Between 10x5 and 10x3 progress with weight when all reps are done if not use same weight. Which one is better for myofibrilar hypertrophy and strength gains, 10x5 would start at 70% and 10x3 at 80% adding 2 kg when all reps are done?
Spirit,
I don’t think there’s likely to be a substantial difference between the two for strength or size, though I’m not sure either of them would be a good fit for you. Additionally, we can’t really separate myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy processes from each other. Additionally, a major part of force production through muscle occurs through non contractile proteins, so I’m not sure you’d want only myofibrillar hypertrophy either.
In any case, let’s analyze some stuff:
#1 10 sets of 5 reps @ 70% (each set is likely to be ~ RPE 5-6)
Volume= 50 reps
Average intensity= 70% 1RM
Training Stress Score* = 900
#2 10 sets of 3 reps @ 80% (each set is likely to be ~RPE 5-6)
Volume= 30 reps
Average intensity= 80% 1RM
Training Stress Score= 720
I would expect similar types of adaptations given the overall similarity in average intensity, proximity to failure, etc., but a greater training load due to the higher TSS in example 1. This may be a relatively meaningless, as both protocols do not sit well with me.
*TSS is the product of RPE, Reps, and an “intensity modifier” for different zones of intensity, e.g. 1 for 50-60%, 2 for 60-70%…5 for 90-100% to represent the increase in fatigue with loading. I made this up as a way to compare different protocols and get a sense for the total training load. Other individual factors almost certainly contribute, but are less fun/clean to play with. The score is unit-less, as again, it is entirely made up.