Training for Hypertrophy: The function of Intensity, Volume, Recovery and Injury Prevention

[VenomYo]

going to failure, and then using that as your constant, your foundation, and changing frequency and single session volume to get to a point where you are still recovering for your nexxt session, but not spending several days fully recovered

that sounds kinda obscure tho. How am I supposed to know if i'm still recovering or not

 

[BigTomJ]

You can enjoy training and you can train hard, whilst still being well aware of the fact that drugs matter a whole bunch

drugs absolutely do matter, no question, but they are the icing on the cake, the shot of nitro in that drag car, that pretty face on a chick with a killer ass and tits.

None of them are worth it without their foundation.
icing isnt worth shit if you dont have the eggs to make the cake.
that nitro isnt gonna make a hell of a lot of difference if your dont have any tires.
and a pretty face without the body is.... well.... im sure she has a great personality

 

[BigTomJ]

that sounds kinda obscure tho. How am I supposed to know if i'm still recovering or not

Outlined under the recovery section of the write up.

What is recovery?
Recovery is the rate by which you can regain full capability in a muscle group after training. Additional fatigue from either intensity or volume increase recovery time. Recovery can be defined, for our applications, as "The time it takes after a session, to be able to train that muscle group again at the same or greater performance".
The absolute best way to gauge recovery is through performance and progressive overload, if you are coming into your leg days and consistently performing less than the prior week, recovery is the culprit. Conversely, if you are feeling good and progressing consistently on a given training day, your recovery is great.

 

[VenomYo]

well I guess we haven't really uncovered anything grounbreaking then.

Go to failure and make sure you that you progressively get stronger, that's it then

 

[Jin23]

PS; i dont think there is anything inherently wrong with the bro split, or any split for that matter as long as the limitations are recognized.

Lot's "wrong" with bro splits, specifically the SRA for all the muscle groups is far from optimally taken into account and thus you're leaving a lot of growth left on the table.

 

[BigTomJ]

well I guess we haven't really uncovered anything grounbreaking then.

Go to failure and make sure you that you progressively get stronger, that's it then

nope nothing ground breaking, its what people have suspected for decades now.

but now we have the data to prove it as seen in the sources cited.

regardless, this weasnt meant to be some "i cracked the code"" guru shit.
this was just meant to break all of these concepts and terms down in a way that is easy to understand and apply.

 

[VenomYo]

I was hoping for something more extravagant, such as do a 40 rep set with 3 sec rest between each rep, then pyramid down and finish with an isostatic hold, and this will result in 230% more hypertrophy compared to tradtional training styles

see THAT would have been awesome, but alas we aren't so lucky

 

[mass gain]

none of these have any bearing on hypertrophy focused training.
you can train as heavy as you want, as often as you want, with a ton of volume, and lots of reps, but if it isnt in proximity to failure the hypertrophic response is going to be less than ideal.

The entire point of this write up is to show how proper management of recovery periods, and proper training intensity can be directly applied to any preffered training style.

You can absolutely go lighter weights higher reps (within reason) with high frequency, and so long as youre sets are in sufficient proximity to failure, youll be progressing well.

you can also go heavier with lower reps for a similar effect, again, so long as the sets are sufficiently close to failure, ideally reaching failure.

I think you have your wires crossed bro. Hypertrophy training is more about reps and lighter weight.
Strength training is about higher weight and less reps.
You seem to be referring to both.

 

[mass gain]

Here @BigTomJ read this (below). Its evidence based science and less about opinion. Clearly separates strength vs. hypertrophy training. Maybe you can add it to your article?

Training for strength and hypertrophy: an evidence-based approach

Resistance exercise training (RET)-induced increases in voluntary 1RM strength are greater if the RET is performed with higher loads and replication (…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[BigTomJ]

Lot's "wrong" with bro splits, specifically the SRA for all the muscle groups is far from optimally taken into account and thus you're leaving a lot of growth left on the table.

I dont disagree at all.
I dont believe bro split is the best split for literally any goal. I would never put any client on a bro split for any purpose.

but like any split, its efficacy is in how its applied. a 4 day bro split is not that far from a PPLA split. at the end of the day, your training split should be governed by recovery intervals rather than some other sort of arbitration like ""monday is chest day"


My only point with that comment is that a persons preferred split doesnt matter for shit, no matter the split, if intensity isnt being met and recovery periods arent being respected.

 

[mass gain]

Shit, that's just the abstract. I have access to the full article but I can't share it here. Sorry.

Here is an image I like though.

 

[BigTomJ]

Here @BigTomJ read this (below). Its evidence based science and less about opinion. Clearly separates strength vs. hypertrophy training. Maybe you can add it to your article?

Training for strength and hypertrophy: an evidence-based approach

Resistance exercise training (RET)-induced increases in voluntary 1RM strength are greater if the RET is performed with higher loads and replication (…

www.sciencedirect.com

I think you have your wires crossed bro. Hypertrophy training is more about reps and lighter weight.
Strength training is about higher weight and less reps.
You seem to be referring to both.

Load is subjective, as ive clearly outlined in the sources ive cited, hypertrophic response is similar across rep ranges (within reason, under 30, probably due to cardiovascular limitations rather than musclular) so long as the last 5 reps were sufficiently close to failure. We can derive from this information that any set between 5-30 reps when taken to failure will be similarly hypertrophic.
and this is supported almost universally in the literature.

Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods - PMC

Background: Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Implementation of training with moderate number of repetitions (~6−12), multiple sets (3−6), moderate loads (60−80% 1RM), and short rest intervals (60 s) between sets elicits greater metabolic stress (in contrast with high-loads), which appears to be a potent stimulus for inducing muscle hypertrophy

the benefic of higher reps with more manageable loads is that it may be easier to achieve failure, or a greater percentage to failure.

for example:
if you ware performing a movement with a weight that you would fail at 6 reps with but stop at 5 when it becomes extremely difficult, you stopped one rep shy of failure, however that 1 rep was 1/6 of your total work.
now if we select a load that we will fail at 15, and stop 2 reps shy of failure, we missed out on 1/7.5 of our total potential work. Thus getting the trainee closer to failure than in the lower rep example.

meaning missing that one rep with a higher weight lower rep set had a fairly large margin to be lost by not going to actual failure. While missing two reps at a higher rep range had a lower proportionate loss of work



This does not mean that higher rep ranges are more hypertrophic than lower rep ranges (at least greater than 5 reps), it simply means that an individuals capacity for reaching failure or at least getting closer to failure is much higher in the upper rep ranges.


It is for this exact reason that the majority of my own training is in the 8-15 rep range. Its not because there is some magic that happens in any particular rep range between 5-30 reps, it simply means that your margins for reaching failure are much larger and missing a single rep isnt nearly as impactful as in the lower rep ranges.

 

[Jin23]

but like any split, its efficacy is in how its applied. a 4 day bro split is not that far from a PPLA split

Well, yeah, that's completely different as it's not bro splits anymore - which infers a weekly training block and not a 4 day ... But anyway, agree with everything else. Not much to discuss further.

 

[mass gain]

Load is subjective, as ive clearly outlined in the sources ive cited, hypertrophic response is similar across rep ranges (within reason, under 30, probably due to cardiovascular limitations rather than musclular) so long as the last 5 reps were sufficiently close to failure. We can derive from this information that any set between 5-30 reps when taken to failure will be similarly hypertrophic.
and this is supported almost universally in the literature.

Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods - PMC

Background: Effective hypertrophy-oriented resistance training (RT) should comprise a combination of mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Regarding training variables, the most effective values are widely described in the literature. However, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

the benefic of higher reps with more manageable loads is that it may be easier to achieve failure, or a greater percentage to failure.

for example:
if you ware performing a movement with a weight that you would fail at 6 reps with but stop at 5 when it becomes extremely difficult, you stopped one rep shy of failure, however that 1 rep was 1/6 of your total work.
now if we select a load that we will fail at 15, and stop 2 reps shy of failure, we missed out on 1/7.5 of our total potential work. Thus getting the trainee closer to failure than in the lower rep example.

meaning missing that one rep with a higher weight lower rep set had a fairly large margin to be lost by not going to actual failure. While missing two reps at a higher rep range had a lower proportionate loss of work



This does not mean that higher rep ranges are more hypertrophic than lower rep ranges (at least greater than 5 reps), it simply means that an individuals capacity for reaching failure or at least getting closer to failure is much higher in the upper rep ranges.


It is for this exact reason that the majority of my own training is in the 8-15 rep range. Its not because there is some magic that happens in any particular rep range between 5-30 reps, it simply means that your margins for reaching failure are much larger and missing a single rep isnt nearly as impactful as in the lower rep ranges.

all that you wrote is great. I was just pointing out you keep crossing from strength training to hypertrophy and calling it all hypertrophy training which as a nerd myself makes me cringe every time you say it like its fact.

 

[mass gain]

Well, yeah, that's completely different as it's not bro splits anymore - which infers a weekly training block and not a 4 day ... But anyway, agree with everything else. Not much to discuss further.

TBH at the other place he said his 'work' was for dummies like us and people on reddit. So take that for what its worth. From what his pals over there told him and his 'lurking' here, he believes Meso is full of people who have no idea how to train.

Also he said the people that don't agree with his article completely are stupid and will remain small. LOL.

So yeah, it appears I came at him a bit sideways but I give him the benefit of the doubt. Fresh start. Hopefully he sees how much better Meso is and yeah, Meso has plenty of members that have been around the block and know a thing or two.

 

[Jin23]

TBH at the other place he said his 'work' was for dummies like us and people on reddit. So take that for what its worth. From what his pals over there told him, he believes Meso is full of people who have no idea how to train.

Also he said the people that don't agree with his article are stupid and will remain small. LOL.

Oh, I haven't actually read much as it's really basic, simplified stuff, so I just skimped through a bit. I'm just happy to see people talking about concepts like mrv over here where people don't even know what a mesocycle is ...

 

[BigTomJ]

all that you wrote is great. I was just pointing out you keep crossing from strength training to hypertrophy and calling it all hypertrophy training which as a nerd myself makes me cringe every time you say it like its fact.

I never once implied anything about strength training.

When referring to strength specificity usually the rep ranges are in the 1-5 range.

Perhaps the original article needs some alterations to make this point more clear.

So long as reps enough to perform 5-7 reps in proximity to failure, and not so much that factors outside of that target muscle becomes the limitations, rep range doesn't matter

 

[mass gain]

I never once implied anything about strength training.

When referring to strength specificity usually the rep ranges are in the 1-5 range.

Perhaps the original article needs some alterations to make this point more clear.

So long as reps enough to perform 5-7 reps in proximity to failure, and not so much that factors outside of that target muscle becomes the limitations, rep range doesn't matter

yeah, you never implied, you simply mixed it up with hypertrophy and you still seem confused. Im not quite sure how you don't understand. Lets just agree to disagree. OK?

 

[BigTomJ]

Oh, I haven't actually read much as it's really basic, simplified stuff, so I just skimped through a bit. I'm just happy to see people talking about concepts like mrv over here where people don't even know what a mesocycle is ...

He's right, this article is targeted at those with fundamental misunderstandings of the various terms and principles I outlined, and perhaps bring some consideration involving their interactions to others that may have not put too much thought into how the pieces fit together.

However the bulk of the content in the first half of the write up is going to be very boring to any person who has taken their training seriously.



As for our friend massgain here, that's an alt handle for the resident, cross forum shitbag troll named @lifter6973

Whom, if I'm not mistaken, was permabanned here as well as everywhere else and has taken up a personal vendetta against anyone who has called out his bullshit.

 

[BigTomJ]

yeah, you never implied, you simply mixed it up with hypertrophy and you still seem confused. Im not quite sure how you don't understand. Lets just agree to disagree. OK?

I misunderstood nothing Lifter.

It's crystal clear what I wrote and the applications of those principles, nothing even remotely touched on, or crossed into the realm of strength training.

I outlined and cited what I wrote so a child could understand, somehow its either lost on you or you're being your usual inflammatory self because you have nothing of actual substance to provide to any community. And even I don't believe you're that unintelligent.