At the risk of beating this topic to death , I just wanted to share a thought as I was re-reading this post.
I was looking at the full text of the study from reference 1, and these are the exercise protocols for the individuals who worked out in the 60% to 90% intensity range:
60% x 3 sets x 9 reps = 1620 total workload
75% x 3 sets x 8 reps = 1800 total workload
90% x 6 sets x 3 reps = 1620 total workload
From the study: “The seated subjects performed unilateral leg extensions and flexions (1–2 s each) with 2 min rest between sets.”
My thought is this: 3 sets of 9 reps at 60% of one’s 1RM intensity performed with a controlled concentric of 1-2 s and a controlled eccentric of 1-2 s seems like an insanely easy workout, but it still elicited the same myofibrillar protein synthesis rate as the other two protocols! 3 sets of 8 at 75% seems like it would be a little bit tougher to manage, but with 2 minutes rest I don’t think it would lead to concentric failure. However, 6 sets of 3 at 90% would be a really tough workout (especially on 2 minutes rest).
Anyone else see what I am saying? All three protocols elicited similar protein synthesis rates, but one is really easy, one is roughly moderate, and the third would be really tough. Does anyone agree with my assessment about the workout protocols?
This is something I wrote about this article on another forum:
the study they talked about in that article tried to make sure the different intensities worked out with the same volume (force*time under tension). It would be interesting to see a similar study where they also included a group that exercised at different intensities and with different volumes. Maybe the reason why 8-12 reps is believed to give more growth anecdotally is because people who exercise with those rep ranges usually use higher volumes.
EDIT 2:
I should really just finish reading the entire thing and post everything at once.. yeah, not gonna happen.
I don’t think the subjects exercised to exhaustion on all of the intensities.
The schedule of contractions was designed to equalize,
as closely as possible, the volume of exercise, i.e. the
force×time-under-tension product (often described as
‘work’). Thus, at an exercise intensity of 20% of 1 RM,
the subjects completed 3 sets×27 repetitions (reps); at
40%, 3 sets×14 reps; at 60%, 3 sets×9 reps; at 75%, 3
sets×8 reps and those at 90%, 6 sets×3 reps. Total work
output (i.e.% 1 RM×number of repetitions×number of
sets) was 1620–1800 units at different exercise intensities,
and total time-under-tension was obtained bymultiplying
by 4 s.
3x9 on 60%.. and 3x8 at 75% and 6x3 on 90%.
3 reps at 90% seem pretty decently tough.. also, they had to resort to using a lot more sets on 90%, probably meaning they thought the participants wouldn’t be able to equalize the volume in 3 sets (they probably wouldn’t have). but 3x9 at 60%? I don’t think that’s anywhere near failure for anyone. There is a challenge in equalizing volume and still making all the sets hard, but I wonder what would have happened if all the sets were performed to, say, about 1 rep shy of failure. I think the easiness of the lower intensities might bias this study towards higher levels of protein synthesis in the high intensity group. Of course, this is pure speculation, but one would think protein synthesis and muscle growth would be bigger if people actually strained themselves while working out.
Anyone else see what I am saying? All three protocols elicited similar protein synthesis rates, but one is really easy, one is roughly moderate, and the third would be really tough. Does anyone agree with my assessment about the workout protocols?
I mentioned that in the comments” I don’t understand how the high reps group did (3 sets of 9 at 60% RM) and still got the protein levels up high as other groups. “
I think this could be partly due to the beginner effect.
I think what this study shows is that
1. There is a ceiling effect to protein synthesis whether you do high or low reps
2. This is much lower in trained individuals
3. Trained individuals might need to work at a lower rep range (8-12) than 15-20.
I think the important question is in the above protocol the protein synthesis returned back to basal levels after 4 hours. Usually it last 48 hrs in beginners. So a higher volume might make a difference.
The volume probably affects the duration while the intensity affects the peak of protein synthesis.
Anoop, about the second reference from the article:
8-week progressive resistance-training
four groups:
low repetition group (Low Rep 3–5 rep (RM) four sets 3 min rest between sets (12-20 reps total)
intermediate repetition group (Int Rep) 9–11 RM for three sets 2 min rest (27-33 reps total)
high repetition group (High Rep) 20–28 RM two sets 1 min rest (40-56 reps total)
control group
So the total reps en weight used were different per group. One might come to the conclusion that training with heavier weights (performed at less reps per set, because high reps aren’t possible) require less total reps to produce the same amount of muscle growth as training with lighter weights and higher total reps. Wouldn’t this mean that lower rep sets with more weight (and the reps itself) are more anabolic.
Now it is clear that this is not the conclusion of the article so this confuses me. I made this point before, and you mentioned (as you did in the article) that there were more studies like this that did not show any difference between high/low rep/weight. It might help if you could show these studies.
One might come to the conclusion that training with heavier weights (performed at less reps per set, because high reps aren’t possible) require less total reps to produce the same amount of muscle growth as training with lighter weights and higher total reps. Wouldn’t this mean that lower rep sets with more weight (and the reps itself) are more anabolic.
One might come to the conclusion that training with heavier weights (performed at less reps per set, because high reps aren’t possible) require less total reps to produce the same amount of muscle growth as training with lighter weights and higher total reps. Wouldn’t this mean that lower rep sets with more weight (and the reps itself) are more anabolic.
As shown above it takes less total reps with 90%1RM than with a lighter weight to cause the same growth acording to the study you included in your article. This would mean that lower rep/heavy load workouts with the same total reps would cause more growth than workouts with higher rep/medium load when total reps are kept the same. This is the oppesite of what you state in your article.
You mentioned before other studies showned no difference between heavy load/low rep work and medium load/higher rep work. This, imo, is not one of them and you could really help me by showing me the studies that made you conclude that there was no difference between high and low rep work for growth.
please understand that I am not trying to be biased toward low rep/high load work for muscle growth and dicredit your article or opinion I just find that right now the picture seems incomplete without these studies.
As shown above it takes less total reps with 90%1RM than with a lighter weight to cause the same growth acording to the study you included in your article. This would mean that lower rep/heavy load workouts with the same total reps would cause more growth than workouts with higher rep/medium load when total reps are kept the same. This is the oppesite of what you state in your article.
This ain’t necessary so.
There is some optimum for both.
By enlarging volume you may get less growth
As shown above it takes less total reps with 90%1RM than with a lighter weight to cause the same growth acording to the study you included in your article. This would mean that lower rep/heavy load workouts with the same total reps would cause more growth than workouts with higher rep/medium load when total reps are kept the same. This is the oppesite of what you state in your article.
You mentioned before other studies showned no difference between heavy load/low rep work and medium load/higher rep work. This, imo, is not one of them and you could really help me by showing me the studies that made you conclude that there was no difference between high and low rep work for growth.
please understand that I am not trying to be biased toward low rep/high load work for muscle growth and dicredit your article or opinion I just find that right now the picture seems incomplete without these studies.
Yes. In fact, this was one of my points when I did my thesis on the very same topic. I compared low reps to high reps and my hypothesis was low rep group would have greater hypertrophy if we normalized the number of reps. So I was an ardent low rep proponent. I just didn’t see any difference though. I had 2 sets of 5 and one of 10 training 3 days/week.
Since the study did 10 reps less for the Low rep group, it doesn’t automatically mean that Low rep/heavy weight with the same total reps would cause more growth than higher rep/medium load. And I honestly don’t think you will ever find a study which did the exact number of reps in each group and looked at muscle CSA and so on. Nor do I think adding 10 reps would have made a significant difference to muscle growth in the Low rep group.
You just cannot understand what’s happening when you do studies which just measures strength and muscle growth because there are so many variables involved. You can only get a better picture with mechanistic studies which look at protein synthesis or other acute variables.
And you will never find research to conclusively prove a stance in any field. The best you can do is to look at the where the bulk of the evidence leans towards.
And you will never find research to conclusively prove a stance in any field. The best you can do is to look at the where the bulk of the evidence leans towards.
I do understand that research is not always conclusive. Most of the time there are just “answers” leading to more questions. And results are very subjective to interpretation. So in the end it is very difficult to find the “truth”, if there ever was any.
But still I would like to see this ‘bulk of evidence’ you talk about. I would like to understand how you came to this conclusion. In this regard, I was glad to see that you mentioned your thesis as support for your conclusion. I assume that you used the ‘bulk of evidence’ to support your conclusions.
Could you tell me more about your thesis? How big was your study group? How long did it take? Could you maybe post some of the studies that you used? And so on….
As shown above it takes less total reps with 90%1RM than with a lighter weight to cause the same growth acording to the study you included in your article. This would mean that lower rep/heavy load workouts with the same total reps would cause more growth than workouts with higher rep/medium load when total reps are kept the same. This is the oppesite of what you state in your article.
This ain’t necessary so.
There is some optimum for both.
By enlarging volume you may get less growth
I agree, but it is just a hypothesis based on the research at hand.
But still I would like to see this ‘bulk of evidence’ you talk about. I would like to understand how you came to this conclusion. In this regard, I was glad to see that you mentioned your thesis as support for your conclusion. I assume that you used the ‘bulk of evidence’ to support your conclusions.
Could you tell me more about your thesis? How big was your study group? How long did it take? Could you maybe post some of the studies that you used? And so on….
Here is a quote from Wernbom meta-analysis about intensity:
“In figure 2 and figure 10 it can be seen that the rates of increase are generally higher for intensities >60% of 1RM than for those <60% of 1RM, although caution is warranted cause of the few datapoints <60% of 1RM. However, it appears that intensities of 70–85% of are sufficient to induce high rates of increase even heavier loads do not necessarily result in greater CSA gains.”. 70-85% That means around 6-12 reps.
I have come across a few studies here and there which doesn’t show any difference in reps for muscle growth. I might have to look to see if I can find any. And I am sure if you go through Werborn paper, you will find a few from which he quotes. do you have the paper?
And i had around 30 subjects, 15 in each group for 4 weeks. My hypothesis was greater load with equal reps should produce more hypertrophy. I think I only had a direct studies when I wrote the literature review, the rest was all indirect studies. I have wrote numerous time in the past that this might be theoretically true , but it doesn’t necessarily mean that more damage is equal to more protein synthesis or more growth.
But still I would like to see this ‘bulk of evidence’ you talk about. I would like to understand how you came to this conclusion. In this regard, I was glad to see that you mentioned your thesis as support for your conclusion. I assume that you used the ‘bulk of evidence’ to support your conclusions.
Could you tell me more about your thesis? How big was your study group? How long did it take? Could you maybe post some of the studies that you used? And so on….
Here is a quote from Wernbom meta-analysis about intensity:
“In figure 2 and figure 10 it can be seen that the rates of increase are generally higher for intensities >60% of 1RM than for those <60% of 1RM, although caution is warranted cause of the few datapoints <60% of 1RM. However, it appears that intensities of 70–85% of are sufficient to induce high rates of increase even heavier loads do not necessarily result in greater CSA gains.”. 70-85% That means around 6-12 reps.
I have come across a few studies here and there which doesn’t show any difference in reps for muscle growth. I might have to look to see if I can find any. And I am sure if you go through Werborn paper, you will find a few from which he quotes. do you have the paper?
And i had around 30 subjects, 15 in each group for 4 weeks. My hypothesis was greater load with equal reps should produce more hypertrophy. I think I only had a direct studies when I wrote the literature review, the rest was all indirect studies. I have wrote numerous time in the past that this might be theoretically true , but it doesn’t necessarily mean that more damage is equal to more protein synthesis or more growth.
I downloaded the Wernbom study, then lost it and just downloaded again. Thanks for the quote. I missed it the last time I read trough it. I will read it again.
I see your subject groups were bigger than those in most muscle growth studies, nice… but no control group?
Also: Did you use beginners? Did you measure significant increases in CSA in both groups? (4 weeks is a short time for muscle growth to occur) How did you measure CSA?
I just didn’t have a control group because I won’t get that many subjects. You usually have to beg people and entice them with offers to get students do study. And it has been shown that weight training helps with muscle growth. I was only concerned with difference in muscle growth with a different rep scheme. Subjects were beginners. I used a bodpod and circumference measurements. I know it is not the ideal, but that’s what we had.
And I wouldn’t read too much into an unpublished thesis. If i had published it, got accepted, then it is worth discussing it.
, I just wanted to share a thought as I was re-reading this post.
)