Thanks for another fascinating discussion of programming.
As I understand, you’re saying that, holding fixed genetics, anthropometry, and neuromuscular efficiency, strength is a function only of hypertrophy, and hypertrophy is a function only of volume at or above a certain threshold of relative intensity, say 70% x 1RM. So, for any given lifter at any given time, a given volume at any point above that threshold will generate no more hypertrophy or, therefore, strength than the same volume at any lower point at or above that threshold. Eg, 5 reps at 80% x 1RM will generate no more hypertrophy or, therefore, strength than 5 reps at 70% x 1RM. Is that right?
So, not necessarily. We’re saying that dynamic variables with respect to strength development are both hypertrophy and neuromuscular improvements, which change proportionally during the course of training, i.e. ~60-80% neural and 20-40% hypertrophy for a novice and the inverse for post-novice.
Hypertrophy is relatively intensity independent once enough volume is being done, but if you decrease the volume being done to a point- intensity matters more. If you decrease the volume significantly however, no amount of intensity will drive hypertrophy in a post novice lifter, e.g. doing a 1RM probably doesn’t help hypertrophic outcomes.
5 reps @ 80% would likely produce the same hypertrophy response as 5 reps @ 70% if these were done for multiple sets, e.g. a 5x5. If only done for 1x5 then neither would achieve a really good hypertrophy response, with a non-significant hat tip to the set at 80%. The neural development from the 80% is better than 70% for a single set, but because you can do 5x5 with 70% and still train productively the next day without major performance drop off, whereas you can’t do that with say 85% of a 1RM, the higher volume at a bit lighter intensity ends up being better than less volume at higher intensity.
Of course, transferring strength development to strength display is as much an art as it is a science. After accumulating strength potential during higher volume periods, volume goes down and intensity goes up to help drive the neural side more specifically.
Thanks for helping to make your points crystal clear. I have just one more question. If the time you can spend under the bar is the limiting factor wouldn’t it be logical to drive up the intensity as much as possible as the total amount of volume you can do is capped? What I mean is the following: If you can only train three times a week for one hour the amount of sets is limited. Furthermore, due to the fact that you only train three times a week you will have plenty of time to recovery from your relatively short workouts.In that scenario, wouldn’t it be optimal to drive up the intensity to make up for the “missing volume”?
You say that ‘ypertrophy is relatively intensity independent once enough volume is being done,’ but surely that is volume done at or above a certain threshold of relative intensity, say 70% x 1RM? Call that hard volume.
As I understand, for a post-novice lifter, up to a certain volume, say 1 rep, hypertrophy is uncorrelated with relative intensity; up to a certain higher volume, say 5 reps, hypertrophy is correlated positively (but not highly) with relative intensity; and, above that volume - if it is hard volume - hypertrophy is correlated positively with volume but not with relative intensity (and will even be correlated negatively with relative intensity, if it so slows recovery as to delay any repeat performance). Is that right?