<div>
(faz @ Jul. 17 2007,04:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think it is important to get rid of the notion of the “number” of reps as a principle of muscle growth. Repetitions are not a "principle" of hypertrophy, any more than counting the number of cranks it takes to reel in a fish is necessary to catch fish. You simply crank as many times as is necessary to get the job done. I'm not saying you are doing this, but in order to understand what it is you need to accomplish in the gym, it will help to avoid thinking of the specified number of reps as a restriction or limitation.
Yes, the # of reps a person uses is related to the amount of a weight they’re using as well as their level of strength. However, the # of reps in no way should be used to dictate how much weight they should use. In other words, the only reason we designate a specific number of reps to use is to maintain order in our training. They are used as a guide whereby we can measure our progress. An incorrect usage of reps is to only increase the weight when more reps can be performed at a given weight load. This might be sufficient for an average strength-training program, but it is not a good way to increase hypertrophy.
So if I haven’t completely confused people as to what I am trying to say, let me summarize things this way:
1) There is a certain amount or threshold of weight or tension that must be applied to your muscle tissue in order to get it to grow. That threshold changes up or down depending on your level of conditioning.
2) Active Muscle Contraction (both concentric and eccentric) is facilitative to muscle hypertrophy when tension is applied. Although Passive Stretch is a potent inducer of muscle growth, in most instances we cannot apply the necessary level of passive stretch to each muscle of our body to accomplish real whole body muscle growth. Thus we use muscle contractions to shorten the tissue before stretching it. This way we don’t have to take each muscle to its absolute limit of range of motion before it experiences high levels of stretch.
3) Eccentric contractions are more effective at inducing hypertrophy than concentric contractions using the same relative amount of weight.
4) There is no physiological threshold of repetitions that is necessary for the growth stimulus to be created. It is dependant on the duration and amplitude of stretch relative to the tissues level of conditioning, not the actual number of contractions.
5) Fatigue is not the muscle’s way of indicating that a stimulus for growth has occurred. A growth stimulus can be created without taking a set to failure, and at other times, even taking a set to failure fails to produce an adequate growth stimulus. We have no direct way of knowing how successful we have been at creating a growth stimulus from workout to workout. Direct measurements require a laboratory setting and painful biopsies. The only way to really gauge is to look at what has previously been done to the tissue (i.e. how much weight, how much volume, what level of conditioning are we working with). By continuing to increase the duration and/or amplitude of tension/stretch/load, we can be reasonably sure we are creating an adequate growth stimulus (assuming diet is in order). “Within reason”, it is the total number of reps performed of a given movement during a single exercise bout that is important, not how many are performed each set. You can blame two prominent exercise researchers and their infatuation with minuscule fluctuations in hormone levels for any confusion on this point.
I’m not sure if that clears anything up or not. But it should help to see why the number of reps per set is less important than the overall progression of critical training variables (i.e. load, volume, frequency, diet) over time.
- Bryan Haycock</div>
eloquently put faz.
this exactly why i think that no rep range(within reason)should be overlooked as regards to growth or its usefulness in training.its then down to the individual to find out what works best for them.even though these basic fundamental principles will yield good results.
reps,volume and total sets can be adjusted once over the intial learning curve.this is why i dont use standard hst anymore, progressive load and time under tention/total reps(incorperated through rep ranges)are the way to go for me but i put them in a standard split routine.
this allows
me to go in hard and heavy and blitz a specific muscle group,giving it my full attention.where as when i was using the standard vanilla hst i was going heavy with deads but then found it difficult to go full on with squats.this is just an example.i never liked using submaximal weights but dont train to failure as often which is something i learned on this site.
i find it benificial to try different routines and pick out the best parts from each and mold them all together.
)...could be.