Thoughts on the low volume high intensity "trend" and and RPE question

[Josh Kalisky]

Hey BBM,

I often see online talk on how training with lower volume, and very high intensity, i.e taking each set to failure, is superior for muscle gain than moderate to high volume and moderate intensity. For example, that training with 2-3 sets to failure on a certain exercise rather than doing for example 4 sets @ RPE 7-8 of a certain exercise is superior (of course total volume needs to be taken into account). What are your thoughts about this? Is there any truth in it or is this just another "fitness trend"?

As for my second question, i'm a bit confused as for the exact way of how to use RPE. For example, on the leg extensions I could probably do 65 kg for 15 reps @ RPE 8, though if we also count reps that I get 80%-90% of the full range of motion, and not only perfect form reps, I could probably get another 3-5 reps before total failure. Same as for exercises like lat pulldowns, where if I could probably get a few extra reps without perfect form. So, my question is what do we count as RPE 10? Is it when I can no longer do any more reps with perfect form, or when I can't do any more reps with "good enough" form?

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Hey BBM,

I often see online talk on how training with lower volume, and very high intensity, i.e taking each set to failure, is superior for muscle gain than moderate to high volume and moderate intensity. For example, that training with 2-3 sets to failure on a certain exercise rather than doing for example 4 sets @ RPE 7-8 of a certain exercise is superior (of course total volume needs to be taken into account). What are your thoughts about this? Is there any truth in it or is this just another "fitness trend"?

I do not think this is strongly supported by evidence. If we were comparing the same volume, the sets taken to failure may do better for muscle growth for isolation exercises in newer trainees, but outside of that, I do not think doing less sets to failure is likely to generate greater hypertrophy than more sets to 2-3 RIR (which is still very close to failure).


As for my second question, i'm a bit confused as for the exact way of how to use RPE. For example, on the leg extensions I could probably do 65 kg for 15 reps @ RPE 8, though if we also count reps that I get 80%-90% of the full range of motion, and not only perfect form reps, I could probably get another 3-5 reps before total failure. Same as for exercises like lat pulldowns, where if I could probably get a few extra reps without perfect form. So, my question is what do we count as RPE 10? Is it when I can no longer do any more reps with perfect form, or when I can't do any more reps with "good enough" form?

As for my second question, i'm a bit confused as for the exact way of how to use RPE. For example, on the leg extensions I could probably do 65 kg for 15 reps @ RPE 8, though if we also count reps that I get 80%-90% of the full range of motion, and not only perfect form reps, I could probably get another 3-5 reps before total failure. Same as for exercises like lat pulldowns, where if I could probably get a few extra reps without perfect form. So, my question is what do we count as RPE 10? Is it when I can no longer do any more reps with perfect form, or when I can't do any more reps with "good enough" form?

For exercise performance, we advocate for settling on a particular technique- including tempo, ROM, and other components of the movement that if changed, would constitute a new movement. In your case, leg extensions are typically done from ~90* knee flexion (or greater depending on the machine) to full knee extension. Cutting ROM short turns it into a partial ROM leg extension. Same thing with lat pull downs. Increasing reps, weight, etc. on an exercise ONLY COUNTS as a demonstrable increase in performance if the exercise (and components thereof) are the same. RPE 10 would be taking the exercise to failure (0 reps in reserve) with a set ROM, tempo, and other points of performance that you've decided on ahead of time.