Hey all! Here's access to the FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/ Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 3:26 Part I: Support for Rep Ranges Impacting Density vs Puffy Muscles 7:43 Part II: Limitations of the Overviewed Data 10:17 Part III: Data Opposing Rep Ranges Impact Density vs Puffy Muscles 14:40 Part IV: So What Causes Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy? 17:15 Part V: Summary

Hard to imagine the amount of work that went into making this video. Highly underrated.

I've done both powerlifting and bodybuilding. As I go to higher rep ranges my 1rm decreases because I'm not training for it, but when I go back to powerlifting and train with lower rep ranges my strength goes back up and I end up stronger. The whole it's a skill and had to be trained for me is likely the confounding factor.

With poor joints from decades of contact sports I train in a high rep range now (15-30) to good effect all around. It supports what's left of the cartilage in my joints, develops very good muscle size and exceptional every day strength. I'm 52 years old 6ft / 240lb The only weights I use now are adjustable dumbbells.

I like how you mention all limitations, and to remind viewers not to take all this information to heart considering that the the topic is very nuanced and contains a lot of results that aren't completely clear to us yet.

Still love the way you present these. I feel like anyone could watch one of your videos and be able to keep up and apply it to their training in some way.

I'm really glad you brought up the illegal drug use in bodybuilders. I've worked around these people for many years and they minimize the power of illegal drugs when I'd say they are responsible for MOST of the growth in these people. Usually the biggest, most jacked guys in my gym (usually competitive bodybuilders) have the easiest looking workouts (usually fluff n pump). Meanwhile natties like myself are busting our humps for every inch gained.

Great video as always! Ty for dissecting these studies. I am pretty sure noone was surprised by the results but ex-science needs to step up I feel. At least we need to see a video provided to see what RIR a lot of these studies are done at. Maybe someday ex-sci guys will actually care more about studying a subject properly and less about pushing another paper out

From my own experimentation I always like training 12-15 reps the best. So glad to know it has no real downside.

Off topic, I think high volume training causes temporary cell swelling. Which if you stop training with high volume you will lose its effects.

Amazing video yet again. I began working out again after 4 years about 3 months ago. Your videos and Andrew Huberman's podcasts have made me take a whole new approach to it than before.

The whole "hard vs puffy" muscle appearance may have more to do with residual muscle tension (aka muscle tone) than the structure of the muscle. Basically, your muscles are always partially flexed, and residual muscle tension is just an indicator of how much they're flexed at rest. I've noticed that heavy sets leave my muscles a lot harder, sometimes for days.

Excellent and clear overview, introduction, discussion and summary. I particularly like how you clarify the definitions up front. BTW recent findings suggest that strength is developed by daily training of the same muscle even if sets are as low as one.

This is my favorite however channel

Why not both? This is what I love about the Bioneer's approach. It's focused on function over aesthetics, but of course form follows function. It will make you bigger. It focuses primarily on strength endurance, but it trains your muscles in basically all the ways you can. Start with overcoming isometrics. Then mechanical drop sets, aiming for a number of reps that's 20~50 or more depending on the exercise. But I try to do the hardest exercise I can (might be plyometric, or advanced calisthenics like planche pushups), and I often end up able to do only do a number of reps that's in the strength range, like 6 or less. Then immediately switch to an easier progression or different exercise that works the same muscles and do as many as you can, which for me often ends up being in exactly the bodybuilder rep range. Then switch to an even easier version etc until you can complete a total target number of reps that's in the strength endurance range. Only 2 sets, but then you'll do several others that use basically the same muscles in different ways. And finish the workout with a quasi-isometric, like a 1-minute long pushup. So you'll have done lots of different exercises and trained at every point on the force-velocity curve, having done strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Strength endurance is often overlooked because everyone wants to look more buff, but an argument to made that it's more useful everyday strength than your one-rep max, is better for your connective tissues etc. But with this approach, you can do all the kinds of strength training in way that's interesting and fun with a lot of variety, in a workout that takes a little over an hour. If you want to be a powerlifter or bodybuilder of course, then train for that. But if you want overall fitness and athleticism, longevity, everyday functional strength etc, and want a better physique but aren't desperate to look like the Hulk, I think it pays to be a jack of all trades.

This vids are simply amazing, incredible, unreal, just blow my mind, this + Jeff Nippard + The Sprint Project are an epic combo of science-backed info 🤯🤩🙉💯❤️

I have, for lack of a better term, described to trainees that the muscles are not only muscle fibers, but have a "container" component. Ronnie Coleman did 75 reps with 225lbs on the bench press, Ronnie had very big containers to store enough fuel to do that kind of work output. The weight lifters do very, very, short work sets which do not require high work output aka "power".

1:19 "damn, u strong" made me chuckle 😂

Really appreciate these vids! It is quite useful to have comparisons between multiple studies being thorough yet easily digestible.

This channel is amazing!

automatically hitting the follow button for a non clickbait title. thank you

I co-sign this, it’s been my secret sauce. I’m fat now trying to lose weight, but when I was lean, I was huge as the juicers and half as strong on the strong lifts, because I used serge nubrets pump method of training. Very light weights, done very fast, with very little rest between sets. The secret is, you never go to failure, you’re hitting hundreds of reps per muscle group per session, and I added in 5 pounds or 2.5 pounds to exercises when I could do the 8x12-15 reps or the 6x12-15 reps with a rest of only 30-60 seconds. If you cannot complete the reps it’s too heavy to get a proper pump, if you cannot get the pump, You won’t get the results. You will never hurt yourself training like this, you will get stronger just slower, you will build a very aesthetic full muscle, and your conditioning will be through the roof! Just keep your diet under control if you’re a natty, because you’ll want to eat everything if you actually hit it 6 days a week 2 splits a day. Modify nubrets program, some of those exercises have been long since debunked, so replace them with solid ones. Good will hunting brothers in gainz 💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿!

I like low reps of 3 using controlled movement with a moderate weight to both stimulate the muscles and feeling intensity every 7 to 10 days, this has produced excellent results for me.

I think that what probably matters the most is how close to failure someone is training rather than the rep range as long as it’s less than 20 or 25 reps. Henneman’s size principle and increasing tension per rep until failure will recruit all muscle fibers. I think there’s more to it than this but simplified I don’t think there is such thing as dense muscle. Maybe matured muscle that’s been through the ringer.

Perhaps this is true, I typically tend to lift in the 8-15 rep range. I have had to take the past 4 months off due to an elbow injury (didn't happen while weight lifting). I've lost most of my size entirely (wasn't small). I've always liked high volume training with a lower weight, since I found in my early 20's I'd get hurt more frequently with higher weight. So I reduced the weight, increased the reps and just focused on being able to lift weights long term.

Im addicted to this channel, keep it up and never stop we are here for you

The high volume group are what we used to call "the pump boys". They would come back off vacation all flat and had to start all over again to get pumped up. It was all just temporary fluid build up.

Always love the knowledge that u provide with a rlly good edit and enjoyble keep it up mate, cheers 👏🔥

I think Sarcoplasm assists muscular endurance . Sarcoplasm stores ATP in it so maybe higher reps tell the body that it needs better muscular endurance and starts to undergo sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Which would explain how body builders have more sarcoplasm as their repetitions are higher.

As a guy with engineering background, I am very happy to see your videos. Since studies on this field are limited, it is really hard to come to a robust conclusion, however I still benefit from information in between lines you mentioned. Keep up the great work, appreciated 👍

I really like the graphics of this channel. Well done

Let's see what class has in store today!

High reps may increase the sarcoplasma size due to higher need for glycogen storage. Also power lifters focus A LOT on producing power rather than just doing the reps, neurological parameters needs to be researched. Awesome video! Ty for everything.

This is one of those things that I'll always believe is a myth. Thanks also for pointing out the limitations in comparing "strength" when the test is done in a way that favors a sport-specific method. So many people are getting tripped-up by this.

ABSOLUTELY AWESOME VIDEO!!! I've been interested is sarcoplasmic and myofiberal hypertrophy for a long time, but I was never sure not relevant it really was. This video was extremely insightful!

What I’ve never understood is why we try and limit ourselves to one rep range. It becomes like a competition. This rep range is “better than” the other rep range. Almost like we then miss the woods from the trees, as the saying goes. We can, it has been proven, that we can make gains using almost any rep range. It depends on the muscle group being trained and the ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibres as to the possible rep range which would be best for a particular muscle group. Everyone is different, however the point I’m making is surely it makes more sense to train with a variety of rep ranges, changing things from month to month, week to week or even workout to workout. Rather than deciding that say 6-10 reps is best and never straying from it. I’ve certainly found I’ve benefited greatly from implementing a wide variety of rep ranges from strength training in 1-3 rep ranges to conditioning, such as 30 reps even higher. Basically getting the full benefits of all rep ranges and improving greatly from it. Just my two cents.

seriously such an underrated channel.

I believe cardiorespiratory capacity can best be developed using multi-joint exercises that are a moderate to heavy load. So It is ALL about intensity . I developed a Training method that goes like this: I perform five sets of an exercise. In the first set it's just activation I do 15 and 20 repetitions until close to failure. Second set and third set I do 8 to 12 reps more load.. In the fourth series I get heavier about six reps and go drop set or rest pause.And finally in fifth grade I do a minute non-stop. Rest about 2 minutes. 8-10 sets muscle/ workout. Great progress strength and HIPERTROFy

This reminds me of the myth that environment draws people to their chosen field. When studied, rather than a child enjoying reading because their parents read to them often, in fact what was happening is parents were very in tune to what their children enjoyed and hence the parents were actually providing a range of activites for their children to do, but the parents in fact were picking up on what the child was enjoying and then providing that stimulus to them more often. So the child didnt enjoy reading BECAUSE it got read to more often. Instead it showed enjoyment of being read to, as that was its born strength, language, and hence the parents then read to the child more often. Then the child goes on to become a writer or story teller etc. In this case, someone becomes a bodybuilder BECAUSE they realise they are very good at gaining size, likewise a powerlifter realises they are very good at gaining strength, without gaining size. Hence it is not the training stimulus creating the athlete, more the athlete was always going to be what they were going to be, or at least had the potential and just gravitate towards the training that gives them the better results. It does not mean we can replicate their training and enjoy their results. The powerlifter was born a powerlifter. The reader was born a reader. The bodybuilder was born a bodybuilder. The attributes were born into them. We cant always use the way the elite train to gain their attributes for ourselves. If anything I believe that within reason, in the rep ranges that seem to be effective, 3-30ish, training in the range that you gravitate towards will give you the best results, as far as myo vs sarco gains, based off of your predestined genetics. You will naturally gravitate towards what your muscles want. I myself cannot get a good workout in above ten reps. I simply cannot get close enough to failure or get enough sets in when my reps are higher. I just cant. 10 or below absolutely works best for me.

Great work as always my friend. Keep it up

I suggest adding another limitation: there is no direct evidence to even suggest that there is something like sarkoplasmic or myodibrillar hypertrophy. Or I missed it in the video. The things you showed were all correlational in nature and confounded by neural adaptation (where I actually don't have proof for either) It would need a study to assess actual muscle fibers after a specific training regimen to show that these concepts exist. I like your style of video production! It is calm and very nuanced. Please keep it on :)

Dorian Yates had the hardest/ more dense muscles I've seen in a BB, and he was training around 6-8 reps.That might be the sweet spot for both strength/hypertrophy (5-6 reps most likely).

Really great video again. Do you have any videos that deal specifically with the concept of overtraining? Is it really possible for a normal person to train so much that it actually hinders their progress or is more almost always better?

Great channel , love the passion and effort u put into your work .

I don't want to confuse anybody. I just want to make sure I understood it right. Do you mean with high(er) volume more sets or more weight in general. Both could be the answer, too, though. But in general, I'm grateful that you make such interesting videos that aren't hard to understand. 😊

I love how the flags from all the studies are color-coordinated.

The best YT canal for muscle hypertrophy and studies,also i would like to see video about best diet for muscle hypertrophy.👍

Guys, building the body is VERY simple, lift to failure ALWAYS, eat perfectly, Cardio. Rest and repeat

I've found myself personally/anecdotally over the decades training that there is a difference in 'quality' of muscle when lifting 4-8 reps vs 10-14 for the most part (meaning mostly one or the other) When training heavier I found that the muscle would stay around longer. meaning you could take longer rest periods between hitting it again without it feeling 'depleted' and even taking time away from the gym that muscle would retain 90% of it's size . Whereas with higher reps the quality of the muscle feels less stable in that it requires a bit more frequency and if taking time off from the gym size will diminish a lot faster

I think the reason why higher rep ranges mean more hypertrophy, is that usually…..when you lower the weight, your increase reps, and increase sets, because full fatigue hasn’t been reached as quickly, as lower reps and sets with heavy weight

Interesting research on opposing the notion that heavy, low rep sets = density while lighter, higher weight rep sets = bigger but "puffier" muscles. Here's a simple analysis that can help with explaining this fact: Suppose Person A used the muscle-density approach by using a heavy 8x5 scheme and achieved the results with a 200 lbs overall weight used, for a total of 40 reps in 28 minutes. If the subject were to stick to the same weight for years in order to develop the work capacity to use the same weight and increase the reps by doing a 4x12 instead, he would most definitely grow in size, but not in density. IF the sarcoplasmic argument is true, then Person A should shrink back to a non-dense looking individual if he reduces all volume and either goes back to the original strength protocol or stops lifting altogether. The subject, will of course, not revert back to a lean, dense-looking individual. He would most-likely maintain the same size as research has shown that maintaining even 10% of total workout volume/intensity would maintain the muscularity indefinitely. So what does this mean? Heavy weights for low reps or slightly lighter weights with higher reps do not significantly influence the type of muscularity an individual will develop. It is mostly genes and genetic predisposition allows the individual to gravitate towards load selection. In other words, individuals who are genetically predisposed to hold or grow more Type 2 (dense) fibers will gravitate towards lifting heavier as this feels better for them, thus, CORRELATING the heavier = denser look as opposed to it being an actual CAUSATION. The same is true with the opposite. Another factor is the hunger effect that each training group experiences. Higher volume sets most definitely causes more hunger as much more calories are burned, resulting in them to consume more which inevitably causes slightly-bigger muscles. Just take for another example calisthenics athletes. Skill-oriented athletes are strong. Very strong. However, they are almost always smaller due to their low-rep training approach whereas volume calisthenics athletes look like natural bodybuilders.

For upper grade hypertrophy one suggested mechanism is the inside of myofibril packaging issue. Force output decreases when the actin and myosin are too densely packed inside the myofibril.

About the weightlifters vs bodybuilders study: In my knowledge there are different types of steroids, one that makes you retain more water and one that doesn't or at least does it less, so if the bodybuilders took the watery ones they'd have more circumference with less muscle, and the weightlifters that have strict weight classes would pick the none watery ones having less circumference and more muscle

Awesome explained! Thanks for putting this out here

Good video. What i found from this studies is that bodybuilding training produce overall more muscle and strength, but power training produce more strenght per size of the body. So if you want to be big and strong you should train like a bodybuilder and if you want to look small, but have more strength that is expected from you, then you should train power style.

There is a reason why pound for pound powerlifters are stronger than bodybuilders. No studies needed, just eyes and common sense. Low reps, high weight makes you stronger, high reps low weight makes you "bigger". If you don't believe: try it for yourself.

MIke Mentzer had the most dense looking muscles. Remember how he trained.

muscle fiber plays a role too. Type 2x achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy in the 1-5 rep range ( under 8s of >90%max). Type 2 glycolitic fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 12 rep ranges. Slow twitch fibers achieve myofibrillar hypertrophy at 35reps. This is all according to Barry Ross in his book on strength training for speed.

Thank´s for the video, I subscribed for the ebook.

Saludos House of hypertrophy from USA ❤❤❤

Ok so after all that, just more sets, got it

As someone who is semi-well versed in physiology and has been working out in one way, shape or form for a decent amount of time, I've found that the _"Common Sense"_ approach works best *_for most_* people who are not training for a specific elite level end goal. By common sense I mean, let's be simple and say we have two types of muscle fibers with the potential for growth. Each muscle or group thereof is typically made up of more type A or type B (or type 1 or type 2/Fast Twitch or Slow Twitch) so I always tried to build my training around the particular muscle/s being worked. While fast twitch has the most potential for growth, there is still no reason to ignore slow twitch either in my opinion. Even if it is just one set of 100 pushups at the end of a Chest/tris, Upper Back/Bis and Lower Back/Abs day. Nor do I see an issue with doing 50 reverse crunches for your lower back/abs, or 50 body weight squats on a leg day where you don't go heavier than a 5 rep near max effort set. Personally for large muscle groups like the lower back and legs along with shoulders I would reserve the crazy high reps for a _medium_ workout. I prefer periodizing my workouts, again based on muscle groups size when it comes to rest (So legs, lower back and shoulders would get 2 days off after a light workout, 3 after a medium and 4 after a heavy workout, medium muscle groups like the chest and back would get 1 day off after a light workout, 2 after a medium, 3 after a heavy one, calves and bis can get whacked the day after an easy workout, 1 day for a medium and two for a hard workout etc, though the amount of compound movements and indirect stimulation could vary that up a bit, and a light bicep workout may not include any iso work at all if you are doing chinups, suppinated lat pulldowns, suppinated or neutral grip rows etc, since they may just be getting hit the next day regardless. If you just did chest and shoulders falls on the following day, do you really want to workout you triceps? Probably not. Anyway, for _most_ regular people, or people who are not training for a specific sport that would benefit more from one type of training over another, in my experience, people get the best results from mixing in at least 1 high rep set per body part. Not 3, not 5. 1. There's little point in doing junk work either, and in a worst case scenario they can at least build up/maintain a bit more muscle endurance than just doing 0-12 rep sets on their own. Now this is just my anecdotal experience based on myself and the numerous people I have worked with. I never compiled (or even have records of most of the training anymore) the data and looked for the actual percentage gains in size, maximum strength and maximum endurance so take that information as you will. You can also check out Dr. James Hatfield's research into A-B-C Periodization which follows a similar approach, though I believe he classifies shoulders as a medium muscle group due to the size of the muscles that make up the area, not the area as a whole, and may also have an extra day of rest mixed in. Whatever the case, he actually does have research into into various splits and rep ranges going back to the 1950s I believe. That _"Doctor Squat"_ sure was a bit ahead of his time and worked with everyone from movie stars to Mr. Olympias to pro football, baseball and basketball players along with numerous _"World's Strongest Men."_ Add in a doctorate in exercise physiology and I would say his credentials are pretty _strong._ Diet periodization can also go a long way in assisting with training goals, but that's way to complicated for the scope of this post. Well, maybe not too complicated, but it would just take forever to type out, but it is exactly what it sounds like. You change your total caloric intake, macro and micro intake based on the activities you are doing that day and the end goal you have in mind and that's as deep as I'll get into that here as this post is already too long. Take care.

Many bodybuilders go to the gym multiple times a day so the total weekly volume per muscle group amount would be massive, thus indicating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Still sceptical about which rep ranges lean more toward myofibrils and sarcoplasm size until research is done in the rep ranges at 1-6.

Neurological adaptation explains well enough why weightlifters with snaller muscles produce more force without having to appeal to this being evidence of myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Tell that to the dense muscle fibres of gymnasts and calisthenics athletes. Puffy muscles are for fast heavy rep doers

You are amazing... keep it up...thank you so much!

This is quite interesting! Great video!

Amazing channel... Great work 👍

I love how every video on this channel is a roller coaster between... "The study suggests it does... but then the other study suggests it doesn't, then the third study suggest it does and doesn't at the same time". For fk sake... does it or does it not?

lifting in the high rep range is more beneficial to our joints, ligaments, and tendons...In the end, that's all it matters because once your get injured , it's game over and you are more likely to get injured with heavy weight and low reps..

The summary at the end is great

Once you can bench 100kgs, Squat 150kgs and deadlift 200kgs, concentrate on increasing the amount of reps you can do with those weights. 40 years later you'll still be healthy and working out. If you keep chasing that 1 rep max, you'll be a washed up cripple.

We used to call that water weight. Your muscles store more energy (protien and glycogen bound with water) when you do strength + endurance training. Our body's won't carry what it doesn't need.

There is clear research that shows different rep ranges affect different kinds of hypertrophy. Not sure why it’s always left out

Protein synthesis is decreased by 15-30% after sleeping 8 hours, this is when muscle repairs itself. So if you lift 1-4 reps as much as you can, your body does maximum muscle tearing which takes way longer to repair. Maybe the muscle tearing/repairing is the key to a dense fibrous muscle. If you only go 30% strength, the muscle is torn less but more reps meant the muscles got extra glucose than needed. Kind of like if you sprint for a minute then you get so thirsty you chug a bottle of water. You probobly only needed a few sips but now you have extra water inside

0:00 . I was hoping for "bem vindo". As always, another incredible video!!

Great videos. Keep it up !

Powerlifters' and other power athletes' strenght and explosiveness is also influenced by the better development of their nervous system as a result of the specific training. Doesn't explain the better specific tension of the untrained individuals in that one study , of course.

I don't really know, I'm doing 3 4 sets with 4reps max no matter the weight, I've went up to 107kilos buffed as some steroid animal, I'm only 185cm so I was literally huge, natural but not extremely jacked or something, just huge and extremely strong, but muscle was not specifically dense, it was both dense and buff kind of

Have they ever done a study where they use different training methods with the same person? Like perhaps have them use low reps on one arm and high reps on another arm.

Good explanations and great content! My advice (thou no specialist or anything), is that one should consider full range of motion (no cheating, keep full control), mind-muscle connection (feel the muscle you're working), safety (no standing on a ball and do overhead press) and progressive overload (not overload until you puke). Working out is progress, and different people have different limits. Always do what's best for you.

Personally, when I used to box I would do 50 rep or 100 200 rep sets in some bodyweight exercises and I really noticed my muscles became hard as a rock especially after1000 pushups a day for a week

I had trained high reps, and I can tell you that going 15% under 1rep max I could do 30+reps. I definately had a lot of endurance. So yeah basically my thought is you test you body on endurance, you build endurance, you test your body on strength you build strength. I would assume sarcoplasmic hypertrophy leads to endurance.

It is simple, train with low reps/high weight for 1 month, then train high reps/lower weight for 1 month. Alternate this and you will avoid a plateau in growth and will see the best result over time. I learned this from a professional power lifter that is 308 lbs and holds the world record for squatting over 1200 lbs. Shout out to Jim and Cory Hoskinson.

I barely work out and I'm jacked & shredded 😉

My brain now hurts! Another informative video, I think.

Am I right or wrong in thinking that myofibrillar muscles are representative of our fast-twitch fibres and sarcoplasmic muscle for slow-twitch fibres? And if this is true could that be a reason as to why there is no definitive answer for selective rep ranges/exercises being the sole contributer to either myofibrillar/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

Anyone else think it's funny they used the guy I'm the strict-curl-harness to represent the bodybuilder?

At around 7 minutes, the clip mentions that sarcoplasmic protein synthesis at 24 hours post-exercise was greater for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM training. What it fails to mention is that myofibrillar protein synthesis was also greater at 24 hours for the 30% of 1RM training vs 90% of 1RM in the same study by Burd et al in PLoS ONE 2010. Also, at 4 hours after resistance, only the 90% of 1RM training resulted in increased sarcoplasmic protein synthesis, while both 30% and 90% of 1RM resulted in increased myofibrillar protein synthesis at 4 hours. In other words, both protocols stimulated both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis. But if one looks at the figures in that paper, myofibrillar protein synthesis was stimulated to a much greater extent than sarcoplasmic protein synthesis with both the 30% of 1RM and the 90% of 1RM protocols. This would suggest predominantly myofibrillar hypertrophy rather than sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in the longer term in response to both protocols. Why is this not mentioned? Finally, too much has often been made out of a limited number of studies which claimed to be showing sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but these have typically not considered the possible contributions of temporary swelling resulting from training-induced muscle damage and associated muscle fiber remodeling, which would tend to dilute the myofibrillar hypertrophy.

Wow what an insightful presentation

Notif squad 🔔

It's simple...A stronger muscle is a bigger muscle and a bigger muscle is a stronger one. That said, I don't count sarcoplasmic fluid as muscle. What I'm talking about here is an actual increase in muscle fibers. If people switched their goal to getting stronger they'd experience the real hypertrophy they're after. The kind that shows without flexing and doesn't go away after 30 minutes.

I wonder if these results are the same for natural trained people.

I always drop set start heavy then drop to light for the reps. Always did both

Interesting discussion regarding mechanisms of muscle growth weightlifters vs. bodybuilders.

the body adapts to what you put it trough there is defently a differnce

It would be interesting to know if diet also plays a role, most bodybuilders have a higher carbohydrate intake throughout the day and during training.

U know I’m stronger than the 5 grader while I’m 4 grade😂

I go six to ten on compounds. If I’m able to do more than ten I’ll bump the weight up . Isolation I go more fifteen to twenty. That’s what’s worked for me and still does. Thats why German Volume training is not one of my favorites. Don’t get me wrong you’ll swell up like crazy quickly but the moment you taper off that high amount of volume you deflate.

Holy crap. 36 quads sets per week. RIP walking.