a few questions for Ripp

[protobuilder]

If you have time, I'd be interested in your thoughts to any or all of the following:

(1) Rumor has it you can add 100 pounds to any able-bodied man?s squat. Have you seen a difference in the speed and amount of linear progress possible between, say, a ?good? and ?not-so-good? trainee? If so, what factors play into it? Does it just come down to coaching (e.g., there are no ?not so good? trainees, just poor programs)?

(2) Some have questioned the hypertrophy recommendation in Practical Programming of multiple sets of 15. Care to elaborate/defend? I ask because many tout 5x5-style training as a ?guaranteed? size builder, the thought being, you simply can?t expect big muscular legs until you?re squatting 20x315, 5x495, etc.

(3) Care to share your thoughts (if any) on the value of rack work (e.g., heavy partial squat lockouts in the rack, ?bottom-up? work from the rack, etc.)?

(4) How do you define ?hard work? in training terms, and what role does it play in week-to-week training?

(5) Do you have thoughts on how much time a trainee should spend in the 50-70% range? 70-80%? 80-90? Etc. (using whatever percentages or guidelines you use, if any). What factors play into this?

(6) Who has a bigger squat, Paul Anderson or God?


Thanks for the time. Looking forward to your next book.

[Mark Rippetoe]

1.) There are huge differences in genetic/psychological potential between people. Some have good levers, some have a short attention span, some have lots of time and no job to finance their protein habit, and some want it worse than others. A shitty program might work much better for a gifted athlete than even the best program would for me. It might come down to coaching, but lots of people get strong without a coach. It usually comes down to the individual.

2.) It is well established that higher reps build hypertrophy better than lower reps. That having been said, or typed I suppose, 5s pull up the weight that can be used on 15s, and 15s contribute hypertrophy that improves the leverage for the 5s. But you're right, big legs are a function of big weight, no defense necessary.

3.) There is an extensive discussion of this topic in the new book, now due out in early September.

4.) "Hard work" is the kind of work that committed lifters do all the time - week to week, day to day, month to month, and year to year. Rah-rah. Think of a more specific question.

5.) I guess that would depend on the program, the contest being trained for, the level of advancement of the athlete, and the time available for preparing for the meet.

6.) There is no god but John Kuc.

[lylemcd]

2). Not it's not, Rip. It's an old myth that refuses to die is what it is.

Behm (or is it Sale) has unpublished data showing that progressive triples build size just as well as higher reps. And, if anything, PL's are often more muscular than bodybuilders despite using a predominantly lower repetition range (IU realize that most use a mix of ranges).

many OL'ers have legs that bodybuidlers woul KILL for despite high reps being multiple sets of 5.

What higher reps do is give a greater acute effect due to pump and glycogen storage. But heavier weights give better MU recruitment and training effect. at 80% 1RM (5-8 RM or so), you get full MU recruitment from rep 1 and plenty of metabolic work without wasting time moving around pansy weights for sets of 15.

[blowdpanis]

2). Not it's not, Rip. It's an old myth that refuses to die is what it is.

Behm (or is it Sale) has unpublished data showing that progressive triples build size just as well as higher reps. And, if anything, PL's are often more muscular than bodybuilders despite using a predominantly lower repetition range (IU realize that most use a mix of ranges).

many OL'ers have legs that bodybuidlers woul KILL for despite high reps being multiple sets of 5.

What higher reps do is give a greater acute effect due to pump and glycogen storage. But heavier weights give better MU recruitment and training effect. at 80% 1RM (5-8 RM or so), you get full MU recruitment from rep 1 and plenty of metabolic work without wasting time moving around pansy weights for sets of 15.

Adding to this, if you manage to get the full text of this...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t96qmxyaa7x7le0c/

The most hypertrophy actually occurred in the lowest rep group (~5 RM) compared to the intermediate (~10 RM) and high rep (~20-28 RM). Intermediate was just about the same, but yah, the "strength" group grew as much/more than anyone else when total volume between groups was similar-ish.

This is also the source of confusion on rep range and hypertrophy potential, imho, NOT holding total volume constant in one's comparisons. A lot of literature out there comparing stuff like 1 set of 3 RM to 1 set of 10 RM, finding 10 RM makes you grow better. Except that 10 RM is > 300% the total volume of 3 RM. What happens if you compare 10 RM to 3 sets of ~3 RM? Magic.

[Kyle]

Adding to this, if you manage to get the full text of this...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t96qmxyaa7x7le0c/

The most hypertrophy actually occurred in the lowest rep group (~5 RM) compared to the intermediate (~10 RM) and high rep (~20-28 RM). Intermediate was just about the same, but yah, the "strength" group grew as much/more than anyone else when total volume between groups was similar-ish.

This is also the source of confusion on rep range and hypertrophy potential, imho, NOT holding total volume constant in one's comparisons. A lot of literature out there comparing stuff like 1 set of 3 RM to 1 set of 10 RM, finding 10 RM makes you grow better. Except that 10 RM is > 300% the total volume of 3 RM. What happens if you compare 10 RM to 3 sets of ~3 RM? Magic.

Thats a great post.

http://strengthmill.net/forum/showthread.php?t=215 I have the full study paper on that. If you dont have it let me know and I'll send it to you.

If you have any similar research let me know I'd be interested in switching papers. Do you have the Wel's paper?

Kyle

[Mark Rippetoe]

A very good discussion, yes. My take:

First, anecdotal reports of various guys that train with weights mean almost nothing at all. Yes, Kurlovich had nice legs, and lots of other weightlifters don't. There are lots of very muscular powerlifters and weightlifters, and then there was Mike McDonald, Lamar Gant, Jeff Michaels, Nicu Vlad, Bob Peebles, and Gary Heisey. But I don't think Lyle means that they do; I think he means that you have to be strong to get big legs, and that getting strong makes your legs bigger.

Second, the vast majority of published studies are shit. SHIT. Anybody that tries to draw a conclusion about different training modalities based on controlled studies of untrained 18 year-old boys that are not capable of producing a 1RM, a 5RM, or any RM in an exercise or bunch of different exercises they don't know know how to do and who will get stronger by simply doing the tests because they are so completely unadapted to any type of exercise and who can make their squat go up by riding a bicycle is either 1.) unaware of how humans adapt to training, 2.) publishing to keep a job, or 3.) both.

For instance, the springerlink study cited had the following comment in the abstract: "Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group." Now, this is not terribly surprising, given that untrained kids would in fact get stronger using heavier weights, and that the maximum number of reps improved more for the group doing higher reps. Fucking DUH. Note that the study authors concluded that their work supported the rep-range continuum standard model, but I say it doesn't support anything, except that untrained kids will adapt if they train, they won't adapt if they don't train, and the adaptation will not be terribly specific until an initial period of non-specific adaptation has elevated the gross fitness level substantially.

Now, PPST discusses rep ranges and objectives as a continuum (p114) and gives general ranges: 90% 1RM low reps (1-3), strength end, ~65-80% 1RM "higher" reps (8-12), hypertrophy 50-75% 1RM for moderate reps (3-5) with maximal velocity, power. Reps vs types of hypertrophy is also discussed p 86-88. Glycogen storage at higher reps is examined as a contributor here also.
There's a lot of slop in those numbers because "1RM" and the %rm of a particular rep range mean very different things depending on the training experience, motivation, talent and mental abilities of the lifter, something that studies of this type are incapable of taking into account and that prove nothing without doing so. And the relationship of reps to %rm depends on the exercise in question as well; bench presses and deadlifts respond differently to changes in volume and intensity for most people. Working in the 80-95% range recommended by the abstract linked to by Kyle is pretty typical for the general hypertrophy range listed above for lots of people on lots of exercises. Higher reps don't necessarily mean small weights (although they probably do for untrained, college-age males), and particularly for people who have adapted to working within a particular rep range.

Separating out reps per set, total reps, and total tonnage and how these interact hasn't been performed in any kind satisfactory way in studies I've seen. So the best evidence I have is not comparing the legs on lifter A with those of lifter B, but observing changes in the same lifter with different training. And what I see is lifters training hard with low reps at high %s (eg lots of heavy singles, doubles) gain size when they switch to periods of higher rep work. How much higher? Total reps? Total tonnage? Time between sets or density of the reps? It all depends. But everybody is right when they say that pussy weights don't make big legs, and studies done on kids that can't lift anything but pussy weights can't come to valid conclusions.

I maintain my position that for more experienced trainees capable of producing heavy effort that approximate true 1-3RM and 15-20RM ranges of effort, the higher rep ranges produce a more voluminous sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and the lower rep/heavier weight ranges produce more contractile protein-dominated lower volume hypertrophy. And personal experience must temper your application of these general rules.

[britlifter]

That was a great post Mark thanks! Very informative

[blowdpanis]

Howdy Mark,

To focus on one point and simplify the jist of what I'm saying, I'm going to offer a thought experiment.

If, for the sake of argument, you were creating your own study/trial/whatever to determine the "optimal" rep range for hypertrophy, would you be inclined to believe that "higher reps" would be more advantageous IF we held volume (total reps) approximately constant in our comparison groups?

Example groups and the sets/reps they'd use in our pretend study:

2 sets of 12
3 sets of 8
4 sets of 6
5 sets of 5

All groups are approximately equal volume (24-25 reps), with the difference being the potential loading. I.e. 2 sets of 12 might allow a ~14-15 RM at one end of the spectrum, whereas 5 sets of 5 might be something like a 7-8 RM at the other end.

My personal guess is that, all else constant (e.g. volume and frequency), heavy will always "win" or at least tie for growth. And when I say growth, I mean growth of actual contractile tissue, just to clarify.

The point of this illustration, I guess, is to show that the reason higher rep sets might be conducive to hypertrophy isn't necessarily the high reps per se, but rather the total volume you can safely squeeze in at the load required to use higher reps. For example, you can probably squeeze in ~50-60 total reps a pop with something like 10-15 RM across multiple sets, but as you approach, say, a 5 RM, you're looking at a level of volume that may be unrealistic when trying to avoid overtraining/injury (like 17-20 sets of 3 or something insane).

As for a discussion on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and how fatigue affects that, that's kind of its own conversation, but my personal opinion is that you can't really separate myofibrillar from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the idea that, for example, bodybuilders' muscles are like these inflated balloons without much contractile tissue as a result of their higher rep training, I think, personally, is bunk.

[PMDL]

Mikey don't forget that bit about training to improve PS vs. training to improve the ability to sustain higher levels of PS that we threw out not too long ago on BR. I think that's where the issues w/ volume/fatigue type overload will come into play, as opposed to simple "load" increases over time.

May not be sarcoplasmic in the sense of inflated non-contractile balloons, but still kinda necessary for maximal size and not directly contractile tissues in themselves.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am seldom use the term "volume" in programming around here because of this problem; I prefer the concept of "tonnage", defined as reps x load. If volume is just number of reps, then it has no particular relationship to intensity. 5 sets of 10 at 20RM weight is not going to have the same effect as 5 sets of 10 at 12 RM weight, for reasons elaborately detailed in PPST. In my opinion it is impossible to program "volume" by itself. I should have stated it this way in my earlier post, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

And I'm interested in your opinion that there is no difference between sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy. What evidence do you have that this is true? I disagree that it's a separate conversation, because the adaptation to stress is specific to the type of stress, and the concept of tonnage is intimately involved here. The muscles just do not adapt the same way to 20RM as they do to 5RM, because the stress is completely different, and 4 sets of 5 (done at about 6-7RM weight) do not approximate the effect of a true 20RM set. Try it and see.

Rip







Howdy Mark,

To focus on one point and simplify the jist of what I'm saying, I'm going to offer a thought experiment.

If, for the sake of argument, you were creating your own study/trial/whatever to determine the "optimal" rep range for hypertrophy, would you be inclined to believe that "higher reps" would be more advantageous IF we held volume (total reps) approximately constant in our comparison groups?

Example groups and the sets/reps they'd use in our pretend study:

2 sets of 12
3 sets of 8
4 sets of 6
5 sets of 5

All groups are approximately equal volume (24-25 reps), with the difference being the potential loading. I.e. 2 sets of 12 might allow a ~14-15 RM at one end of the spectrum, whereas 5 sets of 5 might be something like a 7-8 RM at the other end.

My personal guess is that, all else constant (e.g. volume and frequency), heavy will always "win" or at least tie for growth. And when I say growth, I mean growth of actual contractile tissue, just to clarify.

The point of this illustration, I guess, is to show that the reason higher rep sets might be conducive to hypertrophy isn't necessarily the high reps per se, but rather the total volume you can safely squeeze in at the load required to use higher reps. For example, you can probably squeeze in ~50-60 total reps a pop with something like 10-15 RM across multiple sets, but as you approach, say, a 5 RM, you're looking at a level of volume that may be unrealistic when trying to avoid overtraining/injury (like 17-20 sets of 3 or something insane).

As for a discussion on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and how fatigue affects that, that's kind of its own conversation, but my personal opinion is that you can't really separate myofibrillar from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the idea that, for example, bodybuilders' muscles are like these inflated balloons without much contractile tissue as a result of their higher rep training, I think, personally, is bunk.

[Lifting N Tx]

And I'm interested in your opinion that there is no difference between sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy. What evidence do you have that this is true?
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be the most up on these things, but the following is my understanding...

On the sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy thing, I don't think that Mike (blowdpanis) meant that there was no difference, but rather that you couldn't train one without the other. One source of this idea may be from Dan Moore (whom Kyle and Mike are familiar with), and possibly this paper of Dan's. It's a 12 page Word doc...I think you can get it without being a member. If not I could email it. Anyway, after reviewing various papers and talking about lots of muscle biology stuff that I don't claim to understand, Dan says this:



Whole body protein synthesis is an average of the synthesis rat What can be seen when reviewing these and many other papers on the subject is the response to resistance training of fractional elevation remains in line with the results of feeding, both are elevated but the slower turnover proteins (myofibrillar) generally show a larger magnitude in increase. Since these studies show that this holds true with resistance training, dynamic exercise and HFES, all utilizing differing intensities and work output, it seems unlikely that the rep range is the sole cause of any increase in sarcoplasmic fraction up-regulation. (my emphasis)

If I understand correctly, the people who do know muscle biology think that the differential impact of rep ranges is more in what fiber types get hypertrophied, plus (I think) conversion of one fiber type to another. All of which still leaves me a bit puzzled, as I still think that no matter now much LBM dieted down PLers show, I doubt that many will be 275-300lbs at sub 10% body fat, as I think Coleman, Cutler and the like are. Can all the difference be explained by different fibers types being hypertrophied and neural training, yet still leave a bber with significantly greater muscle mass at best no stronger than the PLer, OLer, or Strongman?

Anyway, my understanding as mentioned above is that at least some knowledgeable folks would contend that rep range affects the types of fibers being hypertrophied, not how much of the hypertrophy is sarcoplasmic.

[blowdpanis]

Howdy sir,

Concerning a definition of volume, the only real definition that makes sense to me is the total number of repetitions. If you tie the definition of volume to intensity (% 1RM) or any other variable, how could you ever establish the effect of "volume" against other variables (e.g. intensity and frequency)?

My point in the illustration above was speculation that it wasn't the high reps and the metabolic stuff happening as a result of the high reps responsible for "high rep sets" being more conducive to growth. There's empirical evidence (including the link I sent, and the unpublished study Lyle references) that this is not the case. What appears to matter most, I suppose, is total tonnage - the combination of intensity and volume. How heavy you're lifting, and how many total times you lift it, all else constant. Thus, if you match volume (total reps) in any comparison, a higher intensity will "win" almost irregardless of context (training age of the subjects in question etc), imho.

Regarding sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy, I never said that there was no difference between the two per se, but rather that you couldn't separate the two in a meaningful way, and what I had in mind with that comment was the ability to isolate one form of hypertrophy from the other in terms of changes one could make to their training.

Basically, it is my belief that that muscle fibers keep a regulated ratio of protein to sarcoplasmic content, so separating one from the other into discrete categories doesn't really work. Both happen, certainly, so both forms "exist," but I am aware of no evidence to suggest one could ever really happen to the exclusion of the other. In fact, the only place I've seen this suggested (that the two can be meaningfully separated) is Russian literature (e.g. Supertraining), and then some American authors seemed to adopt the idea from them. But I don't believe there was ever a good empirical basis for this belief.

Does fatigue affect the nature of the stimulus, i.e. does specificity still hold? Of course, but first and foremost, changing the nature of the metabolic stimulus will change the fatigue characteristics of that muscle. I.e. you will see adaptations sponsoring an increased efficiency in whatever energy pathway you happen to be using.

However, muscle hypertrophy is, imho, a mechanical phenomenon, a very specific response to strain that results in an increase in protein content of the contractile machinery of muscle tissue. I see the metabolic stuff as secondary to this. Not unrelated, but that the primary stimulus is NOT metabolic in nature, but mechanical. There's actually a really, really good discussion of this in Dan Moore's Max-Stim e-book, which I'll direct you to, if you're interested:

http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/maxstim/MaxStimulation.pdf

Now, how you train, i.e. higher reps, can absolutely affect the "look" of the muscle, but I would argue that most of this is transient - glycogen/fluid retention. I would go so far to say that, in (lifetime) natural trainees, you would be hard pressed to tell a "lean powerlifter" apart from a bodybuilder. I think a lot of what we identify as the "look" of bodybuilders has a lot more to do with their drugs of choice than their training methods.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, so it can be taken with an enormous grain of salt. But since you asked, I figured I'd explain my reasoning.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Howdy sir,


Regarding sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy, I never said that there was no difference between the two per se, but rather that you couldn't separate the two in a meaningful way, and what I had in mind with that comment was the ability to isolate one form of hypertrophy from the other in terms of changes one could make to their training.

Basically, it is my belief that that muscle fibers keep a regulated ratio of protein to sarcoplasmic content, so separating one from the other into discrete categories doesn't really work. Both happen, certainly, so both forms "exist," but I am aware of no evidence to suggest one could ever really happen to the exclusion of the other. In fact, the only place I've seen this suggested (that the two can be meaningfully separated) is Russian literature (e.g. Supertraining), and then some American authors seemed to adopt the idea from them. But I don't believe there was ever a good empirical basis for this belief.



If you'll look carefully at the stuff I've written about this, I have never attempted to say that one form of hypertrophy exists in the complete absence of the other, but rather there is a continuum of effect from the type dominated by myofibrillar hypertrophy and high-force production to hypertrophy dominated by non-myofibrillar processes which are caused by stresses involving lower force production requirements that are sustained over a longer time frame, the metabolic consequences of which are different from those of a set that only takes a few seconds. Now, if there is no difference between the two types of adaptation, that must mean that there is no difference in the stresses, which there most certainly are. Or that the two different types of stress get responded to in the same way, which they won't. I really don't see how the two ends of a continuum can be the same, which is what I believe you are saying here.

But I have been tricked into a discussion outside my area of expertise; I am not a physiologist, and I do not pretend to specific knowledge in the area of muscle physiology. It is actually outside my zone of interest, but I'll pass this thread along to Dr. Kilgore and we'll see if he wants to comment.

Rip

[PMDL]

Hell Mark, don't let that stop you. None of us are physiologists either, we just play them on the Internet. ;)