Thread: Hypertrophey

Originally Posted by frostaldinho

i never understand the difference gained by high reps compared to low sets, anyone got any ideas?
What sort or reps would be needed in a hypertrophey programme?

are you new to weightlifting?

higher reps, with lower weights will not build muscle mass. it will tone your body, rather than put bulk mass. this is because (someone correct me) you are not putting as much strain as your muscles, thus not stimulating your muscles to grow as much. longer periods of working out with low reps with burn fat.

lower reps, with heavier weights is what weightlifters do in order to gain muscle mass. the heavy weight combined with the intensity of each movement significantly stimulates muscle growth, because you are putting a much larger load on your muscles than it is used to.

what are your goals? what do you do right now? post your workout routine.

well, natural's about 1/2 right.
Heavy weight with low reps is geared more for strength gains than size gains.
Low weight/high rep is endurance training.
Hypertrophy training is generally more like 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps at 75-80% of your 1 rep max.
So in more general terms, moderate weight for moderate reps

Originally Posted by natural^

are you new to weightlifting?

higher reps, with lower weights will not build muscle mass. it will tone your body, rather than put bulk mass. this is because (someone correct me) you are not putting as much strain as your muscles, thus not stimulating your muscles to grow as much. longer periods of working out with low reps with burn fat.

Um, no.

Diet is your weight. Eat more than you need, you gain. Eat less than you need, you lose.

Lifting directs calorie "traffic" - eat more than you need and lift heavy, you gain muscle. Eat less than you need and lift heavy, you KEEP muscle - and hence drop fat.

A complete oversimplification of hypertrophy involves both the sarcomere, the contractile portion of the muscle, and the sarcoplasm - the "everything else" part. You need both to grow if you're going to get any size, and for that you need a caloric surplus (translation: "Son, ya' gotta EAT...").

The way I think of it is as follows: heavy lifting builds the sarcomere - the real estate. But with more real estate comes the need for more amenities. For this, you need the sarcoplasm, the support structure. So you do your heavy compounds in low rep ranges, to build the "real estate" (sarcomere), and accessory lifts in higher rep ranges to build the amenities (sarcoplasm).

Now, on a cut, you don't have enough fuel to develop both the sarcomere and the sarcoplasm. Hell, deep into a cut you don't have enough fuel to build ANYTHING - you just want to hang onto the real estate.

High rep training may burn a few calories, but it will do nothing to convince your body to maintain muscle. After all, you don't need a big muscle to lift a pink dumbbell for 20-rep kickbacks - but you DO need a big muscle to lift as heavy as you can for a 3-5 rep set.

So, you want to "tone"? Lift heavy in low-rep sets, and eat less food than you need.

Somebody for the love of God tell the soccer moms at the community centre's "toning class", will you? The high-rep shit they're doing ain't gonna get 'em ripped...

Originally Posted by natural^

lower reps, with heavier weights is what weightlifters do in order to gain muscle mass. the heavy weight combined with the intensity of each movement significantly stimulates muscle growth, because you are putting a much larger load on your muscles than it is used to.

Which is exactly why it's the right way to train in a deficit if you're looking to lean out.

Originally Posted by lucifuge

well, natural's about 1/2 right.
Heavy weight with low reps is geared more for strength gains than size gains.
Low weight/high rep is endurance training.
Hypertrophy training is generally more like 3-4 sets of 8-10 reps at 75-80% of your 1 rep max.
So in more general terms, moderate weight for moderate reps

You are also about half right. All three will promote hypertrophy in a caloric surplus.

None of them will promote hypertrophy without enough food to ensure weight gain.

Originally Posted by Built

Um, no.

Diet is your weight. Eat more than you need, you gain. Eat less than you need, you lose.

Lifting directs calorie "traffic" - eat more than you need and lift heavy, you gain muscle. Eat less than you need and lift heavy, you KEEP muscle - and hence drop fat.

A complete oversimplification of hypertrophy involves both the sarcomere, the contractile portion of the muscle, and the sarcoplasm - the "everything else" part. You need both to grow if you're going to get any size, and for that you need a caloric surplus (translation: "Son, ya' gotta EAT...").

The way I think of it is as follows: heavy lifting builds the sarcomere - the real estate. But with more real estate comes the need for more amenities. For this, you need the sarcoplasm, the support structure. So you do your heavy compounds in low rep ranges, to build the "real estate" (sarcomere), and accessory lifts in higher rep ranges to build the amenities (sarcoplasm).

Now, on a cut, you don't have enough fuel to develop both the sarcomere and the sarcoplasm. Hell, deep into a cut you don't have enough fuel to build ANYTHING - you just want to hang onto the real estate.

High rep training may burn a few calories, but it will do nothing to convince your body to maintain muscle. After all, you don't need a big muscle to lift a pink dumbbell for 20-rep kickbacks - but you DO need a big muscle to lift as heavy as you can for a 3-5 rep set.

So, you want to "tone"? Lift heavy in low-rep sets, and eat less food than you need.

Somebody for the love of God tell the soccer moms at the community centre's "toning class", will you? The high-rep shit they're doing ain't gonna get 'em ripped...

Which is exactly why it's the right way to train in a deficit if you're looking to lean out.




You are also about half right. All three will promote hypertrophy in a caloric surplus.

None of them will promote hypertrophy without enough food to ensure weight gain.

triple pwnd

well anywho, listen to the lady frostaldhino!

Forgot your notebooks boys...you just got taken to school!!!! As Built has done to nearly all of us on here, so don't hang your heads too low in shame. Being schooled by her is respectable!!!

Built Is A Little Badass When It Comes To Training!!! I Read Her Post Religiosly!!! She Makes Alot Of The Guys On Here Sound Like Amatures!!!! Ok Built I Have My Note Book Read The Class Can Continue!!!! Lol

ouch, Built's right, I forgot to mention the diet aspect.

I swear, you guys make me seem like the evil schoolteacher or something.

Heh. Better yet, a Dom:

Welcome to Mistress MariAnna's dungeon of pain.

"SQUAT, maggot. Lick my boot."

Great post by Built up there

Id just like to point out that i've put on muscle using low (3-5), moderate (6-12) and higher (14-20+) rep ranges and setups.

High volume works because it usually produces a lot of microtrauma, low rep ranges work because the heavier the weight the more muscle fibres that are recruited to move it, and mid-range works because they are a sort of blend of both these things.

As a rule of thumb, more mechanical style lifting in the mio-range will stimulate hypertrophy, but dont rule out other training styles just because they dont adhere to this rule.

The number one hindrance when trying to stimulate hypertrophy is lack of variation in training stimulus and poor diet management.

cheers guys, what a response

Heh now days I dont see so many threads like this with a lot of educational information . Good ol' days, surf IMF and learn as you go along..now its mostly polls and "Can you deadlift 500lb". Oh well, its life .

Good thread.

Hi there !

Here is a link to a good program that will have you doing various rep ranges:

Hypertrophy-Specific Training : : Official Home of HST

15's, 10's and 5's are all in there and are applied in a progressive wave like fashion. You will have to read the routine to see exactly what I mean by this.

Theres also some good info on hypertrophy.

The forums are also full of good advice !

I agree with most of what Built posted.

You can achieve hypertrophy with just about any rep range (without going ridiculously high where the load is not sufficient to promote hypertrophy). Myofibrillar hypertrophy, the hypertrophy of the actin and myosin contractile elements of the muscle cell is really the primary form of hypertrophy for natural athletes. The excessive sarcoplasmic hypertrophy you see in bodybuilders in the magazines has a lot to do with anabolic use.

Out of curiosity, Chris, what part don't you agree with?

Originally Posted by Built

Out of curiosity, Chris, what part don't you agree with?

Well, for instance, you used a 20 rep set of kickbacks as an example of something that does "not require a big muscle" providing the implication that a 20 rep set of an isolation exercise will not stimulate hypertrophy.

The reason compounds are effective isn't exactly what you implied either. A set of 20 rep curls will do just as much or more for your biceps as a 10 rep sets of chins.

As I said, I pretty much agree with what you stated. I know you were speaking generally, and I think that message was quite good.

Originally Posted by chris mason

Well, for instance, you used a 20 rep set of kickbacks as an example of something that does "not require a big muscle" providing the implication that a 20 rep set of an isolation exercise will not stimulate hypertrophy.

If you'll kindly go back and re-read what I said Chris, you'll notice I said "on a cut..."

Unless you're a rank newbie, you sure as shit ain't gaining mass - on a CUT - doing 20-rep sets of kickbacks!

If you are eating at a surplus - gaining weight - you will put on some muscle even if you do nothing. I said as much.

Originally Posted by chris mason

The reason compounds are effective isn't exactly what you implied either. A set of 20 rep curls will do just as much or more for your biceps as a 10 rep sets of chins.

Where did I suggest this would not be the case?

In a surplus, you can get big doing nothing but isolation. It's just not particularly efficient.

I like to think of it this way: you can get a nail into the wall by pounding it in with the heel of a shoe. It'll work - but that doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

That's why I like to keep the compounds heavy and the isolation work higher rep. Compounds break down in higher rep ranges, but they let you move more weight. So use those to lift more weight. Once you're spent, use the isolation work for the higher rep-range stuff. The other way around could still work. It's just not how I would want to do it.

As many have said, you need a variety of intensity zones for optimal growth. I tend to think heavy lifting is very important, and I find it funny when people suggest you won't grow from lifting heavy shit, particularly if you do it at a moderate to high volume.

Lifting heavy also supports improvements in the amount of weight you can lift in repetition ranges where more volume is easily accumulated, and hence, allows for a better growth stimulus.

Originally Posted by Built

I swear, you guys make me seem like the evil schoolteacher or something.

Heh. Better yet, a Dom:

Welcome to Mistress MariAnna's dungeon of pain.

"SQUAT, maggot. Lick my boot."

Who would win in a throwdown between Built and Chris Mason??? Seems to be some TENSION amongst the troops!!!!

He's bigger. He's more ticklish though...

Originally Posted by Built

He's bigger. He's more ticklish though...

Answered with grace and class...taking the high road is so underrated!!! Cheers...

I probably am more ticklish. Quite so, actually.