Hello BBM guys,
I have some questions regarding training volume, muscular hypertrophy and strength: 1. does N sets of 8 reps lead to more muscular hypertrophy than N sets of 4 reps? Assuming that intensity is high enough (something like ~70% of E1RM) in order to recruit a significant number of motor units for the majority of the reps (and for both cases)
2. if point 1 is true, then high rep (~6-12 rep) sets should represent a time-efficient way for accumulating useful volume for hypertrophy
3. since strength is specific, in order to lift more (in terms of 1RM), we need to train with heavy weights (heavy singles), therefore, does this mean that a “hypertrophy” training cycle (of e.g. 1 month) composed of only “high” rep sets (e.g. 8 reps/set) will lead to a temporary loss of the neurological adaptations required to lift heavy weight? (adaptations acquired for example in the previous training cycle).
4. The muscle mass is the strongest predictor of force production capacity, thus, should I expect to be stronger (measured by 1RM) at the end of the hypertrophy cycle thanks to the increased muscle mass and at the same time to be weaker due to the lack of heavy singles which leads to a decrease in the ability to handle heavy loads?
5. if point 3 is true, would you agree that a lifter that is exposed again to heavy singles after a hypertrophy cycle should exhibit a rapid increase in 1RM performances due to the reacquisition of the neurological adaptations mentioned before?
6. if all points are true, I think it should be right to conclude that programming a training cycle where you sacrifice heavy singles in order to be able to handle/carry out more sets and more total reps (at lower loads) that could also temporarily (and virtually) slowing your progress (measured by E1RMs), for the sake of increasing more rapidly your muscle mass (and work capacity?) should be beneficial in the long run, since getting jacked is harder/slower than getting used to heavy singles… am I right?
- No
- It’s not true, though higher rep training could be more time efficient for building hypertrophy if it’s done faster, but less efficient in building strength.
- Yes, in general.
- Yes, in general
- Not necessarily rapid, no. Depends on the individual, their training history, skill retention, etc.
- They aren’t. I would agree however, that gaining LBM occurs over a longer time than the skill acquisition for handling singles and LBM needs to go up over time for maximum strength performance.
Thank you Jordan for answering my questions, however I’m now more confused than before, what’s the reasoning then behind your strength templates, which employ sets of 6, 8 and myoreps? Is the rep scheme changed just for providing a novel stress to the body? Could you please elaborate more on why 4 sets of 8 reps are not more stressful than 4 sets of 4? And thus provide a larger stimulus for muscle growth?
Jordan,
I think Greg Nuckols has said in one of his eBooks that he advises new lifters to focus more on bodybuilding-type routines for their first 3-5 years before focussing on the purely strength related aspects of powerlifting. I don’t know that I’ve seen an example of what he means exactly by bodybuilding-type routines. I do suspect that it’s probably very different than the type of BB routines you read about in all the Weider magazines. I’ve heard a number of coaches over the years (even you I believe?) suggest that for natural lifters, the difference between training for non-competitive strength gains vs training for non-competitive hypertrophy is likely pretty small, both in terms of programming and outcomes. (Citations desperately needed. haha) Would you generally agree with that?
Interesting. Your answer to the first statement makes me think that it isn´t necessarily volume that is most related to hypertrophy, but more specifically the amount of sets above a certain intensity.
What are your thoughts about the RPE level required for sets to provide a hypertrophic stimulus?
What are you talking about re: “strength templates” employing sets of 6,8, and myoreps ? And you didn’t give me enough info to tell you which is more stressful than another.
I think it depends how you’re measuring outcomes for the strength gains and what the training looks like, but I do think all good strength and conditioning programs aim to improve LBM and strength. How specifically the program focuses on strength in a particular set of movements will influence the magnitude of strength improvement. I don’t think the use of anabolics affects this either.
The amount of volume done where motor unit recruitment is relatively high is the main driver of hypertrophy. I’m not sure if I understand your question about RPE exactly, but in order to get higher levels of motor unit recruitment, you’ll need to do enough reps or use enough weight (or a combination of both) to get to RPE 7ish.
I’m sorry Jordan, that was actually a typo, I meant “hypertrophy templates”.
For the second point, let’s assume N sets of 8 reps at RPE 8 vs N sets of 4 reps at RPE 8. I really don’t know what type of info is needed in order to describe the specific context you are asking me.
I would like to understand if devoting a given amount time (e.g. 1 month) training with sets of high (>6) reps is going to generate a larger stimulus for muscle growth than the same program but with sets of e.g 4. Assuming for simplicity that the sets are at RPE 8.
Thank you for your time
Copy that. Using more reps allows one to use a lighter load to accumulate more volume of reps that recruit a substantial amount of motor units in a given session.
To be clear, let’s assume N is the same number in both instances. This is typically shown as “X”, but for the sake of you’re question let’s consider 4 sets of 8 @ RPE 8 and 4 sets of 4 @ RPE 8.
I don’t think 1 month would be enough to tell you anything, so let’s ignore that piece.
Basically you’re asking if someone did 16 reps (4x4) @ 83% vs 32 reps (4x8) at 73%- would I predict there to be a difference in outcomes? Yes. I would expect the situation with double the volume at a slightly lower, yet useful, intensity to have a bigger response hypertrophy wise.
Thank you Jordan, it’s clear now