Quote (shane_is_a_balla @ Jul 20 2016 08:37pm)
As for this current study Brad carried out, I haven't cogitated on it enough to comment on it too much. However, it at least does lend more credence to the idea that higher overall volume/workload is the most integral to optimal hypertrophy, whilst concomitantly rendering some of the premises w/in metabolic stress obsolete (or at least of lesser importance, which makes sense). Of course, there are other factors contributing there so I won't go that far, just that specific factor (rest time). Maybe I'm a pedant or even non-believer, but I'd still honestly surmise that a 2-min rest group would have had the greatest hypertrophy - it's finding that middle ground of rest times for higher volume & workload, and still allowing more metabolic stress. I have no problem accepting the conclusions of this paper as a whole, as consistently using 1m rest is sure to stifle power output. However, one thing I'm still curious about, and I've seen Brad mention in the past, perhaps long-term bodybuilders, whom would consistently use shorter rest times, would achieve greater hypertrophy as a result, as they've grown fully accustomed to it and are able to achieve the adequate volume.
It's also pertinent to point out that a major flaw in these studies as well is simply the time-span, albeit that's more of a funding/human subject caveat than anything. Hypertrophy is such a long term process that it would be highly unscientific to draw too many extrapolations from one study like this. But, all in all, this makes sense simply from a volume perspective. Moreover, the differences in metabolic stress probably aren't too marked from simply manipulating rest times vs rep range. We know that volume is the most important. Second, I'd say from the research, is the effort aka more sets going to failure attenuates potential differences. Third, and where it's more nebulous, yet more interesting (and not as researched) is rep ranges which would modulate other major facets of hyp aka metabolic stress. The thing is, the third ties in with the first, in that it's far easier to achieve higher volume with higher rep ranges (given a threshold intensity ofc). What would be interesting to me is to see where exactly diminishing returns exist in the rep range, volume, rest time spectrum pertaining to the interplay between mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and a modicum of muscle damage.
my school doesnt subscribe to the sites that display the specific journal but the abstract says they specifically did NOT manipulate volume of work. volume was constant in their protocol, they only manipulated rest time.