I’ve once again found myself down the rabbit hole of social media gym advice
I won’t name names, but now my algorithm is full of supposed “hypertrophy specialists” rather confidently claiming their methods are the best and only way to get jacked & strong.
No more than 4-8 reps, no more than 8 sets/muscle/week, 1rir as 0rir is too fatiguing but 2rir doesn’t do anything, isolate every single muscle to increase MUR, etc.
As much as I know what you’re gonna say to this (heck even I know better), their ability to site studies that apparently support their claims alongside their influence in the space makes me wonder whether I’m missing out on something.
Has any research come out as of late that has drastically changed what we know (and what you’ve been promoting for years) with regards to programming & nutrition for general jackedness?
According to some people, normally those with zero real-life coaching experience, Dorian Yates was right all along and the ‘high-volume-not-to-failure’ narrative is just propaganda. Bulking is pointless and you can never make any progress training more than 3-4x/week.
It sounds laughable, I know, but curious to hear your take.
Thanks for your time as always, Jordan
1 Like
I think we should name names, as I’d bet a lot of other people are probably curious about these claims.
While new data on resistance training and hypertrophy is published almost daily, nothing has emerged that has changed general programming heuristics.
To be very clear, there is no data to support the following rigid claims:
- 4 to 8 reps is a superior rep range for hypertrophy
- An specific RIR that’s optimal
- Maintenance energy intake produces greater muscle gain than a surplus
- Low volume training is superior to higher volume
When looking at the entire corpus of literature regarding hypertrophy and exercise, a number of recurring themes do pop up:
- Almost any rep range can work provided it’s taken somewhere near failure (~5 RIR or less)
- Energy surpluses produce greater total body increases in lean mass than maintenance or deficits
- More training load drives more adaptations, provided someone can handle it/adhere to it
- Muscles need to be loaded, which is relatively easy to do with a mix of compound and isolation exercises
You’d be surprised how many people cite studies that don’t actually support their claims. I believe these people are trying to be helpful, but I think they’re missing the mark.
2 Likes
The most prominent on my feed right now is the infamous Paul Carter. It annoys me that my valuable time and energy get taken up by his nonsense, but with the social proof and authority he speaks with, it does have me wondering if what he says could be true during moments of weakness 
Thanks for clearing all that up Jordan. To your point about 5RIR or less, does that mean their take on the reps getting better and better for gainz the closer you get to failure is wrong?
The “hard line” version of the effective reps model suggests that the last few reps of a set are the most effective. I believe that’s the paradigm he and others in that space are working with. However, the existing evidence definitively does not support that specific of a claim. Instead, it suggests that most sets should be taken somewhere near failure, with some wiggle room in either direction.
We’ve talked about it a few times and Greg Nuckols did a nice review of this claim in our 300th episode:
FWIW, Paul and I got into it a few years ago about some claims regarding fatigue and volume. I appreciate nuanced discussion and do not mind if people disagree with me if there’s conflicting evidence. However, this was not my experience at the time. I have had a similar experience one other time with a prominent figure in the fitness space. Given that there are so many options for high-quality info, I just ignore.
Great podcast - thanks for sharing!
I think it’s time I start to ‘reshape’ my algorithm. Besides yourselves. who else do you recommend for solid training knowledge online?
I think that the people we’ve had as guests would be a good follow list IMO.