If hypertrophy means
8-12 reps should this rep range only be for accesory or all lifts
Like rows and the press?
>>35181745
That's how I do it, although I don't consider the press to be an accessory lift, it's one of my main powerlifts, so I do a 3x5
My accessory shoulder stuff is lateral raises and rear delt flies.
>>35181826
I dont consider it assecory either sorry for the confusion
The reson i ask is my ohp at 3x9 has been very stagnant granted im on a caloric deficit but i am a fat ass
>>35181745
It's hard to go 8-12 reps with decent weight on compounds, that's why 5 is optimal. You can always up sets
>>35181745
It has become a trend to do the main lifts with a lower rep range for dem strength gains, but for hypertrophy 8-12 reps should still be better. You can do a strength block afterwards anyway.
>>35181838
Hypertrophy is mainly about increasing volume over time, weight is not too important. Lower the weight, although you can of course change the rep change if 9 reps annoys you.
>12-rep deadlift
What do you think?
>>35181745
thats a nice FAMAS
>>35181878
When it comes to my back and shoulders they just seem kind of non existant while i have curl bro fatcepts and a belly
Would i make better gains doing my
Upright rows/pendalys/ohp ect in a 5x3 range?
The six big lifts 3-8 rep range and accessory 8-15 imo
Compound lifts should be heavy with 5ish reps.
>>35181847
Implying you aren't just a weak minded individual and hence can't surpass the 5 rep range. Or you're a turbo autist
if you any of you plebs looked up the word hypertrophy you'd realize it has nothing to do with rep ranges. All that hypertrophy literally means is working out. Read a book you plebs.
> contraction against 80 to 90% of the one-repetition maximum for 2–6 repetitions (reps) causes myofibrillated hypertrophy to dominate (as in powerlifters, Olympic lifters and strength athletes), whereas several repetitions (generally 8–12 for bodybuilding or 12 or more for muscular endurance) against a submaximal load facilitates mainly sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (professional bodybuilders and endurance athletes).
Inb4 wikipedia is not credible source. More credible than this shit hole desu senpai
>>35181912
This better be bait cause that is an aug
>>35181959
I dont have enough weight yet for diddlys
But rows and presses arround 5 reps ? How many sets sorry for the question
I have been lifting for 4 months made some noob gains just doing dumb shit and eating right
>>35181984
If that's credible then it's nothing more then a semantic difference.
The principle is still there. If you want to focus on muscle size you do more reps than if you want to focus on lifting more. You're just quibbling over the name.
>>35181937
If you didn't do them in the 8-12 range for too long lately, 5 reps aren't better. But you can get your volume by adding sets aswell.
Whcih press?
>>35181882
There's a friendly dude at my gym who seemed to be doing tons of deadlift reps so I stopped and asked him how many he was going for.
>5x10
I cringed, and he was like
>You think I should go for less?
>>35182043
Its not semantics, you guys are objectively retarded. Instead of saying you want to train for "size" you're trying to use some scientific word you have zero understanding about, and using it incorrectly thus proving you don't know shit.
>>35182080
nothing wrong with this if the weight is low, helps a shit ton to improve form, now if he was doing this with 3 plates, then yeah he went full retard
>>35182067
I have been doing 100% of my lifts at 3x9
>>35181984
Wikipedia is quite wishi washi on that topic. Based on Zatsiorsky hypertrophy is the dependent on both volume and weight, so too much weight lowers the weight too much. That's why 8-12 (blah blah 6-14 or whatever) is often recommended for the best unique hypertrophy gains (activating and fatiguing muscle cells). But you are right, in that range some muscle cells will never activate and thus fatigue so that increasing the weight and lowering the reps is a good idea after too much 8-12.
>>35182148
what i do is every 3-6 months i change rep range,
started 5x10, then 3x10, then 1-2 set of 20+
>>35182117
If you stalled heavily there than really change the rep change, a strength block or a block with way more sets and 12 reps but strength is nice.
>>35182148
I'm not sure I fully understand your post, I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm sick of people bashing routines due to "hyperthropyh" and tell people to go heavier/low reps for "strength", when strength IS hypertrophy. Its as if the ones giving advice are the ones who need it most.
>>35182182
That's ok, you can add a more heavy strength mesocylce aswell. Israetel wrote that muscle confusion sounds really like brosience, but when it comes to avoid stimulus recovery adaptation and keeping fatigue (in this or that rep range) low it's really what one should do.
>white AUG
Veni
>>35182186
I think strength is really important and maybe even more crucial for a lot of sports, but strength is not hypertrophy altough more or less close to it. Yet it's still not a bad idea to do some high rep stuff after too much strength blocks.
>>35182108
Yeah if your goal is to learn the deadlift maybe, but not exactly as your regular deadlift session.
>>35181912
Bullpup*
>>35181745
>If hypertrophy means
>8-12 reps
incorrect assumption, thread is destined for failure.
>>35182108
heavy weight is relative to the person's strength, if i can dead 500 lbs i could easily do 315 lbs for 10 reps easily.
>>35182614
Elaborate
>>35182148
This is more or less correct.
Our understanding now is that hypertrophy is predicted by volume over everything else (with a minimum intensity threshold).
The reason why 8-12 reps seems to work better for hypertrophy is simply that's it's a lot easier to accumulate volume with those rep ranges, and not that 8-12 reps signals our muscles to hypertrophy or anything like that.
10 sets of 3 would actually be better than 3 sets of 10 for hypertrophy (since you get the benefits of higher intensity as well), but 10 sets of 3 is time consuming as fuck. A more realistic example is probably like 3x8 vs 5x5 vs 8x3, 5v5 being a good compromise between intensity vs the time it takes.
>>35182650
>>>35182614 (You)
>Elaborate
progressive overloading on volume causes hypertrophy... its not something that only occurs in the 8-12 range.
Volume is a function of the following in no specific order (and i'm not saying they are all equally weighted factors either in optimising hypertrophy over the long term):-
- rep tempo
- weight
- reps
- sets
- rest time between sets
Hypertrophy is achievable with pretty much any rep range between 1-12, subject to progressive overload on volume.
>>35182783
how low can you go on rest time?
which one of those makes the most difference?
weight i assume?
>>35182148
>>35182769
You can feel it too once you start to increase the weights on your lifts in general. Suddenly what felt like an unbelievable strain at 6 reps is like you're not really working out for 12 reps. You get more varied muscle groups to activate and at greater value (strain, hypertrophy, however you want to define that) with greater weight with fewer reps. Specifically at a weight where only doing 5-8 reps is all you can before you give out.
>10 sets of 3 would do more
Everyone will tell me to piss off, but brosplitting this works really well for me. Gives the workout a rhythm and pretty enjoyable. Dumbell bench, rows, ohp, dips, pull-ups, leg lifts, squats, lunges, DL then start over again for 4 or more cycles, resting every two or three exercises for a minute.
Some bio major or expert will say how this is less effective, but I enjoy it more so I see the increased willingness to do it as a worthwhile trade off for the slightly decreased gains.
>>35182798
the more rest time the better, i believe.
http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
also even rep ranges above 25 had hypertrophic effect, when you control for total volume
>>35182798
>>>35182783 (You)
>how low can you go on rest time?
It doesn't matter, its just one of the other variables.
>which one of those makes the most difference?
>weight i assume?
Try training for 2 years and only progressing linearly with weight, keeping everything else constant... you'll stagnate and plateau well before the 2 years is up.
Periodization becomes a necessity and that necessarily means addressing the volume problem by changing some of the other factors other than weight. Hence why I said "8-12 = hypertrophy" is incorrect... it ignores the other important variables for making progress.
>>35182860
>brosplitting this works really well for me.
everyone knows brosplitting makes it easier to add more volume..
that is literally why brosplits exist...
but to trade in muscle frequency for volume isn't necessarily a good trade to make,.. especially if you can manage a good amount of volume with higher frequency.
>>35182798
The thing that makes the biggest difference is the balance between weight and the total number of reps.
You have to make compromises though, since trying to get all your volume through singles, doubles and triples would take an inordinate amount of time. That's why 5's and 8-12's are used for the bulk of volume training.
>>35182783
I agree with what you're saying for the most part. But it has been proven that rest times have no bearing on hypertrophy effect. It was done in a study, I don't have it handy but when I come home from work if this thread is still up, i'll look for it.
>>35182798
Progressive overload and frequency are #1 key to hypertrophic growth in my opinion.
For example, lets use SS. Per week, they're doing 45 reps of squats, 5-10 reps of deadlifts in a week. Total of 50-55 reps for legs a week. At approx 80% of their 1rm, so 5rm.
55 reps is a fairly low volume for a week, and with progressive overload, and frequency their legs blow the fuck up. You see people in routine rate threads with added up totals of 130-300 reps for muscle groups, and its just not needed and will give sub par results.
>>35181959
Hello, hows your first months of lifting?
>>35181974
>implying going below 70% 1RM will give you any real gains
>>35182091
>one time I read a page of a medicine journal that added qualifiers to the "hypertrophy" condition, so now I pretend to know more than the other people on the Internet so I feel superior
Everyone on here who says hypertrophy is referring to the version associated with bodybuilding, I think deep down you know it friend
>>35183004
What are you saying. That volume isnt important?
How can legs blow up if they arnt doing a lot of reps.
You say frequency is important then contradict yourself by saying they dont work legs a lot. (Only 55 reps)
>>35183004
volume is setsxrepsxweight
when you progress on weight, you progress on volume
>>35182900
this.
>>35181912
Clearly it's a m16
>>35181912
its obv a glock FORRRTAAAY C'MON
