low vs high reps for hypertrophy

In the Golden Age of bodybuilding, they were interested in results, and only results. That, I think, is the biggest thing we can say for the guiding philosophy behind the training methods of those days—they did things that worked, simply because they worked.
Figuring out what worked—and what didn’t—was the driving force that pushed the entire understanding of training forward. Over the course of months or years, methods, systems and programs emerged.
The mindset was simple: If it could possibly yield results, it was worth testing; after a while, the ideas were either incorporated into the overarching umbrella philosophy of what was effective, or discarded altogether. All that mattered was that it worked.

Click to expand...

In many ways, bodybuilders of that era did not differ very much from many coaches and trainers of today: We develop theories based on existing evidence, test these hypotheses on our clients, and observe the results; however, the difference between the fitness industry now and during the Golden Age is the focus on and impact of scientific research.

This is important because it demonstrates a very clear shift in the collective mindset of strength culture: it’s no longer enough to know that things work; it’s become far more important to know why they work. Unfortunately, this has proven it to be a double-edged sword.

Click to expand...

but, for all the good the focus on studies and lab testing has done, there has also been a fair bit of harm. Over the course of the past two decades, research has gained an almost deific status, and studies are considered by many to be the final word on any issue.
All of this has led to an unforeseen consequence: being blind to everything else.

In a very real sense, it became almost en vogue to publicly tear down methods or theories that hadn’t been proven in a controlled academic environment. Science zealots were so intent on upbraiding anyone dolling out the "conventional bodybuilding wisdom" of the Golden Age that they lost sight of something: a lot of it worked.
This is an important concept: In many cases, the gym is a bit ahead of the lab; just because there aren't seven studies backing something up doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Again, studies are important—the issue isn’t the desire to base things on or prove things with research; the issue is that when only one stream of information is willingly incorporated into the viewpoint, any potential for growth and change will be severely limited.

Click to expand...

Eventually, the growing dependence on research as the sole marker of both credibility and efficacy reached its tipping point, and bled its way into the general culture of fitness: It became “cool” to make fun of a number of ideas that bodybuilders touted as fact. And so it was that the term “Broscience” came into being, and was entered into the zeitgeist.

In the interest of clarity, a definition: Broscience is a term applied to claims or reasoning based on (potentially flawed) logic instead of evidence that has been proven in an academic setting. While this is not a new term (the first online usage that I have found is dated November of 2001) Broscience has only really become part of the common fitness vernacular over the past four or five years.

The pendulum has swung to the extent that Broscience is an insult, and is hurled at anyone who makes claims or assertions that they can’t immediately back up with citations.

To take a moderate viewpoint, I believe that Broscience is really just observation paired with rationalization: A phenomenon is observed, and then an argument is proposed for its occurrence; reasoning is backwards-engineered from the result. Sometimes, of course, that reasoning will be flawed—but flawed reasoning does not invalidate the result.
This is something that the fitness industry is finally being forced to admit

Click to expand...

Let’s look one of the hallmarks of traditional bodybuilding workouts: selective hypertrophy.
As early as the 1950’s, bodybuilders have been staunch in the notion that varying exercises and body positions can target distinct areas of individual muscles, preferentially recruiting fibers of a specific area during the movements. For close to 20 years, though, you've been told not to do that simply because there wasn’t research to back it up.
It seems, unfortunately, that being pro-research seems to have meant being anti-bodybuilding.

For example, because it hadn’t been exhaustively concluded that incline pressing worked the clavicular head of the pectoralis, the very idea was considered foolish; study-dependent coaches maintained that muscles fibers run the entire length from origin to insertion and are activated by single nerves, and as a result not possible to preferentially recruit specific areas. Of course, that is possible, as every bodybuilder in history has known.

And now, research is clearly showing that some coaches and scientists owe those bodybuilders an apology. In a review paper written in 2000, Dr. Jose Antonio began to dispel the misconceptions, and demonstrated clearly that you could target areas of specific muscles.
In the time since that paper was published, significantly more research substantiating Antonio's position has emerged. This information is finally working it’s way into the public eye of the fitness industry, thanks in no small part of a group of fantastic coaches who are doing their best to get the information out there.

Click to expand...

Player said:

whats the bet everyone just scrolled down to the conclusion lol

Click to expand...

Bloke said:

Great post Darkoz.

Click to expand...