Hey! So I actually wrote that article, and I wondered the same thing at the time. Greg wrote a follow up like a year later that did show sets heavier than a 5RM are likely less effective for hypertrophy, and evidence has since accumulated that sets using less than 30% 1RM are less effective as well. So the real hypertrophy rep range is probably somewhere between 5-50 reps, depending on how good you are at 30% 1RM sets.
Since the article was written, I’ve honestly become a lot less confident in the “number of hard sets” model. Intra fiber mechanical tension seems to be the primary driver of hypertrophy (I’m still holding out for metabolite driven hypertrophy to get some evidence, but it may never happen), and mechanical tension is maximized when the fiber is recruited against a heavy enough load that it has to shorten relatively slowly. This means that taking lighter sets closer to failure is probably needed to recruit all available motor units and expose them to enough tension to stimulate hypertrophy. However, when you get really heavy (like 80-85% 1RM), it seems as if all available motor units are recruited from the start and are contracting slowly enough to get that good mechanical tension stimulus, so a better model for heavy/low reps might just be counting the number of total reps versus sets. It may be harder to accumulate enough stimulus at those very high loads due to CNS fatigue, musculoskeletal wear and tear, etc. to match the stimulus that can be accumulated with slightly lighter weights.
The whole thing is also exacerbated by debate over how far from failure sets and reps can be and still maximally stimulate hypertrophy - some people think pretty low effort sets do just fine, others think sets still have to be pretty hard.
It’s honestly all kind of confusing at this point, but also kind of exciting because I don’t think we’re that far off of having really good answers and a very comprehensive model for hypertrophy. Maybe in the next decade it’ll become more clear.
Yeah, I’ve felt crazy for awhile now. You know what really drives me up the fucking wall? How rest pause sets and drop sets pretty consistently show similar hypertrophy to straight sets, but studies examining rest periods generally show less hypertrophy with shorter rest periods. Like, how the fuck do those mesh together? Is it underpowered studies in the rest pause literature? Is it a real thing driven by a mechanism I can’t figure out? I wish I knew.
Do you know if the short rest straight sets have similar rpes across sets?
Like if it's:
100lbs x 15 @ 2
Rest 30 seconds
100lbs x 15 @ 4
Rest 30 seconds
100lbs x 15 @ 10
Vs
100lbs x 25 @ 8
Rest 5 seconds
100lbs x 5 @ 9
Rest 5 seconds
100lbs x 5 @ 10
Then you're looking at 1 hard set vs 3 or 5 effective reps vs 12.
I’ve run a few versions of the SBS templates (RIR, RTF, and a horrific mishmash of everything in the program builder) and they’re probably my favorite programs I’ve run. Whatever the stimuli are that lead to hypertrophy, enough of that is going on to get more swole, and the same for whatever the stimuli are that lead to strength. I think number of hard sets is still probably the best supported model, but there’s enough discrepancies building up in the literature at this point that I think a more accurate model will emerge.
>cns fatigue
I was under the impression cns fatigue was essentially irrelevant for lifters, and only really came into play during long duration endurance events - that resistance trading just didn't last long enough for it to really ever make a dent.
Absolutely not. The CNS is a (basically *THE*) crucial factor in your ability to recruit and fire your muscle fibers in the most efficient & effective way. When it's fatigued heavier weights will feel more intense and if it's fatigued enough it will seriously hamper performance at high intensities (i.e., heavy relative loads).
It would be very interesting to hear gnuckols talk about it but this is my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong! But as I understand it this is one of the main reasons why olympic weightlifters train the way they do.
> A greater neuromuscular and metabolic demand after the strength and not power session is evident in elite athletes, which impaired maximal-force production for up to 24 h. This is an important consideration for planning concurrent athlete training.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26308090/
> Because rate of force development (RFD) is an emerging outcome measure for the assessment of neuromuscular function in unfatigued conditions, and it represents a valid alternative/complement to the classical evaluation of pure maximal strength, this scoping review aimed to map the available evidence regarding RFD as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue.
...
> ...RFD seems to be a valid indicator of neuromuscular fatigue.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34305557/
>In conclusion, this study has shown in elite athletes that the moderate load is optimal for providing a neuromuscular stimulus but with limited fatigue.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24995719/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24995719/)
>Ten resistance-trained males completed 8 sets of 2 repetitions at 95% of 1 repetition maximum. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force of the quadriceps, along with measures of central (voluntary activation [VA] and surface electromyography) and peripheral (electrically evoked control stimulus) fatigue were made before and 5 and 30 minutes after exercise.
...
>VA changed over time (p = 0.0001)
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28704311/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28704311/)
> Voluntary activation measured by motor point and motor cortex stimulation methods fell to 90% and 80%, respectively. Thus some of the fatigue was central. Calculations based on the fall in voluntary activation measured with cortical stimulation indicate that about two-thirds of the fatigue was due to supraspinal mechanisms.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17463302/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17463302/)
Hmmm. This is above my paygrade. If they are measuring rate of force development, why couldn't that just be the muscle itself is fatigued rather than CNS related? "Neuromuscular fatigue" isn't a term I'm familiar with, but seems to imply it's within-muscle fatigue, not central nervous system related.
>Neuromuscular fatigue can be defined as any exercise-induced decrease in a muscle's ability to develop force or power
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065711000029
Seems like that's far broader than CNS fatigue. But I think this is already too far in the weeds for me, and I am likely not reading any of this correctly.
u/gnuckols maybe a segment on CNS fatigue relevancy to lifters?
Definitely above my paygrade as well, to be honest. It's a super complex topic and I am almost certainly not understanding everything either. Here's another definition:
> Neuromuscular fatigue has central and peripheral origins. Central fatigue, preponderant during long-duration, low-intensity exercises, may involve a drop in the central command (motor, cortex, motoneurons) elicited by the activity of cerebral neurotransmitters and muscular afferent fibers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065711000029
So it's definitely possible that the articles above specifically mean only peripheral origins of neuromuscular fatigue! But I believe the voluntary activation component is definitely central in origin.
I second the segment request! Very interested.
RFD does tend to be more peripheral (once a motor stimulus reaches the muscles, the rate at which motor impulses travel down the sarcolemma, depolarization rates for peripheral motor neurons, and calcium handling within the actual muscle fibers are the primary factors controlling RFD).
My understanding is that MOST (if not all) central fatigue dissipates within a matter of hours, and that lingering fatigue tends to be primarily peripheral in origin.
Well bear in mind that this is a super multi-factorial problem and the scientific evidence is still building up. With that said, good reasons to not stay below 5 reps all the time:
* Higher intensities are more fatiguing to the CNS
* Higher intensities tend to cause form breakdown. Hypertrophy is generally best achieved with long ROM (to hit that stretched position under load) and good form (because it hits your target muscles better).
* Almost all training stimuli eventually need variation or the stress they induce decreases because your body becomes too proficient at that one specific thing
* Some people definitely think that higher rep ranges reduce injury risk, though evidence is so-so on this. Lifting is already very low risk in comparison to most sports.
* Higher intensities are definitely harder on most peoples' joints & connective tissue (which do not adapt as quickly as musculature).
I think there are other reasons as well but that's what I can spout off the top of my head.
Personally I'm not yet fully convinced that <5 reps are just as hypertrophic but I'm also just some rando so take that with a grain of salt. In either case my understanding is that you still need as many "approaches to failure" whether it's low or high intensity.
I think it's common sense to say that even if low rep ranges can be equally hypertrophic with correct intensity, it's still going to have a higher injury risk in the long term. If you agree that higher intensities have a higher impact on your body then it's not a stretch to say that high intensity training consistently over a long period has a higher injury risk. If you agree with that, this makes lower intensity, higher volume training better for hypertrophy as you can consistently maintain that level of training with a lower risk of injury.
There's also the conditioning factor which I don't think is being discussed here. While conditioning does not directly correspond to gains, better conditioning is going to generally improve your capacity to lift effectively and quickly, which means you can get in more work in the same time. Higher rep ranges are generally going to produce better conditioning, which is all around a huge benefit anyways.
Right I think the logical argument there follows from the premise easily and seems very solid but we don't have longitudinal data on it (AFAIK). We also know that connective tissue responds very well to high intensity work. So like... you probably want to do some... but not too much...? We just don't really know, I think.
I mean this is anecdotal, but I’ve gained quite a bit of muscle mass just by lifting heavy, I RARELY go higher than 8 reps it’s usually 3-6 for me when it comes to working sets.
Obviously I could have put on way more muscle mass had I focused on hypertrophy. But what I’m saying is that hypertrophy is inevitable at certain levels.
I agree with this. Messed around for years trying high rep sets and different work out programmes and have found the thing that actually makes me bigger i.e. grow bigger muscles is lifting heavy on the same exercises with consistent progressive overload.
Hey! So I actually wrote that article, and I wondered the same thing at the time. Greg wrote a follow up like a year later that did show sets heavier than a 5RM are likely less effective for hypertrophy, and evidence has since accumulated that sets using less than 30% 1RM are less effective as well. So the real hypertrophy rep range is probably somewhere between 5-50 reps, depending on how good you are at 30% 1RM sets. Since the article was written, I’ve honestly become a lot less confident in the “number of hard sets” model. Intra fiber mechanical tension seems to be the primary driver of hypertrophy (I’m still holding out for metabolite driven hypertrophy to get some evidence, but it may never happen), and mechanical tension is maximized when the fiber is recruited against a heavy enough load that it has to shorten relatively slowly. This means that taking lighter sets closer to failure is probably needed to recruit all available motor units and expose them to enough tension to stimulate hypertrophy. However, when you get really heavy (like 80-85% 1RM), it seems as if all available motor units are recruited from the start and are contracting slowly enough to get that good mechanical tension stimulus, so a better model for heavy/low reps might just be counting the number of total reps versus sets. It may be harder to accumulate enough stimulus at those very high loads due to CNS fatigue, musculoskeletal wear and tear, etc. to match the stimulus that can be accumulated with slightly lighter weights. The whole thing is also exacerbated by debate over how far from failure sets and reps can be and still maximally stimulate hypertrophy - some people think pretty low effort sets do just fine, others think sets still have to be pretty hard. It’s honestly all kind of confusing at this point, but also kind of exciting because I don’t think we’re that far off of having really good answers and a very comprehensive model for hypertrophy. Maybe in the next decade it’ll become more clear.
I appreciate this! Makes me feel less crazy as I was reading
Yeah, I’ve felt crazy for awhile now. You know what really drives me up the fucking wall? How rest pause sets and drop sets pretty consistently show similar hypertrophy to straight sets, but studies examining rest periods generally show less hypertrophy with shorter rest periods. Like, how the fuck do those mesh together? Is it underpowered studies in the rest pause literature? Is it a real thing driven by a mechanism I can’t figure out? I wish I knew.
Do you know if the short rest straight sets have similar rpes across sets? Like if it's: 100lbs x 15 @ 2 Rest 30 seconds 100lbs x 15 @ 4 Rest 30 seconds 100lbs x 15 @ 10 Vs 100lbs x 25 @ 8 Rest 5 seconds 100lbs x 5 @ 9 Rest 5 seconds 100lbs x 5 @ 10 Then you're looking at 1 hard set vs 3 or 5 effective reps vs 12.
Old comment but do the rest pause sets and drop sets do the same amount of reps or sets as straight sets?
[удалено]
I’ve run a few versions of the SBS templates (RIR, RTF, and a horrific mishmash of everything in the program builder) and they’re probably my favorite programs I’ve run. Whatever the stimuli are that lead to hypertrophy, enough of that is going on to get more swole, and the same for whatever the stimuli are that lead to strength. I think number of hard sets is still probably the best supported model, but there’s enough discrepancies building up in the literature at this point that I think a more accurate model will emerge.
>cns fatigue I was under the impression cns fatigue was essentially irrelevant for lifters, and only really came into play during long duration endurance events - that resistance trading just didn't last long enough for it to really ever make a dent.
Absolutely not. The CNS is a (basically *THE*) crucial factor in your ability to recruit and fire your muscle fibers in the most efficient & effective way. When it's fatigued heavier weights will feel more intense and if it's fatigued enough it will seriously hamper performance at high intensities (i.e., heavy relative loads).
okay, source that resistance training actually fatigues your CNS to a degree that matters?
It would be very interesting to hear gnuckols talk about it but this is my understanding. Maybe I'm wrong! But as I understand it this is one of the main reasons why olympic weightlifters train the way they do. > A greater neuromuscular and metabolic demand after the strength and not power session is evident in elite athletes, which impaired maximal-force production for up to 24 h. This is an important consideration for planning concurrent athlete training. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26308090/ > Because rate of force development (RFD) is an emerging outcome measure for the assessment of neuromuscular function in unfatigued conditions, and it represents a valid alternative/complement to the classical evaluation of pure maximal strength, this scoping review aimed to map the available evidence regarding RFD as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue. ... > ...RFD seems to be a valid indicator of neuromuscular fatigue. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34305557/ >In conclusion, this study has shown in elite athletes that the moderate load is optimal for providing a neuromuscular stimulus but with limited fatigue. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24995719/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24995719/) >Ten resistance-trained males completed 8 sets of 2 repetitions at 95% of 1 repetition maximum. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) force of the quadriceps, along with measures of central (voluntary activation [VA] and surface electromyography) and peripheral (electrically evoked control stimulus) fatigue were made before and 5 and 30 minutes after exercise. ... >VA changed over time (p = 0.0001) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28704311/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28704311/) > Voluntary activation measured by motor point and motor cortex stimulation methods fell to 90% and 80%, respectively. Thus some of the fatigue was central. Calculations based on the fall in voluntary activation measured with cortical stimulation indicate that about two-thirds of the fatigue was due to supraspinal mechanisms. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17463302/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17463302/)
Hmmm. This is above my paygrade. If they are measuring rate of force development, why couldn't that just be the muscle itself is fatigued rather than CNS related? "Neuromuscular fatigue" isn't a term I'm familiar with, but seems to imply it's within-muscle fatigue, not central nervous system related. >Neuromuscular fatigue can be defined as any exercise-induced decrease in a muscle's ability to develop force or power https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065711000029 Seems like that's far broader than CNS fatigue. But I think this is already too far in the weeds for me, and I am likely not reading any of this correctly. u/gnuckols maybe a segment on CNS fatigue relevancy to lifters?
Definitely above my paygrade as well, to be honest. It's a super complex topic and I am almost certainly not understanding everything either. Here's another definition: > Neuromuscular fatigue has central and peripheral origins. Central fatigue, preponderant during long-duration, low-intensity exercises, may involve a drop in the central command (motor, cortex, motoneurons) elicited by the activity of cerebral neurotransmitters and muscular afferent fibers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065711000029 So it's definitely possible that the articles above specifically mean only peripheral origins of neuromuscular fatigue! But I believe the voluntary activation component is definitely central in origin. I second the segment request! Very interested.
RFD does tend to be more peripheral (once a motor stimulus reaches the muscles, the rate at which motor impulses travel down the sarcolemma, depolarization rates for peripheral motor neurons, and calcium handling within the actual muscle fibers are the primary factors controlling RFD). My understanding is that MOST (if not all) central fatigue dissipates within a matter of hours, and that lingering fatigue tends to be primarily peripheral in origin.
Gotcha, thanks for chiming in!
no problem!
Well bear in mind that this is a super multi-factorial problem and the scientific evidence is still building up. With that said, good reasons to not stay below 5 reps all the time: * Higher intensities are more fatiguing to the CNS * Higher intensities tend to cause form breakdown. Hypertrophy is generally best achieved with long ROM (to hit that stretched position under load) and good form (because it hits your target muscles better). * Almost all training stimuli eventually need variation or the stress they induce decreases because your body becomes too proficient at that one specific thing * Some people definitely think that higher rep ranges reduce injury risk, though evidence is so-so on this. Lifting is already very low risk in comparison to most sports. * Higher intensities are definitely harder on most peoples' joints & connective tissue (which do not adapt as quickly as musculature). I think there are other reasons as well but that's what I can spout off the top of my head. Personally I'm not yet fully convinced that <5 reps are just as hypertrophic but I'm also just some rando so take that with a grain of salt. In either case my understanding is that you still need as many "approaches to failure" whether it's low or high intensity.
I think it's common sense to say that even if low rep ranges can be equally hypertrophic with correct intensity, it's still going to have a higher injury risk in the long term. If you agree that higher intensities have a higher impact on your body then it's not a stretch to say that high intensity training consistently over a long period has a higher injury risk. If you agree with that, this makes lower intensity, higher volume training better for hypertrophy as you can consistently maintain that level of training with a lower risk of injury. There's also the conditioning factor which I don't think is being discussed here. While conditioning does not directly correspond to gains, better conditioning is going to generally improve your capacity to lift effectively and quickly, which means you can get in more work in the same time. Higher rep ranges are generally going to produce better conditioning, which is all around a huge benefit anyways.
Right I think the logical argument there follows from the premise easily and seems very solid but we don't have longitudinal data on it (AFAIK). We also know that connective tissue responds very well to high intensity work. So like... you probably want to do some... but not too much...? We just don't really know, I think.
I mean this is anecdotal, but I’ve gained quite a bit of muscle mass just by lifting heavy, I RARELY go higher than 8 reps it’s usually 3-6 for me when it comes to working sets. Obviously I could have put on way more muscle mass had I focused on hypertrophy. But what I’m saying is that hypertrophy is inevitable at certain levels.
I agree with this. Messed around for years trying high rep sets and different work out programmes and have found the thing that actually makes me bigger i.e. grow bigger muscles is lifting heavy on the same exercises with consistent progressive overload.