I get more hypertrophy training for strength than training for hypertrophy. 4-6 reps to failure is better than 10-20 reps to failure.

>>76263000 (OP)
Yeah it's usually a range you can take to failure predictably. There shouldn't be any major training differences between a "bodybuilder" and a "strength athlete" below the advanced levels. Even through intermediates the methods don't even really start to diverge just the diets. People pretend like there's some massive divide but there isn't there's just sound methodology and people who have to make it is a "lifestyle" by inflating the amount of work and training in a way that's overly specific for their level of advancement.

That's because the higher the reps the less efficient the first reps are for stimulating growth. The last 5 reps before failure count towards building muscle, though 5 is absolutely not necessary, staying low at like 6 to 8 is in theory better than 10-12 because of wasted reps in the higher range. Only isolations are an exception because smaller muscles, or non-compound muscle has less strength and thus you must lower the weight, up the reps also to make sure you don't fuck your shit up.

>>76263000 (OP)
>bro just learned about motor recruitment

>>76263000 (OP)
>training for strength
>to failure
So you don't train and you are lying

>>76263000 (OP)
Is it because low rep programs actually make you do a lot more sets? if you equate volume it should match regardless of reps, but it's a lot easier to get more volume with higher reps.

>>76263000 (OP)
Obviously. "Rep range" is one of those things that has become WAY too important to people. It is something that, by itself, makes MAYBE a tiny difference on the margins. But people have blown it outrageously out of proportion because they saw a bodybuilder doing it. Yeah, of course if it makes a small difference he would do it to get ahead, since he's competing. But for most people, it doesn't matter.
What matters is how much you lift. And it's easier to progress doing 5 reps than 20.

>hey guys keep using heavy ass weight and grind out those too failure reps we need more surgical and physical therapy patients

>>76263532
>yooooo brooooo just like hit your arm with a hammer brroooo, see it's all SWOLE and THICK now? That's GAINZ broooo

>>76263160
>So you don't train and you are lying
If it's not to failure then it's less weight for the same reps. Are you doing 3x5 with 3+RIR? Now who isn't training, baka my head.

Higher mechanical tension, more weight can beat volume

>>76263000 (OP)
You can still build lean mass on singles, or sets of 2-4 reps easily IF you do things correctly.
And low reps > high reps, high reps are just endurance builders, nothing more.

>>76265003
>high reps are just endurance builders, nothing more.
What about sarcoplasm gains? The theory is like 15-30 reps is better for that, but ime it doesn't do as much as x5s.

>>76264939
this isn't effective strength training, it's just beating your head against the wall of failure and expecting things to work out.

>>76263000 (OP)

Congrats on discovering how volume density works. I had the same experience doing 5-8 sets of triples for squats than doing sets of 4-5x10.

Also triple 0's!!!

>>76265209
>max goes up
>not effective strength training
Opinion discarded.