I wrote this in this thread, so I’m going to repost here
[quote] Honestly, I feel the notion of rep ranges has been a far greater detriment to training than benefit. Many seem to ignore that the intent of providing a rep range/effect explanation was more to explain about the impact of time under tension, which is really an entirely different animal for most.
3 reps is supposed to be in the power range of training. Well lets say I do 3 fast reps with 60% 1rm? Then yeah, I’m developing power. What about 90% of 1rm? Now it’s strength. What about if I did 10 sets of 3 with 75% and 1 minute of rests between sets? Now I’m developing hypertrophy. What about a weight circuit, where I do 3 reps of dips, 3 reps of chins, and 3 reps of kettlebell swings for 15 minutes? Now it’s endurance/conditioning.
Lets go back to that 3 reps with 90% set. Say I’m doing squats. On one set, I lockout each rep at the top and pause for a second before starting the next rep. On the second set, I don’t lockout at the top and immediately begin the next rep before coming completely to the top of the last one. Did both sets accomplish the same degree of strength/size development? They were both 90% of 1rm for 3 reps.
There are far more variables at play than rep range, and honestly, I think moving away from thinking in “rep ranges” and more in terms of how everything builds to the overall goal is a boon. I go by feel for the most part these days, and measure success as my outcome. [/quote]