Does Rep Count Really Matter? Science Finally Takes a Side (and the Answer Might Surprise You)
What actually matters is how hard you're pushing yourself. In other words, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. The key is training with enough effort, regardless of the rep range.
In the recent study published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, researchers split a group of forty-seven healthy young men randomly into three groups: a 10-repetition max group, a 20-repetition max group, and a control group that didn't train.
Each training group performed two training sessions per week for six weeks using only the muscles in their lower body. Arguably, the most important aspect of the study was that each set was completed to concentric failure, meaning they couldn't do any more reps with proper form.Researchers discovered that muscle mass increased in both training groups, with no real difference between those who did 10 reps to failure and those who did 20.
"These findings demonstrate that twice-weekly resistance training to failure, irrespective of whether 10 or 20 repetitions are used, simultaneously enhances mitochondrial oxidative capacity, muscle hypertrophy, and strength, underscoring the versatility of resistance training for performance optimization and interventions targeting improved metabolic health," the researchers said.
The bottom line? Rep ranges matter less than you think, at least in this case. If your goal is to build muscle, the key is pushing your body and following a program that lets you progress over time. That could mean adding reps, increasing weight, or shortening your rest between sets. It's all about applying progressive overload.
Both high- and low-rep training have their benefits. Heavier loads can help you hit the intensity sweet spot with less overall volume, while lighter weights often feel more approachable and allow some people to push harder. The best approach is the one you can stick with, so find what works for you and commit to it.
Does Rep Count Really Matter? Science Finally Takes a Side (and the Answer Might Surprise You) first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 16, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
3 minutes ago
- Medscape
Low Disease Activity Maintained Long Term With TNF Tapering
TOPLINE: A tapering strategy for TNF inhibitors maintained low disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and those with axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) over 24 months. Protocol-driven tapering achieved a greater reduction in the mean dose of TNF inhibitors than routine care tapering, with both methods equally effective for disease control. METHODOLOGY: Previous 12-month results from an open-label, noninferiority, pragmatic trial (January 2019 to July 2020) conducted in the Netherlands showed that tapering of TNF inhibitors was noninferior to continued dosing for maintaining low disease activity in patients with PsA or AxSpA. Participants in the original trial (aged 16 years or older with stable low disease activity for 6 or more months) were randomly assigned to either a treat-to-target tapering strategy (intervention) or a continuation of the original dose of TNF inhibitors (control). Tapering involved extending the interval between doses, leading to doses equivalent to 100%, 66%, 50%, 33%, or 0% of the defined daily dose. This observational extension of the original trial included 114 patients (mean age, 50 years; 79 from the intervention group and 35 from the control group) with PsA (n = 58) and AxSpA (n = 56), where the intervention group continued the tapering strategy, whereas the control group could attempt tapering (routine care tapering), with treatment decisions made collaboratively by physicians and patients. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients with low disease activity at 24 months between the intervention and control groups compared against a prespecified noninferiority margin of 20%. Secondary outcomes included differences in efficacy between the intervention and control groups determined using disease activity scores at 18 and 24 months, as well as the cumulative incidence of disease flare over 24 months. TAKEAWAY: At 24 months, 67% of patients in the intervention group and 72% in the control group maintained low disease activity (adjusted difference, 5%; P = .64). Over 24 months, 89% of patients attempted tapering, with no significant differences in adverse events between groups. No difference was noted in the percentage of patients achieving low disease activity between the intervention group with protocol-driven tapering at 12 months and the control group with routine care tapering at 24 months. The cumulative incidence of disease flare was 90% over 24 months. The mean dose of TNF inhibitors increased in the intervention group from 52% to 66% of the defined daily dose from 12 months to 24 months (difference, 14%; P < .0001). However, the mean dose was lower with protocol-driven tapering in the intervention group at 12 months than with routine care tapering in the control group at 24 months (P = .0001) and lower with routine care tapering vs no tapering in the control group (P = .0007). IN PRACTICE: '[T]hese data indicate that a taper-to-target strategy is effective and leads to substantial TNF inhibitor dose reduction, but optimal execution of such a strategy in routine care is more challenging than in the context of a clinical trial,' the authors of the study wrote. 'Considering the risks and benefits of tapering, we suggest that disease activity-guided tapering could enable more optimized and personalized treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis.' SOURCE: The study was led by Amy C.D. Peeters, MD, and Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, PhD, Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. It was published online on July 24, 2025, in The Lancet Rheumatology. LIMITATIONS: Measurements for disease activity were missing at 18 and 24 months. The absence of validated flare criteria until 2022 may have led to an overestimation of flare incidence. Radiographic progression was not assessed at the 24-month follow-up. Allowing tapering in the control group during the extension phase reduced the difference between groups. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by ReumaNederland. Some authors reported receiving grants from multiple companies including Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, and AbbVie to their institution. One author reported receiving support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
Biotech Startup Tahoe Therapeutics Raised $30 Million To Build AI Models Of Living Cells
Tahoe cofounders (L-R): Kevin Shokat, Nima Alidoust, Johnny Yu and Hani Goodarzi Tahoe Therapeutics O ne of the holy grails of biology is digitally simulating a living cell. If researchers can use computers to more accurately understand how new medicines would react in the body, that could give them greater confidence when they're tested on animals and humans. But while large language models have led to breakthroughs in modeling how proteins act, applying the same technology to simulating all the complexities of an entire cell hasn't been as fruitful. There's simply not enough data. But in February of this year, a startup named Tahoe Therapeutics got one step closer to that goal with the release of Tahoe-100M, a collection of 100 million different datapoints showing how different kinds of cancer cells responded to interactions with over 1,000 different molecules. This type of data–called pertubations–is crucial to training AI models, because information on how cells respond to various molecules improves an algorithm's ability to predict how they'll be affected by others. 'We believe that the Tahoe-100M was a Mars landing moment for single-cell datasets,' Tahoe CEO Nima Alidoust, 39, told Forbes . The company was able to build this dataset less than three years after it was founded thanks to its Mosaic platform, which lets the company take 'cells from many different types of patients, from all different organs and then put them together,' rather than the conventional techniques, which test cells from only one individual at a time, explained CSO and cofounder Johnny Yu. 'So every time we run an experiment, we're generating massive single cell atlases of which drugs affect which patients.' 'Our core superpower is the ability to generate the massive datasets required for virtual cell models,' Alidoust said. The ability to scale that data production quickly, he added, is Tahoe's 'distinguishing factor' compared to other companies working on AI for drug discovery. It's also foundational to the company's own goal of building virtual cell models and using them to find new treatments for cancer and other diseases. Today, Tahoe announced it has raised $30 million in new venture funding, led by Amplify Partners. Other investors include Databricks Ventures, Wing Venture Capital, General Catalyst, AIX Ventures, Mubdala Ventures, Civilization Ventures and Conviction. The investment brings the company's total funding to $42 million and its valuation to $120 million. Poor AI predictions have been a source of constant frustration in biotech, said Krish Ramadurai, a partner at AIX Ventures who also sits on Tahoe's board. 'These AI algorithms keep recommending stuff, and then when you go to test it in the wet lab, it all sucks,' he said. The data Tahoe can generate, he said, makes a crucial difference for the accuracy of new models. Just a few months after Tahoe published its 100 million point dataset, the non-profit research organization Arc Institute released an open-source virtual cell model, State, which used Tahoe-100M as part of its training data. When benchmarked, Arc found that it has twice the accuracy of other AI models–and also beat out the simpler machine learning programs that had previously trounced other foundation models. That's a testament to nearly a decade's worth of work for Tahoe cofounder Yu, 34, who developed the underlying technology for Mosaic, while working in the lab of biochemistry and biophysics professor Hani Goodarzi at the University of California San Francisco. Alidoust first met Goodarzi, 41, when they were classmates at Princeton. The pair reconnected in 2022 to discuss the idea of founding a company to build virtual cell models. Goodarzi said that an essential piece of such a company would be large-scale data collection, so he brought in Yu. A month later, the three of them cofounded Tahoe–then called Vevo Therapuetics–along with UCSF researcher Kevin Shokat, 60. The company raised a $12 million seed round in December 2022. The name was changed from Vevo to Tahoe in April of this year after a legal challenge. With new capital in hand, Tahoe is now focused on building a dataset with over a billion single-cell datapoints to power its own virtual cell models. Armed with its own models and proprietary data, the company is accelerating the development of new medicines to fight cancer. Alidoust said Tahoe currently has a drug candidate against 'a major cancer subtype' with which it's conducting the studies required by the FDA to start testing on humans. Additionally, Alidoust said, although the company intends to keep its larger datasets proprietary, it does plan to select either a major pharmaceutical company or AI company to share data with. The idea would be to collaborate on either developing new medicines or new drug discovery AI models, giving Tahoe 'more shots on goal' for gaining revenue. That partner hasn't been selected yet, he said, but it is currently working with different companies on smaller projects. In the meantime, he said, the company will keep working on generating more data for its AI models and proving out its technology. 'We say in the company that this is morning in biology,' he said. 'We are building. And we hope others are going to build with us as well.' MORE AT FORBES: Forbes How AI And Mini-Organs Could Replace Testing Drugs On Animals By Alex Knapp Forbes MIT Spinout Strand Therapeutics Raises $153 Million To Make Cancerous Tumors Light Up By Amy Feldman Forbes This AI Founder Became A Billionaire By Building ChatGPT For Doctors By Amy Feldman Forbes As Trump Cuts Cancer Research Funding, Billionaire Sean Parker Wants To Scale It Up By Alex Knapp
Medscape
34 minutes ago
- Medscape
Canada Issues Sweeping Updates for Obesity Pharmacotherapy
TOPLINE: Canada has released an updated guideline on pharmacotherapy for obesity management in adults that includes six new and seven revised recommendations, reflecting the latest evidence through May 2025. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic literature review from January 2022 to July 2024, supplemented by relevant trials published through May 2025, to identify studies assessing the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for weight management. They also conducted 13 targeted searches on managing weight-related complications in 13 subpopulations with adiposity-related health issues, including cardiovascular disease, heart failure, prediabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, and osteoarthritis, among others. Primary care physicians, obesity medicine specialists, and people with lived experience of obesity provided feedback on the recommendations. TAKEAWAY: Measures of central adiposity, in addition to ethnicity-specific BMI and adiposity-related complications, should be used to guide the decision to initiate pharmacotherapy. Obesity pharmacotherapy should be used in conjunction with health behavior changes and individualized based on a person's specific health needs, values, and preferences. The recommendations include two new medications, tirzepatide and setmelanotide, that were not included in previous versions of the guideline, as well as new recommendations for obesity-related complications. The researchers recommend against the use of compounded medications or medications other than those approved for weight loss in people with excess adiposity. IN PRACTICE: Obesity pharmacotherapy 'is one of three pillars of treatment outlined in the full Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline, with other pillars being behavioral and psychological and surgical approaches,' said the author in a press release. 'Obesity treatment should always be tailored to each person's specific health needs, values, and preferences.' SOURCE: The study, led by Sue Pedersen, MD, endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in Calgary and lead author of the guideline, was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. LIMITATIONS: The guideline has limitations, in that it includes only medications currently approved in Canada, although other medications are approved for obesity management in other countries. Also, there are more than 200 health complications associated with obesity, and it was not feasible to search the literature for all of them. DISCLOSURES: Pedersen reported receiving grants for clinical trials from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Prometric, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Merck, Abbott, Dexcom, HLS, Bayer, AbbVie, Roche, Amgen, and Pfizer. She has also received payment for medical education lectures and speakers bureaus from AstraZeneca, Bausch, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Merck, Abbott, Dexcom, HLS, Bayer, and Pfizer, and has received travel support from AstraZeneca, Bausch, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, and Dexcom. In addition, Pedersen reported participating on a data safety monitoring board for Regeneron. The other coauthors also report receiving fees from multiple commercial entities. These competing interests are included in the paper. Marilynn Larkin, MA, is an award-winning medical writer and editor whose work has appeared in numerous publications, including Medscape Medical News and its sister publication MDedge, The Lancet (where she was a contributing editor), and Reuters Health. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
