How do muscles develop if you work for a shitload of reps instead of weight?

Maybe but if you look at the studies they found equivalent hypertrophy at 80% and 30% intensities as long as you go until failure. 30% ~100 reps which is pretty extreme. I guess that I would never do that though, I like strength

This intrigues me. Thanks for the info.

...

Slow twitch fibers

High volume muscles with big oxygen tubes

You'll look stronger than you are, look a t mr piana.

>irrespective of what rep-range you use
This is true to some extend but it's only half the story. As a rule of thumb, hypertrophy gains are best if you are lifting with an intensity of at least 60% of your 1RM. Obviously if you can do a hundred reps, the weight is much too light to elicit much of a stimulus in this regard.

Recent research has shown that it is also possible to see gains in hypertrophy from using lighter loads (as much as your 30RM to my knowledge), but in order to see gains with such a light load, the set must be taken to absolute failure, which is the kind of training that tends to make you vomit on the floor.

>How will my arms develop if I decided to work at it until I can do 135x100?
Your muscles would probably continue to grow pretty well at least until you are doing around 15 reps, at which point I'm guessing you'd start to see less and less growth as the exercise turns into more and more of an endurance exercise.
There's a reason the 8-12 rep range is usually recommended for hypertrophy work: it's heavy enough to elicit a relevant training stimulus while also being light enough so it's easier to perform more total work without screwing over your capacity to recover and/or joint health.

But scientific studies on this type of shit frequently contradict each other. Using common sense we can conclude its about more than volume, otherwise the guy who only runs on the treadmill would have equal legs to the guy who only squats a 1RM.

not if running is so easy that you'd have to run every waking minute to even make it near to 1rep weighted squat.

one of those studies showed that % didn't matter as long as volume was the same, though - and the user I mentioned here says he was using hundreds of reps and maintaining his size on that.

as for taking it to failure, that user did take everything to failure if I remember right.

> I asked him if he does a lot of volume and he said yeah a ton and showed his routine which was something like 500 squat jumps then 300 one-leg squats
That's not volume though dumbass.

>one of those studies showed that % didn't matter as long as volume was the same
But did it really? Percentage of 1RM might not matter to a point, but obviously there's such a thing as too light a weight. Otherwise we'd all be swole just bearing the weight of the air on top of us when we walk around.

>maintaining his size
Big difference between making gains and just maintaining. And also, when trying to draw conclusions, look for the average - not the outlier.
Just some thoughts.

So, you could just switch your compound lifts to 3 sets 8 reps insteast of 5x5 and still see strength and more size gains?