Are High Reps Better For Hypertrophy?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ย. 2024
- Starting Strength Coaches Grant Broggi and Nick Delgadillo talk about the difference between high reps and low reps, which gets you stronger, and which leads to more hypertrophy.
Shop The Strength Co. plates here:
www.thestrengt...
Get Live Online Coaching:
online.thestre...
For more coaching tips check out our blog:
www.thestrengt...
Follow The Strength Co.
/ thestrengthco
/ thestrength_co
/ thestrengthco - กีฬา
read ‘practical programming for strength training’.
The Advanced routines have isolation exercises,higher rep compound movements.
ie;Competive Powerlifting🏋🏽
Westside Barbell has entered the chat..
In the military, we've found that high reps increases work capacity. So you condition the body to be used to working long and hard and be as strong at the beginning of the day to the end. Most people under work... not over work.
Overall volume and sufficient intensity (effort and weight) drive hypertrophy. Virtually any reasonable rep range will deliver the goods.
I don't know how anyone can say that sets in the range of 10 reps don't drive hypertrophy with a straight face. Not only does the science show that higher rep ranges are effective given sufficient intensity, natural lifters have been getting jacked that way for decades.
Great points-for me another way to answer is that, for intermediate and advanced lifters, 8s are less fatiguing than 5s (both systemically and locally joint-wise) and therefore training with them allows more weekly volume/hard sets/muscle-growth stimulus than more-fatiguing lower rep alternatives.
I think this fairly represents the “bodybuilding” school/what Dr. Mike would say…
But as you said, this approach only makes sense after NLP is run.
I’m a few months in myself and am at 345/310/205/145.
So grateful for SS and all your content!
I don't think that's currently reflected in the literature. The current consensus seems to be that the more reps you do, the more fatiguing a set is, both locally and systemically. To use a more extreme example to illustrate this better, a set of 15 reps to failure with a squat is going to tire you more than a set 5 to failure. Having said this, the difference between 8s and 5s in terms of fatigue is probably pretty small.
I do a lot of 5x5 and 3x5 but there is lot of evidence that for hypertrophy a wide range of reps (5-30) can be used if people go close to failure. So 8 for hypertrophy is great.
Brad Muhlenkamp just visited my gym and told everyone they have to do sets of 12 to grow their mustache to such luscious levels as him.
I generally agree with him on sets of 5, but I have used the 30 rep squat routine several times in my lifetime and got bigger, stronger, and more muscular.
20 not 30
Legs have far more type 1 fibers than type 2. Allowing us to run long distances. This means higher rep training is better for leg hypertrophy. The upper body has more type 2 fibers.
I cycle between SS NLP and Greyskull NLP.
The key for me as an athlete of aging is consistency, recovery and daily protein intake. I’m not interested at 66 in packing on a bunch of fat to gain a limited amount of strength. It’s a fine line but I am counting to gain strength as I age. Stay with it cause it feels great to be strong again.
Anything over 5 reps is bodybuilding.
Is 5x5 enough for my to grow a beard and mustache like you guys?
Just add water and it grows like a chia-pet.
Spoiler: The key driver for muscle growth (i.e., hypertrophy) is intensity of effort-not the amount of weight or number of reps. We’ve known this for ages and still do, intuitively! Here’s the proof: Take two people of roughly the same weight and strength. Both train the same movement once a week. One guy does 5x5, increasing the weight by 1kg each week. The other goes all-out on a top set to failure, also increasing weight by 1kg each week. Who will build more muscle, and faster? The answer is obvious-and I’m not talking about powerlifting or max strength here.
Addendum and to make it even easier: Two people train a movement 5x5 once a week. One person just does 5x5, increasing the weight by 1kg every week. The other person takes that last set to failure (or even beyond). Who will build more muscle? We already know the answer.
Not if the first guy has better recovery and can do another productive workout before the second, failure set guy can … you’re only correct if you limit them to the one workout you describe. I don’t think that’s a fair or useful limitation since most people train muscle groups/movements multiple times per week
@ you missed the point . Obviously - OBVIOUSLY - all else being equal. That’s the question. Person for person.
Ok let’s make it even simpler… one person. That person trains once a week, 5x5, 3x5, 5x3, doesn’t matter. A copy of said person does the same, but always takes the last set to complete failure or slightly beyond (drop set, forced reps rest pause, whatever). Again: once a week. Who will build more muscle? Not talking about brute force strength here… not talking about optimising for (individual) frequency. Again: The answer is 100 obvious (if you are allowed to be honest)
@@carnivorehitmanIf you are implying that the guy taking the last set to failure, implying more reps than the first two at the same weight, is going to build more muscle and strength, I disagree. The only reason that the guy can actually take that last set to failure to begin with is because it is light enough to allow him to. If it’s actually heavy, he won’t be able to get more reps than the first two sets, and if he can get more reps than the first two sets, then I have to question why the first two sets are necessary to begin with, unless you think pre fatigue is of any real benefit. If I’m understanding what you meant by intensity of effort being what’s important, meaning how intense the last rep is, I also disagree, at least in terms of how I am perceiving your use of the term. The last rep of a set of 10 might be a little grindy, at least in relative terms, and it might be intense in terms of effort, but it just isn’t that hard, and the phenomenology is that novices gain strength, and thus muscle, better with fives, which is heavy by necessity as compared to higher reps. Fives work better, precisely because they are harder than eights or tens, ect, in terms of weight. If I’m misunderstanding you, I apologize.
Ive been doing dumbell squats 4x30 2 times a week and my legs are getting big quick. Some movements feel terrible with too much weight. Squats the prime example, i probably wouldnt keep doing them if i was trying 4x12 or less.
4x30? Wow that's rough. Your legs are getting full of water as heck. In my experience, the difference between 20+ reps and 5ish is that if I stop training while using 20+ I'll lose size fast since most is water while size will stick around longer in the 5ish rep range.
So yoh are training to feel good during the training?
These guys are seriously claiming sets of 8 don’t work for hypertrophy? What
Did you even watch the video?
Do those guys look like they know anything about getting jacked? Lol
@@3ncore706 ah yes, everybody wants to be "jacked". Aka a weak 180lbs turd.
Classic starting strength enthusiast build. Sagging lower pecs. Gut. Underdeveloped shoulders and arms
@@patrickbronson5117
They literally recommend 5’9 guys to bloat up to 240 pounds and claim thats healthy lol
Are High Reps Better For Hypertrophy? Yes.