Number of reps for legs exercises

I was recently reading an article saying about how "less reps/heavier weight = strength" and "more reps/lighter weights = bigger muscle/more muscle defination". The basic science of this makes sense to me, but something just quickly popped into my head, and was wondering what other people's thoughts were.

The idea was this. For upper body I tend to do 3 sets of 10-12 reps and for legs I tend to do 3 sets of 8-10 reps. But I was thinking, as the legs (quads and hams) have a greater muscle mass, should I be aiming to do "more reps/lighter weights" to build up the greater area of muscle, or because they pack more strength should I stick with the slightly "lesser reps/heavier weight"?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[QUOTE=Reach_Yeah;351608591]I was recently reading an article saying about how "less reps/heavier weight = strength" and "more reps/lighter weights = bigger muscle/more muscle defination". The basic science of this makes sense to me, but something just quickly popped into my head, and was wondering what other people's thoughts were.

The idea was this. For upper body I tend to do 3 sets of 10-12 reps and for legs I tend to do 3 sets of 8-10 reps. But I was thinking, as the legs (quads and hams) have a greater muscle mass, should I be aiming to do "more reps/lighter weights" to build up the greater area of muscle, or because they pack more strength should I stick with the slightly "lesser reps/heavier weight"?

Thanks for your thoughts.[/QUOTE]What will work best for you varies more with your genetics than second-guessing theory.

#? - Untill you cant walk.

For me i have found that when doing heavy weight i can still push myself to 12-14 reps for legs, this seems to be the right range for me personally gaining some quad size, and also short sprints have helped also.

[QUOTE=Reach_Yeah;351608591]I was recently reading an article saying about how "less reps/heavier weight = strength" and "more reps/lighter weights = bigger muscle/more muscle defination". The basic science of this makes sense to me, but something just quickly popped into my head, and was wondering what other people's thoughts were.

The idea was this. For upper body I tend to do 3 sets of 10-12 reps and for legs I tend to do 3 sets of 8-10 reps. But I was thinking, as the legs (quads and hams) have a greater muscle mass, should I be aiming to do "more reps/lighter weights" to build up the greater area of muscle, or because they pack more strength should I stick with the slightly "lesser reps/heavier weight"?

Thanks for your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting question. Personally, I found high reps are great for leg growth. Not too high though - in the 12-15 range is amazing. I would alternate it e.g. one week go for 7-10, another week go for 12-15.

This is where your training log comes in handy. Try one month or so of low reps, another month of high reps and maybe another month of a mix. Make notes after each workout, keep track of progress and make adjustments based on how your body responds. You will then find the best rep/weight combo for you.

I like both high & low reps. 4-6 & 10-12 are my favorite ranges. Then again I squat 2x a week, so I don't mind doing both.

High rep leg work is awesome for some fast size gains. But I personally can't keep it up for more than a few weeks at a time. I find I have to periodize my leg training more often than my upper body training.

[QUOTE=Reach_Yeah;351608591]I was recently reading an article saying about how "less reps/heavier weight = strength" and "more reps/lighter weights = bigger muscle/more muscle defination". The basic science of this makes sense to me, but something just quickly popped into my head, and was wondering what other people's thoughts were.

The idea was this. For upper body I tend to do 3 sets of 10-12 reps and for legs I tend to do 3 sets of 8-10 reps. But I was thinking, as the legs (quads and hams) have a greater muscle mass, should I be aiming to do "more reps/lighter weights" to build up the greater area of muscle, or because they pack more strength should I stick with the slightly "lesser reps/heavier weight"?

Thanks for your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Dorian Yates tends to think 8-12 reps are the perfect amount for legs and 6-10 for upper body!

Unlike my other bodyparts which are strictly 6-8, i try to keep legs above 10.

Legs respond to a wider variety of rep ranges than upper body. Hamstrings should be trained with 3-8 reps with many sets because they are mostly fast twitch. Quads respond well to lower and higher(up to 60) reps.

Thanks for your replies. I do realise that there are varying factors, such as personal aims and goals, as well as differences in genetics. I was just interested in hearing some of your preferences, as food for thought as I experiment for myself too.

I might try aiming for 12-15 on the legs for a month or two and see how it feels and develops.

I prefer a 8-15 range for the legs. Hamstrings are usually on the higher end, with quadriceps slightly lower.

What I like to do is 15 reps one workout, 12 the next, then 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2. It allows you to increase weight quite dramatically from one workout to the next.