For a long time, it has been common knowledge that people should lift 1-5 reps for strength, 8-12 reps for muscle size increase, and 15-20 reps for muscular endurance. However, more recent research has demonstrated that almost every rep range stimulates the same amount of muscle growth so long as effort per set (i.e. closeness to failure) is the same between sets. In other words, a set of 50 reps taken to failure stimulates the same amount of muscle growth as a set of 5 reps taken to failure. Currently, evidence exists for loads as low as 20% of 1 repetition maximum and as high as 90% 1RM stimulating the same muscle growth, so long as effort per set and number of sets are similar. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24714538/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3404827/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/
5 rep ranges don't work for me im just forced to do them because im too lazy to remove the plates
>>76570942Good I guessI just like doing 12-20 because its easier to hmmmnnngggg squeeze one more to failure there in comparison to 2-5Simple asAnd I do every single set to failure I don't care what science says, it feels good
>>76570942I don't disagree with the general premise in theory, but the intangible esoteric aspects of training make this not realistic for most people. I was a semi-pro athlete for a while and with a professional trainer, near perfect diet and having access to recovery resources, absolutely. However, the average person doesn't have a trainer, doesn't have a perfect diet, and nowhere near has access to the right recovery resources. When you are doing a lower rep range at a higher percentage of max, each rep you can't do is significantly less of your volume that you are not getting. Amongst the general population I have seen it is most beneficial for people to run ABAX weeks where A=hypertrophy week (8-15 reps), B=strength week (3-8 reps), X=de-load / rest week. This seems to get better responsivity for people without resources.
>>76570942True. 3-6 reps is ideal and most efficient.
So bro science was right all along?>Just go hard bro. Just try to hit failure and go home.This is actually the best way to train?
>>76571056Bro science has always been correct.
>>76571056Of course. Bro science produces jacked beasts
>>76570942In the practical sense the 7 and under reps drive bone density adaptations the highest but can also lead to injures pretty easily. The 8-12 range is the best for connective tissue adaption and recoveryHigher rep ranges can lead to overuse injuries easier.So if you want to filter all down into what's the best for your body 6-8 aka "the Lyle was right again range". But I think just running 8-12 for the most part is pretty good for time effeciency because you can drop a lot of rest times and still not being doing anything dangerous or less productive. It's just really a good rep range to be in for as many of the metabolic, connective issue adaptations as the muscular ones.
Yeah i grew from 3x20 in highschool. Grew from pushups more recently.
>>76570942If you go to failure or RIR 0 before you get serious lactic acid burn, it'll work. If you quit because it hurts, you might be doing endurance work.
>>76570942>In other words, a set of 50 reps taken to failure stimulates the same amount of muscle growth as a set of 5 reps taken to failure.Even if that is true for *muscle* growth, does it hold for bone density and tendon strength? You can fatigue the muscle from effort but I believe the bones and tendons require actual load to strengthen and grow, and that you cannot simulate heavier load with fatigue.
>>765711311-5 for serious lifts and for the soul6-10 for everything else to support the above8-12 for shit you don't really care about
>>76571372In the 15+ rep rangerYou're using anaerobic glycolysis to produce ATP. You're not just running into a lactic acid threshold you're also accumulating a lot of potassium ions outside the cells inhibiting the neurons from doing their thing. Also you're depleting stores of phosphocreatine and glycogen.In ~8-14 it'sThe combination of the above and the mechanical tension and motor unit recruitment being too hard for the neurons themselves to overcome. Basically little bit metabolic reasons little bit of not being able to meet force production requirements.7 and under is mostly neurological>>765713918 to 12 is usually used with a double linear progression. You take your 8 rep weight until you can rep it 13 times (first set mainly) then load it back down to 8. So you get differnt stages of adaptation and almost never have to stop to deload or for injuries. It's a just a good range for steady growth that you can always use with failure as the end point.
>>76571387Sure. Why wouldn't tendons and bones adapt to prolonged stress? They break down from repetition just like anything else.Greater reps might even be superior, since they boost blood flow to regions that don't normally get it.
>>76570942Overcoming Gravity says all ranges from 3 to 30 is useful, so I listen to it.
>>76570942>>76571372>>76571410>>76571441So is 5x5 useless?
>Natty and non 150kg fat asses really think going to the gym and doing 3x5 (15 reps in total LMFAO) ONCE A WEEK is going to do anything to their body
>>76571453No it's plenty good. With the whole effective reps model the OP is alluding to it's 25 ER. 20-30 being about what the "celing" is for returns on a single session. But 25 ER is also 5x10, 5x8, 5x12 ect ect. The sets in this instance count more than the reps for hypertrophy if both are taken to failure. (if they're not this gets all screwy) But the reps/loading in x5 drive bone density adaptations and strength through increased recruitment on the neurological side. As well the skill component of just really nailing one lift. 5x5 is in general fine if you like the long rests and doing one exercise a group. But you better have built up some kind of tendon fortification before doing it. Idk why people throw this shit at beginners like they're trying to trick them.
>>76571502>Idk why people throw this shit at beginners like they're trying to trick thembecause "3x10" or "5x5" is completely meaningless without specifying intensity and frequency.beginners start a 5x5 with the bar. 5x5 isn't five sets of five taken to failure, but ADD zoomies fail to understand the context, go yeet 5 sets of crooked squats to failure then cry about back pain or w/e the day after when in stead you'd slowly build up to that weight over weeks/months precisely to condition your soft tissues to the load.5x5 sets across is way too much anyway, with that I agree.
>>765715163x10 is kind of taken out of context to begin with.It's not just 3x10 it's 2x 3x10 in most routines. Which puts it about ~30 in the optimal of conditions. The way most people do it it'll probably be about the same ballpark as 5x5 (~25) with just much less danger.Frequency is the same 2 twice a week.Intensity is the same to failure (but assuming they half ass a few sets at the end of their workout)For hypertrophy alone they're near equal.
>>76571502I usually take like 2-3mins per set. Thing is I don't take every set to failure. Im not a beginner but I've gotten weaker and lazy and I'm coming back. Thing is going to failure and doing other routines has heemed my joints lol>>76571516I use my 7rm for 5x5s. Would using my 6rm make a difference for muscle growth?>>76571533>for hypertrophy theyre nearly equalSo it really doesnt matter?
>>76571554>So it really doesnt matter?I wouldn't say that. Just the devil's in the details on this. There's a lot of considerHow safe is the lift to do heavy with no reps in reserve?How much time do really want to spend between sets?How adapted are you to lifting already?How good are leverages for that lift?What else do you need to do for that group?You don't have to run every group as the same sets and reps.
>>76570942Rep ranges are a myth for building muscle, but they have some sense when planing your workout.>Low reps 1-5: ideal for some high demanding exercises like deadlifts, bench or squats since they overload your cardiologic and nervous system.>Mid range 5-15: ideal for most exercises since they allow to reach failure without being harsh on tendons, they also do allow for proper form.High range 15+: good for some exercises like lateral raises, reverse pec dec or leg extensions. Bad overall for the rest since they get boring long and 90% of the reps are just junk volume
>>76571008wtf are you talking about
>>76570942>a set of 50 reps taken to failure stimulates the same amount of muscle growth as a set of 5 reps taken to failure.>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24714538/50 reps is well outside the ranges looked at here. Only looked at change in thickness of the biceps. Meanwhile, the strength training routine got much better increases in Squat/BP 1RM than the high rep group. Low sample size as usual of course so no statistical power. >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3404827/>Subjects were recreationally active with no formal weightlifting experience or regular weightlifting activity over the last year. Low sample size so no statistical power. Another beginner study. >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/8-12 v. 25-35 rep ranges. Low sample size as usual.And lets face it, IRL you're not squatting 20+ reps to failure.
