I have a question though that I'm struggling to find a proper answer too (maybe you can answer it?), What's the best way to train for maximum hypertrophy? I've always believed it came down to fatiguing the muscle and breaking it down using a very high volume workout. Using a mix of 6-8reps for "fast twitch fibres" and 12-20 reps for "slow twitch fibres". Basically the goal is to break down the muscle as much as possible, force alot of blood into the muscle and then eat correctly (and in surplus) to build the muscle bigger.
So training more in isolation and really training a muscle hard -over time, not high intensity- will yield good results.
It’s a very complex question with a more complex answer,
It’s an older study but also an interesting study, Schmidtbleicher compared:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7195805
7x1-3 (90-100% intensity) reps over 3x12 (70% intensity) reps. Keep in mind we are also by default comparing differing volumes 21 vs 36 reps.
The higher rep group made significant improvements in mass over the low rep group (nearly double), and the high rep group also made greater strength gains. (only a small amount 5% ish).
The problem with many strength training studies, now and in 1981 is they use novices, as a novice more CSA = more strength. Things are different when you are well trained. But overall higher rep ranges created larger muscle mass than lower rep ranges (12+ reps).
More recently Campos, with probably one of the best studies to date on the subject, Well worth a read.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Muscular%20adaptations%20in%20response%20to%20three%20different%20resistance-training%20regimens%3A%20specificity%20of%20repetition%20maximum%20training%20zones
Showed that 3-5RM was significantly better than higher reps for strength gain, with improvements double a 9-11RM and more than triple a 18-20RM.
But then at the end of the training study they got them to use a 60% to fatigue, doing as many reps as possible. The low rep group did crap, the high rep group did awesome and the mid group did ok. Showing low reps will make you strong, but not help endurance.
Then they looked at hypertrophy of fibre types, low reps to moderate reps resulted in a decent level of hypertrophy, whilst high reps was not beneficial.
If you want to get strong 3-5 reps. This had a poor response to endurance (@60% intensity)
If you want excellent endurance 20+ reps But no good for mass or endurance
If you want mass both 3-5 reps and 9-11 reps effective. Effective for mass and strength.
Now I have ignored the effect of rest periods, total volume, number of set etc... it all has an affect.
But the bottom line is - hypertropthy 6-15 (theres another study floating around that showed 15 reps worked) reps has been shown to be effective, with somewhere around 10-12 appearing to have the greatest results. Shorter rest periods are advised, 1 minute ()2 absolute max. Aim for 3-4 sets.
But remember it can be hard comparing studies, they use differing %RM, rest periods, sets, reps, exercises... I have read pretty much all of the studies in this area and to me its still not completely obvious.
As far as isolating goes, this would be another entire post or 3, more than a few people have mentioned on here that a few sets of deadies, squats, bench and for me 1 arm rows destroys you. After 1 hard exercise I am ready to go home. That's essentially why training muscle groups in isolation is recommended, you avoid central fatigue and get get more volume into a session, volume appearing to have a very important roll in pure hypertrophy.
? I've always believed it came down to fatiguing the muscle and breaking it down using a very high volume workout. Using a mix of 6-8reps for "fast twitch fibres" and 12-20 reps for "slow twitch fibres". Basically the goal is to break down the muscle as much as possible, force alot of blood into the muscle and then eat correctly (and in surplus) to build the muscle bigger.
.
Now here's two questions: Does muscle damage result in muscle growth? Do we need to damage a muscle to make it grow?
Havn't had a protein shake in 4 months n I'm still making dem gains. Although I'm one fat motherfucker. Back down to 90 after getting to 92. Never again. 8 reps with 32.5 kg dumbells on bench. Holy crap dumbells are 100x harder to lift than Barbell. Will be interesting to see how much strength has increased when I go back to barbells.
That will be mostly from co-contration of opposing muscles to stabilize the load, go use a smith machine you'll put 25kg onto your bench. I really like dumbbells can train pretty hard without a spotter, although a lose a DB laterally and the shoulders going to cope it.
I also like your opinion on the optimal amount of protein per day - it is consistent with recommendations from the AIS and some others.
From what I have read and been told around the office and whats on the AIS website is pretty much spot on, 1.5 to 1.7g/kg/day works, any more than that and its not used for protein synthesis in muscles, but stored as fat or consumed as energy (which is a bad thing in a round-a-bout way). If you're cutting, more protein 2-3g/kg/day appears to help attenuate muscle loss during that phase, thanks Steve-O for links. If for some unlikely reason you decide that your muscly enough (beside weight classes, I'm pretty sure it'll never happen) .88 for sedentary people and 1.2g for trained people is shown to be the maintenance level.
If anyone disagrees, I'll be more than happy to have a look at the data you have taken, DEXA scans, nitrogen balance measures, blood tests, biopsy's?
