Question for Robert

Dear Robert,

First I would like to thank you for all the work you put in the forum. Your answers are some of the best advices I have ever read anywhere, and I read a lot.

I am 30 years old 184cm tall,86kg at around 14-15% bodyfat.

Now the embarrassing part, my total.

Bench 95kg(paused),Squat(110kg), Deadlift(150kg)-sumo All in one day, did  like a mock meet now in august this year.

Have long arms, even longer femurs, not complaining just saying you to know to better help me.

I am doing your 3 day program for over 80kg currently,and just finished week 4.
On a 4 day I do lighter deadlifts with 1s  pause at the knee , Light OHP, and  some gpp. Feeling good, program is great.

My question is, am I too weak to be doing a program like this?

Is this something you would recommend me to do?

My only goal is to get stronger.

Only concern is should I maybe try something simpler and stick more to the rep ranges that will help me grow. I know you grow from volume and not the rep range but it is easier to get more volume with 10reps then with 5s in less time...
Thinking something  like this:

squating 2 times a week with sets of 10, benching 3 times with sets of 10, deadlifting 2 times with sets of 10 with about65%-70% first week, second week sets of 8 with 75%, third sets of 6, then sets 3. You know, linear periodization with squating 2 times a week, benching 3 times,deadlifting 2 times a week. Maybe even sticking to 10's, 8's and 6s for two or three weeks in a row with linear progression , like 10s with 65%, next week add 2.5kg and  like that with  8s, 6s...

Maybe I can grow more muscle like this,  and get stronger base to start something like sheiko programs?

What do you think? What would you suggest at my situation with my goals?

Stick doing #37v2,#31, and the first week of#32 then repeat or  something different?
Thank you in advance.

Thanks. Nice way to lead into a question to make sure you get a thoughtful answer.  ;)

I've been doing a bit of an experiment the last couple of years. I was good at math while in school and I have a fitness app that I analyze aggregate training data from. Total users are near 100,000 so it's a good amount of data. There are some interesting things that I have noticed. Some are familiar and some have little twists on the familiar. First of all, volume is important for muscle growth as we all know, but only up to a point. The curve looks like asymptotic growth where more volume just doesn't add anything meaningful the further you go. Next up is intensity. You get linear increases in growth with greater intensity all the way up to 100% and getting about zero growth around 50-60%. Put these two facts together so far and you've got 60 reps at 85% will give you more than 60 reps at 75% assuming 60 reps is where things start to plateau for volume. I know, nothing ground breaking so far. I have a little caveat I will add later though. Before getting into frequency I want to mention that there is a significant correlation between average training intensity and likelihood of a training interruption. In other words, the heavier weight you are using on average the more likely you will stop using the app for whatever reason. From there it's speculation but it could be related to injuries or something of that nature. Or maybe they just get super huge and don't need/want to track things anymore. Next up is frequency. More is better and there isn't much difference between twice a week and three times per week while six to eight is clearly better.

Ok, now for the caveat. When I mentioned intensity earlier I use the term a bit differently that the common definition. I define it as average weight lifted divided by the average of your best bench and deadlift results. What this does is it gives you a way to differentiate between say a bodybuilding workout with lots of isolation stuff at 75% 1RM and a powerlifting workout with most work at 75%. In the latter case your average weight lifted will be higher and so will the resulting intensity of the workout. And remember, higher intensity as I define it leads to more growth. Or even more directly, higher average weight lifted leads to better progress.

So now to answer your question about if I think 10 reps would be better for strength through the indirect contribution of growth. No, I don't think so. The reason why is you'd lower your average weight lifted (by shifting work to lower intensity sets) which is more important as long as you have sufficient volume. So why not just add more reps at higher intensity then? Probably the same reason why people stopped logging workouts for whatever reason. So you wind up looking for the optimal zone. You could just zero in on it and hammer away. Or you could use little tricks to temporarily increase intensity then back off before it becomes too much of a risk. That could allow you a higher average while still offsetting the risk of injury. I think the Sheiko system as is does a very good job at all of this. Incidentally, I've asked him about hypertrophy programs before and honestly he doesn't know much about them. The explanation he gives is that it is never a problem that he has had to face. If his athletes are eating, they grow bigger and get stronger and it's just that simple.   

Thank you so much for the answer, and all the info you put in it.
 Very interesting stuff as usual. Totally makes sense.

What is your practical experience with myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy when changing the rep ranges?
Is there any true to that in real training world?

Theoretically we know that  you get  more of the one or the other when training with lower reps and higher  reps, but personally I have never seen some very distinguish differences when someone trains exclusively with one rep range(meaning most of the training stimulus).

I've watched Konstantin Pozdeev's interview where he talks about how he likes lower rep range(5 and less for him) to have lean strong muscles.

I think it's more about your genetics how your muscle will look and perform.
What are your experiences,thoughts?

Thank  you once more for fast and really helpful answer.

I have no practical experience with the two forms of hypertrophy. I have anecdotal experience though. In practical terms I'd take some mice and stimulate a leg muscle with different voltages, frequencies, and repetitions. After some period of time doing this I'd sacrifice the mice, remove the stimulated muscles, measure their volumes, homogenize the muscle (put it in a blender), then centrifuge the results. I'd then measure the widths and corresponding volumes of the different layers and compare those to the starting volume to compute percentages. Then I'd be able to compare the results of different training protocols on the volumes of different elements of the muscles. I've never actually done this and maybe it's not the best way to do it but this would be my first guess for an approach. Maybe it's been done already and there is an answer.

My anecdotal experience leads me to believe that there is a difference between the two. My observations agree with Konstantin's and I think lots of other people would agree. But there are so many other confounding factors that it might not be so simple.

Came across this today. Seems like a better way to do it.

Briefly, rats underwent consecutive training sessions (5 day/week) that consisted of jumps (repetitions) to the water surface (38 cm deep; approximately 150% of rat body length), carrying an overload strapped to a vest on the animal's chest. Initially, all animals completed a 1-week pretraining (once daily) that consisted of a progressive number of sets (2-4) and repetitions (5-12) with a 30-s rest between each set, and carrying an overload of  50%  body  weight  (BW).  Subsequently,  the  rats  began  the  12-week  training  program,  which consisted of progressive overload corresponding to  60% (1 to 3 week), 65% (4 to 6 week), 70% (7th to 8th week), 80% (9th to 10th week), and 85% (11th to 12th week) of BW. (Alves Souza. 2014)

My anecdotal experience leads me to believe that there is a difference between the two. My observations agree with Konstantin's and I think lots of other people would agree. But there are so many other confounding factors that it might not be so simple.

I have very short femurs and narrow hips, and my legs have gotten much much too big since re-starting raw lifting.  I have since reduced my squats to at maximum sets of 3, and it has helped stop the growth, and make it so my gait isn't too affected.  So in my opinion I agree, but I think even 5 is pushing it :D