100% fibre recruitment occurs with a load of around 85% 1RM. This is a 5-7RM for most lifters. Taking a set heavier than a 30RM to within 2-5 reps is also sufficient to achieve full fibre recruitment. Less trained individuals will probably achieve full fibre recruitment closer to 5RIR (assuming the lift has a low skill componenet). More trained individuals will probably need to get closer to 2-3 RIR
Assuming you did 8 sets of 3 at close to a 5RM, all 24 reps achieve full fibre recruitment
This speaks to OP’s query: whether or not 8 x 3 @ 1RIR is “better” than 3 sets of 8
Basically
8 x 3 @ 1RIR requires a 4RM load. This equates to 24 fully recruiting reps
At 3 x 8 @ 1RIR, only the last 2-3 reps are going to ellicit full recruitment. This adds up to 6-9 fully recruiting reps
I guess I’m curious then… why do bodybuilders rarely perform sets below 6 reps? I mean, even the elites and Olympians aren’t training in such low rep ranges.
I came closer training to failure on compound exercises than I ever did on isolation exercises. I did isolation exercises for a pump and/or feel the contraction.
I would guess it’s simply a matter of the loading required, once you get to that level of development and strength. Much safer and friendlier on the joints to rep out 315 on incline press for 15-20 reps than to be pushing your 1-3RM into 500+ territory.
I don’t disagree about the 1-3RM range being unfriendly for joints, but we see almost every single hypertrophy template/program in existence starting at 6 reps. More commonly 8-12 reps.
So I’m not saying that a lack of evidence is actually evidence, but I am saying that I think almost everyone realizes (and probably believes) that 6-20 reps is a great rep range to work in for hypertrophy. In my experience, I have always done well with development in this rep range; in my >5 rep days, I don’t recall getting anywhere near as much development. Maybe you’ve experienced differently.
Yeah I agree with all that. Although, I’ll say that training in the <6 rep range I do think ultimately lead to great hypertrophy gains albeit somewhat indirectly. I think the potentiation that comes from increasing strength in those ranges carries over greatly into the higher rep sets. I.e. if I hit a 3-4 week cycle and bump my 3RM then my 8RM, 12RM, 20RM, etc. all improve by default (as long as I keep my conditioning on point of course.) I mean if I stick to sets of 8-12, my strength will go up, but not at the same rate as if I periodically dip into lower rep ranges.
I found low rep ranges and powerlifting to be extremely beneficial for hypertrophy - up to a point. Once i got to the point of deadlifts and squats being too taxing to do in the same week as one-another, I started noticing significantly decreasing benefits. Plenty of people don’t get to that point, but that’s where I had to forsake my powerlifts for true hypertrophy programming (DC at the time). I started seeing immediate results, and decided that my powerlifts don’t really matter that much.
Some people never have that problem, but I think a lot of other people reach a point where powerlifts are too fatiguing for the stimulus they give; or at least getting too far from optimal to justify.
Maybe in theory, but in reality if you are doing sets of 3 with 1 RIR, I do not think you could realistically do this for 8 sets . At least not without reducing the load each set.
I agree with @jskrabac ’s points about joint health
I think the other consideration is time. 8 x 3 at a 4-5RM would easily take 30-40min for a very strong lifter. Magnify that over 4-5 exercises and you’re talking looong sessions
Chris Beardsley, who as far as I know created this theory, seemed to talk about 15 fully-stimulating reps being the “threshold” for a good training stimulus. 3 x 8 @ 1-2RIR for two exercises for a given body part would hit this threshold nicely
If you live in the gym, or have a home gym setup, this is potentially doable. 8x3 with 1RIR is sort of an end state in the Hepburn method, right before you go “stale” and need to change up the rep range.
If you’re training close to failure, how much does density matter? You can get closer to failure, more times, if you spread out the sets.
High levels of activation, high levels of tension. On the other hand, you’re basically clearing all of the metabolites between sets, which might matter.
As far as I understand, you need to make sure failure in the exercise is due to the muscle fibre failing, and not any other issues like breakdowns in coordination or gassing out
Hence (at least in this model), sacrificing your training volume by sending your density through the roof may not be beneficial