Convince Me That 5 With 5rm Is Superior To 10 With 10rm...

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy Research' started by NWlifter, Oct 14, 2018.

  1. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    That's one thing that I still have trouble with.
    The general idea of HST rocks, beat previous stimulation enough that RBE will not negate things.
    But I still have trouble with the idea that (for example) 2x5 with 5Rm is a step up over 2x8 with 8RM.
    Reason, example: It seems, for example, that 3x8 is a step up over 1x5, so 'tension time' seems to be 'the' equation.
    And following that logic, going from 1x5 with 5RM to 1x1 with 1RM would be less stimulating, even though load is maximum... just not sure on this..

    I can see for sure...
    15 reps total with 15RM
    then
    15 reps total with 10RM
    then
    15 reps total with 5RM

    But...
    15 reps with 15RM
    then
    10 reps with 10RM
    then
    5 reps with 5RM

    That still gives me pause...
     
  2. _Simon_

    _Simon_ Active Member

    Hmmm yeah I'm also curious.

    But what I'm thinking is that it's not so much a step up, but it's relative to the current conditioning of the tissue. I think this is an overlooked topic at times, and often I see things compared (training styles, rep ranges etc) as to what's more stimulating, but we're dealing with a living, breathing, spontaneous organism.

    I would think that to a certain level of conditioning, the 2x5 with 5RM and 2x8 with 8RM would produce a pretty similar effect actually. Now, someone who is used to 8RM weights, if they go into the 5RM territory, I think that will spur on growth. It depends on where they are in 'training age' and what their body has been exposed to.

    But yes, tension time also throws a spanner into the mix! Again, I think it's more related to the person's current conditioning and perhaps there can't be a concrete answer.. Finding one's volume threshold may be important here..

    But I do think that with lighter loads, more volume is simply needed to reach full activation. As the higher loads (5RM) already have full activation from the get-go, you won't need as much volume.

    Would love to hear others thoughts :)
     
    NWlifter likes this.
  3. Blade

    Blade Super Moderator Staff Member

    I agree with what Simon says wrt the conditioning of the tissue that needs to be taken into account...and we don’t have reliable data, so we are essentially trying to hit a moving target and the total number of "effective" reps should be taken into consideration - but as Bryan has pointed out, 15 reps of a 15RM is not the same as 5 reps of 5RM even if we disregarded the load in this equation. 15 reps is still better than 5 reps since you are experiencing mechanical tension through the contracting fibers of that muscle on all reps.

    I don’t think figuring this out precisely will lead to any changes in the overarching principles anyway :)
     
  4. NWlifter

    NWlifter Active Member

    I completely agree with tissue condition affecting the level of 'stimulation'.
    Effective reps are important, if you look at the recruitment/effort levels for a muscle, for example one where full recruitment is around 80%, than an 8RM would have 8 fully recruited reps and so would a 15RM. The last 8 reps with the 15RM (reps 8-15) would be the same recruitment pattern as reps 1-8 with the 8RM. But 5 with 5Rm obviously only has 5 reps total. I can see 8 reps with a 5RM being superior to 8 with an 8RM.
     
  5. Blade

    Blade Super Moderator Staff Member

    The current opinion is that the last 5 reps of a set are the most effective, but again - this is splitting hairs and largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things (progressive loading + a "sweet spot" range of frequency and volume).
     
    _Simon_ and NWlifter like this.

Share This Page