In “Programming Part 3” Jordan states that the same volume (5X5) at least 60% intensity will produce an equal hypertrophy response as to…say 75% for the same volume (5X5).
Is this correct?
And if so, is strength training (as defined by training at higher intensity - more than 70% for ex.) obsolete outside of the context of the SPORT of powerlifting? i.e. would it be inefficient to train for strength outside the context of meet prep?
Yes, it is correct (ignoring the inter-individual differences in training response). While there’s some evidence that training to failure produces greater improvements in hypertrophy in new trainees doing isolation exercises, the balance of the evidence indicates that the hypertrophy response to training is a bit more complicated and is present at a variety of different intensity levels- especially with compound lifts. In general, we’d expect a similar hypertrophy response for compound lifts at 4-5 Reps in Reserve or less. In other words, we wouldn’t expect a bigger hypertrophy response for a set of 5 @ 85% (5 @ 10) compared to a set of 5 @ 75% (5 @ 6). Isolation work and trying to drive strength improvements are different topics.
To be clear, I don’t remember the exact quote there, but if I had to be more specific I would say that most rep/intensity schemes have the potential to drive hypertrophy. If I had to hedge my bets at a sort of threshold here, it’d be for sets >3 and <30 reps with an RIR of <5. At that point, volume becomes the more important driver for hypertrophy.
Strength training is not obsolete outside of barbell sports, but it just has a different set of priorities than something purely aimed at hypertrophy or strength improvements in other domains other than a 1RM in a squat, bench, or deadlift.
Understood, doc.
Would you then say that more deliberate programming would have a post-novice trainee lift at lighter intensities (~65%) with 3-4 RIR early in a training block (WITH SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER VOLUME), while gradually moving to higher intensities (75% - 85%) & 1-2 RIR when actively trying to demonstrate an improvement in strength?
i.e. in weeks 4-6 the trainee would be doing 5 Sets of 8 Reps @ 68% of E1RM @ RPE 6-7; and weeks 10-12 would have the trainee performing 3 Sets of 4 Reps @ 85% of E1RM at RPE 8-9.
I would imagine this would be favorable to, say, 4 Sets of 5 Reps @ 77.5% - 80% of E1RM @ RPE 7-8 early in the block as it’s twice the volume?
I recall you saying on the podcast that you disagree with Austin on what cause more hypertrophy; 3x5 or 3x10.
Can you collaborate on why you think 3x10 cause more hypertrophy, but Austin think they cause similar hyperthropy?
I don’t really program that way, but someone might prefer that.
I don’t think that’s a great way to develop strength.
I don’t think Austin thinks that 3x5 drives more hypertrophy than 3 x 10.
In the scenario that 3 x 5 and 3 x 10 are both done @ RPE 8, I think 3 x 10 is likely to drive more hypertrophy because there’s more volume. That said, I’m not sure there’d be a big difference in a newer trainee, as both may maximize hypertrophy stimulus in a given session.
Did you mean 5 @ 85% (5 @ 8) here? Otherwise I am confused. Isn’t 5 @ 10 100%?
No, I meant 85% because you can’t do 5 reps at 100% of your 1RM.
Ok I think I get it, I know it’s not hard, I’m just a little slow. 5 reps at 85% of 1RM should yield a 10 RPE?
Yea, in general.