New study on progressing REPs VS LOAD could have interesting implications on the Recommended Routine

[kc8vji]

An interesting new study comparing the muscular strength, size and endurance of 2 groups who either (a) progressed the number of repetitions they could do or (b) progressed the load they were lifting, found that there was very little difference between either group. Both are valid ways to develop strength and hypertrophy.

A link to the study: https://peerj.com/articles/14142/

A link to a YouTube video discussing the study:

The reason I want to share this with r/bodyweighfitness is because I think the findings could be applied to the RR. It is far less consistent to progress in bodyweight movements than it is to add weight onto barbells. While some progressions transition smoothly, others involve a significant increase in difficulty.

This study indicates that rather than trying to move from 8 reps of exercise 'Y' to 5 reps of exercise 'Z', people could continue getting bigger and stronger with exercise 'Y' all the way up to 30 reps if they want to. It doesn't necessarily need to be a specific number each time you change exercise.

Obviously I'm not promoting the idea of doing 100+ reps per set, but I often see comments here claiming that anything over 10 reps is wasted. Even this post linked from the FAQ claims that 4/5ths of 50 reps of push ups would be better spent working on diamond push ups. In reality that ratio is more likely to be 2/5ths.

(p.s. I have no personal connection to the study or the youtuber, so this isn't an advertisement or self-promotion)

 

[dawn16]

@kc8vji Its important to note some of the differences. Training with higher tension per rep (heavier load) leads to more strength gains. Depending on the study, the differences can be quite stark. At higher rep counts the amount of accumulated inorganic phosphate in the muscle seriously retards force production. A lot of effort is wasted.

When moving to a harder progression or heavier static load, one can use a number of strategies to get the volume in, Clusters being high on the list.

Higher tension has been demonstrated to improve tendon remodelling for stiffness, which creates notable increases in power output.

Higher rep is a valid and effective way to train, but higher tension offers additional benefit.

 

[kc8vji]

@dawn16 I guess the point of the study is that the differences within 30 reps are quite marginal, although it was only an 8 week study. Perhaps there's bigger differences over a longer period if you only trained in low/high rep ranges.

Good point on tendons. Increasing loads on a barbell/dumbbell movement wouldn't cause as large a shift in load, so tendons could gradually adapt. Maybe if people are looking to move up a progression and are struggling, they could build muscular strength by increasing reps and build up tendon stiffness through static holds.

For example, you could continue doing assisted pull ups into higher rep ranges, while also building up the amount of time you hang for, whether that's with 2 arms, 1 arm or the bar/towell combo.

 

[dawn16]

@kc8vji Combining overcoming isometrics with higher rep work would def be a good tried and true strategy. For lower rep work just increase the number of sets.

 

[jleigh]

@kc8vji Interestingly, this latest study seems to echo the result of this slightly earlier (2019) study

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Load_but_Not_in_High-Load_Resistance_Training

Unfortunately the 2019 study is a much harder read. But it does seem to draw a similar conclusion, though it is more from the perspective of muscle failure - which is that hypertrophy is stimulated by muscle failure.... and to achieve muscle failure with lower load obviously requires more reps.

Of course there has to be a minimum load for training with high reps to be an effective stimulus for hypertrophy. Curling a box of tissue paper for a 100 reps without achieving muscle failure is unlikely to get you anywhere vs. curling a weight heavy enough to burn out your arms after 12 or more reps. When I was under shoulder rehab, I did up to 50 reps of pushups... against a wall, not the floor. What a surprise I didn't get cannonball delts, huge chest or swole triceps out of that deal.

The least surprising part of the 2022 study is that the high load group got stronger, however slightly, than the high-rep group.

 

[kc8vji]

@jleigh

Unfortunately the 2019 study is a much harder read

The formatting is weird in that paper. Don't think I've ever seen the authors, title and journal listed inside an abstract before. Maybe that's the journals editor's fault? The study itself seems interesting though.

There's a much bigger difference in the High Loading vs Low Loading groups in that study than the one I shared. It says the low load group only did 30% of their 1RM, which is extremely low in my opinion. In contrast, the Reps vs Load study I shared had both groups start at their 10 rep max and then either increase the load while sticking to 10 reps or increasing the reps while sticking to the same load. That might explain why the strength gains had a bigger disparity in the 2019 study. That being said, the people lifting 30% still improved, which is impressive

 

[jleigh]

@kc8vji This coach's breakdown of the Brad Schoenfield study and its various data points looks easier to read,.

https://medium.com/in-fitness-and-in-health/do-we-need-to-train-to-failure-55eedd8ee4e1

Eric Helms' take on the same study. He seems to specialize more in hypertrophy (bodybuilder) than the other coach:

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/low-load-training/

 

[faithlesstofaithful]

@jleigh

When I was under shoulder rehab, I did up to 50 reps of pushups... against a wall, not the floor. What a surprise I didn't get cannonball delts, huge chest or swole triceps out of that deal.

got any good shoulder therapy links?

 

[jleigh]

@faithlesstofaithful My rehab was years ago, and physical therapists worked with me in person. They didn't give me any links, sorry.

You need to learn if your shoulder problem is impingement, subluxation, or some problem with the rotator cuff, or some combination of these, or something else. That's why everybody says to go see a PT.

 

[faithlesstofaithful]

@jleigh I have been to a PT. Unfortunately the VA hospital cancelled my appointments during covid and I've now moved countries and am waiting to get into the healthcare system. Was just curious if there was a good YT channel for shoulder exercises. I can do most things easily but OHP hurts my shoulder later in the evening so I'm not doing it right now.

 

[jleigh]

@faithlesstofaithful Hmm... I thought E3 Rehab's videos were good for some elbow problems I had - did not see a PT for that. Maybe their shoulder stuff is good too.

Do you know if your shoulder problem is impingement or subluxation? That would really help you in your search for good info.

https://www.youtube.com/c/E3Rehab

 

[faithlesstofaithful]

@jleigh I forget what they said honestly lol. Covid time warp. This happened near the beginning. I do know they had me doing exercises where you hold your arm against a wall like this "L" (90 degrees) and push through the hand. It is like a pnf stretch. A bunch of stuff like that.

I have full range of motion and can do most exercises fine. I only started feeling the injury when I was working from home and was spending insane amounts of time at my desk. Things like OHP and too much time on a mouse seem to aggravate it.

Thanks, I'll check out the channel!

 

[atheautistic]

@kc8vji Copy/pasting part of my comment from a very recent post [similar topic]:

HOW high reps build muscle

Day 2. Can high reps build muscle?

"It used to be thought that muscle was built in the 8-12 rep range, with 4-6 reps being for strength and 12+ being for endurance. However, research is showing that this is not the case. While low reps are superior for strength, and high reps superior for endurance, the truth is that any rep range can build muscle when sets are taken to, or close to, failure."

"Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28834797/

I have experience here with seeing progress over the course of years.

Quoting OP from that post:

Another issue is that these high-rep sets to failure are going to be hard. I mean no one said it was going to be easy, but some of the sets are going to make you question your life choices, that’s for sure.

I feel like I've adapted to this aspect of it; even at my fastest rep speed, it's not exactly super hard as long as I've got some adequate sleep for the day. If I feel like I could use a 5-20min nap [my fatigue commonly induced by large meals/hot weather], yes, doing any form of workout really feels like a somewhat mentally-challenging task. Otherwise, I think one can adapt to the high-reps that feel like they take quite a bit out of you towards the near-failure part of the set.

I've recently been experimenting with TUT to slow my reps down for not only emphasizing form, but to reduce the cardio load as well. It feels like I'm already seeing good results this early on but really, I think at the end of the day it's as simple as doing the work [near or to-failure] & getting guaranteed results as long as you sleep/eat well.

 

[kc8vji]

@atheautistic Very interesting. Assume TUT is time under tension? What kind of results do you see from it? Like, increased size/strength or just a better ability to perform the movement?

On a related note, this video popped up in my suggestions the other day. A couple of mountain climbers challenging people with bodyweight exercises. One of the participants outsmarted them by doing pullups extremely slowly (around 1m40s in):

 

[dcerot]

@kc8vji The girl with the 2:40 hang was the big hit. That was great.

 

[kc8vji]

@dcerot Yeah, she's a beast

 

[cosgrove2210]

@atheautistic

but to reduce the cardio load as well.

What's the purpose of that?

 

[starryeyedmarisol]

@kc8vji For bw is even more important because of the jumps of difficulty between steps. More and more reps till you try and manage to do at least 6 of the following step in good form.

 

[betaninja]

@kc8vji

all the way up to 30 reps

Does the paper state anywhere how many reps the REPS group worked up to? They have the endurance test increases, but we don't know how their training progressed, unless I am blind and missed it somehow.

It is generally not advisable to interpret the results of a single study into practice because the results of that study will be so specific to their context that they're essentially useless outside the lab. The wheels might fall off the LOAD or REPS idea as soon as you vary a single factor and we don't know. This is why I think it's silly of Layne, Nippard and others who over interpret single studies. YouTube eats this up because the audience, like those hosts, are not scientists and don't really care about this. Clicks, engagement and reinforcement of existing beliefs.

This particularly study has a few red flats. The confidence intervals are often so wide as to render a lot of the results meaningless, and authors say so themselves. Given the small N, lack of attrition of a large initial recruitment is likely to wildly vary those means.

The bigger issue there is that they don't appear to have done an intention-to-treat analysis. The participants who left the study should be included in the analysis using what data they did provide as though they had completed. This is standard practice in an RCT to remove influence of bias on the results from attrition. If you are studying a heart medication and all the truly sick people leave your study, only analysing the data from the healthier ones who made it to the end does not give an accurate picture.

If I was reviewing this I would also have some concerns about the participant sampling in this study. I find it hard to believe that someone with >1 year of consistent resistance training is putting on 50kg to their 1RM squat after 8 weeks of training. It's not impossible but does raise an eyebrow.

 

[derekmc]

@betaninja The study says both groups started in the 8-12 rep range and by the end of the study the reps group was doing 1.5x more reps so 20-30 reps whereas the strength group stayed in 8-12 reps. What I wonder is if you can just endlessly increase reps per set or if there is some magic number where the rep group would stop progressing. The old conventional wisdom was someone doing like even enormous sets of bodyweight squats would never see the strength gains of someone doing heavy barbell squats. So I'd love to see a study testing that as us calisthenics boys aren't usually loading plates in a rack and tend to be more giant armed freaks with chicken legs.