The emphasis seems to be on load for hypertrophy, and I have no quarrel with that. It seems to me that there has to be some kind of trade off, though. If I can use 200 lbs. for an exercise and that is my 5 RM, but can do 10 reps with 180 lbs., is the higher load (200 for 5) really stimulating more hypertrophy? If the extra work being performed in doing 180 for 10 isn't creating more hypertrophy ... is it doing anything besides creating more fatigue? It seems to me that the extra workload should offer something of value. Can anyone explain why the 180 for 10 is NOT better? Thanks!
Is "work" not a factor?
- Thread starter leegee38
- Start date
Nemesis7884
New Member
not only load is important, its the combination of:
enough intensity (e.g. load) to stimulate hypertrophy
continouos progression of load
training as frequently and with as much volume as possible regarding recovery abilities
all these factors are important, but intensity and progression are the key...
to keep a linear progression in your meso cycle is just possible if your reps per set decrease as the weight increases...
it is correct that a set of 15s or 10s produces more metabolic stress then a set of 5s - thats where additional stress techniques come into play such as drop sets, to create an as anabolic environnement
enough intensity (e.g. load) to stimulate hypertrophy
continouos progression of load
training as frequently and with as much volume as possible regarding recovery abilities
all these factors are important, but intensity and progression are the key...
to keep a linear progression in your meso cycle is just possible if your reps per set decrease as the weight increases...
it is correct that a set of 15s or 10s produces more metabolic stress then a set of 5s - thats where additional stress techniques come into play such as drop sets, to create an as anabolic environnement
jvroig
Active Member
Ok, that's good to hear.[b said:
I would guess so, but this would greatly depend on your understanding of the mechanisms of hypertrophy.[b said:
LOAD IS KING or something like that is the most common idea people probably get after reading the basic HST articles. But back up a bit, dig a little more, and we come to remember that mechanical stress/tension on the muscle fibers is the chief cause of hypertrophy - not really load per se (which is why it's not important to target a specific load like 200 pounds, but rather we use RMs, which greatly differ from person to person, yet we gain like everybody else).
So why is load the king? Because load is the easiest and most effective way that we can increase mechanical tension. You can also do it by increasing volume (work), but due to muscular endurance, we can really only do so much and can't do any useful progression on that at all. You can also do it by speeding up the concentric (greater accelertion), that would also increase the stress, but like volume, we also can't make any useful progression at this; more often than not, a significant weight won't allow you to just speed up the concentric at will - and if you do manage to do so, you most often would end up sacrificing work.
So what is left? Load. So we give load the king position instead of work. After all, you should already be doing as much volume as you can. Manipulating load (coupled with strategic deconditioning) allows you to set it up into a cycle of progression that gives you great hypertrophy.
Depends on your level of conditioning. If properly deconditioned, the difference may be small and you are better off going with the 10RM first and squeeze out any hypertrophy you can get from it, and then go to your 5RM.[b said:
Another thing worth noting is that with the heavier load, all muscle fibers are already recruited from the start of the lift. It makes the entire set more "efficient", since all reps involve all muscle fibers. For the 10RM, you generally have to do a few reps first before all fibers are recruited.
For one, it is doing more metabollic work. And the extra reps are necessary for creating more stress on the muscle fibers, since the load is lighter than the 5RM. It isn't just creating more fatigue, rest assured. It may not be creating more hypertrophy than a heavier weight, but it is going to cause hypertrophy (and not insignificant at that).[b said:
Yep, if you've read this far, then you already know it does. How much it offers depends on your level of conditioning (we're talking about the conditioning of your muscles, of course).[b said:
(Using the CT theory of RBE) After all your training, there may be enough connective tissues in your muscles, and it protects the muscles from getting damaged. This lessens the effectiveness of your workout, and you have to increase the stress on the muscles to make the workout effective and generate hypertrophy. You'll eventually reach a level where the 10RM will create very little stimulation, and you need to increase the load. At that point, the 10RM is not better, obviously. And even before that, the heavier load just recruits all fibers faster. But like I said above, if you are deconditioned properly, it may be more advantageous to squeeze out any hypertrophy you can get from the lighter weights before going on with the heavy weights.[b said:
Regards,
-JV
Ahh, work! Reminds me of the days I was using Sisco's Power Factor Training. Yes, there is more work with those 10 reps.. and by the way, I would think that your 10RM and 5RM wouldn't be that close. Anyways, the 10RM will provide an overall greater force put on the muscle, but the absolute strain from rep to rep is greater for the 5RM thus creating a more hypertrophic environment.
-Colby
-Colby
I think a key point, and jvroig did mention this in his nicely comprehensive response, is that 5reps of 200kg doesn't necessarily stimulate more hypertrophy that 10reps of 180kg...it's all about increasing load rather than absolute load.
If you carried on working out with 200kg for 5 reps then growth would slow and stop, just as it would if you carried on with 180kg for 10 reps.
At least I hope that's right or I've been barking up the wrong tree for some time now!
Cheers
Rob
If you carried on working out with 200kg for 5 reps then growth would slow and stop, just as it would if you carried on with 180kg for 10 reps.
At least I hope that's right or I've been barking up the wrong tree for some time now!
Cheers
Rob
9to5lifter
New Member
The other guys have pretty much nailed it, but I''l try to add something. "Work" is primarily seen as TUT. More reps with the same weight would generally mean more TUT. Of course, the time under load plays a role, but the load itself is much more important.
Let me use JV's example. Somebody has reached a level of conditioning where, say, 1 set of his 10RM is not effective anymore. What should he do now? Of course he can try to increase "work" (TUT) by adding one or more sets. However, it is MUCH MUCH easier (and effective) to increase the load instead (how many sets can you do with your 10RM in one workout without taking too much time?).
As a side note, many guys have opted to keep their rep count as constant as possible, so that the only variable is load. An increase in load would then equal an increase in work as well. But I don't want to give the wrong impression here, so I repeat; The load itself is much more important than time under load.
Regards,
Dimitris
Let me use JV's example. Somebody has reached a level of conditioning where, say, 1 set of his 10RM is not effective anymore. What should he do now? Of course he can try to increase "work" (TUT) by adding one or more sets. However, it is MUCH MUCH easier (and effective) to increase the load instead (how many sets can you do with your 10RM in one workout without taking too much time?).
As a side note, many guys have opted to keep their rep count as constant as possible, so that the only variable is load. An increase in load would then equal an increase in work as well. But I don't want to give the wrong impression here, so I repeat; The load itself is much more important than time under load.
Regards,
Dimitris