Summary: What rep range is best for muscle building? Do you have to “train heavy”? (And what does that even mean?) Is 1-RM strength the ultimate arbiter of your muscle gain and hypertrophy? Scott and Mike discuss a new study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology that directly addressed some of these questions: “Neither Load Nor Systemic Hormones Determine Resistance Training-Mediated Hypertrophy or Strength Gains in Resistance Trained Young Men.”<br> <br> ♦ LOAD, REP RANGES, AND THE RESEARCH ♦<br> <br> A common critique of studies like this is that they are on un-trained young men. This one wasn’t.<br> <br> One of the key findings of the study:<br> <br> “Our data show that in resistance-trained individuals, load, when exercises are performed to volitional failure, does not dictate hypertrophy or, for the most part, strength gains” (p. 129).<br> <br> Examples of this in the real world: Scott new guys with way better world-class physiques than he had… and they were doing dumbbell bicep curls with 20 lb. dumbbells when Scott was using 50s. And Scott was never known as a “strong” guy.<br> <br> It’s more about ranges and planes of motion than “load.”<br> <br> For Scott, this supported a few of the most important tenets of Innervation Training — far more than load, what is important is the angles of contraction, the excitation thresholds of the CNS, the intensity of the contraction, etc.<br> <br> An earlier study that Scott cites in The Abel Approach (regarding intensity) is Behm 1995, which shows a few things:<br> <br> “Movement speed is not essential as long as the intent of the contraction is explosive” (p. 270).<br> <br> “Maximal strength training methods with their high intensity resistance but low volume of work do not elicit substantial muscle hypertrophy. Therefore a higher volume of work […] is needed to ensure a critical concentration of intracellular amino acids to stimulate protein synthesis” (p. 271)<br> <br> The study compared high reps versus low reps, to failure.<br> <br> Interestingly, the “high reps” was 20-25 reps (the weight at ~30-50% of the subjects’ 1-RM) and the so-called “low reps” was ~8-12 reps (with the weight at about ~75-90% of the subjects’ 1-RM).<br> <br> Scott read out this bit: “In congruence with our previous work, acute post-exercise systemic hormonal rises are not related to or in any way indicative of RT-mediated gains in muscle mass or strength” (p. 129).<br> <br> …and interprets it as a knock against the supplement industry (i.e. pre, peri and post-workout stuff).<br> <br> Scott and Mike went through a few key terms: Motor Units, Excitation Thresholds, Functional Differentiation, Segmented Utilization of Muscles in Action, and so on. See SSP Episode 2 for more on these, and the innervation primer. <br> <br> ♦ LINKS / RESOURCES ♦<br> <br> Behm, David G. “Neuromuscular Implications and Applications of Resistance Training.” Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 9.4 (1995): 264–274. Web. <br> <br> Morton, Robert W et al. “Neither Load nor Systemic Hormones Determine Resistance Training-Mediated Hypertrophy or Strength Gains in Resistance-Trained Young Men.” Journal of Applied Physiology 121.1 (2016): 129–138. Web. <br> <br> The Abel Approach<br> <br> Some of the research of Ralph Carpinelli<br> <br> The Innervation Training Primer
