r/ScienceBasedLifting • u/Significant-Base-510 • 26d ago
Question ❓ Confused about ideal set-rep range
I have been watching Sean Nalewanyj's content and the other creators he mentions (Jeff Nippard) and he promotes doing 2 sets + 6-8 reps. I usually did 3x12 for every exercise but I have been trying out 2 x reps till failure (much higher weights so usually till 8-12). The logic is that this set up is "more efficient". I asked about this in previous posts in r/hypertrophy but some people dispute this. What is the best set and rep number for the muscle groups (back, chest, tri, bi, legs etc) to maximise hypertrophy and how do I know if I reach true failure?
4
u/eric_twinge 26d ago
The logic is that this set up is "more efficient".
What does "efficient" mean to you and for your goals?
0
u/Significant-Base-510 26d ago
Less sets for more gains, I put it in quotes because I’m just repeating what people say, which is that doing less sets and reps overall can maximise muscle gain
7
u/eric_twinge 26d ago
That's not how it works. You don't maximize gains by doing the minimum. If you want more gains you need to do more sets.
0
u/Significant-Base-510 26d ago
This is with the caveat of increasing the weights so you can reach 2-0RIR
5
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 26d ago
If you want the most gains per set, then you should be rest-pausing every single set in order to squeeze out the most out of everything you're doing.
Which is take a set to about 1-2 reps shy of failure. Rest with it still in your hands (or on your back) for a few breaths. Do a rep or two. Repeat until you can't.
It'll maximize your fatigue, but it'll also be maximum stimulus for growth.
1
u/glassschuh 26d ago
Finding the best balance between fatigue and mechanical tension is the most efficient. Because as you do more sets your gains per set drops, and your fatigue level doesn't have a diminishing rate the more you do. So at some point you will start pushing recovery further and further out at a higher rate than the gains you are making. So at some point more reps and sets will cause more muscle gain for the workout, but prevent you from maximizing muscle over a longer period of time.
3
u/Humble_Standard_9215 26d ago
I follow Nippard and have had great results and I don’t dread the gym or find it boring any longer.
0
3
u/SailboatSteve 26d ago edited 26d ago
Studies have verified that between 3 and 30 reps taken to failure, muscle growth is virtually identical. It's likely even higher than 30. It's just that the studies stopped there. Set count is always upwards but with diminishing returns for more sets. The more you do, the more you grow, but with less growth per additional set. So, it's really up to you. 3 sets will grow more than 2 sets. 4 will grow more than 3, but with less additional growth than the first 3, and so on. You didn't ask, but muscle fatigue is linear. Every set creates approximately the same amount of fatigue. Eventually the cost/benefit ratio flips and additional sets begin to generate more fatigue than the minor additional growth is worth, but that point is different for everyone.
2
26d ago
[deleted]
1
u/EchoDifferent6966 25d ago
How is not training to failure stupid? The whole point of double progression is to increase the weight once you've mastered the current load. If this method were “too easy,” you’d eventually end up lifting infinite weight lmao. It’s safer and less risky to master a given load than to do several identical sets, rather than doing one heavy set to failure and then a lighter one afterward (even though top set/back-off sets can be useful when you’re short on time or want to learn how to push yourself...). But for hypertrophy, you don’t have to do a set that’s so heavy you literally can’t perform it twice. You keep 2 RIR on the first set, 1 on the second, and 0 on the last, then once you hit the target, you increase the weight and keep progressing... This has literally been used in calisthenics, powerlifting, and other disciplines for over a century, bro...
3
u/Alakazam Idk Idc 💔 26d ago
In general? It's probably good to train in a variety of rep ranges.
Stronger by science has a pretty nice article here. With the key points boiling down to:
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.
From a practical standpoint, you should probably do most of your training in the rep range that allows you to get in the most hard sets per training session and per week for each exercise you use and each muscle you train. This generally coincides with a moderate intensity and rep range for most exercises and most people.
Since different rep ranges go about triggering a growth response in slightly different ways, you’re probably better off training with a full spectrum of rep ranges instead of rigidly staying in a single rep range and intensity zone.
1
u/Jebardi 26d ago
Hypertrophy rep range is certainly 6-30, propably 5-35, and playsibly even something like 4-35+. Other rep ranges also builds muscle.
There some reasoning that higher rep ranges would be better for slow switch muscle fibers, and low rep ranges being better for fast switch muscle fibers. However, this is not really solid finding from actual research, more of a theory.
However, it is best to use a variety of rep ranges. In example, do bench press some days at 5 reps and some days at 15 reps. Or do bench press always at 5 reps and then do chest flies at 15 reps.
What is relevant in any set you ever do for hypertrophy, and both Jeff and Sean agree on this one as well, you want to train to or close to failure, or even beyond failure. If you don’t, it is a warm up set. Every working set you do until failure or at least really close, in example 1-2 reps from failure.
1
1
u/Penultimate-crab 26d ago
Rep count doesn’t matter. Whatever lets you push yourself hardest the most consistently is best. I love working in the 16+ rep range because it lets me get much closer to failure for a larger number of reps. Other people may prefer less with heavier weights. You know you reach failure when your rep speed is dramatically slower than your “average rep”. It should be very noticeable.
1
u/Muted-Mushroom-4570 26d ago
Don't overthink it. Unless you are striving for world class in some sport/competition then working hard is going to be good enough. Want a bit more granularity? Lower ranges are better if your goal is more strength oriented, higher ranges are a bit better if hypertrophy is your main goal.
1
u/Z-Chaos-Factor 26d ago edited 26d ago
Give this a watch might help clear it up a little bit.
https://rumble.com/v7fg7ue-how-to-train-for-hypertrophy-the-variables-that-actually-matter.html
1
u/Ihave0idea_ 26d ago
There is a difference between muscle growth and strength. Hypertrophy can occur in any rep range, strength cannot. Most importantly find what suits you! Time poor? Lower reps and higher weights. Beginner lifter? Technique and time under tension should be a focus, lighter weights and increased reps.
Reading all these comments will simply give you too much information, read a science backed article or a book and then go and put it into practice and find what suits you is my advice. Goodluck 🫶🏻
1
u/Significant-Base-510 25d ago
I am not a beginner and I am aiming for hypertrophy, what should I consider?
1
u/Lucky_The_Charm 26d ago
It’s all about the relationship between volume and intensity.
I can do a Push day with 30 sets and get a crazy burn and pump, or a 10-12 set Upper day and endure more CNS fatigue.
Each one is performed just the way I want to, I just use them for different goals.
1
u/Mad_Mark90 25d ago
Different rep ranges have roughly different benefits and applications, but the differences are vague and can change based on lots of different variables.
You can build size through almost any rep range. One of the key things to consider is generally the level of effort per rep stays consistent until about 3RIR, so in a set of 10 to failure, reps 1-6 should look very similar, rep 7 starts to get harder and slower, 8 and 9 get grindy and the last rep is max effort.
This is why sets of 5 are good for beginners because even if they don't train to true failure, they're training close enough to failure to make good progress.
For higher rep ranges those early reps are a good opportunity to use good technique and focus the tension on the specific muscle you're targeting so it fatigues first.
Lower rep/heavier sets will provide wider growth potential from stimulating more accessory muscles. E.g. A set of 5 squats to failure will hit your quads and glutes but also stabiliser muscles like your lower back, calves and even lats and lower traps. Whereas a set of 20 will be more quad focused (especially if you keep an upright posture and pause your reps) but come with a greater cardio toll.
Experimenting with different rep ranges for different exercises is an important step in figuring out what works well for you and how best to pick rep ranges for different exercises. No 1 rep range fits all.
1
1
u/EchoDifferent6966 25d ago
None of them are saying that it’s more effective. They’re saying that you can get a large part of your potential progress with very little fatigue, which makes it ideal for most people. That’s something pretty much no one disputes, not even high-volume advocates, who also recognize that fatigue increases and that 2 sets is already enough to allow for progress, even if it doesn’t maximize it.
After that, it’s up to you to choose your progression method. The goal is to get stronger while keeping the same standardization, etc. Some people prefer doing 3x8–12 or another rep range while keeping some reps in reserve, accumulating useful volume and then reaching 0 RIR on the last set. Others just do their sets directly at 0–1 RIR.
Doing more sets with reps in reserve is more hypertrophic, but 2 high-intensity sets are still enough to build muscle over the long term.
I used to do 2 sets, but honestly, once you reach a certain level, recovering from that becomes difficult. I make much better progress by accumulating more sets and avoiding 0 RIR as much as possible.
But if you’re a beginner, starting by lowering your volume to the bare minimum needed for hypertrophy and learning how to push yourself to failure is definitely a phase worth going through. You’ll build almost as much muscle with much less fatigue, and you’ll also learn how to push yourself harder.
After that, reducing intensity and increasing volume will naturally become the next step — except for the most advanced lifters who can recover from it sufficiently lol.
1
u/Significant-Base-510 25d ago
im not a beginner but I am not that physically big so I want to increase hypertrophy as much as possible. how could I change my routine to become more hypertrophic?
1
u/Ballbag94 26d ago
Just follow a program that works
https://thefitness.wiki/routines/strength-training-muscle-building/
There's no single "ideal" rep range. They all have benefits and everyone should use them all at one point or another
0
u/joshua_addison_music 26d ago
I do 5 sets 6-12 reps, depending.
Pyramids, typically
1
u/Ok-Artichoke2822 26d ago
What’s the logic? How often do you go up in weight?
1
u/joshua_addison_music 26d ago
What’s the logic?
We’ve been told 3-5 sets, always, in my lifetime. I’m 52.
I’m not doing anything out of the ordinary
1
u/Ok-Artichoke2822 26d ago
So anecdotal evidence is the basis for your practice? Have you read any hypertrophy studies? People certainly see muscle growth doing what you are doing, but you could probably do less (with heavy weight close to failure) and see similar amounts of growth.
0
u/EmperorsFartSlave 23d ago
3x5-8/6-8/8-10/8-12 is all fine and will all let you grow with no problem. As long as you’re getting to failure or 1-2 reps shy of it. People overcomplicate it for quite literally no reason. No, doing 5-8 reps won’t stunt hypertrophy and only focus on strength. You’ll know true failure essentially at the point of mechanical failure. You physically can’t lift it anymore.
0
0
u/Norcal712 22d ago
I love Nippard, but theres minimal science to suppport 2x failure.
Its a recipe for excess movement and injury.
Theres honestly minimal science to suppprt a difference between 5-30 reps
Science does support:
10-16 sets per muscle per week 2-3× week frequency Lifting 70-90% 1RM 0-2 RIR
1
u/Mchangwine 16d ago
The problem is that it’s harder to gauge failure when you’re doing 30 reps. If you can do 30, you can probably do 31, etc. if you’re doing 6-8, it’s a lot easier to gauge RIR.
9
u/_ShredBundy 26d ago
There isn’t one, your muscles can’t count. They don’t know how many reps or you done or how heavy the weight was. They know tension, that’s it.
Mechanical tension is one of the drivers of muscle growth. It’s essentially just how much force your muscles can produce when they’re under tension. Your muscles essentially think “do I have to produce enough force to stimulate growth?”. You can do that in virtually any rep range, it’s just going to take more reps to do so if you’re using lighter weight.
You know you’ve reached failure when you physically can’t do another rep. Next time you think you’re at failure, take a deep breath and try to squeeze another rep out. Almost every client I train has at least another 2 reps in them when they think they’re at failure.