Good Doctors,
I am struggling to understand what good it does to perform 15-20 reps as many recommend. What good are the first 10 or so reps? they are so submaximal that I don’t see what good they are. why not just increase the weight and so say 8, 10 or even 12? It seems like a waste of time?
From a hypertrophy (i.e. not strength) perspective, based on the current evidence:
If you 1) equate total volume between heavy vs. light loading conditions, and 2) take all sets to / near failure, you get essentially equivalent hypertrophy outcomes.
However, there are a number of important additional considerations here if you’re concerned with strength outcomes, fatigue generation and impact on subsequent training, etc.
Hey Patrick, good question on an interesting topic.
My understanding of the matter is that stopping just a few (say, 1-2) reps short of failure does not appear to impair hypertrophic outcomes vs. training to failure, but stopping well short of failure on all sets likely results in inferior outcomes. The idea is that yes, mechanical tension is the primary stimulus here, and you need to recruit as many muscle fibers as possible and subject them to sufficient tension to generate a maximal hypertrophic response. In other words, at least some sets (usually towards the end, as more fatigue has built up and you’re recruiting as much muscle mass as you can) should get close, if maximizing hypertrophy is the goal. #easydoesntwork, amirite? Various pertinent citations:
Hypertrophy and training volume in general:
A few more interesting studies related to the topic at hand:
One thing I’m not clear on regarding hypertrophy; I have heard people state “a bigger muscle is always a stronger muscle”. Is some strength gain always a byproduct of a size increase?
I know from personal experience you can get stronger without getting bigger, but can you get bigger without getting stronger?
(BTW now I have to spend my whole lunch break reading research studies…thanks Austin.)
Absolutely not. As usual, there are a few important nuances here. There are a number of other determinants of force production, which have varying degrees of trainability. I’m actually working on writing a piece on this at the moment, the contents of which will likely be included in our seminar and perhaps eventually in a book.
Is it with a 1RM on a compound movement? If so, there’s going to be a significant skill component involved. And the research literature shows this – frequent practice with heavy singles, for example, rapidly increases 1RM squat performance in the short term even without significant training volume otherwise (particularly in untrained individuals, who have the most to gain from the “neurological” and skill side of things). This is just a representation of specific practice towards the test. (E.g.: Muscle adaptations following 21 consecutive days of strength test familiarization compared with traditional training - PubMed )
Is it with a single-joint, isolation movement? If so, there’s far less skill involved, and the data show a relatively greater influence of muscle size on strength performance here.
As a very important aside: THIS is why, for post-novice trainees (who have had a lot of skill practice with the movements), we disagree with the “minimum effective dose” approach for long-term development of a lifter. Continuing to train with minimum volumes while frequently “practicing the test” (be it a 5RM, 3RM, 1RM, etc.) is going to run up against a hard wall once your existing muscle mass is “optimized” for force production. And because higher training volumes will result in greater amounts of muscular hypertrophy in a dose-response fashion (i.e., more training = more gains, to a point), then why would you continue to do as little as possible for as long as possible?
Again, this depends on how you’re training versus how you’re measuring strength, among other things. But even studies of low-load (like … 30% 1RM) training to failure show strength improvements. They just aren’t as good as when you actually get exposed to heavy loads (and “heavy” in the literature tends to be in the 60-80% 1RM range).
Thanks for these. I still think “easy” does work, to some extent. Maybe you can tell me why I’m wrong.
Let me distinguish two concerns with going “easy”: muscle fiber recruitment and metabolic stress.
Regarding muscle fiber recruitment, I don’t know that much about physiology, but I guess according to the size principle low threshold motor units get recruited before high threshold ones. Suppose I’m doing a set at 70% of my 1RM. Before rep 5, every rep moves at about the same speed. After about rep 5-7, I hit a “wall” where each rep starts slowing down a noticeable amount. I understand this “wall” to be my easily fatiguable high threshold MUs cycling out. So it seems that there’s a certain point, long before failure, where I’ve recruited and fatigued all my high threshold MUs (and by the size principle I’ve recruited all my low threshold ones, too.). If this is the case, why not just stop here? After all, the high threshold ones are the ones I really care about hypertrophying, since they’re by far the most useful on 1RM attempts. Concretely, why not do something like 6x5 at 70% instead of some volume equated high rep scheme? Psychology it’s more pleasant, and it seems to generate less fatigue and inflammation (cf. Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure - PubMed).
Regarding metabolic stress, I agree the studies you linked about partial range of motion exercise and long isometric contractions seem pretty convincing. So metabolic stress appears to play some role in hypertrophy, certainly. But these protocols don’t resemble how most of us train. We aren’t half-repping on the bench, or doing squats with a 30 second concentric, or messing with blood flow restriction cuffs. And, further, the studies purporting to show that metabolic stress from more practical training protocols has a significant effect on hypertrophy have never really moved me much.
Take for example your first link, on rest-pause training. First of all, n=18, and if this were any discipline but exercise “science” I’d throw it in trash and laugh, but I suppose we have to make do with what we have. (And yes, I realize my link above has an even smaller sample…) I think it’s likely that the results can mostly be attributed to some combination of noise and the RP group containing overall better responders to strength training. As the introduction notes and a search of the literature shows, the work on rest pause training is contradictory and messy. It’s not at all clear to me, looking at the totality of the literature, that there’s any real value added from rest-pause training.
Maybe a clearer example is the literature comparing short and long rest periods between sets. I believe most find that rest period length doesn’t matter for hypertrophy. This is not what I would expect if the metabolic stress from doing reps “normally” (no occlusion cuffs or 30 second concentrics) was very important for hypertrophy.
Thanks for this as well. I can actually pretty easily wrap my ugly head around this idea. I will think more about it. It gets hard as a busy person to make good choices about how to shape post novice training, especially with so many intelligent and wise people recommending different things.
How much individual variance do you see in training response? What I mean is, do they all work but some if them work “better”. If so, do different things work better for different people or is it pretty straightforward?
How does nutrition figure into this? Would eating at a surplus combined with lifting at greater than, e.g., 70%, increase muscle mass and therefore prevent you from running up against a hard wall?
I could well be totally confused about this.
Also, if you’ll permit an aside to your aside, there’s an argument that volume should be measured per SRA cycle, rather than per unit time. Could you please shed some light on why that argument might make sense and give (or point to) a response.
These are all excellent points, Patrick. But you’ll note that you’ve changed the context here. The original question was strictly talking about hypertrophy, without mention of strength outcomes. I’m well aware that those quoted trials do not resemble how we train.
But, to your point of only wanting to stimulate high threshold MUs for 1RM outcomes … I’m sure you can clearly see how this is going to result in inferior hypertrophy outcomes. In other words - if someone paid you a million bucks to get as jacked as you possibly can in the next 24 months, without regard to your 1RM squat, how would you train? Would you do everything the same way you do it now?
As I mentioned in the first reply to the thread - once you introduce the context of strength performance on a specific lift being a relevant outcome, a number of new considerations arise.
There is MASSIVE inter-individual variation in responsiveness to training.
Put a group of 100 people on the same exact program, and you’ll get a range from 0% improvement to a substantial % improvement. There is evidence on this in both strength, hypertrophy, and endurance training contexts. This is partially explained by genetics, but also due to a number of other interesting factors that I get into in my seminar lecture on the topic.
The trainees who appear “resistant” to the stress — so-called “non-responders” — DO ultimately respond when you increase the dose of training stress. This is also why we argue against severely reducing training stress for the older, “anabolically resistant” trainee.
[quote=“quark, post:8, topic:927, username:quark”]
Austin Baraki;n5054:
As a very important aside: THIS is why, for post-novice trainees (who have had a lot of skill practice with the movements), we disagree with the “minimum effective dose” approach for long-term development of a lifter. Continuing to train with minimum volumes while frequently “practicing the test” (be it a 5RM, 3RM, 1RM, etc.) is going to run up against a hard wall once your existing muscle mass is “optimized” for force production. And because higher training volumes will result in greater amounts of muscular hypertrophy in a dose-response fashion (i.e., more training = more gains, to a point), then why would you continue to do as little as possible for as long as possible?/QUOTE]How does nutrition figure into this? Would eating at a surplus combined with lifting at greater than, e.g., 70%, increase muscle mass and therefore prevent you from running up against a hard wall?
I could well be totally confused about this.
Also, if you’ll permit an aside to your aside, there’s an argument that volume should be measured per SRA cycle, rather than per unit time. Could you please shed some light on why that argument might make sense and give (or point to) a response.
I’m not sure you fully understand our argument. We are not suggesting people should avoid lifting over 70% - in fact, that 70-80% range is where most of our training stress tends to fall. A caloric surplus, combined with sufficient training volume at the appropriate intensity, will certainly result in progressive muscular hypertrophy. That’s kind of our entire point.
It’s when you train with as minimal a dose of volume as possible, while grinding new 5RMs (~85-86%) 3RMs (~91-93%), or 1RMs (99-100%) on a weekly basis, that you’ll hit that wall.
I’m “older” 47, and have found, very generally speaking, I usually need more stress to make progress rather than less.
Well, yes, good point. I suppose implicitly what I was considering was a situation where you have someone whose primary interest is getting stronger and hypertrophy for them is a means to that end. So hypertrophy of lower threshold motor units and 30 second concentric training would relatively less useful. The argument I took you to be making was something like, “Even though we aren’t actually implementing these weirdo protocols, they establish that metabolic stress can play a significant role in hypertrophy, so this provides indirect evidence that training to or near failure might be useful for getting jacked.” Sorry for being unclear. It’s the question of whether there’s a significant difference between training near failure and splitting an equivalent amount of volume into many sub-maximal sets that I’m primarily interested in.
By the way, I was recently looking over some educational psychology and motor learning studies, and I came to the conclusion that the way most people (including you) program variation lifts is almost certainly suboptimal. Would it be OK if I started another thread on this? I’d be interested in your feedback.
You also need to specify your outcome here - are you talking about hypertrophy outcomes? Strength outcomes? On what test of strength? For what population? Things get complicated quickly 
I don’t think we have direct evidence to help answer that question, unfortunately. If anyone knows of some, please share it.
And yes, please do. I’d love to see it.
I’ve clicked as far as I can into the papers Austin cited that aren’t behind a paywall, looking to see if any of them established whether any group was in a caloric surplus as evidenced by gaining weight. One (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314893252_Strength_And_Muscular_Adaptations_Following_6_Weeks_Of_Rest-Pause_Versus_Traditional_Multiple-Sets_Resistance_Training_In_Trained_Subjects) stated that there were no differences in caloric intake between groups, but didn’t mention a surplus.
If a trained person is not in a caloric surplus, as evidenced by not gaining body weight, then what’s the mechanism behind them getting stronger considering muscle size is a much bigger factor for them? I’m assuming that you’d need to be in a caloric surplus to gain muscle size…
I fail to understand how this works and thought it was an appropriate question in this discussion.
This is an excellent and informative thread. A few questions:
It’s still possible to gain smaller amounts of muscle mass in that situation, and there are still other adaptive processes (neuromuscular changes, etc) probably playing a role as well.
Unfortunately, it’s not as easy as we’d like to clearly delineate the % contribution of each specific part to the overall adaptation we see.
See above
This is probably a more complex question than you realize from an experimental design standpoint, particularly if you’re talking about the compound lifts. If you’re talking single-joint isolation movements (see the discussion earlier about measuring strength outcomes in research) – yes, you still get some strength improvement, but inferior to groups that are exposed to heavier loading (again, usually in the 60-80% range). The “big picture” is that this is just the SAID principle in action. But there are likely a combination of factors, of which MU recruitment / neuromuscular adaptations probably play a large part.
I’m wondering are there any researches put two groups with matching volume, one group does low-rep strength training, another group does high-rep bodybuilding style training plus some sets at >90% here and there, and compare their strength gain?
Hey Austin. I’d like to respectfully challenge your explanation of motor unit recruitment. I’ve been studying bar speed decay with loads of 65%+ (actual training loads) and what I’ve seen does not at all jive with the idea that “per rep motor unit recruitment increases with fatigue”. At 70% 1rm, bar speed holds steady for 4-6 reps, then plummets. The graph looks like a step function. At 80%+ 1rm, bar speed is fastest on the first or second rep, then decays more of less linearly. I’m wondering if, perhaps, you and others are employing a model of MU recruitment that’s appropriate for VERY submaximal loads (less than ~65% 1rm in a given movement), but inappropriate for 65%+ loads.
Contrary to the idea of “per rep increase of MU recruitment with fatigue”, as a set at 80%+ progresses, I’m seeing either a) REDUCED recruitment of my high-threshold/quick-fatigue MUs, or b) twitch patterns of high-threshold MUs going to shit.
~70% is a bit more complicated. At this intensity, I’m operating near (but not at) a max voluntary contraction. So, I seem to cycle through my highest-threshold MUs in the first few reps, then – as the bar speed plummets – I seem to lose contribution from the high-threshold MUs.
Anyway: looking at the bar speed data, I had to question why I’m pushing sets in the 65-90% range to near failure. In doing 8 sets of 4 vs 4 x 8 at the same load (say 70%), I’m obviously matching tonnage and mechanical work, but using the former method I have massively increased session wattage. The only way I can explain the discrepancy in wattage is by pointing to a) non-recruitment or b) compromised recruitment of the highest-threshold MUs. Both a and b suck.
I tested moderated intraset fatigue on myself and about 20 bros. My guiding rule: no rep within a set slower than 20% of the fastest rep. The prescription looked like this:
3 sets of 5 @70%, then
6 sets of 3 @70%
or
2 sets of 3 @80%, then
5 sets of 2 @80%
This is all like RPE @7 and below. Now, I get that there are a million confounders. Further, I made no attempt at designing an valid study, but the results, at large, after 1 month are better than I’ve seen using any other programming method (Zordousian DUP and RTS are my "casusal NULL hypothesis). I can’t tease out “hypertrophy” from e1rm, but I have no reason to believe that I and the bros are peaking without a commensurate gain in lean mass.
I know you asked Patrick, but if you offered to pay me a million bucks to get as jacked as possible, I’d moderate intraset fatigue. Doing so allows me to a) get more session tonnage for equal fatigue, b) more tonnage within a micro-cycle (reduced intraset fatigue seems to keep inflammation under control), and c) [hand-wave] something something allows me to optimize work performed by high-threshold motor units within the microcycle