Scoring v0.1 - AI v0.1
Main point
The optimal rep range for building muscle is not limited to a specific range, and a variety of rep ranges can be effective when training to or near failure.
Tl;Dw:
- Muscle growth can happen with different numbers of reps
- You don't have to do the same number of reps every time
- Some people might grow muscle better with more reps, and some with less
- It's okay to try different rep ranges and see what works best for you
- Training to failure is not always necessary, especially with higher reps
Summary
Research suggests that muscle hypertrophy can be achieved through a wide range of rep ranges, from 6 to 35 reps, with similar growth across different loads when training to or near failure. Five meta-analyses have compared high versus low training for muscle hypertrophy, finding similar growth across a wide range of loads. However, some studies suggest that very low reps (less than 5-6 reps) may not be as effective for building muscle, while others find that higher reps (above 35 reps) can still produce similar hypertrophy. The key takeaway is that the optimal rep range for building muscle is not as clear-cut as previously thought, and individual differences may play a role. Additionally, training to failure may not be necessary for higher reps, and stopping a few reps short of failure can still be effective. Overall, the evidence suggests that a variety of rep ranges can be effective for building muscle, and the best approach may depend on individual preferences and goals. Helpful pieces of knowledge to readers include training with a variety of rep ranges, not being afraid to experiment with higher reps, and considering individual differences when creating a training program.
Evidence from Author
- 18 / 100Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 19 / 100Effects of Resistance Training Performed with Different Loads on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Healthy Adults
- 16 / 100The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared muscle hypertrophy and strength gains between resistance training protocols employing very low (VLL < 30% of 1-repetition maximum (RM) or >35RM), low (LL30%-59% of 1RM, or 16-35RM), moderate (ML60%-79% of 1RM, or 8-15RM), and high (HL ≥ 80% of 1RM, or ≤7RM) loads with matched volume loads (sets × repetitions × weight)
- 16 / 100Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain
- 19 / 100The Effects of Low-Load vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Type I and Type II Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy
- 43 / 100Thirty-four untrained women participated in a 6-week program to investigate slow-speed versus normal speed resistance-training protocols
- 77 / 100Resistance Training-Induced Changes in Integrated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Are Related to Hypertrophy Only After Attenuation of Muscle Damage
- 60 / 100The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects
- 13 / 100Hypertrophic effect of strength training
- 23 / 100Benefits of interval-training on fatigue and functional capacities in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
- 54 / 100It has been proposed that superior muscle hypertrophy may be obtained by training muscles predominant in type I fibers with lighter loads and those predominant in type II fibers with heavier loads.
- 60 / 100Performing resistance exercise to task failure
- 56 / 100Increases in 1RM strength from resistance training are related to the specificity of exercise and are likely driven by mechanisms other than muscle growth
- 49 / 100Experiment 1: To examine changes in muscle thickness (MT) and one repetition maximum (1RM) strength following 8 weeks of bi-weekly 1RM practice or traditional training. Experiment 2: To determine whether increasing muscle size increases strength potential when followed by 4 weeks of 1RM training.
- 50 / 100The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error.
- 60 / 100To determine if muscle growth is important for increasing muscle strength or if changes in strength can be entirely explained from practicing the strength test
- 60 / 100The purpose of the present study was to evaluate muscular adaptations between heavy- and moderate-load resistance training
- 27 / 100No title provided
- 33 / 100Investigation of the strength-endurance continuum
- 61 / 100Comparison of High-Volume and High-Intensity Resistance Training on Muscle Size and Strength in Resistance-Trained Men
- 60 / 100Muscular adaptations to a volume-equated bodybuilding-type training program vs. a powerlifting-type routine in well-trained subjects
- 1 / 100NONE
- 57 / 100Effects of 4, 8, and 12 repetition maximum resistance training protocols on muscle volume and strength
- 53 / 100The effect of resistance exercise intensity and volume on muscle protein synthesis, anabolic signaling, and myogenic gene expression
- 1 / 100Cookie Policy
- 71 / 100Effects of Resistance Training Protocols with Different Loads on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength
- 57 / 100The effects of a protocol employing a combination of loading zones vs. one employing a constant medium-repetition loading zone on muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men
- 63 / 100Comparison of maximum strength and muscle cross-sectional area after 6 weeks of non-periodized, traditional-periodized and undulating-periodized resistance training
- 67 / 100This study investigated the effects of varying strength exercises and loading scheme on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum strength after 4 strength training loading schemes: constant intensity and constant exercise (CICE), constant intensity and varied exercise (CIVE), varied intensity and constant exercise (VICE), varied intensity and varied exercise (VIVE)
- 60 / 100To compare the physiological and performance adaptations between periodized and nonperiodized resistance training in women collegiate tennis athletes.
- 21 / 100To investigate the effects of a single high-load set with additional drop sets descending to a low-load without recovery intervals on muscle strength, endurance, and size in untrained young men
- 60 / 100The present study investigated the effects of different intensities of resistance training (RT) on elbow flexion and leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA)
- 42 / 100Muscular Adaptations Following Resistance Training With Very Low-Load Alone, With Moderate Blood Flow Restriction, or With High Blood Flow Restriction
- 19 / 100Skeletal Muscle Adaptations to Very Low-Load Resistance Exercise With and Without Blood Flow Restriction
- 28 / 100Time course of recovery from resistance exercise with different set configurations
- 63 / 100Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs. volitional interruption at high- and low-intensities on muscle mass and strength
- 59 / 100The effects of short-term high-frequency failure vs non-failure blood flow-restricted resistance exercise on changes in satellite cells, myonuclei, muscle size, and strength
- 73 / 100Acute cellular and molecular responses and chronic adaptations to low-load blood flow restriction and high-load resistance exercise in trained individuals
- 19 / 100Accuracy of Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercises: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis
- 11 / 100N of 1: Optimizing Methodology for the Detection of Individual Response Variation in Resistance Training
The main Assertions by importance (3)
A wide range of reps, from 6 to 35, can be effective for building muscle.
( 1 ) 18/100Explained:The assertion is made based on the findings of several meta-analyses and studies that compared the effects of different rep ranges on muscle hypertrophy. The studies found that there is no significant difference in muscle growth between different rep ranges, as long as the training is taken to failure.
Context:The context of this assertion is the debate about the optimal rep range for building muscle, with some arguing that lower reps are better for strength and higher reps are better for hypertrophy.
At: 2:44:
"The majority of studies have subjects get to or at least very close to failure with a given load, for a higher load this will result in fewer reps, while for a lighter load this will result in a higher number of reps."
Evidence (1)
18 / 100From Author
Why true:The study combined the results of multiple trials to determine the effect of different rep ranges on muscle hypertrophy, and found that there is no significant difference in muscle growth between different rep ranges, as long as the training is taken to failure.
How it is true:The study provides evidence from multiple trials, making it a reliable source of information.
ELI5
- The study combined the results of multiple trials to determine the effect of different rep ranges on muscle hypertrophy.
- The results showed that there is no significant difference in muscle growth between different rep ranges, as long as the training is taken to failure.
- This means that a wide range of reps can be effective for building muscle, as long as the training is taken to failure.
Study Type:Human StudyDOI:28834797
7935763d-69e7-430a-a5d0-0f0cbcdd9a6d
Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisHumann=21p≤0.05J Strength Cond ResPublication 01/12/2017PROPROTraining to failure is important for building muscle, but it may not be necessary to reach complete failure for every set.
( 1 ) 57/100Explained:The assertion is made based on the findings of several studies that compared the effects of training to failure versus not training to failure on muscle hypertrophy. The studies found that training to failure is important for building muscle, but it may not be necessary to reach complete failure for every set.
Context:The context of this assertion is the debate about the importance of training to failure for building muscle, with some arguing that it is necessary to reach complete failure for every set.
At: 16:30:
"Leaving a few reps in a reserve may produce similar hypertrophy to training to failure."
Evidence (1)
57 / 100From Author
Why true:The study found that training to failure is important for building muscle, but it may not be necessary to reach complete failure for every set, by comparing the effects of different training protocols on muscle hypertrophy.
How it is true:The study provides evidence from a controlled trial, making it a reliable source of information.
ELI5
- The study compared the effects of training to failure versus not training to failure on muscle hypertrophy.
- The results showed that training to failure is important for building muscle, but it may not be necessary to reach complete failure for every set.
- This means that training to failure is important for building muscle, but
Study Type:Human StudyDOI:27042999
b0a26454-9122-4691-90f8-8c5fe2eb6baf
Experimental StudyHumann=19p≤0.05Journal NamePublication 01/01/2023PROPROHigher reps may cause more damage and take longer to recover from than lower reps.
( 1 ) 77/100Explained:The assertion is made based on the findings of a study that compared the effects of higher and lower reps on muscle damage and recovery. The study found that higher reps caused more damage and took longer to recover from than lower reps.
Context:The context of this assertion is the debate about the optimal rep range for building muscle, with some arguing that higher reps are better for hypertrophy but may cause more damage.
At: 15:16:
"There's evidence that higher repetitions cause more damage and take longer to recover from versus lower repetitions."
Evidence (1)
77 / 100From Author
Why true:The study found that higher reps caused more damage and took longer to recover from than lower reps, by measuring muscle damage and recovery after different rep ranges.
How it is true:The study provides evidence from a controlled trial, making it a reliable source of information.
ELI5
- The study compared the effects of higher and lower reps on muscle damage and recovery.
- The results showed that higher reps caused more damage and took longer to recover from than lower reps.
- This means that higher reps may have different effects on muscle damage and recovery than lower reps.
Study Type:Human StudyDOI:4967245
a47c0a61-18cb-4f4d-8825-f15aa1cd7df0
Experimental StudyHumann=49p≤0.05Journal of Applied PhysiologyPublication 18/01/2018PROPRO
(3)