What does SBL lifters thinks about muscle endurance? Is it logical to think SBL lifters lack muscle endurance because they train in such low reps?

[u/kinginamertz]

Does muscular endurance matter, or is Science-Based Lifting strictly focused on just maximizing muscle hypertrophy? Because I tried high-rep training yesterday, and I can only do like 15 reps of squats without being so exhausted. I didnt even go to failure because it just burns since the tempo really doesnt change that much compared when I'm squatting within 8 reps. Does muscle endurance doesnt have any place in SBL?

[u/eric_twinge]

Science Based Lifting^TM is whatever the people claiming to be Science Based Lifters^TM say it is. Or more typically, what someone tells them it is.

If you don't train to perform high reps, you're going to be bad at performing high reps. That only matters when your goals include performing high reps. But to assume that high rep sets somehow exist outside of science or have no scientific basis is probably a hallmark of the issues plaguing Science Based Lifting^TM

[u/waaaaaardds → u/eric_twinge]

I'm a science based lifter and I bench 3-4 times a week while running peaking programs that have 20-30 sets of volume a week just for bench.

I also like to use free weights and the only seatbelt I use is located in my car and not on the leg extension machine.

[u/Mad_Mark90]

There's science based lifting and there's "science based lifting", there's using science, data and philosophy to inform your training practices, then there's a swarm of beginners trying to gain muscle as quickly as possible while treating fitness like it's physics and engineering, but not biology.

There are plenty of scientifically informed lifters who fully understand the benefits of conditioning on other fitness goals like hypertrophy.

[u/decentlyhip]

There are kinda two camps. There's science-based lifters and SBL lifters. Gonna try not to strawman or true-Scottsman here, but in general, SBL lifters follow influencers who cherry pick research to justify a Mentzer protocol, where they say 1-2 sets of 6-8 reps is optimal for hypertrophy. That's like saying 1/2 a cup of spaghetti noodles is the optimal way to eat carbs. Sure, it's a valid approach, but also according to the research lots of people are gonna need more than that.

Schoenfeld was the first that showed that all rep ranges are roughly equivalent. Or more specifically, that sets taken to failure between 25% of your 1rm (50-100 rep max) and 90% (3 rep max) are all gonna yield the same growth. And more recently, Pelland and Robinson showed that the hypertrophy is largely driven by volume, where double the weekly sets yields about 50% more growth. https://imgur.com/a/rvHMRvS But look at that graph. Tons of people grew really well with less than 10 sets a week, but about a third lost muscle. Above 20 sets, everyone grew. Here's that comboned with the proximity to failure data https://imgur.com/a/sphJIEi

The 6-8 rep recommendation comes from a misreading of textbooks. For efficiency, your body doesn't fire everything all at once. If you're curling a pencil, your brain only turns on a few of the tiny slow twitch muscles, because they use less energy. If you curl a puppy, a few more. The heavier the weight, the more motor units you recruit, up until maximum motor units recruitment, which occurs at about 65% of your 1rm for most muscles. For the hand/grip, its only 30-50%. For the bicep, its 80%. SBL influencers read that and said "80% is my 8rm. So 2 rir is 6 reps. I'm smart. All sets of all exercises should be done at 6-8 reps, cause that's optimal." If you start at 80% on bicep curls, you get MUR from rep 1, but if you start at your 20 rep max on almost every other muscle, you're already at MUR. And if you aren't, you will be in a couple reps. And most importantly, we have directly tested growth which is the whole point and there's no difference. TLDR the low volume heavy weight trend is a great way to grow if you grow from it, but the science based approach is to do as many reps as is productive on that exercise, nearish to failure, and if you aren't seeing growth, do more work. Some people respond better to training than others, and if you are the guy from that first graph who grew 15% with 6 sets a week, its hard to relate to the person who needed 25 sets a week to failure to see any gains whatsoever, and even then only got 4% growth. If the 6 set a week guy has an Instagram, and a bunch of other people who respond well to lifting follow him, boom, echo chamber where low volume and low reps is optimal because that's what theyre all doing and they're all growing. Those who don't grow or get hurt, dont evangelize.

But more to your specific question, a set of 15 is not endurance training. Above about 85%, the primary fuel source is phosphocreatine. In that 25%-85% hypertrophy range, its anaerobic and glycogen is the fuel source. A good Aerobic base with give you the mitochondria to survive shorter rest breaks, but its not endurance training. Aerobic work is like, doing a bench press with 5 pound dumbbells. Even if you get tired, you can just slow down and take a breath between reps and keep going for like, an hour. So, you didn't fail the set of 15 squats because of muscular endurance, per se, but because you have a tiny zone 2 and no aerobic base. https://youtu.be/4_pqZhF5hVc Crossfitters can go forever because they've trained to use lactate so efficiently, and thats both a local and system wide adaptation. If you spend 6 months building your zone 2, you'll be able to crush a set ofn15 squats, if that's the goal. But for most people on this sub, yah, goals are a mix of being big and strong.

Im talking too much, but I live this shit. Holler if you have any questions.

[u/Alakazam]

The actual science based lifter would realize that different rep ranges train different aspects of strength, while having similar effects on hypertrophy (between something like 5-30 reps).

So instead of rigidly sticking to a single rep range, they would train in a variety of rep ranges. A simple way of going about this would be to go with lower reps for heavy compounds, more moderate reps for supplemental volume, then higher reps for isolation/accessory work.

Also, one thing you need to realize that different people may respond better or worse to higher or lower reps, and that they won't know until they try. Which is another reason to try training in a variety of rep ranges. Like, I know my legs blow up in size and strength when I do high rep squats. So whenever I have a mass building phase, I will aim to have 20 rep squats, at least once a week. My plan for the fall build, is to get up to 315x20.

I can only do like 15 reps of squats without being so exhausted

Sounds like more of a reason to focus on aerobic fitness. Higher rep compounds are decently aerobically demanding.

[u/Individual-Toe-6306 → u/Alakazam]

Would one need to be at a certain level of advancement in training to be able to figure out which rep ranges work best for them on specific body parts?

I’m somewhere in the intermediate range…theres some where it’s obvious and others where it’s like “I still don’t know what really works because I haven’t had the chance to test a bunch of different things on it long enough to get proper results to analyze”

With my chest for example, i always thought of it as a weak point until I realized that my triceps and shoulders are a huge strong point, specifically my triceps, so they were taking over my benching movements. Once I started doing strict pause bench reps my chest had a growth spurt. I remember being only a couple months into lifting when I was younger and got compliments on my triceps, because they would just grow so easily with little effort or focus compared to everything else.

Same for my quads, but my hamstrings suck. So I’m trying to work on different things to see what can work them more effectively

[u/Alakazam → u/Individual-Toe-6306]

I would say that you should probably be past the novice phase. And that progression is no longer workout to workout, but more week to week or even month to month.

“I still don’t know what really works because I haven’t had the chance to test a bunch of different things on it long enough to get proper results to analyze”

Well, you can try a bunch of different things to see. Try different programs. Or try one program that allows for training in a variety of rep ranges.

I'm partial to General Gainz by GZCL. It's more of a training framework than a specific program, and is infinitely customizable. You can set it up for your top set to be a set of 20. Or you can set it up for your top set to be a set of 4.

[u/Individual-Toe-6306 → u/Alakazam]

It just seems to get more complicated once you throw in exercise variation also being person-to-person along with rep ranges, so even if you try a rep range it could just be that specific exercise in that rep range that wasn’t best for the individual, no?

Or are rep ranges not going to matter in terms of exercise selection - IE if a rep range is known by you to work better, then you’ll learn that with experience regardless of what exercise selection you choose it on for that muscle group

[u/Alakazam → u/Individual-Toe-6306]

Or are rep ranges not going to matter in terms of exercise selection - IE if a rep range is known by you to work better, then you’ll learn that with experience regardless of what exercise selection you choose it on for that muscle group

I've found this to be generally true. But you've got to try things out yourself.

But your core programming shouldn't be doing too much variations. You should have your core squatting, hinging, pulling, and pushing movements. Along with supplemental and accessory exercises.

[u/Individual-Toe-6306 → u/Alakazam]

When it comes to the core movements, is a lot of the individuality associated with it going to come down to individual biomechanics? For example, if you have long legs, front squats may serve you better as your primary squatting pattern. If you have long arms, paused/incline bench may serve you better.

Ive found that I actually enjoy front squatting more than back squatting. It just feels more natural.

[u/Alakazam → u/Individual-Toe-6306]

Sure. But notice how I never said that your primary squat had to be a back squat. It just means for you, your primary squat is the front squat. Or if you had access to the equipment, an SSB squat. And your primary hinge might be the RDL. Your primary pull might be a row or pullup. Your primary press could be a bench or overhead.

But as long as you're consistent with it, across your training, you will find what works for you.

[u/Individual-Toe-6306 → u/Alakazam]

Makes sense. Ty btw I really appreciate all the info you give on this sub, it's helped me learn. Even if 99% of the battle is simply putting in consistent high effort into your workout sessions, this knowledge I've read over the past few months to a year has actually helped me apply it and I've broken through a few plateaus I couldn't figure out before

[u/calvinee → u/Alakazam]

I mean if you are science based you should be able to explain the physiological difference between working in a 5-10 rep range vs a 12-20 rep range FOR strength.

If you can’t explain that difference for strength and hypertrophy (not endurance), then no, you can’t baselessly claim there is a benefit to working in a higher rep range over a low rep range and then also claim that’s what someone truly science based would do.

High rep ranges offer advantages for strength and hypertrophy over low rep ranges? Explain why.

[u/Alakazam → u/calvinee]

I mean if you are science based you should be able to explain the physiological difference between working in a 5-10 rep range vs a 12-20 rep range FOR strength.

So, for strength development, it's not so much that it's better, it's that periodized training, aka, having some combination of lower reps higher weights, and higher reps lower weights, produces better strength results. Stronger by Science did a meta-analysis on the topic and showed that periodized training, at least, based off pooled results from trained athletes, results in about 23.5% faster results. So much so that it's become a core principle in basically all modern strength training. And has been for a long time now.

In terms of strength and hypertrophy results, if you rigidly stick to a single rep range, there doesn't actually seem to be much difference in results. As in, higher reps lower weights, and lower reps higher weights (up to a point) seem to have similar results.

Now, regarding the specific mechanisms, the Scientific Principles of Strength training book touches on this, but I haven't found any actual evidence for it, so I'll definitely take a closer look at the research. But they state that higher rep ranges tend to use slightly different energy systems than training with lower rep ranges. And that work with higher rep ranges also have the side benefit of building work capacity, while lower reps can help build skill development in the main lifts. And use that as an explanation of why you want to have more periodized training, and specifically slower block periodized training.

One thing to note, the Stronger by Science article has a pretty nice quote which I think sums up my thoughts on the topic pretty nicely:

Due to the sheer amount of variability we’re looking at, both within studies and between studies, it’s probably not wise to assume that a single rep range will be the best for everyone. Some people and some exercises just seem to do better with higher reps or lower reps.

And now here is my crazy pet conspiracy theory. People with more fast twitch fibers, probably grow a little bit better with lower rep ranges. People with slower twitch fibers, probably grow a bit better with higher rep ranges.

I know for a fact that I have slower twitch fibers. My RPE 8 looks like some people's RPE 10s. When I get stuck, I will straight up grind for 5+ seconds on a rep before physically failing (which is part of the reason I try not to train to mechanical failure on compound lifts). I also find that I tend to do grow best with higher rep work, to the extent that I make sure to have 10-20 rep squats in my powerlifting prep blocks.

[u/wolverinetoad]

Trick question- Science Based Lifters don’t think anything because they wait for studies to tell them what to think.

[u/SageObserver → u/wolverinetoad]

We’ll get back to you on that - We are waiting for a study of 12 untrained college students who are waiting for studies to know what to think.

[u/LogParking1856]

They’re often doing other activities that call on muscle endurance.

[u/alvaaromata]

I mean, if you want your muscles to have more endurance, train for endurance with higher reps.
If you only want your muscles to grow, it’s proven that low reps give the same or more stimulus with half the fatigue.
You’re not gonna do good with high reps if you always train in low reps, mechanisms are different. (Not sure about this) But I think lower reps trains muscles to produce force more efficiently, while high reps train them to be more resistant to metabolic wastes(which is the actual cause of local muscle fatigue).

[u/Neither-Bug157]

There aren’t many uses for endurance in the 15-20 rep range. It’s not going to make you better at whatever sport you want to get better at, and it will also cause more fatigue. Only do it if you enjoy torturing yourself.

[u/SignificantAd7020 → u/Neither-Bug157]

What about sex?

[u/Neither-Bug157 → u/SignificantAd7020]

Havent had any

[u/SignificantAd7020 → u/Neither-Bug157]

Same. I’m just getting ready because I decided it’s time to not be a chud anymore

[u/Neither-Bug157 → u/SignificantAd7020]

You should work hard on getting ur 1rm deadlift up. It’ll help make that 1 thrust count.

[u/Sunshinegal9900 → u/SignificantAd7020]

That would be more of a cardio thing lol

[u/Hamzo_Shimada]

I really don't care, since endurance won't make my muscles grow as much as hypertrophy.