High weight/low reps vs. Low weight/high reps

[Engineer_Guy]

If you are looking to achieve the skeletor look, congrats, you've achieved it.

No way, Skeletor is buffer than that guy.

[adamdavidson47]

No way, Skeletor is buffer than that guy.

Crap! Fixed it!

[chazzy1864]

I have never seen a real source for this claim, only people quoting a Fred Hatfield post where he mentions this scientific test being done during the Mexico City Olympics in 1964, despite the Olympics being in Tokyo that year.

Oh snap!

[Kelei]

I have never seen a real source for this claim, only people quoting a Fred Hatfield post where he mentions this scientific test being done during the Mexico City Olympics in 1964, despite the Olympics being in Tokyo that year.

I'm quite sure it's merely a mistake, he meant 1968 not 1964.

[darinaldi]

Oh snap!

No oh snap, I'm not trying to discredit anything Kelei said; I legitimately want to know if he or anyone has found the source of this statement other than that Dr. Squat post. It's one of those things that gets referenced a lot but only as hearsay.

[Kelei]

No oh snap, I'm not trying to discredit anything Kelei said; I legitimately want to know if he or anyone has found the source of this statement other than that Dr. Squat post. It's one of those things that gets referenced a lot but only as hearsay.

I'm trying to track down some of the original sources although I don't like my chances. Also for the record I'm pretty sure it was the 25 yard dash that was measured instead of the 40 yard dash, I should probably clear up that mistake now.

In all seriousness though I doubt Hatfield would make something like this up, surely someone would have called him out on it by now if such tests never took place.

For the people who are unaware of what we're talking about.

Dr. Fred Hatfield writes on his website that “Pound for pound, Olympic weightlifters have a greater level of speed-strength than any other class of athletes in all of sport. This fact was made very clear during a massive scientific expedition carried out on the athletes at the Mexico City Olympics in 1964. Sports scientists found that Olympic lifters were able to both vertical jump higher than any class of athletes (including the high jumpers), and run a 25 yard dash faster than any class of athletes (including the sprinters).”

[chazzy1864]

No oh snap, I'm not trying to discredit anything Kelei said; I legitimately want to know if he or anyone has found the source of this statement other than that Dr. Squat post. It's one of those things that gets referenced a lot but only as hearsay.

Well this just took a turn for boring.

[Orlando1234977]

Well this just took a turn for boring.

In regards to the body saving 2B fibers for explosive movements I don't believe that such a thing occurs, the body can't store two different sets of adaptions, i.e one for power and one for endurance.

If you have a fiber that takes 3 bouts of 45 seconds to exhaust and another that takes 3 bouts of 5 seconds to exhaust, we can't exhaust them both, and therefore see adoption? Not sure what you're getting at with not storing two different sets of adaptions.. we're not built like a machine, you can improve many things simultaneously .

I'm sure you're aware that olympic lifters have the best 40 yard dash times in the world, it's due to their low rep (and low fatigue) training, this prevents excessive 2B to 2A conversion which reduces maximal power. Sprinters are faster over 100m because they have better strength endurance, they can maintain a high level of power output longer than an olympic lifter can (even though their maximal power is lower than olympic lifters).

Could you imagine what would happen if the best olympic lifters in the world started using sets of 15 reps in addition to their usual training? I'm willing to bet my life that they'd lose strength/power.

They also were born with an extremely large percentage of 2B fibers, therefore they'd also be an example of training specific to their genetic makeup. For the other 7 billion of us not on the flat left of the bell shaped curve, variety would be necessary for max fiber exhaustion/size. For a specific goal, I can see specific duration training etc and agree 100%, but I don't see how 'size' fits into that S.A.I.D. category as it can come from so many different sources.

[_XYDREX_]

If you have a fiber that takes 3 bouts of 45 seconds to exhaust and another that takes 3 bouts of 5 seconds to exhaust, we can't exhaust them both, and therefore see adoption? Not sure what you're getting at with not storing two different sets of adaptions.. we're not built like a machine, you can improve many things simultaneously .

They also were born with an extremely large percentage of 2B fibers, therefore they'd also be an example of training specific to their genetic makeup. For the other 7 billion of us not on the flat left of the bell shaped curve, variety would be necessary for max fiber exhaustion/size. For a specific goal, I can see specific duration training etc and agree 100%, but I don't see how 'size' fits into that S.A.I.D. category as it can come from so many different sources.

Yeah I gotta say I do agree with a variety of stimulus for bodybuilding purpose. I dont think it violates the SAID principle, though it took me a while to wrap my head around it.

If the goal is maximal performance in a specific task, then yes training should be limited to that exact task & nothing else. But adaption to a certain task as per SAID involves all the body's systems - muscular system, CNS, metabolic system etc. With respect to this I agree you cannot store 2 sets of adaptions. But in bodybuilding you only 'see' the muscular system, this is where I believe you cannot apply the SAID principle too precisely. The other systems form an envelope of constraints around the goal of maximal development of the muscular system. The goal is to maximize development of muscular system, per given amount of 'cost' to the other systems. Thus I believe there is a place for variety. Maximizing a 10 rep max is a very, very good approximation of what a bodybuilder should strive for, but I believe it is only an approximation & there is room for variety to further maximize the goal. We cannot assume a perfectly linear response in all systems.
Plus we do have over 20 different fiber types, 2A, 2B etc are generalized categories.

[Kelei]

If you have a fiber that takes 3 bouts of 45 seconds to exhaust and another that takes 3 bouts of 5 seconds to exhaust, we can't exhaust them both, and therefore see adoption? Not sure what you're getting at with not storing two different sets of adaptions.. we're not built like a machine, you can improve many things simultaneously .

The thing is.........you don't need to exhaust all your fibers, in fact it's counterproductive. If you generate enough fatigue to exhaust your small/slow fibers you are harming your potential for hypertrophy of your large/fast fibers due to excessive fiber conversion. Performing high rep sets to finish your workout may result in some hypertrophy of your small/slow fibers but it will come at the cost of your 2B and some of your 2A fibers getting smaller in order to be better suited for endurance.

If you are exhausting your small/slow (even some of your intermediate fibers) you are losing size in your large/fast fibers.

I'm not sure what you mean by being able to train both ways without any detriment, some people seem to think that using some low rep sets followed by some moderate rep sets and then finally finishing with some high rep sets will give you maximal development of your fast fibers, intermediate fibers and slow fibers, it doesn't work like this in the real world. Using heavy sets of 3 reps with plenty of rest between sets to maximally target your large/fast fibers is an absolute waste of time if you're going to follow it up with higher rep work because the fatigue will start converting your fibers.

Let's say you start with 3 sets of 3 reps at 90% to train your 2B fibers and then you finish up with higher rep work later. At first 3 x 3 at 90% will work wonders for your 2B fibers but eventually down the track you will no longer have any 2B fibers left because they've all converted to 2A fibers. So after a few months of training there's no point in continuing to include 3 x 3 at 90% in your training anymore because there are no more 2B fibers left to target.

In regards to olympic lifters and other athletes in general being born with an extremely large percentage of fast or slow fibers you're greatly exaggerating, the genetic differences between the most gifted athletes and the average person are around 5% at most. You're not going to find an athlete with twice as many 2B fibers as the normal person etc. Yes genetic differences do exist but they're certainly not as large as most people seem to think. If you were to swing 5% in the other direction you'd find the elite endurance athletes who are born with perhaps 5% more slow fibers. So there's potentially around a 10% genetic difference between elite endurance and power athletes but there's only a 5% deviation from average either way. Don't confuse with with fiber adaptions due to training, I'm well aware that elite endurance athletes can have far more slow fibers than the average person, this is because their training has converted their fibers, however the point is that if you take a person with the genetics of an elite endurance athlete (but who has never trained) and an average person there will be no more than a 5% genetic difference.

You mentioned we can improve multiple things at the same time, well to some extent that's true, especially for those who are not very well trained, for example increasing your 15RM will increase your 1RM and vice versa, however eventually there comes a time where this is no longer true. Elite olympic lifters could increase their 15RM in the front squat but it will lower their 1RM because the fatigue adaptions brought about from the 15RM training would cause excessive fiber conversion which would result in a loss of maximal force/power. The size/endurance benefit gained from the high rep training would be outweighed by the size/force/power loss brought about due to conversion (and nervous system endurance adaptions) of the fast fibers.

[Kelei]

Yeah I gotta say I do agree with a variety of stimulus for bodybuilding purpose. I dont think it violates the SAID principle, though it took me a while to wrap my head around it.

If the goal is maximal performance in a specific task, then yes training should be limited to that exact task & nothing else. But adaption to a certain task as per SAID involves all the body's systems - muscular system, CNS, metabolic system etc. With respect to this I agree you cannot store 2 sets of adaptions. But in bodybuilding you only 'see' the muscular system, this is where I believe you cannot apply the SAID principle too precisely. The other systems form an envelope of constraints around the goal of maximal development of the muscular system. The goal is to maximize development of muscular system, per given amount of 'cost' to the other systems. Thus I believe there is a place for variety. Maximizing a 10 rep max is a very, very good approximation of what a bodybuilder should strive for, but I believe it is only an approximation & there is room for variety to further maximize the goal. We cannot assume a perfectly linear response in all systems.
Plus we do have over 20 different fiber types, 2A, 2B etc are generalized categories.

As you've said there can only be one set of adaptions. So if you perform 5 rep sets, 10 rep sets and 15 rep sets your body isn't going to store a 5 rep adaption, a 10 rep adaption and a 15 rep adaption. Instead it will adapt to the average which is 10. Let's say you usually perform 10 rep sets only, your body will try to adapt for best performance during 10 rep sets. Now you add some 5 rep sets, your body will adapt to the average which is 7.5 reps per set, now you add in some 15 rep sets, the average is dragged back up to 10. So after all is said and done the average is still 10 (even though you're using 3 different rep ranges).

I've tested this myself and on friends and guys at my gym I've been helping with their training, there's no noticeable difference between dividing your training into 5/10/15 rep sets or simply performing an equal number of 10 rep sets.

[Orlando1234977]

In regards to olympic lifters and other athletes in general being born with an extremely large percentage of fast or slow fibers you're greatly exaggerating, the genetic differences between the most gifted athletes and the average person are around 5% at most. You're not going to find an athlete with twice as many 2B fibers as the normal person etc. Yes genetic differences do exist but they're certainly not as large as most people seem to think. If you were to swing 5% in the other direction you'd find the elite endurance athletes who are born with perhaps 5% more slow fibers. So there's potentially around a 10% genetic difference between elite endurance and power athletes but there's only a 5% deviation from average either way. Don't confuse with with fiber adaptions due to training, I'm well aware that elite endurance athletes can have far more slow fibers than the average person, this is because their training has converted their fibers, however the point is that if you take a person with the genetics of an elite endurance athlete (but who has never trained) and an average person there will be no more than a 5% genetic difference.

'Skeletal muscle fiber type distribution is quite heterogeneous, with about 25% of North American Caucasian men and women having either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fiber in their vastus lateralis muscle. To what extent human skeletal muscle fiber type proportion is under the control of genetic factors is examined in this paper. The results summarized here suggest that about 15% of the total variance in the proportion of type I muscle fibers in human is explained by the error component related to muscle sampling and technical variance, that about 40% of the phenotype variance is influenced by environmental factors, and the remaining variance (about 45%) is associated with inherited factors. These estimates suggest that a difference of about 30% in type I fibers among individuals could be explained exclusively by differences in the local environment and level of muscular contractile activity. However, unidentified genetic factors would have to be invoked to account for the observation that the skeletal muscle of about 25% of the North American Caucasian population have either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fibers.'

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (Pubmed)
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada.
1995 Aug;9(11):1091-5.

[Kelei]

'Skeletal muscle fiber type distribution is quite heterogeneous, with about 25% of North American Caucasian men and women having either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fiber in their vastus lateralis muscle. To what extent human skeletal muscle fiber type proportion is under the control of genetic factors is examined in this paper. The results summarized here suggest that about 15% of the total variance in the proportion of type I muscle fibers in human is explained by the error component related to muscle sampling and technical variance, that about 40% of the phenotype variance is influenced by environmental factors, and the remaining variance (about 45%) is associated with inherited factors. These estimates suggest that a difference of about 30% in type I fibers among individuals could be explained exclusively by differences in the local environment and level of muscular contractile activity. However, unidentified genetic factors would have to be invoked to account for the observation that the skeletal muscle of about 25% of the North American Caucasian population have either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fibers.'

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (Pubmed)
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada.
1995 Aug;9(11):1091-5.

Despite what is said, most variances are environmentally influenced. I've actually spoken at length with the physiology professor at my university about this topic and he told me that the general consensus amoung his fellow professors in the field is that a 5% genetic deviation from average is about as extreme as you're going to find.

"However, unidentified genetic factors would have to be invoked to account for the observation that the skeletal muscle of about 25% of the North American Caucasian population have either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fibers."

These unidentified genetic factors are likely never to be found because it's most likely they don't exist.

[onehandstand]

I dont know.. I would be insulted but every avatar of those throwing insults is empty or a flabby body lol

ok brb again to rip the rips of my muscles

[xaxistech]

Heavier weights at low reps gains more muscle. The reason being that heavier weights pull and tear more muscle tissue. The more muscle tissue that needs to be repaired, the more mass you will gain after protein synthesis. As for definition, that usually comes with dropping body fat. I will do more reps when cutting, but still going heavy.

[sharpieblet]

I dont know.. I would be insulted but every avatar of those throwing insults is empty or a flabby body lol

ok brb again to rip the rips of my muscles

stop being a fruit cup. go eat a hamburger and lift some weights or gtfo of the bodybuilding forums. BODYBUILDING forums. you are not a bodybuilder if all your goal in life is to be 100 lbs ripped.

[onehandstand]

stop being a fruit cup. go eat a hamburger and lift some weights or gtfo of the bodybuilding forums. BODYBUILDING forums. you are not a bodybuilder if all your goal in life is to be 100 lbs ripped.

How bout u put down that fruit cup and shape up that horrible body you call a body.. You said it yourself.. This is a body building forum.. For body builders not wanabe bodybuilders with nothing to show

And yeah my goal is 130..which im closing in on.. Whats your point here exactly? The advice i gave is a simple form of what every body else agreed on lol so stfu u ugly mother****er

And if youv been lifint since high school and you still look like a fat trucker i really feel sorry for you bro

[sharpieblet]

How bout u put down that fruit cup and shape up that horrible body you call a body.. You said it yourself.. This is a body building forum.. For body builders not wanabe bodybuilders with nothing to show

And yeah my goal is 130..which im closing in on.. Whats your point here exactly? The advice i gave is a simple form of what every body else agreed on lol so stfu u ugly mother****er

And if youv been lifint since high school and you still look like a fat trucker i really feel sorry for you bro

you make me laugh. i'm glad bb.com can have some comic relief every once in a while.

[onehandstand]

you make me laugh. i'm glad bb.com can have some comic relief every once in a while.

Always happy to know my words make someones fat jiggle cross continents

[sharpieblet]

Always happy to know my words make someones fat jiggle cross continents

there's no hope for this guy

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

ITT: manorexic kidlet is vicious and catty to the other posters because he's skinnier and prettier than them and wants them to know that all of the cute boys belong to HIM

[onehandstand]

there's no hope for this guy

No hope? This is a forum where people share ideas.. I did not provoke this pointless bull****... You think i'l take an insult lying down?

[onehandstand]

ITT: manorexic OP is vicious and catty to the other posters because he's skinnier and prettier than them and all of the boys want him

Damn right im pretty mr anonymous

[sharpieblet]

No hope? This is a forum where people share ideas.. I did not provoke this pointless bull****... You think i'l take an insult lying down?

calm down man, it's just the internet....

and i'm sure there are far more OTHER things you'd rather take lying down lulzzzz

[Matsushime]

I love people who weigh less than a runway model that brag about having abs. Abs on a skinny dude is like tits on a fat chick.

If you are looking to achieve the skeletor on heroin look, congrats, you've achieved it.

Now gtfo, and eat a sandwich or 8.

I Love It!

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

did not provoke this pointless bull****... You think i'l take an insult lying down?

Yeah little guy, actually I do - because you did provoke it by coming in here shooting your mouth off about your own superiority when you weigh less than the dumbbells a lot of us train with.

You really need to just concede that although you are shredded you are not in any position to be an authority on weight training until you put on some mass. Starving until you have a six pack does not make you a bodybuilder, getting huge and THEN starving yourself until you have a six pack makes you a bodybuilder.

If you'd step back and realize that you too have a long way to go, I would lay off. Can't speak for the rest.

[chazzy1864]

The advice i gave is a simple form of what every body else agreed on lol so stfu u ugly mother****er

Accctttuuaaallllyyyyyyy, nobody agreed with your advice.


Except you.

ITT: manorexic OP is vicious and catty to the other posters because he's skinnier and prettier than them and wants them to know that all of the cute boys belong to HIM

The 100lb wonder isn't the OP. Please IDBLOL, don't insult the OP like that.

Starving until you have a six pack does not make you a bodybuilder.

Correct. Crackheads and geekers do it all the time.

[Retoaded]

dude is a troll. my wife is 5'6, wears a size 4 (thats small for those of you who have not become married and been forced to understand women's clothing), and fit as hell. she weighs around 128.

no way a 5'6" male weighs 105.

[mrmrbill]

And yeah my goal is 130..which im closing in on..

I should hope -- visually, your ab development far exceeds your lats, shoulders and arms (the only parts visible in your pics). Looks like the abs of bodybuilder weighing "X lbs" strapped onto the body of a bodybuilder weighing "X lbs - (quite a lot more lbs)". For a "mirror-muscle" lifter, you didn't even manage get that part right.

Fitness != Thin, waify BF% levels and abz disproportion.

[IDrinkBloodLOL]

Crackheads and geekers do it all the time.

I'm stealing "geekers." Oh, and I edited that post to say "kidlet" instead of "OP."

I guess I instinctively assumed he was the OP since he's the biggest ******* in the thread and it's a rule that OP is always a *******. My bad.