welcome to the house of hypertrophy. This fairly recent study has exciting findings about the optimal rep range to build muscle and provides deeper insight compared to all the other previous research on the topic. To get everyone up to speed, it's long been believed that the 8 to 12 rep ranges are optimal for building muscle. But in the last decade or so, a substantial number of studies established this isn't quite true. Rather, reps approximately between 6 and 35, provided they are performed to failure or very close to failure, produce similar muscle growth. But these are the average findings from the studies. Could some people grow more with either higher or lower reps? And if so, how significant could these differences be? This fairly recent study is the first that provides an answer. It also aimed to answer the fascinating question of whether changing rep ranges could delay a plateau in growth. Let's dive in. [Music] The researchers recruited 24 previously untrained women to train the leg press, leg extension, leg curl, and calf raise, each for three sets a session, training

once performed three times a week for 24 weeks. One group spent the first 12 weeks training with loads resulting in them achieving voluntary failure in their 8 to 12 rep range, while in the following 12 weeks, they trained with loads resulting in them achieving voluntary failure in the 27 to 31 rep range. The second group did the opposite; they spent the first 12 weeks training to voluntary failure in the 27-31 rep range, while in the next 12 weeks, they trained to voluntary failure in the 8 to 12 rep range. Since each subject trained both with 8-12 and 27 to 31 reps, they were able to identify if anyone grew significantly more with either. Just in case anyone's wondering, I did say 27 to 31 reps. I have no idea why the researchers used this unorthodox rep range instead of something a little more standard, but of course, it's not a big deal. Nonetheless, Progressive overload was applied throughout the study by having subjects increase the load they trained with to

ensure they reach voluntary failure within the rep range they were training at the time. We can't see the subject's progress, the loads well within the rep ranges across the study. Psy leaves of tissue mass was measured throughout the study. On average, phthalene soft tissue mass increased similarly between both rep ranges, thereby aligning with the rest of the scientific literature in their average growth is comparable across different rep ranges. But when we look at the individual responses, we see something seriously interesting. Although there certainly were individuals aligning with the average and seeing comparable gains between the 8 to 12 and 27 to 31 rep range, other individuals grew more with one or the other, with some of the differences being quite significant. For example, one individual actually decreased their thylene soft tissue mass by approximately five percent when training with 8 to 12 reps but saw just over a 10 increase when training with 27 to 31 reps. Another individual saw approximately a 13 increase when training with 8-12 reps but only

approximately a three percent increase when training with 27 to 31 reps. I believe these results are quite exciting. Imagine you've been training hard with 8-12 reps for numerous months or even years, but you're dissatisfied with your hypertrophy. You may look at the scientific research and figure, since hypertrophy is similar across a wide range of reps, there's no reason to try something different. But these findings are an important addition to the rep range literature since they fundamentally tell us how well you grow with 8 to 12 reps isn't strongly correlated with how well you may grow with higher reps. The findings also have implications for the concept of high and low responders. It's all too easy to have people perform the same training program and then categorize them as either high or low responders overall. However, these results tell us that being a high and low responder is specific to the training variables used, in this case, the rep range. Before going any further, we must address some potential limitations. Foreign performs 8 to 12 reps in the first 12

weeks and then 27 to 31 reps in the next 12 weeks, whereas group 2 did the reverse of this. The rate of muscle growth decreases across time, so it's possible that any slightly lower gains with one of the rep ranges were due to the subject training it in the final 12 weeks. However, this absolutely does not explain all the individual differences. Why? Because 50% of all subjects saw their greatest increase in thigh soft tissue lean mass with the rep range they trained in the final 12 weeks. A second consideration is subjects were instructed to perform repetitions to voluntary failure, which isn't necessarily true momentary muscular failure. The current literature fails to convincingly support the notion that you must train to failure to maximize the growth from higher or lower reps, but you likely need to get fairly close to failure. And doing this is harder with 27 to 31 reps, so perhaps some subjects failed to get sufficiently close to failure with this rep range, thereby explaining why some grew less from it. But I'm

unsure of the validity of the speculation, and of course, it can't explain why some grew more with the 27 to 31 reps. Finally, the subjects were previously untrained women with an average age of 58 and a BMI of 27. I know that some people's instinctual reaction to this will be, What on Earth? How could you waste my time on this paper house if hypertrophy? If you had this reaction, I'm assuming you're not a previously untrained woman 58 years of age with a BMI of 27. Nevertheless, let me describe why this likely isn't a massive limitation. Firstly, we need to ask ourselves if strong data indicates that muscle growth from different rep ranges differs between demographics, such that we can be confident the results on untrained women above 50 failed to generalize to others. The answer is no. Remember, average muscle growth was similar between the rep ranges, in line with the rest of the research that's been conducted on a wide range of other demographics. Individual differences

aren't unique to untrained women above 50 either. We've had studies finding in younger trained men the existence of individual differences, as we'll see in a second. Secondly, the subjects were healthy enough to tolerate the training. They were performing multiple sets of lower body movements to voluntary failure, and we saw these graphs demonstrating how they overloaded well across the study. We also know meaningful gains occurred. In fact, the gains are in the ballpark of what we'd expect. [Music] These findings may come as a shock to some, as perhaps you've had thoughts similar to Mike Minster. It is this fact, the fact that the principles of human physiology are universal, that makes it possible for me to state with absolute certainty there is only one valid theory of training, i.e., one best way to train. But this isn't the first time we've seen individual differences, and I don't anticipate it being the last. We've previously dissected this study by Neves finding when trained subjects train their cords with 9 sets a week, some

subjects grew their courts more when dividing these sets across three days a week. While others saw similar gains between training once or three times a week, this shouldn't be mistaken for assuming a study's average results are useless. A study's average results can be used to push back against myths. There are still going to be people who align with averages. Averages can be a solid starting place. And finally, not all training variables may display as robust to individual differences. Why might some people grow more with higher or low reps? No definitive answer exists currently. Some may be tempted to speculate fiber type explains the results. That is, perhaps people with more slow-twitch fibers, since these fibers are low-force producing but highly fatigue-resistant, grow better with higher reps, while people with more fast-twitch fibers, since these fibers are high-force producing but highly fatigable, grow better from low reps. This would appear logical, but indirect data would question him. The soleus muscle is one of those muscles that's predominantly slow-twitch dominant in an abundance of individuals, yet previous research found Soleus

hypertrophy was comparable between higher and low reps. So, if we don't know why some people may grow more with either higher or lower reps, what should we make of this information for now? Consider different rep ranges as a tool in your toolbox. If you're seeing minimal results from training with 8-12 reps, assuming all other factors are dialed in, then you may wish to give higher reps a try or vice versa. Another interpretation is, since it may be tricky to establish if you respond better to a certain rep range, in reality, it may be simpler just to train with different rep ranges in your program. That way, if you do respond better to a certain rep range, at least part of your training includes that. Speaking about constructing an effective program to help you attain your desired physique, it can be tricky and time-consuming, but our high-quality partner, the Alpha Progression app, can help you generate an evidence-based training program that's 100% custom to your needs in less than three minutes. Simply specify the equipment you have.

how often along you want to train for, and if you want to focus or neglect certain muscles. There are even advanced options to personalize your training and implement deloads. There are over a quadrillion input combinations on which your plan is based, and with the touch of a few buttons, you can customize things further, such as changing the rep range you train with. Through analyzing your past performance, the app provides progressive overload recommendations during your workouts to help you continue making gains. The app automatically generates graphs that display your long-term progression, thereby saving you time from having to manually track your progression. The link in the comments and description gives you a two-week free trial of all the app's premium features, and if you like it and go beyond, the link gives you 20% off a subscription. I truly believe the app is awesome, and the reviews speak to this [Music]. Recall at the start of this video, I mentioned that this paper technically also examined if changing rep ranges could delay a plateau. The authors of the study suggested their results indicate

it does, but I actually disagree with their interpretation. The author's position was as follows: previous research indicates the rate of muscle growth slows down a fair bit after 12 weeks. But given both groups in the study actually experienced a similar rate of muscle growth in the final 12 weeks to the first 12 weeks, and since both groups changed what rep range they were performing halfway through the study, the authors interpreted this as successfully delaying a plateau. But remember, this is the average. We can't ignore the individual responses. To simplify this, let's say we have subjects A and B. They trained with 8 to 12 reps in the first 12 weeks, and then with 27 to 31 reps in the final 12 weeks. Subject A grew well with the 8-12 reps, seeing a 0.8 kilogram increase in thigh soft tissue lean mass. But when they switched to the 27-31 rep in the final 12 weeks, they grew less, seeing only a further 0.1 kilogram increase. Subject B experienced the

reverse. They only gained 0.1 kg when training with 8 to 12 reps, but they saw a better 0.8-kilogram gain when training with 27 to 31 reps in the final 12 weeks. If we average their hypertrophy together, we see similar growth between the first 12 weeks and the final 12 weeks, but this isn't because changing rep ranges delayed a plateau; rather, it's because different people were growing well at different time points. This is what was going on with the majority of the whole data sets. If anything, this data indicates changing rep ranges may be inferior for certain people. So, if you're growing well with whatever rep range you're training with, it may be ideal to stick to this. No, no. Traditionally, 8 to 12 reps was considered to be the optimal rep range for building muscle, yet a substantial number of studies in the last decade or so demonstrate that reps approximately between 6 and 35 can produce similar muscle growth, provided reps are performed to or very close to failure.

but this is on average. This fairly new paper established, though people did align with the average. Others grew meaningfully more with either 8 to 12 or 27 to 31 reps. The mechanisms behind this are currently unclear, but there might be two implications. If you're seeing minimal hypertrophy with a certain rep range, trying another may work. Alternatively, just training with different rep ranges in your program could be a decent idea. That way, if you do respond better to a certain rep range, at least part of your training includes that. Remember to feel free to check out the Alpha Progression app or feel free to check out our Ultimate Guide to developing the lats.

The Best Rep Range for Muscle Growth Isn’t What You Think

스크립트