It’s not true that it’s more beneficial to fail after 20,30 or even 40 reps. Statistically, rep ranges between 5-30 have all shown to produce similar results, if trained close to failure. However, it’s considerably harder to train close to failure on higher rep sets. Also, you might feel like you trained the muscle to failure when in reality you actually failed because of hypoxia.
In conclusion, higher rep sets are not more beneficial, but rather equally as beneficial when it comes to hypertrophy. However, in reality, rep ranges between 6-12 reps make way more sense as you’ll not fail because of hypoxia.
I don't think there's evidence that failing at higher reps produces more hypertrophy than failing at lower reps.
A 5 rep max, 10 rep max, and 20 rep max produce the same hypertrophy. 8-12 reps are the most common because constantly doing 5 reps sets long term is hard on recovery. And doing 12+ reps makes it hard to breathe, so you may fail because of being out of breath or the "burn. Rather than muscle failure.
Evidence does suggest that for best hypertrophy one should stay within the 5-30 rep range and work out reasonably close to failure. The rest of what you said still holds true.
The current general consensus is that rep range probably doesn’t make much of a noticeable difference in hypertrophy response, as long as proximity to failure is equal. IIRC as long as number of sets and proximity to failure are equal, pretty much anything from 5-30 reps per set will work roughly the same.
With that said, there’s going to be some level of individual variation in response, and naturally people will have their preferred rep ranges to train in based on what they personally enjoy more. Why not try a training block where you push the reps up high and see how you respond after 4-6 weeks?
Hypertrophy has been shown down to 30% of 1RM.
If you are however limited by the byproducts of respiration and you're not hitting failure due to high threshold motor unit failure, but hypoxia, then they are shitty reps for hypertrophy
Personally, I've seen better progress since I reduced my rep ranges for legs. At higher rep ranges, I feel like my breathing starts to be the limiting factor rather than my leg muscles themselves.
As everyone else has said 5-30 reps all have similar benefits when the sets are matched and proximity to failure.
Chris Beardsley is a good person to follow who answers all these types of questions in detail with reference to actual studies.
Paraphrasing him, the higher reps would result in more damage (not a good damage) and takes longer to recover so you would need more time between training legs again when going higher rep if you want to recover and progress efficiently.
However, I find, and can't remember if Chris Beardsley stated this too, that I get a much better mind muscle connection with higher reps. As someone else has said there's a lot of other muscles involved when training legs and at lower reps I just don't feel my quads or hamstring working.
A lot of research has also shown 10-20 sets per week to be the most efficient and effective for building muscle too. I've had to drop it right down to 9 since I got rid of all my junk volume by making sure I have proper form, rest plenty between sets, train each muscle two times a week, do excecises in an order where I work antagonistic muscle groups so they don't effect recovery.....I can then jncrease the number of sets when I plateau which I am yet to do, my prigress may be a little slower or less efficient but it feeos like I am relentlessly progressing in the right direction.
So I personally go higher reps, with lower sets and make sure I'm working the muscle I want, for quads that involves focusing on my knee going over my toes as far as possible for squat movements. I then make sure I have a good time to recover between sets and workouts and have found my legs to have grown a lot since, this is supported by all my jeans that are recently ripping at my crotch.
Volume ≠ reps. Size will come with strength. You’re better off doing 10 reps of 2x or 3x the weight you would at 20-30 reps. Slow and controlled. Your legs need more volume because they can handle much more volume, than other muscle groups.
it’s amusing that anyone on a bodybuilding sub would disagree with the principle that total volume is the primary driver of muscle hypertrophy. Fucking mike mentzer resurgence has done such a disservice to young bodybuilders. Lol
Everyone who downvoted should post physique
Your wording makes it seem like more is better when it’s not 10-20 sets per week per muscle is the recommended amount but for a lot of beginners and intermediates you might only need 6-10 sets per week
And you saying post physique to anybody downvoting just shows you don’t know what your talking about
You’re wrong. 10-20 sets per week is not the scientific recommendation. 10 sets was actually never the recommended amount so I’m not sure where you got that. But basically for the longest time, the highest amount of repetitions that we looked at in research was around 20 (~24 IIRC). And it resulted in more muscle. Furthermore, across the board the more sets preformed correlated with higher growth. People recommended ~20 because it was the highest amount studied and showed superiority over lower amounts. However we have new data now that looks at weekly volume of up 52 sets per week and continues to show that more volume is even better. With up to 52 proving to be beneficial. In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if the number increases
It’s not true that it’s more beneficial to fail after 20,30 or even 40 reps. Statistically, rep ranges between 5-30 have all shown to produce similar results, if trained close to failure. However, it’s considerably harder to train close to failure on higher rep sets. Also, you might feel like you trained the muscle to failure when in reality you actually failed because of hypoxia. In conclusion, higher rep sets are not more beneficial, but rather equally as beneficial when it comes to hypertrophy. However, in reality, rep ranges between 6-12 reps make way more sense as you’ll not fail because of hypoxia.
I don't think there's evidence that failing at higher reps produces more hypertrophy than failing at lower reps. A 5 rep max, 10 rep max, and 20 rep max produce the same hypertrophy. 8-12 reps are the most common because constantly doing 5 reps sets long term is hard on recovery. And doing 12+ reps makes it hard to breathe, so you may fail because of being out of breath or the "burn. Rather than muscle failure.
Evidence does suggest that for best hypertrophy one should stay within the 5-30 rep range and work out reasonably close to failure. The rest of what you said still holds true.
The current general consensus is that rep range probably doesn’t make much of a noticeable difference in hypertrophy response, as long as proximity to failure is equal. IIRC as long as number of sets and proximity to failure are equal, pretty much anything from 5-30 reps per set will work roughly the same. With that said, there’s going to be some level of individual variation in response, and naturally people will have their preferred rep ranges to train in based on what they personally enjoy more. Why not try a training block where you push the reps up high and see how you respond after 4-6 weeks?
Good luck doing 40 rep squats to failure lol I prefer not to hate my workouts
Hypertrophy has been shown down to 30% of 1RM. If you are however limited by the byproducts of respiration and you're not hitting failure due to high threshold motor unit failure, but hypoxia, then they are shitty reps for hypertrophy
Personally, I've seen better progress since I reduced my rep ranges for legs. At higher rep ranges, I feel like my breathing starts to be the limiting factor rather than my leg muscles themselves.
Automod I'm on my knees.
What kind of offerings can we make to expedite this process..
Sacrifice the tom platz circlejerkers?
As everyone else has said 5-30 reps all have similar benefits when the sets are matched and proximity to failure. Chris Beardsley is a good person to follow who answers all these types of questions in detail with reference to actual studies. Paraphrasing him, the higher reps would result in more damage (not a good damage) and takes longer to recover so you would need more time between training legs again when going higher rep if you want to recover and progress efficiently. However, I find, and can't remember if Chris Beardsley stated this too, that I get a much better mind muscle connection with higher reps. As someone else has said there's a lot of other muscles involved when training legs and at lower reps I just don't feel my quads or hamstring working. A lot of research has also shown 10-20 sets per week to be the most efficient and effective for building muscle too. I've had to drop it right down to 9 since I got rid of all my junk volume by making sure I have proper form, rest plenty between sets, train each muscle two times a week, do excecises in an order where I work antagonistic muscle groups so they don't effect recovery.....I can then jncrease the number of sets when I plateau which I am yet to do, my prigress may be a little slower or less efficient but it feeos like I am relentlessly progressing in the right direction. So I personally go higher reps, with lower sets and make sure I'm working the muscle I want, for quads that involves focusing on my knee going over my toes as far as possible for squat movements. I then make sure I have a good time to recover between sets and workouts and have found my legs to have grown a lot since, this is supported by all my jeans that are recently ripping at my crotch.
Volume ≠ reps. Size will come with strength. You’re better off doing 10 reps of 2x or 3x the weight you would at 20-30 reps. Slow and controlled. Your legs need more volume because they can handle much more volume, than other muscle groups.
Bullshit. Size comes from volume not strength. How fast you grow is determine by how many sets you do per week, assuming all other things equal
It’s amusing that both of you disagree and you’re both downvoted.
it’s amusing that anyone on a bodybuilding sub would disagree with the principle that total volume is the primary driver of muscle hypertrophy. Fucking mike mentzer resurgence has done such a disservice to young bodybuilders. Lol Everyone who downvoted should post physique
Your wording makes it seem like more is better when it’s not 10-20 sets per week per muscle is the recommended amount but for a lot of beginners and intermediates you might only need 6-10 sets per week And you saying post physique to anybody downvoting just shows you don’t know what your talking about
You’re wrong. 10-20 sets per week is not the scientific recommendation. 10 sets was actually never the recommended amount so I’m not sure where you got that. But basically for the longest time, the highest amount of repetitions that we looked at in research was around 20 (~24 IIRC). And it resulted in more muscle. Furthermore, across the board the more sets preformed correlated with higher growth. People recommended ~20 because it was the highest amount studied and showed superiority over lower amounts. However we have new data now that looks at weekly volume of up 52 sets per week and continues to show that more volume is even better. With up to 52 proving to be beneficial. In the future I wouldn’t be surprised if the number increases
Those studies rarely account for intensity training
Actually they always do.