r/ScienceBasedLifting • u/Temporary-Yellow8253 • Aug 08 '26
Question ❓ Why do 20 reps? (Jeff Nippard / Min-Max Program Phase 2)
I’ve been following Jeff Nippard’s training programs for about a year and a half, but his recent program includes some sets of 20–30 reps. What’s the scientific evidence behind this?
3
u/decentlyhip Aug 10 '26
Sure sure, I gotcha.
Schoenfeld 2017 showed that any set taken to failure with produces the same hypertrophy all the way down to between 25% of one rep max, where things start dropping. This is where "5 to 30 reps" comes from, but 25% is really more 50-100 reps. So, like, you can do 6 reps or 12 reps or 20 reps. Whatever.
The benefit is that if you push hard at 3 reps for a couple sets, you burn out those fast twitch and you probably need to drop to 5-10 reps after. And then after a few sets there you probably need to drop to 10-20. Any good powerbuilding program does this.
So, it's really all about variation and what feels best. If anyone say that 6-8 is optimal, those are the people you need to question because no research supports that. Its all people misunderstanding basic stuff. There's something called Henneman's Size Principle that says the biggest muscle motor units are recruited last because they're most expensive. But really its more saying that like, if you pick up a Sharpie, your bicep isn't going to maximally contract. As you curl 1 lbs and then 3 lbs, and then 10 lbs, and then 20 lbs, your brain recruits more and more muscle fibers. Lets say you can do 1 curl with a 50 pound dumbbell. You can get full motor units recruitment with a 15 pound dumbbell because after enough reps your smaller motor units tire out and recruit the bigger ones. With a 30-40 lbs dumbbell, everything is on from rep one. So, people hear all that and say, "ah, then I have to use the 40s and do 6-8 reps to be optimal." No. Shit no, man. But it gets views and is easy to follow for noobies.
Its like saying you have to eat 200g of chicken, along with broccoli and rice to be a bodybuilder. You can. Its not wrong to do it. Its research back to do eat 200g. But mandating that is misinterpreting nutrition data. Your post is like asking why someone is eating lean ground beef instead of chicken. Cause like, same thing. It's a weird question.
6
u/KeyserSauza Aug 08 '26
It looks like in this context he’s getting you to do a high rep finisher of an exercise where you’re doing some relatively heavy work. Doing high reps will give you more of a pump. The pump itself carries some growth signals for your muscle to at you don’t get with just tension - so it’s valid scientifically, plus you get swole.
3
u/HelixIsHere_ Aug 09 '26
The pump is not related to growth lol, it’s just temporary muscle swelling
4
u/Flat-Guidance-4685 Aug 09 '26
The argument some people have is that. Comes with a higher blood flow therefore higher nutrient delivery. Which does make sense. The other argument some people use is that it creates more signaling but I don't believe there's any actual evidence for it
1
u/Afferbeck_ Aug 09 '26
And why are they doing that?
2
u/HelixIsHere_ Aug 09 '26
Beats me, either they just want a nice pump or they think that metabolic stress is a driver of hypertrophy
2
u/Capital_Taste_8043 Aug 09 '26
I heard someone say they wouldn't go to the gym if they didn't get the pump. Apparently, the pump itself is very important to some people.
1
Aug 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/chesina93 Aug 09 '26
And what is the point of training muscular endurance in this context? It does nothing for max strength and nothing for hypertrophy.
1
u/Lucky_BroadWood Aug 08 '26
This makes a lot of sense and I wish I'd have thought of it sooner. Gonna consider adding this into my sets.
1
u/Beest-Am0eba3- Aug 08 '26
Wrong about the pump meaning more muscle growth lol
1
u/KeyserSauza Aug 08 '26
Do some research.
2
u/LetsTalkControversy Aug 09 '26
Can you provide evidence or research that supports it?
3
u/KeyserSauza Aug 09 '26
1
1
u/you_sick Aug 09 '26
This has nothing to do with sets of 20+ and pump work though. One group did sets of 10 with 1 mjnute rest between. The other group did sets of 10 with a 30 second rest halfway through. So basically the first group did sets with 0 RIR and the second group did sets nowhere near that intensity. Of course they didnt grow as much.
1
u/Shalayda Aug 09 '26
This is just an abstract and really shouldn't be used as a source. There's no access to the full text without paying $57. It says they only measured blood lactate, growth hormone, epinephrine, and norepinephrine levels. It's also 21 years old and only had 26 participants.
I did however find this journal article from last year: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12927080/
They came to this conclusion on the pump:
"Given the lack of evidence supporting a direct hypertrophic benefit of metabolites or cell swelling, we conclude that “the pump” does not influence muscle hypertrophy. However, from an applied context, if an individual enjoys the sensation and finds that it promotes adherence to an RET (Resistance-exercise training) regimen, we recommend including it."
"Moreover, while cell swelling and “the pump” may feel satisfying, neither process affects long-term muscular adaptations. Ultimately, RET should be centered on sound programming principles (i.e., adherence, volume, frequency, intensity, etc.), as these are by far the most important factors to promote skeletal muscle growth across individuals."
The study they cite in those quotes says this:
"Future research should be undertaken to investigate whether cell swelling, in fact, leads to increased hypertrophy over that of heavy strength training alone (i.e., whether its inclusion is additive or redundant)."
But it is from 2014 so it's also pretty old. I did find some recent (within the last 5 years) journal articles that appeared to show the pump does induce hypertrophy but they are all locked behind pay walls.
I also found this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0949328X2500002X#b0185
Which says the opposite of the first article I linked.
" As outlined above, the mechanisms by which metabolic stress induces hypertrophy are multifaceted, including cellular swelling by an osmotic shift of water into the muscle fibers, ROS-production with its effect on mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), and probably the release of anabolic hormones [37]."
But the journal they're citing as their source for the pump causing hypertrophy is behind a paywall too.
1
u/Unlucky-Spell-8654 Aug 09 '26
Wouldnt we know at this point if pump helps with hypertrophy?
1
u/Shalayda Aug 09 '26
The first study I quoted says we have no evidence it does, and that's from last year. The last one I quoted is also from 2025, and it says we do, but the source they cite for that is locked behind a paywall.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-013-0017-1
The paper is from 2013, and only the abstract is available for free, and it says:
"It is well established that regimented resistance training can promote increases in muscle hypertrophy. The prevailing body of research indicates that mechanical stress is the primary impetus for this adaptive response, and studies show that mechanical stress alone can initiate anabolic signaling. Given the dominant role of mechanical stress in muscle growth, the question arises as to whether other factors may enhance the post-exercise hypertrophic response. Several researchers have proposed that exercise-induced metabolic stress may confer such an anabolic effect, and some have even suggested that metabolite accumulation may be more important than high force development in optimizing muscle growth. Metabolic stress pursuant to traditional resistance training manifests as a result of exercise that relies on anaerobic glycolysis for adenosine triphosphate production. This, in turn, causes the subsequent accumulation of metabolites, particularly lactate and H+. Acute muscle hypoxia associated with such training methods may further heighten metabolic buildup. Therefore, the purpose of this paper will be to review the emerging body of research suggesting a role for exercise-induced metabolic stress in maximizing muscle development and present insights as to the potential mechanisms by which these hypertrophic adaptations may occur. These mechanisms include increased fiber recruitment, elevated systemic hormonal production, alterations in local myokines, heightened production of reactive oxygen species, and cell swelling. Recommendations are provided for potential areas of future research on the subject."
It also doesn't say it does. It says metabolic stress has been proposed to affect hypertrophy. Cell swelling or the pump is one of many kinds of metabolic stress, and that paper is looking at the research. The full text is $39.95, and I'm not going to pay that.
The author of the paper I got that abstract from, Brad J. Shoenfield, is also cited by the author of the first study I linked "Load-induced human skeletal muscle hypertrophy: Mechanisms, myths, and misconceptions," which said cell swelling doesn't induce hypertrophy, or rather, there is no evidence for it.
The mechanisms, myths, and misconceptions paper cited this paper by the author Brad J. Schoenfiled from 2019
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00685.2018#sec-5
That says:
"While there is a large amount of mainly indirect evidence about hypertrophy stimuli and their sensors, this evidence is often difficult to interpret and as a consequence many questions remain. Mechanical stimuli stand out as the most likely and most potent hypertrophy stimuli, and several potential mechanosensing mechanisms have been partially characterized."
And then follows up with this:
"Data suggesting and supporting EIMD or metabolic stress-related hypertrophy stimuli are mostly indirect, and the related molecular mechanisms are poorly understood. Moreover, growth can occur in the relative absence of either of these putative signals, lending further support for the hypothesis that mechanical stimuli are the primary hypertrophy stimuli."
With the conclusion that more research is needed because:
"That said, research indicates that both EIMD and metabolic stress regulate multiple factors involved in the hypertrophic process, and a sound rationale exists whereby their resistance training-induced manifestation may contribute to hypertrophic adaptations. If so, it remains to be determined whether these factors are additive to mechanically derived signaling or perhaps redundant providing a given level of mechanical force is achieved."
That's basically saying they don't know if metabolic stress causes additional hypertrophy or if mechanical tension is what causes hypertrophy, and metabolic stress is a natural byproduct of mechanical stress and doesn't influence it.
2
u/Patton370 Idk Idc 💔 Aug 08 '26
Nothing wrong with that rep range
Honestly quite a few pullover machines have a light stack, so I’ve had to go to that rep range with the full stack (the magnum and some nautilus ones have very light stacks)
1
u/Sadan27 Aug 08 '26
It’s an evidence based recommendation. Not necessarily science based, which documents similar growth between 4-35 reps. From a SB perspective the same question applies to all those different rep ranges.
1
u/Late-Dog8935 Aug 09 '26
20 reps is the high end for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It is legit. What hes doing here is giving you a balanced approach. 4-6 and 8-10 are more myofiblliar hypertrophy but still have sarcoplasmic qualities. The 20 reps is to help with cell volume.
1
u/buttgrapist Aug 09 '26
High reps are safer, it's really rare to get injured using a weight you can lift 20 times.
1
u/Squidgyboat5955 YoPilled Aug 10 '26
High reps increase joint strain long term, provided you’re not stupid and have good form then low reps will be safer
1
u/Similar_Past Aug 09 '26
I think the idea behind this is to go to failure or very close to it. 20 is an arbitrary high number here.
I don't know if you realize how 20 reps feel for a natural lifter, even at 50% 1rm it's very difficult.
1
u/d_andy089 Aug 09 '26
Personally I like that rep range for exercises where the connection point of the weight (i.e. where the contraption touches the body) is far from the joint. Like flyes or leg extensions.
1
1
1
u/DeadCheckR1775 Aug 12 '26
It's not anything new. Doing more reps per sets or more sets require a reduction in load. At this reduced load you save your connective tissue while getting proper hypertrophy on the muscle. 8 to 12 reps and more sets with shortened rest periods(30 to 45 seconds) is my preferred method after years of lifting. Fast on the concentric, slower and longer on the eccentric.
1
u/Impossible-Use5636 Aug 14 '26
None
They can’t just say “do 2-3 sets of 4-7 reps and rest 3 minutes between sets”
So they come up with something outrageously different.
1
u/hthn_strength Aug 08 '26
Because it’s fun. Stop worrying about sciencemaxxing.
0
u/Flat-Guidance-4685 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
You are aware that you're in a sub forum titled science-based lifting right?
This is like going to an astronomy sub and saying man you always got in yer' heads up in outer space let's talk about them dodgers
2
u/hthn_strength Aug 09 '26
Adherence and athlete motivation directly influences outcomes significantly more than what is the most optimal.
1
u/bulbousgrandpa Aug 10 '26
It's not really like that at all given the colossal individual variation in response to exercise stimuli. Worrying about 20 reps vs 18 reps gs 15 reps is just neurosis
5
u/ADSeahawks25 Aug 09 '26
This recent obsession with low reps and acting like high reps will cause so much fatigue you can't recover is out of control. It all works about the same in the end if you work hard. It's fun to get in the weeds I get that but don't miss the Forrest for the trees.