I'm getting back to the strength levels I was at a year ago, thinking it's time to start focusing more on hypertrophy. What's the optimal balance between rep volume and weight on working sets?
For hypertrophy the concept I would focus on is fatigue. You can make good progress with strength without a ton of fatigue. In fact, too much fatigue and you'll corrupt the motor engram you're trying to encode for maximal strength. Generally speaking, it is easier to get more fatigue with higher rep sets, which is what I think the basis is for higher reps being associated with winning the hyper-trophy. To answer your specific question I'll need some clarification. Volume is a technical term that equates to total work performed generally calculated in lbs or kilos lifted total. 10 rep bench press with 100 kilos is 1000 kilos of volume. There's literature that shows volume is very tightly correlated with hypertrophy gains. A hard set is going to have higher volume with lower weight sets because you'll generally be able to do way more reps. To use the bench example again from before, if that set was RPE 10/10, or to complete failure, you've got to imagine that doing 20 reps with 50 kilos would be pretty easy, same volume though... Put another way, higher rep sets make it easier to accumulate volume, which seems to be another key factor in growth. Fatigue, and volume. Finally, optimal frequency is somewhere between 24-72 hours (that's my 95% confidence interval anyway). The logical consequence of all this is that training each muscle group for 10-20 hard sets of 10-20 reps with a relatively high RPE (at least 7/10, higher depending on what you can recover from) performed across 2-3 evenly space workouts in a given week will result in optimal growth.
I put on a little weight moving back in with my folks, my mother liking to bake. I'm very active generally, hiking, snowshoeing or x-country skiing pretty much daily. Sprinting periodically on hikes. I cut my caloric intake in about half. I started doing pushups, sit-ups and reverse sit-ups a couple of weeks ago, now up to 75 pushups and 35 regular sit-ups, in three quick reps. That and I am more regularly dancing with wooden swords and deer horns. I will be busy building an orchard and big garden this spring and summer. I expect to lose 20lbs of fat and maybe gain 10 of muscle. Turning 50 this summer. I fully intend to have a healthy, fit, 30 more years at least.
As a Stu McGill fanboy I've got to recommend dropping sit-ups and reverse sit-ups and substitute with rows and reverse lunges to work in with your push-ups. Much easier to reach your 10lbs LBM gain goal with these. You're essentially leaving out 3/4 of your muscle mass without these movements. You can use a sheet closed in a door for rows if you don't have weights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rloXYB8M3vU. Reverse lunges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJSd7M_ugY If you want to do stuff for your trunk still, I like McGill Big 3 (again, not sit-ups or supermans): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_e4I-brfqs
I like this algorithmic approach to creating a customized training program based on personal goals and lifestyle. Thanks for not obnoxiously calling things you happen to personally prefer "healthy" like so many fitness contributors out there. Please correct me on this if you think it's important to do so, but I've fairly recently come into thinking that the term health is dependent upon what a given individual is optimizing for. I recently watched the show Chernobyl on HBO (recommend to anyone who happens upon this comment) and watched a dying man who had been exposed to extreme levels of radiation smoke a cigarette as his flesh melted off his face and he embraced the end. I thought, "Man, that's a healthy choice."
I also appreciated the point on how people use literature to convince themselves of priors. It's always refreshing reading material from someone who is keen to avoid this trap themselves.
The tidbit on SV was news to me, among a couple of other points. But I'm going to tell myself I'm making my left ventricle "heuge...the most beautiful left ventricle of our time, larger and more perfect than all the others, even if the fake news refuses to report on it" next time I brave the assault bike. I anticipate this will be highly motivating. Thanks!
Assault bike is more the MD adaptation, but there's other stuff I didn't get into like increasing capillary density cardiac muscle size (the good kind that doesn't infringe upon ventricular volume) associated with HIIT (assuming that's what you use the assault bike for).
I use the assault bike mostly because it's low impact yet very intense, allowing me to get lots of bang for my buck in a short span of time. I tend to think it helps my quads grow too, but would defer to you on this point. I didn't realize that about MD, thanks for the correction. One question -- what is it about HIIT that produces the "runners high" sensation, and why doesn't steady state cardio seem to have this affect?
Nobody knows for sure. It is possible endocannabinoids play a role, but whatever the mechanism it seems that for you, higher intensities of exercise produce this effect. I bet that steady state cardio at a higher intensity would also work, it would just take longer.
That checks out. If I do a long ruck or walk at a brisk, but not intense pace, I can get a good high. But, yes, this usually means I have to keep it up for at least 90min.
"Another set, another couple reps, more weight, increased duration, increased intensity. Just a little bit harder than last time and you’re moving in the right direction."
Ah, this breakdown isn't so much used for programming purposes e.g. adding 1 of each to a program. It is for breaking down movements required by a particular sport or activity. It helps you analyze all of the movement that you see to better understand all the things that are happening. The difference between a squat and a hinge is on a continuum whereas the differences between these fundamental patterns are meant to allow you to break down complex and potentially multiplanar movement into discrete components that can be trained. Once you've identified a squat/lift component, it will be clear whether training a more hip or knee dominant strategy will be most useful.
I'm getting back to the strength levels I was at a year ago, thinking it's time to start focusing more on hypertrophy. What's the optimal balance between rep volume and weight on working sets?
For hypertrophy the concept I would focus on is fatigue. You can make good progress with strength without a ton of fatigue. In fact, too much fatigue and you'll corrupt the motor engram you're trying to encode for maximal strength. Generally speaking, it is easier to get more fatigue with higher rep sets, which is what I think the basis is for higher reps being associated with winning the hyper-trophy. To answer your specific question I'll need some clarification. Volume is a technical term that equates to total work performed generally calculated in lbs or kilos lifted total. 10 rep bench press with 100 kilos is 1000 kilos of volume. There's literature that shows volume is very tightly correlated with hypertrophy gains. A hard set is going to have higher volume with lower weight sets because you'll generally be able to do way more reps. To use the bench example again from before, if that set was RPE 10/10, or to complete failure, you've got to imagine that doing 20 reps with 50 kilos would be pretty easy, same volume though... Put another way, higher rep sets make it easier to accumulate volume, which seems to be another key factor in growth. Fatigue, and volume. Finally, optimal frequency is somewhere between 24-72 hours (that's my 95% confidence interval anyway). The logical consequence of all this is that training each muscle group for 10-20 hard sets of 10-20 reps with a relatively high RPE (at least 7/10, higher depending on what you can recover from) performed across 2-3 evenly space workouts in a given week will result in optimal growth.
I put on a little weight moving back in with my folks, my mother liking to bake. I'm very active generally, hiking, snowshoeing or x-country skiing pretty much daily. Sprinting periodically on hikes. I cut my caloric intake in about half. I started doing pushups, sit-ups and reverse sit-ups a couple of weeks ago, now up to 75 pushups and 35 regular sit-ups, in three quick reps. That and I am more regularly dancing with wooden swords and deer horns. I will be busy building an orchard and big garden this spring and summer. I expect to lose 20lbs of fat and maybe gain 10 of muscle. Turning 50 this summer. I fully intend to have a healthy, fit, 30 more years at least.
As a Stu McGill fanboy I've got to recommend dropping sit-ups and reverse sit-ups and substitute with rows and reverse lunges to work in with your push-ups. Much easier to reach your 10lbs LBM gain goal with these. You're essentially leaving out 3/4 of your muscle mass without these movements. You can use a sheet closed in a door for rows if you don't have weights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rloXYB8M3vU. Reverse lunges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJSd7M_ugY If you want to do stuff for your trunk still, I like McGill Big 3 (again, not sit-ups or supermans): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_e4I-brfqs
Much appreciated videos. I don't love sit-ups...
I like this algorithmic approach to creating a customized training program based on personal goals and lifestyle. Thanks for not obnoxiously calling things you happen to personally prefer "healthy" like so many fitness contributors out there. Please correct me on this if you think it's important to do so, but I've fairly recently come into thinking that the term health is dependent upon what a given individual is optimizing for. I recently watched the show Chernobyl on HBO (recommend to anyone who happens upon this comment) and watched a dying man who had been exposed to extreme levels of radiation smoke a cigarette as his flesh melted off his face and he embraced the end. I thought, "Man, that's a healthy choice."
I also appreciated the point on how people use literature to convince themselves of priors. It's always refreshing reading material from someone who is keen to avoid this trap themselves.
The tidbit on SV was news to me, among a couple of other points. But I'm going to tell myself I'm making my left ventricle "heuge...the most beautiful left ventricle of our time, larger and more perfect than all the others, even if the fake news refuses to report on it" next time I brave the assault bike. I anticipate this will be highly motivating. Thanks!
Assault bike is more the MD adaptation, but there's other stuff I didn't get into like increasing capillary density cardiac muscle size (the good kind that doesn't infringe upon ventricular volume) associated with HIIT (assuming that's what you use the assault bike for).
I use the assault bike mostly because it's low impact yet very intense, allowing me to get lots of bang for my buck in a short span of time. I tend to think it helps my quads grow too, but would defer to you on this point. I didn't realize that about MD, thanks for the correction. One question -- what is it about HIIT that produces the "runners high" sensation, and why doesn't steady state cardio seem to have this affect?
Nobody knows for sure. It is possible endocannabinoids play a role, but whatever the mechanism it seems that for you, higher intensities of exercise produce this effect. I bet that steady state cardio at a higher intensity would also work, it would just take longer.
That checks out. If I do a long ruck or walk at a brisk, but not intense pace, I can get a good high. But, yes, this usually means I have to keep it up for at least 90min.
Really like this:
"Another set, another couple reps, more weight, increased duration, increased intensity. Just a little bit harder than last time and you’re moving in the right direction."
Thanks! This is how Stu breaks it down. Hip hinges fit squarely in the 'squat/lift' category.
Ah, this breakdown isn't so much used for programming purposes e.g. adding 1 of each to a program. It is for breaking down movements required by a particular sport or activity. It helps you analyze all of the movement that you see to better understand all the things that are happening. The difference between a squat and a hinge is on a continuum whereas the differences between these fundamental patterns are meant to allow you to break down complex and potentially multiplanar movement into discrete components that can be trained. Once you've identified a squat/lift component, it will be clear whether training a more hip or knee dominant strategy will be most useful.