Simple question .  Maybe complicated answer?

Let’s take bench press.  Say a guy can do 255 x 6.

That’s 1,530lbs

Say you dropped to 155lb for 10 rep ( 1,5500lb)

Would the 10 rep build as much or more muscle the. The 255 x 6?

Thanks

Doesn't work like that, someone who can bench 225 for 6, can likely do 155 for 20 reps give or take.

Which rep range builds more for you, depends which one is offering a more novel stimulus at the time. If you've been doing only heavy low rep sets for a long time. Dropping the weight, and upping the reps will likely offer better stimulus, and vice versa.

Simple answer: more volume = more hypertrophy


In your example though, probably not.
If your max is 255x6, that's a theoretical:
1RM - 302
10RM - 231

The working weight (155) is probably too far below the 10RM to stimulate a response, especially given only one set.  Now, if you did 10 sets of 10 at 155, that's another story.  Or to complicate it more, 10 reps of paused bench will create a different stimulus than 10 reps bouncing off the chest.

From what I have seen, muscle size and strength can be two different things...

The further you get away from what your 1rm estimate is with your sample rep weight, the less likely the 1rm estimate is to be correct.  I assume that's why you're asking, if not disregard.

It's more complicated than basic math, but in general, more good volume is better than less when it comes to building strength and size.

The caveat there is good volume. You need to be working within a certain exertion range. Cranking out light weights for reps to match volume to something that would be much harder won't do a thing for you, you need to stimulate the growth.

The reason something like Boring But Big works with the low weight high volume accessory work, is because the first portion of the workout is spent working up to an AMRAP set and pushing hard, then you are primed for your volume work, and it's much more difficult than it would have been otherwise.

End of the day, sets within a certain level of exertion, and taken near failure (within a varying amount of reps) will yield results. "Easy" sets don't typically do much for you other than warm you up.

If you want to work multiple rep ranges, then do something like DUP and track each independently of each other. Track and progress your 3x10 day separate from your 4x6 day for example. So you are working the same lift twice, but with slightly different stimulus in mind.

I'm perfect for this example...lol...

48 years old...165 lbs...I can do three sets of 255 x 6 reps on bench without a spotter for working sets.  With a spotter I'm sure I can do 255 x 7.

I can do over 20 reps at 155 lbs.  I know this because I occasionally do low weights with high reps, but stop at 20 reps.  

To stimulate strength, you really need to be doing sets of 6 or less reps on compounds with occasional sets of 3 or even less reps.  I actually do heavy singles every few weeks.  The next time I hit that muscle group after doing a workout with 3 sets of heavy singles is typically when I would do low weight high reps.  

You need to be close to failure on a regular basis, but not every workout.  So for the guy that can do 255 x 6 the 155 x 10 isn't close enough to failure to cause a muscle strength or growth response.

As far as strength vs hypertrophy...I focus on strength, but after you get to a certain level at your body weight, I've found that working on hypertrophy for a bit then going back to strength work is the only way to keep improving strength.  Of course, I've been doing this for years and at 48 years old being a small dude what works for me may be different than what works for you.

Doesn't work like that. I've read a lot of clinical research that high volume lower weight until failure produces VERY similar results to low volume higher weight to failure. The key here is that the "intensity" for lack of a better word is the same.

In my experience that's not 100% true. If you want lean muscles that have more endurance then lift lower weights for higher reps. If you want bigger muscles that can lift more reps, but with less endurance, lift more weight with less reps.

Heavy weight for low reps is higher intensity than low weight for high reps.  Being lean has more to do with diet and cardio than rep ranges of your working sets.  Low reps like 5 and under are best for building strength.  Higher reps are better for building muscle size.  Extremely high reps are better for building muscular endurance.  

The lower the reps the higher the intensity.

Editing this because you and I are interpreting each other's definitions very differently. Low, high, extremely high, lean, are all meaning different things to you and I.

You're misunderstanding what I wrote and not making sense. I never said being lean in terms of body, I said in terms of the type of muscle. "Intensity" depends on your background and how people have defined it. In my athletic circles, the way I used it is exactly correct. Plus, I even said it's not the best word, why nitpick and try to call me out?

Usually being dead wrong and telling bona-fide experts they don't know what they're talking about is reserved for GD.  This thread is about to get good.  I'm just here with my popcorn.

He's right. Intensity as it relates to strength training is how close to your one rep max you are working.

Lower reps is more intense.

Lower reps are also the gold standard for strength block protocols. Doubles and Triples especially.

Higher reps are absolutely more efficient at building mass. There's been several studies about it. Typically between 5-12 reps, with 5-8 being that spot where there is a lot of overlap between strength and hypertrophy.

Can we at least get our definitions straight before we start challenging strength science theories?

Intensity - magnitude of resistance, expressed as a percentage of a the best achievement in a relative movement.

It's the percentage of your one rep max.  It's not some random feeling or a subjective description about a workout or movement.


Strength - the ability to generate maximum external force

I'm not sure we really need to break that down any further, but......

"High" reps for more muscular endurance to me is above 12. Not 5. I don't know anyone who considers 5 reps high. Less reps more weight=bigger muscle mass is a pretty universally accepted thing, I've never heard anyone argue to the contrary.

If you get the volume to failure, there's not much difference in strength gains. There is a difference in endurance and muscle size. Tons of studies show this. It's about going to failure. I don't care if you take the Arnold approach with extremely high volume or Yates with extremely low volume, it's about going to failure.

You and I have very different ideas of being a bona-fide expert. Ive lifted with professional trainers since I was 15 and played sports to a very high level along the way. I've seen the selfies. Lefty tried to call me out by misinterpreting what I wrote and putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. What I wrote in my OP was 100% correct.

"Bonafide Expert" - I like to keep things simple. For bench, after a warm up set or 2, just go do 5 sets of 5 reps at a weight that you nearly fail on your 5th rep. When you get all your reps cleanly, add 10lbs next time.

IMO 7 reps is the magic number for a good balance of strength and muscle gain. (AS in - you can't do the 8th rep, if you can do the 8th rep, it's too light)

"B.E." qualifications - Lifting 40 years (no wonder my shoulder hurts today), Fitness Industry from 86-2004.

Which studies?

The ones I've seen referenced show higher strength grains with low reps, and several show you can achieve similar mass gains with low reps, but overall training fatigue is much higher and sessions are much longer.

Aside from the studies, it's also common knowledge. As your intensity increases, volume has to decrease to accommodate it, so hypertrophy will slow down and strength will peak.

It's traditional western style peaking leading up to a meet. Then you back way off, focus on hypertrophy and begin to build intensity and lower volume again.

LOL...interesting that he decided to edit that post.  Not even worth my time to reply.

I was being tongue-in-cheek with the "Bona-fide" comment.  All the regular poster here have 20+ years of experience.  Just looking forward to a good back and forth.  Both Tanran and Lefty are correct in that intensity has a specific meaning in a lifting program and they're definitions are correct.

And yet, here you are, replying lmao. Get off your high horse hoss.

I edited it because it was clear you didn't understand what I wrote. I decided that maybe it was just a simple mistake, or that you have wildly different ideas of the commonly used definitions of what high reps and low reps are, not for any other reason. What I wrote is correct.

Here's a few, there are tons. And as I said in my OP, I don't think the studies are 100% true either. Different muscle groups respond better to different strategies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25853914/
"These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2020/12000/Effects_of_Low_Load,_Higher_Repetition_vs_.19.aspx
"The lack of difference in time-course changes between LLHR and HLLR programs suggests that low-load training can exert similar effects on muscle mass and characteristics as high-load training by increasing the number of repetitions, even when not performed to failure."

As for the "intensity" thing, I get now that in this forum, some of you guys are using intensity to signify overall weight, but in the bigger real world athletic/sports circle, intensity is the overall workout and "load" is the weight lifted. But yeah, obviously as load goes up, your volume goes down and building strength is a set of cycles. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

Load, volume, intensity as terms for a workout make more sense than just using intensity and volume, at least to me and a lot of other people. Anyways, not much more to say. Happy lifting.

The missing piece is how sustainable those programs are. You can't lift to failure with high intensity for long without suffering from overtraining or failure to recover from cumulative fatigue.

Which is why high intensity is generally best for strength building and peaking, and lower intensity work is best for hypertrophy, because you don't burn out before the end of a block.

As for the definition of intensity, we are talking about strength training, and when talking about strength training intensity is a direct relation to how close you are lifting to your one rep max.

It's like the evolution deniers that say "it's just a theory".....without understand how or why the word theory is used in that context.

Volume must decrease as intensity increases, it's how peaking before a meet has worked for decades for countless coaches and athletes. Westside uses the conjugate method, which kind of trains both modalities simultaneously within a micro cycle, but careful attention still needs to be paid intensity on heavy days so you don't burn out before the meet.

Replying to the thread and certain posters is very worthwhile, certain members not so much.  

My credentials are well documented as are my results.  At 48 years old and drug free my results are very rare.

The biggest flaw I see in most studies is they are done upon those who would be considered newbs and for a short period of time usually less than 12 weeks.  You know what all newbs have in common in 12 week or less programs?  EVERYTHING works for them.  No matter what they do in the gym it's going to show results.  So yes, for newbs on a 12 week or less program high reps, low reps, several reps from failure or to failure, it doesn't matter they will show results.  

Get into intermediate or advanced lifters seeing results after over a year and you will see a big difference between the guy doing 5 reps and under on compounds vs the high rep low weight higher volume guy.  One will gain more strength and the other will gain more muscle size.  Whichever one has the better diet and does more cardio will be leaner.  

John Haack follows a much different lifting routine than Nick Walker.  One is much stronger even though he is much smaller and the other is much bigger and cannot total over 2200 pounds in power lifting.  They are both advanced lifters that need to do things correctly to see results at the highest level of their particular field.  

Personally, I've had to really cut down, and alter my routine, as I've got a newborn, and she's not regularly sleeping through the night yet.

Prior I was doing 3x/week full body, altering between 5 rep sets, and 10 rep sets.
bench - 260lbs x5, and 225lbs x10
squat - 385lbs x5, and 315lbs x12
deadlift - 405lbs x5, and 335lbs x10

Now I'm doing 3 sets a day, 6 days a week, only 10 rep sets (usually only get 10 reps first set, next 2 are amraps). This is what I can find time, and more importantly recover from due to inconsistent sleep. I took a whole month off before starting, and was near sleepless some nights (lost 8 lbs bw during this time). But after a month of this, I'm currently lifting
bench - 230lbs x10
squat - 320lbs x10
deadlift - 345lbs x10

I've been lifting before work. Just 3x5-8 on two exercises. If I need to back off for the day I do.

It's full speed concrete season, so I have to just do what I can.

It's labeled in the video but I have to point it out to anyone not into weightlifting.

That dude power cleaning 200kg at about 3:00 is Karlos Nasar.

He weighs 89kg (195lbs)

He is 18 years old........

And he clean & jerked a new world record about a week ago, 221kg and set a new total WR along with it.

After being a blue collar worker all my life I gave it up and took an office job for way more money.  Now working out with high volume 6 days a week and seeing great results.  Heavy triples and even singles on compounds plus low weight high rep days even lots of low weight isolations.  

Recovery hasn’t been a problem lots of steak and eggs with 7 hours of quality sleep every night.