Better for Hypertrophy? Low Reps vs. High Reps.

[Admin]

Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

 

[Driven2lift]

A mix of both.

If I had to say only one rep range specifically
the classic 12 BB recommendation, its worked just fine in the past

I have a chart of optimal rep ranges by movement from a study that bdcc posted before I will find to be debated as well

 

[NoAddedHmones]

Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

Imo, for me anyway, a combination of both has been the best for muscle growth.

 

[Admin]

One must be better.

Don't chicken out! :lol:

 

[The Solution]

Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

Title says Better for Hypertrophy
Thread asks which is better for pure muscle growth?

Typo??

 

[uprightrows]

Really!?! High rep all day if all you want is hypertrophy. GVT, 10x10... but it might help if you are "enhanced"

 

[Admin]

Title says Better for Hypertrophy
Thread asks which is better for pure muscle growth?

Typo??

Huh?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

High, always

Though hypertrophy can possibly occur at *most* rep ranges, generally speaking 8-12 is best.

If hypertrophy is your goal, using various rep ranges (such as with PHAT) is not going to be more advantageous than just training solely with the average rep range (which is, again, typically around 10 reps). Muscle fibres will typically adapt to averages. For example, if you train (say) squats using 2 sets, one 5 reps, the other 15 reps, your fibres will effectively adapt to the average of those rep ranges (10 reps)...may as well have trained solely with 10 reps to begin with.

Not advocating absolutes here, there is of course some degree of carryover with rep range training (improving your 10 rep range will innevitably improve your 1rm), but, *if* higher rep ranges are better for hypertrophy (10 vs 3), makes sense to train specifically in that rep range. In other words, increasing your 10rm over time will be more effective for hypertrophy than training your 3, 8, and 15rm (specific adaptations).

 

[kbayne]

Everyone responds differently to certain rep ranges. So no one answer is correct or wrong IMO.

I'm all about the volume though

 

[uprightrows]

High, always

In other words, increasing your 10rm over time will be more effective for hypertrophy than training your 3, 8, and 15rm (specific adaptations).

^good point

 

[The Solution]

Huh?

The Title of the thread:
Better for Hypertrophy? Low Reps vs. High Reps.
Your first statement:
Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

your asking two different questions
Hypertrophy and Pure Muscle gains are not the same thing.
Unless you meant to ask two different questions which differed from your title and first post.

For example : Muscle hypertrophy can be mediated by two primary factors: mechanical tension and metabolic stress, that does not always correlate to Muscle gains if ones caloric intake is not in check to aid muscle building (think long term caloric deficit)

Both forms of reps Low and High are beneficial for muscle growth. They activate both Type I and Type II Muscle Fibers. Slaving one self to one rep range is not the brigest idea. They all have their place, time, and benefit.

For pure hypertrophy as the title of the thread asks then yes a higher rep range would be better for hypertrophy in the 8-15, even upward to 20-25 reps on something like a widowmaker or intensity technique.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I'm all about the volume though

Yip, I think your volume-frequency are equally crucial variables here, too.

 

[Admin]

The Title of the thread:
Better for Hypertrophy? Low Reps vs. High Reps.
Your first statement:
Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

your asking two different questions
Hypertrophy and Pure Muscle gains are not the same thing.

For example : Muscle hypertrophy can be mediated by two primary factors: mechanical tension and metabolic stress, that does not always correlate to Muscle gains if ones caloric intake is not in check to aid muscle building (think long term caloric deficit)

Both forms of reps Low and High are beneficial for muscle growth. They activate both Type I and Type II Muscle Fibers. Slaving one self to one rep range is not the brigest idea. They all have their place, time, and benefit.

For pure hypertrophy as the title of the thread asks then yes a higher rep range would be better for hypertrophy in the 8-15, even upward to 20-25 reps on something like a widowmaker or intensity technique.

Bob, the point of the thread is to discuss which is better for hypertrophy..and when it comes to training its basically myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy...which is growth. I don't need a lecture on semantics.

 

[The Solution]

Bob, the point of the thread is to discuss which is better for hypertrophy..and when it comes to training its basically myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy...which is growth. I don't need a lecture on semantics.

It is just misleading the title and first post are two different questions. Thought it was a typo.

Going to be 2 different questions and answers. Another key aspect is nutrition. One dieting in a deficit may not be able to do a lot more Hypertrophy or high rep work (due to less glycogen) when training heavy would be a higher priority for maintaining muscle. Ones Diet and ones Training has to go hand in hand with their goal which will alter the outcome of the answer.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

It is just misleading the title and first post are two different questions. Thought it was a typo.

Going to be 2 different questions and answers. Another key aspect is nutrition. One dieting in a deficit may not be able to do a lot more Hypertrophy or high rep work (due to less glycogen) when training heavy would be a higher priority for maintaining muscle. Ones Diet and ones Training has to go hand in hand with their goal which will alter the outcome of the answer.

Youre right, there are other variables involved here. One such variable is psychological in nature; ie some people actually prefer training with various rep ranges because it staves off boredom, so at the end of the day they see better progress than if they stuck with one rep range.

...but im personally taking the OP in its most 'simplest' form for discussion purpioses(at least for the meantime).

 

[Admin]

It is just misleading the title and first post are two different questions. Thought it was a typo.

Actually its not....just because you interpret it that way doesn't make that correct.

 

[Admin]

...but im personally taking the OP in its most 'simplest' form for discussion purpioses(at least for the meantime).

I could make it extremely complicated if I wish, but you are correct....

 

[kbayne]

Just answer the damn question and give your opinion if you're going to be in the thread lol

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I could make it extremely complicated if I wish, but you are correct....

Im up for that.

But yeah its early days...

 

[booneman77]

I like high reps. I also like low reps. I've had success with both solo and concurrently. If I had to do one forever, I would tend to lean towards high reps, but only more because I get a better mind muscle connection with lighter weight and therefore I feel like I could maximize things slightly more

 

[The Solution]

Just answer the damn question and give your opinion if you're going to be in the thread lol

Fine tune those glasses chap

Another key aspect is nutrition. One dieting in a deficit may not be able to do a lot more Hypertrophy or high rep work (due to less glycogen) when training heavy would be a higher priority for maintaining muscle. Ones Diet and ones Training has to go hand in hand with their goal which will alter the outcome of the answer.

Muscle hypertrophy can be mediated by two primary factors: mechanical tension and metabolic stress, that does not always correlate to Muscle gains if ones caloric intake is not in check to aid muscle building (think long term caloric deficit)

Both forms of reps Low and High are beneficial for muscle growth. They activate both Type I and Type II Muscle Fibers. Slaving one self to one rep range is not the brigest idea. They all have their place, time, and benefit.

For pure hypertrophy as the title of the thread asks then yes a higher rep range would be better for hypertrophy in the 8-15, even upward to 20-25 reps on something like a widowmaker or intensity technique.

Good source:

J Beaty: The big focus in hypertrophy research lately has the mtor pathway. What impact does this research have on bodybuilders?

L Norton: The mTOR pathway is a major cellular anabolic pathway that is responsible for much of the anabolic response to nutrient stimulus. In adult subjects, amino acids (specifically leucine) are responsible for triggering mTOR activation. mTOR essentially acts as a 'leucine gage.' If leucine levels increase, mTOR becomes active & activates other components of the protein synthetic pathway because it high leucine levels indicate a fed state and ample amino acids are present for protein synthesis to occur. If leucine levels drop, mTOR becomes less active as it senses that there are not enough amino acids & energy to continue protein synthesis. mTOR is also sensitive to total energy intake and if total energy drops too low, then mTOR becomes less activated. This research indicates what many bodybuilders have known for sometime: if you're goal is to build muscle mass, make sure you provide a diet with ample calories and ample amino acids.

W Brink: I'm not going to have a great response to this question as it's really not my area of focus or expertise. As far as I know, there is no practical application of the mTOR pathway to athletes at this time. That is to say, I don't know of any particular change an athlete can make to their approach that will profoundly alter this pathway to give any advantages. It may also simply be that the approach we know is optimal for strength and or LBM - loading, volume, tempos, etc - are already the best we can do as far influencing mTOR is concerned. Like so many areas of research that may have applications to wasting diseases and such, such as myostatin, it's more of an intellectual exercise versus having any real practical application to athletes at this time, non pharmacologically speaking at least. There is no doubt that the intensive research going on that examines the signaling events that are activated by aerobics or resistance training will explain how muscle adaptations take place, and pharmaceutical interventions are a focus of many researchers, but I am unaware of any direct application an athlete can incorporate in their training or diet that will be an improvement on what we already know. The other guests on this roundtable may be more up to date on the literature and have a better answer! I'm a bit jaded at this point in that I don't get particularly excited or interested in the latest holy grail of signaling molecules until some real practical application shows itself.

J Hale: The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a serine/threonine kinase that plays a key role in anabolism. MTOR stimulates cell growth by phosphorylating p70 ribosomal S6 kinase (S6K) and eukaryote initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4EBP1). mTor is stimulated by resistance training, insulin and Leucine (bcaa). When mentioning mtor pathway it is probably necessary to mention there are also other kinases that inhibit anabolism when activated. In particularly I am referring to the Ampk/ Akt mtor switch. Basically when Ampk is elevated protein synthesis is inhibited. Ampk (5 Amp-activated protein kinase) is a heterotimeric serine/ threonine kinase. Ampk is often referred to as a cellular fuel gauge. Ampk is activated by endurance exercise, elevated levels of cellular AMP, hypoxia, glucose deprivation and ischemia. When Ampk is elevated cellular fuel regenaration is top priority, while pathways the consume energy are inhibited (ex: protein synthesis). This applies to athletes as we know various conditions stimulate these pathways. By optimizing stimulation of anabolic pathways and minimizing catabolic pathways (intensity and duration of) we obviously optimize performance and physique benefits. Does t his really tell us any more than we already knew (proper resistance, protein intake and sufficient cals maximize growth)? For myself and other practical scientists I feel like this info is very helpful with enhancing our knowledge of what’s going on at a cellular level. It also helps with program design and recognizing at a molecular level factors that affect anabolic and catabolic pathways. As far as the typical bodybuilder or trainee is concerned knowledge of mtor pathway may or may not be beneficial. Depends on bodybuilder and how serious he is about furthering his knowledge concerning physique and performance. A little off the subject alcohol intoxication has also been shown inhibit mtor pathway. Studies involving mtor pathway also are important in treating muscle wasting disease.

A Aragon: First off, I’d like to thank Jamie for inviting me to this roundtable. It’s definitely an honor to be among a carefully chosen few. If I come off too long-winded in this, it’s because I made Jamie wait for months for me to participate, so I figured I might as well show some gratitude and babble for aeons.

Ah, the good ol’ phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-mammalian target rapamycin signaling pathway. There, that should take care of any lack of technical jargon I contribute to this roundtable right off the bat. mTOR research is not likely to have a significant impact on the furthering of what bodybuilders can physically achieve, but it certainly is giving us some understanding of how these achievements occur. Let’s face it, the majority of the biggest, most ripped guys on the planet haven’t even heard of mTOR. The first thing most folks think about in relation to mTOR and bodybuilding is leucine, and rightly so, since leucine phosphorylates/activates the downstream metabolites of mTOR. But alas, there’s a caveat. A lot of folks who place an excessive focus on leucine will indiscriminately dose the hell up on it. They’ll tank down isolated leucine, BCAA, and/or whey, thinking they’ve found the ticket to net anabolism. There’s also this false implication that whey, being higher in leucine than casein, is superior. Not true, at least according to the current body of research, which indicates that casein, or at the very least, a blend of casein & whey, is superior to whey alone for affecting a number of parameters bodybuilders care about. What people seem to constantly forget is that net gains in muscle are the result of not just protein synthesis, but the inhibition of protein breakdown. Casein’s antiproteolytic effect is more profound than whey or leucine’s protein-synthetic effect. Hence its lead spot in the current body of research. The name of the game seems to revolve back to the old cliché of mixing things up, and achieving a variety of sources of protein from whey to casein, to flesh, to the range of sea & land flesh, to Asian women. Just kidding, I wanted to make sure everyone was awake. In sum, mTOR activation is just a piece of the puzzle. Thus, the beloved leucine is a mere cog in the complex engine of variables that cause net gains in muscle.

http://alanaragon.com/bodybuilding-nutrition-roundtable-alan-aragon-will-brink-jamie-hale-layne-norton.html

and another goodie:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/does-the-diet-determine-the-training-or-the-training-determine-the-diet.html/

"There are certain circumstances, those where training is either specific or set and can’t be changed, or where someone wants (or needs) to do certain things that can’t be supported by (usually specific) dieting approaches. The training has to determine the diet and you can’t shoehorn the training into a diet that won’t work.

And in other cases, specific dietary approaches, for whatever reason (the degree of deficit, the layout of the diet, the macronutrient composition) mandate what types of training should or even can be done. In those cases, the diets determine the training. And trying to deviate from what the diet can support or require leads to problems."

 

[machinehead]

High reps

 

[kbayne]

Yip, I think your volume-frequency are equally crucial variables here, too.

Agreed, volume and frequency will play a huge part.

 

[booneman77]

Fine tune those glasses chap





Good source:

J Beaty: The big focus in hypertrophy research lately has the mtor pathway. What impact does this research have on bodybuilders?

L Norton: The mTOR pathway is a major cellular anabolic pathway that is responsible for much of the anabolic response to nutrient stimulus. In adult subjects, amino acids (specifically leucine) are responsible for triggering mTOR activation. mTOR essentially acts as a 'leucine gage.' If leucine levels increase, mTOR becomes active & activates other components of the protein synthetic pathway because it high leucine levels indicate a fed state and ample amino acids are present for protein synthesis to occur. If leucine levels drop, mTOR becomes less active as it senses that there are not enough amino acids & energy to continue protein synthesis. mTOR is also sensitive to total energy intake and if total energy drops too low, then mTOR becomes less activated. This research indicates what many bodybuilders have known for sometime: if you're goal is to build muscle mass, make sure you provide a diet with ample calories and ample amino acids.

W Brink: I'm not going to have a great response to this question as it's really not my area of focus or expertise. As far as I know, there is no practical application of the mTOR pathway to athletes at this time. That is to say, I don't know of any particular change an athlete can make to their approach that will profoundly alter this pathway to give any advantages. It may also simply be that the approach we know is optimal for strength and or LBM - loading, volume, tempos, etc - are already the best we can do as far influencing mTOR is concerned. Like so many areas of research that may have applications to wasting diseases and such, such as myostatin, it's more of an intellectual exercise versus having any real practical application to athletes at this time, non pharmacologically speaking at least. There is no doubt that the intensive research going on that examines the signaling events that are activated by aerobics or resistance training will explain how muscle adaptations take place, and pharmaceutical interventions are a focus of many researchers, but I am unaware of any direct application an athlete can incorporate in their training or diet that will be an improvement on what we already know. The other guests on this roundtable may be more up to date on the literature and have a better answer! I'm a bit jaded at this point in that I don't get particularly excited or interested in the latest holy grail of signaling molecules until some real practical application shows itself.

J Hale: The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a serine/threonine kinase that plays a key role in anabolism. MTOR stimulates cell growth by phosphorylating p70 ribosomal S6 kinase (S6K) and eukaryote initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 (4EBP1). mTor is stimulated by resistance training, insulin and Leucine (bcaa). When mentioning mtor pathway it is probably necessary to mention there are also other kinases that inhibit anabolism when activated. In particularly I am referring to the Ampk/ Akt mtor switch. Basically when Ampk is elevated protein synthesis is inhibited. Ampk (5 Amp-activated protein kinase) is a heterotimeric serine/ threonine kinase. Ampk is often referred to as a cellular fuel gauge. Ampk is activated by endurance exercise, elevated levels of cellular AMP, hypoxia, glucose deprivation and ischemia. When Ampk is elevated cellular fuel regenaration is top priority, while pathways the consume energy are inhibited (ex: protein synthesis). This applies to athletes as we know various conditions stimulate these pathways. By optimizing stimulation of anabolic pathways and minimizing catabolic pathways (intensity and duration of) we obviously optimize performance and physique benefits. Does t his really tell us any more than we already knew (proper resistance, protein intake and sufficient cals maximize growth)? For myself and other practical scientists I feel like this info is very helpful with enhancing our knowledge of what’s going on at a cellular level. It also helps with program design and recognizing at a molecular level factors that affect anabolic and catabolic pathways. As far as the typical bodybuilder or trainee is concerned knowledge of mtor pathway may or may not be beneficial. Depends on bodybuilder and how serious he is about furthering his knowledge concerning physique and performance. A little off the subject alcohol intoxication has also been shown inhibit mtor pathway. Studies involving mtor pathway also are important in treating muscle wasting disease.

A Aragon: First off, I’d like to thank Jamie for inviting me to this roundtable. It’s definitely an honor to be among a carefully chosen few. If I come off too long-winded in this, it’s because I made Jamie wait for months for me to participate, so I figured I might as well show some gratitude and babble for aeons.

Ah, the good ol’ phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-mammalian target rapamycin signaling pathway. There, that should take care of any lack of technical jargon I contribute to this roundtable right off the bat. mTOR research is not likely to have a significant impact on the furthering of what bodybuilders can physically achieve, but it certainly is giving us some understanding of how these achievements occur. Let’s face it, the majority of the biggest, most ripped guys on the planet haven’t even heard of mTOR. The first thing most folks think about in relation to mTOR and bodybuilding is leucine, and rightly so, since leucine phosphorylates/activates the downstream metabolites of mTOR. But alas, there’s a caveat. A lot of folks who place an excessive focus on leucine will indiscriminately dose the hell up on it. They’ll tank down isolated leucine, BCAA, and/or whey, thinking they’ve found the ticket to net anabolism. There’s also this false implication that whey, being higher in leucine than casein, is superior. Not true, at least according to the current body of research, which indicates that casein, or at the very least, a blend of casein & whey, is superior to whey alone for affecting a number of parameters bodybuilders care about. What people seem to constantly forget is that net gains in muscle are the result of not just protein synthesis, but the inhibition of protein breakdown. Casein’s antiproteolytic effect is more profound than whey or leucine’s protein-synthetic effect. Hence its lead spot in the current body of research. The name of the game seems to revolve back to the old cliché of mixing things up, and achieving a variety of sources of protein from whey to casein, to flesh, to the range of sea & land flesh, to Asian women. Just kidding, I wanted to make sure everyone was awake. In sum, mTOR activation is just a piece of the puzzle. Thus, the beloved leucine is a mere cog in the complex engine of variables that cause net gains in muscle.

http://alanaragon.com/bodybuilding-nutrition-roundtable-alan-aragon-will-brink-jamie-hale-layne-norton.html

and another goodie:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/does-the-diet-determine-the-training-or-the-training-determine-the-diet.html/

"There are certain circumstances, those where training is either specific or set and can’t be changed, or where someone wants (or needs) to do certain things that can’t be supported by (usually specific) dieting approaches. The training has to determine the diet and you can’t shoehorn the training into a diet that won’t work.

And in other cases, specific dietary approaches, for whatever reason (the degree of deficit, the layout of the diet, the macronutrient composition) mandate what types of training should or even can be done. In those cases, the diets determine the training. And trying to deviate from what the diet can support or require leads to problems."

And not one rep range was mentioned...

 

[kbayne]

And not one rep range was mentioned...

At least we got a 1000+ word read out of it

 

[The Solution]

And not one rep range was mentioned...

Open up your eyes and read the bold.
Helps when you get on a computer instead of lounging in the sun starting at your phone

 

[Admin]

Im up for that.

But yeah its early days...

Well, one is rate limiting towards another...just wondering if someone will mention that

 

[Admin]

Open up your eyes and read the bold.
Helps when you get on a computer instead of lounging in the sun starting at your phone

What bold?

 

[The Solution]

What bold?

. There are various other factors to consider based off ones diet, training routine, set/rep scheme. For majority of trainees all rep ranges should be utilized for proper muscle growth. higher rep ranges may dictate better hypertrophy, but it is a personal preference on what one notes when it comes down to Muscle growth. Most do not place themselves in a proper caloric surplus to get proper muscle growth in the first place. Many trainees fail when it comes to proper diet and proper training in the first place.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Well, one is rate limiting towards another...just wondering if someone will mention that

I havent gotten too much into the science on this, and not because Im not interested in the science of hypertrophy.

Much of my thoughts/beliefs on training are based on what Kelei, gomez and xydrex have written over at bbcom (really good threads by those dudes).

 

[NurseGray]

Well. My opinion is higher reps are better for Hypertrophy. Bodybuilding Vs Powerlifting. Most bodybuilders have used higher reps.

 

[Admin]

Interesting. I'm on a Mac with Chrome and its not bold.

 

[NurseGray]

Interesting. I'm on a Mac with Chrome and its not bold.

My Mac has it in bold

 

[Admin]

My Mac has it in bold

Really strange. But the bolded part IMO is missing the point.

 

[The Solution]

Really strange. But the bolded part IMO is missing the point.

Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

Building muscle when your in a deficit for a prolonged period of time regardless of what rep range you utilize may be the limiting factor to the question. Which is why Diet is a key factor in this discussion. The Diet will help dictate ones training. One in a surplus can get away with more hypertrophy, higher intensity work more drop sets, more volume etc due to excessive glycogen compared to someone who is dieting.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I have a chart of optimal rep ranges by movement from a study that bdcc posted before I will find to be debated as well

Missed this...

...yeah, if I understand what youre implying here, I think some muscle groups will respond better to a certain rep range compared to others. Nothing too significant, but still another variable to throw into the mix.

 

[Driven2lift]

Interesting. I'm on a Mac with Chrome and its not bold.

Not bold on the app either

 

[Admin]

Tell which is better for pure muscle growth. Low or High?

Building muscle when your in a deficit for a prolonged period of time regardless of what rep range you utilize may be the limiting factor to the question. Which is why Diet is a key factor in this discussion. The Diet will help dictate ones training. One in a surplus can get away with more hypertrophy, higher intensity work more drop sets, more volume etc due to excessive glycogen compared to someone who is dieting.

You tell me. You were getting warm here:

"Both forms of reps Low and High are beneficial for muscle growth. They activate both Type I and Type II Muscle Fibers. "

Then you brought diet into it, as if that would change the the response to the above mentioned fibers.

 

[Admin]

Missed this...

...yeah, if I understand what youre implying here, I think some muscle groups will respond better to a certain rep range compared to others. Nothing too significant, but still another variable to throw into the mix.

Well, then you have this:

The Myth of Training for Sarcoplasmic Versus Myofibrillar Hypertrophy


Contrary to the claims of many bodybuilders, trainers, and coaches, you can not selectively train for sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar hypertrophy by working in different repetition ranges. While training with lower or higher repetition ranges can result in differences in improvements in strength relative to local muscular endurance, you can’t separate strength from hypertrophy. After the first couple months of training when neural adaptations contribute more to strength increases than hypertrophy, if you get stronger your muscles will be bigger, and if your muscles get bigger you will be stronger.The relationship between muscular strength and size varies between individuals due to numerous genetic factors, however, so regardless of how you train some people will gain a lot of strength without much size, some will gain a lot of size without getting very strong, and most of us will be somewhere in between:

…chronic resistance exercise training induces skeletal muscle hypertrophy as well as increases in strength. However, not every individual can expect the same magnitude of muscle responses to a standard program because of genetic and environmental factors yet to be thoroughly characterized.

One study with five hundred and eighty five men and women performing the same program of unilateral arm flexor training for twelve weeks showed a huge difference in muscular size and strength gains. The worst responders lost about two percent muscle size while the best responders gained an impressive fifty nine percent. Strength gains varied from zero to as much as two hundred and fifty percent (2):

Men and women exhibit wide ranges of response to resistance training, with some subjects showing little to no gain, and others showing profound changes, increasing size by over 10 cm and doubling their strength. Men had only a slight advantage in relative size gains compared with women, whereas women outpaced men considerably in relative gains in strength.

I suspect the belief you can selectively train for either sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy is based on observation of the difference in training between bodybuilders and strength athletes like powerlifters, and failure to consider selection bias as a significant factor in the differences in the relative muscular strength and size between the two. Any program done hard, progressively, and consistently with a volume and frequency appropriate for the individual will eventually get them as big and strong as their genetics will allow, but the ratio of strength to size gains will vary considerably between individuals. People who can get very strong without much hypertrophy will tend to gravitate towards strength sports where a high ratio of strength to body weight is advantageous. People who are able to gain a lot of muscular size relative to strength will tend to gravitate towards bodybuilding where muscularity is the goal but strength has no bearing on competition.

Someone who fails to consider this selection bias might assume the bodybuilders had a higher ratio of hypertrophy to strength due to their training and the powerlifters have a higher ratio of strength to hypertrophy due to their training, when the differences are mostly genetic.

If you remove this selection bias and randomly assign people to either a “bodybuilding” or “strength” program with equal volume as Brad Schoenfeld did in a recent study (4), you’ll find no significant difference in the average hypertrophy between the two. The strength group in this study increased their one-repetition-maximum more than the hypertrophy group, but this is most likely due to specific neural adaptations to the lower rep ranges used and if a ten-repetition-maximum test was done instead the hypertrophy group probably would have improved their performance more than the strength group.

If your goal is to improve your performance in a specific range of repetitions you should train in that range, but if your goal is general improvements in strength and hypertrophy the optimal repetition range is whatever you respond best to based on your genetics, and not some arbitrary range of repetitions claimed to be specific for hypertrophy.

Stuart Phillips, PhD from the kinesiology department at McMaster University recently had this to say about the subject:

Sarcoplasmic vs. Myofibrillar hypertrophy… perhaps you’ve heard those terms and even read information from some guru who says there are different types of ‘hypertrophy’. This is unadulterated garbage and basically anyone who has ever taken a course in muscle physiology, exercise physiology, and knows a little biochemistry would tell you so. The amount of myofibrillar protein in skeletal muscle fibre remains remarkably constant! There are no examples of where a muscle fibre hypertrophies with resistance training and the myofibrillar pool doesn’t grow but the sarcoplasm does! The occasional example of a discordance between hypertrophy and strength gain (for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518835 (5)) is not, no matter what the pundits think, due to a ‘sarcoplasmic’ hypertrophy in the low-load condition. The obvious explanation is a neuromuscular training-zone specific strength response in the low vs. the high load groups – muscle/exercise physiology 101.

Similarly, I’ve heard some say that blood flow restriction (BFR) training leads only to ‘sarcoplasmic’ hypertrophy… it’s a myth! Hypertrophy, when it happens is due to expansion of the myofibrillar protein pool. For people who think that your fibres can grow (not transiently due to fibre swelling – a short-lived phenomenon) by expanding their sarcoplasm are incorrect. If this happened the energetics of the fibre would be a complete mess due to greatly, on a relative scale, increases in intracellular distances for chemical reactions… like propagation of the electrical impulse from a t-tubule to the SR to cause contraction!So the next time you hear someone spouting off about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy you can tell them, with confidence, that no such thing exists! It’s a construct of bodybuilding forums… hypertrophy is hypertrophy and strength is strength. There’s no difference between the hypertrophy you get with one routine versus the next!

"Hypertrophy, when it happens is due to expansion of the myofibrillar protein pool. For people who think that your fibres can grow (not transiently due to fibre swelling – a short-lived phenomenon) by expanding their sarcoplasm are incorrect. If this happened the energetics of the fibre would be a complete mess due to greatly, on a relative scale, increases in intracellular distances for chemical reactions… like propagation of the electrical impulse from a t-tubule to the SR to cause contraction!So the next time you hear someone spouting off about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy you can tell them, with confidence, that no such thing exists! It’s a construct of bodybuilding forums…"


mind=blown :lol:

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I think I even said as much in my initial post, that hypertrophy is possible with most rep ranges; that is, there is no 'absolute' black-and-white hypertrophy-only rep range. Generally though, if you are wanting to maximise muscle growth, you will aim to progressively increase your 10rm (which is itself a strength goal) rather than your 3rm.

 

[machinehead]

Generally though, if you are wanting to maximise muscle growth, you will aim to progressively increase your 10rm (which is itself a strength goal) rather than your 3rm.

Most eloquent way to put it

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Most eloquent way to put it

I suspect not too many people would outright disagree with the claim. Perhaps, then, the more contentious question would be "should one train with various rep ranges, low through to high, in order to fully maximise hypertrophic potential?" ie sort of what PHAT advocates.

Myself, Im of the mind that generally one is in no better a position training multiple rep ranges than limiting oneself to the average of those rep ranges (should that average be approx 10 reps).

 

[booneman77]

If leucine levels drop, mTOR becomes less active as it senses that there are not enough amino acids & energy to continue protein synthesis. mTOR is also sensitive to total energy intake and if total energy drops too low, then mTOR becomes less activated. This research indicates what many bodybuilders have known for sometime: if you're goal is to build muscle mass, make sure you provide a diet with ample calories and ample amino acids.

Ummmm nothing about any rep ranges in this portion. Just leucine and mtor

may also simply be that the approach we know is optimal for strength and or LBM - loading, volume, tempos, etc - are already the best we can do as far influencing mTOR is concerned. Like so many areas of research that may have applications to wasting diseases and such, such as myostatin, it's more of an intellectual exercise versus having any real practical application to athletes at this time, non pharmacologically speaking at least. There is no doubt that the intensive research going on that examines the signaling events that are activated by aerobics or resistance training will explain how muscle adaptations take place, and pharmaceutical interventions are a focus of many researchers, but I am unaware of any direct application an athlete can incorporate in their training or diet that will be an improvement on what we already know

or here...

 

[GetRekt]

Higher volume is better for hypertrophy. Whether you do high weight low reps or low weight high reps, your overall volume will be the largest factor of your hypertrophy.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Higher volume is better for hypertrophy. Whether you do high weight low reps or low weight high reps, your overall volume will be the largest factor of your hypertrophy.

how are you defining volume?

 

[jamesm11]

This thread turned into a **** show with people trying to show how "smart" they are.

We know what his intention was, instead of nitpicking and inquiring what each word means just answer the question: for growth and size, high or low volume? (chose only one).

 

[NoAddedHmones]

This thread turned into a **** show with people trying to show how "smart" they are.

We know what his intention was, instead of nitpicking and inquiring what each word means just answer the question: for growth and size, high or low volume? (chose only one).

Hey, your rationality has no place here

 

[NoAddedHmones]

how are you defining volume?

Lets say we are talking in terms of total volume over a fixed period of time. If periodisation between hypertrophy workouts and strength workouts are done concurrently, it is arguable that more total volume could be achieved vs only smashing out hypertrophy sessions and taking longer to recover.

My two cents anyway. you are welcome that I restrained myself from using the term Mtor in this post.

 

[booneman77]

This thread turned into a **** show with people trying to show how "smart" they are.

We know what his intention was, instead of nitpicking and inquiring what each word means just answer the question: for growth and size, high or low volume? (chose only one).

Haha reps man. High or low reps. No volume

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Lets say we are talking in terms of total volume over a fixed period of time. If periodisation between hypertrophy workouts and strength workouts are done concurrently, it is arguable that more total volume could be achieved vs only smashing out hypertrophy sessions and taking longer to recover.

Ive previously agreed that overall volume-frequency (weekly) are crucial variables here, so to some extent I agree with you.

But if we keep variables minimised, the reason I think 10 rep sets are superior to say 3 or 5 is that they tend to strike the perfect balance between tension/load and fatigue; lower and higher rep sets tend to overemphasise one at the expense of the other.

This, of course, assumes that hypertrophy is best stimulated through appropriately balancing tension-fatigue.

In short, I dont think that low rep training is as effective at generating adequate levels of acute fatigue even given higher volume. I mean, youd likely have to go to extremes.