Might be a stupid question but in regards to muscle hypertrophy...

Doesn't work that way

That'd be like saying curling 5lbs for 100 reps is just as good at 50lbs for 10 reps.

>>41637197
It does work that way.

it might work that way

>>41637211
>>41637214
I mean I get what you're saying in that regard but I'm talking within obvious limits of rep ranges, 3 rep range difference per set but 140kg poundage difference, it's still heavy for the user Squatting it as well and maybe even be able to do 90kg for 8. That's my whole consensus, doing more reps within reason with a reasonably (10-20% lighter weight) than your 5 rep movement, would it yield better hypertrophy results.

>>41637211
>>41637214
>>41637246
/fit/ in a nutshell

Lifting at 75-80% 1RM will normally produce greater volumetric hypertrophy but not strong microfibrilarity.

>>41637295
Can you give that in laymen terms? I'm assuming you mean better visual hypertrophy vs strength?

Heavy = stronk
Volume = size, up to 15-25 reps

Er'rybody diff.

>>41637283
Pretty much...


>>41637345
I mean I aint gonna do 15-25 rep Squats, I'll leave that for my face pulls or side laterals


Been thinking about just doing 3x5 in my compounds and then adding in isolation, that seems like it just makes the most sense but was curious on 3x8 vs 3x5 even for compounds.

>>41637376
I'm a guy. I do 5 rep range for my compound leg movements. I do 8 rep range for my compound upper body movements. I will occasionally throw in a drop set on a compound upper body movement. I do 8-12 rep range for my isolation upper body movements.

If I were a girl, I would probably flip it the other way around: 5 reps for upper body compound, 8 reps for lower body compound, and then 8-12 for lower body isolation movements.

>>41637456
Also, when I do a drop set, it's AMRAP (As Many Reps As Possible).

>>41637456
>If I were a girl, I would probably flip it the other way around: 5 reps for upper body compound, 8 reps for lower body compound, and then 8-12 for lower body isolation movements.


Yeah I'm a keen person behind stuff like that however I'm a 6'8 fella and my limbs are long so I do 3x5 squats then 3x8 RDL's, some leg extensions and then on my other lower body day, work up to 1x5 deadlifts, 3x8 squats with 20% lighter than my 3x5, then 3x8 leg curls.

Upper body I do something similar for my press and bench, one workout its 3x5 OHP then 3x8 bench with 20% less weight than 3x5 bench and then vice versa on the other. Plenty of back work too for shoulder health and just general V look.

>>41637469
I usually do my 3x5's as AMRAP on last set like Greyskull LP however rarely ever get more than 5 with progression, if I do a deload however (I've written my own routine but its heavily influenced by Greyskull and 2:1 pull to push ratio) I'll do a 15% deload, 5x5 and the final rep being AMRAP, 3x8 will be left the same, can AMRAP last set.

>>41637197

Volume isn't the be all end all of gains.
What matters is that you're pushing your muscles hard every set, it doesn't give you any gains if you do 3x5 100kg and your max is 180kg.
If 3x8x80kg feel hard for you(as in, actually hard for your muscular system, not your cardiovascular system) then it will give you gains just like 3x5x100kg will(if it's done to similar ammounts of rated perceived exertion.)

>>41637214
It does work that way*

*You need to continue to increase weight to these lifts in order to grow. High rep but keep it heavy. That's what hypertrophy is.

>>41637541
Agree with that, however total volume taken into account in reps/poundage, surely the guy doing more reps and more poundage overall will yield better results, obviously again within reason, if 3x8 is difficult with 80 and 3x5 is difficult with 100. Which is my thought process, there's no magical rep range sure, but more poundage/reps = more volume would yield better muscle growth results surely. I think I'll stick to 3x5 on my compounds and just do isolation work outside of that to possibly hit whatever fibres I have missed and add more volume in.

I think 3x8 would yield better results if both equally difficult due to volume and I may give it a go in future even if I hate high rep squats. As mentioned in a post prior I usually do 3x5 squats one lower day and then the other, 3x8 with 15-20% less weight on the bar however do deadlifts before hand working up to a 1x5.

>>41637197
Its important to train at all kinds of rep ranges as it trains different parts of your body. If you only do 3x3 or 3x5 your tendons will snap as well as you wont be as explosive in the start of the lift.

Personal thing for me is that i get stuck in doing same rep ranges for every exercise and then i feel like i dont progress. so what i do is change it up with weird rep ranges or pyramids.

>>41637620

3x8 gives more gains because you are doing more work, most of the time at least.
Even though you can't really put a specific number on the "work" your body is doing during an excercise for measuring potential gains, it's much easier to put some work in with higher reps than with lower reps.

It's safe to say that 3x8 would be superior if it is done to the same level of fatigue as 3x5, but I don't think the difference would be noticeable at all.

From the latest studies by brad schoenfeld(or whatever he's called) one can't really see a specific percentage of 1RM that is ideal for muscle gain, in fact the same muscle gain as 80% of 1rm can be achieved with 30% of 1RM as long as the single set is taken to failure(80% of 1rm is like what, a 6 rep max set probably, while a 30% 1rm is like a 30 rep max set.)
On the low percentage of 1rm the first few reps don't really do anything for gains, but the latter ones do just as much as the ones in the 80% 1rm set.

>>41637654
Can agree with that. That's why I'm against things being too simple. I think 3x5 compounds (although I agree with working up to a 1x5 for DL's) is the best route then use 3x8 or 3x10-20 for other movements like 3x8 for most isolations and 3x10-20 for face pulls, calf work (who actually trains calves though kek) and abdominal work. I actually do about 10-15 for my triceps as well due to doing multiple pushes per week so it can be taxing on my elbows.

>>41637197
some studies shows that hypertrophy works best at 70% of your pr for as many reps as you can do

>>41637682
Thank you for the informative comment, I'm gonna look a little more into this. I also look into stuff Mike Israetel puts out which he has researched studies and teaches people and has seen best results with certain rep ranges and set ranges per week for muscle groups (if you haven't looked into it theres a quick breakdown on Reddit, search Dr. Mike Israetel's Training Tips for Hypertrophy). It's actually got me thinking a little more and due to my height I want to gain more size than strength right now but of course know that both go hand in hand hence doing lower rep work for compounds and higher rep work for isolations, I know I'm sorta just doing what most routines outline anyway but I more wanted to know as to why.

I hate higher rep squats so I dont think I'd do them in the long run, still haunted by 5x5 Squats when I first started training and have hated doing higher volume since with Squats. Bench and Rows are fine though.

>>41637703
Interesting, seen this sorta stuff myself but some people give dodgy percentages. That being said if you can 1RM 100kg, you do 70kg AMRAP/Rep Goals for best results. Steve Shaw also recommends Rep Goal Systems using 70% I believe of 1rm. Really good book actually however doing RGS with Squats is just my worst nightmare, unreal taxing for me.

>>41637743

>I hate higher rep squats

Trust me, so does everyone, reason why people rarely do "pump" sets on squats compared to curls and stuff.


http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/does-light-load-training-build-muscle-in-experienced-lifters/

Here's an indepth look into the study I mentioned, dude isn't a guru, actually respected researcher on this area, and is quoted by many good lifters on the subject of training and hypertrophy.

>Eighteen young men with an average of more than 3 years lifting experience were randomly assigned to a resistance training program using either moderately heavy loads (8-12RM) or light loads (25-35RM). All other aspects of the program were held constant between groups to isolate the effects of load on muscular adaptations. The program consisted of 3 sets of 7 different exercises targeting the major muscle groups (bench press, shoulder press, lat pulldown, seated pulley row, back squat, leg press, and leg extension). Training was carried out on 3 non-consecutive days-per-week (M, W, F) for 8 weeks.

>Both groups significantly increased lean mass in their biceps, triceps, and quads, but no statistically significant between-group differences were noted in any of these muscles (i.e. both groups had similar muscle growth over the course of the study). On the other hand, the heavy load group showed significantly greater strength increases in the back squat and a trend for greater increases in the bench press compared to the light load condition. Conversely, local muscle endurance was markedly greater for the low-load group.

>>41637251
it doesn't matter att all,

what matters is if (IF!!!) you are able to increase those weights over a long timespan, i.e. if you go from 3x5 100kg to 3x5 200kg in a year, it is not much different from going 3x8 80kg to 3x8 160kg in a year

however, if you were not able to increase your weights over time : you got exactly ZERO gains

>>41637211
>>41637214
>>41637246
Love it when the whole gang show

>>41637925
That's interesting, thanks for that bud have a good day!
>>41637955
Indeed, cheers for the input

>>41637197
do 2 more sets or increase the weight 5-10kg.
75% of 1rm is 3x8, which in your case is 85-90kg.