what is hypertrophy training

f140

after reading a few articles now with lads stating there doing hypertrophy training. what exactly is it. how does it differ to a normal 3 day split?

Inspector Coptoor

Hypertrophy training is training with a focus on increasing muscle mass.
It can be done in a 3 day split and would usually focus on 3-4 exercises for each body part using 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps using 65-80% 1RM

This is differnt to strength training which would focus on sets of 1-5 reps at 85-100% 1RM

And it is also different to endurance resistance training which would use sets in the 15-30 rep range using less than 50% of 1RM

f140

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Hypertrophy training is training with a focus on increasing muscle mass.
It can be done in a 3 day split and would usually focus on 3-4 exercises for each body part using 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps using 65-80% 1RM

This is differnt to strength training which would focus on sets of 1-5 reps at 85-100% 1RM

And it is also different to endurance resistance training which would use sets in the 15-30 rep range using less than 50% of 1RM

its not a rare type of training so as I imagine most people would be doing that type of training only I hadn't heard the word for it before?

Inspector Coptoor

No, not rare at all.
It is essentially the basis of bodybuilding training.

The word has been around for a long time.
It learns means to promote muscle growth.

YFlyer

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Hypertrophy training is training with a focus on increasing muscle mass.
It can be done in a 3 day split and would usually focus on 3-4 exercises for each body part using 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps using 65-80% 1RM

This is differnt to strength training which would focus on sets of 1-5 reps at 85-100% 1RM

And it is also different to endurance resistance training which would use sets in the 15-30 rep range using less than 50% of 1RM

5 reps at 85% RM. What would be the typical range of recovery between each rep be?

Zillah

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Hypertrophy training is training with a focus on increasing muscle mass.
It can be done in a 3 day split and would usually focus on 3-4 exercises for each body part using 3-4 sets of 8-12 reps using 65-80% 1RM

This is differnt to strength training which would focus on sets of 1-5 reps at 85-100% 1RM

And it is also different to endurance resistance training which would use sets in the 15-30 rep range using less than 50% of 1RM

I'm convinced this is all 90% twaddle. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it just seems like people making up systems for stuff that isn't anyway near as clear cut as it seems. Didn't we have an article recently about how muscle size is directly proportionate to muscle strength?

Hanley

YFlyer wrote: »

5 reps at 85% RM. What would be the typical range of recovery between each rep be?

As long as you need. Not too long for a beginner (say 60-120s) but much longer for advanced (10-20 minutes perhaps)

Zillah wrote: »

I'm convinced this is all 90% twaddle. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it just seems like people making up systems for stuff that isn't anyway near as clear cut as it seems. Didn't we have an article recently about how muscle size is directly proportionate to muscle strength?

It's not twaddle. And it is related.

Think about it this way - spent some time building the muscle with lower weights and higher reps, then "teach it" how to lift heavy weights by practicing strength work at 80-90% and above.

If you do the first bit but don't do the second, you won't live up to the potential strength of your muscles.

If you try to just do the second, you'll top out relatively quickly as you will end up reaching the "potential" of your muscles to a large degree.

Getting strong actually takes quite a long time and you'll need to cycle your training phases to achieve it.

That's very broscience-y, but it serves the purpose for the illustration.

Zillah

Hanley wrote: »

As long as you need. Not too long for a beginner (say 60-120s) but much longer for advanced (10-20 minutes perhaps)



It's not twaddle. And it is related.

Think about it this way - spent some time building the muscle with lower weights and higher reps, then "teach it" how to lift heavy weights by practicing strength work at 80-90% and above.

If you do the first bit but don't do the second, you won't live up to the potential strength of your muscles.

If you try to just do the second, you'll top out relatively quickly as you will end up reaching the "potential" of your muscles to a large degree.

Getting strong actually takes quite a long time and you'll need to cycle your training phases to achieve it.

That's very broscience-y, but it serves the purpose for the illustration.

You're exactly right, it does sound like a load of broscience. As we saw in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057397761

Muscle mass is the best predictor of total strength, so the idea that there are different ways to work on muscle size and muscle strength is false.

Alf Veedersane

Zillah wrote: »

Muscle mass is the best predictor of total strength, so the idea that there are different ways to work on muscle size and muscle strength is false.

Muscle mass doesn't necessarily equate to strength though.

But it is a predictor.

Zillah

If it's the best predictor then it shows that the two are inextricably linked, which contradicts the popular belief that you can train them separately.

I think the situation is probably better explained by the fact that power lifters will generally be doing more large compound movements like deadlift and squat whereas people in it for the looks will tend to do a lot more isolation exercises, which results in less of an ability to move the heaviest loads in deadlift etc.

Alf Veedersane

Zillah wrote: »

If it's the best predictor then it shows that the two are inextricably linked, which contradicts the popular belief that you can train them separately.

I think the situation is probably better explained by the fact that power lifters will generally be doing more large compound movements like deadlift and squat whereas people in it for the looks will tend to do a lot more isolation exercises, which results in less of an ability to move the heaviest loads in deadlift etc.

If someone trains higher reps for hypertrophy and greater mass, they won't necessarily be able to actiivate as many motor units as someone who has trained for strength.

Think that's what Hanley meant by teaching the muscle to lift heavy.

Doug Cartel

It's like any physical activity, if you don't practice it your ability drops off. If you don't regularly lift heavy weights, don't expect to be able to lift something heavy on your first go - even if you have big enough muscles to do it.

Hanley

Zillah wrote: »

You're exactly right, it does sound like a load of broscience. As we saw in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057397761

Muscle mass is the best predictor of total strength, so the idea that there are different ways to work on muscle size and muscle strength is false.

Bodybuilders train differently to powerlifters.

Top levels of both are totally jacked.

Both carry loads of muscle, and train differently.

Point disproven.

And what Alf/Doug said also.

Inspector Coptoor

Zillah wrote: »

If it's the best predictor then it shows that the two are inextricably linked, which contradicts the popular belief that you can train them separately.

I think the situation is probably better explained by the fact that power lifters will generally be doing more large compound movements like deadlift and squat whereas people in it for the looks will tend to do a lot more isolation exercises, which results in less of an ability to move the heaviest loads in deadlift etc.

Not necessarily.

There's a huge difference between the responses to by the body to strength training and Hypertrophy training.

The first results primarily in myofibrillar Hypertrophy which is long lived.

Traditional Hypertrophy training results in sacroplasmic Hypertrophy, ie, "the pump" and is short lived.

There is obviously a bit of a cross over but they can (and are) trained differently by different subsets of lifters leading to different visible "results"

Mellor

Zillah wrote: »

Didn't we have an article recently about how muscle size is directly proportionate to muscle strength?

I'm pretty sure it was proportional on average, not that it was directly proportional. That small changes makes a massive difference to the relationship.
Obviously size is linked to strength, a child could tell you that? But being directly proportional is a massive erroneous leap from there.
If it were true, then a top 75kg powerlifter could never lift more than a random 90kg guy. Or it would be impossible to get stronger without getting bigger. And neither is the case obviously.

Zillah wrote: »

Muscle mass is the best predictor of total strength, so the idea that there are different ways to work on muscle size and muscle strength is false.

You are falling into the trap of apply macro trends to micro samples. Across larger populations size will of course be an accurate indicator of strength. But its less accurate on an individual basis.
This is similar to link between a higher BMI's and obesity.
In large populations, high BMI's is a very good indicator of obesity. But, it's pretty uselss is assessing the if a single person if overweight.


Increases in muscle size nor strength will rarely happen in complete isolation, but by tailoring your training to one or the other, you can bias your results.