Hypertrophy - Volume/Intensity

[RWulys]

I’ve thought about how to express this but am afraid that the question may be nonspecific. Hopefully the point gets across.

Volume is the main driver of hypertrophy. Does this mean that if one is inclined to be a bodybuilder, one could essentially never increase intensity (weight on the bar/machine) and still grow bigger and bigger muscles, indefinitely? I understand that fatigue must be managed in order to maximize the amount of volume over a period of several workouts (week, month, whatever). But, let’s say a person can do some movement 3x10 with a certain weight, could they continue to use that weight “forever”, and only ever increase the sets & reps & frequency, and as such keep growing bigger muscles?

From my understanding, a trained individual can recruit most of their motor units very early in a set in the case of a compound movement, and don’t therefore need to go to or near failure in order to get “significant reps” out of that set (by “significant reps” I mean reps that recruit most of the motor units in the muscle group involved, i.e. reps that drive hypertrophy). So, what is it then, really, that stops a person from just using the same weight indefinitely, and from going to 100 reps for 10 sets on that movement (perhaps starting at 3x10), or something similarly ridiculous? Is it just fatigue, and the fact that it takes a long time to become sufficiently trained to do that, perhaps such a long time that a person will never arrive at that point during a normal lifespan? What stops a trained individual from doing e.g. 5x60 squats with 60 lbs 3x per week, and getting super jacked as a result, if they can indeed recruit most of their motor units early in the set in the case of compound movements, and if volume is the main driver of hypertrophy? Wouldn’t that make more sense than 4x12 at 400 lbs 3x per week, IF the goal is bigger muscles? It feels like the answer is obviously No, but I’m not sure why, being that volume is the main driver of hypertrophy.

I suppose that the ‘minimum % of 1RM for driving hypertrophy’ is a relevant question here (I think that I remember Jordan saying something about 30%, but could be wrong). But then the same general idea would remain; why not just do the movement with maximum volume at that (minimum) % of 1RM (for driving hypertrophy) to get a maximal hypertrophic response… instead of using a higher weight which would obviously take away volume? E.g. if 30% is the minimum % of 1RM to drive hypertrophy, after which only volume matters, why should one ever exceed 30% of 1RM at the cost of volume IF the goal is maximum muscle growth?

[Jordan_Feigenbaum]

@RWulys

I’ve thought about how to express this but am afraid that the question may be nonspecific. Hopefully the point gets across.

Volume is the main driver of hypertrophy.

This is an oversimplification and may lead to faulty premises. Volume is probably the main driver once we’re making the muscle(s) of interest apply force through a range of motion and using an intensity range that gets the muscle close to failure somewhere in the ~4-30 rep range, provided the volume is well-tolerated.

@RWulys

Does this mean that if one is inclined to be a bodybuilder, one could essentially never increase intensity (weight on the bar/machine) and still grow bigger and bigger muscles, indefinitely?

There are more variables that would need to be known to answer this question, but it’s highly unlikely that this would be the case when going from untrained to very well-trained.

@RWulys

I understand that fatigue must be managed in order to maximize the amount of volume over a period of several workouts (week, month, whatever). But, let’s say a person can do some movement 3x10 with a certain weight, could they continue to use that weight “forever”, and only ever increase the sets & reps & frequency, and as such keep growing bigger muscles?

See above.

@RWulys

From my understanding, a trained individual can recruit most of their motor units very early in a set in the case of a compound movement, and don’t therefore need to go to or near failure in order to get “significant reps” out of that set (by “significant reps” I mean reps that recruit most of the motor units in the muscle group involved, i.e. reps that drive hypertrophy). So, what is it then, really, that stops a person from just using the same weight indefinitely, and from going to 100 reps for 10 sets on that movement (perhaps starting at 3x10), or something similarly ridiculous?

Because you get different adaptations in different rep ranges. This has been extensively discussed in a number of our podcasts, articles, and BB template. Still, there’s a pretty wide range of reps where muscular hypertrophy is selected for.

@RWulys

if 30% is the minimum % of 1RM to drive hypertrophy, after which only volume matters, why should one ever exceed 30% of 1RM at the cost of volume IF the goal is maximum muscle growth?[/B]

If you can get to-or near- failure with 30% 1RM in less than ~30 reps, then knock yourself out. I do think you end up taxing different systems and generating different adaptations at the upper and lower ends of the 4-30 rep range. I think most hypertrophy training should be done in the 8-15 rep range at RPE 7-8, with isolation movements taken to RPE 10 regularly. As someone gets stronger, they’re going to have to increase the weight to stay within the rep range.