RPE/RIR with hypertrophy work?

[CaptainAwesome]

So, I recently tried a powerbuilding program, after seeing a lot of support out there for the idea that bodybuilding type work builds this "base" that allows better strength potential. I was pretty underwhelmed by the results, especially given the greater time consumption. I guess it did give me a bit of a better "look", but I had two main complaints:

1. The main lifts did not progress well. Even working on a 3 week wave, the RPEs on the main lift sets went up with each weight increase, which tells me that shit was not gonna be sustainable progress at all.
2. I developed some nasty sleep issues. Took forever to fall asleep at night, kept waking up constantly. Went away when I stopped training like this.

I'm trying not to just discard this idea entirely and give it some chance, so I've been trying to think of what I could have been doing to fail the program, rather than just assume it failed me. I could only come up with either not eating enough (but I wasn't in the mood to start gaining to the tune of a pound a week, which would've been what more eating would've led to), or the fact that other than the main lifts, almost every other working set of every session was being taken to failure. Some were not, but that was because those lifts didn't have any good recent data so I started them conservatively. Could it be this would have worked better if I kept reps in reserve on most of the non-"big 4" exercises too? The directions for hypertrophy work often seem to just be to "train to failure" when it comes to that sort of thing, so I figured that was the way to go about it.

[broseph]

The directions for hypertrophy work often seem to just be to "train to failure" when it comes to that sort of thing, so I figured that was the way to go about it.

I don't think that statement is up to date.

Most of what I've seen is keeping sets around @8, and going closer to failure adds too much fatigue without much extra growth stimulus.

I really like high volume low fatigue work on the big lifts and I've always favored "sets across" style training, e.g. 3 sets of 5, 4 sets of 12, etc. But I don't think that approach is best for hypertrophy/accessory work. Lately with my higher rep hypertrophy work, I've been doing 3 sets @8-ish, where the rep count over 3 sets might look like 22, 16, 13.

I only recently starting doing that, and I'm at the end of a cut, so I can't say it's better or worse for growth. But I'm getting more total reps (with the same number of sets), better pumps, and it just feels right.

We'll see what happens when I finally come off the cut.

[DCR]

@CaptainAwesome, in terms of the main lifts not progressing well, I guess we'd need to know relative to what. What's a reasonable level of progress to expect over a cycle at your current level of advancement, and how did this compare.

Anyway, my current view on how hard one's sets should be for hypertrophy is this: to failure such that you stop after the last rep that you could fully complete. Don't fail reps, i.e. once you've hit the last rep that you can fully complete, do not try to get another rep and get a partial rep / fail it. How do you know when you've hit that last rep on a given movement and have no more, without actually trying and finding out? Experience. I know when I'm done. I don't always get it right but I rarely get it wrong.

Not that anyone is keeping track of my evolving thoughts on this, but the above is a bit different than something that I said two or so years ago. I believe that I was wrong then.

All caveated by hypertrophy being subject to a broad spectrum of successful methods among different people, and numerous factors other than how hard are one's sets, but I think that the above is good advice for a good portion of (natural) lifters.

[Hardartery]

So, I recently tried a powerbuilding program, after seeing a lot of support out there for the idea that bodybuilding type work builds this "base" that allows better strength potential. I was pretty underwhelmed by the results, especially given the greater time consumption. I guess it did give me a bit of a better "look", but I had two main complaints:

1. The main lifts did not progress well. Even working on a 3 week wave, the RPEs on the main lift sets went up with each weight increase, which tells me that shit was not gonna be sustainable progress at all.
2. I developed some nasty sleep issues. Took forever to fall asleep at night, kept waking up constantly. Went away when I stopped training like this.

I'm trying not to just discard this idea entirely and give it some chance, so I've been trying to think of what I could have been doing to fail the program, rather than just assume it failed me. I could only come up with either not eating enough (but I wasn't in the mood to start gaining to the tune of a pound a week, which would've been what more eating would've led to), or the fact that other than the main lifts, almost every other working set of every session was being taken to failure. Some were not, but that was because those lifts didn't have any good recent data so I started them conservatively. Could it be this would have worked better if I kept reps in reserve on most of the non-"big 4" exercises too? The directions for hypertrophy work often seem to just be to "train to failure" when it comes to that sort of thing, so I figured that was the way to go about it.

If you want to grow, you need a caloric surplus. You just do. If you overdo it, and don't have the calories to work with then you will suffer the consequences of overtraining (It's on a sliding scale IMO, not a black or white condition) which may be insomnia among other things.
The deal with failure is that it's a specific thing. If you are going to do things to failure, you cut sets not add them. Forced reps and negatives are fine as well, but you are only doing that on the last set of something not on 3 or 4 sets of something. You also have to gauge the overall pounding on your body, and adjust volume as necessary. You aren't on artificial enhancements as far as I am aware, so you actually can withstand more volume overall than an enhanced lifter that is identical to you but you are going to hit the wall faster and recover slower from the damage you did during the workout, if that makes sense. Adding sets, while adding weight, while going to failure, is no bueno. It's like trying to be keto while eating cake.

[CaptainAwesome]

in terms of the main lifts not progressing well, I guess we'd need to know relative to what. What's a reasonable level of progress to expect over a cycle at your current level of advancement, and how did this compare.

Well, for example, since I've gotten back on my heavy/light 5x5 type programming, my heavy bench has been going up 5 pounds a week and RPE has been staying steady, with the 5x5 weight pretty quickly now higher than what I was doing for 3x5 on the prior program. With the powerbuilding program, bringing it up 5 pounds after a 3 week wave gave me an increasing RPE.

If you want to grow, you need a caloric surplus. You just do. If you overdo it, and don't have the calories to work with then you will suffer the consequences of overtraining (It's on a sliding scale IMO, not a black or white condition) which may be insomnia among other things.
The deal with failure is that it's a specific thing. If you are going to do things to failure, you cut sets not add them. Forced reps and negatives are fine as well, but you are only doing that on the last set of something not on 3 or 4 sets of something. You also have to gauge the overall pounding on your body, and adjust volume as necessary. You aren't on artificial enhancements as far as I am aware, so you actually can withstand more volume overall than an enhanced lifter that is identical to you but you are going to hit the wall faster and recover slower from the damage you did during the workout, if that makes sense. Adding sets, while adding weight, while going to failure, is no bueno. It's like trying to be keto while eating cake.

I had tried bumping up another 500 calories by switching to whole milk from skim by the end of it, I started to gain more weight but the issues stayed.

The protocols for the non-main work were usually 3 descending sets chopping about 10% off each one, after a fairly brief rest. Each one failing in about the 8-12 range. Weight only went up when I managed to hit a full 12 on each. For isolations, I was doing rest-pause sets with 3 subsets each. Each of those was taken to failure as well.

I'm not sure what you mean with the enhanced lifter comparison. If I run into the wall faster and recover slower, wouldn't that mean I in fact cannot withstand more volume?

[quikky]

@CaptainAwesome could you outline a typical week of this program, including the target RPEs?

[Hardartery]

in terms of the main lifts not progressing well, I guess we'd need to know relative to what. What's a reasonable level of progress to expect over a cycle at your current level of advancement, and how did this compare.

Well, for example, since I've gotten back on my heavy/light 5x5 type programming, my heavy bench has been going up 5 pounds a week and RPE has been staying steady, with the 5x5 weight pretty quickly now higher than what I was doing for 3x5 on the prior program. With the powerbuilding program, bringing it up 5 pounds after a 3 week wave gave me an increasing RPE.

If you want to grow, you need a caloric surplus. You just do. If you overdo it, and don't have the calories to work with then you will suffer the consequences of overtraining (It's on a sliding scale IMO, not a black or white condition) which may be insomnia among other things.
The deal with failure is that it's a specific thing. If you are going to do things to failure, you cut sets not add them. Forced reps and negatives are fine as well, but you are only doing that on the last set of something not on 3 or 4 sets of something. You also have to gauge the overall pounding on your body, and adjust volume as necessary. You aren't on artificial enhancements as far as I am aware, so you actually can withstand more volume overall than an enhanced lifter that is identical to you but you are going to hit the wall faster and recover slower from the damage you did during the workout, if that makes sense. Adding sets, while adding weight, while going to failure, is no bueno. It's like trying to be keto while eating cake.

I had tried bumping up another 500 calories by switching to whole milk from skim by the end of it, I started to gain more weight but the issues stayed.

The protocols for the non-main work were usually 3 descending sets chopping about 10% off each one, after a fairly brief rest. Each one failing in about the 8-12 range. Weight only went up when I managed to hit a full 12 on each. For isolations, I was doing rest-pause sets with 3 subsets each. Each of those was taken to failure as well.

I'm not sure what you mean with the enhanced lifter comparison. If I run into the wall faster and recover slower, wouldn't that mean I in fact cannot withstand more volume?

What I mean is that you will do greater volume as a natty and recover, more or less. Enhanced guys, especially past a certain threshold of use, will tap out sooner in a session but they will also have done way more before hitting the wall. The sauce gives them access to tear things up more effectively in less sets/reps, and then recover from that damage to come back more recovered for the next session. So, while recovery is enhanced overall, they are actually capable of LESS volume in a session because they are working the muscles more effectively.

The natty guys have to keep pounding for more reps and still won't be able to do the same damage or recover from the damage as fast, but because they are less able to trash themselves they will be capable of greater volume on paper with less gains. As far as that program, I would never as a natty want to go for failure on every set. I would be trying to pound the fibres that my body wants to use on the initial sets and then use that last one to go all the way to cheats with negatives in an effort to pound the fibres that aren't normally activating and elicit some cross-sectional growth in that way. But only on the last set and I would scale it back on overall volume if I couldn't sleep.

All of that said, I think the average lifter is probably better off adding a setand playing with rest periods than messing with failure over repeated sets.

[DCR]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

I think it's probably OK for isolation work.

For big lifts I'd agree that just straight sets sounds more reasonable.

[DCR]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

I think it's probably OK for isolation work.

For big lifts I'd agree that just straight sets sounds more reasonable.

I think that with isolation work, with drop sets the weight almost immediately becomes so light as to be pointless (and I don't think it matters that you're lifting said light weight in a state of exhaustion; I simply don't believe that weight below a certain threshold is worth a shit in any event).

Forced reps with isolation work... I dunno. In theory I don't like the idea but never tried. Also not sure I've ever seen anyone else try, other than with barbell curls (which I actually don't consider an isolation movement at all).

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

So, I recently tried a powerbuilding program, after seeing a lot of support out there for the idea that bodybuilding type work builds this "base" that allows better strength potential. I was pretty underwhelmed by the results, especially given the greater time consumption. I guess it did give me a bit of a better "look", but I had two main complaints:

Getting bigger will increase strength potential, but you might not need to do a "bodybuilding phase", unless you want to do a bodybuilding phase for whatever reason.I think that there are ways of setting up your training so that you do both your stength work and your hypertrophy work at the same time.

So, I recently tried a powerbuilding program, after seeing a lot of support out there for the idea that bodybuilding type work builds this "base" that allows better strength potential. I was pretty underwhelmed by the results, especially given the greater time consumption. I guess it did give me a bit of a better "look", but I had two main complaints:

I'm trying not to just discard this idea entirely and give it some chance, so I've been trying to think of what I could have been doing to fail the program, rather than just assume it failed me. I could only come up with either not eating enough (but I wasn't in the mood to start gaining to the tune of a pound a week, which would've been what more eating would've led to), or the fact that other than the main lifts, almost every other working set of every session was being taken to failure. Some were not, but that was because those lifts didn't have any good recent data so I started them conservatively. Could it be this would have worked better if I kept reps in reserve on most of the non-"big 4" exercises too? The directions for hypertrophy work often seem to just be to "train to failure" when it comes to that sort of thing, so I figured that was the way to go about it.

As far as food is concerned, bulking is a must, but at a slow rate. 1 pound a week is way too fast. 2 pounds a month sounds more reasonable.

I mean for hypertrophy you need to be somewhat close to failure (between RPE 6 and 10) but that does not mean you have to go to failure. Basically if you want to go to failure you need to limit the number of sets, so you come to a fork in the road:
- 1 top set to failure (RPE 10) (this is more like DC training)
- 3-5 sets somewhat close to failure (RPE 6-8) (this is more like RP training)
Both styles are OK as long as you understand how to use them. Trying to do high volume to failure is (possibly) not going to be sustainable.

If you're doing S/B/D for hypertrophy it would be wise to leave some in the tank (at least to mitigate injury risk). Doing something like 5 sets of 8 reps with 70% of your 1RM of the day on S/B/D would be a decent hypertrophy workout for instance.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

I think it's probably OK for isolation work.

For big lifts I'd agree that just straight sets sounds more reasonable.

I think that with isolation work, with drop sets the weight almost immediately becomes so light as to be pointless (and I don't think it matters that you're lifting said light weight in a state of exhaustion; I simply don't believe that weight below a certain threshold is worth a shit in any event).

Forced reps with isolation work... I dunno. In theory I don't like the idea but never tried. Also not sure I've ever seen anyone else try, other than with barbell curls (which I actually don't consider an isolation movement at all).

A dude in my gym does barbell curls with I believe 200 lbs. It may or may not be an isolation movement at all as you alluded to. Very entertaining to watch though.

[DCR]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

I think it's probably OK for isolation work.

For big lifts I'd agree that just straight sets sounds more reasonable.

I think that with isolation work, with drop sets the weight almost immediately becomes so light as to be pointless (and I don't think it matters that you're lifting said light weight in a state of exhaustion; I simply don't believe that weight below a certain threshold is worth a shit in any event).

Forced reps with isolation work... I dunno. In theory I don't like the idea but never tried. Also not sure I've ever seen anyone else try, other than with barbell curls (which I actually don't consider an isolation movement at all).

A dude in my gym does barbell curls with I believe 200 lbs. It may or may not be an isolation movement at all as you alluded to. Very entertaining to watch though.

How impressive are his guns?

There's an old Dan John piece in which he mentions seeing some guy curling two plates, the punchline in line with the theme of the article being that his arms were fucking enormous. "Go figure."

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

All things considered, I think forced reps, drop sets, and the like are not things that should be in a natural lifters hypertrophy toolbox. The only place they ever got me was overtrained with aching joints and tendons. I agree with @Hardartery that more sets (or more movements) is a far better idea.

Edited to add: I do think rest/pause work, used smartly, is very useful.

I think it's probably OK for isolation work.

For big lifts I'd agree that just straight sets sounds more reasonable.

I think that with isolation work, with drop sets the weight almost immediately becomes so light as to be pointless (and I don't think it matters that you're lifting said light weight in a state of exhaustion; I simply don't believe that weight below a certain threshold is worth a shit in any event).

Forced reps with isolation work... I dunno. In theory I don't like the idea but never tried. Also not sure I've ever seen anyone else try, other than with barbell curls (which I actually don't consider an isolation movement at all).

A dude in my gym does barbell curls with I believe 200 lbs. It may or may not be an isolation movement at all as you alluded to. Very entertaining to watch though.

How impressive are his guns?

There's an old Dan John piece in which he mentions seeing some guy curling two plates, the punchline in line with the theme of the article being that his arms were fucking enormous. "Go figure."

He has, quite literally, the largest arms at the gym, no joke.

[dw]

I think you should be tracking the hypertrophy lifts on their own and not inferring their progress or lack of progress from your SBD results.

Kind of sounds like you were accumulating too much fatigue and didn't notice it because of the way you were programming the hypertrophy work.

Regarding caloric surplus I doubt you're at a point where you can benefit from 500 kcals a day compared to 250 or less. But some surplus vs no surplus makes a big difference imo.

[CaptainAwesome]

@CaptainAwesome could you outline a typical week of this program, including the target RPEs?

Since it was derived from one that I purchased, I'm reluctant to start laying out the nitty-gritty on a forum. It was a 4 day layout, each day featured one of the s/b/d/p as the first lift of the session. They waved each week going from 3x8,3x5,3x2, then back again with a weight increase. The program didn't call for any kind of RPE, but I like to use them for the big barbell work because I have found the system useful for keeping tabs on progress. Tried to start with 7, but work quickly went up to 8, and some of the doubles even went up to 9.

The other work did not have RPE targets but I guess a lot of them ended up being 10s or close.

A dude in my gym does barbell curls with I believe 200 lbs. It may or may not be an isolation movement at all as you alluded to. Very entertaining to watch though.

I imagine when you work with that kind of weight you probably have to treat it more like a heavy compound lift anyway.

Getting bigger will increase strength potential, but you might not need to do a "bodybuilding phase", unless you want to do a bodybuilding phase for whatever reason.I think that there are ways of setting up your training so that you do both your stength work and your hypertrophy work at the same time.

...

If you're doing S/B/D for hypertrophy it would be wise to leave some in the tank (at least to mitigate injury risk). Doing something like 5 sets of 8 reps with 70% of your 1RM of the day on S/B/D would be a decent hypertrophy workout for instance.

I'm leaning more toward this after playing around with this stuff. I found sets of 5 on big lifts did me just fine getting fairly big, but I thought maybe I was missing something and wanted to try other stuff out. I don't think 5 sets of 8 at 70% is gonna be good work sets for me on anything though, unless that "1RM of the day" is gonna be a deliberate RPE 8 single or something. 70% 1RM is usually where I like to start new training cycles at 5x5. Maybe if I try this program again I'll deliberately keep reps in the tank on the non-barbell compound stuff like the dumbbell presses and SLDLs and whathaveyou.

[CaptainAwesome]

What I mean is that you will do greater volume as a natty and recover, more or less. Enhanced guys, especially past a certain threshold of use, will tap out sooner in a session but they will also have done way more before hitting the wall. The sauce gives them access to tear things up more effectively in less sets/reps, and then recover from that damage to come back more recovered for the next session. So, while recovery is enhanced overall, they are actually capable of LESS volume in a session because they are working the muscles more effectively.

How's that different from working a heavy set to failure causing the rest of a workout to suffer? Do you mean they like REALLY hit a wall and they can't do a goddamn thing after going all out like that?

[ChasingCurls69]

@CaptainAwesome could you outline a typical week of this program, including the target RPEs?

Since it was derived from one that I purchased, I'm reluctant to start laying out the nitty-gritty on a forum. It was a 4 day layout, each day featured one of the s/b/d/p as the first lift of the session. They waved each week going from 3x8,3x5,3x2, then back again with a weight increase. The program didn't call for any kind of RPE, but I like to use them for the big barbell work because I have found the system useful for keeping tabs on progress. Tried to start with 7, but work quickly went up to 8, and some of the doubles even went up to 9.

The other work did not have RPE targets but I guess a lot of them ended up being 10s or close.

A dude in my gym does barbell curls with I believe 200 lbs. It may or may not be an isolation movement at all as you alluded to. Very entertaining to watch though.

I imagine when you work with that kind of weight you probably have to treat it more like a heavy compound lift anyway.

Getting bigger will increase strength potential, but you might not need to do a "bodybuilding phase", unless you want to do a bodybuilding phase for whatever reason.I think that there are ways of setting up your training so that you do both your stength work and your hypertrophy work at the same time.

...

If you're doing S/B/D for hypertrophy it would be wise to leave some in the tank (at least to mitigate injury risk). Doing something like 5 sets of 8 reps with 70% of your 1RM of the day on S/B/D would be a decent hypertrophy workout for instance.

I'm leaning more toward this after playing around with this stuff. I found sets of 5 on big lifts did me just fine getting fairly big, but I thought maybe I was missing something and wanted to try other stuff out. I don't think 5 sets of 8 at 70% is gonna be good work sets for me on anything though, unless that "1RM of the day" is gonna be a deliberate RPE 8 single or something. 70% 1RM is usually where I like to start new training cycles at 5x5. Maybe if I try this program again I'll deliberately keep reps in the tank on the non-barbell compound stuff like the dumbbell presses and SLDLs and whathaveyou.

Yeah, from the basic outline it sounds like the basic linear periodization on main lifts wasn't particularly good for your lifts, and too many of the hypertrophy sets were hitting failure. I would probs cap bigger ones like SLDL @8-9 depending on the rep range, and take the last set of smaller compounds or isolation movements to failure instead of all sets.

Personally I find that pushing 5x5 above 70-73% e1rm is less effective than having top sets of 1-3 reps based on RPE and doing 5x5 back-offs around that 70% range, or doing ascending RPE +2-3 back-off sets at 67-70%. Like over 100lbs stronger on each lift compared to when 5x5 was in the @8-10 range at the end of a training cycle, and stronger clients on average who stick around for longer.

[AlanMackey]

Wouldn't it be better to do limited barbell work and let machines take care of the hypertrophy stuff?

A single @9 squat set can be difficult to recover from, but if you do a few ascending singles, doubles or triples until @8 and then go crazy on leg presses, hack squats and lunges... that seems more sustainable.

[CaptainAwesome]

Wouldn't it be better to do limited barbell work and let machines take care of the hypertrophy stuff?

A single @9 squat set can be difficult to recover from, but if you do a few ascending singles, doubles or triples until @8 and then go crazy on leg presses, hack squats and lunges... that seems more sustainable.

It was pretty limited barbell work. The only thing that wasn't the main lifts that used a barbell was the SLDLs actually. Plenty of machines were used, especially for the lower body stuff.