The dogma of maximal strength training assumes that heavy-load, low-rep training will cause minimal, if any, muscle growth. This notion has occurred since those who greatly increase their loading oftentimes greatly reduce their volume. In other words, they perform low reps with heavy weights. Why? I blame traditional Western linear periodization schemes that mandate lower volumes with higher loads.
Anyone who's been around the iron game for an appreciable amount of time knows that linear periodization has turned out to be a lesson in futility. So let’s assume that such reasoning is insufficient. Therefore, if we simply "think outside the box" and manipulate maximal strength parameters, we can up the volume.
Why increase volume? Because once you reach a certain set/rep volume threshold, hypertrophy will occur. If you seek maximal strength and hypertrophy, follow these guidelines:
Table 1
The 24-50 Principle as it Applies to Maximal Strength with Hypertrophy
Goal--Maximal Strength w/Hypertrophy
Set/Rep Volume--24-36
Loading--80-90% of 1RM
Rest Between Sets--70-180 seconds
Sessions per Week per Muscle Group--2-4
Table 1 depicts the parameters I’ve found to be necessary and sufficient to induce maximal strength gains with hypertrophy. Oftentimes, trainees will only perform 3 x 3 or 5 x 3 during periods of maximal strength training. Obviously such parameters fall short of the minimal threshold required for hypertrophy
Simply increasing your 3 x 3 to 8 x 3 will provide an immediate hypertrophy effect. A minimal load of 80% of 1RM is required to recruit high-threshold motor units, while 90% of 1RM appears to push the upper end of possible loading. Why? Because loads greater than 90% of 1RM often prove to be too taxing when striving for a set/rep volume of at least 24.
Parameters such as 8 x 3, 10 x 3, 12 x 3, 7 x 4, 8 x 4, 9 x 4, etc. all work extremely well to increase maximal strength and hypertrophy.
2. Hypertrophy Without an Emphasis on Maximal Strength
Sometimes we just want to get big and we don’t give a horse’s ass how strong we are. If that's you, then this section has you covered!
But remember, merely seeking hypertrophy in a given phase of training can also benefit those who seek maximal strength. Indeed, increasing hypertrophy can help with maximal strength efforts since an accumulation of myosin and actin proteins will allow for greater force production in subsequent cycles.
Hypertrophy targeted training parameters probably vary more than any other intended goal. HIT trainees merely perform one set to failure that usually consist of 12 reps or so. Therefore, a 1 x 12 volume would equate to a limp-wristed, pansy-assed set/rep volume of 12 — that’s anything but sufficient for hypertrophy.
On the other hand, 10 x 10 schemes are often employed in pursuit of greater hypertrophy. This would equate to a set/rep volume of 100. The problem? Other than the fact that the set/rep volume is out of my ideal range, the necessary loading wouldn't be ideal for hypertrophy.
In order to successfully perform such a high volume, a load of ~60% of 1RM must be employed. I’ve found such a load to be inefficacious for hypertrophy training due to the fact that smaller motor units that possess suboptimal growth potential are primarily taxed.
So, if you seek hypertrophy, aim for the following:
Table 2
The 24-50 Principle as it Applies to Hypertrophy
Goal--Hypertrophy
Set/Rep Volume--36-50
Loading--70-80% of 1RM
Rest Between Sets--60-120 seconds
Sessions per Week per Muscle Group--2-4
All of the variables in Table 2 go together like soft breasts and hard asses. If you seek hypertrophy, the stimulus for growth must be sufficient without overindulgence. A minimum set/rep volume of 36 is required for hypertrophy, but such volume must be concurrently matched with proper load selection.
As you approach a load of 80% of 1RM, I’ve found that a volume of 36 is close to ideal for most trainees. Also, as loads are decreased, volume must be increased to induce hypertrophy. But any volume greater than 50 won't allow you to utilize a load of at least 70% of 1RM without inducing excessive structural and neural stress.
Parameters such as 6 x 6, 4 x 12, 5 x 10, etc. provide a powerful hypertrophy effect with the prescribed loads.
Trainees who seek fat loss must provide a delicate balance of intensity and volume. If the intensity is too low, muscle mass won't be maintained (or possibly even increased). If the volume is too high, excessive structural damage will often occur and recovery will take longer than an obese geriatric running the Boston marathon.
In addition, if you seek fat loss then you must follow an eating plan that forces your body into a deficit energy state. Such a state is stressful in itself, so weight-training parameters must adequately address this shortcoming. As such, the following parameters have proven ideal for those who seek to maintain muscle mass without inducing excessive structural, neural, and hormonal stress:
Table 3
The 24-50 Principle as it Applies to Fat Loss
Goal--Fat Loss
Set/Rep Volume--24-36
Loading--70-80% of 1RM
Rest Between Sets--60-90 seconds
Sessions per Week per Muscle Group--2-3
The parameters in Table 3 are ideal to provide a sufficient stimulus when you seek fat loss. These guidelines are tightly regulated since it’s very difficult to maintain a volume greater than 24-36 with 70-80% of 1RM during fat loss phases.
Whenever they try to push the envelope of volume or intensity above these numbers, trainees quickly become unmotivated (a sign of CNS stress) and overly sore (a sign of excessive structural stress). As such, both volume and intensity must be tightly maintained while the rest periods are decreased a little in order to provide a slightly larger cardiovascular stimulus.
Parameters such as 4 x 6, 4 x 8, 5 x 5, 5 x 6, etc. all work well to maintain (or increase) mass during hypocaloric eating phases.
The Physique You Desire
Study and re-study these parameters when you devise your next training phase. Whether your goal is strength and size, just size, or fat loss, all of the info is provided for you.
Be sure to constantly rotate your parameters throughout the week. In other words, don’t perform the same parameters for two consecutive workouts. Don’t be afraid to get creative, but stick to the recommended ranges. If you do, you’ll be well on your way to the physique you desire.
As a bonus, you’ll be able to spend more time on the beach instead of searching through the Internet black hole of misinformation!
Very good read!
What I find strange is, according to an online calculator ( http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/onerepmax.html ) 80% of my 1rm will be my 13(!!!)rm, and still according to the article 80% is a good load for strength development...
Something 'cool' I discovered very recently is that a strength training rep scheme similar to what's described in the article could actually be better for hypertrophy than the hypertrophy rep scheme ;o
This is because with lower reps and higher rest time it's easier to complete the desired number of reps in each set, whereas with higher reps and 60secs of rest after the 3rd or even 2nd set it's impossible to get all the reps in, so volume is compromised.
__________________
Weight: 155lbs
Age: 18
Height: 5'9
Bodyfat: ~12%
Max squat: ?
Max deadlift: 225x5
Max bench: 115x5
The goal is 80-90% for ideal strength, approaching technical failure on the last rep of the last set. If your 13rep max isn't difficult enough (depending on the rep scheme, it may or may not be) it'd probibly be better to move closer to your 90%.
As for the strength program being better for hypertrophy than the hypertrophy program. I'm not quite understanding your reasoning. I think the purpose of the % windows allows for adiquite adjustment of intensity to complete whatever volume you're striving for.
example:
Strength+H program 12x3 @ 90% would be practically be impossible (for me anyway)
Hypertrophy program 6x6 @ 70% (keeping in mind that by your own admission that would be somewhere around your 18-20rep max) would be more than easy enough to complete
Oh ok now I think I'm getting it...
So the percentages of 1rm aren't just there for nothing... The intention is for example doing a 3x12 with a weight lighter than your 12rm?
But wouldn't that be alot more difficult to adjust to everyone personally? While one person's 80% of 1rm is 13 reps, another guy's might be 16rm or 9rm [img]redface.gif[/img] So the training effect would obviously be different, wouldn't it?
What I was saying in my post gobbla, was that it's easier for me to do a 12x4 for instance (Training For Maximal Size) with my 4rm and complete all the repetitions in all the sets than a 3x12 with my 12rm...
__________________
Weight: 155lbs
Age: 18
Height: 5'9
Bodyfat: ~12%
Max squat: ?
Max deadlift: 225x5
Max bench: 115x5
Originally posted by Simon.: Oh ok now I think I'm getting it...
So the percentages of 1rm aren't just there for nothing... The intention is for example doing a 3x12 with a weight lighter than your 12rm?
But wouldn't that be alot more difficult to adjust to everyone personally? While one person's 80% of 1rm is 13 reps, another guy's might be 16rm or 9rm [img]redface.gif[/img] So the training effect would obviously be different, wouldn't it?
What I was saying in my post gobbla, was that it's easier for me to do a 12x4 for instance (Training For Maximal Size) with my 4rm and complete all the repetitions in all the sets than a 3x12 with my 12rm...
This post exemplifies why canned programs are generally speaking at best OK and at worst injury promoting.
The 24-50 Principle as it Applies to Maximal Strength with Hypertrophy
Goal--Maximal Strength w/Hypertrophy
Set/Rep Volume--24-36
Loading--80-90% of 1RM
Rest Between Sets--70-180 seconds
Sessions per Week per Muscle Group--2-4
So does that mean you should do 2-4 exercises for a musclegroup per week with a volume of 24-36?
Simon> The fact that you're doing 48 reps means that you're in the hypertrophy specific range vs a hypertrophy+S. [img]smile.gif[/img]
You're absolutely correct. the %'s aren't in and of themselves the goal, but you need to hit somwhere within the % window to achieve the ideal results for whatever category that you're trying to hit. Whether you do 80 or 90% @ a 8x3 or a 12x3 isn't that important but you're much more likely to hit the 90% of your 1rm at the 8x3 than you are at the 12x3. It doesn't really matter which you do...but you have to hit that window.
You're also right about having to adjust it per person. But isn't that what we do every time we start a new program anyway [img]smile.gif[/img] . The training paramaters can be different and very likely should be different in between two people, but if both have the same goal then both should try to hit that goal window.
Ig> # of excersises doesn't matter. You'd hit the same muscle group 2-4x per week for a total of 24-36 reps per time
quote:Originally posted by Simon.: Oh ok now I think I'm getting it...
So the percentages of 1rm aren't just there for nothing... The intention is for example doing a 3x12 with a weight lighter than your 12rm?
But wouldn't that be alot more difficult to adjust to everyone personally? While one person's 80% of 1rm is 13 reps, another guy's might be 16rm or 9rm [img]redface.gif[/img] So the training effect would obviously be different, wouldn't it?
What I was saying in my post gobbla, was that it's easier for me to do a 12x4 for instance (Training For Maximal Size) with my 4rm and complete all the repetitions in all the sets than a 3x12 with my 12rm...
This post exemplifies why canned programs are generally speaking at best OK and at worst injury promoting. [/quote]So what are the other options? Let someone who knows nothing about training design there own? Or let them pay lots of money for a PT who may or may not actually know what he's doing? Of course, if the trainee knows little or nothing about training, how can they know if their trainer is good? Canned programs that have built in injury prevention are GREAT.
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
this is such a great topic.
But now I don't know what to do, hypertrophy with or without strength??
I'm a skinny guy and I want to get bigger but I also want to get a lot stronger.
The 24-50 Principle as it Applies to Maximal Strength with Hypertrophy
Goal--Maximal Strength w/Hypertrophy
Set/Rep Volume--24-36
Loading--80-90% of 1RM
Rest Between Sets--70-180 seconds
Sessions per Week per Muscle Group--2-4
So does that mean you should do 2-4 exercises for a musclegroup per week with a volume of 24-36? [/quote]No, it means that u should train ur musclegroup at least twice per week, up to 4 times per week.
If u want strength, & also hypertrophy, u can just periodize ur training to do hypertrophy focused training for 1 month, & do strength focused training the next month, & so on.
Originally posted by igunick: this is such a great topic.
But now I don't know what to do, hypertrophy with or without strength??
I'm a skinny guy and I want to get bigger but I also want to get a lot stronger.
so do both! Ever seen a waterbury workout? StB is set up like that as well. Look around... there's plenty of routines that provide hypertrophy AND strength!
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
So what are the other options? Let someone who knows nothing about training design there own? Or let them pay lots of money for a PT who may or may not actually know what he's doing? Of course, if the trainee knows little or nothing about training, how can they know if their trainer is good? Canned programs that have built in injury prevention are GREAT. [/QB][/quote]
The options are endless, but people showing up here and asking questions is a great start. Its all about learning, its an endless process.
Definitely not let someone who know nothing build it for them, where is that being suggested?
canned programs that have built in injury prevention are rare, and I'll make this point on a simple observation.
Challenge 1 with a canned program is it has to assume that the trainee has no dysfunction.
Question, how many trainees, beginner or otherwise, have you noted that are NOT moderately to severely internally rotated in the shoulders?
They are pretty damn few and far between by my observation. Hell, 8 out of 10 people you pass walking down the street are grossly internally rotated, a simple by product of sitting hunched all day long..
Observe that the VAST majority of canned programs include the most favored excercise of all, the beloved bench press, a movement which only reinforces that internal rotation.
To top it off, many do not even have a balanced amount of pulling work in them, nor do they account for people not really working as hard when pulling as they do when pressing(again, personal observation, my view is probably skewed).
This is why I feel that most canned programs are at best ok, and at worst, injury promoting...
am I full of shit? probably, but thats my story and I'm sticking to it [img]smile.gif[/img]
-Sean
btw. I think canned programs are great learning tools.
IMO a tailor made program (by an intelligent professional) would be ideal for anyone. No question.
Unfortunately though, the average person isn't going to do that. So the real argument (and I'm assuming here on shark's behalf) would be a canned vs one an individual made up.
IMO (again) the average person has an average knowedge base...which is largely shit (for lack of a better word). So they'd be more likely to come up with a program for themself that is probibly isn't balanced, and likely scewed enough to probibly simply not work.
The biggest problem with canned programs *continuing on the IMO theme* is not necissarily the program BUT the people not admitting their training level and\or modifying the program.
example: Do you know anyone that thinks that they're an intermediate lifter or advanced and seeks out an appropriate program for their ability level...but truth be told they're a beginner or intermediate at best? Also how many people do a program but shoot for an extreme on the program\ or do complimentary work since the program itself doesn't do enough or what they want?
Essentially I agree with both sides, but I'm not necissarily convinced on where the blaim generally falls.
Sean - Your challenge is weak because it works on two assumptions, and not two facts.
Assumption 1 - "with a canned program is it has to assume that the trainee has no dysfunction."
Says who!? Some of the best programs I've seen (S2B, SS and Limping by Ian King) both operate under the assumption that their trainee's have been giving their chest and quads dominant treatment for years. Soooo.... they focus on back and hams, and unilateral excercises, to even out imbalances.
Assumption 2 - "how many trainees, beginner or otherwise, have you noted that are NOT moderately to severely internally rotated in the shoulders?
They are pretty damn few and far between by my observation. Hell, 8 out of 10 people you pass walking down the street are grossly internally rotated, a simple by product of sitting hunched all day long.."
I actually agree with you on this one, and again ask you to refer back to number 1.
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
Originally posted by sharkbait: Sean - Your challenge is weak because it works on two assumptions, and not two facts.
Assumption 1 - "with a canned program is it has to assume that the trainee has no dysfunction."
Says who!? Some of the best programs I've seen (S2B, SS and Limping by Ian King) both operate under the assumption that their trainee's have been giving their chest and quads dominant treatment for years. Soooo.... they focus on back and hams, and unilateral excercises, to even out imbalances.
Assumption 2 - "how many trainees, beginner or otherwise, have you noted that are NOT moderately to severely internally rotated in the shoulders?
They are pretty damn few and far between by my observation. Hell, 8 out of 10 people you pass walking down the street are grossly internally rotated, a simple by product of sitting hunched all day long.."
I actually agree with you on this one, and again ask you to refer back to number 1.
I agree with you on point 1, but that is two out of hundreds and hundred of programs, and they are by the same guy [img]smile.gif[/img]
If 1% of all canned programs you see made those assumptions, I would be suprised.
sean... noted. So we agree then, that canned programs are great if they take into account the very basic and common imbalances present in most trainees? And we also agree that too many programs DON'T take those imbalances into account? Sweet!
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
just a quick question here:
if your volume for your chest is 36, shouldn't your back be twice as much in order to prevent inbalances since it has 2 movement planes and all?
I'm a bit confused about this
My take is if your body is currently in balance, then do the same number of reps for hor pull and push, and vert pull and push, quad vs. hip dom. So rather than compare chest to back, consider chest hor push, and do the same number of reps for hor pull (bent-over and seated rows, for example). Then, ensure that your vert push (military presses, for example) have same # of reps as vert pull (pull-ups, chins, etc.)
Now, obviously, if your body is imbalanced like mine (my vert pulling sucks), you can do more reps for vert pull vs. vert push, for example.
On your point regarding hypertrophy and/or strength gains, I asked chad this same question. He said for hypertrophy only, he suggests using straight sets. For hyper. w/ some strength, use antagonistic muscle pairings in stead.
For example - set of bench, rest 60 sec, set of rows, rest 60 sec, etc.
My take is if your body is currently in balance, then do the same number of reps for hor pull and push, and vert pull and push, quad vs. hip dom. So rather than compare chest to back, consider chest hor push, and do the same number of reps for hor pull (bent-over and seated rows, for example). Then, ensure that your vert push (military presses, for example) have same # of reps as vert pull (pull-ups, chins, etc.)
That's what I mean. But like I said your back muscles get hit when doing 2 movement planes (H and V pull). I don't want to overtrain.
And if I would lower my volume for back muscles then I have to lower it for chest and shoulders too. And they won't grow as much.
sooo confusing
Are you getting this a bit? [img]smile.gif[/img]
No, I'm not. Read my entire post. Balance the number of reps for chest w/ your reps for hor push (bent over rows, for example). Then, balance your reps for vert push, shoulder presses for example, with vert pull, like pull-ups.
So, if you do 50 reps for chest, do 50 reps for rows. If you do 50 reps for military presses (or even steep incline presses (45 degrees or more), do 50 reps of pull-ups and/or chins.
Linear Mode
