Why is high-reps & low-weight believed to "cut" you up ?

[thinkgreen]

This is what you joined the forums for? Luls

Just need to keep mixing it up, should be sore every time you leave

[alphaproject]

Because it's more of cardio than strength. I'd say that's the simple answer.

Compare the 8x8 workout to a normal 3x12. You are lifting more weight in the 8x8 but with less force and you are straining heart and muscles more because of less rest.

Now if you do your sets really fast and keep your HR up then it's always cardio to some aspect.

[bgmscl]

Because it's more of cardio than strength. I'd say that's the simple answer.

Compare the 8x8 workout to a normal 3x12. You are lifting more weight in the 8x8 but with less force and you are straining heart and muscles more because of less rest.

Now if you do your sets really fast and keep your HR up then it's always cardio to some aspect.

Thats the common statement but it isn't that simple. It cant be that muscle stimulation is only a function of max weight lifted.

Weight in lbs is force. Squatting, say, 135 at a certain pace is a measure of the force you are able to generate.

Work is force over a distance. If you move the 3 ft in in the lowering portion and 3 in the raising portion, the force is not equal on both but total work done averages to about 135lbs*6ft, or 810 ft*lbs

Power output is Work/time, and is proportional to intensity. So in general, for any given weight, increasing the # of reps or doing the same reps in fewer sets results in an increase in the intensity.

I wont do all the math, but going from a 5*5 set of 135 to a 6*5 set of 135 is considerably more work overall, and possibly more force, depending on how fast you move the bar, than going from 5*5*135 to 5*5*140, and going to a 10*3*135 with the same amount of rest between sets is much, much more intensity.

Ok ill do that math
Work done is proportional to
10*3*135=4050
5*5*140=3500

You'll see the same kind of workload at 10*3*135 that you will at 5*5*161, but the 10*3 will be at a higher intensity.

This is not entirely accurate. Lots of factors come into play. Point is, it make no sense, at least from the point of view of the math and physics of it, to assume that the weight lifted is the sole determining factor in how strong you are, or that doing higher reps is akin to nothing more than cardio, or that maintaining a certain weight and increasing the number of reps isn't going to get you stronger. Its more complex than simply adding weight to the bar, and there is more than one way to skin a cat. For simplicity sake though, its probably easiest to stick with the program and just keep slowly adding weight.

[SuffolkPunch]

I don't see how calculating work done answers the question. Generally speaking, limit strength IS determined by peak force. Assuming it can be generated throughout the ROM, limit strength will be where the weight (almost) equals the force produced (adjusting for lever angles).

Having said that experience and research suggests that strength can be improved in wide band of rep ranges (but close to 1RM is more efficient).

Muscle mass can be grown from a much wider range of reps - including light loads and very high reps (see studies done with 30% or 1RM).

BTW - please check thread dates before bumping old threads.

[bgmscl]

I don't see how calculating work done answers the question. Generally speaking, limit strength IS determined by peak force (assuming it can be generated throughout the ROM).

Having said that experience and research suggests that strength can be improved in wide band of rep ranges (but close to 1RM is better).

Muscle mass can be grown from a wider range of reps - including light loads and very high reps (cd. studies done with 30% or 1RM).

BTW - please check thread dates before bumping old threads.

My bad, I looked but I read 2016 on that last post for some reason. Been on my mind and ive been eager to interject somewhere. As for answering the question, the comment was toward someone stating that higher reps is just cardio. I just don't see how a person is going to stop gaining muscle and strength by stopping at some weight and increasing the reps vs pressing on to higher weghts. Sure there is a limit to it, but doing so should not stall gains in strength or mass and will increase fat loss due to the intensity increase.

[SuffolkPunch]

Muscular strength is a much misunderstood topic. The most helpful way to think of it is like this:
- the cross section of a muscle is the main determinant of how strong it is (bigger is always stronger, despite the arguments about strength vs. mass training)
- there is some wriggle room (about 15% maybe) to make a muscle stronger without making it bigger by improving coordination of the motor units to work more efficiently.

What's confusing is that the second part may only account for ~15% but it comes and goes much more quickly than actual muscle tissue.

[magician27]

because they are potentially doing little more volume that way(although you can do the same thing with heavy weights) , and burning a bit more calories. but retain less muscle as well.

[bgmscl]

Muscular strength is a much misunderstood topic. The most helpful way to think of it is like this:
- the cross section of a muscle is the main determinant of how strong it is (bigger is always stronger, despite the arguments about strength vs. mass training)
- there is some wriggle room (about 15% maybe) to make a muscle stronger without making it bigger by improving coordination of the motor units to work more efficiently.

What's confusing is that the second part may only account for ~15% but it comes and goes much more quickly than actual muscle tissue.

A cross sectional area, yes, force per unit area. This is key. Thanks. In thinking of intensity of a workout, or power output per unit area, ive been trying to grasp what area we would refer to. Cross sectional area of the muscle is as good as any. But that begs the question that it would seem, being that intensity is also related to this cross sectional area, that any increase in intensity would stimulate an increase in this cross sectional area. This is what the crossfiters maintain, and their WODs tend to favor lighter weights and more reps, ie higher intensities, and ive known a couple of guys who are pretty beastly from these sorts of workouts. It would also explain why de-loading helps those who have plateaued reach new PRs. They reduce the load but up the reps, which results in a greater overall intensity and therefore an increase in cross sectional area of the muscle.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining my off topic comments on a dead thread. I'm just find these dynamics interesting and im curious about the relations between the variables, and while im interested in being stronger, i dont want to pursue raw strength forever over muscular form. If there is a trade off i would rather optimize the form over the raw strength, so naturally i want to know to what extent different approaches in working out favor one or the other.

[canada99]

man i was in my first year of college when this tread started. wish i could go back to that time with the knowledge about lifting and about life in general that i have now.

anyways, my general belief is that people think high and low reps both build muscle, high reps burn more calories and low reps build more strength. but there are a lot more variables then that, mainly high reps isnt optimal for building muscle and doesnt necessarily burn that many more calories

[SuffolkPunch]

A cross sectional area, yes, force per unit area. This is key. Thanks. In thinking of intensity of a workout, or power output per unit area, ive been trying to grasp what area we would refer to. Cross sectional area of the muscle is as good as any. But that begs the question that it would seem, being that intensity is also related to this cross sectional area, that any increase in intensity would stimulate an increase in this cross sectional area. This is what the crossfiters maintain, and their WODs tend to favor lighter weights and more reps, ie higher intensities, and ive known a couple of guys who are pretty beastly from these sorts of workouts. It would also explain why de-loading helps those who have plateaued reach new PRs. They reduce the load but up the reps, which results in a greater overall intensity and therefore an increase in cross sectional area of the muscle.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining my off topic comments on a dead thread. I'm just find these dynamics interesting and im curious about the relations between the variables, and while im interested in being stronger, i dont want to pursue raw strength forever over muscular form. If there is a trade off i would rather optimize the form over the raw strength, so naturally i want to know to what extent different approaches in working out favor one or the other.

I am not following you (see underlined) - that is a contradiction in terms because we define intensity to be the percentage of 1RM.

Deloading helps because it allows you to dissipate accumulated fatigue. It has nothing to do with the reduced loads you use during the deload period.

Crossfitters are really not the ideal people to study re: strength training. You won't see any serious powerlifters train in this way for example. Strength training is about developing motor pathways using close to maximal weights - and building muscle by getting sufficient volume using more moderate weights (70-85% or 1RM)

[bgmscl]

I am not following you (see underlined) - that is a contradiction in terms because we define intensity to be the percentage of 1RM.

Deloading helps because it allows you to dissipate accumulated fatigue. It has nothing to do with the reduced loads you use during the deload period.

Crossfitters are really not the ideal people to study re: strength training. You won't see any serious powerlifters train in this way for example. Strength training is about developing motor pathways using close to maximal weights - and building muscle by getting sufficient volume using more moderate weights (70-85% or 1RM)

It may be that lifters have a different meaning of intensity, but in terms of mass, distance and time and actual physical workloads and strains placed on the body, intensity = power output/unit area. It is not a contradiction in terms of intensity defined mathematically. Like i said, a 6*5*135 workout is a slightly higher total workload than a 5*5*161 and a higher intensity (mathematical), and a 3*10*135(all at the same pace, rest periods) is higher intensity still. So it seems to me then that what deloading does is allow for higher physical intensities, which translate into muscle grown and therefore strength gains. My curiosity is, between increasing reps and increasing weight, both of which increase the overall physical intensity, which one translates into a greater increase in muscle mass. Is there any difference at all. Is the difference great enough to bother periodically changing focus between the two if ones goal is to increase size and strength?

Like i said though, my primary goal is not to be a powerlifter or compete in strongman competitions, its to get fitter and to approach an ideal form, and many crossfitters possess a form that is closer to what i want to achieve, so naturally i want to dissect their training methods.

[MangiKapi]

I've never been to gym, I've only worked out at home doing high reps with db, curve bar and body weight, so I can't comment or speculate on that heavy lifting will get your ripped. But just do sprints/jogging and eat lo carbs and you should get ripped slowly.