Do Rep Ranges Really Matter?

[Doyle]

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:

[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]

I’ll bite…

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 hypertrophy…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 muscles…still a field of research (relevance of acute hormonal response) under debate.

Still doesn’t 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 we’ll all get big…

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 ‘more effective’ 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 doesn’t even apply the background physiology correctly, so don’t 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. [/quote]
Very comprehensive

[Doyle]

[quote]bigandstrong24 wrote:

[quote]cally wrote:
“Sets of 10 to or near failure are more optimal for hypertrophy than just about any other set loading protocol”

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 earth…) who have all predominantly used the exact protocol I listed for the majority of their gains in muscle mass.[/quote]

There are authors other than those mentioned who fit that description and who would recomend different rep ranges eg 5x5.

To continue to see good results you need to continue to progressively overload the muscle. A lot of people find that stregth gains platue at some point using only 10 rep sets. Although you can use other overload techniques like more volume or less rest, changing the rep range is a good way to get things moving again.