failure, you’re hitting hundreds of reps per muscle group per session, and I added in 5 pounds or 2.5 pounds to exercises when I could do the 8x12-15 reps or the 6x12-15 reps with a rest of only 30-60 seconds. If you cannot complete the reps it’s too heavy to get a proper pump, if you cannot get the pump, You won’t get the results. You will never hurt yourself training like this, you will get stronger just slower, you will build a very aesthetic full muscle, and your conditioning will be through the roof! Just keep your diet under control if you’re a natty, because you’ll want to eat everything if you actually hit it 6 days a week 2 splits a day. Modify nubrets program, some of those exercises have been long since debunked, so replace them with solid ones. Good will hunting brothers in gainz 💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿!
Yeah but youll look massive but youll be weak for the size you look , you will look like your really strong but your not that strong as opposed to looking small and weak but being incredibly strong
I think the reason why higher rep ranges mean more hypertrophy, is that usually…..when you lower the weight, your increase reps, and increase sets, because full fatigue hasn’t been reached as quickly, as lower reps and sets with heavy weight
Dorian Yates had the hardest/ more dense muscles I've seen in a BB, and he was training around 6-8 reps.That might be the sweet spot for both strength/hypertrophy (5-6 reps most likely).
Am I right or wrong in thinking that myofibrillar muscles are representative of our fast-twitch fibres and sarcoplasmic muscle for slow-twitch fibres? And if this is true could that be a reason as to why there is no definitive answer for selective rep ranges/exercises being the sole contributer to either myofibrillar/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?
All muscle fibers have myofibrils and sarcoplasm, but whether myofibrillar hypertrohy occurs more so in fast twitch fibers and sarcoplasmic hypertrohphy in slow twitch fibers is difficult to determine as the evidence has not properly explored it, but I think it's a great question and suggestion :)
Good video. What i found from this studies is that bodybuilding training produce overall more muscle and strength, but power training produce more strenght per size of the body. So if you want to be big and strong you should train like a bodybuilder and if you want to look small, but have more strength that is expected from you, then you should train power style.
This vids are simply amazing, incredible, unreal, just blow my mind, this + Jeff Nippard + The Sprint Project are an epic combo of science-backed info 🤯🤩🙉💯❤️
I've found myself personally/anecdotally over the decades training that there is a difference in 'quality' of muscle when lifting 4-8 reps vs 10-14 for the most part (meaning mostly one or the other) When training heavier I found that the muscle would stay around longer. meaning you could take longer rest periods between hitting it again without it feeling 'depleted' and even taking time away from the gym that muscle would retain 90% of it's size . Whereas with higher reps the quality of the muscle feels less stable in that it requires a bit more frequency and if taking time off from the gym size will diminish a lot faster
This is one of those things that I'll always believe is a myth. Thanks also for pointing out the limitations in comparing "strength" when the test is done in a way that favors a sport-specific method. So many people are getting tripped-up by this.
I think that what probably matters the most is how close to failure someone is training rather than the rep range as long as it’s less than 20 or 25 reps. Henneman’s size principle and increasing tension per rep until failure will recruit all muscle fibers. I think there’s more to it than this but simplified I don’t think there is such thing as dense muscle. Maybe matured muscle that’s been through the ringer.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. At the fiber level though, it's possible more contractile growth over sarcoplasm growth creates a denser muscle apperance, but to what degree and how much has definitely not been explored by the literature :)
It could be that the fibre gives strength and is fueled through the sarcoplasmic proteins. So when you tire out the strength of the muscle the fibres grow but of you tire the energy around the fibres in protein they grow? Or am I totally wrong
The sarcoplasmic proteins are certainly involved in generating energy required for various reactions in muscle fibers, so I don't think you're wrong. High volumes could just be very anaerobically taxing such that they elict an increase in sarcoplasmic proteins (hence why high volumes may cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)
I’ve always thought of typical sarcoplasmic training like bodybuilding was really good for giving nutrients to the muscle by increasing the fluid that delivers the nutrients to the muscle aka “the pump,” and I feel that strength or myofibrillar style training, for me, increased the actually quality of the muscle I saw and it lasted. I love both styles, but even after a 3 month block of body building style of training in the 8-12 range I’ve always felt like the apparent gains would rapidly devolve whereas the muscle gained from strength training seemed more stable and lasting which leads me to believe that forming term gains myofibrillar /strength training is better. But bodybuilding is a lifestyle set up for a single event in which the look is important on that single day.
This reminds me of the myth that environment draws people to their chosen field. When studied, rather than a child enjoying reading because their parents read to them often, in fact what was happening is parents were very in tune to what their children enjoyed and hence the parents were actually providing a range of activites for their children to do, but the parents in fact were picking up on what the child was enjoying and then providing that stimulus to them more often. So the child didnt enjoy reading BECAUSE it got read to more often. Instead it showed enjoyment of being read to, as that was its born strength, language, and hence the parents then read to the child more often. Then the child goes on to become a writer or story teller etc. In this case, someone becomes a bodybuilder BECAUSE they realise they are very good at gaining size, likewise a powerlifter realises they are very good at gaining strength, without gaining size. Hence it is not the training stimulus creating the athlete, more the athlete was always going to be what they were going to be, or at least had the potential and just gravitate towards the training that gives them the better results. It does not mean we can replicate their training and enjoy their results. The powerlifter was born a powerlifter. The reader was born a reader. The bodybuilder was born a bodybuilder. The attributes were born into them. We cant always use the way the elite train to gain their attributes for ourselves. If anything I believe that within reason, in the rep ranges that seem to be effective, 3-30ish, training in the range that you gravitate towards will give you the best results, as far as myo vs sarco gains, based off of your predestined genetics. You will naturally gravitate towards what your muscles want. I myself cannot get a good workout in above ten reps. I simply cannot get close enough to failure or get enough sets in when my reps are higher. I just cant. 10 or below absolutely works best for me.
Many bodybuilders go to the gym multiple times a day so the total weekly volume per muscle group amount would be massive, thus indicating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Still sceptical about which rep ranges lean more toward myofibrils and sarcoplasm size until research is done in the rep ranges at 1-6.
Kind of connected to the subject but not entirely: So we know that rep ranges of 6-35 produce similar, optimal hypertrophy as long as performed to or close to failure. Let's say I can do 50 reps of an exercise before reaching failure, so the load is probably too low to produce optimal hypertrophy. If I decrease the speed so that the reps are harder and I can perform only 20 before failure, without increasing the load, would the hypertrophy produced be optimal then?
This is a great question, and it's very difficult to answer because the research has not really deciphered between rep numbers and rep tempo. Most studies finding 6 to 35 reps to be similar use a 1-2 second lifting and lowering tempo, so not very slow. In the example you're giving, I'm going to speculate BOTH 20 reps very slowly and 50 reps faster (assuming both are completed in the same time) are inferior. The reason for this is because CNS fatigue seems to be more so related to the duration of exercise (contrary to popular belief), so given both take the same time to complete and are much longer in duration than typical 6-35 reps sets with faster tempos, the CNS fatigue produced may be enough to limit the hypertrophic stimulus of that set. Hope this makes sense :)
As someone who is semi-well versed in physiology and has been working out in one way, shape or form for a decent amount of time, I've found that the _"Common Sense"_ approach works best *_for most_* people who are not training for a specific elite level end goal. By common sense I mean, let's be simple and say we have two types of muscle fibers with the potential for growth. Each muscle or group thereof is typically made up of more type A or type B (or type 1 or type 2/Fast Twitch or Slow Twitch) so I always tried to build my training around the particular muscle/s being worked. While fast twitch has the most potential for growth, there is still no reason to ignore slow twitch either in my opinion. Even if it is just one set of 100 pushups at the end of a Chest/tris, Upper Back/Bis and Lower Back/Abs day. Nor do I see an issue with doing 50 reverse crunches for your lower back/abs, or 50 body weight squats on a leg day where you don't go heavier than a 5 rep near max effort set. Personally for large muscle groups like the lower back and legs along with shoulders I would reserve the crazy high reps for a _medium_ workout. I prefer periodizing my workouts, again based on muscle groups size when it comes to rest (So legs, lower back and shoulders would get 2 days off after a light workout, 3 after a medium and 4 after a heavy workout, medium muscle groups like the chest and back would get 1 day off after a light workout, 2 after a medium, 3 after a heavy one, calves and bis can get whacked the day after an easy workout, 1 day for a medium and two for a hard workout etc, though the amount of compound movements and indirect stimulation could vary that up a bit, and a light bicep workout may not include any iso work at all if you are doing chinups, suppinated lat pulldowns, suppinated or neutral grip rows etc, since they may just be getting hit the next day regardless. If you just did chest and shoulders falls on the following day, do you really want to workout you triceps? Probably not. Anyway, for _most_ regular people, or people who are not training for a specific sport that would benefit more from one type of training over another, in my experience, people get the best results from mixing in at least 1 high rep set per body part. Not 3, not 5. 1. There's little point in doing junk work either, and in a worst case scenario they can at least build up/maintain a bit more muscle endurance than just doing 0-12 rep sets on their own. Now this is just my anecdotal experience based on myself and the numerous people I have worked with. I never compiled (or even have records of most of the training anymore) the data and looked for the actual percentage gains in size, maximum strength and maximum endurance so take that information as you will. You can also check out Dr. James Hatfield's research into A-B-C Periodization which follows a similar approach, though I believe he classifies shoulders as a medium muscle group due to the size of the muscles that make up the area, not the area as a whole, and may also have an extra day of rest mixed in. Whatever the case, he actually does have research into into various splits and rep ranges going back to the 1950s I believe. That _"Doctor Squat"_ sure was a bit ahead of his time and worked with everyone from movie stars to Mr. Olympias to pro football, baseball and basketball players along with numerous _"World's Strongest Men."_ Add in a doctorate in exercise physiology and I would say his credentials are pretty _strong._ Diet periodization can also go a long way in assisting with training goals, but that's way to complicated for the scope of this post. Well, maybe not too complicated, but it would just take forever to type out, but it is exactly what it sounds like. You change your total caloric intake, macro and micro intake based on the activities you are doing that day and the end goal you have in mind and that's as deep as I'll get into that here as this post is already too long. Take care.
Arent denser muscles associated with slow twitch muscles meaning high weight, low rep, and reasonable slow and controlled excersizes can provide dense fast twitch muscles? I mean if we have dense fast twitch muscles the. We get strength and stamina as we have more muscle to use to help. This can get confusing
I don't really know, I'm doing 3 4 sets with 4reps max no matter the weight, I've went up to 107kilos buffed as some steroid animal, I'm only 185cm so I was literally huge, natural but not extremely jacked or something, just huge and extremely strong, but muscle was not specifically dense, it was both dense and buff kind of
What I’ve never understood is why we try and limit ourselves to one rep range. It becomes like a competition. This rep range is “better than” the other rep range. Almost like we then miss the woods from the trees, as the saying goes. We can, it has been proven, that we can make gains using almost any rep range. It depends on the muscle group being trained and the ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibres as to the possible rep range which would be best for a particular muscle group. Everyone is different, however the point I’m making is surely it makes more sense to train with a variety of rep ranges, changing things from month to month, week to week or even workout to workout. Rather than deciding that say 6-10 reps is best and never straying from it. I’ve certainly found I’ve benefited greatly from implementing a wide variety of rep ranges from strength training in 1-3 rep ranges to conditioning, such as 30 reps even higher. Basically getting the full benefits of all rep ranges and improving greatly from it. Just my two cents.
Protein synthesis is decreased by 15-30% after sleeping 8 hours, this is when muscle repairs itself. So if you lift 1-4 reps as much as you can, your body does maximum muscle tearing which takes way longer to repair. Maybe the muscle tearing/repairing is the key to a dense fibrous muscle. If you only go 30% strength, the muscle is torn less but more reps meant the muscles got extra glucose than needed. Kind of like if you sprint for a minute then you get so thirsty you chug a bottle of water. You probobly only needed a few sips but now you have extra water inside
muscle fiber plays a role too. Type 2x achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy in the 1-5 rep range ( under 8s of >90%max). Type 2 glycolitic fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 12 rep ranges. Slow twitch fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 35reps. This is all according to Barry Ross in his book on strength training for speed.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think he is basing it on the fact that the different muscle fibers use different energy systems and we know how long the energy systems last so is deducing how many heavy reps you can approximately do in that time frame.
@@zber9043 yes but once you approach failure every muscle fiber/type is going to be exhausted, it would be stupid for your body not to recruit everything.
@@HouseofHypertrophy been busy with life and haven't been in the gym for over a month. LOL. Just home workouts. But all good regardless. Thanks for asking. How about you, Dhimant? Hope all is well.
Can someone explain to me then why are rock climbers, cyclists and other similar sport where you have low effort inffinite number of reps are so skinny. While Boulderers have huge arms and pectorals but they do explosive low reps. ???
At around 7 minutes, the clip mentions that sarcoplasmic protein synthesis at 24 hours post-exercise was greater for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM training. What it fails to mention is that myofibrillar protein synthesis was also greater at 24 hours for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM in the same study by Burd et al in PLoS ONE 2010. Also, at 4 hours after resistance, only the 90% of 1RM training resulted in increased sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, while both 30% and 90% of 1RM resulted in increased myofibrillar protein synthesis at 4 hours. In other words, both protocols stimulated both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis. But if one looks at the figures in that paper, myofibrillar protein synthesis was stimulated to a much greater extent than sarcoplasmic protein synthesis with both the 30% of 1RM and the 90% of 1RM protocols. This would suggest predominantly myofibrillar hypertrophy rather than sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in the longer term in response to both protocols. Why is this not mentioned? Finally, too much has often been made out of a limited number of studies which claimed to be showing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but these have typically not considered the possible contributions of temporary swelling resulting from training-induced muscle damage and associated muscle fiber remodeling, which would tend to dilute the myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Did you watch the full video? I mentioned a few of the points you noted too, I did not bother with the myofibrillar protein synthesis one though because ultimately (as I noted) that paper is far from strong evidence behind the notion higher reps drive sarcoplasmic hypertrophy :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Yes, I noticed that you mentioned some of the points later. But that still does not explain why you did not mention the at least equally good results for the 30% of 1RM to failure protocol vs the 90% of 1RM to failure protocol with regard to myofibrillar vs sarocplasmic protein synthesis. If you really wanted to be factually correct, you should have mentioned these results around that time point (7 minutes) in the clip. And I did not see them mentioned anywhere in the clip. By omitting them but at the same time reporting the increase in sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, the overall impression from your presentation was that the 30% of 1RM protocol basically just stimulated sarcoplasmic and not myofibrillar hypertrophy. The result being that the average viewer would probably have bought that very message (as many have bought into the belief that high reps with low weights does not produce true myofibrillar hypertrophy) and not cared about the caveats that you included later.
@@incorectulpolitic The short answer is that heavy training (8RM or heavier, >80% of 1RM) is generally more effective in inducing strength gains. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585 Presumably, this is via greater adaptations in the central nervous system. For example, there are indications that maximum muscle activation increases with heavy resistance training, which may reflect one or more mechanisms (improved recruitment of motor units and/or firing rates). Technique/skill is also improved, as mentioned in this clip. On the other hand, ~20-30RM loads (including 30% or 1RM) are very effective for increasing strength-endurance, e.g. number of repetitions performed at 30-40% of 1RM. Possibly, via greater capillary supply and/or oxidative capacity. Needless to say, these lighter loads are much easier on the joints. Many of us who have lifted heavy for many years appreciate this. A case can thus be made for varying between these two types of training. And in fairness to the creator of this channel, I think he has argued for this in one of his clips.
@@SR71YF12 I read about some old school training method where in the same workout they did 1- 2 heavy low rep (1- 5) sets to failure followed by 1- 2 light high rep(12+) sets to failure. I personally found that 8- 12 reps to failure(where you can't lift the weight any more) per set produces great muscle mass and strength gains.
In general, bodybuilders tend to rest less between sets compared to power athletes. There might be a relationship resting time between sets and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Is there any study about this topic?
Powerlifters' and other power athletes' strenght and explosiveness is also influenced by the better development of their nervous system as a result of the specific training. Doesn't explain the better specific tension of the untrained individuals in that one study , of course.
Yep! though I should note specific tension is measured outside the body, so neural adaptations does not confound this (so the English study does not involve this limitation). However, the Japenese study does have this limitation, they did not measure specific tension, rather ratio of triceps size to strength
lifting in the high rep range is more beneficial to our joints, ligaments, and tendons...In the end, that's all it matters because once your get injured , it's game over and you are more likely to get injured with heavy weight and low reps..
Yeah, there is some evidence heavier load training may be slighly more unfavourable in this context. But other things like form and outside factors come in to play (recovery away from the gym).
? After starting working out after a break, the muscles get sore then one takes the time for the soreness to go away and starts again- this soreness is a sign that your doing it right, Once the muscles stop getting sore its time to add weight/reps, Another question is "is the pinching feeling a sign of growth" correct?
Soreness and pain are probably not good indicators overall, I do plan to make videos on this. I think if you're making progress over your sessions, this is perhaps the simplest indicator you're making gains (regardless of soreness and pain)
@@HouseofHypertrophy That being said, So if your not sore the night of or the next day after the workout how does one judge wether they did anything worth while- as gains can be seen "or not" three to six weeks from that day, If an individual is not getting stronger nor gaining size then they are wasting time - those so called " growing pains" are an indicator of either strength or size gains.
Interesting research on opposing the notion that heavy, low rep sets = density while lighter, higher weight rep sets = bigger but "puffier" muscles. Here's a simple analysis that can help with explaining this fact: Suppose Person A used the muscle-density approach by using a heavy 8x5 scheme and achieved the results with a 200 lbs overall weight used, for a total of 40 reps in 28 minutes. If the subject were to stick to the same weight for years in order to develop the work capacity to use the same weight and increase the reps by doing a 4x12 instead, he would most definitely grow in size, but not in density. IF the sarcoplasmic argument is true, then Person A should shrink back to a non-dense looking individual if he reduces all volume and either goes back to the original strength protocol or stops lifting altogether. The subject, will of course, not revert back to a lean, dense-looking individual. He would most-likely maintain the same size as research has shown that maintaining even 10% of total workout volume/intensity would maintain the muscularity indefinitely. So what does this mean? Heavy weights for low reps or slightly lighter weights with higher reps do not significantly influence the type of muscularity an individual will develop. It is mostly genes and genetic predisposition allows the individual to gravitate towards load selection. In other words, individuals who are genetically predisposed to hold or grow more Type 2 (dense) fibers will gravitate towards lifting heavier as this feels better for them, thus, CORRELATING the heavier = denser look as opposed to it being an actual CAUSATION. The same is true with the opposite. Another factor is the hunger effect that each training group experiences. Higher volume sets most definitely causes more hunger as much more calories are burned, resulting in them to consume more which inevitably causes slightly-bigger muscles. Just take for another example calisthenics athletes. Skill-oriented athletes are strong. Very strong. However, they are almost always smaller due to their low-rep training approach whereas volume calisthenics athletes look like natural bodybuilders.
Have they ever done a study where they use different training methods with the same person? Like perhaps have them use low reps on one arm and high reps on another arm.
I had trained high reps, and I can tell you that going 15% under 1rep max I could do 30+reps. I definately had a lot of endurance. So yeah basically my thought is you test you body on endurance, you build endurance, you test your body on strength you build strength. I would assume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to endurance.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Yeah idk enough about it, just speculating away. The muscle fibers themselves can probably gain structural differences as well. Definately seems there's a lot to uncover (even at the surface level), and the underlying mechanisms are gonna be far more complex (hormones, neural pathways, cellular structures, etc). Not saying we don't have an understanding, but I definately think there are big holes in our understanding. It'd be amazing to see where we'll be in a few hundred years... If we don't send ourselves back to the stone age or enter into some twisted dystopia.
We used to call that water weight. Your muscles store more energy (protien and glycogen bound with water) when you do strength + endurance training. Our body's won't carry what it doesn't need.
why would you want to do that? You're doing cardio at that point. You think someone can lift 225 on the bench for 10x3 and just as easily do 30x1? thats so dumb lmao....
@@TrikkyVids from a hypertrophy standpoint its the same. In order to do 3 sets you need to hold back to do 3x10 = 30 total reps vs. 30 reps with same weight. The additional sets are a waste of time. It's about the total volume. If you're doing 10x3 that's pure strength training. I'm also assuming there is no weight change.
Proximity to failure per set is important. So if that 1 set of 30 is to or close to failure, but the 10 reps in each of the 3 sets are very far from failure, that 1 set would be better. However, if the 10 reps in the 3 sets were to or close to failure, the 3 sets would likely be better on average :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy agree. But, you could add up RPE too. So if each set ends with one RPE. That's 3 total RPE for that exercise vs. 1 RPE for the 30. In which case you only did 27 reps vs. 29 😃 Whatever works for the person. I haven't seen any differences myself. I've done both. Have you seen the experiments on veteran lifters needing less total volume?
About the weightlifters vs bodybuilders study: In my knowledge there are different types of steroids, one that makes you retain more water and one that doesn't or at least does it less, so if the bodybuilders took the watery ones they'd have more circumference with less muscle, and the weightlifters that have strict weight classes would pick the none watery ones having less circumference and more muscle
Hey all! Here's access to the FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
3:26 Part I: Support for Rep Ranges Impacting Density vs Puffy Muscles
7:43 Part II: Limitations of the Overviewed Data
10:17 Part III: Data Opposing Rep Ranges Impact Density vs Puffy Muscles
14:40 Part IV: So What Causes Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy?
17:15 Part V: Summary
Specific tension is not really an argument for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Muscles become more inefficient at contraction as they grow further away from the bone (larger). It's also unsurprising power athletes have way better neural pathways for contracting harder.
The study comparing 90% 1RM with 30% 1RM is more relevant, though pointless, since as you said it's not a long term analysis, as well as the fact that sarcoplasm percentage has been estimated to be a small proportion of the muscle anyways (estimates range from
Hard to imagine the amount of work that went into making this video.
Highly underrated.
Thank YOU for those kind words :)
Compared to a bikini try on haul?
I like how you mention all limitations, and to remind viewers not to take all this information to heart considering that the the topic is very nuanced and contains a lot of results that aren't completely clear to us yet.
Thank YOU, I'm continually trying to become better at making conclusions and interpreting the data :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy I sincerely applaud you for that, because it seems people take research in terms of fitness very seriously (and that’s obviously a good thing) but it really does come down to experimentation along with research, not research alone.
I've done both powerlifting and bodybuilding. As I go to higher rep ranges my 1rm decreases because I'm not training for it, but when I go back to powerlifting and train with lower rep ranges my strength goes back up and I end up stronger. The whole it's a skill and had to be trained for me is likely the confounding factor.
I see what you're saying, but that skill needs to be consistently trained. When you train high reps, some of your skill and comfort with heavier loads may decrease, explaining why sometime training with lower reps again is required. This is me just speculating though :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy lol stupid autocorrect I was agreeing. I believe it is the the confounding factor like what you said. I was walking while posting and didn't reread it before posting. I fixed it.
@@Svensvenson7777when you was progressing with powerlifting and using lower reps did your physique have any noticeable muscular changes
@chandansimms9167 some not much though.
Actually your comment almost confirms my suspicion.
When he explained the sarcoplasma and myceofibers. In order to get MORE microfiber, you intact have to first grow your sarcoplasm. That intern let's you grow MORE microfibers.
So the reason you got stronger over all is because you grew your sarcoplasm.
So it'd best to switch back and forth between the styles.
With poor joints from decades of contact sports I train in a high rep range now (15-30) to good effect all around.
It supports what's left of the cartilage in my joints, develops very good muscle size and exceptional every day strength. I'm 52 years old 6ft / 240lb The only weights I use now are adjustable dumbbells.
Awesome stuff! :)
I've been investing/collecting a really nice collection of dumbbells and I love them. Rogue Fitness offers some moderately priced stuff and so far everything I've gotten seems pretty solid. I didn't realize weights were so expensive .. especially in the heavier ranges. I like the dumbbells because of the small space they occupy ... I feel like all I need are those and my small adjustable bench. I may try getting some adjustable weights, but I'm worried the mechanics might make them break eventually.
@@Fiveash-Art they've come down a lot in price since I bought mine 15 years ago adjustable from 10 to 55 lb
I’ll add that (as an even older dude) I also work on stabilizers, balance, and flexibility. I believe those will be helpful as I age. Some of my targets are the erector spinae, teres minor, soleus, anterior tibialis, and multifidus.
@@cbcsucks2205 My next pair will be 55s ... bought a pair of 50s about 3 months ago. ... Nothing beats working out in your room, watching a movie or listening to some conspiracy radio. I don't care about the gym.
Still love the way you present these. I feel like anyone could watch one of your videos and be able to keep up and apply it to their training in some way.
Thank you so much for those kind words my friend, they mean a lot to me!
Oh it’s the tier list guy 😍
Great channel , love the passion and effort u put into your work .
Thank you so much my friend, I truly appreciate this :)
Off topic, I think high volume training causes temporary cell swelling. Which if you stop training with high volume you will lose its effects.
The swelling may die down as you continue training with high volumes week after week anyway. But in those first few weeks, cell swelling may very much be present. In fact, in one of the studies finding sarcoplasmic hypertrophy by Haun et al. (it can be seen in the table here: 14:46 ), I think it's possible their "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" was more so swelling as the study was only 6 weeks and they found large decreases in myofibril relative space (30%), which was much more versus the other studies.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Yes that may be also, most studies dont last very long.
@@HouseofHypertrophy How can the sacroplasm experience actual hypertrophy from training when it's non-contractible?
I don't understand the premise of this theory.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Hi, this research ignores the fact that the tendons, joints and nervous system bear the burden of load in Heavy Low rep ranges, but the muscles bear the burden of load in Light High rep ranges.
This means that the joints, tendons and nervous system assist the muscles with heavy lifting. Hence, this is not a fair comparison.
So how can you break your muscles down to rebuild bigger muscles? I was thinking high volume will help build muscles.
Great video as always! Ty for dissecting these studies. I am pretty sure noone was surprised by the results but ex-science needs to step up I feel. At least we need to see a video provided to see what RIR a lot of these studies are done at. Maybe someday ex-sci guys will actually care more about studying a subject properly and less about pushing another paper out
There's many limitations for sure, and always room for improvement. But I still think many researchers do a fine job. Research is hard :)
I'm really glad you brought up the illegal drug use in bodybuilders. I've worked around these people for many years and they minimize the power of illegal drugs when I'd say they are responsible for MOST of the growth in these people. Usually the biggest, most jacked guys in my gym (usually competitive bodybuilders) have the easiest looking workouts (usually fluff n pump). Meanwhile natties like myself are busting our humps for every inch gained.
Yeah, there's data showing exogenous testosterone usage WITHOUT lifting weights causes more hypertrophy than the average natty training for 10 weeks ( www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleTop )
You'd grow more muscle on 600mg of test a week than actually exercising
@@HouseofHypertrophy water retention my bro water retention
Do you think that weighlifters, NFL players or powerlifters don't use steroids? They do.
What's it like being a peasant?
This channel is amazing!
That's very kind of you, thank YOU!
automatically hitting the follow button for a non clickbait title. thank you
The whole "hard vs puffy" muscle appearance may have more to do with residual muscle tension (aka muscle tone) than the structure of the muscle. Basically, your muscles are always partially flexed, and residual muscle tension is just an indicator of how much they're flexed at rest. I've noticed that heavy sets leave my muscles a lot harder, sometimes for days.
Good observation, there can also be body fat differences between people that cause muscles to look soft.
Agree, muscle "should" look soft when fully rested, they are 79% water on average. after all Jay Cutler legendary Quad Stomp is a good example, his muscles "jiggle" a bit until he flexes them.
I remember Pavel in his book 'Power to the People' touting this hard look due to muscle tension as a good thing, but is it? Should we be all tensed up? It's the nerves after all which would keep the muscles partially tensed, which might mean that the body is anticipating danger
Tonus is residual tension in "relaxed" muscle tissue. Like when you wake up in the middle of the night and happen to touch your relaxed vastus lateralis and it feels as hard as iron. But do a long layoff, and after a couple of weeks that leg feels like eel shit, mushy and soft.
What you talking about lol, all muscles are partially flexed? You’d look like a cripple
Excellent and clear overview, introduction, discussion and summary. I particularly like how you clarify the definitions up front. BTW recent findings suggest that strength is developed by daily training of the same muscle even if sets are as low as one.
Thank YOU for the kind words, and strength can certainly be developed with low volume and high frequency :)
Can you please tell me about these recent findings? Where can I read about these findings? Do they talk about how much volume at what intensity should the workouts be done if one trains every day?
@@incorectulpolitic Since it's research the findings are limited to the study protocols. There are several studies. All based on maximal voluntary contraction. "How much volume", as I mentioned it was one set only. Six maximal voluntary eccentric contractions five days a week on one exercise. This protocol was compared to one with 30 repetitions once a week. After four weeks both protocols showed hypertrophy, but only the five day protocol increased strength. Another study showed that performing ONE eccentric 3s repetition once a day, five days a week, during four weeks, increases isometric, concentric and eccentric strength, , but doesn't produce hypertrophy. They compared it to isometric, and concentric protocols, where the isometric only produced increased eccentric strength, and the concentric only isometric strength. In these studies the subjects were sedentary, not previously working out.
Amazing video yet again. I began working out again after 4 years about 3 months ago. Your videos and Andrew Huberman's podcasts have made me take a whole new approach to it than before.
Thank YOU so much my friend, that means a lot to me!
This is my favorite however channel
Haha :)
I really like the graphics of this channel. Well done
Thank you my friend, I appreciate that!
Why not both? This is what I love about the Bioneer's approach. It's focused on function over aesthetics, but of course form follows function. It will make you bigger. It focuses primarily on strength endurance, but it trains your muscles in basically all the ways you can. Start with overcoming isometrics. Then mechanical drop sets, aiming for a number of reps that's 20~50 or more depending on the exercise. But I try to do the hardest exercise I can (might be plyometric, or advanced calisthenics like planche pushups), and I often end up able to do only do a number of reps that's in the strength range, like 6 or less. Then immediately switch to an easier progression or different exercise that works the same muscles and do as many as you can, which for me often ends up being in exactly the bodybuilder rep range. Then switch to an even easier version etc until you can complete a total target number of reps that's in the strength endurance range. Only 2 sets, but then you'll do several others that use basically the same muscles in different ways. And finish the workout with a quasi-isometric, like a 1-minute long pushup. So you'll have done lots of different exercises and trained at every point on the force-velocity curve, having done strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Strength endurance is often overlooked because everyone wants to look more buff, but an argument to made that it's more useful everyday strength than your one-rep max, is better for your connective tissues etc. But with this approach, you can do all the kinds of strength training in way that's interesting and fun with a lot of variety, in a workout that takes a little over an hour. If you want to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder of course, then train for that. But if you want overall fitness and athleticism, longevity, everyday functional strength etc, and want a better physique but aren't desperate to look like the Hulk, I think it pays to be a jack of all trades.
This is very interesting. I’m gonna start doing this. It makes sense to train both high reps and low reps. And also the super slow reps as you listed above w the 1 min push up. So I should search “Bioneers approach”? To get the info
And would maybe doing a 2:1:1 method in terms of weeks in the month? 1 week strength; 1 week hypertrophic, 1 week strength training, 1 week endurance, repeat?
@@daysl33per I don't know... I switched back to Gymnastic Bodies, because I realized I'd never be able to do a planche etc with a split like that, and with so much time spent on endurance, I had none left for stretching.
@@a8lg6p gotcha. Thanks for reply
Everybody’s a scientist
Really appreciate these vids! It is quite useful to have comparisons between multiple studies being thorough yet easily digestible.
Thank YOU for the kind words! :)
I have, for lack of a better term, described to trainees that the muscles are not only muscle fibers, but have a "container" component. Ronnie Coleman did 75 reps with 225lbs on the bench press, Ronnie had very big containers to store enough fuel to do that kind of work output. The weight lifters do very, very, short work sets which do not require high work output aka "power".
Power is short bursts, like power lifting
Bodybuilding is bot for power
@@Percules15 power is actually an equation, which divides mass moved by a factor of time.
@@Percules15 P= W/^T
When did Coleman do 225 for 75, is their a video? I've seen pretty much every piece of content their is of Ronnie and never seen that?
Always love the knowledge that u provide with a rlly good edit and enjoyble keep it up mate, cheers 👏🔥
Thank you my friend, I appreciate that!
seriously such an underrated channel.
Thank you my friend! :)
From my own experimentation I always like training 12-15 reps the best. So glad to know it has no real downside.
Awesome stuff! :)
So long as it's 12-15 *struggle reps!* Those last few reps have to take you to hell and back for that range to be effective, however, if they do, and you compound 2 or 3 more exercises of that scheme, you will grow *phenomenally* in both strength and size (obviously size moreso since 12-15 rep schemes are volume sets).
@@ChristAliveForevermore yeah I always go to failure, and I'm pretty sure every time I go to the gym I gain 1kg
@@potapotapotapotapotapota lmao. Gain 1 kg of what?
@@gomen53782 probably muscle
I like low reps of 3 using controlled movement with a moderate weight to both stimulate the muscles and feeling intensity every 7 to 10 days, this has produced excellent results for me.
Every 7-10 days?? How many sets do you do in one session?
Perhaps this is true, I typically tend to lift in the 8-15 rep range. I have had to take the past 4 months off due to an elbow injury (didn't happen while weight lifting). I've lost most of my size entirely (wasn't small). I've always liked high volume training with a lower weight, since I found in my early 20's I'd get hurt more frequently with higher weight. So I reduced the weight, increased the reps and just focused on being able to lift weights long term.
Same, doing a 1 rep max is dodgy af, i dnt think i ever met an older powerlifter who wasnt full of injurys, so far ive kept myself relatively injury free doing exactly 8-15 on 99% of my lifts ! and im in my 40s.
So how long have you been lifting for and what is your 1rm on compound movements like bench and squats?@@mcpartridgeboy
@@ridlasab ive been lifting about 15 years but only since 2017 with a ;long gap, idk my 1 rep max, i dont traion for strenght i train for muscle building ! heres a rough list of my compound lifts, im 75 kg 5 ft 10, 44 yrs old, squats 5 sets of roughly 15, 12, 8, 8 , vertical reps 90 kg, full ROM 76kg roughly same reps ! bench is tough because i do lots of super sets and dips before iosteart my flat bench but after dips i do 50 kg on the smith including the bar (dont be miean im slim and chest is my worst muscle) ! back is good i do pull ups assisted ! how about you ?>
Im addicted to this channel, keep it up and never stop we are here for you
I think Sarcoplasm assists muscular endurance . Sarcoplasm stores ATP in it so maybe higher reps tell the body that it needs better muscular endurance and starts to undergo sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Which would explain how body builders have more sarcoplasm as their repetitions are higher.
And also look at cyclists legs. Cycling is more so an endurance sport(I think) but they have huge legs
Yeah that's possible, though I should note as mentioned in this video, higher reps per se don't seem to cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, rather perhaps high volumes :)
@@KtWrldGaming distance cyclists / climbing specialists don't have huge legs neither do long distance runners. The cyclists with the huge legs are usually only the sprinters or time trail specialists and they also do a lot of strength training like squatting
Celll never ever store atp it used immediately
Great work as always my friend. Keep it up
Thank YOU!
ABSOLUTELY AWESOME VIDEO!!! I've been interested is sarcoplasmic and myofiberal hypertrophy for a long time, but I was never sure not relevant it really was. This video was extremely insightful!
Thank YOU for the kind words, great to hear!!!
The nervous system aspect is also not accounted for. Power lifters and other types of athletes that use explosive power on a regular basis also develop a much more efficient nervous system. Theoretically one could move more weight faster, just from developing technique and adjusting the nervous system, without actually creating any more muscle fiber or muscle fiber strength.
High reps may increase the sarcoplasma size due to higher need for glycogen storage. Also power lifters focus A LOT on producing power rather than just doing the reps, neurological parameters needs to be researched. Awesome video! Ty for everything.
The best YT canal for muscle hypertrophy and studies,also i would like to see video about best diet for muscle hypertrophy.👍
Thank YOU my friend, that's very kind of you :)
Thank´s for the video, I subscribed for the ebook.
Awesome, I hope you enjoy it!
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.
1:19 "damn, u strong" made me chuckle 😂
Haha, I was hoping someone would notice that! :)
Just train multiple rep ranges each workout and get the best of all worlds.
I warm up and then work up to a set of 5 at 90% of 1rm. Then I back down to 85% for a set of five, then down to 70% for two or three sets of ten, and then down to 55% for a set of 20. Then I retest my maxes once a month and adjust my percentages accordingly for the next month. If I feel I can hit a set of 3-5 over 90%, I'll do that occasionally too.
This is obviously for the main compound lifts. For accessories I just go balls to the wall as heavy as I can get, usually working up in weight with sets of ten, then when I don't think I can hit a set of ten at the next weight up, I do sets of five still increasing the weight, until I'm exhausted.
I don't want to confuse anybody. I just want to make sure I understood it right. Do you mean with high(er) volume more sets or more weight in general. Both could be the answer, too, though.
But in general, I'm grateful that you make such interesting videos that aren't hard to understand. 😊
Really great video again. Do you have any videos that deal specifically with the concept of overtraining? Is it really possible for a normal person to train so much that it actually hinders their progress or is more almost always better?
I appreciate that my friend!
I don't have any current videos on overtraining, but I do plan to eventually. I'm going to dive into that literature more at some point. At this point in time, I believe overtraining in some form is certainly possible for natural indivduals. The question though is that point far greater than most people presume. Also, other factors such as indivdual differences, diet, sleep, stress, etc. also factor in, so I think it's probably quite a nuanced area overall.
@@HouseofHypertrophy Apt, apt Analysis.
I think it is more likely to happen with athletes who play, train, and practice as they have to find a balance. Basically, pushing their bodies close to failure in a sense.
For us normals, I think we’re more likely to be under recovered. I guess CrossFit begs to differ but during their hype days in 2014, they were just doing random workouts of the day so it wasn’t really training with a goal. To me, they were just exercising, which isn’t training.
"Is it really possible for a normal person to train so much that it actually hinders their progress" - depends on what you consider "overtraining" and what you consider "progress".
First, yes, it is very possible to train too much. Not that hard, actually, a lot of people can unknowingly do it.
Second. Define progress. You can even train every day and have progress, but it doesn't mean it is the best time efficient method, and doesn't mean you will see that progress immediately. Usually if your frequency is too high your muscles are not repaired 100% every time you train, so if you wanted to see and measure the full extent of your "progress" after such type of training, you will need to rest eventually.
Third. You will have a lot higher risk of getting overuse injury(tendonitis) if you overtrain unprepared. But, you can train a lot more the more you accustom your body(and especially tendons) to it.
So in conclusion - highly depends on the person in question. Possible to overtrain? Very easy for most people. Training is a spectrum. The most (hypertrophy?) gains seems to be in the middle(just the right intensity/frequency), while undertraining and overtraining to some extent will also work, but not that great. If you go too far right(into the overtraining) you will either get injured or have no progress or even lose muscle(in worst case). But if you progressively up the intensity/frequency, a human body is capable of doing far more things than you can imagine. So if you really wanted to, you can go into the "overtraining" territory, without getting too far as to injuring yourself, but this is a hard thing to manage for little to no real benefit.
yeah id like to know as well, im new to the gym and have almost finished a 10 week block of doing full body three times a week, but i spend 2 and a half hours in the gym each session and feel im probably doing to much even though i do feel particularly over worked by the sessions, just satisfied with my effort etc. that being said i really dont know what im doing at this stage ? i am overweight at 112.5kgs and what seems to be happening is that the weight isnt really changing but i do feel new muscle seems to be growing all over my body and eating up the fat (im not calorie counting yet) . when this week finishes im going to take two weeks off and do lots of research on 4 day splits, as i really dont want to over do things if its actually detrimental to what im trying to achieve yeah ?
it just feels like im not actually doing much when i cut the session down to 8-10 excercises so i just keep adding other stuff yeah lol
For upper grade hypertrophy one suggested mechanism is the inside of myofibril packaging issue.
Force output decreases when the actin and myosin are too densely packed inside the myofibril.
Awesome explained! Thanks for putting this out here
No problem, thank you for checking it out! :)
I believe cardiorespiratory capacity can best be developed using multi-joint exercises that are a moderate to heavy load. So It is ALL about intensity . I developed a Training method that goes like this: I perform five sets of an exercise. In the first set it's just activation I do 15 and 20 repetitions until close to failure. Second set and third set I do 8 to 12 reps more load.. In the fourth series I get heavier about six reps and go drop set or rest pause.And finally in fifth grade I do a minute non-stop. Rest about 2 minutes. 8-10 sets muscle/ workout. Great progress strength and HIPERTROFy
Nice!
0:00 . I was hoping for "bem vindo". As always, another incredible video!!
I'll add it into a future video :)
As a guy with engineering background, I am very happy to see your videos. Since studies on this field are limited, it is really hard to come to a robust conclusion, however I still benefit from information in between lines you mentioned. Keep up the great work, appreciated 👍
Ok so after all that, just more sets, got it
I suggest adding another limitation: there is no direct evidence to even suggest that there is something like sarkoplasmic or myodibrillar hypertrophy. Or I missed it in the video. The things you showed were all correlational in nature and confounded by neural adaptation (where I actually don't have proof for either)
It would need a study to assess actual muscle fibers after a specific training regimen to show that these concepts exist.
I like your style of video production! It is calm and very nuanced. Please keep it on :)
Thank YOU for the kind words!
In the video we did detail studies that have directly measured myofibrillar hypertrophy or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The myofibrillar hypertrophy studies are shown here: 10:22
The sarcoplasmic hypertrophy studies are detailed here: 14:50
Okay seems like I missed it then ^^' thanks for your response
Let's see what class has in store today!
Haha, hope you enjoy the video and found it interesting in some way! :)
You are amazing... keep it up...thank you so much!
At 10:37, all findings of the studies involve an increase in vastus lateralis fiber CSA but no effect on its specific tension.Doesn't that suggest a more puffy muscle (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) proving the point made in Part I?
I co-sign this, it’s been my secret sauce. I’m fat now trying to lose weight, but when I was lean, I was huge as the juicers and half as strong on the strong lifts, because I used serge nubrets pump method of training. Very light weights, done very fast, with very little rest between sets. The secret is, you never go to failure, you’re hitting hundreds of reps per muscle group per session, and I added in 5 pounds or 2.5 pounds to exercises when I could do the 8x12-15 reps or the 6x12-15 reps with a rest of only 30-60 seconds. If you cannot complete the reps it’s too heavy to get a proper pump, if you cannot get the pump, You won’t get the results. You will never hurt yourself training like this, you will get stronger just slower, you will build a very aesthetic full muscle, and your conditioning will be through the roof! Just keep your diet under control if you’re a natty, because you’ll want to eat everything if you actually hit it 6 days a week 2 splits a day. Modify nubrets program, some of those exercises have been long since debunked, so replace them with solid ones. Good will hunting brothers in gainz 💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿!
Wow you give me a lot to think about!
Yeah but youll look massive but youll be weak for the size you look , you will look like your really strong but your not that strong as opposed to looking small and weak but being incredibly strong
I think the reason why higher rep ranges mean more hypertrophy, is that usually…..when you lower the weight, your increase reps, and increase sets, because full fatigue hasn’t been reached as quickly, as lower reps and sets with heavy weight
Amazing channel... Great work 👍
Thank YOU! :)
This is quite interesting! Great video!
Awesome to hear, thank you!
Dorian Yates had the hardest/ more dense muscles I've seen in a BB, and he was training around 6-8 reps.That might be the sweet spot for both strength/hypertrophy (5-6 reps most likely).
5-6 reps opr even 6-8 reps are certainly a good crossover between strength and hypertrophy :)
Love this
Am I right or wrong in thinking that myofibrillar muscles are representative of our fast-twitch fibres and sarcoplasmic muscle for slow-twitch fibres? And if this is true could that be a reason as to why there is no definitive answer for selective rep ranges/exercises being the sole contributer to either myofibrillar/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?
All muscle fibers have myofibrils and sarcoplasm, but whether myofibrillar hypertrohy occurs more so in fast twitch fibers and sarcoplasmic hypertrohphy in slow twitch fibers is difficult to determine as the evidence has not properly explored it, but I think it's a great question and suggestion :)
Good video. What i found from this studies is that bodybuilding training produce overall more muscle and strength, but power training produce more strenght per size of the body. So if you want to be big and strong you should train like a bodybuilder and if you want to look small, but have more strength that is expected from you, then you should train power style.
Saludos House of hypertrophy from USA ❤❤❤
This vids are simply amazing, incredible, unreal, just blow my mind, this + Jeff Nippard + The Sprint Project are an epic combo of science-backed info
🤯🤩🙉💯❤️
Thank YOU so much!
I've found myself personally/anecdotally over the decades training that there is a difference in 'quality' of muscle when lifting 4-8 reps vs 10-14 for the most part (meaning mostly one or the other)
When training heavier I found that the muscle would stay around longer. meaning you could take longer rest periods between hitting it again without it feeling 'depleted' and even taking time away from the gym that muscle would retain 90% of it's size .
Whereas with higher reps the quality of the muscle feels less stable in that it requires a bit more frequency and if taking time off from the gym size will diminish a lot faster
Makes sense
I love how the flags from all the studies are color-coordinated.
:)
This is one of those things that I'll always believe is a myth. Thanks also for pointing out the limitations in comparing "strength" when the test is done in a way that favors a sport-specific method. So many people are getting tripped-up by this.
Agreed! :)
I think that what probably matters the most is how close to failure someone is training rather than the rep range as long as it’s less than 20 or 25 reps.
Henneman’s size principle and increasing tension per rep until failure will recruit all muscle fibers. I think there’s more to it than this but simplified I don’t think there is such thing as dense muscle. Maybe matured muscle that’s been through the ringer.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. At the fiber level though, it's possible more contractile growth over sarcoplasm growth creates a denser muscle apperance, but to what degree and how much has definitely not been explored by the literature :)
Great videos. Keep it up !
Thank YOU! :)
It could be that the fibre gives strength and is fueled through the sarcoplasmic proteins. So when you tire out the strength of the muscle the fibres grow but of you tire the energy around the fibres in protein they grow? Or am I totally wrong
The sarcoplasmic proteins are certainly involved in generating energy required for various reactions in muscle fibers, so I don't think you're wrong. High volumes could just be very anaerobically taxing such that they elict an increase in sarcoplasmic proteins (hence why high volumes may cause sarcoplasmic hypertrophy)
@@HouseofHypertrophy that's what I thought or they run out more of the feeder proteins rather than the maximally emphasizing strength fiber
I’ve always thought of typical sarcoplasmic training like bodybuilding was really good for giving nutrients to the muscle by increasing the fluid that delivers the nutrients to the muscle aka “the pump,” and I feel that strength or myofibrillar style training, for me, increased the actually quality of the muscle I saw and it lasted. I love both styles, but even after a 3 month block of body building style of training in the 8-12 range I’ve always felt like the apparent gains would rapidly devolve whereas the muscle gained from strength training seemed more stable and lasting which leads me to believe that forming term gains myofibrillar /strength training is better. But bodybuilding is a lifestyle set up for a single event in which the look is important on that single day.
Wow what an insightful presentation
That's very kind of you, thank YOU!
This reminds me of the myth that environment draws people to their chosen field. When studied, rather than a child enjoying reading because their parents read to them often, in fact what was happening is parents were very in tune to what their children enjoyed and hence the parents were actually providing a range of activites for their children to do, but the parents in fact were picking up on what the child was enjoying and then providing that stimulus to them more often. So the child didnt enjoy reading BECAUSE it got read to more often. Instead it showed enjoyment of being read to, as that was its born strength, language, and hence the parents then read to the child more often. Then the child goes on to become a writer or story teller etc. In this case, someone becomes a bodybuilder BECAUSE they realise they are very good at gaining size, likewise a powerlifter realises they are very good at gaining strength, without gaining size. Hence it is not the training stimulus creating the athlete, more the athlete was always going to be what they were going to be, or at least had the potential and just gravitate towards the training that gives them the better results. It does not mean we can replicate their training and enjoy their results. The powerlifter was born a powerlifter. The reader was born a reader. The bodybuilder was born a bodybuilder. The attributes were born into them. We cant always use the way the elite train to gain their attributes for ourselves.
If anything I believe that within reason, in the rep ranges that seem to be effective, 3-30ish, training in the range that you gravitate towards will give you the best results, as far as myo vs sarco gains, based off of your predestined genetics. You will naturally gravitate towards what your muscles want. I myself cannot get a good workout in above ten reps. I simply cannot get close enough to failure or get enough sets in when my reps are higher. I just cant. 10 or below absolutely works best for me.
Some very great and interesting points!
Man that was awesome mate!! I loved reading your comment!! I learnt heaps! Very interesting stuff!! Cheers for that, much appreciated!
Excellent! What and how you eat will shape you too
Great comment
Many bodybuilders go to the gym multiple times a day so the total weekly volume per muscle group amount would be massive, thus indicating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Still sceptical about which rep ranges lean more toward myofibrils and sarcoplasm size until research is done in the rep ranges at 1-6.
Kind of connected to the subject but not entirely:
So we know that rep ranges of 6-35 produce similar, optimal hypertrophy as long as performed to or close to failure. Let's say I can do 50 reps of an exercise before reaching failure, so the load is probably too low to produce optimal hypertrophy. If I decrease the speed so that the reps are harder and I can perform only 20 before failure, without increasing the load, would the hypertrophy produced be optimal then?
This is a great question, and it's very difficult to answer because the research has not really deciphered between rep numbers and rep tempo.
Most studies finding 6 to 35 reps to be similar use a 1-2 second lifting and lowering tempo, so not very slow.
In the example you're giving, I'm going to speculate BOTH 20 reps very slowly and 50 reps faster (assuming both are completed in the same time) are inferior. The reason for this is because CNS fatigue seems to be more so related to the duration of exercise (contrary to popular belief), so given both take the same time to complete and are much longer in duration than typical 6-35 reps sets with faster tempos, the CNS fatigue produced may be enough to limit the hypertrophic stimulus of that set.
Hope this makes sense :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thanks!
As someone who is semi-well versed in physiology and has been working out in one way, shape or form for a decent amount of time, I've found that the _"Common Sense"_ approach works best *_for most_* people who are not training for a specific elite level end goal. By common sense I mean, let's be simple and say we have two types of muscle fibers with the potential for growth. Each muscle or group thereof is typically made up of more type A or type B (or type 1 or type 2/Fast Twitch or Slow Twitch) so I always tried to build my training around the particular muscle/s being worked. While fast twitch has the most potential for growth, there is still no reason to ignore slow twitch either in my opinion. Even if it is just one set of 100 pushups at the end of a Chest/tris, Upper Back/Bis and Lower Back/Abs day. Nor do I see an issue with doing 50 reverse crunches for your lower back/abs, or 50 body weight squats on a leg day where you don't go heavier than a 5 rep near max effort set. Personally for large muscle groups like the lower back and legs along with shoulders I would reserve the crazy high reps for a _medium_ workout. I prefer periodizing my workouts, again based on muscle groups size when it comes to rest (So legs, lower back and shoulders would get 2 days off after a light workout, 3 after a medium and 4 after a heavy workout, medium muscle groups like the chest and back would get 1 day off after a light workout, 2 after a medium, 3 after a heavy one, calves and bis can get whacked the day after an easy workout, 1 day for a medium and two for a hard workout etc, though the amount of compound movements and indirect stimulation could vary that up a bit, and a light bicep workout may not include any iso work at all if you are doing chinups, suppinated lat pulldowns, suppinated or neutral grip rows etc, since they may just be getting hit the next day regardless. If you just did chest and shoulders falls on the following day, do you really want to workout you triceps? Probably not.
Anyway, for _most_ regular people, or people who are not training for a specific sport that would benefit more from one type of training over another, in my experience, people get the best results from mixing in at least 1 high rep set per body part. Not 3, not 5. 1. There's little point in doing junk work either, and in a worst case scenario they can at least build up/maintain a bit more muscle endurance than just doing 0-12 rep sets on their own. Now this is just my anecdotal experience based on myself and the numerous people I have worked with. I never compiled (or even have records of most of the training anymore) the data and looked for the actual percentage gains in size, maximum strength and maximum endurance so take that information as you will.
You can also check out Dr. James Hatfield's research into A-B-C Periodization which follows a similar approach, though I believe he classifies shoulders as a medium muscle group due to the size of the muscles that make up the area, not the area as a whole, and may also have an extra day of rest mixed in. Whatever the case, he actually does have research into into various splits and rep ranges going back to the 1950s I believe. That _"Doctor Squat"_ sure was a bit ahead of his time and worked with everyone from movie stars to Mr. Olympias to pro football, baseball and basketball players along with numerous _"World's Strongest Men."_ Add in a doctorate in exercise physiology and I would say his credentials are pretty _strong._ Diet periodization can also go a long way in assisting with training goals, but that's way to complicated for the scope of this post. Well, maybe not too complicated, but it would just take forever to type out, but it is exactly what it sounds like. You change your total caloric intake, macro and micro intake based on the activities you are doing that day and the end goal you have in mind and that's as deep as I'll get into that here as this post is already too long. Take care.
Dr. Fred Hatfield...
The summary at the end is great
Awesome to hear! :)
Arent denser muscles associated with slow twitch muscles meaning high weight, low rep, and reasonable slow and controlled excersizes can provide dense fast twitch muscles? I mean if we have dense fast twitch muscles the. We get strength and stamina as we have more muscle to use to help. This can get confusing
I don't really know, I'm doing 3 4 sets with 4reps max no matter the weight, I've went up to 107kilos buffed as some steroid animal, I'm only 185cm so I was literally huge, natural but not extremely jacked or something, just huge and extremely strong, but muscle was not specifically dense, it was both dense and buff kind of
What I’ve never understood is why we try and limit ourselves to one rep range. It becomes like a competition. This rep range is “better than” the other rep range. Almost like we then miss the woods from the trees, as the saying goes. We can, it has been proven, that we can make gains using almost any rep range. It depends on the muscle group being trained and the ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibres as to the possible rep range which would be best for a particular muscle group. Everyone is different, however the point I’m making is surely it makes more sense to train with a variety of rep ranges, changing things from month to month, week to week or even workout to workout. Rather than deciding that say 6-10 reps is best and never straying from it.
I’ve certainly found I’ve benefited greatly from implementing a wide variety of rep ranges from strength training in 1-3 rep ranges to conditioning, such as 30 reps even higher. Basically getting the full benefits of all rep ranges and improving greatly from it. Just my two cents.
I agree with you, the upcoming video on Monday will address the variety of benefits one can attain from using a variety of rep ranges :)
It comes down to the defining question. Is the purpose to sculpt a muscular physique or get as strong as a gorilla? They are very different goals.
Is there a place where I can read good articles on fitness & science of various techniques in general?
Protein synthesis is decreased by 15-30% after sleeping 8 hours, this is when muscle repairs itself. So if you lift 1-4 reps as much as you can, your body does maximum muscle tearing which takes way longer to repair. Maybe the muscle tearing/repairing is the key to a dense fibrous muscle. If you only go 30% strength, the muscle is torn less but more reps meant the muscles got extra glucose than needed. Kind of like if you sprint for a minute then you get so thirsty you chug a bottle of water. You probobly only needed a few sips but now you have extra water inside
muscle fiber plays a role too. Type 2x achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy in the 1-5 rep range ( under 8s of >90%max). Type 2 glycolitic fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 12 rep ranges. Slow twitch fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 35reps. This is all according to Barry Ross in his book on strength training for speed.
Not sure I agree with that, simply because there's no evidence to support it. It could be correct, but in the absence of concrete data I'm skeptical
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think he is basing it on the fact that the different muscle fibers use different energy systems and we know how long the energy systems last so is deducing how many heavy reps you can approximately do in that time frame.
@@zber9043 yes but once you approach failure every muscle fiber/type is going to be exhausted, it would be stupid for your body not to recruit everything.
I'm not able to access your free guide,despite confirmation of email..
Check your spam folder, if it's not there, let me know :)
Notif squad 🔔
What's up my friend, appreciate you as always!
@@HouseofHypertrophy been busy with life and haven't been in the gym for over a month. LOL. Just home workouts. But all good regardless. Thanks for asking.
How about you, Dhimant? Hope all is well.
Home workouts can still be awesome! I'm doing all good too! :)
Can someone explain to me then why are rock climbers, cyclists and other similar sport where you have low effort inffinite number of reps are so skinny. While Boulderers have huge arms and pectorals but they do explosive low reps. ???
At around 7 minutes, the clip mentions that sarcoplasmic protein synthesis at 24 hours post-exercise was greater for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM training. What it fails to mention is that myofibrillar protein synthesis was also greater at 24 hours for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM in the same study by Burd et al in PLoS ONE 2010. Also, at 4 hours after resistance, only the 90% of 1RM training resulted in increased sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, while both 30% and 90% of 1RM resulted in increased myofibrillar protein synthesis at 4 hours. In other words, both protocols stimulated both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis.
But if one looks at the figures in that paper, myofibrillar protein synthesis was stimulated to a much greater extent than sarcoplasmic protein synthesis with both the 30% of 1RM and the 90% of 1RM protocols. This would suggest predominantly myofibrillar hypertrophy rather than sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in the longer term in response to both protocols. Why is this not mentioned?
Finally, too much has often been made out of a limited number of studies which claimed to be showing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but these have typically not considered the possible contributions of temporary swelling resulting from training-induced muscle damage and associated muscle fiber remodeling, which would tend to dilute the myofibrillar hypertrophy.
Did you watch the full video? I mentioned a few of the points you noted too, I did not bother with the myofibrillar protein synthesis one though because ultimately (as I noted) that paper is far from strong evidence behind the notion higher reps drive sarcoplasmic hypertrophy :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Yes, I noticed that you mentioned some of the points later. But that still does not explain why you did not mention the at least equally good results for the 30% of 1RM to failure protocol vs the 90% of 1RM to failure protocol with regard to myofibrillar vs sarocplasmic protein synthesis.
If you really wanted to be factually correct, you should have mentioned these results around that time point (7 minutes) in the clip. And I did not see them mentioned anywhere in the clip.
By omitting them but at the same time reporting the increase in sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, the overall impression from your presentation was that the 30% of 1RM protocol basically just stimulated sarcoplasmic and not myofibrillar hypertrophy. The result being that the average viewer would probably have bought that very message (as many have bought into the belief that high reps with low weights does not produce true myofibrillar hypertrophy) and not cared about the caveats that you included later.
@@SR71YF12 so if both types of training produce the same results, then why would one chose to train at 90% 1RM over 30% 1RM or vice versa?
@@incorectulpolitic The short answer is that heavy training (8RM or heavier, >80% of 1RM) is generally more effective in inducing strength gains. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585
Presumably, this is via greater adaptations in the central nervous system. For example, there are indications that maximum muscle activation increases with heavy resistance training, which may reflect one or more mechanisms (improved recruitment of motor units and/or firing rates). Technique/skill is also improved, as mentioned in this clip.
On the other hand, ~20-30RM loads (including 30% or 1RM) are very effective for increasing strength-endurance, e.g. number of repetitions performed at 30-40% of 1RM. Possibly, via greater capillary supply and/or oxidative capacity. Needless to say, these lighter loads are much easier on the joints. Many of us who have lifted heavy for many years appreciate this.
A case can thus be made for varying between these two types of training. And in fairness to the creator of this channel, I think he has argued for this in one of his clips.
@@SR71YF12 I read about some old school training method where in the same workout they did 1- 2 heavy low rep (1- 5) sets to failure followed by 1- 2 light high rep(12+) sets to failure.
I personally found that 8- 12 reps to failure(where you can't lift the weight any more) per set produces great muscle mass and strength gains.
i have a doubt, can sarcoplasmic hypotrophy can be reversed?and how? and how can i change it to myofibular hypotrphy
In general, bodybuilders tend to rest less between sets compared to power athletes. There might be a relationship resting time between sets and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Is there any study about this topic?
That's a great point too, unfortunately there's no data on this that I know of :(
Powerlifters' and other power athletes' strenght and explosiveness is also influenced by the better development of their nervous system as a result of the specific training. Doesn't explain the better specific tension of the untrained individuals in that one study , of course.
Yep! though I should note specific tension is measured outside the body, so neural adaptations does not confound this (so the English study does not involve this limitation). However, the Japenese study does have this limitation, they did not measure specific tension, rather ratio of triceps size to strength
lifting in the high rep range is more beneficial to our joints, ligaments, and tendons...In the end, that's all it matters because once your get injured , it's game over and you are more likely to get injured with heavy weight and low reps..
Yeah, there is some evidence heavier load training may be slighly more unfavourable in this context. But other things like form and outside factors come in to play (recovery away from the gym).
The trick is to listen to your body and know when to deload. If you are mindful about it, you can lift heavy with longevity.
? After starting working out after a break, the muscles get sore then one takes the time for the soreness to go away and starts again- this soreness is a sign that your doing it right, Once the muscles stop getting sore its time to add weight/reps, Another question is "is the pinching feeling a sign of growth" correct?
Soreness and pain are probably not good indicators overall, I do plan to make videos on this. I think if you're making progress over your sessions, this is perhaps the simplest indicator you're making gains (regardless of soreness and pain)
@@HouseofHypertrophy That being said, So if your not sore the night of or the next day after the workout how does one judge wether they did anything worth while- as gains can be seen "or not" three to six weeks from that day, If an individual is not getting stronger nor gaining size then they are wasting time - those so called " growing pains" are an indicator of either strength or size gains.
Interesting research on opposing the notion that heavy, low rep sets = density while lighter, higher weight rep sets = bigger but "puffier" muscles.
Here's a simple analysis that can help with explaining this fact:
Suppose Person A used the muscle-density approach by using a heavy 8x5 scheme and achieved the results with a 200 lbs overall weight used, for a total of 40 reps in 28 minutes.
If the subject were to stick to the same weight for years in order to develop the work capacity to use the same weight and increase the reps by doing a 4x12 instead, he would most definitely grow in size, but not in density.
IF the sarcoplasmic argument is true, then Person A should shrink back to a non-dense looking individual if he reduces all volume and either goes back to the original strength protocol or stops lifting altogether. The subject, will of course, not revert back to a lean, dense-looking individual. He would most-likely maintain the same size as research has shown that maintaining even 10% of total workout volume/intensity would maintain the muscularity indefinitely.
So what does this mean?
Heavy weights for low reps or slightly lighter weights with higher reps do not significantly influence the type of muscularity an individual will develop. It is mostly genes and genetic predisposition allows the individual to gravitate towards load selection.
In other words, individuals who are genetically predisposed to hold or grow more Type 2 (dense) fibers will gravitate towards lifting heavier as this feels better for them, thus, CORRELATING the heavier = denser look as opposed to it being an actual CAUSATION. The same is true with the opposite.
Another factor is the hunger effect that each training group experiences. Higher volume sets most definitely causes more hunger as much more calories are burned, resulting in them to consume more which inevitably causes slightly-bigger muscles.
Just take for another example calisthenics athletes. Skill-oriented athletes are strong. Very strong. However, they are almost always smaller due to their low-rep training approach whereas volume calisthenics athletes look like natural bodybuilders.
There is clear research that shows different rep ranges affect different kinds of hypertrophy. Not sure why it’s always left out
Have they ever done a study where they use different training methods with the same person? Like perhaps have them use low reps on one arm and high reps on another arm.
Yep, there are a few out there that do this! For example the study detailed in this video did: ruclips.net/video/tuF40f90tCQ/видео.html
I had trained high reps, and I can tell you that going 15% under 1rep max I could do 30+reps. I definately had a lot of endurance. So yeah basically my thought is you test you body on endurance, you build endurance, you test your body on strength you build strength. I would assume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to endurance.
It's certainly logical, but as noted in the video, it actually seems reps beteen 6 and 35 may just produce myofibrillar hypertrophy
@@HouseofHypertrophy Yeah idk enough about it, just speculating away. The muscle fibers themselves can probably gain structural differences as well. Definately seems there's a lot to uncover (even at the surface level), and the underlying mechanisms are gonna be far more complex (hormones, neural pathways, cellular structures, etc). Not saying we don't have an understanding, but I definately think there are big holes in our understanding. It'd be amazing to see where we'll be in a few hundred years... If we don't send ourselves back to the stone age or enter into some twisted dystopia.
We used to call that water weight. Your muscles store more energy (protien and glycogen bound with water) when you do strength + endurance training. Our body's won't carry what it doesn't need.
It literally is water weight. Sarcoplasm is pretty much just a watery solution that stores a bunch of glycogen for your muscles to use.
I would like to know what would happen if only one set was complete, apposed to 3... 3x10 vs
1x30.
why would you want to do that? You're doing cardio at that point. You think someone can lift 225 on the bench for 10x3 and just as easily do 30x1? thats so dumb lmao....
@@TrikkyVids from a hypertrophy standpoint its the same. In order to do 3 sets you need to hold back to do 3x10 = 30 total reps vs. 30 reps with same weight. The additional sets are a waste of time. It's about the total volume. If you're doing 10x3 that's pure strength training. I'm also assuming there is no weight change.
Proximity to failure per set is important. So if that 1 set of 30 is to or close to failure, but the 10 reps in each of the 3 sets are very far from failure, that 1 set would be better.
However, if the 10 reps in the 3 sets were to or close to failure, the 3 sets would likely be better on average :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy agree. But, you could add up RPE too. So if each set ends with one RPE. That's 3 total RPE for that exercise vs. 1 RPE for the 30. In which case you only did 27 reps vs. 29 😃
Whatever works for the person. I haven't seen any differences myself. I've done both. Have you seen the experiments on veteran lifters needing less total volume?
So should I always train with at least 90% of 1RM for hypertrophy & dense muscles ? Or what will is the best strategy to create my training program ?
Nah, as mentioned in the video, for hypertrophy, reps between 6 and 35 are similarly effective per set :)
I barely work out and I'm jacked & shredded 😉
Guys, building the body is VERY simple, lift to failure ALWAYS, eat perfectly, Cardio. Rest and repeat
We came here for atheletic muscle building
About the weightlifters vs bodybuilders study: In my knowledge there are different types of steroids, one that makes you retain more water and one that doesn't or at least does it less, so if the bodybuilders took the watery ones they'd have more circumference with less muscle, and the weightlifters that have strict weight classes would pick the none watery ones having less circumference and more muscle
Ah, nice stuff. I don't have great knowledge on anabolics, so that's very interesting to hear. Thank you for sharing!!!
My brain now hurts! Another informative video, I think.
Haha, thank YOU
Hi if we train for srrength then how many sets per week because we only do 1-5rep per set for strength
Thanks again 😊
No problem, thank YOU!
Very good video