Minimum amount of Reps

[Joe.Muscle]

I have been thinking guys and wanted everyones opinion.

We know load and frequency are big for hypertrophy.

But what would you consider the optimal rep range for hypertrophy? Now I am not talking about what rep range is the best, I am talking about total reps were workout per week.

For example 10 sets of 3 reps for 30 total reps is a lot different than 3 sets of 10 reps. Different type of training.

What would you say is the minimal amount of work or total reps for growth and hypertrophy per workout??....per week?

Opinions and science needed.

 

[lcars]

dont forget that it is advantages to use both high and low reps due to how fast and slow twitch fibres are hit by each exercise so a variation is best.but the old school rule of thumb where im from is 6-8 8-10 reps being best for most body parts,but i dont subscribe to this anymore.

 

[lcars]

also i push higher reps with things like squats as i seem to get more from slightly higher reps.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Right...maybe my question is confusing?

Say if you use 6 reps then how many sets do you do to get your perfect total for hypertrophy?

Do you see what I am saying?

Chad waterbury over at T-nation said that in his opinion you must reach a rep total of 36 per muscle group to induce good hypertrophy...key work being good or optimal this doesn't mean you couldn't get hypertrophy with less reps he is just sayin 36 reps per muscle is optimal...sounds about right if you ask me?

So if you were doing 6 rep sets..then you would do 6 sets...or if you were doing 10 reps sets just 3 sets.

See what I mean? I was wondering what everyones opinion is on optimal reps for growth per muscle group which then you could break it down into how many days per week and how many reps total per week.

For example on vanilla hst routine that bryan has on the forum he prescribes 3 sets of 10 reps for chest.

That equals 30 reps on monday 30 reps on wed and friday...equaling 90 reps per week.

Any thoughts or opinions guys?

 

[Bob Evans]

I have a question about this too. It is regarding my "post 5s" I do more like sets of 2 or 3 around my max (instead of negs) So for example last night I did 4 sets of 3 on bench at 285lb.. soon will go to 295 then 305 But I have fryed out doing this in the past. can I just do 3 sets of 3 and then do drop sets a la O&G? Will that be sufficiant volume at the heavy weight. Just 9 reps at the heavy weight then another 20 or so at a lighter weight. I would love to be able to go heavy for 4 sets of 5 -- but I can't

. Of course once I can do 3 sets of 5 at 305lb -- then my 2 or 3 rep sets will be heavier still.

Thanks Bob

 

[style]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would love to be able to go heavy for 4 sets of 5 -- but I can't </div>

With Max Stim you can!

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 18 2006,10:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now I am not talking about what rep range is the best, I am talking about total reps were workout per week.

For example 10 sets of 3 reps for 30 total reps is a lot different than 3 sets of 10 reps. Different type of training.</div>
Good luck.

As Joan Rivers used to say, &quot;Can we Talk?&quot;, so let's talk.

Any rep range range will increase growth, when using any reasonable load, and heck probably even with an unreasonable load.......IF.........the load is increased over time and work isn't severely hampered by heavy loading.

In A.C. Fry's meta on intensity, see my last newsletter, he pretty much nails it on the head, it's a bell shaped curve and too little load requires too many reps and too heavy doesn't allow enough.

Is there an optimal, Fry suggests around the 80% of 1 RM range, many studies have shown growth with more and less. So what is optimal?? No one knows scientifically. Anecdotally, bodybuilders have used just about everything under the sun and if you ask them, you'll get a vast disparity in answers as it's also about preference, like it or not.

Training specificity also contributes to what load should be used, for instance strength endurance and pure power training may require the use of lesser loads. Absolute strength may require more, although there is most often a crossover effect.

About the best one can do, IMOO is stick to a number of reps per workout, whatever this may be individually, and then increase the load consistantly using this number of reps.

 

[style]

As for your question Joe, without specifying the load it is hard to say, 30 reps of 50% of your RM are very different from 30 reps with your 5RM. I would say its better to talk about the minimum 'work done' required per week as in sets times reps times load.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Chad waterbury over at T-nation said that in his opinion you must reach a rep total of 36 per muscle group to induce good hypertrophy...key work being good or optimal this doesn't mean you couldn't get hypertrophy with less reps he is just sayin 36 reps per muscle is optimal...sounds about right if you ask me?</div>

Coming up with an arbitrary number like this is wrong, its defintely 35 reps

 

[style]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">About the best one can do, IMOO is stick to a number of reps per workout, whatever this may be individually, and then increase the load consistantly using this number of reps. </div>

20 sounds like a good number eh Dan

Ok Ill say 15-30 reps per workout depending on the load just to say an arbitrary range

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(style @ May 18 2006,12:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would love to be able to go heavy for 4 sets of 5 -- but I can't </div>

With Max Stim you can!

</div>

Well I'll say 20 seems like a reasonable number, but optimal ?? I wouldn't say that, I think it's too subjective. In one of the studies Bryan points too, and I've used as well, it points out that adequate kinases signalling occur with the first 15-30 secs (or something like that) of fiber stretch, so it's obvious that there is a time frame invovled. Just what is it? Is the question that remains when speaking of human whole muscle contraction versus isolated fiber stretch. Looking at some newer stuff using bugs bunny's cousin the New Zealand White Rabbit with red eyes (sorry Monty Python flash black

) shows that in whole muscle the degree of fiber strain is less unless there is some either pre-stretch or pre-activation. In this study they show that fiber strain per rep was first intitated around the 3rd rep and peaked by the 5th and began to lessen (because of fatigue) by the 8th (or somewhere around there). The biggy is these contractions were electrically induced and were at 100 hz, IE full or very nearly full MVC, so it awaits to be seen what would happen with dynamic human contractions. Yet we do know and this study reaffirms the fact that strain will not peak until all compliance is removed from the connective tissue and it takes a certain number of reps to accomplish this.

Secondly we also know(or can reasonably make a decent assumption) that once a point has been hit, doing anymore isn't helping and may even be hindering. What this point is ?? good question, how will changing the load change this point, another good question??

 

[lcars]

i guess thats why hst works well because the change in reps will fully allow for this intensity/time marker you speak of.

 

[Bob Evans]

Dan et al,

so in my post fives do you think a good warm up, then 3 sets of 2, then some burn/ drop sets will be sufficiant. My fear is in the past when I did more -- I fried - and then it was SD time. So as with all this stuff... sub maximal workouts ... but then I get more of them. So do you think this is 'good enough&quot;?

Bob

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Ok just signed up for a communications class, b/c I am not explaining myself well..hehe

Let me be more clear. When i say a rep range of 36 reps I dont mean pic any weight an lift it 36 reps.

I actually am using this number from Waterburys High Frequency Plain, which I really like the way it is set up and I can use HST principals inside of it.

Anway basically 36 reps is the reps he thinks in his opinion and has seen from thousands of clients throw trial and error (NOT RESEARCH) is the optimal or amount for pure hypertrophy. What he recommends is leaving 1 to 2 reps in the tank every set...in other words dont hit failure..due to CNS fatique. I agree.

So in other words 36 reps could look many different ways but all in a heavy weight way. It does not mean just pick 40% of your max and rep it 36 times.

For example using 12 rep range. You would pick your 14 or 15 rep max and perform 3 sets of 12 reps.

For 10's you would pick your 12 rep max and perform 3 sets of 10 reps

and for say 6 reps you would pick your 8 rep max and do 5 sets or 6 sets with your 8 rep max.

Stoping just a couple reps shy of failure.

So the weights we are using to hit 30 to 36 reps is not at all LIGHT WEIGHT.

Now that being said as to reply back to Bob Evans I would say you should do as many sets as you feel comfortable with but dont let yourself get fried or CNS fried. So either do less reps with same load and more sets, stopping way short of failure, or better yet do MAX Stimuation from DAN site.

I personally never go that heavy b/c its just pure strength at best and not optimal for growth IMO with the degree of risk for injury, however I feel this way only b/c thats how I got injured.

Long story shorty I really like Waterburys HFT method, as well as DANS new max stimulation.

New flavor to training and still within HST !

 

[Old and Grey]

I agree with Dan and suggest that you pick a total number of reps and work to it. For me the number that seems to work best is 15. Anything more and I seem to cut into my CNS. Much less and I get little benefit. So, for example, I typically will do 1 set of 15's, 1 set of 10's followed immediately by a drop set of 5 and 1 set of 5's followed immediately by 2 drops sets of 5's. Thus I typically do 45 reps per week per specific body part. However, since I use mostly compound exercises, the number is actually a bit higher when considering that individual body parts will also be indirectly worked in other exercises. Also, like others, I have found that legs respond better for me at higher reps so I target 25 reps per wokout or 75 per week for them. Before I started lifting at or very near my capacity on each lift all the time, I would target 20 reps per body part (other than legs) which tended to compensate for lifting lighter weights.

 

[dkm1987]

<div>
(Bob Evans @ May 18 2006,13:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dan et al,</div>Too funny

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So do you think this is 'good enough&quot;?</div>
Do I think so? No I don't and let me clarify, I do not think metabolically taxing work can directly replace mechanically straining work. Now this doesn't mean it's not good enough because like I said above no one to my knowledge knows exactly how much time the muscle must be under tension in order to get all the good stuff.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My fear is in the past when I did more -- I fried - and then it was SD time.</div>I think here lies the answer Bob. Anytime you are working near maximal like in the post 5's your are going to experience additional fatigue so what can be done? 1. Add more time between sets, 2. Add more time between workouts, 3. Add more time between reps (sorry had to throw it in there

), or 4. reduce the load in order to keep going.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ May 18 2006,14:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok just signed up for a communications class, b/c I am not explaining myself well..hehe

Anway basically 36 reps is the reps he thinks in his opinion and has seen from thousands of clients throw trial and error (NOT RESEARCH) is the optimal or amount for pure hypertrophy. What he recommends is leaving 1 to 2 reps in the tank every set...in other words dont hit failure..due to CNS fatique. I agree.</div>
i think 35 reps is better.

 

[dkm1987]

Please understand this is strictly his opinion and I'm not discounting it just merely re-stating the obvious. Is 36 reps proven to be optimal for hypertrophy, not hardly. Will it probably work for increasing hypertrophy, sure but so will many other combinations of sets/reps/frequency/loading. So IMOO for Chad to say that this number of reps is optimal for the entire population irregardless of consideration for all other variables contained in training is truly only his opinion.

 

[Old and Grey]

It all comes down to Time Under Tension and Load. A super slow set of body weight chins of 60 seconds is not something that you can arbitrarily say you should do 36 sets or reps of. I don't think you can make separate statements about any of these terms but you can some pretty good estimates when taking them all into account. For example, I think if you do reps of 4,1,2,1, which mine probably average out to, and your load is near your work capacity, then 3 sets of 5 would probably be ideal, or 1 set of 15's or 1 set of 10's and a drop set of 5's. If you are working with sub-maximal loads, you would likely need to increase the number of reps or decrease your tempo further or some combination therefore.There are probably some studies out there that profess to show what the ideal Time Under Tension is supposed to be. About 2 minutes in total per body part seems to work best for me although I do use 3 minutes as a yard stick for my legs which seem to like higher reps and longer TUT.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Good Point.

I did 3 sets of 12 reps last night with my 14 rep max, and just happend to time the reps. It toom me about 35 to 40 seconds to comlete the set.

So my TUT or TUL would be anywere from 1 minute 5 seconds to 1 min 20 seconds.

I guess about ideal?

Of course the heavier weight would not get anywhere as TUT....but it wouldnt need to b/c of the heavier load correct?

This August I start my serious bulking routine...gonna throw caution to the wind and not worry about leanness.

I plan on expierementing with very low and high volume...it should be interesting.

I plan on using a 24-50 rep principal with all big bodyparts.

So some of my cycles could be way high volume...maybe not even HST ish?

For example right now I am using 2 sets of 15's 3 sets of 10 or 12's and 4 sets of 6 reps.

This winter I may go as high as 4 sets of 12 reps...and maybe 7 sets of 6 reps?

It will be interesing to see what happens.

Now i dont want to hijack my on thread so I am going to start a new one b/c I have one more question I want to discuss but I dont want to get this one off topic.

Joe

 

[Old and Grey]

Joe, I think you meant your total TUT was 1 min 45 sec to 2 minutes. There are only 60 seconds in a minute, not 100.

Those are pretty fast reps...probably about 1 second concentric and 2 seconds eccentric with no pauses. I personally prefer much slower reps and less sets. However, I am not sure if it makes a big difference. Dan could probably site some studies to clarify it but I suspect the more important factor is the load and the TUT although I know that some people even question whether TUT is a good measure or not.