How do muscles develop if you work for a shitload of reps instead of weight?
Right now my OHP max is 135x5.
How will my arms develop if I decided to work at it until I can do 135x100?
Would my arms get huge?
Really dense but no size gain?
>>37024324
you will finally be kicked out of the gym
>>37024324
>what is muscular endurance
>>37024371
You tell me
according to the studies listed on strengtheory - hypertrophy increases as volume increases irrespective of what rep-range you use. If volume stays the same 135 x 100 or 1350 x 10 will have the same hypertrophy effect.
however, strength is limited to small rep-ranges - so you won't reach the strength levels of 1350 x 10 lifting 135 x 100.
>>37024377
Just what it sounds like. Ability of muscle to endure. Rep ranges go low to high; strength, hypertrophy, endurance.
>>37024399
according to the studies referenced on the strengtheory website rep ranges make no difference to hypertrophy - only volume matters.
>>37024537
There has to be a fall off point though. Or else we could all get super jacked off bodyweight alone.
>>37024324
They would get huge.
>>37024387
For anyone else looking for this informative article search The New Approach to Training Volume
>>37024782
there's someone who posts here now and again who is somewhere around 6'0 200lbs (I'd estimate 15%bf) and maintaining it with pushups, pullups, one-leg squats etc. - I asked him if he does a lot of volume and he said yeah a ton and showed his routine which was something like 500 squat jumps then 300 one-leg squats (I don't remember the exact but it was in the hundreds for multiple exercises for each muscle group).
>>37024782
Maybe but if you look at the studies they found equivalent hypertrophy at 80% and 30% intensities as long as you go until failure. 30% ~100 reps which is pretty extreme. I guess that I would never do that though, I like strength
>>37024848
>>37024856
This intrigues me. Thanks for the info.
>>37024324
Slow twitch fibers
High volume muscles with big oxygen tubes
You'll look stronger than you are, look a t mr piana.
>>37024387
>irrespective of what rep-range you use
This is true to some extend but it's only half the story. As a rule of thumb, hypertrophy gains are best if you are lifting with an intensity of at least 60% of your 1RM. Obviously if you can do a hundred reps, the weight is much too light to elicit much of a stimulus in this regard.
Recent research has shown that it is also possible to see gains in hypertrophy from using lighter loads (as much as your 30RM to my knowledge), but in order to see gains with such a light load, the set must be taken to absolute failure, which is the kind of training that tends to make you vomit on the floor.
>>37024324
>How will my arms develop if I decided to work at it until I can do 135x100?
Your muscles would probably continue to grow pretty well at least until you are doing around 15 reps, at which point I'm guessing you'd start to see less and less growth as the exercise turns into more and more of an endurance exercise.
There's a reason the 8-12 rep range is usually recommended for hypertrophy work: it's heavy enough to elicit a relevant training stimulus while also being light enough so it's easier to perform more total work without screwing over your capacity to recover and/or joint health.
>>37024387
But scientific studies on this type of shit frequently contradict each other. Using common sense we can conclude its about more than volume, otherwise the guy who only runs on the treadmill would have equal legs to the guy who only squats a 1RM.
>>37025096
not if running is so easy that you'd have to run every waking minute to even make it near to 1rep weighted squat.
>>37025044
one of those studies showed that % didn't matter as long as volume was the same, though - and the anon I mentioned here >>37024848 says he was using hundreds of reps and maintaining his size on that.
as for taking it to failure, that anon did take everything to failure if I remember right.
>>37024848
> I asked him if he does a lot of volume and he said yeah a ton and showed his routine which was something like 500 squat jumps then 300 one-leg squats
That's not volume though dumbass.
>>37025254
>one of those studies showed that % didn't matter as long as volume was the same
But did it really? Percentage of 1RM might not matter to a point, but obviously there's such a thing as too light a weight. Otherwise we'd all be swole just bearing the weight of the air on top of us when we walk around.
>maintaining his size
Big difference between making gains and just maintaining. And also, when trying to draw conclusions, look for the average - not the outlier.
Just some thoughts.
So, you could just switch your compound lifts to 3 sets 8 reps insteast of 5x5 and still see strength and more size gains?
>>37025317
change it to 4x8 with the first set being warm up, then yes.
this is what i do for my ppl routine and it's way better than any regime i've been on.
>>37024387
>135 x 100 or 1350 x 10 will have the same hypertrophy effect.
so if i do 135 x 100 im technically benching 1350 lbs for 10 reps?
nice
>>37025334
So basically 1 set 3x8 just bar, the other 3 sets weight?
Why am i still doing 5x5 then
>>37024324
Try it OP, and let us know. I'm 100% serious that'd be pretty cool.
>>37025317
>5x5 = 25
>3x8 = 24
Size gains would be pretty much the same, but strength gains would lessen. And over time that loss in strength would result in less progressive overload and ultimately less size gains. A better strategy is to do 3x5 followed by a lighter 2-3x8x12 type range. Size is about volume AND progressive overload
>>37025374
Goddamnit
So, i'd be better off doing 3 sets of 5 reps and 1 last set o r 2 with less weight 8-12 reps?
>>37025312
ok I should be more exact - it showed that 30% wasn't any less effective than 80%. There has to be some base level of intensity but it seems like the level of intensity is much lower than is usually thought.
I can't remember if he made the gains that way or maintained - I think he made them but I'm not 100% sure.
>>37025384
Yep that's pretty much it.
>>37025428
Well why is every programm promoting 3x5 or 5x5 then, when this would be the "optimal" rep and set range
>>37025340
So Anon, what's your 10 rep max for OHP?
>I smash that shit dawg, 1350lb 10 rm brah
>>37025434
3x5 is a fantastic range for gaining strength. And most beginner routines are focused primarily on making strength. I agree with this and as such have also told you to do 3x5. That's still the core idea, progress on big lifts at 3x5. Increasing volume AFTER the 3x5 will result in an increase in size gains without hurting your strength gains.
5x5 is harder to progress on than 3x5. It's used because it is a similar intensity to 3x5 but adds volume. However, it isn't adding much volume where higher rep ranges can add 25-30 extra reps instead of 10.
>>37025306
thats a shit ton of volume dumbass
did you forget to add the weight of his own body?
>>37025520
So in other words, either do 3x5 for 90% strength gains, do 5x5 if you want extra 15% size gains
and go with high volume for 90% size gains?
>>37024324
>How do muscles develop if you work for a shitload of reps instead of weight?
They don't. In your theoretical example of 100 reps, that's 100% cardio and the only thing it will train is your aerobic metabolic pathways. Muscle will not grow appreciably beyond how much it already grew getting to 8-10 reps.
Quit being a fucking idiot and read SS and PP.
>>37025535
Your numbers are pretty much meaningless but yes.
>>37025581
Alright, then i'll stick to 5x5 until the weight becomes too stressfull to do and switch to 3x5 i guess
>>37025254
>>37024848
>>37024537
>>37024387
>Studies
You fucking retard, exercise "science" studies are always the worst put together pieces of pop-science garbage you will ever find. The people running the studies have ZERO (0) idea how to effectively train people, the people IN the studies are invariably absolute n00bs (who, as we know, will show some level of improvement from pretty much any sort of training regimen), and the studies rarely run for any useful period of time.
Quit being a retard. 45x10x10 will not get you as big or as strong as 450x5x2 will.
>>37025474
>Oh man! What about your heaviest single?
>>37024324
That would be a 585 lbs max... lets talk about things that are in the realm of possibilities
so routine like 5/3/1 BBB would be good idea?
>>37025848
Fucking dyel quitter
>>37024324
i'm no expert but in my opinion the body sees training just as any other activity, what i mean by this is that it's ony goal is to get better at what it does whatever that is, sitting on the counch, running, lifting etc. For example when you do pushups the body gains enough muscle to make pushups easier so it can do more, but also enough so it doesn't become counterproductive to the activity, in other words it doesn't gain more muscle because you'd reach a point where pushups become actually harder rather than easier, that's why you buy a weight vest, to trick the body into thinking it weights X ammount more, and develops muscle to make that movement easier. So to answer the question yes you'd gain muscle but not as if you progressively add weight instead of reps. But even after all this it's hard to find the perfect method of training for everyone, you have to train and see what work best for you. Also a guy called RedDeltaProject makes good videos about all this topics.
