Rep Ranges and Science

[malfeasance]

This is well worth watching in full and listening to the details without jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Brad Schoenfeld has a lot to say about actual studies and how even his own studies have been misinterpreted. There is a lot to learn here if you aren't too busy arguing with the screen while he is talking.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsTjUb5O8d8

 

[buck]

I think all rep ranges work to a point. And the range a person prefers probably will work the best for them as they will apply themselves better to that range.

 

[malfeasance]

I think all rep ranges work to a point. And the range a person prefers probably will work the best for them as they will apply themselves better to that range.

That's kind of what the video said, but there is much more to it than that.

 

[AlexDavis43]

I think all rep ranges work to a point. And the range a person prefers probably will work the best for them as they will apply themselves better to that range.

That's kind of what the video said, but there is much more to it than that.

Yeah a lot of the old school bro-science hasn't really been debunked.

Some guys switched to low rep high intensity later in their careers (Mentzer, Yates, etc.), but they all gained most of their size with higher volume training.

Bodybuilding rep zone 10+ per set. Get close to failure/burn/pump. Schoenfeld is doing great work because despite being scrawny, he's a bro at heart. But actual doing sciencey stuff.

 

[Joeblack]

I've grown to love higher reps (to failure )as I get older. That and long-length partials have brought me to the next level.

 

[Doog33]

Me personally - the higher rep ranges on smith machines has yielded me my best visual responses. But i do like being strong during the winter and go to the low rep ranges on compounds.

 

[iris]

This is good to see.
There is another thread about this topic, started by @PaintDrinker .
I heard about Brad S through B Contreras. They worked together years ago and also came across some of his articles on fitness magazines.
I had no idea, at the time, that he had also published books and was highly regarded within the sports science arena.

He said that in applied research nothing is set in stone and so these findings may get undermined by someone else, but seeing accepted knowledge challenged is always interesting.

I wonder, though, to what extent this would stick, in reality, for us and alter received wisdom about how we train.
The thinking he tries to debunk has been around for a long time and we tend to be creatures of habit.

When he talked about the misunderstanding about time under tension being over a session, not a set, well I deffo got it wrong.

His discussion about how muscle fibre typing has been thought of in a misguided way was also good.
And let's hope fitness education has caught up with the latest thinking and is teaching people in a more nuanced way.

I would have liked to know why they chose 7 sets of 3 for the heavy training part.
I had a look at the published study and, if it is the one from 2014, I couldn't find it there, either.
But maybe I missed it or you guys know.
Like, why that instead of something that was popular at the time, the 5×5, which would give a similar tut?

I would have asked him how he saw his latest findings in light of all the previous studies he has conducted, too.


The whole idea that training can be sustainable, effective and you don't have to kill yourself to achieve a certain degree of strength and hypertrophy is a positive one, for sure.
This was about muscular development, though, not about the development of strength, per se.
And in the study, they do write that heavy training does provide better outcomes with regards to this (in trained individuals).

" Current theory proposes that strength increases are maximized using heavy loads of approximately 1–5RM. Although significant gains in strength have been reported using higher repetition bodybuilding-type training, it has been postulated that the lighter loads used in these protocols are suboptimal for maximizing strength, particularly in advanced lifters (2,16). Results of this study support this hypothesis. Given that maximal strength has a substantial neural component (10), it can be inferred from this study that loads of ∼75% 1RM are not sufficient to optimize improvements in neural mechanisms as compared with heavier loads on a volume load–equated basis in well-trained subjects."


The words hypothetically and anecdotally were used a lot.
Maybe that's also why it is difficult to shift our thinking.
We want sure things out of something that is hard to pin down and "set in stone".

I am not sure I like the interviewer much.....

Sorry this was long.
Gym is too busy and I am waiting for it to get as empty as possible.
I am very antisocial

 

[birdland]

Have no interest in watching Mike and his gimmicks but I like a variety, 8-12, 12-20, 20+. As long as they are taken to actual failure or beyond.

 

[Benf15harp]

Have no interest in watching Mike and his gimmicks but I like a variety, 8-12, 12-20, 20+. As long as they are taken to actual failure or beyond.

Out of curiosity, what would beyond failure look like? You mean assisted reps?

 

[birdland]

Out of curiosity, what would beyond failure look like? You mean assisted reps?

I'd say those or negatives. Example, single arm press down with a cable and after concentric failure use the other arm for the concentric pushdown. But, I was more so referring to intensifiers I should have used that term. Myo reps, rear pause, static holds, partials, drop sets etc.

 

[Zebedee]

Have no interest in watching Mike and his gimmicks but I like a variety, 8-12, 12-20, 20+. As long as they are taken to actual failure or beyond.

Aye, I think he’s a right dick too. I have issues with much of his training advice, but my biggest bugbear with him (& I know this is petty of me) is his constant lame attempts at being funny & a “personality” & his obsession with using analogies like it’s 2005 & he’s writing for T-Nation.

 

[AlexDavis43]

Have no interest in watching Mike and his gimmicks but I like a variety, 8-12, 12-20, 20+. As long as they are taken to actual failure or beyond.

Aye, I think he’s a right dick too. I have issues with much of his training advice, but my biggest bugbear with him (& I know this is petty of me) is his constant lame attempts at being funny & a “personality” & his obsession with using analogies like it’s 2005 & he’s writing for T-Nation.

Mike has a good sense of humor but he changes his "professorship" opinion on training based on whatever is the hot topic of the day. Volume, intensity, long partials, rest intervals, et cetera.

It's what all fitness influencers do to stay relevant.

Watch for entertainment, not education.

 

[birdland]

Aye, I think he’s a right dick too. I have issues with much of his training advice, but my biggest bugbear with him (& I know this is petty of me) is his constant lame attempts at being funny & a “personality” & his obsession with using analogies like it’s 2005 & he’s writing for T-Nation.

This lol. I hate the immaturity. It's one thing to have a sense of humor but he can't help. but talk about penis, farting, poop every 3 minutes its cringe. I personally find value in some of his content but would never use RIR or ramp up volume each week. Failure baby, intensity,nconsistency, not the bullshit overcomplicated programming he pushes for profit.

 

[laclark89]

This is well worth watching in full and listening to the details without jumping to conclusions one way or the other. Brad Schoenfeld has a lot to say about actual studies and how even his own studies have been misinterpreted. There is a lot to learn here if you aren't too busy arguing with the screen while he is talking.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsTjUb5O8d8

Gimmick like the other guy said.

I’ve seen natty inmates who do nothing but body weight pushups, squats dips, pull ups all high rep ranges who have physiques shitting all over his, and probably low t No RoidZ no $500k home gyms, no science knowledge just experience hard work and genetics of course.

It all comes down to individual response to stimulus and genetics of course like I mentioned, + diet.

 

[malfeasance]

Gimmick like the other guy said.

I’ve seen natty inmates who do nothing but body weight pushups, squats dips, pull ups all high rep ranges who have physiques shitting all over his, and probably low t No RoidZ no $500k home gyms, no science knowledge just experience hard work and genetics of course.

It all comes down to individual response to stimulus and genetics of course like I mentioned, + diet.

The studies are gimmicks?

I guess we should stop having researchers do them?

I think that they are getting better and better, with researchers constantly trying to improve upon the deficiencies of prior studies. Advancing knowledge in this area is a good thing.

 

[laclark89]

Mabe not but either way. these science based exercise researcher expert gurus lmao, all have shity physique’s and are 5’2 and are trying to be relevant + make loads of money off other people’s research and not even give credit or name the actual researchers who really put in the work and just reiterate shit they read. They wana reinvent the wheel lol.

I would rather invest my time in doing the workouts that have been working for men for the past 50 years, work on diet, intensity ect or even my career or spend time with my beloved family than waste time with this bs.

You think all the research is gana make u build more muscle lol. Research 1 million pages or untill ur heart desires.

If you can’t agree and don’t like I don’t respect u as a man and u need a block. What Mr O’s have they built? Give me a break!

I feel dumber than I already am for putting engery into this.

 

[laclark89]

The studies are gimmicks?

I guess we should stop having researchers do them?

I think that they are getting better and better, with researchers constantly trying to improve upon the deficiencies of prior studies. Advancing knowledge in this area is a good thing.

Ok hold on, I’m gana check my pu$$y ass emotional attitude for a min even though this post struck a nerve lol. We have agreed on and liked a lot of the Same shit in the past.
I apologize if I was disrespectful, but I’ll still block u lol.

If u guys have time to research and think u can do better than the golden era or even 90’s go for it. Uve been a decent bb much better than me even though I’m not and probably had similar mass as u natty just not ripped like u. I appreciate your experience.

 

[malfeasance]

All is good, laclark89. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, including me and you, both.

 

[rokkrul3r]

well, I just drop and pyramid set the muscles I'm focusing on... shit just grows like that

 

[egruberman]

I've grown to love higher reps (to failure )as I get older.

Ditto. Most of my life I've been trying to do strength training with some degree of success or other. Couple years back, I fucked something up on a not-very-heavy deadlift and re-injured myself a couple times over making it such that I couldn't walk properly for about months.

Once I was reasonably well recovered from that, I started doing more of a bodybuilding routine with more isolation movements and higher rep sets to failure or close to failure.

My body responded way better than I could've imagined. As a result I have the best physique at 52 as I've had my whole life. I'm nowhere near as strong as I've been in the past, but that doesn't matter so much. Other than some occasional soreness, I've been gloriously injury free. I've had no joint issues, tendon issues or anything of the like.

If u guys have time to research and think u can do better than the golden era or even 90’s go for it. Uve been a decent bb much better than me even though I’m not and probably had similar mass as u natty just not ripped like u. I appreciate your experience.

Any reasonable bodybuilding program will likely get the job done with the main determining factors being genetics and AAS. No serious body builder that I know if is doing max intensity sets of 1-5. Do what works for you. Even the most "optimal" science based program is only going to offer marginal gains.