HYPERTROPHY SCIENTIFICALLY BTFO

>>38534938
All of those tests actually proved that high reps with high weights builds the most mass while strength training alone builds not as much at all.

Meaning that pure strength training is NOT the best way to build the most mass.

Have fun with that retarded misleading pic.

File: DTbDRy6k8AwgN7LD2D-AT2t5A1pmeni3-WOC8BJ039XOFrgMUbKmiFKBJqCQ6i-5985E8bM050gjWUl1162BT4-GzUuR1Ynlm_Py-U6ml2lWOGpLuXPEdv9rZA.png (12KB, 710x266px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 710x266px

sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs at higher rep ranges so yes bodybuilders are getting bigger lifting less weight

keep in mind, less weight to a bodybuilder is still often more than your 1rm

>>38534974
>hypertrophy
>no difference between groups

as long as there's enough intensity i really don't think it matters if you're doing 6 reps or 12 reps.

most people i see in the gym never even look like they're trying and this is probably why they make shit progress.

>>38534974
if you can do high reps they aren't high weights

>>38536263
no

everyone knows 3x8-12 is the best
only fatstrong does less

>>38536271
>>38536306

Which is better, doing weight X for 5 reps or doing like 0.8X weight for 8 reps?

>>38536434
do both for compounds imo.

i always do a heavy set of 4-5 and then a few sets afterwards of 8+.

File: original.jpg (40KB, 300x292px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x292px

>>38534938
>7 studies
>>38536139
>one study
>Rippetoe & Kilgore

File: 1466270039251.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>38536822
since you're too stupid and retarded to do any research yourself this is what the author of the website in op's image had to say on the subject:

>I’ll admit – I’m finishing this article with an opinion much different from the one I started with. As of about 5 days ago, I was confident that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy was either a myth or, at most, played only a trivial role in overall muscle hypertrophy. Now I’m confident that it happens and, while I’m not totally convinced, I’m much more open to the idea of it having a notable effect on overall muscle growth --from Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy: The Bros Were Probably Right

>>38537214
I can agree that this is true. However it's largely meaningless on /fit/ where the vast majority are novices and heavy weights at low rep ranges will produce both, but lower weights at higher rep ranges will produce the square root of fuck all.

As someone else said, when actual bodybuilders use high volume low intensity, they're still lifting a hell of a lot more than anyone here.

>>38534938
Hypertrophy works better after a strength training base

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-01 at 12.10.15 AM.png (144KB, 786x518px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 786x518px

>>38537214
>much more open to the idea
Wow, you've convinced me.

>>38537294
>OP claims hypertrophy gets BTFO by science
>same author writes another article months later stating the opposite
Now do you understand why you're retarded?

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-01 at 12.25.47 AM.png (55KB, 747x306px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 747x306px

>>38537378
>same author
>Now do you understand why you're retarded?

>>38537407
bah I mean same site