- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,378
- Reaction score
- 41
Now, before jumping in, I will note that the assumptions about lower reps/higher weights building more strength and higher rep/lower weights building more strength endurance have largely been validated. You can still gain strength with light weights/high reps and moderate weight/moderate reps, but strength gains are generally better with heavy, low-rep training.
That quote is about high reps building strength endurance, not hypertrophy!
If you read the article a bit more carefully, you will see that the actual research he presents overall doesn't show a clear picture. Some studies show more hypertrophy from low reps, some from high reps. In many cases the difference is not significant. Overall the literature doesn't seem to come down on one side of the other. This is what he actually says:
1. When looking at the whole body of scientific literature, there’s simply not a very big difference in muscle growth when comparing different rep ranges.
and
Is there a hypertrophy range scientifically?
Maybe, but the overall picture is murky, and any differences would be pretty small.
Later on he kinds of backs off from it, and says that the high reps probably are a bit better for hypertrophy, but not based on the actual scientific standard of evidence.
By the way, articles on BB.com don't really count as sources. Even if they have evidence/citations, with scientific research you have to evaluate the whole literature on a topic, and not just individual papers. As this article shows, in any one literature you can get divergent results so it is easy to support the view you want by just citing papers selectively.
Last edited: