It makes no sense to me why the rep range for “hypertrophy” and body builders is according to NSCA and many other sources is 3 sets and 10-12 reps.
At the most basic level cross bridges formation determines strength, hypertrophy (muscle size), cross-sectional area and force are all and direct related.
So in theory current training recommendations for strength such as 5 x 5's would lead to a greater increase in both size and hypertrophy.
Assuming all major factors to be equal (diet, rest, volume load etc.) How does that recommendation make sense? What am I missing?
(Related research is always a huge plus) – thanks!
UPDATE: Just read that study. He definitely makes some great points. The article is literally what quite a number of strength training foundations are based on.
HOWEVER -- he draws some very BROAD conclusions and at times selectively uses one way data to provide single sided explanations to support what have been adopted as industry standards. IMO crazy we place so much weight on certain aspects of his findings....
UPDATE #2 The 3-5 min just provides more recovery time so you're moving more weight per rep and avoiding muscular endurance training (nothing too earth shattering) - glycogen obviously is replenished to a greater degree the longer you rest.
The study below talks about the same range for power. No study would be complete if it did end by contradicting itself -- 30-60 sec is best if according to the last paragraph.
I guess it's too idealistic to expect a clear rep range (there are too many factors to take into account). I also don't agree with their recommendation to rest 3-5 min for power in favor of a shorter rest time. If it's used for sport specific training, not exactly a realistic timeframe to rest vs game scenarios. Even in a general sense; to me power based training make the most sense as a mix b/n endurance and power (for efficiency etc).