Hey All, I hope the video was interesting! :) Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HOUSEOFHYPERTROPHY Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:50 Part I: Deconstructing the Data 3:49 Part II: Limitations 6:13 Part III: What Does This Information Mean? 9:28 Part IV: Changing Rep Ranges Delays Plateaus? 11:14 Part V: Summary

i may not be an untrained woman age 58 with a bmi of 27, but i appreciate your work❤

I actually think this could be your most important video to date. Most people seem to forget that studies will report mean differences between groups but don't consider that there could be huge inter-individual variation in responses. Like you said near the end, studies give us a great place to start from, but experimentation is required on the individual level. This video should make you sceptical when you see trainers using the exact same style of training (rep range, frequency, proximity to failure, etc) with all of their clients. They are probably doing a lot of them a disservice.

This video couldn't have been more perfectly timed! I started train about 2 years ago, doing everything at higher rep ranges. But about 3 months ago i started doing heavier weight for less reps, much better results...for me at least.

50yo...this year I began experimenting with blowing past the the 8-12 rep range using lighter weights and improving form. I count 1-2-3-1, 1-2-3-2, 1-2-3-3, 1-2-3-4, each concentric and eccentric. I've found counting this way made it simple for me. Started with just pushups, then chinups, then switched everything to 15-30 reps. Best shape of my life

Mental fatigue is often overlooked, and doing the same number of repetitions gets boring over time affects the connectivity between mind and muscle which alters results.

This must be one of the most underrated channels out there

I think higher reps on isolation/single joint movements like curls is easier on the joints and tendons and lower reps on compounds such as squats where cardio is more likely be the limiting factor, because so many muscles are in use.

One reason that I can anecdotally share with you is that higher rep ranges can give you a better "mind-to-muscle" connectivity for those having problems contracting their muscles under extreme loads. Lighter loads also allow one to have proper form, better tempo, and allow for a cleaner full ROM.

One thing ive learned is that you need to focus ok the negatives of your workout as well. No matter the rep range, if you slow down and let those muscles burn longer each rep you will feel the difference!

I do 3 sets for each exercise. First set 20 reps, second set 15 reps, third set 8-10 reps. For legs 3 sets 30, 20, 10 reps.

Not sure if switching rep ranges prevents a plateau but taking a rest week every so often does. Haven’t decided if it’s because it allows recovery or if it’s because of re-sensitization but I know it works. Switching to different exercises helps too. I’ve also found different muscles or at least certain exercises, prefer high reps over low reps and vice versa. Usually compounds work better for 6-12 reps while isolations typically like 10-20. That’s just me though.

The more i watch your videos, the more i understand that every single body is different and you need extensive experimentation to achieve complete efficiency. We really need to treat the journey as a life style.

i love this channel so much i wouldnt care if you did less visual and even more frequency of uploading the content is so good

7:02 This is gold! It is a extremely important point that rarely comes out and it can have major consequences on the way we interpret and use the information given by science and to not take science as a new kind of religion with the same symptoms of current creeds. Great work mate!

Amazing video! It is a really intriguing topic. For me, I do two low-rep sets and then a back off set with a lighter weight on a handful of exercises. I don’t know if any science can support it but I thought it might be a good way if you want to include high and low rep sets.

Whoo man, 80% for some 8-12s? I wish! 😅 I've spent a lot of time doing 8-12s, it's just solid for a lot of lifts. I am branching out and spending a little more time doing higher reps (usually 15-20). For some isolations it really makes sense. My elbows appreciate the higher reps for a lot of my triceps work. For a few lifts that I want to work on strength I'll do 3-5s, but that's only a select few these days (OHP and weighted chinups). Those lifts I'll break into heavy and light days (and sometimes just do some down-sets after my heavier work). I do think 8-12 is still pretty easy to recommend to novices as its a reasonable balance of being able to find failure and have good technique. If you want a little extra technique practice without cutting into your recovery doing a top set slightly above your working weight for a few reps is quite helpful. On the other end of the spectrum, I probably wouldn't recommend high rep sets to a novice. It takes a lot of focus to really drive through the burn and hit failure...while keeping your technique squared away. Ultimately, I think using measurements is the way to assess what's working and guide your programming. When something is getting stale, changing up a rep range is one of the easiest factors to adjust. I can usually get several PRs out of a new rep range that I'm not used to. Late 30s male here. ~25 BMI / ~21 FFMI 💪

People seem to often neglect that different loads (and therefore rep ranges) preferentially target different muscles within the same exercise (quad vs glute activation in the squat, light vs heavy). This also varies considerably person to person based on anthropometry.

I think the important thing to note here is that with whatever rep range you're training at, always train to failure or close to failure.

This is directly up my alley, so well, that I'm wondering if you're watching me.... I was working out for about a year before I decided to run an ultramarathon and quit weightlifting and focused solely on cardio. Once it was finished I had lost a ton of mass. Previously, I was building using high rep range (12-20 depending). Since your video on regaining lost mass, I figured I would have fun and try the 5x5 plan using a upper/lower split and put on mass just as well while saving time in the gym, albeit only 25-30 minutes. So far, I'm 4 weeks out from the ultra, after taking a week off recovering, after 3 weeks I'm bigger than I was before losing the mass to begin with but, this COULD explain why I'm seeing more gains. Perhaps I respond better to a lower rep range. I've deliberately avoided it because of the proclivity to injury and I am a family man. But I'm already pulling more weight than ever, I surprised myself last night at the gym at how much stronger I am and I'm able to maintain a

when i first started working out i just had a 8 pound/3 or 4 kilo steel bar and i just repped until i got muscle fatigue then my arms hurt for a day or two and i'd do it again. like around 100 reps then soon i could get to like 150 etc. and my arm muscles got huge in under a year, but lifting with other kids at school i couldn't lift as much as much skinnier guys.

I am always extremely suspicious with muscle growth, we don't know if the individuals changed diets, stress levels, sleep and etc during each period. We need super hard deep digs into the processes that produced said drastic changes on individuales when they switch rep ranges. As you know, more data is needed.

I've just started out going to the gym and this is very insightful!

New lifters especially need to learn that its not all about rep range .. it's how difficult any paticulour exercise is made via weight going through a set rep range.. also warm up sets followed by working sets honesty and hard work is how one maximises and stimulates muscle growth..

you should start doing videos on nutrition bulking and cutting would love your take on these topics for optimum muscle gains

I think the unorthodox rep range was a consequence of the participants' ranges due to the constraint actually being 30% 1RM.

I am curious about the subjective and uncontrollable parts of these studies. It seems reasonable that different people will get closer to true failure at different perceived effort levels, I.e. different loads. Some people think really high weight and grinding out reps is reaching failure when in reality they are just not used to that level of force exertion. They would reach closer to failure at low weights and high reps since each individual rep doesn't feel as difficult, and therefore less "scary". Meanwhile others think the "burn" is too intense at high reps and consider that failure when they still have 8 reps in the tank. I am convinced the differences in results are due to subjective perceived effort.

For hypertrophy I do best at lower weights in rep ranges of 8-15. The key for me is that the reps have to be performed in a slow and deliberate and I have to be concentrating on the muscle group(s) that I am training. Your results may vary.

I remember when gyms first closed, loads of people saying they saw sudden gains just from doing exercise band and bodyweight work at home in high ranges. I think you nailed it: if you're stalled/plateaued then mix it up.

it is certainly very interesting to say the least and I appreciate your work on this. That being said, it frustrates me that seemingly 100% of all "studies" are done with "untrained" folks. I would argue that taking anyone "untrained" and doing any exercise, even ineffective/inefficient stuff is going to produce results. I've been training nonstop for 40+ years now. I'd love to know if I'd do better with higher or lower reps. Of course at my age it's getting easier to do lighter weights for more reps as I age and try to avoid injuries.

Im gonna give high rep range a try starting tmr ..been 4x10 for as long as i can remember!! 59 trained male here!!

We know that any rep range with a decent weight builds muscle, and we also know that heavier loads make you stronger (presumably neurologically). Furthermore, we know that higher tension builds more muscle, and thus heavier loads will generate more tension. My theory is that people with less muscle at baseline will benefit more from higher reps, as it will enable them to (safely) accumulate more muscle mass, whereas those with more muscle and/or who are naturally stronger at baseline will benefit from prioritizing heavier weights, as the heavier weight enables them to generate more tension. Furthermore, I always wonder what role pain or injuries have in these studies, and if they end up skewing the data. Presumably, a person with less baseline muscle/strength will be more prone to pain or injury if they use heavier weights/lower reps, thus making it more difficult for them to achieve failure or progressively overload.

The rep range doesn't realler matter. There is only ONE SINGLE factor that accounts for the activation of the growth mechanism inside the muscle cell and that one factor is INTENSITY. Anyone tells you otherwise, they are lying. You want to do one set with very high intensity not more. More is not better.

Crazy informative video as always bro

Having "light days" and "heavy days" or having a "strength" day and a "mass" day, are methods that many use, sort of a micro-periodization program. I think the crucial takeaways from these studies is that adapatbility is inevitable and that their are ways around it and that the reason we have various ST protocols is because there are many ways to skin that proverbial cat.

No matter how many times the ball bounces the individual gotta do the work to know what works. I wouldn't focus on optimum, jus try different variables without abandoning the basics.

Yeah, we can't discount the difference between individuals responses... because the "average" person in a study responds a certain way does not mean you will

Your narrating got much better over the years

I have a question that might be out of the topic : How are participants selected in these studies and how can I volunteer to participate in studies like this

Love your animations, man!

I remember doing 30-40 reps on many exercises during the lockdown, didn't have dumbells with enough weight so :/

When i was in my early 20's i worked out religiously and went from 130-185 it took years and my calves only grew to 15inches... life happened and i lost it all and was 140 pounds when i went back to the gym now at 31 and in a year i am now 186 (officially hit my heaviest bw just this weekend 😎😋) and my workouts have been the same cept i aint doing high reps for shoulders and calves but now just doing the same reo range as everyrhing else which is 8-12 and my calves are 17's. The lower reps let me do a pause when in high tension which i think helps a lot too

Great content as always. However, let me share something with the knowledge I have absorbed these past years. What help me a lot effort-wise in my workouts (bc most of the time I thought I did not do enough) was to speak with my coach at the time and he gave me this very simple approach: Take a day or two, proper warm-up and go through each exercise of the plan and figure out what is your RM in each exercise, take notes! And then, train at 70% for example, aiming between 8 to 15 reps. If you don't see almost any development in a month, maybe lower the % and go for more reps Or vise-versa. This helped me a lot to now worry so much about if I was putting in the effort (bc you are based on the % of RM) and also verify that in between changes of % will be needed. Hope this helps for some of you, blessings ;)

One message i could get from this video is that not everyone could fit with the same training method

Great work as always!

I'd have to say I've noticed the same. I'm 37 and been training for 18 years. However, I've noticed an increase in muscle growth the minute I lower the weight and increase the reps. 30 reps on squads rather than 15 to 20 reps. Both trained to failure. The same in the arms chest and back. High reps produced better results. Tempo is always the same regardless of rep range.

Les say both rep ranges--6 and 35 produce similar results. Under normal conditions--WHY spend almost 6x as long to do each set (6 vs 35)? Time is already the stated biggest obstacle to exercise.

We need a standardized protocol to determine which rep ranges are most effective for an individual. This video just demonstrates we're all shooting in the dark

I want a video about the trapezius muscle!

High reps are not bad. I still think it's about time under tension. I would have loved if they measured that also in this study.

15 gym sessions a month at age 46 is where I'm at right now and that's 3 x leg days 3 x chest days 3 x abs core days 2 x back days 2 x shoulder days 2 x arm days This works for me I change up rep range, time under tension, weight load on each session to cover all areas. 1 hour solid training per session is more than enough if your cracking on. My diet, sleep, lifestyle is at about 70% perfect and I know I'm only a couple a weeks away from peak condition for me at any time which is great as I can get to that for upcoming events occasions etc And still be living a good life in the meanwhile out of the gym without to much obsession. Pro boxers are only in peak condition during times of there imminent bouts. Good luck trying to have a healthy rounded balanced lifestyle 100% of the time it's impossible. Ultimately it's about being happy with yourself afterall. Get yourself to a decent respectable condition thats realistic and maintain that would be my advice. We're always gonna see imperfections etc in ourselves no matter how well we are doing. Have fun out there life's to short 😁🍻😎❤🏖

Mike Mentzer taken to an extreme: 2-3 warmup sets, then single set of: super fast positive against gravity, hold at full contraction until FAILURE, then super slow negative return to start. Repeat until unable, then rest-pause (under 30 seconds) and repeat until impossible!

It's all about intensity!! Most people can't focus themselves to the required intensity mentality.

Indeed. Muscle fiber make up is always a very important factor. Being a former sprinter , i logically find that reps up to 8-10 ( occasionally up to 12 ) work best for me. Two other factors seem to have an effect on my traing as well : speed of the reps ( explosive on the concentric , ' normal ' on the eccentric ) and not going to failure when that speed noticeably lessens. Instead doing (an ) extra sets.

I think desired rep ranges are largely dependent on exercise variations.

I have been doing a 5x5 program starting at 80% 1RM for the past 4 months. I just changed over to a 12x4 program at 60% 1 RM. I think I will stick with this for about 4 months before I change it again.

Every you tube video provides a ideal rep range...some say 8-12 reps, others say 10-12...some say 15 and so on. They all think they are correct. Just experiment and do what works for you 😊

All I know is I’ve tried different ranges and the heavier ranges work best for me

one of the best videos regarding fact and logical conclusion based advices 👍👍👍

Very good videos, they are very informative and entertaining

The way I see it is that whole benefit of going to the gym is lifting heavy weights. Instead of doing 500 bodyweight squats to achieve fatigue, weights give you same benefit by doing 10 or less reps, which consumes less time and burns less energy. Arguing about rep range is stupid for me, you just set your number at whatever (5,8,10,12 and etc) and then increase weights to force muscles grow.

As cycling is my main sport I do not train for hypertrophy, but for strength and fatigue resistance. As such I alternate every 2 weeks between high weight low rep (3x~5) and low weight high rep (3x~25)

In order for the graph at 3:00 to be meaningful you'd have to split it in 2. Those that started with 8-12 reps and those that started with 27-32 rep.

Great video as always. The only thing I don't understand with this type of study is they don't compare the same volume. They do 3 set for each training method. about 90 reps for the high and 30 reps for the low. Add 2-3 set on the 8-12 rep range and I think we will greater results but it will still be 50 to 60 reps.

One of the things that is hard to measure is the willpower to make it to failure. People have wildly different ideas of what failure is.

Very cool study design, but would really like to see it done over with trained (3+ years) individuals. We know that anything works well for untrained individuals, including sets that are far away from failure. Interesting discussion and video though, cheers.

Gotta help with the algorithm 🗿

I've been doing ~20 reps on my 1st set. Then 5 to 10 on my 2nd set to failure. Then rest and do a drop set. Kills

@HouseofHypertrophy are there any other studies comparing rep ranges like that that also show individual variation? I think this is super interesting if we all actually do respond to different ranges. I think it would make a good argument for doing a low rep set and a higher rep set on virtually every movement to cover all bases, and if it's wrong then the data at least suggests there's no downsides to this approach

One issue that is never addressed in videos like yours is rep speed. For instance, if one performs 6 reps 5 sec lift/5 sec lower the time of the set is 60 seconds. If the same person did 30 reps for 1 sec lift/1 sec lower that is also 60 seconds. So, the question of how many reps doesn't make sense out of that context.

Fred Hatfield recommended both high rep and low rep range to train the different muscle -type fibers. This will train both slow and fast twitch muscles.

Interesting, might try high reps on light days/rest days just to see what happens.

Would love to see content on strength again. Maybe about %Velocity loss for both strength and hypertrophy?

Do a video on myorep aka rest pause training

Hi rep failure is brutal. That's why I don't go to high. Of course specific exercise matters too.

Enough effective reps while minimizing fatigue (supraspinal CNS, calcium ion related) so that recovery mechanisms go toward adaptation and not repair is key. I’ve learned I don’t do well with high reps - takes me forever to recover and by the time I have everything has gone toward repair = no progress. 5-8 reps, to or very close to failure works great for me = progress pretty much workout to workout.

Why defines a "rep"? How long was the concentric duration? How long was the eccentric? How long was the overall duration of the set? #GIGO

The question becomes, how do you know your best rep range (at a certain time, I guess). I have always thought that the intensity (weight) that's best for you is the one you feel most effective in. The one where you can do most work. I noticed 40 years ago that when untrained I liked 4 x 8. But when well trained I liked 6 x 5. So, more intensity, fewer reps and more sets, when well trained. But always 30+-2 total number of reps for an exercise. Finding out which rep range you should be in might be the key to effective training. But 27 .. 31 isn't my rep range. If I use a very light weight, I feel it at 40 reps. But need something like 80 reps for approaching failure. But 80 reps sets aren't anything I have done enough to know if they build muscle! I'm told Eugene Sandow and his contemporary trained like that, so maybe. But that might have been just good business. A way of selling very small, easily transported dumbells. Who knows! For example, it's said that Bobby Pandour refused to train with heavy weights and used 10-pound dumbbells instead.

I think most of the difference in results would come from timing and dietary macronutrients

I really really believe its the connection. You have to train your muscle, if you cant fire it, you cant train it. some people have trouble hitting hard with heavier weights because they are not used to control those. Lighter weights always give you more control without a doubt and more space to hit the target muscle. i often see this with clients in back training, they dont feel there back good with heavy weights in the beginning. But when i put them for example into an X3 set of bent over rows, they feel like a anatomy book and really have a shook look.. like holy f*** i feel everything. and there i go high up in reps, have a lighter movement curve and and they can squeeze so much more in.

Thank you for the informative video. Query: I don't think I quite understand your objection to preventing plateaus: After all, you explain that the average over the whole 24 week period comes from very different progress of the individual experimental versions. But: The graphs at 10:00 show not only the final results after 24 weeks, but also the intermediate results after 12 weeks and the development from then until the end, right? That actually means that the development during the last 12 weeks continued practically unchecked compared to the first 12 weeks. Which means that the development of the test persons continued on average at an unrestrained pace.

The best study is the one we do on ourselves, and then get a sense of what really works, and that takes years to understand.

Let me save you guys some time... Rep range dosent matter. As long as you have a good streatch-contraction and in a few muscles like delts a high metabolic stress.. the sets are taken close to failure (about 2 RIR) or and some to failure... the sets will produce same results... be it 5X5, 10-12 or myoreps. Some muscle groups seems to be harder to train with heavy 5,s since its easy for other muscle groups to take over. A short answer to why more guys say high reps is better is because there is much evidence for high volume is better than low volume. About 30 hard sets / week seems optimal when we look at the latest meta study in the subject.

Do the studies take into account protein consumption and calories surplus/deficit/maintenance? If some people started eating less calories and leaving maintenance/surplus as they got into exercising, with the intention to get leaner, it'd show as significantly less hypertrophy compared to their earlier exercising with a calorie surplus. Looking at the individual differences between lower and higher rep ranges (close to failure) in a vacuum without knowing if their eating, protein and sleeping habits changed isn't too accurate. Especially with the single person who went from -5% to 10%. Doing exercise even with some deficit with an average amount of protein should not in any case result in loss of mass, especially in that significant of an amount. The person might not have slept, eaten protein and been in a significant calorie deficit at the lower rep range, and it would explain the -5% lean mass, but we wouldn't know. Similarly, some people might have individual differences in what causes how much micro tears and damage, resulting in less hypertrophy as more energy and resources goes towards repairing. Some people might have gotten better at their form and technique over time and when they changed to the other rep range, they would have an advantage in hypertrophy from their technique being better and allowing for more/better reps. There should be a more controlled study taking individual eating/sleeping habits into account day by day and week by week, to properly count the possible influence from it and how it might have affected the results.

I believe that it is not only through muscle damage/fibrosis, but also through some proccess that widens the fibers (and makes them more resilient) that muscle grows. You would get more damage from 6 to 12 reps; and you would get more widening through 25+.

love your work, ty

it's a different nervous system response, for example - for me there's no such thing as failure in the 30-rep range, I'll just be so tired by the time I do that many reps that fatigue itself will stop me, not muscle failure.

The study doesn't take into account whether it's a compound or an isolation exercise or if you are targeting bigger muscle groups such as our hamstrings, glutes, quadriceps, back, and chest or smaller muscle groups like shoulders, triceps, biceps and calves.

As I understand it, body types i.e., mesomorph, endomorph, ectomorph respond differently to resistance training. I wonder if the body types affected the individual results in this study. That could be why the rep ranges are affective in both ranges, but each range lends better results pending body type. Any data on body types and muscle growth would be interesting to see. Maybe determine if there is in fact a correlation between rep ranges and body type.

If you go past 20 reps, your NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT FOR VERY LONG. Its best to periodize your rep rang using 8-12 reps, 4-6 reps and 15-20 reps.

perfect video at perfect time

The mike mentzer of KZfaq

This study was done only on lower body which has shown in other studies that they respond better to higher reps. That's not the case with every muscle group.

This may partly explain why HST is effective for a wide variety of people. ;)

The confounding variable here = intensity. Some people don't really push to failure or 1 RIR in low rep ranges. It's possible that they only achieved a high level of intensity at the higher rep ranges. For others, the opposite could be true (they can be intense for 10 reps but not 30, solely due to mindset/motivation, even with less weight). We cannot assume all participants trained with equal intensity in the various rep ranges.

l wish l'd trained with Mentzer style from day one😤 the more l trained diffrent systems the more l got lost in the systems..l summarize= HlT, Mentzer, Yates➡️🚀💪

I have question regarding this video, what about Henneman's size principle according to that we should not find any difference between rep range. There is 2 possibility either this study couldn't see something made this differences or there is a difference between rep ranges. Which do you think most likely ? do you have any idea what could be reason to differences between rep ranges? My assumption, there is a variable that we overlooked. It might be; sleep, nutrition, going to failure or stress level differences.

Could be that these individual differences in hypertrophy reflect individual tendencies towards how they actually train. Some people like to push harder in certain rep ranges etc. but, this may not be true.

I say go slow and squeeze and contract on every movement

I've been reading some old Børge Fagerli articles recently. He suggests testing a movement with a 1RM then sets to failure of 80% to test for muscle fibre type, and I think Menno has agreed with this. He caveats that this test is for testing specific movements or muscle groups, as factors like previous endurance adaptations, neurotransmitter imbalance, nervous system, etc. could account for this disparity. I think something similar is happening in this study.