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

[kc8vji]

@derekmc

if there is some magic number where the rep group would stop progressing

I'd say it's more of a gradual shift.

Another person shared a study in this thread comparing people working out at 80% 1rm and 30% 1rm, which is a larger difference to the group's in the study I posted. The lighter loaded group in that study still gained size and strength, but their strength didn't increase as much as the heavier loaded groups did.

I'd love to see a study testing that as us calisthenics boys aren't usually loading plates in a rack

I think loading plates is something that is easier to study due to it being more consistent and quantifiable. Switching from one exercise to another can be different for different people. Some hold more weight in different body parts. Some have longer limbs. Some progressions involve using new muscle groups due to a change in your body's angle to the floor/bar. We can still use the knowledge from studies in more controlled environments and apply it to our own.

 

[kc8vji]

@betaninja The author refers to 30 reps in his introduction when mentioning a previous study he did in 2017. He also gets the subjects to start out at a 10 rep max, so I doubt they got that high up into reps.

You're probably right about the statistics. The number of people in the study is quite low. It would be interesting to have it repeated with a larger group and on more muscles.

Regarding the experience of the lifters: that is discussed in the limitations section. He says they aren't completely new but also aren't experienced and are more representative of an average gym goer.

I disagree on your point about Layne sharing studies. I'm pretty sure he has a PhD (although it's related to nutrition, not exercise). I've also found Nippards videos very informative too. They aren't your typical YouTubers who promote dangerous fads

 

[kuda]

@kc8vji Kyle Boggerman aka Kboges laughs in the background!

 

[dawn16]

@kc8vji I mean personally I've only been working out for a while but I dislike high rep ranges. More mentally exhausting I guess

 

[seth504]

@dawn16 its also harder to get to true failure rather just giving up due to the discomfort.

 

[flawedsheep]

@kc8vji I see nothing new. The number of reps close to muscular failure determines hypertrophy, while doing a new movement or significantly higher resistance in the same movement facilitates a mind-muscle connection at a low rep range such that you are able to recruit more muscle fibers regardless of size. If you're doing the same amount of sets per week but you're increasing reps to an absurd level that you're doing the same number of full range of motion reps near muscular failure, your muscles will still grow but your strength relative to size will not.

Lots of people support the notion of high rep bodyweight exercise for good reason. But they're wrong. If you're wanting to build both muscle and strength while minimizing the time spent training, you must progress to more intense movements.

 

[riverroo]

@flawedsheep I think there's a middle ground to be had IF people want to tinker with higher reps. Obviously sets of 100 push ups is time consuming but with sets of 5-8, the biggest factor of time is your rest intervals.

Bumping up your reps to 10-15 doesn't make a huge impact on your overall workout time but it ensures you can perform the movement well before progressing to the next variation.

 

[kc8vji]

@flawedsheep

If you're wanting to build both muscle and strength while minimizing the time spent training, you must progress to more intense movements.

I agree, but the cut off for "when" you make that switch might be higher than previously believed. Like you could definitely still benefit at 20 or 30 reps for example.

 

[fictrainingsock]

@kc8vji As ever, volume is king.

 

[garrusknight]

@kc8vji https://discord.gg/rBJsCxfz

 

[donkeyjaw]

@kc8vji Your muscles do not literally count how many reps you do.

 

[beaud20]

@kc8vji Your argument assumes people here are only training for aesthetics.

Training high reps only will not build the absolute strength to execute the harder skills.

If you want to get really strong you need to train lower reps. Look at the Jr Olympic Training routines.

 

[kc8vji]

@beaud20 The differences were only marginal for strength, endurance and hypertrophy. This isn't a comparison of people doing 100's of reps. If you look at the endurance results the most one of them could have done was around 30 reps (24.1 +/- 7.3).

In the strength test the load group improved their squat by an average of 21.8kg while the rep group improved by 19.3kg. In endurance test the load group improved by 6.6r while the rep group improved by 6.8r.

So if you are struggling to do a new movement after building the easier movement up to 8 reps, you could continue working that easier movement up to 10, 20 or 30 reps before moving on to the harder one, if necessary.

 

[beaud20]

@kc8vji So you think that someone that only trains overhead press for sets of 30 reps with 60kg can execute a 100kg overhead press?

 

[kc8vji]

@beaud20 Did I say that? I certainly don't remember saying that...

My point was... Let's say you want to progress from negative pull ups (NPU) to pull ups (PU). The RR recommends doing 8 NPU before moving up to 5 PU. That is obviously a jump that most people wouldn't be able to do. However, you could continue getting stronger with even more NPU until you were able to do a few PU (I'd be very surprised if someone could do 30 reps of NPU and no PU).

Sticking to the lower progression until they can take the next step shouldn't harm a person's strength or size gains is the idea.

 

[nursedi71]

@kc8vji Which highlights an unspoken problem: that new lifters (or whatever the bodyweight equivalent of a lifter is) try to follow their program, but end up in a scenario where they soft-plateau because they're trying to make dramatic increases (per their program), so they logically compromise their form to keep up, at which point they reach a hard plateau.

So they go to the internet and everyone scoffs at them needing to "drop their ego" and lower the weight, which is a really backhanded and discouraging thing to say to a rookie who was trying to gi e 110% to keep up with their program.

 

[a8alphamale]

@beaud20 Eventually with enough consistency, yes.

Had a wrestling coach back in the day. Did Ironman events. Dude was a unit, 100 pushups was a warmup. I think he did rope climbs in his sleep.

He never lifted weights.

We got him to bench one day. He weighed near 180lbs but ramped up to 250 and repped it out.

We were all laughing because he was wobbling all over the place but it wasn't really very heavy for him. He decided not to add more weight because he didn't want to drop it, but he said it was only 'medium' heavy.

 

[beaud20]

@a8alphamale A 250lb bench is orders of magnitude easier than a 225lb(100kg) overhead press. Most people than can bench 315lb can't come close to OHP 225.

 

[a8alphamale]

@beaud20 A bench is not a OHP.

I wonder if gymnasts could OHP a good amount without training it?

 

[beaud20]

@a8alphamale Full Range HSPU translates to about 96% of bodyweight so probably.