Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

Core takeaway from the thread

• Commenters broadly agree the paper reinforces an existing idea: for muscle size, going close to muscular failure matters more than whether you use heavy weights/low reps or light weights/high reps (within a reasonable rep range).
• Many note this is about hypertrophy, not maximal strength; strength-oriented training is still seen as heavier, lower-rep, more specific to the 1RM movement.

Methodology and limitations

• Several people question the 10‑week duration, suggesting 6+ months would be more meaningful.
• Criticism that subjects were “healthy, recreationally active but untrained” 22‑year‑old males: newbie gains are huge from almost any stimulus, so differences between protocols are hard to see.
• Concerns about small sample size and typical exercise-science issues (low power, no blinding, limited funding).
• Others counter that within-subject limb comparison partly controls for newbie status and that this is still useful data for the general untrained population.

Failure, load, and injury risk

• Strong debate on training to failure:
  • For isolation/small-muscle exercises, many think failure is fine.
  • For heavy compound lifts (squat, deadlift, bench, overhead press), repeated training to true failure is seen as risky for joints, spine, and nervous system, especially with age.
• Common recommendation: usually keep 1–2 reps in reserve, occasionally test true failure to calibrate.
• Several stress that extremely low loads just become cardio; some minimal tension is required.

Strength vs hypertrophy and fiber characteristics

• Multiple comments emphasize muscle is not uniform: slow‑twitch vs fast‑twitch fibers and sport-specific demands (powerlifting vs running vs cycling).
• High load tends to improve 1RM more; study didn’t fully explore endurance differences between groups.

Programming, volume, and “what actually matters”

• Many frame progress as mainly driven by:
  • Consistency over years
  • Total volume (sets × reps × load) and/or time under tension
  • Adequate protein, calories, and sleep
• Debate over whether volume or intensity is more fundamental, but broad agreement that you must work “hard enough” near failure.
• Myths challenged: “no pain, no gain” and “muscle shock” via constant variation; discomfort near failure is needed, but not joint pain or chronic agony.

Genetics and individual variation

• Several lifters report similar results from quite different protocols and highlight genetics, body mechanics, and life context as dominating long‑term outcomes.
• Consensus: there are many effective ways to get bigger; choose what you can do safely and consistently.