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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

This is quite interesting! Great video!

Amazing channel... Great work 👍

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.

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.

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 🔔

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.

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.

One thing Jim Wendler said that really stuck with me and has guided my training for years is (paraphrasing); If you can only do 135 for 10 and over time you improve to 135 for 20, and slowly add weight and now you can do 225 for 10, did you not get stronger? And if you’re doing 225 for sets of 10 could you not reasonably expect to get bigger? At least bigger than when you were repping 135. Now imagine 315. Moral of the story: Pick something and stick to it.

It is also dependent on nutrition It would be nice to also study the nutrition if provided in these studies.

I just lift heavy weight 15 to 20 reps or more. Just gotta be creative on how to do it. So do both.

Is there a place where I can read good articles on fitness & science of various techniques in general?

Interesting comments below consistent with body building being primarily for a particular appearance, and for the particular type of strength measured by... lifting a weight once. For functional fitness (stamina activities like running, swimming, climbing, physical work and sports that keep you on the field more or less continuously for hours) higher reps appear much better. Long, high volume workouts are also somewhat aerobic of themselves. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy might just be an adaptation to increase muscle food (glycogen) stores within muscles next to the myofibrils.

In the thumbnail you have the outline of frank zane, a bodybuilder, representing the powerlifting rep range, lol. Not a big deal but kind of weird.

My farther and me, we are dense type peoples, so that's where I focus myself on and I realized if I also increase the numbers of sets with the same weight, for example doing it 5 times vs like 3 times, I feel a sudden increase in endurance strength. So our type is a little stubborn before you can move on to more weights

I think having a lot of bulk would naturally cause less strength per fibre (aka specific tension), as it all kind of gets in the way, as opposed to what they're saying (it has everything to do with myofibril density).

Unfortunately you are confusing "myofibrillar" hypertrophy, which focuses more on increased myofibrilles size (imagine they get thicker) whereas indeed "hyperplasic" hypertrophy refers to an increase in the number of muscle fibers

If the only variable changed is volume for the myofibrilar vs sarcoplasmic studies, then perhaps myofibril growth was the same for high volume with aditional sarcoplasm growth.

Ronnie Coleman had arguably the densest looking muscles in history. But guess what? He started every exercise woth 20 or more reps, all the way down to 1 or 2 reps. He was a powerlifter by nature but incorporated insane high rep high weight sets too.

It could be that the fibre gives strength and is fueled through the sarcoplasmic proteins. So when you tire out the strength of the muscle the fibres grow but of you tire the energy around the fibres in protein they grow? Or am I totally wrong

Bench press pdf is very helpful 👍

Kind of connected to the subject but not entirely: So we know that rep ranges of 6-35 produce similar, optimal hypertrophy as long as performed to or close to failure. Let's say I can do 50 reps of an exercise before reaching failure, so the load is probably too low to produce optimal hypertrophy. If I decrease the speed so that the reps are harder and I can perform only 20 before failure, without increasing the load, would the hypertrophy produced be optimal then?

Can someone explain to me then why are rock climbers, cyclists and other similar sport where you have low effort inffinite number of reps are so skinny. While Boulderers have huge arms and pectorals but they do explosive low reps. ???

It’s much easier for me to gain strength then hypertrophy so I just focus on that nowadays

Great vid

Thanks again 😊

Comparing a set to failure at 6 repetitions and a set to failure at 20 repetitions, the latter will produce a much higher training volume. Volume = reps x load x sets. If volume would be defined as number of sets to failure I have the problem to explain why 8 to 10 sets of 3 reps with a load of around 80% to 85% of my 1RM (i.e. i could do around 8 reps with that load) produce best hypertrophy for me. None of these sets are to failure and only the final one to close failure maybe. I think the attempt to define a parameter of volume in order to simply things is a step towards simplification that already brings us a step further away from a full understanding of the underlying complex processes here.

The more weightlifting science videos I watch the more it seems that it's just impractical to study. There's so many variables that it seems like anything other than very general statements like "lifting weights will make your muscles grow" are extremely difficult to substantiate.

Anecdotally, and this might just be broscience bs, myofibrillar always felt more like adding density and sarcoplasmic was making the "containers" bigger; I first started working out doing high volume and I got a little bigger, but I had no mass to start with, so it wasn't much. Then I started doing low volume high weight, with good form of course, and started growing like a weed. My entire physique changed by adding what felt like foundational muscle to my frame.