Love this, and always has me coming back to doing blocks of 2-5 reps for my main lifts to build strength, so I can do blocks of higher reps with more load than when I was weaker. It feels like folks seem to forget that if you keep lifting heavier weights, you eventually get stronger, and being stronger helps boost your total workload. And also that it just takes time, and to be patient and keep at it month after month
The higher rep range is just a bunch of wasted time and energy until you get to the effective reps. Unless you're doing rest pause or something similar for expediency purposes, high reps are a waste. Refer to this video th-cam.com/video/gN093VKwVHc/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
I have noticed that 3-8 has been the best for me. I started hitting my arms heavy in that rep range and they have finally been growing. I follow that for almost all exercises now.
@@BrendanTietzdo we want to stop with a couple reps in reserve or sometimes go almost to failure? I’ve been trying to keep some reps in reserve to work the muscles to a good hypotrophy yet not burn it out until failure anymore. Giving it room for growth yet not destroying it though.
@andrewtanczyk4009 Research seems to indicate that 0-3 RIR is a good range for hypertrophy. Practically, you probably don't want to go close to failure at lower rep ranges on bigger compound movements because you will just accrue too much fatigue for the amount of volume you'd ideally want. When I was doing powerbuilding, I did most SBD work at 3 RIR+ to practice technique. I would get my volume for growth from variations and secondary movements at mid to higher rep ranges. Now that I'm a Johnny Bodybuilder, I just don't do competition SBD at all, and mostly don't dip below 5-6 reps ever.
Besides the rep range does going slower on the Eccentric increase more muscle growth and strength? I noticed going down slower on the curl bar afterwards for about four days afterwards my biceps were actually sore. While when I did lat pull-downs or single arm curls I don’t feel much afterwards. Yet that’s maybe because I added the slower eccentric part with the curl bar.
Slower eccentrics have shown to not be better compared to faster ones, mostly due to sacrifice of load for the longer reps. As long as you're controlling the eccentric it shouldn't make much difference. What would be cool to test is an active intentional eccentric with lighter load, to use velocity and acceleration as a way to artificially increase force in the stretch and train deceleration and instant acceleration in the opposite direction. So if you were benching, you would actively pull the bar to your chest on the eccentric. I suppose this is similar to doing a vertical jump after dropping from a platform.
Would you say these principles apply differently for different muscle groups, bigger muscles like quads as opposed to arms? Or perhaps slow/fast fibre composition
Yeah technically the data shows sets of 30 at failure induce equal hypertrophy as sets of 10. However who the fuck can actually hit failure there? And more importantly we have to look at the body of data. Other analysis and reviews show us that more workload is the king of growth above all factors. The most practical way to get that in for most is between 6-10. However even 12-15 is fine IF you reach near failure. The problem is once you get to loads around 70% or less, you’re so far from failure that the initial reps don’t induce fast twitch activation. This means you need to go closer to failure to achieve full threshold motor unit recruitment. And again, besides on arms, who can really do sets of 12-15 at failure or near it on shit like squats or even leg extensions let’s be real!
The science is not “clear” on volume being the driver of hypertrophy. At 1:13 you should have said mechanical tension. If you were right, it would be better to go for high rep ranges, because I can do a lot more than ten reps with half of my 5-rep max on any given lift. So the more you lower the weight, the more volume you can get. But this doesn’t make sense, or else endurance athletes would have huge muscles. Competitive rowers would have enormous backs. I’m sure they have some decent back development, but the guy who does 4-8 reps with a rep in reserve on traditional back exercises will have a bigger back if all else is kept equal. I don’t know if you addressed this or not, but there really is no way to defend the statement that the more volume you do, the more muscle you build. This is not true. The proper way to train for hypertrophy has no necessary linkage with the number produced by the reps multiplied by resistance. If you must train close to failure to get muscle growth, and hypertrophy stimulus has been shown to be maximized between 5 and 30 reps, this means that only the last 5 reps or so before failure provide stimulus. So when measuring stimulus, the only volume that matters is the number of reps within 5 of failure. There is no reason to increase the reps to more than 8 or so, because by the time you can do 8 reps with a particular weight you can probably do 5 with a higher weight. There is also data on the stimulus of successive sets to failure showing that the first set to failure gets 50% of the possible stimulus and the next five sets get almost all of the rest of the possible stimulus. There is a plateau after the sixth set to failure. Given that fatigue also affects muscle growth, the most “anabolic” workout for a particular muscle group is complete in about 2-6 sets of 4-8 reps.
No mechanical tension is the stimulus of hypertrophy. I said the induction of more muscle growth, as in increasing the volume of adaptation. Mechanical tension is magnified with more volume.
@@BrendanTietz Mechanical tension isn’t magnified with more volume. This is a misconception. We progressively overload (increasing weight and reps, not sets) as a means of equaling the mechanical tension of the previous workout. This means more volume but not more stimulus or more mechanical tension. And greater volume isn’t why we try to increase the weight over time
I think you're confounding a few principles into the same argument. Volume is only taken into consideration WHEN we're talking about close proximity to failure. Your example of rowers doesn't apply for this reason, because they're not rowing close to failure at all. When you equate proximity to failure, more volume grows more muscle. From a practical perspective, you have to pick your battles and emphases, because you can't just do high volume for every body part, systemic fatigue and recovery ability come into play. But if you can add more volume to a muscle group within your recovery capabilities, more volume is more growth. This is from a bodybuilding perspective, of course, where all sets are taken to about 3 RIR or less. A lot of the volume studies are done to failure, so presumably 0-1 RIR. If we're talking about strength work which is usually more submaximal and progressed according to strength periodization, volume is a main driver of hypertrophy since it takes more sets to get a growth stimulus. As long as you're close failure, I think the hypertrophy rep range can be pretty broad, even broader than the 5-30 that seems to be consensus. 4-40? Maybe 40+ on certain movements (calves come to mind in my own experience)?
@@hughhagen4968bro what… mechanical tension just means force applied to a muscle… more volume means more force. It’s not peak mechanical tension, total. You’re really speaking about things you’re very uneducated about
Dude, I’ve tried 2g ( shroom tea) and one week later 3g ( lemon tek) of B+ It was nice, I guess it’s the smoothest way to introduce yourself to the shroom but it didn’t give me much. I didn’t really trip to be honest. What would you recommend at this point ? I have 1.81 g left, should I lemon tek them for few hours
Sounds like you’re closed off and afraid. This happens sometimes. You have to relax and open the mind. 3g literally distorts reality for me. Seen some wild shit on it. Hit me up for Unity coaching bro, I can help.
@@BrendanTietz dude, I will hit you up for the Unity coaching one day but not now. I am about to lose my job😀😀😀 I am afraid, I was but how can fear make a trip less trippy ?
Could be your individual tolerance. I barely trip on a tab and it took at least 600mcg of lsd to really get anywhere, and even then i never had really crazy visuals.
I was under the impression that Mike Mentzer’s 3-6 rep range is good going with that one set to failure. However with that you eventually plateau. And unfortunately even that isn’t effective for building muscle mass in the legs. Even Mike claimed that the legs are an inefficient muscle group and needs more reps for hypertrophy. I didn’t realize building muscle mass and getting stronger definitely takes time.
@@BrendanTietz yah, from my experience after I plateaued thankfully I discovered periodization. Changing the rep range for more volume with lower weight help build more muscle and increase strength. And even at that HIT doesn’t work well with squats and definitely not with deadlifts either.
@@BrendanTietz Probably not. Much more strain on muscles for longer duration in a set as the fact that in bench your arms are losing blood as they are over your head. In addition, longer sets hurt your wrists more.
If the RPE of 3 x 10 equals the 5 x 6 as sets progress, I agree. I don't think in your example that 225 would be even close to becoming challenging in a 5 x 6 even on the last few sets.
@@fitoverforty Yeah, RPE and total volume have to be equated. It's impossible to compare otherwise. In bodybuilding, volume is just a dial I turn to target specific weak points, and it varies based on recovery time. I can't handle high volume leg training at close proximity to failure, so I only hit legs 1-2 times a week, whereas everything else at least 2x and other weak points 3x. Frequency is just a way to spread out volume.
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AQ4RIghEvUs/mqdefault.jpg)
Love this, and always has me coming back to doing blocks of 2-5 reps for my main lifts to build strength, so I can do blocks of higher reps with more load than when I was weaker.
It feels like folks seem to forget that if you keep lifting heavier weights, you eventually get stronger, and being stronger helps boost your total workload. And also that it just takes time, and to be patient and keep at it month after month
Loved how this simplified rep ranges and having this in one place makes sense
Love the production quality
Got an editor again!
5 to 30 reps. Proximity to failure is crucial.
The higher rep range is just a bunch of wasted time and energy until you get to the effective reps. Unless you're doing rest pause or something similar for expediency purposes, high reps are a waste. Refer to this video
th-cam.com/video/gN093VKwVHc/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
What an hypertrophical video sir brendan , so here is a hypertrophical thumbs up 👍 and hypertrophical like,
I have noticed that 3-8 has been the best for me. I started hitting my arms heavy in that rep range and they have finally been growing. I follow that for almost all exercises now.
Thank You Brendan! I was always taught 8-12 reps was best for hypertrophy.
No my major point was that any rep range can work.
@@BrendanTietzdo we want to stop with a couple reps in reserve or sometimes go almost to failure? I’ve been trying to keep some reps in reserve to work the muscles to a good hypotrophy yet not burn it out until failure anymore. Giving it room for growth yet not destroying it though.
@andrewtanczyk4009
Research seems to indicate that 0-3 RIR is a good range for hypertrophy. Practically, you probably don't want to go close to failure at lower rep ranges on bigger compound movements because you will just accrue too much fatigue for the amount of volume you'd ideally want.
When I was doing powerbuilding, I did most SBD work at 3 RIR+ to practice technique. I would get my volume for growth from variations and secondary movements at mid to higher rep ranges.
Now that I'm a Johnny Bodybuilder, I just don't do competition SBD at all, and mostly don't dip below 5-6 reps ever.
I remember when 6-10reps was for size gains.
Great video and information
I’m currently switching between 11-15 and 16-20. My goal is strength endurance adaptations.
Besides the rep range does going slower on the Eccentric increase more muscle growth and strength?
I noticed going down slower on the curl bar afterwards for about four days afterwards my biceps were actually sore. While when I did lat pull-downs or single arm curls I don’t feel much afterwards. Yet that’s maybe because I added the slower eccentric part with the curl bar.
Slower eccentrics have shown to not be better compared to faster ones, mostly due to sacrifice of load for the longer reps. As long as you're controlling the eccentric it shouldn't make much difference.
What would be cool to test is an active intentional eccentric with lighter load, to use velocity and acceleration as a way to artificially increase force in the stretch and train deceleration and instant acceleration in the opposite direction. So if you were benching, you would actively pull the bar to your chest on the eccentric. I suppose this is similar to doing a vertical jump after dropping from a platform.
@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans ☝️
Would you say these principles apply differently for different muscle groups, bigger muscles like quads as opposed to arms? Or perhaps slow/fast fibre composition
My arms have been growing from heavy weight at the 3-8 rep range.
I love doing singles doubles and triples, and having to do more sets to achieve considerable total volume? I see it as a win
Time is a big factor for most of us
What does Meno always say hyper🏆 range is 6-30 ??
I always feel setts with reps that high you fatigue due to strain and pump before hitting failure.
Yeah technically the data shows sets of 30 at failure induce equal hypertrophy as sets of 10. However who the fuck can actually hit failure there? And more importantly we have to look at the body of data. Other analysis and reviews show us that more workload is the king of growth above all factors. The most practical way to get that in for most is between 6-10. However even 12-15 is fine IF you reach near failure. The problem is once you get to loads around 70% or less, you’re so far from failure that the initial reps don’t induce fast twitch activation. This means you need to go closer to failure to achieve full threshold motor unit recruitment. And again, besides on arms, who can really do sets of 12-15 at failure or near it on shit like squats or even leg extensions let’s be real!
The science is not “clear” on volume being the driver of hypertrophy. At 1:13 you should have said mechanical tension. If you were right, it would be better to go for high rep ranges, because I can do a lot more than ten reps with half of my 5-rep max on any given lift. So the more you lower the weight, the more volume you can get. But this doesn’t make sense, or else endurance athletes would have huge muscles. Competitive rowers would have enormous backs. I’m sure they have some decent back development, but the guy who does 4-8 reps with a rep in reserve on traditional back exercises will have a bigger back if all else is kept equal. I don’t know if you addressed this or not, but there really is no way to defend the statement that the more volume you do, the more muscle you build. This is not true. The proper way to train for hypertrophy has no necessary linkage with the number produced by the reps multiplied by resistance. If you must train close to failure to get muscle growth, and hypertrophy stimulus has been shown to be maximized between 5 and 30 reps, this means that only the last 5 reps or so before failure provide stimulus. So when measuring stimulus, the only volume that matters is the number of reps within 5 of failure. There is no reason to increase the reps to more than 8 or so, because by the time you can do 8 reps with a particular weight you can probably do 5 with a higher weight. There is also data on the stimulus of successive sets to failure showing that the first set to failure gets 50% of the possible stimulus and the next five sets get almost all of the rest of the possible stimulus. There is a plateau after the sixth set to failure. Given that fatigue also affects muscle growth, the most “anabolic” workout for a particular muscle group is complete in about 2-6 sets of 4-8 reps.
No mechanical tension is the stimulus of hypertrophy. I said the induction of more muscle growth, as in increasing the volume of adaptation. Mechanical tension is magnified with more volume.
@@BrendanTietz Mechanical tension isn’t magnified with more volume. This is a misconception. We progressively overload (increasing weight and reps, not sets) as a means of equaling the mechanical tension of the previous workout. This means more volume but not more stimulus or more mechanical tension. And greater volume isn’t why we try to increase the weight over time
I think you're confounding a few principles into the same argument.
Volume is only taken into consideration WHEN we're talking about close proximity to failure. Your example of rowers doesn't apply for this reason, because they're not rowing close to failure at all. When you equate proximity to failure, more volume grows more muscle.
From a practical perspective, you have to pick your battles and emphases, because you can't just do high volume for every body part, systemic fatigue and recovery ability come into play. But if you can add more volume to a muscle group within your recovery capabilities, more volume is more growth.
This is from a bodybuilding perspective, of course, where all sets are taken to about 3 RIR or less. A lot of the volume studies are done to failure, so presumably 0-1 RIR. If we're talking about strength work which is usually more submaximal and progressed according to strength periodization, volume is a main driver of hypertrophy since it takes more sets to get a growth stimulus.
As long as you're close failure, I think the hypertrophy rep range can be pretty broad, even broader than the 5-30 that seems to be consensus. 4-40? Maybe 40+ on certain movements (calves come to mind in my own experience)?
@@DCJayhawk57 you’re behind. Come back later when you’re updated
@@hughhagen4968bro what… mechanical tension just means force applied to a muscle… more volume means more force. It’s not peak mechanical tension, total. You’re really speaking about things you’re very uneducated about
Dude, I’ve tried 2g ( shroom tea) and one week later 3g ( lemon tek) of B+
It was nice, I guess it’s the smoothest way to introduce yourself to the shroom but it didn’t give me much. I didn’t really trip to be honest. What would you recommend at this point ? I have 1.81 g left, should I lemon tek them for few hours
Sounds like you’re closed off and afraid. This happens sometimes. You have to relax and open the mind. 3g literally distorts reality for me. Seen some wild shit on it. Hit me up for Unity coaching bro, I can help.
@@BrendanTietz dude, I will hit you up for the Unity coaching one day but not now. I am about to lose my job😀😀😀
I am afraid, I was but how can fear make a trip less trippy ?
Could be your individual tolerance. I barely trip on a tab and it took at least 600mcg of lsd to really get anywhere, and even then i never had really crazy visuals.
@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans hmm so interesting
but I can go “super deep” on weed and I have a very low tolerance
Listen, I like my 6s and 8s on big variations. 7s don’t exist.
Who does 7s? 11s and 7s are for the birds
I was under the impression that Mike Mentzer’s 3-6 rep range is good going with that one set to failure. However with that you eventually plateau. And unfortunately even that isn’t effective for building muscle mass in the legs. Even Mike claimed that the legs are an inefficient muscle group and needs more reps for hypertrophy.
I didn’t realize building muscle mass and getting stronger definitely takes time.
Nah tbh most of what mentzer said was wrong which is why none of the modern bodybuilders do hit. But yeah it takes a lot of time! Tons lol!
@@BrendanTietz yah, from my experience after I plateaued thankfully I discovered periodization. Changing the rep range for more volume with lower weight help build more muscle and increase strength. And even at that HIT doesn’t work well with squats and definitely not with deadlifts either.
0 reps
This is the ultimate truth
10 reps is more stress than 6 reps so the 10 reps set is likely more hypertrophy.
In a single set situation yes. However when sets and reps accumulate to equal workload (setsxrepsxweight) they’re the same.
@@BrendanTietz Probably not. Much more strain on muscles for longer duration in a set as the fact that in bench your arms are losing blood as they are over your head. In addition, longer sets hurt your wrists more.
If the RPE of 3 x 10 equals the 5 x 6 as sets progress, I agree. I don't think in your example that 225 would be even close to becoming challenging in a 5 x 6 even on the last few sets.
@@fitoverforty
Yeah, RPE and total volume have to be equated. It's impossible to compare otherwise.
In bodybuilding, volume is just a dial I turn to target specific weak points, and it varies based on recovery time. I can't handle high volume leg training at close proximity to failure, so I only hit legs 1-2 times a week, whereas everything else at least 2x and other weak points 3x. Frequency is just a way to spread out volume.