strength training vs. hypertrophy

[jcbuche]

I'm growingly frustrated at the amount of confusion over low rep/high weight vs. low weight/hi rep for gaining size. I've read alot from Medhi and Michael Matthews and like the strength training programs, but at this point I want to gain size and I've always thought that was a low weight/hi rep type program but after purchasing and reading Bigger Leaner Stronger by Michael Matthews he doesn't agree and pretty much thinks that the low weight/hi rep is best suited for people juicing who can handle that type of work load.

I just wish there wasn't so much confusion. I've been lifting seriously for a couple years now and am not happy with my progress and am really desperate to find the best approach for mass.

Anyone that can offer some guidance is welcome.

Thanks everyone!

Joshua

[Caesura75]

The fact that even the greatest bodybuilders, trainers, and scientists can't unanimously agree on this speaks for itself.

We're all different and we all respond differently. Find what works best for you.

[hmmmm16417]

every one responds a little bit differently so you have to see what works best for you. I try to get the best of both worlds and typically do 4 sets of each exercise. my reps go down while weight goes up

example:
bench press

12 x 155
10 x 175
8 x 195
6 x 205

when you can complete that with no problem, or can do more than 6 reps on last set.....increase weight by 5 lbs next workout.

again, this is just what I like and seems to work best for me. if your results aren't what you want, change something.

just make sure your diet matches what your goals are.

[7Seconds]

Strength is built in the gym, size is built at the dinner table. I can tell you that I have put on a good amount of muscle working in low rep ranges, and that I have put on a good amount of strength working in higher rep ranges.

You can train any old way, and without the proper diet (excess of cals if you are looking to build muscle) nothing will ever come of it. Likewise, any proper training, high or low reps, with an excess of cals will build muscle.

[bodyhard]

Do both.

I don't take anyone's word on what works regardless on how well known they are. What worked/s for them doesn't mean it will work for you.

However what we do know is lifting weights will help you get bigger/stronger, now what combination (reps/sets -heavy/light) works for you is a different story.

So what does one do? Experiment with yourself. Only you will truly know what works best for you when put it into practice and no one can take that from you.

Me? I do both, in fact I do 3, I lift heavy with low reps, I lift medium with medium reps and I lift light with high reps.

It works exceptionally well for me.

Do you.

[IIISpartacusIII]

You're offering up a false dichotomy. Strength training does NOT involve only low rep sets. Strength athletes also do hypertrophy work. Also, becoming stronger allows for a greater progression during hypertrophy training. If you can build muscle doing incline dumbbell presses with 80lbs for 10 reps what you'll find is that by becoming stronger in the long run; you can build even more muscle with 140 lbs for 10 reps. Strength has great carry over to hypertrophy training and you can do a bit of both even in the same workout although I personally think transitioning over is even better.

[bradandblake]

Do both.

I don't take anyone's word on what works regardless on how well known they are. What worked/s for them doesn't mean it will work for you.

However what we do know is lifting weights will help you get bigger/stronger, now what combination (reps/sets -heavy/light) works for you is a different story.

So what does one do? Experiment with yourself. Only you will truly know what works best for you when put it into practice and no one can take that from you.

Me? I do both, in fact I do 3, I lift heavy with low reps, I lift medium with medium reps and I lift light with high reps.

It works exceptionally well for me.

Do you.

^^ This.

Rotate the weights around and surprise yourself and your muscles. It will keep things interesting.

[weiss1967]

BH nailed it again.

From my personal experience, and I am doing almost exclusively 20-rep sets lately, "high rep/low weight" is often taken a little too far. Weight is only marginally lower while reps are doubled, this is what brings about the moster pump and new growth. Say, if I can press (leg press) 7 plates for only a couple reps, I can certainly do 6 plates for 20, and this is what my "low weight" is. I need a mouthpiece to keep my teeth from crushing while doing this. I was negged and called troll and so forth for advocating for "higher rep" training, so, don't want to make it public once again, for your eyes only, okay. Burn after reading

[heatwave13]

I totally agree with the "mixing it up" line of thinking and actually this has worked well for me over the years. I'll go a few months of heavy lifting where I'll do 5 sets of 3 reps with about 80-90% of my max on the big lifts.

Then, perhaps a few months later, I'll focus on high rep kettlebell training, bodyweight exercises, and so on. It all works, but none of it works forever.

[7Seconds]

Rep ranges are fine but what should be of greater concern is total volume, and how that relates to intensity. Statements about rep ranges or numbers of sets are completely arbitrary without a greater context like total work load. Like I said earlier I put on a good amount of muscle working in low rep ranges, and I have put on a good amount of strength working in higher rep ranges. But the context of those statements isn't complete until you know how many high rep sets I do, or how many low rep sets, at what weights.

Effort > rep ranges.


+Still think more food is the answer.

[jcbuche]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

When you say to do a mix of both, would that mean to add some sets or devote a whole day?

Lastly, alot of this seems to boil down to the individual. Sadly even though I've been motivated and dedicated to this for awhile I can't honestly say I know what works best for me. I've switched programs, gone from 5x5's to GVT's, on a cal surplus and on a deficit, etc so I've only made slow but steady progress, but I can't say what did it, it's all been a combination.

At this point I just want to find one course of action (bulk) for a year straight, I'm just unsure of a hypertrophy or 5X5 approach.

Thanks again everyone.

[reddog140]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

When you say to do a mix of both, would that mean to add some sets or devote a whole day?

Lastly, alot of this seems to boil down to the individual. Sadly even though I've been motivated and dedicated to this for awhile I can't honestly say I know what works best for me. I've switched programs, gone from 5x5's to GVT's, on a cal surplus and on a deficit, etc so I've only made slow but steady progress, but I can't say what did it, it's all been a combination.

At this point I just want to find one course of action (bulk) for a year straight, I'm just unsure of a hypertrophy or 5X5 approach.

Thanks again everyone.

Do an 8-12 week program of both to really give it a shot. I truly feel that most all will get greater growth from a slightly higher rep range especially for legs natty or not. Just my opinion.

[Brackneyc]

I totally agree with the "mixing it up" line of thinking and actually this has worked well for me over the years. I'll go a few months of heavy lifting where I'll do 5 sets of 3 reps with about 80-90% of my max on the big lifts.

Then, perhaps a few months later, I'll focus on high rep kettlebell training, bodyweight exercises, and so on. It all works, but none of it works forever.

I don't think those suggesting a "mix it up" approach are thinking of going months in-between changes to the routine. My guess is they are suggesting weekly changes. Sort of a P90x muscle confusion program.

[drudixon]

I don't think those suggesting a "mix it up" approach are thinking of going months in-between changes to the routine. My guess is they are suggesting weekly changes. Sort of a P90x muscle confusion program.

John (bh) does 2,2,2weeks of each repeat if I recall.

[JOHN GARGANI]

Do both.

I don't take anyone's word on what works regardless on how well known they are. What worked/s for them doesn't mean it will work for you.

However what we do know is lifting weights will help you get bigger/stronger, now what combination (reps/sets -heavy/light) works for you is a different story.

So what does one do? Experiment with yourself. Only you will truly know what works best for you when put it into practice and no one can take that from you.

Me? I do both, in fact I do 3, I lift heavy with low reps, I lift medium with medium reps and I lift light with high reps.

It works exceptionally well for me.

Do you.

absolutely EXCELLENT answer!

OP: follow his logic here and you will formulate your workout.....

[x-trainer ben]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

When you say to do a mix of both, would that mean to add some sets or devote a whole day?

Lastly, alot of this seems to boil down to the individual. Sadly even though I've been motivated and dedicated to this for awhile I can't honestly say I know what works best for me. I've switched programs, gone from 5x5's to GVT's, on a cal surplus and on a deficit, etc so I've only made slow but steady progress, but I can't say what did it, it's all been a combination.

At this point I just want to find one course of action (bulk) for a year straight, I'm just unsure of a hypertrophy or 5X5 approach.

Thanks again everyone.

Whole day!
Then you can do either a month of all heavy, a month of all medium, or a month of all light. Some do alternating weight each time they hit that body part.
For example monday light, wednesday heavy, and sundAy medium. The. Cool part is that you make up your own plan. Then you can note how you respond and tweak it.

[jobronze]

If your getting stronger...FOR REPS, whatever rep range it may be, you will be seeing progress over time.

For me rep range has been secondary to progress.

I've been getting stronger (FOR REPS) on Squats ( lower reps) and Foot evelated split squats ( higher reps), and my legs have really improved. Haven't been progressing in the upper body since I've been stuck on the same weights/reps for the longest no matter the range. My real world anecdotal evidence.

The other question you need to ask yourself is: are the outside of the gym requirements being met? Nutrition, sleep, stress, recovery...

[Fishman15]

Excellent info ITT...

[scullin]

Programs like 531, Cube Method, and Juggernaught will get you both.

[johnmackay]

BH nailed it again.

From my personal experience, and I am doing almost exclusively 20-rep sets lately, "high rep/low weight" is often taken a little too far. Weight is only marginally lower while reps are doubled, this is what brings about the moster pump and new growth. Say, if I can press (leg press) 7 plates for only a couple reps, I can certainly do 6 plates for 20, and this is what my "low weight" is. I need a mouthpiece to keep my teeth from crushing while doing this. I was negged and called troll and so forth for advocating for "higher rep" training, so, don't want to make it public once again, for your eyes only, okay. Burn after reading

I have been working with a BB trainer once a week since early June and this is a similar approach to what he has me doing, one additional thing he has me doing is timing my rest between sets; for most things I now get 1 minute rest between sets (for things like Squats, DL and leg press, I typically don't time, but everything else I do). The pump gets insane by the end of my workouts, I am totally exhausted and ready to take in a lot of calories! I cannot believe the growth I have gotten in such a short amount of time.

[JoeBlowUK]

Im going to throw my hat into the 'do both' camp.

You really cant wear the muscle out without doing the whole range from heavy to light.

Today was biceps day for me. I preacher curled my max weights. I did 5 sets at my max weight from 9>8>7>6>5 reps - so that's 35 reps in all for my max weight.

Next I stepped the weight down a notch and did another 3 sets 8>7>6 = another 21 reps.

Next I stepped the weight down even more and did another 3 sets 7>6>5 = another 18 reps

Finally I went down even lower and by now Im Im so fatigued Im struggling to move even the light weight (within my capability) and fire out another 5 sets in PERFECT form 9>8>8>7>7>5 = 44 reps.

OK, so I did end up curling for 45 minutes, managed to tear up the muscle at the max weight but continued to pump out the lower ranges at what amount to high reps - 118 in total although its not fair to count them all like that since most of them were on the lighter weights.

This is the method I've used for hypertrophy while still lifting super heavy and I have had consistent gains in that time.

[Autch97]

Joshua,

Size has nothing to do with strength! Strength involves cooperation between between the primary movers and stabilizers. For instance, say you are doing back squats at 225 lbs. For some people 225 lbs does $hit for their stabilizers and hence back squats are just a leg exercise at that weight, which is fine but back-squatting at 225 lbs for increased rep won't increase strength. To hit the stabilizers you need to go up in weight. The same could be said for any compound moment. So if you want to just target a group of muscles for hypertrophy then yes low weight, high reps is the best. For strength, low rep, high weight. How about doing both to keep yourself more balanced?

[Caesura75]

Joshua,

Size has nothing to do with strength! Strength involves cooperation between between the primary movers and stabilizers. For instance, say you are doing back squats at 225 lbs. For some people 225 lbs does $hit for their stabilizers and hence back squats are just a leg exercise at that weight, which is fine but back-squatting at 225 lbs for increased rep won't increase strength. To hit the stabilizers you need to go up in weight. The same could be said for any compound moment. So if you want to just target a group of muscles for hypertrophy then yes low weight, high reps is the best. For strength, low rep, high weight. How about doing both to keep yourself more balanced?

It's not as simple as that. Whilst size isn't the same as strength, there is certainly a correlation between the two. Anybody who increases muscle mass through training will inevitably become stronger, and vice versa.

Regarding the idea of low weight for hypertrophy, this isn't what the likes of Dorian Yates and Jay Cutler preach - two of the biggest guys in the bodybuilding scene. However, others such as Serge Nubret were the opposite and promoted high sets and reps.

The one conclusion that you can make is that there is no definitive answer. It is entirely down to the individual, their own genetics, and finding what brings out the best results for them.

[trickyB]

I'm growingly frustrated at the amount of confusion over low rep/high weight vs. low weight/hi rep for gaining size. I've read alot from Medhi and Michael Matthews and like the strength training programs, but at this point I want to gain size and I've always thought that was a low weight/hi rep type program but after purchasing and reading Bigger Leaner Stronger by Michael Matthews he doesn't agree and pretty much thinks that the low weight/hi rep is best suited for people juicing who can handle that type of work load.

I just wish there wasn't so much confusion. I've been lifting seriously for a couple years now and am not happy with my progress and am really desperate to find the best approach for mass.

Anyone that can offer some guidance is welcome.

Thanks everyone!


Joshua

You may have read this article already but in case you haven't.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...al-growth.html

[7Seconds]

It probably all boils down to the simple point that you should really be covering all of your bases with some low rep work and some higher volume work. Sacrificing one at the expense of the other will never be the best choice.

And eat more food.

[scullin]

It probably all boils down to the simple point that you should really be covering all of your bases with some low rep work and some higher volume work. Sacrificing one at the expense of the other will never be the best choice.

And eat more food.

Basically yes. This is why I suggested the programs I posted above. They all begin with heavy power movements and then end with higher rep assistance work plus additional conditioning work. The best way to go IMO.

[DuracellBunny]

Basically yes. This is why I suggested the programs I posted above. They all begin with heavy power movements and then end with higher rep assistance work plus additional conditioning work. The best way to go IMO.

I'll second that; you go from big to small. Start off with a large compound, low reps and however long a rest period is needed, then as the session progresses the reps increase and the rest periods get shorter as you go from exercise to exercise.

Alternatively you can do bodyparts twice a week and give the 2 sessions a different focus.

The high rep v low rep argument is all about how you want to bias your pink fibres. I could get very scientific on it, but people on here who don't understand the science get all butthurt.

[beowulf10]

I'm growingly frustrated at the amount of confusion over low rep/high weight vs. low weight/hi rep for gaining size. I've read alot from Medhi and Michael Matthews and like the strength training programs, but at this point I want to gain size and I've always thought that was a low weight/hi rep type program but after purchasing and reading Bigger Leaner Stronger by Michael Matthews he doesn't agree and pretty much thinks that the low weight/hi rep is best suited for people juicing who can handle that type of work load.

I just wish there wasn't so much confusion. I've been lifting seriously for a couple years now and am not happy with my progress and am really desperate to find the best approach for mass.

Anyone that can offer some guidance is welcome.

Thanks everyone!

Joshua

1. Within a certain range the number of reps doesn't matter much.

2. No difference between strength and hypertrophy, they are the same.

3. The myth that strength and hypertrophy are not the same has more to do with extra glycogen storage of higher rep routines, and the athletic difficulty of doing compound movements with large weights (think of oly and power lifting the same as you would the pole vault).

4. The key to muscle growth is progressive overload.

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...ionalmyth.html

[x-trainer ben]

You may have read this article already but in case you haven't.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...al-growth.html

Summarized " work in the 5-8 rep range with 80-85% of maximum"

[Autch97]

It's not as simple as that. Whilst size isn't the same as strength, there is certainly a correlation between the two. Anybody who increases muscle mass through training will inevitably become stronger, and vice versa.

Regarding the idea of low weight for hypertrophy, this isn't what the likes of Dorian Yates and Jay Cutler preach - two of the biggest guys in the bodybuilding scene. However, others such as Serge Nubret were the opposite and promoted high sets and reps.

The one conclusion that you can make is that there is no definitive answer. It is entirely down to the individual, their own genetics, and finding what brings out the best results for them.

So are you saying that you can jump form back-squatting 225 lbs for 15-20 reps (which is what a lot of bodybuilders advocate) you can jump to 365lbs for 3-5 rep without having to develop your stabilizers by weight progression?