Question about Volume and Intensity...

[Johnston]

I'm aware of much of the volume vs intensity talk, and how hypertrophy is ideally suited to the 8-12 rep range vs lower reps/high weight, as lower reps would require more sets to achieve the same volume, therefore take more time... yet has has obvious stength benefits etc. etc.

But how far does it extend at the other end, say for reps in the 15-20 range?

Let's take squats for example... you do 5 sets of 10 at 90kg, because that's as much as you can lift without your form suffering. So that's a total volume of 4500kg.

Now put that against 5 sets of 20 at 70kg... that would equal 7000kg, and let's assume you're really pushing hard to finish these sets and feeling the burn.

Which is better, given the volume is considerably more for the 20 rep sets? Maybe the answer is neither, and you would mix up and sometimes do 10, 20 or 6 or 3 reps... varying the weight each time.

To equal the volume of the sets of 20, you'd need to be doing 8 sets at 90kg (probably a big challenge)... or 5 sets of 10 at 140kg (which is almost certainly going to be impossible for this person). Now of course I know there comes a point where volume will become meaningless, as you could otherwise just take an empty 20kg bar and squat all day for tens of thousands of cumulative volume.

 

[BigLarry]

I've always been stuck wandering the same thing when it comes to intensity vs volume. I think rep ranges that exceeds 15 or 20 reps have their place and will subject your body to a very suitable load as long as it's not too easy. I think your example of 5 sets at 10 reps for that load would be a good range to play around in for both strength and size. Like you mentioned hypertrophy is seen at 8-12 reps, and if muscle growth is your goal then I would stick with that and just keep the weight heavy enough to make 8 or 10 reps challenging. I guess look at it this way; your muscles don't know that your end goal is 7000kg vs 4500kg all that it know is it's going to use as little muscle fibers as possible to get the weight to move and it's your job to get as many muscle fibers to work. So as long as your constantly changing it up challenging your body than you'll continue to grow. I'm sorry if I didn't really give you a definitive answer but that's what I've come learn. Cheers!

 

[Johnston]

Yeah that makes sense... obviously there is lots of evidence for the 8-12 range in terms of hypertrophy, but I was curious if 20 reps for example would be less effective, despite being able to move that much more volume... and assuming it's still challenging you of course. Having tried it myself and found that I was really working hard come those last few reps (and I also felt it the next day), it didn't seem like it would be a complete waste of time to include now and again in your workout... but obviously it would never be the mainstay.

Of course, as you say, your body doesn't know the difference between 7000kg and 4500kg... it just responds to the stress that you put it through, albeit volume is heavily tied in to that as the science demonstrates. Maybe that is ultimately the key though, changing things up, constantly challenging your body in such a way that it responds by growing new muscle fibers to move the weight. Sounds easy when you put it like that lol!

 

[Sean1332]

Subbing to post some links for ya tomorrow

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah that makes sense... obviously there is lots of evidence for the 8-12 range in terms of hypertrophy, but I was curious if 20 reps for example would be less effective, despite being able to move that much more volume... and assuming it's still challenging you of course. Having tried it myself and found that I was really working hard come those last few reps (and I also felt it the next day), it didn't seem like it would be a complete waste of time to include now and again in your workout... but obviously it would never be the mainstay.

Of course, as you say, your body doesn't know the difference between 7000kg and 4500kg... it just responds to the stress that you put it through, albeit volume is heavily tied in to that as the science demonstrates. Maybe that is ultimately the key though, changing things up, constantly challenging your body in such a way that it responds by growing new muscle fibers to move the weight. Sounds easy when you put it like that lol!

Intensity matters, not just volume load. Start drifting to far below 60% and you'll end up with an endurance adaptation as opposed to a hypertrophy one (or less ideal than 8-12)

 

[Johnston]

Intensity matters, not just volume load. Start drifting to far below 60% and you'll end up with an endurance adaptation as opposed to a hypertrophy one (or less ideal than 8-12)

Do you mean 60% of 1RM? So if you squat 100kg for 1 rep, and you were doing 20 reps at 50kg, that would be endurance, but 20 reps at 60-65kg would result in hypertrophy? Not that you would be doing that all the time of course, as you would do sets of 8 and 12 also (perhaps some 3-5's to work on strength), but would throwing in sets of 20 now and again (at a suitable weight) be pointless?

 

[Jiigzz]

Do you mean 60% of 1RM? So if you squat 100kg for 1 rep, and you were doing 20 reps at 50kg, that would be endurance, but 20 reps at 60-65kg would result in hypertrophy? Not that you would be doing that all the time of course, as you would do sets of 8 and 12 also (perhaps some 3-5's to work on strength), but would throwing in sets of 20 now and again (at a suitable weight) be pointless?

Utilising higher rep ranges can still produce a hypertrophy response (20-30 reps) but doing that often is slightly painful. Brad Schoenfield noted that both the typical rep ranges and the higher rep ranges produced near equal hypertrophy but the amount of physical work needed to do this work is much higher (20x 5 = 100 reps vs 10x 5= 50).

I would much prefer heavier workloads (ranging from 5-12) as opposed to 20+ but that's just me

 

[BigLarry]

^^ I feel that with what was said above the 5-12 range keeps the load heavy and sufficient with intensity.
Even taking a weight that can only be done for 6 reps but getting forced reps with help of a partner is a great way to get volume and intensity for the worked muscle.

 

[Johnston]

So the basic gist here is that although 20 rep sets CAN be effective, there is no NEED for them vs 8-12 and 5-6 rep sets, which can both have benefits for hypertrophy and strength... i.e if you NEVER did a 20 rep set, it would make ZERO difference to your progress?

 

[BigLarry]

Really the only times I go close to 20 or past is for a burn out drop set for like biceps or triceps and it works to keep constant tension on the muscle but that's all I really do it for. So I mean I think you get the best of both worlds from sticking around the lower to mid rep ranges.

 

[Jiigzz]

So the basic gist here is that although 20 rep sets CAN be effective, there is no NEED for them vs 8-12 and 5-6 rep sets, which can both have benefits for hypertrophy and strength... i.e if you NEVER did a 20 rep set, it would make ZERO difference to your progress?

I think people might argue different forms of hypertrophy but no I dont think itl hurt your progress too much