Repitition range for mass gains

[ironhead184]

My teammates keep on telling me that the best way to gain size is to do 3-5 reps with heavy weight. They keep on insisting and telling me I'm wrong to 8-12 reps it's starting to piss me off since it's contradictory to everything I've heard on this site. Frankly, since they aren't bodybuilders I'd sooner listen to someone for this forum than them. What do you guys think?

[Atreyu_Fan]

don't listen to them they don't know anything, what youve read on this site is right....8-12 is correct...3-5 is for strength gains so theyll be getting stronger but not much bigger in size...hope this helps ....

[Atheimetal]

Low reps for strength, high reps for size/endurance, in the middle for a bit of both.

But it's not like each attribute is necessarily exclusive only to the rep range that it's most associated with.

[ironhead184]

Thanks a bunch all. The problem is not is how I will convince them of this. I say the muscle doesn't get stimulated well enough with heavy weight bc it brings on bad technique and more emphasis on secondary muscles, but they just don't listen.

[Mtguy8787]

Thanks a bunch all. The problem is not is how I will convince them of this. I say the muscle doesn't get stimulated well enough with heavy weight bc it brings on bad technique and more emphasis on secondary muscles, but they just don't listen.

It would only lead to bad technique if you tried to use more weigh than you could handle. As for more emphasis on secondary muscles, that isnt true at all.

You should use varying ranges. Multiple parameters are better than 1. Although, if I had to choose just one, it would be heavy weight. Also, try to look more at the total amount of reps you are doing per muscle, rather than just reps per set. If you want to be more accurate, looks at total reps per unit of time.

Heavier weight best stimulates the largest fibers, which have the most potential for hypertrophy. Sets of 3-5, with heavy weight, and 4-10 total sets will accomplish this nicely.

However, if you were to do something like 2 or 3 sets of 3, with maximum weight, that would be much more strength oriented.
So at one end of the spectrum, you have heavy weights, low reps, high # of sets, and low-moderate rest times.

At the other end, you have less weight, more reps, more sets, and more total reps.
Working in a couple of different parameters will give you the best results. It will help prevent overtraining, and it will provide a better range of stimulus.

[paper_denim]

i usually break it down to 4-6 reps for strength, 6-8 reps for size, 8-12 reps for endurance.

i remembering reading that its better to do more sets with low reps for muscles like chest and biceps.

[phaiel]

exactly 3-5 reps equal strength.
there are no gains for 6 and 7 reps,
and 8-12 reps all you're going to get is endurance.
anything greater than 12 reps is dangerous for your health and will probably kill you.

[ironhead184]

It would only lead to bad technique if you tried to use more weigh than you could handle. As for more emphasis on secondary muscles, that isnt true at all.

You should use varying ranges. Multiple parameters are better than 1. Although, if I had to choose just one, it would be heavy weight. Also, try to look more at the total amount of reps you are doing per muscle, rather than just reps per set. If you want to be more accurate, looks at total reps per unit of time.

Heavier weight best stimulates the largest fibers, which have the most potential for hypertrophy. Sets of 3-5, with heavy weight, and 4-10 total sets will accomplish this nicely.

However, if you were to do something like 2 or 3 sets of 3, with maximum weight, that would be much more strength oriented.
So at one end of the spectrum, you have heavy weights, low reps, high # of sets, and low-moderate rest times.

At the other end, you have less weight, more reps, more sets, and more total reps.
Working in a couple of different parameters will give you the best results. It will help prevent overtraining, and it will provide a better range of stimulus.

Thx for the long response. Definitely I should consider varying it up. I assume that's to shock my system once my body has gotten used to one way over the other.

[ironhead184]

exactly 3-5 reps equal strength.
there are no gains for 6 and 7 reps,
and 8-12 reps all you're going to get is endurance.
anything greater than 12 reps is dangerous for your health and will probably kill you.

I can't tell if you serious or not. You mention strength, no gains, and endurance. For you where do "mass gains" fall into?

[Tucdaddy]

I'd suggest after your warm sets you do 3X5 of heavier weight followed by a back off set or two in the 8-10 range. This covers your strength and hypertrophy training in the same workout.

[phaiel]

/sarcasm

[Mtguy8787]

Thx for the long response. Definitely I should consider varying it up. I assume that's to shock my system once my body has gotten used to one way over the other.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

But seriously, please do not ever use the phrase "shock the body" You do not "shock" the body like that.

Your muscles & nervous systems simply respond to stimulus, and adapt accordingly. They do not think "Oh damn.. what the hell is going on here. What is going to happen next"

I always cringe when I hear a high school coach tell his athletes "switch it up. Keep the muscles guessing. It will only grow if it doesnt know what youre going to do next"... or some BS like that.


I hope that you understand the basics of different types of muscle fibers, motor units, and their characteristics. If not, then you have a bit of reading to do.

I was going to type another longer response, but I really dont feel like it right now.

Basically, you have a wide range of motor units, ranging from high power output & low endurance, to low power output & more endurance. The high power ones have the most relative potential for growth.

To best stimulate these, you will want to lift heavy weights, and still get sufficient volume to stimulate growth. To best stimulate the units at the other end, you will want a higher amount of total volume. However, you cant lift max weights for high volume.. which means you will have to lower the weight.

Even further down the line, you have type 1 fibers, which are very low force output, and high endurance. To stimulate these, you would have to use very very low weight, and very high volume, aka, endurance training.

Now, these fibers have little to no growth potential (they mainly adapt in other ways), but I thought id mention it to help you get an idea of the spectrum.

And of course, there are all the hybrid units in between. Which is why you should utilize a variety of ranges.

I can't tell if you serious or not. You mention strength, no gains, and endurance. For you where do "mass gains" fall into?

No he was not serious

If he was, then I would have to ask him to either kill himself, or never post on these forums again.

[ironhead184]

I'd suggest after your warm sets you do 3X5 of heavier weight followed by a back off set or two in the 8-10 range. This covers your strength and hypertrophy training in the same workout.

I think that's what I'll definitely do, getting a varying range like MTguy said.

[Mtguy8787]

I think that's what I'll definitely do, getting a varying range like MTguy said.

I would suggest that you do not try to build strength and size in the same workout. It is much better to focus on one.

What I would suggest is splitting your routing into cycles.

For every 1-4 workouts per muscle group, do one set of parameters. The first one might be 8 sets of 3. And again, if you go into the low reps, high sets, be sure to keep a low rest period. Supersetting with opposing exercises is great. i.e. DB bench followed by DB rows.. 20-30 sec rest, repeat.

the next cycle might be something like 6 or 8 sets of 8.

The next might be 5 sets of 6.

Etc. etc.

[jf1]

there is a chart that is in the 'starting strength' book that answers the original question quite nicely (i wish i could find the link)...
somebody should have it!

of course the rep ranges overlap with the results they produce:
sure sets of 5 are best for strength but will they produce size also?
of course!

sets of 10 are great for producing size: if you can use a relatively heavy weight with good form...

thats why it is best to concentrate on strength in the begining:
get strong, get good at the basic exercises so that you can eventually pump out 10 reps with heavy weight!


and i agree with Mtguy8787 regarding 'shocking' and 'switching' up!
i made that mistake for years and the result is sore muscles but no improvement in strength for the basic exercises which really should be what the goal is!

[ReformingBB]

According to Chad Waterbury:

24-36 total reps (example 5sets of 5= 25 reps) for a Strength focus with significant hypertrophy to follow
36-50 reps for hypertrophy without any significant increase in strength

Link:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=651322

[Vicom]

It would only lead to bad technique if you tried to use more weigh than you could handle. As for more emphasis on secondary muscles, that isnt true at all.

You should use varying ranges. Multiple parameters are better than 1. Although, if I had to choose just one, it would be heavy weight. Also, try to look more at the total amount of reps you are doing per muscle, rather than just reps per set. If you want to be more accurate, looks at total reps per unit of time.

Heavier weight best stimulates the largest fibers, which have the most potential for hypertrophy. Sets of 3-5, with heavy weight, and 4-10 total sets will accomplish this nicely.

However, if you were to do something like 2 or 3 sets of 3, with maximum weight, that would be much more strength oriented.
So at one end of the spectrum, you have heavy weights, low reps, high # of sets, and low-moderate rest times.

At the other end, you have less weight, more reps, more sets, and more total reps.
Working in a couple of different parameters will give you the best results. It will help prevent overtraining, and it will provide a better range of stimulus.

That's great advice right there.

[MoGeaYuglay]

size comes from eating high enough calories, 1-2g of protein per lb of bodyweight and lifting heavier weight over time. however, anything from 3-30reps is a good start, most people will grow best using 5-20 repetitions. just use heavier weights over time and eat.

[Curl Master]

My teammates keep on telling me that the best way to gain size is to do 3-5 reps with heavy weight. They keep on insisting and telling me I'm wrong to 8-12 reps it's starting to piss me off since it's contradictory to everything I've heard on this site. Frankly, since they aren't bodybuilders I'd sooner listen to someone for this forum than them. What do you guys think?

What is working good for your body? Are you responding good to 8-12 reps ? Are you gaining muscle mass? For me my body compostion responds best to low reps with heavy weights to increase strength and muscle mass 1-6 reps. You can add forced reps and negatives on to your sets for added strength and muscle mass gains if you have a lifting partner.

[Mtguy8787]

What is working good for your body? Are you responding good to 8-12 reps ? Are you gaining muscle mass? For me my body compostion responds best to low reps with heavy weights to increase strength and muscle mass 1-6 reps. You can add forced reps and negatives on to your sets for added strength and muscle mass gains if you have a lifting partner.

I do not think that many people, especially people like the OP actually monitor their gains, or actually stick with a program long enough to know how well it is or isnt working for them.

[DJAuto]

See attached PDF file for reference.

[Grand_Hustle]

so then what i got from most of these comments is higher reps for muscle gains. In that case does anyone know any good workout programs bcuz i pretty much got my strength up with rippetoe's and 5X5. Those programs were in the lower rep range

[trem0lo]

It really depends on what muscle type you have hiding under your skin, doesn't it? If you're a fast sprinter it stands to reason you have more fast-twich fiber in your legs (and maybe your upper body also, if genetics were kind to you), therefore 8-12 reps will net you some size in the squat rack, and maybe the bench press too. Endurance athletes will benefit from lower-rep training.

There is an article somewhere on bb.com where you can test what type of fibers are predominant... I think you take 85% of your 1 rep max. The more times you can lift it, the more slow twitch you have. Say your max bench is 225. Lift 190 as many times as you can. If you get 3-5 reps, you have lots of fast twitch. More than that and you have more endurance fiber, aka slow twitch. It's a crude method but it will give you an idea in what rep range to train.

I just see too many guys going super low reps all the time, and they look... meh. Okay, but not like a bber. You really need both, and you need to keep the intensity up to grow. No more 5 minute rest periods where you chat it up and spot your friends. People who train like this are wasting time imo.

[sdnatural]

Here's the final answer: counting reps is no where near as important as asserting maximum intensity. Personally, anyone with a set number of reps in their training isn't training hard enough IMHO. I usually warm up with about a 10-15 rep set, but that lessens significantly as the weights increase. I don't have a set number for each body part either. They vary, especially as legs seem to be more responsive to higher reps in my case.

Get in tune with your muscles and while asserting good form, feel the amount of stress it's enduring and once maximized (to the point of failure), you've accomplished your goal.

Lastly, strength is relative to size and are not individually attained, again IMHO. Thus, comments to the contrary don't make sense to me.

[Mtguy8787]

It really depends on what muscle type you have hiding under your skin, doesn't it? If you're a fast sprinter it stands to reason you have more fast-twich fiber in your legs (and maybe your upper body also, if genetics were kind to you), therefore 8-12 reps will net you some size in the squat rack, and maybe the bench press too. Endurance athletes will benefit from lower-rep training.

There is an article somewhere on bb.com where you can test what type of fibers are predominant... I think you take 85% of your 1 rep max. The more times you can lift it, the more slow twitch you have. Say your max bench is 225. Lift 190 as many times as you can. If you get 3-5 reps, you have lots of fast twitch. More than that and you have more endurance fiber, aka slow twitch. It's a crude method but it will give you an idea in what rep range to train.

I just see too many guys going super low reps all the time, and they look... meh. Okay, but not like a bber. You really need both, and you need to keep the intensity up to grow. No more 5 minute rest periods where you chat it up and spot your friends. People who train like this are wasting time imo.

1.) The types of fibers you have will change based on the type of training you do.

2.) Even if you have alot more type 1 fibers, it still doesnt matter. You should still train the same way. It doesnt fukin matter what you have at the moment.. that can all change.

- Even if someone did have more type 1 fibers, how the hell do people come up with the idea of doing more endurance training for growth. That is retarded.