This is a large paradigm shift
for those writing hypertrophy
programs
THE QUICK READ
• Beliefs regarding the best training
methods to maximally increase
strength have not significantly changed
since the 1980’s – but the same is not
true of muscle hypertrophy
• Modern science examining the training
variables for hypertrophy have caused
the profession to modify entrenched
views
• With regards reps, some researchers
have concluded that ‘performing
resistance exercise to task failure,
regardless of load lifted or repetition
duration, necessitates the activation of
type II muscle fibres’
• With regards volume, once a muscle
has failed, there does not appear to be
a great value in persisting with more
sets from the perspective of
hypertrophy
• Studies in the early 2000’s found no
relationship between the hormones
released in response to resistance
training and muscle protein synthesis
or muscle hypertrophy.
34 | NETWORK SUMMER 2019
stated that the “emphasis [should be] on the 6-12 RM zone using
1- to 2-min rest periods between sets at a moderate velocity. Higher
volume, multiple-set programs are recommended for maximising
hypertrophy.”
Virtually all textbooks state the same: 6-12 repetitions and high
volumes are required for the development of muscular hypertrophy.
However, unlike the training protocols for maximal strength – which
have stood the test of time – modern science examining the training
variables for hypertrophy have caused the profession to modify
deeply held and entrenched views of some of these aspects.
Repetition range
The opinion has long been held that the loading scheme for
hypertrophy should cause volitional fatigue between 6-12
repetitions. Going higher than this, such as to 15, 20 or 30 reps,
will cause improvements in muscular endurance, but is insufficient
‘load stimulus’ to create muscle mass. Indeed, I remember the late
renowned strength coach Charles Poliquin making the ‘fart’ noise as
he handed me back a program I had written for his examination in the
early 2000’s. I had used a 15-20 rep range. He said I ‘failed’.
However, several research groups around the world have re-
examined the accuracy of this belief and have convincingly and
consistently shown that the heavier loads traditionally recommended
for muscle mass may not be ‘the only way’. For example, studies
led by both Brad Schoenfeld in the US and Professor Stuart Phillips
in Canada have demonstrated that the load, or repetition range,
for hypertrophy does not occur in the precise zone that has been
historically suggested. Phillips and his team have recently stated
‘muscular hypertrophy is similar between lower-load (~30-50 %1RM)
and higher-load (>70 %1RM) resistance training exercises, when
loads are lifted to the point of volitional fatigue, thus, load does not
mediate resistance training-induced muscular hypertrophy.” 3 This is
a large paradigm shift for those writing hypertrophy programs. From a
practical perspective, modern research has shown that the rep range
can be much wider than has historically been recommended, which
can be employed in a workout or as part of a periodised program
over many months, exploring different rep ranges and methods.
Much of this change in thinking can be traced back to the thought
process of Stuart Phillips several years ago. Based on the Size
Principle of muscle fibre recruitment, Phillips hypothesised that the
point of muscle failure would cause high-threshold motor units (type
II fibres) to be activated, regardless of repetition range. Over fifty
years ago, Henneman 4 identified the orderly recruitment of muscle
fibres, now called the Size Principle. He showed that at the point of
volitional fatigue, all available muscle fibres will have been recruited,
and by extension, whether that happens at a load causing failure