Does math matter for hypertrophy?

Cheeky Monkey

Cheeky Monkey

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Quick question...

If I do bicep curls with 100 lbs for 10 reps that equals 1,000 pounds lifted.

If I increase the weight to 110 lbs and do 8 reps that equals 880 lbs.

So even though I increased the weight, I am doing myself disservice because of the deficit 120 lbs correct? In terms of hypertrophy, I won't see results I guess.

So if I plan to do 8 reps, I need to increase the weight to at least 125 lbs to equal the 1,000 lbs or perhaps increase it even more to make the succeeding set count. Theoretically if I increase the weight to 127.5 lbs and lift it for 8 reps, I'm lifting a total 1,020 lbs.

Asking for a friend here....
 

stock28

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Nope, overthinking it. Increasing the weight is progressive overload. Of course your goal should still be to get those 8 reps back up to 10, then increase the weight again. Muscle doesn’t do math, they just know you’re asking them to work harder than they had to before, hence growth and strength increases.
 

Zippy

New member
Awards
0
This has always baffled me too, im sure I get more growth from doing gvt type 10 sets of 10 at a lighter weight than say 10, 8, 6, 4 increasing weight each time and if you add up the amount of weight moved 10 sets of ten blows it out of the park but it's not how most people do it.
 

stock28

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Everybody responds differently and you just have to figure out what works for you. Biggest thing is progression be it weight or reps or combination of both.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You can just use logic to answer this. Do you think a person who can bench press 300 pounds for 3 reps would get better results benching 100 pounds for 10 reps? 100 x 10 would be an extra 100 pounds of work after all. How about an empty bar for 25 reps?

There are multiple factors, but the first that you have to consider is specific adaptation. Adapting to being able to lift 300 pounds 1x is different than being able to life 100 pounds 10 times or 200 pounds 5x.

You can increase rep counts and weight with improved neurological drive, but I would suggest increase neuro drive will be even better at increasing reps than weight over time - you could have 1000 muscle fibers and be able to fore off 150 at a time, giving some time for recovery of the first 150 by the time you hit the last 150 fibers...allowing for another rep and so on - but a sufficient weight will rip that muscle and all 1000 fibers in 2 with mechanical force regardless of how efficient your neurological drive is.

Second, you are measuring work but not power output, which takes time into consideration. This ties to specific adaptation as well - but if you move 800 pounds in 1 minute, that requires more power than moving 1000 pounds in 2 minutes.
 
Cheeky Monkey

Cheeky Monkey

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
You can just use logic to answer this. Do you think a person who can bench press 300 pounds for 3 reps would get better results benching 100 pounds for 10 reps? 100 x 10 would be an extra 100 pounds of work after all. How about an empty bar for 25 reps?

There are multiple factors, but the first that you have to consider is specific adaptation. Adapting to being able to lift 300 pounds 1x is different than being able to life 100 pounds 10 times or 200 pounds 5x.

You can increase rep counts and weight with improved neurological drive, but I would suggest increase neuro drive will be even better at increasing reps than weight over time - you could have 1000 muscle fibers and be able to fore off 150 at a time, giving some time for recovery of the first 150 by the time you hit the last 150 fibers...allowing for another rep and so on - but a sufficient weight will rip that muscle and all 1000 fibers in 2 with mechanical force regardless of how efficient your neurological drive is.

Second, you are measuring work but not power output, which takes time into consideration. This ties to specific adaptation as well - but if you move 800 pounds in 1 minute, that requires more power than moving 1000 pounds in 2 minutes.
But what matters more for hypertrophy?
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
But what matters more for hypertrophy?
Seriously, most hypertrophy is derived from strength gains. As above, this would make sense - you can make metabolic gains to gain reps at a low weight but handling a large weight requires mechanical reinforcement at some point. In other words, sure, maybe you can go from benching 180 to 200 with the muscle tissue that you have just by improving neurological drive, but at 200 the muscle itself won't be able to mechanically handle the load and if you had the neurological drive to do so, the tissue itself would fail. At that point the adaptation has to be additional tissue.

Not saying those numbers are anything except hypothetical for illustration purposes.

I don't care what anyone believes, hypertrophy and strength go hand-in-hand. Sure you may be able to skew a little more size out and a little less strength or the other way around - but that skew is like going from 50/50 to 52/48 as another hypothetical illustration.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Also, keep in mind - the lower the load the more aerobic something becomes. Low intensities can be carried on for long periods of time. The higher the load, the more anaerobic.

The often used and over used analogy - who has bigger legs, a sprinter or a marathon runner?
 

Similar threads


Top