It said they were not beginners and the loads were taken to failure on the last set so they had to be decent. If they are benching 250 and squatting 300+ at the end that's pretty good.
I was a little more surprised to see that size gains are the same with higher volumes regardless of rep ranges. It's something to keep in mind. Density builds mass as well as hypertrophy.
In the end all of this is already "understood" but it is definitely making me consider making some changes once I am off the 40 day thing.
17 minutes is kind of intriguing. Although sets a 10 squats is not.
Yah, but I was thinking what if the last set was to failure after just three sets of 3-5 reps? That would take a lot less time and maybe provide the same results, in terms of strength at least if not hypertrophy. According to that ExRx article I posted a few days ago, there's a big drop-off in gains after even just one set of close to max effort. Doing 7 sets of 3 reps and calling that a strength protocol seems a little crazy, although I really don't know my way around serious lifters. I just don't see what those last 3-4 sets or so are benefiting except burn-out.
I think maybe the size gains were the same because the strength group was doing such a high volume. For me, the biggest fault in the study was that they wanted to maintain equivalent tonnages. But one of the advantages of a strength protocol is that you can get a lot of benefit with a lot fewer reps, so even if the max is 90% instead of 60-70%, the overall tonnage should be a lot less.
It's like asking sprinters to run as many miles overall as endurance runners. And then comparing the results. It's going to take the sprinters a lot longer because they need a lot of rest intervals. But who sprints that much? A good 10-15 minutes of sprinting with proper rest intervals should be equivalent to an hour of aerobic running. That's the theory anyway. Higher intensity/less duration = lower intensity/greater duration.
The only way I can see the higher rep protocol working is with higher frequency, like what you're doing. I do each big lift once a week, so even if I push it to close to max effort, I have plenty of time for recovery. I could do the same lift 3-4 times a week at a lesser effort level, and possibly get the same results, but for me, that wouldn't work psychologically. I would look at the bar and think "Again?" "Didn't I just do this yesterday?"
Today I'm doing squats, bench, dips, and overhead presses. My last workout I did deadlift, hip thrust, bentover row, Russian twist, supine pulldown, straight arm pulldown, and face pull. I guess I need that variety to keep things fresh, because lifting weights is already a pretty boring thing to do, compared to running (outside).
Still, I think possibly a 40-day style routine might work for me if it was done in weekly alternation with my current, high-intensity, once-a-week routine. There might be a lot of benefit in doing lower weight deadlifts three times a week and then once the following week at close to max effort. It would also be a good preventative to overtraining.
Another possibility is to do drop sets at progressively lower weights instead of sets across at 80-85% max effort, increasing the reps at each lower increment. Might be the best of both worlds. For the bench for example, do:
2x1x225
2x5x195
1x10x175
1x20x135.
I've experimented a little with this, and I didn't really like having to do all those reps in the end, but it might lead to better overall conditioning.