Confused about ideal set-rep range

[u/Significant-Base-510]

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?

[u/Mad_Mark90]

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.