Load doesn't matter...or does it?

[HST_Rihad]

Are you sure you're not just a contrarian?

Yup, just like all of us HSTers are

 

[grunt11]

Are you sure you're not just a contrarian?

Probably “confirmation bias,” very common in internet forums.

 

[HST_Rihad]

This article by Bryan Haycock based on Wernbom's work got me thinking. It says:

In general, the rate of hypertrophy in these studies was greatest when the loads were 65%–85% of an athlete’s one-repetition maximum (1RM). It is of interest that you don’t see a linear dose-response by increasing the weight from 65%–85%.

Using the HST calculator I quickly found out that 85% load is 6RM. 5RM occurs no sooner than at 88%. So shouldn't we assume HST's lower rep range to be 6RM to match newer research? It's a bit less stressful or risky for joints and tendons, injury potential is a bit lower, and optimal "per bout" rep count can be achieved with a bit less time & effort.

 

[Lol]

This article by Bryan Haycock based on Wernbom's work got me thinking. It says:

In general, the rate of hypertrophy in these studies was greatest when the loads were 65%–85% of an athlete’s one-repetition maximum (1RM). It is of interest that you don’t see a linear dose-response by increasing the weight from 65%–85%.

Using the HST calculator I quickly found out that 85% load is 6RM. 5RM occurs no sooner than at 88%. So shouldn't we assume HST's lower rep range to be 6RM to match newer research? It's a bit less stressful or risky for joints and tendons, injury potential is a bit lower, and optimal "per bout" rep count can be achieved with a bit less time & effort.

Heck! 85% of your 1RM load is exactly your 6RM! Of course! Why didn't anyone suggest this sooner? Working toward your 6RM instead of your 5RM will change everything: not only will you make the same gains but you'll be able to lift so much more safely.

Ah, but wait just a darn minute! The downside will be that, should you ever try for a 1RM, your whole body will immediately melt. It will serve you right, too, for being stupid enough to try such an outrageously dangerous thing.

Ok, sorry... but you asked for that.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Heck! 85% of your 1RM load is exactly your 6RM! Of course! Why didn't anyone suggest this sooner?

Well, that might be because Wernbom's study covering optimal rep ranges is dated 2007, Bryan based his stuff on earlier research.

Working toward your 6RM instead of your 5RM will change everything: not only will you make the same gains but you'll be able to lift so much more safely.

Ah, but wait just a darn minute! The downside will be that, should you ever try for a 1RM, your whole body will immediately melt. It will serve you right, too, for being stupid enough to try such an outrageously dangerous thing.

Ok, sorry... but you asked for that.

I see where you're coming from: due to specificity principle you won't necessarily be able to lift your calculated 1RM after having trained 6RM 85%. I just don't see how being able to lift my 1RM is going to help me build muscle It might be clearer to think this way: weight you can lift 6RM @RPE 9-10 is most probably within your 85-87%.
Anyway, what I'm saying is 6RM is closer to that "good" range. If you consider that trying new weights inevitably drops my reps even lower. it's even more so.

 

[CDB]

Well, that might be because Wernbom's study covering optimal rep ranges is dated 2007, Bryan based his stuff on earlier research.



I see where you're coming from: due to specificity principle you won't necessarily be able to lift your calculated 1RM after having trained 6RM 85%. I just don't see how being able to lift my 1RM is going to help me build muscle It might be clearer to think this way: weight you can lift 6RM @RPE 9-10 is most probably within your 85-87%.
Anyway, what I'm saying is 6RM is closer to that "good" range. If you consider that trying new weights inevitably drops my reps even lower. it's even more so.

I think there might be some neurological benefits to occasionally doing some heavy singles closer to, at, or even trying more than your calculated 5RM to 1RM. But the thing is like all other tools, you use it where it's effective. If you hit a strength plateau then pull out some of the powerlifter tricks for getting past the plateau. As long as you're gaining strength and muscle via HSTish approaches, use them.

 

[HST_Rihad]

HST already has a well defined way to overcome plateau: SD + load back-off.
If you're somehow combining HST with training for strength, then it's another story.

 

[Jester]

This article by Bryan Haycock based on Wernbom's work got me thinking. It says:

Using the HST calculator I quickly found out that 85% load is 6RM. 5RM occurs no sooner than at 88%. So shouldn't we assume HST's lower rep range to be 6RM to match newer research? It's a bit less stressful or risky for joints and tendons, injury potential is a bit lower, and optimal "per bout" rep count can be achieved with a bit less time & effort.

View attachment 2171

Well if the HST calculator says so, it must be true.

There's some parallel in the logic ...




I really think the difference between 85 and 88% 1RM is negligible, not to mention being almost impossible to accurately calculate at a given time.


After 12yrs of research, I'm still yet to identify a set of principles for hypertrophy that advocates lifting lighter loads, and then backs this up successfully with results. Hell, myo-reps are merely an optimisation of the 8-12rep range (and you aren't going to reach your genetic limits for hypertophy training in that range, when it's all said and done. *May still look fantastic none-the-less).


Load absolutely matters, and advocating, let alone identifying the actual difference between 5RM and 6RM is just not worth the time.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Another interesting research, probably involving previously untrained subjects:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430105358.htm

Light Weights Are Just as Good for Building Muscle, Getting Stronger, Researchers Find

Apr. 30, 2012 — Lifting less weight more times is just as effective at building muscle as training with heavy weights, a finding by McMaster researchers that turns conventional wisdom on its head.


The key to muscle gain, say the researchers, is working to the point of fatigue.
"We found that loads that were quite heavy and comparatively light were equally effective at inducing muscle growth and promoting strength," says Cam Mitchell, one of the lead authors of the study and a PhD candidate in the Department of Kinesiology.
The research, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, challenges the widely accepted dogma that training with heavy weights -- which can be lifted only six to 12 times before fatigue -- is the best avenue to muscle growth.
"Many older adults can have joint problems which would prevent them training with heavy loads," says Mitchell. "This study shows that they have the option of training with lighter and less intimidating loads and can still receive the benefits."
For the study, a series of experiments were conducted on healthy, young male volunteers to measure how their leg muscles reacted to different forms of resistance training over a period of 10 weeks.
The researchers first determined the maximum weight each subject could lift one time in a knee extension. Each subject was assigned to a different training program for each leg.
In all, three different programs were used in combinations that required the volunteers to complete sets of as many repetitions as possible with their assigned loads -- typically eight to 12 times per set at the heaviest weights and 25-30 times at the lowest weights.
The three programs used in the combinations were:

1. one set at 80% of the maximum load
2. three sets at 80% of the maximum
3. three sets at 30% of the maximum

After 10 weeks of training, three times per week, the heavy and light groups that lifted three sets saw significant gains in muscle volume -- as measured by MRI -- with no difference among the groups. Still, the group that used heavier weights for three sets developed a bit more strength.
The group that trained for a single set showed approximately half the increase in muscle size seen in both the heavy and light groups.
"The complexity of current resistance training guidelines may deter some people from resistance training and therefore from receiving the associated health benefits," says Stuart Phillips, a professor in the Department of Kinesiology and supervisor of the study. "Our study provides evidence for a simpler paradigm, where a much broader range of loads including quite light loads can induce muscle growth, provided it is lifted to the point where it is difficult to maintain good form."

 

[Jester]

List of issues I have, just from the abstract:

-Untrained subjects
-Knee extension as the chosen exercise
-Rep ranges
-No differential/discussion of sarcomere vs sarcoplasm (are they gaining muscle or storing more glycogen in the muscle)
-Best way to gain is to train to fatigue (seems about as anti-progressive load as one can get)