Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy Extra note: Throughout 5:55 - 8:00 - I generally said 2-4 reps, but you can see some of the studies did use 3-5 reps. Apologies for any confusion, I should have just said very low reps or reps below 6. As I hope that section demonstrates, it’s not crystal clear how low we can go (that is, 6 reps is not a hard cut off), but considering the overall literature, I would generally not train entirely with reps below 6. But again, having some sets with reps below 6 might be fine! Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:52 Part 1: Optimal Range? 2:44 Part 2: Aren't These Studies Limited? 5:20 Part 3: How Heavy Can You Go? 10:38 Part 4: How Light Can You Go? 13:07 Part 5: Fatigue: This Might Suprise Some 15:16 Part 6: Training to Failure Only Matters With This?
@@HouseofHypertrophy but what if you still manage to do about 3-4 long lenght partials after let's say 4 or 5 full rom reps? There aren't any studies on this topic yet but based on the limited literature I think it might not be that different from doing 6 or more reps. (Maybe). Another thing to consider regarding the long length partials after full reps is that they were only performed after they couldn't do a full rom rep(failure) after which they did long length partials to failure again. There isn't much data unfortunately about proximity to failure on this topic in general due to limited studies but reaching failure might be slightly more viable here(or not, we really can't say) I really hope some future studies look into this topic. Great video as always :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy also side not I spent an hour trying to write a comment on your previous video but it just wouldn't post due to some reason (maybe because it had a link) I would really like to reach out to you on this topic but I really don't know where I can reach out to you except youtube comments. I actually even spoke to josh pelland regarding this topic and it would be cool discussing with you :)
Agreed! I think if you squeeze out some partial reps to get past very low reps, that could be okay. Would love to see long-term data on it though! Feel free to shoot me an email: houseofhypertrophy@gmail.com
My take away from this video is just keep lifting and mix up all various rep ranges and degrees of heaviness so my body never gets completely used to any single approach. There is no magic/perfect approach that stays static for folks like me who've been lifting consistently for many years.. more intensity + focused volume always feels more productive and seems to produce the best results when appropriate rest is also worked in... At least for me, I've learned there are absolutely no shortcuts.. just put in the work consistently over time and suck it up
Same, as an advanced lifter I've found over the many years lifting whatever allows for the most volume with intensity is key to optimal growth, Over than that being prepared to change things up and tweak variables within the same parameters of volume and intensity every 6 weeks or so to keep making gains. ie just not being rigid and paying attention to what your body/results are telling you
@ exactly 👍.. I find I also have to force myself to do de-loading weeks which is always really tough bc it's an inertia killer but I've found that its essential to give my body, nervous system and joints recovery time. That's also bc I've had multiple shoulder and hip sports injuries. All I can say is take care of your shoulders!!.. once they get F'ed, you're never the same :)
There are literally a bunch of shortcuts though. Getting enough sleep, eating enough protein, a caloric surplus, exercises that emphasize the stretch of a muscle, more than 1 rep and less than 30, creatine, steroids. Those are all literally shortcuts compared to not doing them
@@benjoleo Those are not 'shortcuts' those are just elements to lifting optimally. It would be like saying lifting weights is a shortcut to growing muscle lol. Those are just standard parts of a well structured lifestyle in relation to lifting
There are a lot of great fitness TH-camrs, along with a lot of noise and social media drama. House of hypertrophy sticks to the facts and usefulness, thanks for providing consistently useful info that’s def influenced my workouts
Here's my take on training and hypertrophy in general, after having thought about it for a long time and informed myself from many different studies. @houseofhypertrophy, I hope you will read this: - I think that hypertrophy is primarily an "endurance" adaptation. Or perhaps "capacity" adaptation is a better word to use. Basically, if you expose mechanosensors to mechanical load for a long enough time, and the muscle is able to lift that weight, but then gives out at some point, then the body will interpret it as "he is strong enough, but he wants to be able to lift that load for a longer time". And it thereby induces muscle hypertrophy. Yes, the size of muscles are linked to increased strength, but I see hypertrophy primarily as a "gas tank" thing. This is what happens when you go above the 6 rep range. It basically is an adaptation for capacity or endurance to lift almost any weight at almost any speed for a long enough time (I will explain the "any weight" and "any speed" below). It's basically indifferent about the weight or speed you use to lift weights. It's just an adaptation to extend the time you can do that weight and that speed in. - If you go below the 6 rep range (of course, we are talking on average) the needle moves more towards strength adaptation (and thus the nervous system gets stronger). If you struggle to complete a 1 rep max, the body will go "okay, he needs to get stronger" and it will focus on making the nervous system stronger. - Now to an important point. If you lift say 20kg in a certain exercise, and you do it with let's say a slow speed and you go to failure, then you will not be able to lift it for as many reps as you would if you lifted it faster. This difference is simply a difference of "activating" the nervous system more or less. Think about it, sometimes when you train and you go to failure, if you really want to "grind" out a last rep, you can sort of "muster" and lift 1 rep more usually, even though you went to actual failure before. This is because you suddenly changed the speed of the rep, which just means that you activated the nervous system more. You basically got more explosive. So that difference is just a difference in nervous system activation. But from the perspective of the muscle, it's the same thing whether you lifted the set with slow speed or fast speed. You went to failure with both approaches, and thus you get the same kind of hypertrophy. The point is, the studies on volume load show that the weight doesn't matter. What matters is taxing the muscle to failure or close to it. Whether you lift fast and explosively, and thus can lift more weight, or you do it slow and thus can lift less weight and for less reps. As long as you are above that 6 rep range, you will have the same amount of hypertrophy - and it's important to note that I say hypertrophy is the same only, because if you lift fast and explosive, you will also get nervous system adaptation. Think about it, you have people who have different things they prefer. Some like dumbbells on a bench press, it requires more stabilization, thus you cant lift as heavy a load as you can on a barbell and definitely way less than a machine. But do you get more hypertrophy from a machine just because you can lift more and the load is higher on the mechanosensors? No. That goes to show that load doesn't matter, and it's simply about exhausting the muscle, however you do it, whatever style of training you like. This is also why studies have shown that drop sets are just as effective as traditional sets etc. Every thing points to that weight does not matter, all that matters is taking the muscle to exhaustion or close to it, and also the amount of time you spend in that stimulating "exhaustive rep range" (volume - not volume load). Volume load studies have shown that the weight doesn't matter - which has been covered by House of Hypertrophy too. Drop set studies show that they are just as effective as traditional sets, even though you lift way lower weight as you go down and down compared to traditional sets. And anecdotally many seasoned bodybuilders also say that the weight doesnt matter, such as Jay Cutler etc. Lee Priest would train calves one leg at a time just doing around one hundred reps (there's a video where he explains it). Obviously 100 reps is very light weight for his calves, but still he went to failure, and he had massive calves. Weight does not matter. It's all about taking the muscle to failure or close to it, and the amount of time you spend there (meaning more sets, you get more hypertrophy). Your style of training is up to you. However, if you lift heavy and explosively (still above 6 reps), you will also get nervous system adaptations - but obviously not as good as dedicated powerlifters who lift below 6 reps. But for hypertrophy, that is irrelevant. Sorry for the long comment and repeating myself a few times.
These days, the way I train is simply run the rack, and doing a two day split. Im in and out of the gym fast. A few days ago I ran the rack with lateral raises to a bit of an extreme degree where I literally didn't have any weights in my hands on the last set and I just lifted my hands up. Still went to failure. I believe that set was just as effective as the first set with relatively heavy weights that I went to failure on at 10 reps - again, because weight doesn't matter, failure, or getting close to it, matters. I run the rack for each muscle so it adds up to 6 sets, because most studies show that on average there is quite a drop off when it comes to diminishing returns after around 6 sets. So that's what I aim for. + You get a slight bit of cardio training in running the rack too. Also it's not boring, it feels intense, you get that nice burn in the muscle, and you are engaged. And the best thing, I am done in close to 30 minutes. Over a with my two day split where I hit a muscle each time for 6 sets it's the equivalent of 18 sets per week (I take one day off). Lots of volume and hopefully lots of hypertrophy. Also, studies have shown that volume matters much more than frequency, however still, a two day split makes sure that the time I am under muscle protein synthesis is consistently high and frequent. The muscle gets one day of rest, and boom, you hit it again.
Honestly, this is the best YT-channel if you’re interested in hypertrophy! 🙏 I myself train in 3 blocks of 2 weeks every mesocycle. First two weeks: lighter loads, 4 sets of 12, 10, 8, and then a mechanical dropset using the load from the very first set, doing 10 full ROM reps, immediately followed by 10 half reps in the lengthened position. Week 3&4 will be 10, 8, 6, and again mechanical dropset afterwards with 15 reps (10 full and 10 halves). Last 2 weeks are 8, 6, 4, and again the dropset. I have been training for 14 years, so the hypertrophy I see is minimal, but that’s not due to the rep range, in my opinion.
@ You are very welcome, I always advise people new to the gym to check out this channel! Thank you very much, it’s been a difficult ride, certainly after being hit by a car and staying in a coma for a month (12 years ago in the meantime). I’m seriously considering making videos about how I train, even with my disability, I still have a better physique than 80% of youngsters nowadays.. Which I think is sad..
For us failure= success The rule is anything from 5 to 30 reps will get you jacked I walk in the gym what's the idea of 3 sets of 10 Then listen to my body
@@rairod0771 Why 25? That will beat the crap out of you, or at least me. Why not just do all sets lower than 10 reps when there is no benefit to those higher reps and they only fatigue you more.
This data on fatigue lines up very well with my personal experience and even the study that found greater growth in the low rep squat group. If high reps cause high fatigue we probably should avoid them on exercises that are already very fatiguing like the backsquat or deadlift. On the other hand, with isolation exercises that aren't very systemically fatiguing like curls, triceps extensions or lateral raises, we should be fine doing higher reps and chasing a nice pump.
Why would you want to "chase a pump" when it has been shown that the pump has no correlation or causal effect on hypertrophy? And when you say "systemic fatigue" what system are you referring to?
@@benwhite2795 because it feels good, looks good, and isn't detrimental to anything. I mean the system that makes you feel exhausted or tired after physical work. I don't know what exactly that entails. Probably the mind and the central nervous system to some degree but I don't really know.
@@benjoleo High reps cause more fatigue and more muscle damage, so yes chasing the pump, especially on muscles that have higher voluntary activation (like the biceps) is detrimental.
@@benwhite2795 okay the fatigue can be considered a detriment but the whole point of my comment was that that’s probably negligible for many isolation movements. I Don’t think there would be a real difference in how much work I can do in a day, depending on whether I do lateral raises for sets of 10 or sets of 20. That it “causes more muscle damage” is news to me. Can you point me to a source on that?
I always watch your vids on sets, reps, and frequency multiple times. As someone with spinal stenosis, I really like seeing the newer science on reps from 12 - 35. I'm staying in the 12 - 20 range for now, with rare sets that go over 20.
To be on the safe side, just vary the rep range for each set. Starting with a high rep set as a warmup and then add weight for each set and finnishing with a low rep strength set near max. Muscle size is not everything, endurance and strenght are of importance too.
That's what I do. Starting to get comments on my muscle mass growth from my gym buddies. I am no expert but this approach worked best for me. I work reps high with low weights on earlier sets and change rep/set range with heavier weights until failure on each set and give the muscles at least a 2-3 day rest period.
@WeighedWilson And as said in the video, there seems to be similar growth to constant reps, so why not vary the reps if it gives additional benefits? Adding extra strength and endurance while keeping the same gains is even better.
You should probably swap that around as higher rep sets are more fatiguing and you will be hindering your performance in the higher load sets later on in the workout.
@@mommaduck79 there is a lower risk of injury by gradually increasing weight every set, since the high rep sets functions as a warm up for the muscles. Also it's not a competition, sure you can lift more weight if you start with the max rep, but that doesn't mean you get more gains. If you can use less weight to get the same muscle stimulus thats actually a positive thing.
If hypertrophy is the same whether its 6 rep sets or 30 rep sets wouldn't the choice come down to which rep range is best for joints and ligaments? Since its your joints that 1) take longer to adapt and strengthen and 2) are typically the parts of the body that are most prone to injury?
@@markovasil1608 I guess that depends on what your goals are. Strongman athletes focus mostly on strength and power. CrossFit athletes focus mostly on strength and conditioning. If I was going to choose between a strongman or a CrossFit body type for aesthetic reasons, I would certainly choose the CrossFit body type.
As someone with bulging discs and nerve pain, I think this is a terrific point! I can do overhead press for 12 to 20 reps and not aggravate the problems in my lower neck and thoracic spine. Above a certain number of reps, some people will struggle to keep good form. I'm sure there's a happy medium range (slightly high).
This definitely is the answer for me. I have chronic shoulder, elbow, and knee injuries, and as long as I stay above ~15 reps/set, I'm able to mostly avoid aggravating those injuries.
Low reps to test new weight after pushing up and pushing my limits, low reps to perfect technique and/or when I struggled with the next increment up. Mid reps for default setting and to get some benefits of both worlds.
I am currently building a bodyweight bench press and .7 bodyweight overhead press for 6 reps. My training centers around those 2 lifts. Everything else is just light isolation moves. This has been my routine for the past 6 months. I believe this is the golden ratio for maximizing natural hypertrophy.
The most important thing nobody talks about is inter-individual variation. Do some people only grow with low reps, some only with high reps, and others with both? And how do you best find out which is better for you, low or high reps?
I’d literally take less hypertrophy if it meant I got to lift heavy ass weights in the gym. The rush and enjoyment I get out of lower rep higher intensity work matters more to be than pure size.
In my experience of lifting for 35 years, using a lower rep scheme (5x5) builds STRENGTH and getting stronger equates to building size using a progressive overload training system.
yes but nuance is that low reps causes lesser muscle damage which means you can recover faster. Muscle damage will obstruct your performance leading to lesser stimulant. Also muscle damage is accumulative, it stack up more and more, thats why you will need a 'deload' if you keep doing high rep high volume. The muscle 'growth' from higher volume and high reps is actually swelling, which makes sense, more damage muscle have, more swelling which gives the illusion of 'bigger muscles'. You can get stronger without bigger muscles but you definitely can't have bigger muscles without getting stronger. That said, i believe variety of reps does have benefits, its up to individual programming to make it sustainable without getting injury or tendonitis. The only driver of muscle hypertrophy is mechanical tension. Conclusion: depends. everyone is different, you gotta try it out, see whats best for yourself.
@@joojotin lmao at "no benefit what so ever" You can't speak in absolutes like that. It may not benefit you, it benefits me from a progression, recovery and disrupting the monotony.
@@EliteProAli Alright, lets have a debate, how does it help? With what and how? 1. It doesnt help progression, you made the claim, back it up. 2. Back it up. I have studies to prove higher rep work increases fatigue which obviously does the opposite of your claim. As said before, the rep ranges you use are not that dissimiliar and wont have huge effect in any way but the point still stands that you dont GAIN anything progression and recovery wise. 3. Monotony isnt physiological, thats just preference. im not talking about preferences in comment sections and you know that.. Im just here to nerd out and debate lol. Only physiological benefit of using higher reps or changing rep ranges is injury.
Seems reasonable, Dr. Israetel often says anything between 6-30 reps per set shows the same amount of growth according to the literature. Increasing # of sets/week however actually has been shown to increase growth.
you should make a video on mechanical tension, as of now its becoming more crystal clear it is the only factor compared to metabolic stress and muscle damage that results in growth
I have an older video on this: th-cam.com/video/pNOb7jockSg/w-d-xo.html - it's still pretty much up to date, but I may have another video sometime sharing some other thoughts :)
I like to progress reps at a given weight, then increase the weight and repeat. By adding reps to your sets, you also make it so you don't save too many reps in reserve on your first few sets. So if I can do 205 for 5×5, next time I'll do 6,6,6,5,5. Then 7,6,6,6,6.... (no specific pattern, just adding where I can) Eventually ending at 5×8 and then starting over at 215 for 5×5. 5×8 is a good number because if you can do that, you can comfortably increase the weight while still hitting that minimum effective number of reps (5 or 6), and your overall volume of 40 reps is the same as what you'd get from 4×10, and you can comfortably switch to 3×10 for maintenance when you hit your goal, the ultimate goal being 2 quick full body workouts a week.
Do you have a video that goes more into this topic of training and resting for minimizing muscle damage while maximizing the response for hypertrophy ?
8-15 for compounds, 15-20 for isolations. I've been doing it for years and it's really solid. I only go above 20 reps if i'm injured. Nothing heals you better than doing a couple of sets of 30, getting some bloodflow into the area, giving the connective tissue some fluids.
I it's different for each person. You have to take the time to see what your body responds to. My best results come from a mixed 3 week cycle. 2 muscle groups heavy low reps and 3 groups more sets and reps. Changing groups every 3 weeks. Legs exploded when I stated alternating weekly.
Putting gains aside for a second, I always feel better doing higher intensity and lower volume. In my experience, 6-15 reps per set is the ideal, and I generally like to do 2 sets (the third is never as good as the first two). If I go to 20+, I often feel like I'm going through the motions instead of giving it my all, and typically I find that when the rep range is that high, I can actually lift heavier if I just try to increase the weight. My pattern lately is to get to 15-20 reps, and then go up in weight. Usually I'll be down to six again, and I build up from there.
I tried both. The amount of training time, pain and fatigue from 20-35 rep is much higher than 8-12 rep. Sometimes I use higher rep if I'm away without access to a gym but it's not ideal.
I think what's missing in all these studies is, no matter the amount of reps, how long is the muscle under load in each set? Perhaps these test should be performed with specific sets of loads for the same durations. Then measure growth levels.
I would imagine that higher rep ranges cause other kinds of fatigue, and use more energy overall, lengthening the recovery time. It would be interesting to see what other kinds of adaptation training with light loads causes. Just a guess, but I'd imagine light loads cause more general metabolic stress, involve more lactic acid accumulation, and place more demands on the circulatory system. Just maybe you get more bang for your buck with light loads if hypertrophy is not your only goal. Supersetting with light loads can be a good aerobic workout.
Everyone is going to be different but the same if that makes. There's no reinventing the wheel. Personally I have done it all low high etc. When I started incorporating higher volume with a wide rep range from 5 to 15 reps. But the key is not just to increase your reps just because but to make sure that on each set you're Either coming close to failure or coming to failure. People's focus so much on counting and putting a number in their head and then they mentally stop. It's similar to mine muscle connection.
I'd like to see the super slow routine studied with experienced training individuals and then compare. When I was young I switched up to a 8 sec. 8 neg. slow routine for 8 reps per body part and easy breathing throughout. No tension in face allowed and very little to no rest between movements. Couple movements were 4 sec. negatives. I blew up! I feel the every set to failure and time under tension created the gains. Workout was crushing, boring & 25 min. but something to experiment with for someone needing a healthy shock- something different.
I really think it depends on the muscle being worked. I built my chest mostly in the 1 to 5 rep range. If I don't do at least one set in the 1 to 3 range in a bench session, I just feel unfulfilled. For bi and tri and other non compound lifts, I usually do higher reps (for me), like 10 to 15, though I have also had good biceps gains doing strict curls in the 1 to 3 range. My view is that, even if it's not optimal for size, lower reps give you some benefit there plus big strength benefits. I tend to get bored if I'm not pushing heavier loads and my intensity falls off. You do have to schedule de-load sessions , though.
any chance you could share more data on individuals? And how effects are different accross several individuals? (for example, for 10% of people, lower reps are better). If you could do this more for your videos, it would be great!
I understand this is HouseofHypertrophy and not HouseofStrength but did any of those studies with low rep set groups compare max strength gains over the study as well as Hypertrophy? It would be interesting to compare.
In general, strength gains are greater with lower reps, even very low reps (2-4) tend to outperform 6 or more reps. I am planning to have a series on training for strength vs size at some point :)
The strength gains always remain the same. If you train more low reps you get stronger at low reps, if you train more high reps you get stronger at high reps, both are strength.
I'm nearing completion of my PhD in Education so I'm sure I'm not qualified in your area. In Education, there is a theory called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). A student is placed in the ZPD if they are provided instruction that is just challenging enough. Too easy = No learning. Too hard = No learning. In training heavy, it feels like the amount between each rep is a huge measure considering where failure is. While the lit seems to suggest that it is repetitions away from failure that matter, when training heavy, it feels like volume is more reliable because while no, I can't get that last repetition in , but also no, I'm really not that close to failure. My muscle ZPD is off, if you will. In training light, I would love the resistance training world to consider that there are a great number of people that would benefit from training but could never make it to a gym, because of health issues, mental health issues, age, or disability. If I train light, like doing standard pushups for me, I feel like I can push into the 50ish rep range and still grow... no need for a bench press. But on the other hand, if I grab a set of 5lb dumbbells to do bicep curls, I feel like I can do 500 reps and never feel like I'm close to failure. There is a significant difference there that needs to be explored. Does the ZPD theory help here?
What’s the difference between failing because you can’t get the weight up and failing because the contraction is starting to hurt? Is one better for strengt and the other for hypertrophy?
We need data about lesser than 8 reps with 80% 1RM. Are the failures so important after >80% 1RM? Three groups for 80% 1RM: 2 sets with 8 reps VS 4 sets with 4 reps VS 8 sets with 2 reps. And two groups for 60% 1RM: 2 sets with 20 reps VS 4 sets with 20 reps. 10 minutes rest.
Is it true that muscles get stronger slower than their tendons, that tendons get stronger when trained for longer times under stress, explains the 6-35 rep range with similar Hypertrophy??? What explains the difference between muscle and tendon…?Thanks for the great content!😊
So basically don’t go below 6 and don’t go above 35 on any particular set. I Pyramid my sets and the first set is usually 30 reps and my heaviest set is 6 reps. My advice to anyone new or experienced is to FAFO for yourself. Give yourself a 10-12 week program and see where the results take you
Doctor Mike Isratel Says 5 to 30 reps will get you jacked and look at him! I personally never went up to 30 I stay in the 7 to 15 range I play with light and heavy dumbbells at home
Variety is the best thing about our shared affliction! lol 😂. Use different reps and different weights to keep your body from getting stagnant. Ever try doing high rep dropsets? Ouch!!! In a good way
Does cros section area of sampled fibers/tissues indicate fiber count/density increase? as i know from my distant past studies on the topic, plasma infused (pumped) muscle is not necessarily an indicator of new fiber synthesis
I’m 42yo and I’ve put on more strength and muscle size than in my 20’s by training for “strength 3-6 reps” rather than “bodybuilding 10-12 reps”. Motivated by strongman and this change in training heavy has made a huge difference for me
define growth, as the term frequently used in your video plasma retention in a muscle, does that lead to muscle growth? what aboutn fiber density (fiber count) per cross section? all neurological conditioning left aside affecting strength fiber density should be different with low rep-high load exercises with varying co-eccentric durations explosive moves definitely activate fast twitch fibers more but i cant see any detail on these studies refering to this phenomenon
Is there an evidence on training 2 times per day or multiple times per day the same or different muscle groups? For example im the morning rdlnand in the afternoom leg curls
Throwing studies around like this is neither scientific nor helpful to the individual lifter. I had a year long plateau of my back. I overcame it by not thinking about the concept of „sets“. I set a goal of 30 pullups and took as much time as needed to get them in. It took me over 30 mins at first but was a game changer over time. Then I was able to go back to regular set training and progress from there. Thinking in „sets“ only is thinking in boxes. And that should not be called science. Dr. Thomas Ruckstuhl, hobby lifter.
Why is No one talking about flywheel training for strength and hypertrophy. Although the studies are cristal clear in favor of flywheel training compared to regular weights!
Not quite, I addressed this in an older video on free weights vs machines, the majority of the evidence does not support fly wheels or eccentric overload being better than normal training: th-cam.com/video/luDHXXqqbgk/w-d-xo.html
@HouseofHypertrophy thx for the answer. I'm not sure if you really know what this type of training exactly is. No offense and I believe you have a deep Understanding. Its not like a mashine. It's still the basic lifts with a different type of resistance! It's based on inertial resistance instead of classic lifting wich are based mostly on gravity. The true benefits of FW training is not just eccentric overload. It's variable resistance through a full ROM wich makes any exercise better feeling the tension in the muscles. The resistance is always high no matter wich exercise and joint angle. And with fatigue you still alway can continue. It's like doing a drop set starting with your 1rm without needing to change weights. The flywheel will adjust accordingly how hard you pull. This is the brilliance of inertial resistance! If you ever have the chance to do a max effort set flywheel squats or pulls on a good mashine you will see/feel the difference. The only thing with flywheels is you must give max effort! Because unlike with weigths you can't fail a flywheel rep! The benefits are real!
I understand the rep ranges, but how many sets should I do per muscle group/session? How many total sets per week for each muscle group? Can anyone please answer?
The fact of the matter is genetics and age are what matters. I was blessed by good genes, my friends and I would lift the same weight, same frequency, same diet( high school) and I'm the only one that got big . I could do 5 reps, 20 reps, whatever... I grew. All this TH-cam info, TH-camrs are full of hot air. You're already predestined to have a big chest, or big arms, or big legs, or all of the above. Nothing you do will change your genetics. Look at Arnold. He was blessed genetically and his work ethic was super human. Key word is WAS. I'm a shadow of what i once was , now pushing 50. It was a fun ride and I was blessed. ..... Long story short? I could do low reps, high reps, mid reps, no reps😂 and my muscles grew. But that was thanks to my genetics and my age during that time. Peace.
Maybe just take 50%of 1rm and rep that sht out? I gotta look at this and think , when you do a drop set its only fatigueing like 5% of the muscle each drop . So if youre doing more reps its gotta be knocking out more fibers over all with less damage per fiber.
@@joojotin Unreal. LOL. I literally said in my post that I do reps between 3-10 reps across my 3 days and here you say you do 5-10 reps 95% of the time. Basically the same thing but you start harping on about how higher rep ranges cause fatigue (never even advocated for doing higher rep ranges) Perhaps you replied to the wrong person or... Well. I'll leave it at that. Lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@joojotin You said there is no benefit what so ever in my doing rep ranges in the 3 to 6, 6 to 8 and 8 to 10. Yet you said here 5 to 10 reps is your go to 95% of the time 🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️ Damn.
Hey All! Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HouseofHypertrophy
Extra note: Throughout 5:55 - 8:00 - I generally said 2-4 reps, but you can see some of the studies did use 3-5 reps. Apologies for any confusion, I should have just said very low reps or reps below 6. As I hope that section demonstrates, it’s not crystal clear how low we can go (that is, 6 reps is not a hard cut off), but considering the overall literature, I would generally not train entirely with reps below 6. But again, having some sets with reps below 6 might be fine!
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:52 Part 1: Optimal Range?
2:44 Part 2: Aren't These Studies Limited?
5:20 Part 3: How Heavy Can You Go?
10:38 Part 4: How Light Can You Go?
13:07 Part 5: Fatigue: This Might Suprise Some
15:16 Part 6: Training to Failure Only Matters With This?
@@HouseofHypertrophy but what if you still manage to do about 3-4 long lenght partials after let's say 4 or 5 full rom reps? There aren't any studies on this topic yet but based on the limited literature I think it might not be that different from doing 6 or more reps. (Maybe). Another thing to consider regarding the long length partials after full reps is that they were only performed after they couldn't do a full rom rep(failure) after which they did long length partials to failure again. There isn't much data unfortunately about proximity to failure on this topic in general due to limited studies but reaching failure might be slightly more viable here(or not, we really can't say) I really hope some future studies look into this topic. Great video as always :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy also side not I spent an hour trying to write a comment on your previous video but it just wouldn't post due to some reason (maybe because it had a link) I would really like to reach out to you on this topic but I really don't know where I can reach out to you except youtube comments. I actually even spoke to josh pelland regarding this topic and it would be cool discussing with you :)
Agreed! I think if you squeeze out some partial reps to get past very low reps, that could be okay. Would love to see long-term data on it though!
Feel free to shoot me an email: houseofhypertrophy@gmail.com
@@HouseofHypertrophy well I tried to send the mail but it told me the email account dint exist even after checking the spelling many times 🫠
My take away from this video is just keep lifting and mix up all various rep ranges and degrees of heaviness so my body never gets completely used to any single approach. There is no magic/perfect approach that stays static for folks like me who've been lifting consistently for many years.. more intensity + focused volume always feels more productive and seems to produce the best results when appropriate rest is also worked in... At least for me, I've learned there are absolutely no shortcuts.. just put in the work consistently over time and suck it up
Same, as an advanced lifter I've found over the many years lifting whatever allows for the most volume with intensity is key to optimal growth, Over than that being prepared to change things up and tweak variables within the same parameters of volume and intensity every 6 weeks or so to keep making gains. ie just not being rigid and paying attention to what your body/results are telling you
Well said.
@ exactly 👍.. I find I also have to force myself to do de-loading weeks which is always really tough bc it's an inertia killer but I've found that its essential to give my body, nervous system and joints recovery time. That's also bc I've had multiple shoulder and hip sports injuries. All I can say is take care of your shoulders!!.. once they get F'ed, you're never the same :)
There are literally a bunch of shortcuts though. Getting enough sleep, eating enough protein, a caloric surplus, exercises that emphasize the stretch of a muscle, more than 1 rep and less than 30, creatine, steroids. Those are all literally shortcuts compared to not doing them
@@benjoleo Those are not 'shortcuts' those are just elements to lifting optimally.
It would be like saying lifting weights is a shortcut to growing muscle lol.
Those are just standard parts of a well structured lifestyle in relation to lifting
There are a lot of great fitness TH-camrs, along with a lot of noise and social media drama. House of hypertrophy sticks to the facts and usefulness, thanks for providing consistently useful info that’s def influenced my workouts
Thank you my friend, that is too kind of you haha!
Here's my take on training and hypertrophy in general, after having thought about it for a long time and informed myself from many different studies. @houseofhypertrophy, I hope you will read this:
- I think that hypertrophy is primarily an "endurance" adaptation. Or perhaps "capacity" adaptation is a better word to use. Basically, if you expose mechanosensors to mechanical load for a long enough time, and the muscle is able to lift that weight, but then gives out at some point, then the body will interpret it as "he is strong enough, but he wants to be able to lift that load for a longer time". And it thereby induces muscle hypertrophy. Yes, the size of muscles are linked to increased strength, but I see hypertrophy primarily as a "gas tank" thing. This is what happens when you go above the 6 rep range. It basically is an adaptation for capacity or endurance to lift almost any weight at almost any speed for a long enough time (I will explain the "any weight" and "any speed" below). It's basically indifferent about the weight or speed you use to lift weights. It's just an adaptation to extend the time you can do that weight and that speed in.
- If you go below the 6 rep range (of course, we are talking on average) the needle moves more towards strength adaptation (and thus the nervous system gets stronger). If you struggle to complete a 1 rep max, the body will go "okay, he needs to get stronger" and it will focus on making the nervous system stronger.
- Now to an important point. If you lift say 20kg in a certain exercise, and you do it with let's say a slow speed and you go to failure, then you will not be able to lift it for as many reps as you would if you lifted it faster. This difference is simply a difference of "activating" the nervous system more or less. Think about it, sometimes when you train and you go to failure, if you really want to "grind" out a last rep, you can sort of "muster" and lift 1 rep more usually, even though you went to actual failure before. This is because you suddenly changed the speed of the rep, which just means that you activated the nervous system more. You basically got more explosive. So that difference is just a difference in nervous system activation. But from the perspective of the muscle, it's the same thing whether you lifted the set with slow speed or fast speed. You went to failure with both approaches, and thus you get the same kind of hypertrophy.
The point is, the studies on volume load show that the weight doesn't matter. What matters is taxing the muscle to failure or close to it. Whether you lift fast and explosively, and thus can lift more weight, or you do it slow and thus can lift less weight and for less reps. As long as you are above that 6 rep range, you will have the same amount of hypertrophy - and it's important to note that I say hypertrophy is the same only, because if you lift fast and explosive, you will also get nervous system adaptation.
Think about it, you have people who have different things they prefer. Some like dumbbells on a bench press, it requires more stabilization, thus you cant lift as heavy a load as you can on a barbell and definitely way less than a machine. But do you get more hypertrophy from a machine just because you can lift more and the load is higher on the mechanosensors? No. That goes to show that load doesn't matter, and it's simply about exhausting the muscle, however you do it, whatever style of training you like. This is also why studies have shown that drop sets are just as effective as traditional sets etc. Every thing points to that weight does not matter, all that matters is taking the muscle to exhaustion or close to it, and also the amount of time you spend in that stimulating "exhaustive rep range" (volume - not volume load).
Volume load studies have shown that the weight doesn't matter - which has been covered by House of Hypertrophy too. Drop set studies show that they are just as effective as traditional sets, even though you lift way lower weight as you go down and down compared to traditional sets. And anecdotally many seasoned bodybuilders also say that the weight doesnt matter, such as Jay Cutler etc. Lee Priest would train calves one leg at a time just doing around one hundred reps (there's a video where he explains it). Obviously 100 reps is very light weight for his calves, but still he went to failure, and he had massive calves. Weight does not matter. It's all about taking the muscle to failure or close to it, and the amount of time you spend there (meaning more sets, you get more hypertrophy). Your style of training is up to you. However, if you lift heavy and explosively (still above 6 reps), you will also get nervous system adaptations - but obviously not as good as dedicated powerlifters who lift below 6 reps. But for hypertrophy, that is irrelevant.
Sorry for the long comment and repeating myself a few times.
I'd say this is the best take on exercise and technique. I agree with your points and especially the one about lifting the weight faster.
Comment of the month.
Im 32 and I have been training for 10+ years. I think this is pretty accurate.
These days, the way I train is simply run the rack, and doing a two day split. Im in and out of the gym fast. A few days ago I ran the rack with lateral raises to a bit of an extreme degree where I literally didn't have any weights in my hands on the last set and I just lifted my hands up. Still went to failure. I believe that set was just as effective as the first set with relatively heavy weights that I went to failure on at 10 reps - again, because weight doesn't matter, failure, or getting close to it, matters. I run the rack for each muscle so it adds up to 6 sets, because most studies show that on average there is quite a drop off when it comes to diminishing returns after around 6 sets. So that's what I aim for.
+ You get a slight bit of cardio training in running the rack too. Also it's not boring, it feels intense, you get that nice burn in the muscle, and you are engaged. And the best thing, I am done in close to 30 minutes. Over a with my two day split where I hit a muscle each time for 6 sets it's the equivalent of 18 sets per week (I take one day off). Lots of volume and hopefully lots of hypertrophy.
Also, studies have shown that volume matters much more than frequency, however still, a two day split makes sure that the time I am under muscle protein synthesis is consistently high and frequent. The muscle gets one day of rest, and boom, you hit it again.
@@AbuDurum I have never heard the phrase "run the rack" what does this mean
Have been anticipating for a new video from House of hypertrophy. Thanks for release yet another insightful video. Love this channel.
It's all individual, except for, in general, go to or close to concentric failure. Really like this channel. A lot of good information.
Basically TLDR; it’s not about number of reps per set, it’s about the summation of the total programme of sets, reps, proximity to failure load.
Best gym channel ever
That is very kind of you my friend, thank you!
Honestly, this is the best YT-channel if you’re interested in hypertrophy! 🙏
I myself train in 3 blocks of 2 weeks every mesocycle. First two weeks: lighter loads, 4 sets of 12, 10, 8, and then a mechanical dropset using the load from the very first set, doing 10 full ROM reps, immediately followed by 10 half reps in the lengthened position.
Week 3&4 will be 10, 8, 6, and again mechanical dropset afterwards with 15 reps (10 full and 10 halves).
Last 2 weeks are 8, 6, 4, and again the dropset.
I have been training for 14 years, so the hypertrophy I see is minimal, but that’s not due to the rep range, in my opinion.
Thank you my friend, that is seriously kind of you! Awesome set up, I wish you continued gains (as much as possible after 14yrs haha)
@ You are very welcome, I always advise people new to the gym to check out this channel!
Thank you very much, it’s been a difficult ride, certainly after being hit by a car and staying in a coma for a month (12 years ago in the meantime).
I’m seriously considering making videos about how I train, even with my disability, I still have a better physique than 80% of youngsters nowadays.. Which I think is sad..
For us failure= success
The rule is anything from 5 to 30 reps will get you jacked
I walk in the gym what's the idea of 3 sets of 10
Then listen to my body
No one doing 30 reps on every exercise every set is jacked tho.
@@joojotin more like 6 to 25 reps
@@rairod0771 Why 25? That will beat the crap out of you, or at least me. Why not just do all sets lower than 10 reps when there is no benefit to those higher reps and they only fatigue you more.
I'm looking forward to the blood flow restriction video, interesting stuff as always!
Thank you my friend!
What a brilliant video!!
And I _love_ that you included the academic resource articles!!
Thank you my friend!
This data on fatigue lines up very well with my personal experience and even the study that found greater growth in the low rep squat group.
If high reps cause high fatigue we probably should avoid them on exercises that are already very fatiguing like the backsquat or deadlift. On the other hand, with isolation exercises that aren't very systemically fatiguing like curls, triceps extensions or lateral raises, we should be fine doing higher reps and chasing a nice pump.
Why would you want to "chase a pump" when it has been shown that the pump has no correlation or causal effect on hypertrophy? And when you say "systemic fatigue" what system are you referring to?
@@benwhite2795 because it feels good, looks good, and isn't detrimental to anything. I mean the system that makes you feel exhausted or tired after physical work. I don't know what exactly that entails. Probably the mind and the central nervous system to some degree but I don't really know.
@@benjoleo High reps cause more fatigue and more muscle damage, so yes chasing the pump, especially on muscles that have higher voluntary activation (like the biceps) is detrimental.
@@benwhite2795 okay the fatigue can be considered a detriment but the whole point of my comment was that that’s probably negligible for many isolation movements. I Don’t think there would be a real difference in how much work I can do in a day, depending on whether I do lateral raises for sets of 10 or sets of 20.
That it “causes more muscle damage” is news to me. Can you point me to a source on that?
The way I look at it is if you can do high reps on your deadlift, you probably aren't lifting heavy enough.
I always watch your vids on sets, reps, and frequency multiple times. As someone with spinal stenosis, I really like seeing the newer science on reps from 12 - 35. I'm staying in the 12 - 20 range for now, with rare sets that go over 20.
I’m sure the video is going to say “it depends” bc that’s the correct answer
To be on the safe side, just vary the rep range for each set. Starting with a high rep set as a warmup and then add weight for each set and finnishing with a low rep strength set near max. Muscle size is not everything, endurance and strenght are of importance too.
That's what I do. Starting to get comments on my muscle mass growth from my gym buddies. I am no expert but this approach worked best for me. I work reps high with low weights on earlier sets and change rep/set range with heavier weights until failure on each set and give the muscles at least a 2-3 day rest period.
This video is keyed toward growth.
@WeighedWilson And as said in the video, there seems to be similar growth to constant reps, so why not vary the reps if it gives additional benefits? Adding extra strength and endurance while keeping the same gains is even better.
You should probably swap that around as higher rep sets are more fatiguing and you will be hindering your performance in the higher load sets later on in the workout.
@@mommaduck79 there is a lower risk of injury by gradually increasing weight every set, since the high rep sets functions as a warm up for the muscles. Also it's not a competition, sure you can lift more weight if you start with the max rep, but that doesn't mean you get more gains. If you can use less weight to get the same muscle stimulus thats actually a positive thing.
Thank you for pronouncing 'ECCENTRIC' properly!!! Literally the only weightlifting channel that does so. 💙
Great content as always!
Thank you my friend!
If hypertrophy is the same whether its 6 rep sets or 30 rep sets wouldn't the choice come down to which rep range is best for joints and ligaments? Since its your joints that 1) take longer to adapt and strengthen and 2) are typically the parts of the body that are most prone to injury?
We have a winner
It’s not the same, look at CrossFit athletes versus Strongman athletes. Have a guess which one builds more solid thick muscles
@@markovasil1608 I guess that depends on what your goals are. Strongman athletes focus mostly on strength and power. CrossFit athletes focus mostly on strength and conditioning. If I was going to choose between a strongman or a CrossFit body type for aesthetic reasons, I would certainly choose the CrossFit body type.
As someone with bulging discs and nerve pain, I think this is a terrific point! I can do overhead press for 12 to 20 reps and not aggravate the problems in my lower neck and thoracic spine.
Above a certain number of reps, some people will struggle to keep good form. I'm sure there's a happy medium range (slightly high).
This definitely is the answer for me. I have chronic shoulder, elbow, and knee injuries, and as long as I stay above ~15 reps/set, I'm able to mostly avoid aggravating those injuries.
Home Resonance in the background is an instant like from me, it goes hard 🔥
Haha, it's an amazing work of art!
Low reps to test new weight after pushing up and pushing my limits, low reps to perfect technique and/or when I struggled with the next increment up. Mid reps for default setting and to get some benefits of both worlds.
Scienced based lifting been a thing for about 5 years and im still waiting for that huge natural guy that only works out based on science.
Pick things up and put them down. Eat, sleep, repeat. 😎
End of the day just train how you enjoy and be consistent for 10 years you'll grow no matter what. Genetics will show you how much you grow
I am currently building a bodyweight bench press and .7 bodyweight overhead press for 6 reps. My training centers around those 2 lifts. Everything else is just light isolation moves. This has been my routine for the past 6 months. I believe this is the golden ratio for maximizing natural hypertrophy.
I love the House of Hypertrophy! And the way he says literature.
The most important thing nobody talks about is inter-individual variation.
Do some people only grow with low reps, some only with high reps, and others with both?
And how do you best find out which is better for you, low or high reps?
Experience is the only way to know.
I’d literally take less hypertrophy if it meant I got to lift heavy ass weights in the gym. The rush and enjoyment I get out of lower rep higher intensity work matters more to be than pure size.
At least I’m not the only one andrenaline junkie going for near-death experiences 😂
Agreed, pure strength matters to me more than big hypertrophic muscles
If you mix it well you don't really risk less hypertrophy
5 meta analysis going over the same 6 studies on rep range? pheeeww
yeah, I'm kind of bored of these meta analyses, just keep lifting people - the most important part is consistency
Most of the metas involved over 20 studies :)
So in the end no one knows anything. I am waiting for the time when I get told this is the WAY AND NO OTHER WAY to build muscle.
High weight to failure. However many reps that is, at the highest intensity with controlled positive and negative.
In my experience of lifting for 35 years, using a lower rep scheme (5x5) builds STRENGTH and getting stronger equates to building size using a progressive overload training system.
yes but nuance is that low reps causes lesser muscle damage which means you can recover faster. Muscle damage will obstruct your performance leading to lesser stimulant. Also muscle damage is accumulative, it stack up more and more, thats why you will need a 'deload' if you keep doing high rep high volume. The muscle 'growth' from higher volume and high reps is actually swelling, which makes sense, more damage muscle have, more swelling which gives the illusion of 'bigger muscles'. You can get stronger without bigger muscles but you definitely can't have bigger muscles without getting stronger. That said, i believe variety of reps does have benefits, its up to individual programming to make it sustainable without getting injury or tendonitis. The only driver of muscle hypertrophy is mechanical tension. Conclusion: depends. everyone is different, you gotta try it out, see whats best for yourself.
Can you do a video ranking exercises for the quads like the side delts one
I do plan to have more content on the quads, I will see if there's enough info to come up with rankings :)
I train full body 3x a week. Each day has a different target rep range
8 to 10
6 to 8
3 to 6
Isolations remain 8 to 10 across all days
Such a minor difference. If you did like sets of 5 then sets of 12 then sets of 20 that could be meaningful.
@brandonyoung4910 minor difference can have major impact.
@@EliteProAli Yeah not really in this case. No benefit whatsoever. If there is one that you can backup go for it.
@@joojotin lmao at "no benefit what so ever"
You can't speak in absolutes like that. It may not benefit you, it benefits me from a progression, recovery and disrupting the monotony.
@@EliteProAli Alright, lets have a debate, how does it help? With what and how?
1. It doesnt help progression, you made the claim, back it up.
2. Back it up. I have studies to prove higher rep work increases fatigue which obviously does the opposite of your claim.
As said before, the rep ranges you use are not that dissimiliar and wont have huge effect in any way but the point still stands that you dont GAIN anything progression and recovery wise.
3. Monotony isnt physiological, thats just preference. im not talking about preferences in comment sections and you know that..
Im just here to nerd out and debate lol. Only physiological benefit of using higher reps or changing rep ranges is injury.
I got the gains this year with lower reps. I’m talking 4-6, 5-8, 7-9. I rarely do above 10 reps (only for warm ups)
Same with me
4-6 is goated
Seems reasonable, Dr. Israetel often says anything between 6-30 reps per set shows the same amount of growth according to the literature. Increasing # of sets/week however actually has been shown to increase growth.
It's easier to judge failure in lower rep ranges
How many sets per muscle?
you should make a video on mechanical tension, as of now its becoming more crystal clear it is the only factor compared to metabolic stress and muscle damage that results in growth
I have an older video on this: th-cam.com/video/pNOb7jockSg/w-d-xo.html - it's still pretty much up to date, but I may have another video sometime sharing some other thoughts :)
Hell yeah baby let's go, my daily brain feeding will be done with this.
god bless this channel
So, go hard, then next time go even harder. Got it.
I like to progress reps at a given weight, then increase the weight and repeat. By adding reps to your sets, you also make it so you don't save too many reps in reserve on your first few sets.
So if I can do 205 for 5×5, next time I'll do 6,6,6,5,5. Then 7,6,6,6,6.... (no specific pattern, just adding where I can) Eventually ending at 5×8 and then starting over at 215 for 5×5.
5×8 is a good number because if you can do that, you can comfortably increase the weight while still hitting that minimum effective number of reps (5 or 6), and your overall volume of 40 reps is the same as what you'd get from 4×10, and you can comfortably switch to 3×10 for maintenance when you hit your goal, the ultimate goal being 2 quick full body workouts a week.
Do you have a video that goes more into this topic of training and resting for minimizing muscle damage while maximizing the response for hypertrophy ?
Not yet! But I might have a video along those lines in the future!
@@HouseofHypertrophy good to know, really looking forward to that some day
8-15 for compounds, 15-20 for isolations. I've been doing it for years and it's really solid. I only go above 20 reps if i'm injured. Nothing heals you better than doing a couple of sets of 30, getting some bloodflow into the area, giving the connective tissue some fluids.
Too many reps
I it's different for each person. You have to take the time to see what your body responds to. My best results come from a mixed 3 week cycle. 2 muscle groups heavy low reps and 3 groups more sets and reps. Changing groups every 3 weeks. Legs exploded when I stated alternating weekly.
I dint watch the video but I hope it's still 30-85% 1rm to failure (or close to)😭🙏🏻
Putting gains aside for a second, I always feel better doing higher intensity and lower volume. In my experience, 6-15 reps per set is the ideal, and I generally like to do 2 sets (the third is never as good as the first two).
If I go to 20+, I often feel like I'm going through the motions instead of giving it my all, and typically I find that when the rep range is that high, I can actually lift heavier if I just try to increase the weight.
My pattern lately is to get to 15-20 reps, and then go up in weight. Usually I'll be down to six again, and I build up from there.
My basic principle: The lighter I lift, the closer to failure I need to go.
This is purely anecdotal, but my chest only started growing once I started bench pressing with
I ALWAYS LIFT AS HEAVY AS I CAN WHILE DOING AS MANY REPS AS IT TAKES TO FATIGUE MY MUSCLES
I tried both. The amount of training time, pain and fatigue from 20-35 rep is much higher than 8-12 rep.
Sometimes I use higher rep if I'm away without access to a gym but it's not ideal.
So … just keep doing what we’ve been doing?
I knew a guy who had great arms, did multiple 50 rep sets for his and tris.
I think what's missing in all these studies is, no matter the amount of reps, how long is the muscle under load in each set? Perhaps these test should be performed with specific sets of loads for the same durations. Then measure growth levels.
I would imagine that higher rep ranges cause other kinds of fatigue, and use more energy overall, lengthening the recovery time. It would be interesting to see what other kinds of adaptation training with light loads causes. Just a guess, but I'd imagine light loads cause more general metabolic stress, involve more lactic acid accumulation, and place more demands on the circulatory system. Just maybe you get more bang for your buck with light loads if hypertrophy is not your only goal. Supersetting with light loads can be a good aerobic workout.
Everyone is going to be different but the same if that makes. There's no reinventing the wheel. Personally I have done it all low high etc. When I started incorporating higher volume with a wide rep range from 5 to 15 reps. But the key is not just to increase your reps just because but to make sure that on each set you're Either coming close to failure or coming to failure. People's focus so much on counting and putting a number in their head and then they mentally stop. It's similar to mine muscle connection.
I'd like to see the super slow routine studied with experienced training individuals and then compare. When I was young I switched up to a 8 sec. 8 neg. slow routine for 8 reps per body part and easy breathing throughout. No tension in face allowed and very little to no rest between movements. Couple movements were 4 sec. negatives. I blew up! I feel the every set to failure and time under tension created the gains. Workout was crushing, boring & 25 min. but something to experiment with for someone needing a healthy shock- something different.
For strength 3-6 rep range. For power (and lesser weight of course) 7-10 explosive reps.
I really think it depends on the muscle being worked. I built my chest mostly in the 1 to 5 rep range. If I don't do at least one set in the 1 to 3 range in a bench session, I just feel unfulfilled. For bi and tri and other non compound lifts, I usually do higher reps (for me), like 10 to 15, though I have also had good biceps gains doing strict curls in the 1 to 3 range. My view is that, even if it's not optimal for size, lower reps give you some benefit there plus big strength benefits. I tend to get bored if I'm not pushing heavier loads and my intensity falls off. You do have to schedule de-load sessions , though.
Nice video
any chance you could share more data on individuals? And how effects are different accross several individuals? (for example, for 10% of people, lower reps are better). If you could do this more for your videos, it would be great!
when house of strength
Thanks for the nice video! Would be nice to have new topics as well :)
100 reps to failure
The 80% db curl while its the same will be SFR heavy.
I understand this is HouseofHypertrophy and not HouseofStrength but did any of those studies with low rep set groups compare max strength gains over the study as well as Hypertrophy? It would be interesting to compare.
In general, strength gains are greater with lower reps, even very low reps (2-4) tend to outperform 6 or more reps. I am planning to have a series on training for strength vs size at some point :)
The strength gains always remain the same. If you train more low reps you get stronger at low reps, if you train more high reps you get stronger at high reps, both are strength.
Imo it’s about how fast you do those reps. Explosiveness s the key.
I'm nearing completion of my PhD in Education so I'm sure I'm not qualified in your area. In Education, there is a theory called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). A student is placed in the ZPD if they are provided instruction that is just challenging enough. Too easy = No learning. Too hard = No learning.
In training heavy, it feels like the amount between each rep is a huge measure considering where failure is. While the lit seems to suggest that it is repetitions away from failure that matter, when training heavy, it feels like volume is more reliable because while no, I can't get that last repetition in , but also no, I'm really not that close to failure. My muscle ZPD is off, if you will.
In training light, I would love the resistance training world to consider that there are a great number of people that would benefit from training but could never make it to a gym, because of health issues, mental health issues, age, or disability. If I train light, like doing standard pushups for me, I feel like I can push into the 50ish rep range and still grow... no need for a bench press. But on the other hand, if I grab a set of 5lb dumbbells to do bicep curls, I feel like I can do 500 reps and never feel like I'm close to failure. There is a significant difference there that needs to be explored. Does the ZPD theory help here?
What’s the difference between failing because you can’t get the weight up and failing because the contraction is starting to hurt? Is one better for strengt and the other for hypertrophy?
Week 1 50% weight, 15 reps x3. Week 2, 75% weight, 10 reps x3, week 3, 100% weight, 5 reps x3. Try that, mix it up and try and increase the 100%
We need data about lesser than 8 reps with 80% 1RM. Are the failures so important after >80% 1RM? Three groups for 80% 1RM: 2 sets with 8 reps VS 4 sets with 4 reps VS 8 sets with 2 reps. And two groups for 60% 1RM: 2 sets with 20 reps VS 4 sets with 20 reps. 10 minutes rest.
“8 - 12 reps” - Jay Cutler 😂
I prefer lower, get to puffed out worth higher reps… but i do lots of running and cycling and i think the endurance overlaps
Love the Channel can you keep the parts where you can read up on screen longer ? I think it would also help your channel thanks bud.
What do you think are the best dumbbell exercises for stretch mediated hypertrophy
There can only be one answer to the question of how many repetitions: 42
Is it true that muscles get stronger slower than their tendons, that tendons get stronger when trained for longer times under stress, explains the 6-35 rep range with similar Hypertrophy??? What explains the difference between muscle and tendon…?Thanks for the great content!😊
So basically don’t go below 6 and don’t go above 35 on any particular set. I Pyramid my sets and the first set is usually 30 reps and my heaviest set is 6 reps. My advice to anyone new or experienced is to FAFO for yourself. Give yourself a 10-12 week program and see where the results take you
Oh yeah
0:20 what's with the flashing black squiggles on papers again? copyright thing?
Probably artifacts when rendering the video
Doctor Mike Isratel
Says 5 to 30 reps will get you jacked and look at him!
I personally never went up to 30 I stay in the 7 to 15 range
I play with light and heavy dumbbells at home
Variety is the best thing about our shared affliction! lol 😂. Use different reps and different weights to keep your body from getting stagnant. Ever try doing high rep dropsets? Ouch!!! In a good way
13:03 Maybe the person is trainning in a gym with only have light weights.
That's possible. My gym only has dumbells that go up to 100, so for side Laterals I'm kind of forced to do 35 reps
Back in the day 6 sets of 6 reps on every exercise and every body part 2 minutes rest between sets and everyone grew
Are there studies on injury rates for light and heavy loads?
Does cros section area of sampled fibers/tissues indicate fiber count/density increase?
as i know from my distant past studies on the topic, plasma infused (pumped) muscle is not necessarily an indicator of new fiber synthesis
I think of rep ranges more as being controlled how much weight I'm pushing i.e. when I can go more than 12 I need to up the poundage.
I’m 42yo and I’ve put on more strength and muscle size than in my 20’s by training for “strength 3-6 reps” rather than “bodybuilding 10-12 reps”. Motivated by strongman and this change in training heavy has made a huge difference for me
define growth, as the term frequently used in your video
plasma retention in a muscle, does that lead to muscle growth? what aboutn fiber density (fiber count) per cross section? all neurological conditioning left aside affecting strength fiber density should be different with low rep-high load exercises with varying co-eccentric durations
explosive moves definitely activate fast twitch fibers more but i cant see any detail on these studies refering to this phenomenon
Come è possibile che una serie da 4 rep ha la stessa ipertrofia di una serie da 8-12 e da 25/35? Le ripetizioni sotto le 6 non erano per la forza??
So just program for DUP?
Is there an evidence on training 2 times per day or multiple times per day the same or different muscle groups? For example im the morning rdlnand in the afternoom leg curls
Throwing studies around like this is neither scientific nor helpful to the individual lifter.
I had a year long plateau of my back. I overcame it by not thinking about the concept of „sets“.
I set a goal of 30 pullups and took as much time as needed to get them in. It took me over 30 mins at first but was a game changer over time.
Then I was able to go back to regular set training and progress from there.
Thinking in „sets“ only is thinking in boxes. And that should not be called science.
Dr. Thomas Ruckstuhl, hobby lifter.
Why is No one talking about flywheel training for strength and hypertrophy. Although the studies are cristal clear in favor of flywheel training compared to regular weights!
Not quite, I addressed this in an older video on free weights vs machines, the majority of the evidence does not support fly wheels or eccentric overload being better than normal training: th-cam.com/video/luDHXXqqbgk/w-d-xo.html
@HouseofHypertrophy thx for the answer. I'm not sure if you really know what this type of training exactly is. No offense and I believe you have a deep Understanding. Its not like a mashine. It's still the basic lifts with a different type of resistance! It's based on inertial resistance instead of classic lifting wich are based mostly on gravity. The true benefits of FW training is not just eccentric overload. It's variable resistance through a full ROM wich makes any exercise better feeling the tension in the muscles. The resistance is always high no matter wich exercise and joint angle. And with fatigue you still alway can continue. It's like doing a drop set starting with your 1rm without needing to change weights. The flywheel will adjust accordingly how hard you pull. This is the brilliance of inertial resistance! If you ever have the chance to do a max effort set flywheel squats or pulls on a good mashine you will see/feel the difference. The only thing with flywheels is you must give max effort! Because unlike with weigths you can't fail a flywheel rep! The benefits are real!
In short: it's all up to your genetics
There we go ! 😂
I understand the rep ranges, but how many sets should I do per muscle group/session? How many total sets per week for each muscle group? Can anyone please answer?
How people training to failure recover within 2 days ? 😅 it can take much more time to be able to do the same number of reps.
By having decent work capacity.
@ well do a set of deadlift to failure and try again 2 days later 😄
The fact of the matter is genetics and age are what matters.
I was blessed by good genes, my friends and I would lift the same weight, same frequency, same diet( high school) and I'm the only one that got big .
I could do 5 reps, 20 reps, whatever... I grew.
All this TH-cam info, TH-camrs are full of hot air.
You're already predestined to have a big chest, or big arms, or big legs, or all of the above. Nothing you do will change your genetics.
Look at Arnold.
He was blessed genetically and his work ethic was super human.
Key word is WAS.
I'm a shadow of what i once was , now pushing 50. It was a fun ride and I was blessed. .....
Long story short? I could do low reps, high reps, mid reps, no reps😂 and my muscles grew.
But that was thanks to my genetics and my age during that time.
Peace.
Can the varied by throughout the workout?
Maybe just take 50%of 1rm and rep that sht out? I gotta look at this and think , when you do a drop set its only fatigueing like 5% of the muscle each drop . So if youre doing more reps its gotta be knocking out more fibers over all with less damage per fiber.
5-10 reps 95% of the time, I would only really do lateral raises later if you get pain or something when going too heavy
@@joojotin Unreal. LOL.
I literally said in my post that I do reps between 3-10 reps across my 3 days and here you say you do 5-10 reps 95% of the time. Basically the same thing but you start harping on about how higher rep ranges cause fatigue (never even advocated for doing higher rep ranges)
Perhaps you replied to the wrong person or... Well. I'll leave it at that.
Lmao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@EliteProAli Yes, my point still stands. There is no benefit to changing it phyisologically, you said there is.
@@joojotin ?? When did I say there is? You are beyond confused Joojotin. Lol. Making things up.
@@EliteProAli "It may not benefit you, it benefits me from a progression, recovery and disrupting the monotony." literally what you said.
@joojotin You said there is no benefit what so ever in my doing rep ranges in the 3 to 6, 6 to 8 and 8 to 10.
Yet you said here 5 to 10 reps is your go to 95% of the time 🤣🤣🤦🏻♂️
Damn.