Hypertrophy is NOT tied to rep range, and we need to redefine our definition of "volume" in regards to building muscle.

How many of you are aware that hypertrophy is not tied to rep range, but total amount of sets?

Here is a great article going into detail about how we should be defining volume based off of new studies regarding rep ranges. The tl;dr is that hypertrophy is not based on rep range, but total amount of "hard sets" (a set taken 2-3 reps from failure). So, 5x5 would cause more hypertrophy than 3x10, for example. If you don't want to read the article, here is an image that sums up it's conclusions.

Once I learned this, it completely revolutionized my training. It completely changes the way that we should be defining "volume", at least from a hypertrophy stand point. Volume should no longer be defined as sets x reps, but simply total amount of "hard sets". The more sets you do, the more hypertrophy is caused, regardless of rep range. One thing that should be noted though, is that strength and muscular endurance ARE tied to rep range. So lower reps will build more strength, while higher rep work will cause more muscular endurance.

If this is new information to you, what are your thoughts on this and it's implications for how you program for yourself and others?