[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
its called time under tension. your muscles have to be under stress for a certain amount of time for growth stimulant to occur. [/quote]
And what amount of time would that be? [/quote]
400 years
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
so what would be a better workout hypertrophy wise (in theory)?
(doing straight sets just for to have a fair comparison)
135x10 for 3 sets
or
135x3 for 10 sets
the advantage of the first is more TUT and the advantage of the second is more force production
(and please donāt put ābothā as an answer)
[/quote]
Did you completely ignore my post where I said that some grow better from low reps and some grow better from high reps? If so, for what reason.
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
so what would be a better workout hypertrophy wise (in theory)?
(doing straight sets just for to have a fair comparison)
135x10 for 3 sets
or
135x3 for 10 sets
the advantage of the first is more TUT and the advantage of the second is more force production
(and please donāt put ābothā as an answer)
[/quote]
405x5 for 10 sets would be better.
See what I did there? This response is actually 97% serious. Think about that for a moment.
The point of 10 sets of 3 is to use more weight than you can physically do for 3 sets of 10. Both your getting 30 reps but one is more weight for those 30 reps. Not something to do all the time either, just one of the many variations to try.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
so what would be a better workout hypertrophy wise (in theory)?
(doing straight sets just for to have a fair comparison)
135x10 for 3 sets
or
135x3 for 10 sets
the advantage of the first is more TUT and the advantage of the second is more force production
(and please donāt put ābothā as an answer)
[/quote]
405x5 for 10 sets would be better.
See what I did there? This response is actually 97% serious. Think about that for a moment. [/quote]
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
its called time under tension. your muscles have to be under stress for a certain amount of time for growth stimulant to occur. [/quote]
And what amount of time would that be? [/quote]
400 years[/quote]
I thought this was funny Deb.
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
its called time under tension. your muscles have to be under stress for a certain amount of time for growth stimulant to occur. [/quote]
And what amount of time would that be? [/quote]
400 years[/quote]
I thought this was funny Deb.[/quote]
She still wonāt sleep with you.
[quote]Krishpy wrote:
TLDR : Is there really any differences in the physiology of training muscles at 3,5,8 and 10 reps? What are the theories/evidence for this?
However, before launching into my new program I just wanted to ask if anyone knew the reasoning behind using 10 reps for hypertrophy.
From what I have learnt muscles are composed of different types of fibers. The ones responsible for hypertrophy are the fast twitch fibers which grow in size over time when lead to fatigue and allowed to rest with adequate nutrients.
[/quote]
Iāll biteā¦
The history of the 3 x 10 model for hypertrophy is based on research studies from the late 80s, early 90s, that measured and compared the acute hormonal responses when performing a higher rep (10) or lower rep (3-5) protocol. These were chosen since the observations of the researchers at the time (in their opinion) was that 10 reps was primarily used by bodybuilders for hypertrophy, whereas lower rep ranges were used by powerlifters/Oly lifters for developing maximal strength.
Their findings were that acute hormonal changes, particularly testosterone/growth hormone, were elevated more with the 10 rep protocol, with the subsequent conclusion that this must be the reason why this protocol leads to hypertrophyā¦not exactly cause and effect research but lets just say it influenced a few position stands and textbooks over the years.
In 2011 the first published study has shown that the order of exercise (large before small rather than small before large) leads to greater strength development in the smaller muscle group supporting the theory that the acute hormonal response may in fact have something to do with the response of other musclesā¦still a field of research (relevance of acute hormonal response) under debate.
Still doesnāt exactly support the long held belief that 10 reps is optimal for hypertrophy, but that is where its from.
The truly classical research from the 70s by Hickson that showed impressive strength gains with programming was a 5x5 protocol where each set was to a true 5RM, not just incrementally loading each set as often advocated on these forums.
The research for whether different rep levels (3-15 rep max) are any different is all over the place. One of the most popular pieces of research in the last decade was a meta-analysis that concluded training at 80% 1RM, at least 4 sets per muscle group twice per week, was the most effective method for increasing strength. Still, there is argument over this too, so maybe just ignore the fuck out of researchers and find what works for you.
Onto the fiber type issue; yes, there are different fiber types. However, the idea of a fatiguing stimulus being needed is nonsense. If this was true, lets just all do fatiguing cardio and interval training, which is extremely fatiguing for local muscles, and weāll all get bigā¦ 
The research showing fatigue is important for the resistance training stimulus is fundamentally flawed since they usually compare two extremes; one that is not fatiguing at all, and a āmore effectiveā comparison that is fatiguing and just so happens to work in training.
A number of studies now show that a resistance training bout, comparable to ones that work in the real world, generally elicit exactly the same fatigue response even though many other variables (hormones, muscle recruitment) are completely different.
The size principle (relating to the orderly recruitment of motor units; low threshold small muscle fiber - high threshold large fiber) is more related to the force output or intensity of the stimulus rather than the level of fatigue. Observations of low level tasks to fatigue do not magically show maximal muscle recruitment.
So, in summary, the resistance training research is generally shit and doesnāt even apply the background physiology correctly, so donāt trust any of it (that includes the terrible use of physiology by the feature authors on this site). Individual responsiveness will dictate gains more than any magical prescription scheme, so find exercises you like, lift heavy for as much as you can tolerate with rep levels you like lifting with, do it regularly, and eat a good diet for gaining muscle.
Happy lifting.
I know this can get knocked back and forth all day, so Iāll give my thoughts and then outā¦
-Time under tension training works in that at around 30 seconds, with a weight heavy enough, your muscles will strain to the point of the higher threshold fibers being called into play, and thus being subjected to a growth stimulus. For most people, performing typical speed concentric contractions and slightly slower eccentrics, will end up with rep ranges anywhere from 6-12 (approximately)
-On the other hand, explosive concentric reps, in a lower rep range, will recruit the higher threshold (more prone to growth!) fibers much more quickly than a higher rep ranged set would. More volume must accompany this type of training (ie. more sets per session), in order to provide enough overall āworkā for the muscles group.
Rep ranges are just one measurement of a large number of variables in training. You can knock out many reps, and yet have them each provide absolutely no growth stimulus at all. That is why there is no real magic rep range. Thibs wrote a while back that time under ātensionā is useless, but time under āmaximum tensionā is the goal, as that is the point where the fibers you need to hit for maximal results will come into play. If you can get 'em going earlier, with less, albeit more productive reps, then by all means do so! 
S
Jesus, Iāve been gone for awhile but I see the madness continues. I think bodybuilders over the past I donāt know 40 years have found what works best. I mean how many top notch bbāers lift that differently?
Take a look at olympic lifters who typically do doubles, singles, and some triples. They are dense, but not filled out. Now, look at any pro bbāer. See the difference? Yes, drugs have some say, but the training is totally different.
With that being said I would certainly stay far away from the 8-12 rep range and the occasional 3 or 20 reps as well.
How much time under tension? Until youāre fucking incapable of performing the simplest of any of the basic motor function.
and good post Stu
Trust me, Iām a doctor
Iāve jumped around with a lot of different rep ranges and, like someone else mentioned earlier, if I eat enough I see gains when using any of them.
That being said, my favorite strategy is do do the first lift for each muscle group Iām training that day as sets of heavy triples, increasing the weight slowly until I canāt get another set of 3, and then doing a max rep set of ~75% of the last set. The rest of the exercises for that muscle I do in the 8-12 rep range.
I find the heavy lift primes me up for a strong workout without giving me too much fatigue, and I see more strength gains with this approach.
This is very much the approach that I have used over the past 2 to 3 years where I realised my greatest gains.
However I do rotate the first rep range between 1-3 RM for 4 to 6 weeks, 4-8 RM for 4 - 6 weeks and finally X weight for 10+ reps for 4 to 6 weeks.
Not going to contribute any more since all the info is fantastic.
[quote]BlakedaMan wrote:
Iāve jumped around with a lot of different rep ranges and, like someone else mentioned earlier, if I eat enough I see gains when using any of them.
That being said, my favorite strategy is do do the first lift for each muscle group Iām training that day as sets of heavy triples, increasing the weight slowly until I canāt get another set of 3, and then doing a max rep set of ~75% of the last set. The rest of the exercises for that muscle I do in the 8-12 rep range.
I find the heavy lift primes me up for a strong workout without giving me too much fatigue, and I see more strength gains with this approach.[/quote]
They absolutely do. Sets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocol. I know some will say that 20 sets x 1 rep is the same as 1 set x 20 reps but these people usually do not practice what they preach or are flat out uninformed about the subject. I recommend you read some very basic strength training books. You can start by reading Practical Programming for Strength Training by Dr. Lon Kilgore and Mark Rippetoe, they do a much better job of explaining this than I could ever do.
āSets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocolā
are you sure about that, because they are many many people who can disprove this
[quote]cally wrote:
āSets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocolā
are you sure about that, because they are many many people who can disprove this [/quote]
It depends on how you look at it.
If you are looking at all variables, many times it is impossible to actually explicitly state something is optimal for a certain outcome. There will always be a grey area.
To explicitly state X reps is optimal for hypertrophy given the vast amounts of variables that take place in training, genetics nutrition and recovery, making such a bold statement lacks applicability no matter how credible the source. Want to make it relevant? Show me a study that accounts for all real world variables encountered trying to gain size.
Right now, anecdotal evidence from āin the trenchesā guys are about as close as we can get.
[quote]cally wrote:
āSets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocolā
are you sure about that, because they are many many people who can disprove this [/quote]
Yes I am.
I am sure those people you speak of have the credentials and real world experience of the two authors I just listed, I am sure your people have also literally dedicated their lives to the study and application of strength training. /sarcasm
Also, those people you speak of do not know better than PROFESSIONAL bodybuilders (you know, the men and women with the most muscle mass on the face of this earthā¦) who have all predominantly used the exact protocol I listed for the majority of their gains in muscle mass.
[quote]bigandstrong24 wrote:
[quote]cally wrote:
āSets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocolā
are you sure about that, because they are many many people who can disprove this [/quote]
Yes I am.
I am sure those people you speak of have the credentials and real world experience of the two authors I just listed, I am sure your people have also literally dedicated their lives to the study and application of strength training. /sarcasm
Also, those people you speak of do not know better than PROFESSIONAL bodybuilders (you know, the men and women with the most muscle mass on the face of this earthā¦) who have all predominantly used the exact protocol I listed for the majority of their gains in muscle mass.[/quote]
Bodybuilders who have been using AAS for the majority of their lifting careers.
Itās not as black and white as you may think.
And people are going to start laughing at you if you keep going with the ābut I readā¦ā business.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]bigandstrong24 wrote:
[quote]cally wrote:
āSets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocolā
are you sure about that, because they are many many people who can disprove this [/quote]
Yes I am.
I am sure those people you speak of have the credentials and real world experience of the two authors I just listed, I am sure your people have also literally dedicated their lives to the study and application of strength training. /sarcasm
Also, those people you speak of do not know better than PROFESSIONAL bodybuilders (you know, the men and women with the most muscle mass on the face of this earthā¦) who have all predominantly used the exact protocol I listed for the majority of their gains in muscle mass.[/quote]
Bodybuilders who have been using AAS for the majority of their lifting careers.
Itās not as black and white as you may think.
And people are going to start laughing at you if you keep going with the ābut I readā¦ā business. [/quote]
Fair point.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
so what would be a better workout hypertrophy wise (in theory)?
(doing straight sets just for to have a fair comparison)
135x10 for 3 sets
or
135x3 for 10 sets
the advantage of the first is more TUT and the advantage of the second is more force production
(and please donāt put ābothā as an answer)
[/quote]
405x5 for 10 sets would be better.
[/quote]
canāt agree moreā¦ PUT MORE WIGHT ON THE BAR!!!
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I know this can get knocked back and forth all day, so Iāll give my thoughts and then outā¦
-Time under tension training works in that at around 30 seconds, with a weight heavy enough, your muscles will strain to the point of the higher threshold fibers being called into play, and thus being subjected to a growth stimulus. For most people, performing typical speed concentric contractions and slightly slower eccentrics, will end up with rep ranges anywhere from 6-12 (approximately)
-On the other hand, explosive concentric reps, in a lower rep range, will recruit the higher threshold (more prone to growth!) fibers much more quickly than a higher rep ranged set would. More volume must accompany this type of training (ie. more sets per session), in order to provide enough overall āworkā for the muscles group.
Rep ranges are just one measurement of a large number of variables in training. You can knock out many reps, and yet have them each provide absolutely no growth stimulus at all. That is why there is no real magic rep range. Thibs wrote a while back that time under ātensionā is useless, but time under āmaximum tensionā is the goal, as that is the point where the fibers you need to hit for maximal results will come into play. If you can get 'em going earlier, with less, albeit more productive reps, then by all means do so!
S
[/quote]
as usual,great post!