I often see powerlifters performing mixed-rep programs, where they perform a heavy top set of 1-3 reps (so as to keep their performance up in their specific competition lifts) followed by backdown sets of higher rep ranges to elicit hypertrophy. Is it sub-optimal to perform mixed-reps as such in a cycle/program?
I ask because I am reading Renaissance Periodization’s book, “Scientific Principles of Strength Training” and they emphasize completing specific phases. One part of the text ridicules mixed-rep programs because they ‘use up a lot more potential variation than either low reps or high reps alone.’
I could also see the argument that the body doesn’t adapt as well to either of the stimuli that you are trying to apply by having two completely different rep ranges.
I would like to here what Dr. Feigenbaum or Baraki have to say on this topic so as to clear up some confusion for me.
Yes we discussed this in the programming podcasts, and you’ll note that essentially all of our templates are mixed-rep in nature. The first paragraph in your original post is a reasonable summary of the argument, although purpose of the “rep work” is not entirely for hypertrophy. We see no mechanism or reason why it would be “sub-optimal” (even though we don’t even like using the term “optimal” with respect to training or programming).
I’ve checked out some of their videos and it seems Dr. Mike Israetel always says “the evidence shows” or “there’s loads of data on this” but I’m not sure anything is ever referenced.
He talks a lot about nutrition as well and I believe he advocates the same things as BBM do in that regard.
Regarding programming, it seems Renaissance Periodization and Juggernaut Training Systems base their programming on MRV (minimum recoverable volume) which I suppose is a concept they invented.
My apologies. You should stay there as well. Let me be very clear, I do not care that you are on this site, but prefer not to be reminded of your presence.
As far as your quote from Greg, yes we share similar conclusions and discuss the topic as such. We discussed it publicly with Greg and do so similarly at our seminars with many caveats and, as the memes say, “nuance”.
If you were directing the “massively extrapolated conclusions” towards me or other members of Barbell Medicine, I’m not sure what to tell you. We have discussed things at length and you have been presented evidence, rationale, etc. that you will not accept, which is interesting given your existent knowledge on the topic. Nevertheless, I expect you to be overconfident in your opinions for quite some time.
In any event, please stay in the log section. Thanks!