first of all, thank you for the information you put out. I don’t want to get into the ‘picking a side’ stuff, but after your split with SS I appreciate that you are the ones backing your positions in a user friendly format.
That being said, even after listening multiple times to specific parts of the podcast, there is a subject still unclear kinda to me (probably due to me being dumb). And since there’s no written material by BBM (yet) that I know of, I thought I’d ask here.
You both make it very clear that hypertrophy is volume dependent and as far as hypertrophy is concerned, intensity is basically a redundant variable (see the 200 and 205 squat workout example). In this context, I suppose you mean intensity relative to 1RM (in %).
But what about the effort used to complete the set (on an RPE scale)? Surely two triples @4 produce a different response than a set of six @7, don’t they? Is there a cutoff of some sort? If there isn’t, why don’t we just accumulate workloads in extremely submaximal sets while maintaining the volume?
Also, considering hypertrophy is volume dependent, why don’t we see more sets of 10 or so in your programs (making the accumulation of volume necessary easier)? Is it because you’d have to move outside of the 70-85% range to get in 10 reps at a plausible rpe?
I hope my questions are somewhat comprehensible. Thanks for your time,
T.
In this context, I suppose you mean intensity relative to 1RM (in %).
Intensity is always relative to 1RM, by definition.
But what about the effort used to complete the set (on an RPE scale)? Surely two triples @4 produce a different response than a set of six @7, don’t they?
If they’re at the same intensity- an intensity where intraset fatigue does not cause motor unit recruitment to fall off while they cycle due to energy requirements, yet the intensity does require significant motor unit recruitment- then there will be no difference, theoretically.
In practice, we see similar results in similar rep ranges when the intensity is the same, e.g. 4-6 reps @ an 8RM are approximately the same from a hypertrophy standpoint provided there aren’t too many sets done that compromise future training.
Also, considering hypertrophy is volume dependent, why don’t we see more sets of 10 or so in your programs (making the accumulation of volume necessary easier)? Is it because you’d have to move outside of the 70-85% range to get in 10 reps at a plausible rpe?
Display of strength and transference of strength acquisition from training requires regular exposure to heavy weights, which cannot be done practically for sets of 10. We use a concurrent model of periodization over a conjugate/block style that uses more discrete rep ranges depending on the block.
Isn’t hypertrophy also dependent of a caloric surplus (other than in some odd cases)? In the absence of a caloric surplus, are the benefits of volume that you build up work capacity and can work on technique?
Most people will accrue a bit of skeletal muscle mass in response to resistance training of significant volume if they’re not hemorrhaging weight, but the overall amount depends on lots of things- including calories.
Thanks a lot for answering, I think it’s pretty clear now.
Just to make sure I’ve understood this bit correctly - 6x4 @8RM produces the same hypertrophy response as 4x6 @8RM, right? Does one of thrse scenarios offer an advantage over the other in some way?
I’ll eagerly await your podcast explaining the complexities of “lots of things”.
Signed, a member of the “somewhat fluffy but under 38” waist group who’s waiting for strength gains to stop before cutting and are wondering if this makes sense" brigade.
