Hypertrophy re-hash

[cole]

This has probably been gone over many times in the past. If 5's are the best to use for strength training in that they allow the lifter to accumulate some volume (hypertrophy) while still allowing to lift heavy enough to gain strength, then why do some of you guys do sets of 8? Or 10?

I'm hesitant to do anything other than singles and fives bc I'm afraid of I do too many reps I'll compromise recovery and inhibit main movement performance later in the week. BUT i want bigger muscles so I can get stronger. What the fuck why am I such a basket case about this hobby that should be so simple.

[mgil]

@Hanley has good thoughts about this, IIRC. Had to do with something with the load being just heavy enough that the lifter cannot treat the bar in a ballistic manner for any given rep.

The 4-6 rep range is a good balance of display/hypertrophy. The 1-3 range is best for strength display. Hypertrophy focus is 7-12.

[Mahendra]

I think Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel is a great read.

- Hypertrophy gainzZz happen with MOAR volume
- MOAR volume is easier to achieve with sets of 8+ reps
- MOAR volume is also easier to achieve with average intensities ranging from 60-75% (depending on the individual)

[Jay870]

My understanding...

For hypertrophy you should target a minimum intensity of 60%, and total tonnage of work at or above that 60% threshold is what will drive growth.

In terms of recovery, you should be able to do a fair amount of volume in the 60-70% intensity range without significantly denting recovery assuming you aren't taking your volume sets to failure, or really even very far into the grindy rep range.

Since I do 5/3/1 I am trying increase the bench & press volume by adding drop sets based on the above understanding.

[iamsmu]

I think Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel is a great read.

This $22 pdf?

https://renaissanceperiodization.com/sh ... -training/

[mgil]

I think Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel is a great read.

- Hypertrophy gainzZz happen with MOAR volume
- MOAR volume is easier to achieve with sets of 8+ reps
- MOAR volume is also easier to achieve with average intensities ranging from 60-75% (depending on the individual)

While these are likely true, sets of 8 don't do well to drive up the display of strength. That's why DUP and whatnot works. It's also why there are hugebros at the gym that only do 5 sets of 8 at 185lbs on the bench forever.

[Wilhelm]

For my recently deloaded bench, i'm doing 5s for "top" sets and 8s for drop sets.
Very slowly adding weight in small increments (weekly) and will go to lower reps on drop sets when it's evident i need to.
Doing 2 count paused is why i'm not eager to bump weight any faster.
I will probably drop to 3s and 5s respectively before starting again at a higher starting point.
Maybe hit 7s and 6s and 4s. May as well.
Then mixing in easy singles too.

I was doing all 8s for my one purposeful volume block so far, but am trying to mix things together at this point.
Mostly because of the proximity of my meet, but also because i saw Hanley mention he wasn't a fan of dedicated hypertrophy blocks. Not that i'd be doing one now anyway.
I figure i may as well figure how this works by just trying it.

I will say though, that 5 weeks of increasing 8s paid off quite well.

[PatrickDB]

I think Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel is a great read.

This $22 pdf?

https://renaissanceperiodization.com/sh ... -training/

Yes, although most of this information is available in a companion YouTube series. There are also some videos by Eric Helms on YT with essentially the same information. ("Strength and muscle pyramid" or something like that. Look for the one on volume.)

[Mahendra]

I think Scientific Principles of Strength Training by Mike Israetel is a great read.

- Hypertrophy gainzZz happen with MOAR volume
- MOAR volume is easier to achieve with sets of 8+ reps
- MOAR volume is also easier to achieve with average intensities ranging from 60-75% (depending on the individual)

While these are likely true, sets of 8 don't do well to drive up the display of strength. That's why DUP and whatnot works. It's also why there are hugebros at the gym that only do 5 sets of 8 at 185lbs on the bench forever.

A program that @Hanley wrote about a while ago had me doing sets of 8s, 6s, 4s, and 3RMs over 2 weeks. It got me to the strongest I've ever been.

I may try this approach again in the new year.

[cwd]

I've been using rotating rep ranges (8s, 5s, 3s) too, I understand the theory is that 8s are for growth, etc.

But I think the main benefit is that it turns a 1-week HLM program into a 3-week HLM program thus keeping me from increasing weights too fast. I'm really not clear that varying the rep ranges makes much of a difference. How would I tell?

[Hanley]

@Hanley has good thoughts about this, IIRC. Had to do with something with the load being just heavy enough that the lifter cannot treat the bar in a ballistic manner for any given rep.

The 4-6 rep range is a good balance of display/hypertrophy. The 1-3 range is best for strength display. Hypertrophy focus is 7-12.

Yeah, basically this.

If I recruited lots of high-threshold MUs using ~70% 1rm, I would literally throw the bar. Not very far, but farther than the ROM dictated by my limb-lengths.

So, using light/hypertrophy loads, I’m cycling through the high-threshold MUs as I fatigue, rather than recruiting them in a coordinated way (as I would on - say - 85% 1rm).

If you're getting [hand-wave] somewhat regular exposure to 80%+ loads this shouldn't make much of a difference. You won't "forget" the neural elements of strength like twitch frequency, recruitment patterns, etc.

But this ^ is why I don't like extended hypertrophy blocks -- whilst in the block, you "forget" how to recruit lots of high-threshold MUs in a fast, coordinated way. Bad for peak strength and ballistic movements.

[Hanley]

This has probably been gone over many times in the past. If 5's are the best to use for strength training in that they allow the lifter to accumulate some volume (hypertrophy) while still allowing to lift heavy enough to gain strength, then why do some of you guys do sets of 8? Or 10?

I'm hesitant to do anything other than singles and fives bc I'm afraid of I do too many reps I'll compromise recovery and inhibit main movement performance later in the week. BUT i want bigger muscles so I can get stronger. What the fuck why am I such a basket case about this hobby that should be so simple.

But, to answer cole's question:

At some point in your training, you might be squatting 15000+ pounds/week. Break it up however you want. 8s and 10s around 70% are convenient, though. Just make sure you also get exposure to heavy stuff somewhat regularly.

[cwd]

So Tom (Izzy) Narvaez talks about this in one of his programming YT videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_bpI1q8m8

If I'm remembering it accurately:

* novices can train hypertrophy, strength, and technique all at once with heavy sets of 5 on the main lifts

* intermediates need more volume to improve any further, so they risk overuse injuries by just doing many heavy sets of 5 on the main lifts.
So they ought to train hypertrophy separately with lighter sets of 8+ or with assistance exercises that are easier to recover from. But they can still train all traits in the same week (i.e. DUP).

* advanced athletes need so much focused volume on one trait (hypertrophy/strength/etc) that they need dedicated weeks-long phases to improve that trait while other traits detrain. They have to periodize their training with a plan to peak right on competition day. I.e a month of hypertrophy, a month of strength, a couple weeks of competition technique practice at the end.

Sounds cool to me, though I've never trained anyone but myself and am nowhere near advanced.

[OCG]

Short version: Higher intensities for more advanced lifters tend not to be appropriate all the time, so when you're trying to do a lot of volume with 60-70%, higher reps are a more efficient way to get volume in (fucking fight me Hanley) and also allow you to recruit more motor units over course of the set. Approaching this from the other side, higher rep sets are necessarily going to be a lower intensity, so it's a good way for the lifter to get some work in, or feel like they have, without killing themselves or compromising recovery too much.

More and more I come around to the idea that "periodisation" for lifters is much less about training or balancing different aspects (hypertrophy, strength, speed) and much more about just keeping the lifter from trying to kill themselves for 10 weeks straight.

[Hanley]

volume with 60-70%, higher reps are a more efficient way to get volume in (fucking fight me Hanley)

But...but...I agree.

But also: If you’re working with athletes, you probably shouldn't fuck with their “fast”. Even in the off-season. Big blocks of hypertrophy fuck with “fast”.

Edit: but also, also: I dream of a future world when the default programming client isn’t a motherfucking pretend powerlifter.

[DirtyRed]

volume with 60-70%, higher reps are a more efficient way to get volume in (fucking fight me Hanley)

But...but...I agree.

Fight anyway, pussy.

But also: If you’re working with athletes, you probably shouldn't fuck with their “fast”. Even in the off-season. Big blocks of hypertrophy fuck with “fast”.

Help DR, who is ever fast like continental drift, understand why speed squats, power cleans, etc couldn't be involved in a hypertrophy routine to do some maintenance to Fast while still accomplishing hypertrophy.

[OCG]

volume with 60-70%, higher reps are a more efficient way to get volume in (fucking fight me Hanley)

But...but...I agree.

But also: If you’re working with athletes, you probably shouldn't fuck with their “fast”. Even in the off-season. Big blocks of hypertrophy fuck with “fast”.

Edit: but also, also: I dream of a future world when the default programming client isn’t a motherfucking pretend powerlifter.

What about density blocks huh?

I don't disagree, when I look at something like the Juggernaut Program that has 60-65% for months on end I just wonder, why? Throwing in a few singles even at 80-85% would help a lot with maintaining strength and technique and cost very little in terms of recovery. I feel like this whole complete segregation of "hypertrophy" and "strength" blocks is silly, and misunderstanding the point. You minimise training for other aspects, you don't just stop it wholly.

Hmm, what would a good default programme be then? Lift 3 times a week, run/cardio/move the other 3? Train for an actual event or goal, whatever takes your fancy?

Help DR, who is ever fast like continental drift, understand why speed squats, power cleans, etc couldn't be involved in a hypertrophy routine to do some maintenance to Fast while still accomplishing hypertrophy.

1. See above, they very much can.

2. These things aren't as great as building "speed" (neuromuscular recruitment) as a higher percentage lift as they simply don't recruit or require the same level of MU recruitment. Something like a speed squat, think, if I put the same amount of force into a 50% squat as I do a 90% squat, what happens? The bar goes plying off of your shoulders into the roof. Since this doesn't happen, you're not putting the same amount of force and recruiting the same amount of fibres in the same amount of time. So this is why we talking about doing "heavyish" singles instead, around 85% or 1@8-8.5 RPE.

[perman]

What about density blocks huh?

I don't disagree, when I look at something like the Juggernaut Program that has 60-65% for months on end I just wonder, why? Throwing in a few singles even at 80-85% would help a lot with maintaining strength and technique and cost very little in terms of recovery. I feel like this whole complete segregation of "hypertrophy" and "strength" blocks is silly, and misunderstanding the point. You minimise training for other aspects, you don't just stop it wholly.

My interpretation is that advanced athletes must apply such significant stressors to disrupt homeostasis that you intentionally allow some detraining of deprioritized attributes because all the resources are required to provide a significant stressor to the chosen attribute.

Whether this is valid is a different question. It seems to me that the subtleties of what degree of concurrency is optimal is so far down on the list of priorities (per scientific principles of strength training, phase potentiation is the last of the 6 priorities), that discerning how well the concurrency of an indivudal's program is working over the noise of the contributions of the other more important factors is pretty damn hard.

[SeanHerbison]

Fight anyway, pussy.
...
Help DR, who is ever fast like continental drift

You know, I don't even have to read the username to know when it's DR. It's just that odd blend of aggressive arrogance and self-effacing humor that gives it away.

Don't you have an IPF record (technically, shut up) or something like that? What's the story there? Oh wait, that's off topic... DR, do you think training for hypertrophy helped you get that IPF record (technically, shut up)?

[JC]

Just acknowledging the masterful use of question marks there, no comebacks or field of honour threats can be made due to the creative deployment of the question mark, right?

Who came up with this shit btw?