Brad Schoenfeld Research - Low Vs Moderate Reps For Hypertrophy & Strength

J

Joe Jeffery

Top Contributor
This is one of the only pieces of research I have seen comparing low to moderate rep ranges for both hypertrophy and strength.

The study was conducted on two groups of trained men performing a matched number of sets with different rep amounts over 7 exercises:
1. 3 sets of 2-4 reps
2. 3 sets of 8-12 reps

The outcomes showed the lower rep group gaining more strength, and the moderate rep group gaining more muscle.

This shows us that heavy load/low rep training is more suited to strength training whereas moderate load/moderate rep training is more suited to hypertrophy training when sets and frequency are matched.

Therefore, there is a drop off point for hypertrophy at lower reps, and rep ranges are important when considering maximising hypertrophy. It is not just a case of equating overall volume!

It would be interesting to see a comparison of hypertrophy response in a moderate (8-12) rep range with a high (20-30) rep range when sets/intensity/frequency is matched. If anybody has any info, please let me know!

Another awesome piece of research from Dr Brad Schoenfeld!

http://www.jssm.org/abstresearcha.php?id=jssm-15-715.xml
 
Joe Jeffery said:
This is one of the only pieces of research I have seen comparing low to moderate rep ranges for both hypertrophy and strength.

The study was conducted on two groups of trained men performing a matched number of sets with different rep amounts over 7 exercises:
1. 3 sets of 2-4 reps
2. 3 sets of 8-12 reps

The outcomes showed the lower rep group gaining more strength, and the moderate rep group gaining more muscle.

This shows us that heavy load/low rep training is more suited to strength training whereas moderate load/moderate rep training is more suited to hypertrophy training when sets and frequency are matched.

Therefore, there is a drop off point for hypertrophy at lower reps, and rep ranges are important when considering maximising hypertrophy. It is not just a case of equating overall volume!

It would be interesting to see a comparison of hypertrophy response in a moderate (8-12) rep range with a high (20-30) rep range when sets/intensity/frequency is matched. If anybody has any info, please let me know!

Another awesome piece of research from Dr Brad Schoenfeld!

http://www.jssm.org/abstresearcha.php?id=jssm-15-715.xml
Click to expand...

Without going into the study

How do you no the load is moderate ??

We're the reps taken to failure ?

How was new muscle measured ??

This study confirms what has been known generally for years n years n years.
 
Hilly said:
Without going into the study

How do you no the load is moderate ??

We're the reps taken to failure ?

How was new muscle measured ??

This study confirms what has been known generally for years n years n years.
Click to expand...

The load is moderate in the higher rep group as nobody can use what is considered an individually heavy load for the given rep range at an RPE 8-9. The names moderate and heavy were terms in reference to their control group, to quote the study 'strength-type RT routine (HEAVY) that trained in a loading range of 2-4 repetitions per set (n = 10) or a hypertrophy-type RT routine (MODERATE)'.

I do not know the RPE of the movements between groups.

New muscle was tested via measuring 'muscle thickness of the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, and lateral thigh'.

Yep, I agree it isn't new information by any means and is what most assumed was the fact anyway. However, I have seen claims that when volume is matched across a timed bases then hypertrophy is the same. This shows this not to be the case.
 
Joe Jeffery said:
This is one of the only pieces of research I have seen comparing low to moderate rep ranges for both hypertrophy and strength.

The study was conducted on two groups of trained men performing a matched number of sets with different rep amounts over 7 exercises:
1. 3 sets of 2-4 reps
2. 3 sets of 8-12 reps

The outcomes showed the lower rep group gaining more strength, and the moderate rep group gaining more muscle.

This shows us that heavy load/low rep training is more suited to strength training whereas moderate load/moderate rep training is more suited to hypertrophy training when sets and frequency are matched.

Therefore, there is a drop off point for hypertrophy at lower reps, and rep ranges are important when considering maximising hypertrophy. It is not just a case of equating overall volume!

It would be interesting to see a comparison of hypertrophy response in a moderate (8-12) rep range with a high (20-30) rep range when sets/intensity/frequency is matched. If anybody has any info, please let me know!

Another awesome piece of research from Dr Brad Schoenfeld!

http://www.jssm.org/abstresearcha.php?id=jssm-15-715.xml
Click to expand...

Ok I read the study. Wasted time as I new lol

I was going to pull out points but it's being pedantic.


Congratulations Dr schoenfield you confirmed what countless others have Befire you [emoji122][emoji122]
 
Joe Jeffery said:
However, I have seen claims that when volume is matched across a timed bases then hypertrophy is the same. This shows this not to be the case.
Click to expand...

Volume across the study wasn't the same though. So it can't confirm nor disprove anything with regards to that statement.

As hilly says, it pretty much proves what everyone has known all along.

However, if this is in response to the DC thread then it actually proves the hypothesis. DC is by its definition working on increasing strength within a given rep range which is generally 15-50. What is doesn't do is prove that adding any additional volume would lead to superior gains.
 
Not sure why but I can't submit the post I've made about this. Probably I can't post links?

Well, there's a meta analysis of 15 studies made by the guy and James Krieger about this subject. It's on his website, lookgreatnaked.

The evidence is overwhelming.
 
Hilly said:
Without going into the study

How do you no the load is moderate ??

We're the reps taken to failure ?

How was new muscle measured ??

This study confirms what has been known generally for years n years n years.
Click to expand...
This is why I cba to read it lol
 
Hilly said:
Ok I read the study. Wasted time as I new lol

I was going to pull out points but it's being pedantic.


Congratulations Dr schoenfield you confirmed what countless others have Befire you [emoji122][emoji122]
Click to expand...
Lol again this is why I haven't read any of it...
1st couple of lines of the 1st post then just scrolled down to see what you said lol
I cba to read the post, the study... I'll just read your replies and save time lol
 
Jim said:
Lol again this is why I haven't read any of it...
1st couple of lines of the 1st post then just scrolled down to see what you said lol
I cba to read the post, the study... I'll just read your replies and save time lol
Click to expand...

Wish I hadn't been sucked in to read it but alas I'm off sick today so
 
old-news-churchill2.png
 
Joe Jeffery said:
This is one of the only pieces of research I have seen comparing low to moderate rep ranges for both hypertrophy and strength.

The study was conducted on two groups of trained men performing a matched number of sets with different rep amounts over 7 exercises:
1. 3 sets of 2-4 reps
2. 3 sets of 8-12 reps

The outcomes showed the lower rep group gaining more strength, and the moderate rep group gaining more muscle.

This shows us that heavy load/low rep training is more suited to strength training whereas moderate load/moderate rep training is more suited to hypertrophy training when sets and frequency are matched.

Therefore, there is a drop off point for hypertrophy at lower reps, and rep ranges are important when considering maximising hypertrophy. It is not just a case of equating overall volume!

It would be interesting to see a comparison of hypertrophy response in a moderate (8-12) rep range with a high (20-30) rep range when sets/intensity/frequency is matched. If anybody has any info, please let me know!

Another awesome piece of research from Dr Brad Schoenfeld!

http://www.jssm.org/abstresearcha.php?id=jssm-15-715.xml
Click to expand...


another "awesome" piece that is just whats known already

you throw awesome around a lot ..... in an effort to seem super knowledgable , like these postings ......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top