When the weight is between 5RM and 30RM, the amount of hypertrophy that is achieved is the same, although training with lighter loads involves several times more volume (sets x reps) and volume load (sets x reps x weight) than training with moderate loads, and greater increases in both volume (sets x reps) and volume load (sets x reps x weight) over a training program.
Even so, the result is not affected by the number of reps that are done in each set, when using moderate or moderately light loads. Indeed, the literature shows that greater volumes (number of sets to failure) produce more hypertrophy, and this result is dose-responsive up to quite high volumes.
And, importantly, volume ( number of sets to failure) is the only measurement of volume that has been linked to muscle growth. However, volume (number of sets to failure) is not the same thing as volume (sets x reps) or volume load (sets x reps x weight). It is true that short rest periods reduce the number of reps that can be achieved on each set, and this reduces the total volume (sets x reps) and volume load (sets x reps x weight) that is accomplished over a long-term training program. While this initially sounds like a plausible explanation, we can quickly see that it is highly unlikely, and also fails to understand exactly *how* training volume has been linked to muscle growth. Some researchers have suggested that short rest periods might cause less hypertrophy, because they lead to lower training volumes.
Can lower volumes explain why rest period duration affects muscle growth? (part I)
0 kommentar(er)
