Looking through the bodybuilding templates, I noticed that the Rx is commonly multiple sets of a set number of reps at a given RPE, allowing for load modifications as necessary to maintain reps at that RPE across all sets, if necessary.
I was curious how you would expect the hypertrophy, strength, and fatigue outcomes to differ, if at all, between this protocol and one I’ve seen recommended by Renaissance Periodization where load is held constant, but reps are allowed to fluctuate within a given range to maintain a target RPE.
To exemplify these differences, a 4 set protocol targeting ~10 reps at RPE 7 may look like this under each protocol:
BBM:
100lb x 10 @7
100lb x 10 @8
95lb x 10 @7.5
90lb x 10 @ 7
RP:
100lb x 10 @7
100lb x 9 @7
100lb x 9 @7.5
100lb x 8 @7 In short, in one protocol weight drops as fatigue accumulates and in the other reps drop off.
I’m assuming the outcomes will largely be similar between protocols? Could there be an indication where one would be more appropriate than the other?
Thanks for all the great content you guys put out. Huge fan of the podcast.
I wouldn’t expect there to be reliable differences between either protocol listed, though we use both in applications.
For example, when the load and fatigue management are of primary importance (e.g. strength), we often vary reps set to set to use the same load and maintain the same RPE. When proximity to failure and fatigue management are of primary importance (hypertrophy), we maintain RPE and reps, but vary the load.
There are other considerations for choosing one protocol over another, e.g. equipment that allows for small weight changes (or not), what the rest of the program looks like, time constraints, etc.
Thanks for this detailed response. I’m always interested in learning more about the rationale behind different programming schemes. Hopefully you guys can collate everything into a book someday.
I’ve seen the rep variation across sets in your Med-ISF templates and was wondering if this approach could be adapted for hypertrophy programming, creating a sort of “High-ISF” template. For example “10 reps at RPE @8, keep weight the same and complete ~3 additional sets of 8-10 reps maintaining RPE @8”.
This should allow proximity to failure, load, and fatigue to be kept in check by allowing volume to fluctuate (total reps), correct?
This brings up another question I had related to tracking volume (and another contrast between BBM and RP): what are your thoughts on RP’s method of tracking volume as number of sets at a given intensity (RPE or RIR) within a defined rep range (ie 8-10reps). For example, for a given lift, all sets completed at a given weight and intensity, completed within the 8-10 rep range would be given equal weight. In the example in the first post, this sessions volume would be tracked as 4 sets x 8-10 reps at RPE7.
Do you think this can be an appropriate method for regulating or prescribing volume or is it too “uncontrolled” compared to something like “total reps” used in the Med-ISF template and the hard-coded “reps per set” used in other programs?
I guess the question boils down to: “Do small changes in reps per set represent a significant/impactful change to training volume or is set number the smallest unit that can be changed to meaningfully impact training volume?”
No disrespect to Dr Mike Israetel’s work but the RP approach seems quite excessive and extremely fatiguing despite him talking about the stimulus-to-fatigue ratio, strict form is always great but with the slowed eccentrics, it’s not like training is all we do in life unless we become influencers, even if they would have other things to do and dedicate their energy to. I would love to know your thoughts on this Dr Feigenbaum, that is if you wish to comment on this.
That is a viable setup, sure. Our BB II template uses something similar, e.g. do 6-10 Reps @ RPE 7, repeat weight x 2 more sets of 6-10 reps, RPE capped at 9 each set.
I don’t think # of hard sets correlates to training outcomes particularly well. It’s another proxy for tracking volume with limitations. Additionally, most rep schemes will produce similar levels of hypertrophy. I just wonder what people are using a particular volume metric for? Presumably it’s for managing the program. Looking at various metrics through that lens may be instructive.
# of reps What’s likely to produce more growth- 10 sets of 5-8 @7 vs 10 sets of 8 to 10 reps @7? If you ascribe to the total volume > everything side of things, the 10 x 8-10 is likely to produce more growth despite the same number of sets.
# of hard sets: What’s likely to produce more growth- 10 sets of 5-8 @7 vs 10 sets of 8 to 10 reps @7? If you ascribe to the hard set side of things, they are equivalent despite up to 2x volume differences.
Tonnage: What’s likely to produce more growth- 10 sets of 5-8 @7 (300lbs) vs 10 sets of 8 to 10 reps @7 (250lbs)? If you ascribe to the more weight is better school of thought, the former would be better despite different total volumes and different fatigue costs.
The list goes on and on.
I think the majority of the data right now shows a robust relationship with total volume of a program. I don’t think that more granularity is particularly predictive for hypertrophy since there’s such a wide range of things that can work. For strength, I feel a bit differently.
Rather than drag this out, I think our training methods are some of the best in the game. If we felt that there were better options for tracking or programming things, we’d use them. There is a reason we do things differently than others.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Not trying to start a flame war here, just discuss some differences I’ve noticed between to two training philosophies.
FWIW, from a boots on the ground perspective, I’ve run the BBM Hypertrophy template as is from you guys (and, while in a deliberate deficit, lost weight while adding strength in most lifts as tracked by e1RM - so thank you for that) and then tried rerun it keeping volume (prescribed sets) the same for the first slot lifts but letting reps fluctuate to stay in the target RPE range (usually 6-8 or 7-9 depending on the week), effectively using RP style, rep-level regulation.
The main thing I found was that tracking progress became a bit of a nightmare on the latter protocol, because, as you’ve laid out, volume fluctuates. So if I did say 100lbs for 4 sets totaling 36 reps week 1 and then 105lbs for 4 sets totaling 33reps week 2 I had no idea how to reconcile the increase in weight, but drop in total reps as it relates to progress.
With that said, I haven’t taken a look at your BB2 template yet, but I’m curious to see how you guys solve this (my guess is tracking e1RM from that top set).
and, yes, this is correct regarding RP programming. From my limited understanding of their system they use number of hard sets within a given rep range to track program volume. From what I understand, for a given movement sets performed between specified rep ranges are all given equal weight toward volume. They typically use ranges of 6-10, 10-15, 15-20, etc. If it is likely a programmed set is going to fall out of that range, weight is reduced to bring the set back into range.
Not too different from the example you gave “do 6-10 Reps @ RPE 7, repeat weight x 2 more sets of 6-10 reps” - with the caveat being they allow weight to change, if necessary, rather than RPE to climb
As you suggest, it seems their thinking is that for a given effort, the hypertrophy adaptations resulting from sets completed within those rep ranges are similar.
Yea, it’s just hard to discuss differences in good faith without the other party being present, you know? I’m up for discussing programming philosophy in general, but I don’t love commenting on other’s approach.
Regarding the Bodybuilding II template, the rep range is a feature, not a bug. We allow for fluctuating volume as a method of progressive loading wherein the training stress is effectively the same in order to match it to the individual.
Not too different from the example you gave “do 6-10 Reps @ RPE 7, repeat weight x 2 more sets of 6-10 reps” - with the caveat being they allow weight to change, if necessary, rather than RPE to climb/
Much harder to progressively load this way IMO, as you have changing reps AND loads. Not insurmountable of course, but I see no reason to prefer this approach if using a double progresssion model.
That said, I don’t think using a lighter weight for the same amount of reps will lead to less (or more) hypertrophy. I think the best proxy we have for muscle hypertrophy via tracking programming is going to be total volume. For total training stress, the jury is still out.
[quote=“Jordan Feigenbaum, post:8, topic:14063, username:Jordan_Feigenbaum”]
Yea, it’s just hard to discuss differences in good faith without the other party being present, you know? I’m up for discussing programming philosophy in general, but I don’t love commenting on other’s approach.
[/quote]]
I can appreciate this, it’s a fair stance.
Also, agree. Double progression is more straight forward - more variables held constant and easier to track/plan progress week to week.
I think this is a similarity between all evidence-based hypertrophy programming Ive seen - tracking total volume. As we’ve discussed, it’s just done in different ways depending on the philosophy.
One thing about the double progression and its relation to volume I was curious about: if a rep range is prescribed at a given RPE range, say 5-8reps @RPE6-8, and the lifter is instructed to maintain a given weight week to week until “maxing out the range for all sets”, when the weight increase occurs, volume will presumably drop transiently, correct? Something like 100lbs x 3 x 8 will become 105lb x 8, 6, 5.
As you view programming, is this volume drop considered significant (ie: does it reflect a change in training stimulus) or does maintaining sets at a prescribed intensity +/- a few reps come out in the wash (ie: the applied training stress is largely the same)? I realize this is just another way of asking the question I posed previously, and I think you answered it above, but I just want to be sure my understanding is correct.
I wanted to follow-up with a related question about Hypertrophy template vs. the BB templates and how their loading paradigms relate to training outcomes.
For the primary movements (usually barbell) in the hypertrophy template load is used to match the days programmed training stimulus to the trainees performance potential while in the BB template reps within a set are allowed to fluctuate to adjust the stimulus to the trainees performance.
Outside of other factors within each program, does the focus on load as the stimulus calibrator in the Hypertrophy template give it a slight bias toward hypertrophy & strength development compared to the BB template? In other words, is BB focused almost exclusively on hypertrophy while Hypertrophy is focused on hypertrophy & strength?
Would you mind sharing your thoughts on how the two different loading protocols used in each template were chosen given the desired outcome, hypertrophy, is shared across templates? I’m still trying to wrap my head around how different protocols differentially affect training outcomes. (I appreciate there are other factors that differentiate the two programs).
Outside of other factors within each program, does the focus on load as the stimulus calibrator in the Hypertrophy template give it a slight bias toward hypertrophy & strength development compared to the BB template? In other words, is BB focused almost exclusively on hypertrophy while Hypertrophy is focused on hypertrophy & strength?
I do think that the BB templates are biased even more towards hypertrophy than the hypertrophy templates, but I don’t think this has much to do with the rep presciption.
The BB II templates use a rep range, while the BB I template uses fixed reps. Additionally, the BB II rep range on the priority work tends to be lower than the rep ranges used in the same slots of BB I. I chose this due to the prediction that more advanced individuals would be/should be using BB II. In that context, I think the higher intensity, lower rep work for some of the compound work would work better for hypertrophy compared to more of the same. I also think that more experienced lifters are able to put the double progression to good use, particularly on the compound exercises they have previous experience with and isolation exercises.
I am thinking this probably doesn’t answer your question regarding how different protocols influence training outcomes, though we aren’t really chasing different outcomes between hypertrophy and bodybuilding, right? They’re just different templates for different folks.
Yeah, I guess that was what was tripping me up - the target outcomes are the same, but the protocols to get there are different.
I appreciate now what you meant in the first few posts indicating that many different protocols can lead to hypertrophy as long as training volume and fatigue are managed. I suppose it really does boil down to personal preferences and responses of the lifter.
To frame this more practically, allow me to ask the question based on my own experience: I ran Hypertrophy 1 (and enjoyed it as I mentioned) but found that I had a tendency to overshoot the top set RPE in an effort to hit the target reps. When I repeated it, but allowed reps to fluctuate slightly to maintain RPE, I found I was better able to maintain target RPE from set to set. Also, I felt more comfortable with the program overall, if you know what I mean, almost like the pressure was off and I had permission to cut the set a rep short if things were deteriorating into grinders before I hit the prescribed reps (I feel like I have a good handle on what a 9 feels like in the moment).
In short, I found I prefer that style of stimulus regulation for hypertrophy training. However, I realized it was different from the program such that weekly volume (reps within set) would fluctuate slightly as loads changed. I didn’t know how that would affect the intended training outcome, hypertrophy, and so started this thread to get more insight.
So on to the question: if my understanding of our discussion is correct, for a given target volume dose, allowing reps to fluctuate slightly set-to-set, assuming training stress is kept in check (sufficiently stimulative and within the trainees ability to recover), will not result in any appreciable differences in strength or hypertrophy outcomes compared to allowing load to fluctuate slightly to maintain target RPE? If so, running Hypertrophy 1 and allowing reps to fluctuate slightly (+/- 1-2 or so per set) is unlikely to affect the desired training outcome?
I know I’m beating a half-dead horse here, but please humor me and hammer the lesson home.
So on to the question: if my understanding of our discussion is correct, for a given target volume dose, allowing reps to fluctuate slightly set-to-set, assuming training stress is kept in check (sufficiently stimulative and within the trainees ability to recover), will not result in any appreciable differences in strength or hypertrophy outcomes compared to allowing load to fluctuate slightly to maintain target RPE? If so, running Hypertrophy 1 and allowing reps to fluctuate slightly (+/- 1-2 or so per set) is unlikely to affect the desired training outcome?
Let me pose a question in response.
In what scenario would you predict 1 or 2 reps more or less in single (or handful) of sets to really matter?
Then the only real challenge with rep fluctuation becomes tracking - making sure rep fluctuations don’t devolve into consistent drops in volume. Solvable by the BB2 double progression scheme or, potentially, something like average weight, reps and RPE for a days workload.
Sure, I suppose doing 1 or 2 reps less (or more) of sets of 1 or 2 could impact strength, but not hypertrophy development.
I’ll leave you this. We can’t track training stress reliably just yet and small deviations in volume are mostly irrelevant. Regardless of the way we choose to track volume, I don’t think a few reps here or there are likely to matter.