I missed a few years so this RPE/RIR/Effective Reps stuff is new to me. I get that they are different terms with different contexts, but they all deal with failure.
One of the things I keep seeing from a hypertrophy discussion is: number of sets at low RIR. That the load doesn’t necessarily matter as much as proximity to failure. (As long as it’s actually close to failure: volitional, mechanical, or technical.)
So it seems like they’re suggesting that “8 sets of 3 with 1 RIR” would produce more growth than “3 sets of 8 with 1 RIR”. More sets at the same RIR = more growth.
Also that “8 sets of 3 with 1 RIR” could have the same growth effects as “8 sets of 8 with 1 RIR”. Same number of sets, same proximity to failure (very different intensity, volume and tonnage).
I assume there’s more nuance to it around fatigue and loading and movement selection, but is that basically the theory?
From my understanding of this, you’re basically right. The literature suggests that the last five reps to failure really drive growth, and as long as you get close to those reps, the rep range doesn’t matter so much in terms of hypertrophy. On the other hand, I haven’t heard of this thing with doing more sets, but according to the five rep rule, that seems logical.
This is mostly Mike Israetel/Renaissance Periodization stuff that hasn’t actually been proven - only hypothesized.
As much as they tout this drivel, go ahead and watch the videos of them training their bodybuilding competitors, and compare that to what they’re telling people to do… they always train their competitors to failure but preach to keep reps in reserve. Hmm.
Even if their model worked for those on the advanced spectrum of muscul development (it doesn’t), it would only work insofar as fatigue management from the perspective that you can perform more work… and the fatigue management side of that had been debated significantly, still without a real answer. So the only way this would work, isnt even proven (in practice or theory).
This whole theory is based on a flawed dataset, where they assume the stimulus you get from rep 8/10 is equal in stimulus to rep 10/10 (10 being failure). In reality, your failure rep has a significantly higher stimulus than any rep that precedes it. There is a meta regression to support that.
The bro science in me says "if there’s increasing stimulus per rep all the way to failure, going beyond failure is likely even more stimulating.
And that was called “forced reps.” I saw very little benefit in anyone around me by doing forced reps. Maybe it works… The very most ordinary physiques tried this most often, with the very most ordinary results. Ordinary people usually got ordinary results, meaning very little results.
If there’s a trendline that shows higher stimulus per rep approaching failure, with notable increases in stimuli at 5RIR, then another increase in stimuli at 2RIR, then a spike at 0RIR, the logical conclusion is that going beyond failure (aka Forced Reps) is continuing the stimulus curve.
There isn’t data to support it, but intensifiers have been used by many people for great results.
Id argue you may have seen ordinary folks doing this and getting ordinary results because they had either a) less than ordinary genetics, or b) poor nutrition/recovery factors.
Like i said, there’s no data to support my bro science theory, but if stimulus increases as we get closer to failure - the logical hypothesis is that forced reps carry the same benefit as say 2RIR-0RIR.
I can’t see anyone wanting to spot someone squatting in excess of 500lbs to do an additional 2 or 3 reps. I never squatted to failure and stumbled onto some halfway decent thighs.
And sure I had seen many reasonably good genetic people doing forced reps on the bench press. But once there gets much above 400lbs on the bar, things can get dangerous.
My thought was that recovery was slower when doing forced reps, such that those who did them were back stimulating muscles that had yet to recover, much less adapt with additional muscle.
Neither can i, but failure methods aren’t recommended for compound lifts anyways - nor do i find compounds to be effective from a stimulus-fatigue perspective.
However you measure it – almost-failure, at-failure, beyond-failure – the other part of the model seems to be that what matters is the number of sets at that same “degree of failure”.
That “8 sets of 3” == “8 sets of 5” == “8 sets of 15”, from a hypertrophy standpoint, as long as the degree of failure is the same.
Is that a correct understanding of the model? Does that hold up in real life?
More volume at the same degree of failure isn’t always going to be better. Once you’re done enough volume to trigger growth, you are going to get significantly diminishing returns from a hypertrophy standpoint as you increase volume. And at the same time you’re going to unnecessarily increase fatigue through the extra volume.
From a stimulus to fatigue ratio, yes. Otherwise, not really.
Let’s say you’re doing to failure. You can hit failure at 100 reps or at 10 reps. Both are probably fine for growth, but you will be much less tired at 10 reps than 100. You will also be stronger.
My ideal rep range is 6-20, but commonly 6-12 as higher reps always leaves me burnt out.
How far down do you think this goes? My gut says that 2 reps to failure will never have the same growth effect as 10. Although maybe after a lot of sets. Maybe.
I’ve looked at a lot of programs from the last 130-ish years, and I can’t recall any program with any hypertrophy emphasis that uses less than 5 reps. Even before DeLorme’s 3x10 stuff, the recommendations were like “5-10 or 6-12 for upper body, 10+ for lower body”.
That’s kind of like “real life”, it’s at least based on empirical success.
I guess I don’t understand what this RIR stuff brings to the table.
It seems more likely to mislead people than far more simple models like “add weight or reps every couple sessions, pick a new rep range when you can’t push it any more”.
This is probably because the loads required at less than 5 reps are going to take a toll on joints and connective tissue. If you aren’t training to express absolute strength, there’s no need to use such high loads to stimulate hypertrophy.
It gives people guidance on how hard they need to train to stimulate hypertrophy. And gives you “permission” to choose the rep range that you personally prefer or to vary rep ranges over the course of a training cycle. I find it a useful guideline, especially for compound movements. I know if I take a set to an RPE 7-9 or 2-3 RIR that was likely a productive set, regardless of the total number of reps I did.
Sets of 3 reps, based on our understanding is a poor choice. By the 3rd rep you still haven’t recruited near 100% of the fast twitch muscle fibers.
We thought that 80% of your 1 RMax was the “sweet” weight. (We used 2% per rep to calculate your 1 RMax, so if I could do 10 reps near failure with 400lbs, 10 times 2% is 20%. So divide 400lbs by 0.80 will equal 500lbs for a 1 RMax).
Training sets of 8 reps with 80% of your 1 RMax will start you with 2 reps-in-reserve. By the 5th set you will be doing good to hit the 8th rep.
The only data I’ve seen was that 6 reps was the beginning of the hypertrophy to strength threshold - where hypertrophy gains more than strength. Though i believe 4 is the minimum personally (if done in cluster, rest pause, or muscle round sets).
Neither do the people that run it. In theory, though, it’s supposed to allow for more reps in the effective rep range via reduced fatigue and increased volume.
Again, based on a model that says your failure rep is equally stimulating as your 5th rep to failure (which is genuinely not true) - which is advocated for by a fitness brand that cannot correct that model or else their entire brand goes bust.
And some people respond unusually well to compounds, but that’s muddying the water. The topic was keeping reps in reserve/failure/forced reps, to which i was saying compounds arent ideal for failure.
Did you push those isolation sets to failure, by chance?
I don’t like the phrase “to failure” because I don’t believe it means the same thing to everyone. Forced reps are very clear: when you can no longer perform a rep without help, your spotter(s) will help you complete more reps.
What is “to failure” exactly? It seems to me that to go “to failure” I keep doing reps until I fail at the next rep. It is not when I guess I cannot do the next rep.
I did a lot of “this is the last rep I believe that I can complete.” There are some exercises that you can just continue doing partial reps. I never did that.
I believe that most exercises that I did were with about 80% of my 1 RMax weight. It seemed that most others did that also. Seeking a pump, I might use 60% of my 1 RMax.
But when just seeking a pump, I never went close to failure. Backstage at a contest, competitors are trying to pump up their muscles to look fuller. Nobody is going remotely close to failure.
The two can be the same; more experienced lifters tend to do better at ‘feeling’ failure than our lesser experienced counterparts. I still surprise myself with an extra rep on occasion, though, it doesn’t happen much. In any case, I’d argue that what you did
Counts as hitting failure or very very near to it.
What I’m getting at, is though it’s pretty clear that reaching failure wasn’t the ultimate goal of your training - it sounds that you mostly trained yourself to failure on isolation exercises… which is where failure training shines brightest. Whether or not you would have gotten added benefits from doing forced reps/beyond failure work is unknown - but my guess is that you would have made a little bit more progress. Who knows, I could be wrong, this is just my theory based on a good bit of evidence - scientific and anecdotal.
I believe it; I believe “the pump” means “momentary fullness for no long term effect”. I get better pumps when not going to failure, and I doubt I could effectively pose if I were pushing myself to failure shortly before a competition.