I have a feeling that ALL that matter for hypertrophy it’s number of “quality” reps.
By “quality” reps I mean reps with near 100%(II type) fibers recruitment.
I mean, look at the studies: by using 80% and more weight(full recruitment from the first rep) we can get results form fairy low volume (20-25 reps total). Every rep is a “quality rep”.
Take DC training or Myo-reps.
One set to failure: 10-12 reps means 2-3 “quality” reps. +subsequent mini sets with full recruitment - also close to 20-25 “good” reps
Take standard training - 8x8 (two exercises 4x8 with 70% 1RM):
in each set we have 2-3 quality rep - 16-24 good reps for session.
I know that the 5x5 advocates talk alot about a minimum volume of 25 reps and I would agree this is a good number. Yet there are many variables including training age, frequency and rep range. I think when working with higher reps more volume is required as 2 sets of 12 may not be as effective as 3 or 4 sets of 12.
For large muscles, anything over 80%of 1RM is gonna recruit pretty much all the fibers (if you ask for a reference there it might take some time to dig it up as I don’t have it on hand) and with lifting as fast as you can, that number probably goes down (I think I’ve seen studies on this, but I’m not sure). So if you lift fast, then all your reps will be “quality reps” And not a lot of people train with less than 80% of 1RM anyways, do they? And I e to don’t know if you have to wait as long as for the last 2-3 reps before you get quality reps on your 70%1RM.
It’s almost impossible to respond to this topic without due consideration of the training context - what kinds of recovery protocols are being used? is the trainer natural or supplemented? what is the trainer’s training age? etc.
IMHO, I think Zatsiorsky hit the nail on the head when he said that (paraphrased) “lift as often and as heavy as you can, while remaining fresh”. In terms of volume, this would mean that you should lift with as much volume as is consistent with recovery capacity (which obviously means that natty’s need less volume than supplemented lifters, that experienced lifters need more volume than noobies etc.).
Caveat: this is for those seeking to make gains. For maintenance purposes, much less stimulus is required and it may be advisable to cycle periods of deliberate maintenance-only training with higher-volume gains-targeted protocols.
Just read it. Obviously volume plays a role. The 90úIL group got 19 reps, probably all with full activation.. did the 30FAIL group get more reps with full activation? That’s possible, I don’t know how long it takes at 30% before you get full activation, and they didn’t do any EMG readings, so it’s hard to tell.
I think the question is, how much tension and volume (and what partition between the two) do you need to maximize MPS? Maybe you don’t need that much tension and that the “roof” for how much tension you need is actually quite low as long as you recruit all the fibers and then you just need to add some volume to get more time under that tension. Although it might not be that “simple”.. 90FAIL had high protein synthesis 4 hours after.. perhaps what regulates MPS 4 hours post exercise is a bit different from what regulates it 24 hours post exercise.. I hope more studies like this are undertaken with different %of 1RM.. that way we can start to close in on what is the best for MPS, and then, of course, more long term studies comparing different loading regimens.
Of course it could be that the volume is not about time under tension but rather accumulating some sort of metabolite.
I won’t start using 30% to failure because of this, but I will probably be adding more sets. I’d rather do more sets or exercises with 80+ of 1RM than forever lasting sets of 30%.. But perhaps lifting really heavy isn’t necessary, as long as you get enough volume with full activation.
I’m not at all impressed with this study in terms of real-world application.
Whatever you want to say about 30%1RM versus 90%1RM in terms of MPS (or any other proxy marker for muscle growth), there’s still one thing that’s for certain: namely, fiddling around with insignificant loads (like 30%1RM) will not elicit strength gains of the magnitude of lifting heavy weights (>80%1RM ). Indeed, for almost anyone except novices, loadings in the order of 30%1RM won’t appreciably increase absolute strength one iota.
And given the well-established correlation between absolute strength gains and muscle mass…well, you get where I’m going.
As I like to say, “When the map and the terrain disagree, toss out the map”
Not exactly the same, as the high intensity group performed more sets than the low intensity group. But high intensity was much better for muscle CSA.
All sets were done to failure.
I think the study is interesting and Anatoly makes a good point. It goes back to the question of intensity or effort.
I am guessing this might be a beginner effect and the intensity at which you see the peak of protein synthesis gets higher as you become more trained. the study needs an outcome measure study which looks at strength and muscle mass to confirm these findings and the author rightly says so” However, it is important to recognize that acute scientific studies simply supply the framework on which to build future training studies upon to directly test if a cause-and-effect relationship does in fact exist.”.
I think what the study tells us looking at other evidences is that
1. Protein synthesis levels have a peak. No matter how heavy or long you go, you cannot go over it
2. Volume is important variable for muscle growth.
3. Intensity or load is important, but not as much we thought of previously. Effort might be more important that load, atleast after a certain RM. For example, the 20 rep squat , the widow maker and so forth.
I just don’t like how they reported the design of the study. They haven’t really explained it well how they divided the groups. And I don’t know why they didn’t get it published in more well known journal than go for an online journal.
Yeah, I found that weird too, the publication and the explanation of the groups. I think I got it, though.
The subjects had been training for 6 months if I remember correctly, so they weren’t completely untrained.
I think this study really says something about volume, the high rep group probably got more reps with full activation (of course to get there with such a low load you need a lot of effort). Had you thrown in more sets in the 90FAIL group I think we would have gotten different results. But the issue that remains is to find the balance between a program that elicits a high MPS and can be repeated frequently enough (IE, not too fatiguing). What allows you to train more frequently, going low load, high rep and to failure for 4 sets, or doing high load, low rep with maybe 6 or 8 sets?
That’s a good point. But considering they did 4 sets of 90% 1RM to failure which is more than what people recommend, it’s a bit puzzling. Maybe it’s a beginner effect.
Or they might be something about metabolic fatigue.
Instead of 3*5 like the starting strength, it may be better to stick with something like 3-4 sets of 10. Or a back off set of 10 after the low rep set.
Yeah, maybe this is why drop sets have been shown to work pretty well? You do high intensity low rep stuff and then finish it off with a drop set to get some volume.
I don’t think 4 sets at 90% is that much.. Maybe with the failure, but I doubt you actually need that to get high levels of MPS (you will probably need to get pretty close, though). I used to do 10 sets of 3 with something like my 90%.
Also, I don’t know if you can call it a beginner effect since they had 6 months of training behind them. I know that’s not a lot, but I think it’s enough to tip them over the beginner effects.
