If it is the case that in general 5 reps to failure is the main driver to stimulate muscle growth, wouldn't you save time just doing drop sets only and adjusting days off to allow a net gain in muscle mass? It seems the general consensus out there is telling me, that no, more volume and only 1 drop set but it would seem to me that more volume is just taking more time in the gym to accumulate a certain number of 5 reps to failure. Why not just do dropsets and save time?
Thank you Chris, I love your relaxed way of explaining because it let's me understand all of the concepts. Do you think all sets should be taken to failure in order to maximise the number of stimulating reps? Or should you periodise RIR? Thank you
There are advantages to working with 1 or 2 RIR, because training to failure increases muscle damage, which slows recovery (which obviously affects training frequency). However, progressive overload is the most important thing long-term, so whatever approach makes this easiest is usually best.
@@SandCResearch Why is more recovery time bad? Aren't you building more muscle if the recovery time is longer? Are there any studies about how much mass you gain over for different lengths of resting? I take it progressive overload is meaningless for mass if it does not involve reps to failure? I guess I'm just trying to understand why everyone keeps talking about progressive overload and trying to not damage the muscle as much in favor for more volume or frequency when the goal of those is 5 reps to failure anyway, why not just go ahead and do drop sets? I think i may be missing something about recovery, if too much damage = slower mass gains, how about doing fewer drop set's? It's still the goal of more volume which is 5 sets to failure. I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. If science or experience does not know the answer than I hope more people ask these questions then.
@@generalofwar6027 Of course I understand your thinking, I struggle with the same. However, I believe it would be answered that you are over-prioritising «muscle damage» in your line of thinking, which is arguably ranked lower in importance for hypertrophy over mechanical tension, and thereby volume. So if hypertrophy is almost identical 2RIR compared to 0RIR in a back squat, but 0RIR carries more fatigue and muscle damage, why do it? The term muscle damage does not literally mean muscle breakdown.
Would you say that intensity/effort has a big effect on the number of "optimal" sets to grow muscle? Example: 4 reps from failure 20-30 sets per muscle group per week, 1-2 reps from failure 10-20 sets per muscle group per week, all sets to failure 4-10 sets per muscle group per week?
One quesiton. Actuality, two. First. What empirical evidence do you have about everything you say? What do you think about the reps range Frederick Hatfield, talks about in his book "A scientific approach to Bodybuilding" ? Thanks in advance.
but what is with the motor units between low and high threshold fibre. what is their hypertrophie potential? can it be good to do slow reps before the last five reps to stimulate the intermediate motor units?
So 5 rep max is best for hypertophy? It almost seems like your saying higher rep training is a waste of time. When or how else is moderate weight training useful
Well, I wouldn't say 5RM in practice because it is quite difficult to do a 5RM in multiple sequential sets unless we reduce the weight from one set to the next. Working in the 5 - 8 rep range is probably a good balance between doing the minimum number of reps and also avoiding constantly having to remove weight from the bar in order to get 5 stimulating reps in every set. Interestingly, most research surveys of high-level bodybuilders indicate that they usually train in this exact rep range, contrary to what we tend to read reported in non-academic sources.
@@SandCResearch So if you trained in the 5-8 rep range what would you say was the optimal number of sets to perform on a weekly basis for the purpose of hypertrophy? Taking workout frequency and exercise recovery into consideration.
@@RthereNEusernames No I didn't but what the optimal number of sets, reps and volume varies from person to person. I know HIT guys who train twice a week using one set to failure per bodypart that make excellent progress, and others who train that way that make no progress at all. I do tend to agree that if you want to increase muscular size you need to increase your strength, and 5 reps ( depending on rep speed) is a good middle range. I'm currently training in that rep range myself. 8 reps certainly isnt ineffective but some people struggling to make progress may benefit from a strength training cycle
Just wondering why bodybuilders seem to lift in the 10-20 rep range. What advantage is there to doing that if only the last 5 reps taken to near failure are muscle stimulating? Mike Isratel thinks that 10-20 reps is the ideal range for hypertrophy. The late Doug Brignole used a 30-20-15-10 rep sequence.
this is an old comment but i’ll still reply. there is no advantage. Chris here said “it really doesn’t matter what rep range you use”, but Chris has changed his mind in that. It really does matter because muscle damage and fatigue are things that interfere with hypertrophy. And you get a lot more of that as you go into the higher rep ranges. So there really is no advantage in going 10+ reps and there’s actually a disadvantage.
@@juandeadlift4457 What about other factors like injury prevention and learning a new skill? Yes, high reps are not effective for hypertrophy but when taken to failure, you get the same hypertrophy response as you did with low reps. Also, it is much easier for your passive structures to fail with below 80% loads compared to loads above 90% 1RM. So overall, you can't say that higher reps have "no advantages". It is a trade-off and depends on the individual's situation.
Buy Chris' new books on Hypertrophy and Strength. They're great reads.
I wish this brilliant guy posted some more videos.
I agree with the nordic curl my 11 year old son has been working on it for a few months. He has increased his 100m time nearly one second.
You have the best videos on this topic online! Thank you
So going to failure is more important than load on the bar. How man sets to failure do you recommend per week per muscle groups?
If it is the case that in general 5 reps to failure is the main driver to stimulate muscle growth, wouldn't you save time just doing drop sets only and adjusting days off to allow a net gain in muscle mass?
It seems the general consensus out there is telling me, that no, more volume and only 1 drop set but it would seem to me that more volume is just taking more time in the gym to accumulate a certain number of 5 reps to failure.
Why not just do dropsets and save time?
Awesome, i admire your work!
Thank you Chris, I love your relaxed way of explaining because it let's me understand all of the concepts. Do you think all sets should be taken to failure in order to maximise the number of stimulating reps? Or should you periodise RIR? Thank you
There are advantages to working with 1 or 2 RIR, because training to failure increases muscle damage, which slows recovery (which obviously affects training frequency). However, progressive overload is the most important thing long-term, so whatever approach makes this easiest is usually best.
@@SandCResearch Thank you very much for your answer
@@SandCResearch Why is more recovery time bad? Aren't you building more muscle if the recovery time is longer? Are there any studies about how much mass you gain over for different lengths of resting?
I take it progressive overload is meaningless for mass if it does not involve reps to failure?
I guess I'm just trying to understand why everyone keeps talking about progressive overload and trying to not damage the muscle as much in favor for more volume or frequency when the goal of those is 5 reps to failure anyway, why not just go ahead and do drop sets?
I think i may be missing something about recovery, if too much damage = slower mass gains, how about doing fewer drop set's? It's still the goal of more volume which is 5 sets to failure.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on this.
If science or experience does not know the answer than I hope more people ask these questions then.
@@generalofwar6027 Of course I understand your thinking, I struggle with the same. However, I believe it would be answered that you are over-prioritising «muscle damage» in your line of thinking, which is arguably ranked lower in importance for hypertrophy over mechanical tension, and thereby volume. So if hypertrophy is almost identical 2RIR compared to 0RIR in a back squat, but 0RIR carries more fatigue and muscle damage, why do it? The term muscle damage does not literally mean muscle breakdown.
@@Jamestehkman Wouldn't 2RIR give you 3 stimulating reps?
Would you say that intensity/effort has a big effect on the number of "optimal" sets to grow muscle? Example: 4 reps from failure 20-30 sets per muscle group per week, 1-2 reps from failure 10-20 sets per muscle group per week, all sets to failure 4-10 sets per muscle group per week?
One quesiton. Actuality, two. First. What empirical evidence do you have about everything you say? What do you think about the reps range Frederick Hatfield, talks about in his book "A scientific approach to Bodybuilding" ? Thanks in advance.
but what is with the motor units between low and high threshold fibre. what is their hypertrophie potential? can it be good to do slow reps before the last five reps to stimulate the intermediate motor units?
So 5 rep max is best for hypertophy? It almost seems like your saying higher rep training is a waste of time. When or how else is moderate weight training useful
Well, I wouldn't say 5RM in practice because it is quite difficult to do a 5RM in multiple sequential sets unless we reduce the weight from one set to the next. Working in the 5 - 8 rep range is probably a good balance between doing the minimum number of reps and also avoiding constantly having to remove weight from the bar in order to get 5 stimulating reps in every set. Interestingly, most research surveys of high-level bodybuilders indicate that they usually train in this exact rep range, contrary to what we tend to read reported in non-academic sources.
@@SandCResearch So if you trained in the 5-8 rep range what would you say was the optimal number of sets to perform on a weekly basis for the purpose of hypertrophy? Taking workout frequency and exercise recovery into consideration.
@@ianwilson4841 Did you ever get an answer from Chris on this one?
@@RthereNEusernames No I didn't but what the optimal number of sets, reps and volume varies from person to person. I know HIT guys who train twice a week using one set to failure per bodypart that make excellent progress, and others who train that way that make no progress at all. I do tend to agree that if you want to increase muscular size you need to increase your strength, and 5 reps ( depending on rep speed) is a good middle range. I'm currently training in that rep range myself. 8 reps certainly isnt ineffective but some people struggling to make progress may benefit from a strength training cycle
Just wondering why bodybuilders seem to lift in the 10-20 rep range. What advantage is there to doing that if only the last 5 reps taken to near failure are muscle stimulating? Mike Isratel thinks that 10-20 reps is the ideal range for hypertrophy. The late Doug Brignole used a 30-20-15-10 rep sequence.
this is an old comment but i’ll still reply. there is no advantage. Chris here said “it really doesn’t matter what rep range you use”, but Chris has changed his mind in that. It really does matter because muscle damage and fatigue are things that interfere with hypertrophy. And you get a lot more of that as you go into the higher rep ranges. So there really is no advantage in going 10+ reps and there’s actually a disadvantage.
@@juandeadlift4457 What about other factors like injury prevention and learning a new skill? Yes, high reps are not effective for hypertrophy but when taken to failure, you get the same hypertrophy response as you did with low reps. Also, it is much easier for your passive structures to fail with below 80% loads compared to loads above 90% 1RM. So overall, you can't say that higher reps have "no advantages". It is a trade-off and depends on the individual's situation.
Is this still valid 4 years later?
Your book name plzz ???