Many people say that the 1-4 rep range builds more strength with more focus on fast twitch fibres, 8-12 is the ideal hypertrophy range with more focus on slow twitch fibres, and that 5-8 reps are more in-between.
Some also talk about the difference between sarcoplasmic and myfibrillar hypertrophy and the importance of not training lie a bodybuilder - sarcoplasmic hypertrophy being more aimed toward building muscle by increasing the amount of fluid in the muscle creating large but āsoftā, largely non-contractile muscle tissue, and myofribrillar hypertrophy being more aimed towards building the muscle fibres, creating more āhardā dense muscle.
I can see why building functional muscle would be more beneficial to say a fighter than increasing muscular size without function, building as much relative strength without gaining excess weight that is of no use.
However most lifting programmes, including those created by the same people who talk about this, still include assistance exercises including bodybuilding style set and rep ranges. There must be a reason for this and Iām trying to understand why this is? Would it not be possible to train most movements in that low rep range for somebody focused almost entirely on strength and power over size? And if not how would this be a bad thing?
Just a guess, but a lot of the smaller muscles and groups that are the target of accessory work canāt be adequately targeted or stimulated using low rep/high percentage loads.
Just speculating though. Someone else probably has a more educated explanation.
Have a google of ārep range strongerbyscienceā
Most programs cover the bigger and stronger, stronger and I donāt really mind what happens muscle wise and everything in between but not the stronger but I wanna stay skinny forever groups.
Getting bigger potentiates getting stronger and itās a relatively efficient/effective way to go about getting stronger hence why many programs include assistance/accessory movements to get more work done for specific muscle groups without accumulating excessive fatigue e.g. squats fry your entire body but leg press just fries your quads.
In the long term you can well stay around the same weight when a competition rolls around but in between some time spent in a hypercaloric state / off season followed by a conservative cut holding onto as much muscle gained as possible will net you plenty of strength gains.
The differenceās in the effect of rep range on hypertrophy isnāt that significant. Thereās a slight difference but hard sets of 5 vs sets of 12 with work/volume matched wonāt yield 50% more gains with higher rep ranges or some shit. Rep range affects strength a bit more significantly e.g. handling heavier weights more often + improved technique at > %1RM.
One could train exclusively in the lower rep ranges but practical considerations such as prohibitively lengthy workouts to accumulate enough volume/work, wear and tear on the body from similar repetitive stress, mean that training this way isnāt always optimal. If youāve know how Sheiko variations are run you can see how low rep training can work (long workouts tho) where the total amount of work being done drives gains. Still with exclusively low rep training you can miss out also on stuff like using high rep variations that are more suited to building muscle e.g. > ROM (Which Sheiko employs btw) and as I was going on about before building muscle is the most efficient way of getting stronger in intermediate and advanced trainees.
Iām not a professional or anything like that, but just from connecting the dots and observation mixed in with copious amounts of just thinking about it, from what Iāve come across reading about sarcosplasmic vs. myofibrillar strength, you canāt really selectively choose between these pathways, and they often times work together mutually. Which is why trying to separate high rep and low rep ranges, isnāt a very clear cut thing. During the beginner phase, neural adaptations are what people observe rather quickly, and as you progress that saying of ā gaining strength will lead to gaining size, gaining size will lead to gaining strengthā. Obviously itāll be different for everyone, and there will be individuals who have more size and less strength, or have more strength and less size, but the vast majority of us fall in the middle as usual.
In a general sense, combining both high and low rep ranges yields some sort of balance thatās tailored specifically to what folks are training for. And that will be different for each individual.
Couple other observations to add to the good points above:
I dont think your rep-range and fiber type point was accurate in the OP. If anything fiber type recruitment is dependent of rep speed or effort, not simply how many reps are in the set.
Higher loads (and thus lower reps) train the nervous system, which is one of the ways they increase strength but might not necessarily increase muscle massā¦ However, āmass moves massā as they say, and if you can train both the nervous system (aka get stronger) AND increase the amount of mass you have, you will have more muscle to move the weight. THAT is why most good programs have both heavy lifting and higher reps.
All things being equal, its much easier for a 250lb man to bench 315lbs than it is for a 150lb man, even one whose nervous system is āworseā as recruiting their muscles.
Most people are not interested in training for a weight class and are mainly looking to be ābig and strongā, hence the recommendation to build a bit of mass if strength is one of your goals.
You can definitely do that, and certain training paradigms are based on that idea (and many PL programs tend towards that as they approach meet prep). For example, the Bulgarian Oly style of lifting is based around singles almost exclusively. This produces phenomenally strong lifters that have physiques that leave one scratching their head because one typically expects someone with a 500lb front squat to have huge legsā¦ But this type of training produces a very well tuned CNS instead of using a moderately efficient one that powers more muscle mass to move weight.
Check out the ābulgarian training simplifiedā article on this website by CT to get a glimpse at one way that can be done.
The basic answer is that bigger muscles move bigger weights. The strongest men in the world have very, very large muscles. The primary difference between a high level strongman and a high level bodybuilder is bodyfat. The secondary differences are related to muscular distribution through the body and proportions.
I have to question this though:
Iāve been lifting weights for about 15 years, and I have yet to come across one person who is big and not also strong. There is no such thing thing as ānon-functional muscleā.
There IS, however, the illusion of non functional muscle. Bodybuilders are not trained to lift for heavy singles, or lift dynamically. This is more of an issue of coordinating muscles to act in a particular way, along with building the accompanying stabilizer muscles that are necessary for big lifts, and development of the CNS.
Hereās something to consider: You have a man who can only squat 100 lbs for 10 reps to start. He begins a lifting program, and over time, he reaches 200 lbs for 10 reps. Then he gets to 300 for 10. And eventually, 400 for 10. This is a very do-able thing. I think it should be fairly obvious that, performing this type of training, both strength AND size would have developed, and to a pretty high degree, right? Someone who can squat 400 for 10 will likely have a 1RM of 500+, which is a fairly uncommon thing. And nobody is squatting 400 for 10 without pretty damn big legs, either.
My overall point is that strength and size correlate to a very high degree, and it is only when you reach a high level of specification for a given sport that you start to truly divert between ābodybuildingā and āstrengthā training. Both strength AND size are primarily built through repetition. Rather than thinking of the lowest rep ranges (1-3 reps), you would be better off thinking of those sets as CNS training: acclimating the body to perform at maximal loads.
Canāt you build a high degree of strength without putting on much mass? I mean there has to be a limit obviously?
But lets a say a man starts lifting at 150lbs with 20%bf. I guess without gaining any weight (or minimal weight, but eating enough to fuel the workouts) whatās the strongest he can possibly get?
Iāve always wondered this so just wanting to pick your brain.
I think your examples answer your own question. 1RM strength can definitely be specialized at the expense of size, as most agree that size gains require a certain amount of volume whereas strength gains are as Flip said largely coordination and rate coding of the CND (how many fibers and how fast you can fire them)
The Bulgarians are notorious for their super low rep training, and while they get phenomenally strong they are body builder huge by any stretch.
Thanks man! I know your explanation was simple, but this makes perfect sense to me. I think my CNS is the reason for a huge portion of my gains in the gym.
Congrats on the weight loss! But, I understand. I liked myself better when I was fat and strongā¦lol People were terrified of meā¦lol I not longer strike fear in hearts of mem. Sighā¦