>tfw always thought that 4-6 reps were ideal to build mass

>>42250212
obviously you have to stop reading

rep ranges literally do not matter

>>42250226
prove it

>>42250212
just lift man, stressing over minute details steals gains

File: 1499129926650-fit.png (123KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 785x757px

>>42250212
it is 8-12 for max hypertrophy... everyone knows this

what is the most important is volume you absolute mega autist

>>42250212
Use all of them and see what you like

>>42250310
>what is the most important is volume
Can you clarify this?

I think people are confused about why rep ranges exist.


Build muscle happens when your muscle fibers become overloaded to the point where they must rebuild, thinking about reps per set by set basis in of itself is putting the horse before the cart tier logic.

You get this overload from volume, but the thing is, the volume needs to have a certain amount of intensity, intensity meaning the amount of weight you're using.

Doing strength-style training helps with hypertrophy because if you can Bench 3 plates for 5 reps, you can most certainly bench 2.5 plates for upwards of 12+ reps, now being able to do 12+ rep sets of 2.5 plate bench, that's going to be a very nice intensity, and very nice volume.

Try it yourself, strictly do low rep sets on a specific lift aiming only for increased intensity, then once you've hit certain point, lower the weight a bit, and rep out high rep sets, you'll notice that you can suddenly lift a lot more on your high rep sets.

File: 1337996031160.jpg (99KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x283px

>>42250212
u got it all twisted fuckwad

3-6 is your "powerlifter" range
8-12 is your hypertrophy range
15+muscular endurance

File: 65364563456.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>42250678
In other words, despite having to use different weight 3 sets of 5 should be as difficult as 5 sets of 10.

>>42250678
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/
A study along the lines of what this guy said.

File: simpsons space.jpg (191KB, 960x849px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 960x849px

4-6 reps only builds muscle if your using a weight thats way to heavy for you and will likely injure you LMAO

>>42250212
just be yourself
all rep ranges train hypertrophy, strength and resistance in a similar fashion
what counts is volume for hypertrophy, intensity for power, small rests for resistance

>>42250707
what happens if you do 7, 13, or 14?

>>42250747
>just be yourself
Underrated advice, ultimately, it really just comes down to what you are best genetically adapted to.

File: 6 reps = no gains.jpg (118KB, 877x727px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 877x727px

>>42250760
>7 reps
risky
if you fail on the last rep the entire set is void

>>42250789
kek I remember that thread

File: jerk.gif (313KB, 300x152px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 300x152px

>>42250760

That's why you work in all rep ranges. No one wants to be strong but weak and vica-versa.

>>42250789

Fucking kek I love how legitimately academic and professional that version looks. Some poor high school kid is gonna see that one day and think it's real.

>>42250212

The biggest correlation with hypertrophy is actually "number of sets"
Whether 3-5 rep sets, 8-12 or 15+, doesn't matter, as long as the relative intensity is similar. (i.e. Leave 1-2 good reps in the tank. If you can do 10 reps with a weight, doing it for 5 isn't really useful)

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/

File: weightreps.png (65KB, 800x994px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x994px

>>42250226
this

>>42250226
This man is largely correct. Total volume is what matters given that reps and sets are kept somewhat reasonable i.e. preferrably not 1 set or too many reps. The reason we have reps and sets is to allocate volume in an appropriate way to handle. Instead of telling yourself you're going to do 30 reps of 225lbs you can break it down into 3 sets of 10reps. I can also do 5 sets of 6 reps. You would see roughly the same gains. The big difference lies in neuromuscular adaptation which will make you better at certain rep ranges.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661829
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17326698

>>42250230
it really doesn't. max effort low reps build strength and also muscles. higher reps do too but the ratio is more skewed towards muscles but not by much. it really doesn't fucking matter. what matters is progressive overload if you want to grow

>>42250789
>relative muscle gains

lol

>>42250356
volume is the total amount of excessive you do, so make sure lift heavy with 8-12, 8 for compounds like squats and bench, have like 4 sets and lift often

>>42250760
NEVER do 7 reps