Agree – something doesn’t seem right here. Just looking at an RPE chart, not only is the 90% group likely going to be at failure on the very first set, so too would the 80% and 70% groups. Perhaps these weren’t true maxes that were being used to calculate the percentages.
Exactly what I was thinking. I think even with super long rest periods in between sets I wouldn’t be able to hit 7 x 4 @ 90%…I would say, from experience, 5 x 3 is doable, but certainly not easy.
1 Like
I’ve done 3 reps for 10 sets using 85% of my rep max for long stretches using Watetbury method.
I don’t see any great problem with 4 reps for seven sets using 90%, but thats just me, I guess?
1 Like
I think variables like how strong you are, lifting experience, fiber distribution, neural efficiency, even sex, play roles in how many reps one can perform with a given percentage.
1 Like
3 reps at 85% would be a lot easier for me than 4 reps at 90%. 10 sets of 3 at 85% would still probably destroy me though!
I can only speak for myself, but I really liked it. Loading was enough to be legitimately challenging but not overly exhausting or injurious, and getting 30 reps via 10 sets/3 reps was great for volume. For some, that creates a real sweet spot between load and volume.
Of course the last couple reps of the last couple sets were pretty “intense” 
. Pretty sure I split my wisdom teeth squatting using that format.
3 Likes
Study: Uses one level of Volume for three training groups.
Results: No differences among groups.
Conclusion: Volume is the main driver of hypertrophy!
11 Likes
10 x 3 with 85% is much, much easier than 7 x 4 with 90%.
Obviously it varies, but 3 reps with 85% will be fairly easy for the vast majority of people, while 90% is often around their 3 rep max. Even if someone can do 4 reps with 90%, doing it 7 times seems very unlikely.
Yep, it seems the study says rep ranges don’t make a difference to hypertrophy if volume is equated for. That hypertrophy happened does not mean you can make the leap to say volume is the driver.
That all the training in this study is close to, at or beyond failure is probably something to focus on. I’m sure that 7x4 @ 50% would not get the outcome of 7x4 @ 90%.
And as noted most of the schemes are not sustainable, especially beyond one exercise, so that must be balanced.
3 Likes
Maybe for you? I dunno?
My bench or squat wasn’t that awesome, so that 5% didn’t represent any great leaps. I was only in the low 3’s on bench so that would be a difference of like 15-20 lbs.
I could see that making a bigger difference for stronger people.
I’ve just found out I’ve effectively conditioned myself so my mind goes blank whenever I start reading a study on this subject. I think I blacked out and experienced “lost time” of around 20secs once I started reading it.
It would be for everyone. I’m surprised this is being debated. It’s 5% more and a rep per set.
I’ve done 85% 10 x 3 it’s tough, but not unrealistic as triples with 85% leaves 2 or 3 reps in reserve. It doesn’t start getting tough until after the 5th set.
90% for 4 would be to the limit, and I would likely fail the 4th rep. If you can do 90% for 7 x 4, it’s likely that it’s not really 90% of your one rep max. There’s no chance they gott a whole group to do this twice a week for ten weeks.
2 Likes
Didn’t old Tom DeLorme already teach us how to get hypertrophy?
2 Likes
So am I! 
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. It appears we’re at an impasse.
Take care. 
Yeah, butbwas it optimised for a neurotype 5c?
1 Like
Chad Waterburry says the ‘same’ lot,lot a earlier with his !0 sets x3 reps system
Lol - honestly, I should’ve seen the direction this thread was going to go coming. The initial one from the other sub-forum always seemed to me like a waste of time, with the original poster just trying to make themselves come across as a knowledgeable expert despite asking for discussion on the topic.
I’ve always maintained that there are many variables involved in optimizing muscle hypertrophy, and even though recent studies may point to the importance of one, or another, I think it’s foolish to ignore any of the multitude of variables in play.
Sure it’s entertaining to discuss possible theories but at the end of the day, people are gonna disagree.
S
3 Likes
I’m glad you posted it, because highly-circulated studies are worth talking about if for no other reason than that; ie, they’re worth talking about because people are talking about them. This one is just really odd in its construction; that is, its use of only one level of the independent variable, Volume.
Further, the summarized version you shared commits the serious statistical no-no of interpreting a lack of a statistical difference (in this case, no difference in hypertrophy among the three rep-range groups) as indicating the variable in question (rep-range) has no effect. This is ‘asserting the null’ in statistical parlance, and is considered very poor form. (I strongly suspect the published version makes no such claim, assuming it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.)
1 Like
It wouldn’t. Women, for example, tend to be able to do more reps with a higher percentage of their one rep max. Sprinters, do a lower number of reps than you would expect. If these reps based on one rep max were cut and dried then those max calculators in which you put in a number of reps at a given weight would be accurate for everyone but they are not.
We once trained a short period of time (a few months) where we used the “last set” signal: when we dropped two reps on the next set, we were going to get no value from an additional set.
We used that philosophy for compound upper body exercises (none of us dared attempt that for squats or leg presses: too afraid). We picked a weight we knew we could get 8 reps and aimed to get 6 sets before we dropped 2 reps on the next set. I guess we were resting about 2 minutes between sets. We didn’t time it but there were three of us working out together. We might be successful for 3 sets of 8 reps before becoming weaker and dropping a rep. Eventually we reached a point where, say doing a couple of 7 rep sets, that on the next set we could only do 5 reps. We quit.
Obviously if you could do all 6 sets for 8 reps you didn’t have enough weight on the bar.
I say all this, because I tend to strongly agree that 7 sets of 4 reps with 90% max is a tall order. The rule of thumb for percentages that I use is 2% per rep is your capability for a typical bodybuilder. That is, he is capable of doing one set of 90% of his max for 5 reps, and not the second set. So, my thinking is, starting a mere single rep shy of your max 5 rep capability is not sufficiently light enough weight to perform an additional 6 sets, No way. No how.
1 Like