MYTH: Low reps is for strength, high reps is for size.
Although this contains a grain of truth, it leads to wrong thinking - the classic problem we get on this forum is the legion of novices who don't want to do novice routines because they contain 5 rep sets ... which are "for strength" not "for mass". This is (mostly) incorrect.
Strength and size are intertwined and it's worth taking a few minutes to understand how...
1) What is SIZE? - this is easy enough, it's how big the muscle is. A larger muscle contains more fibres (myofibrils) and more fluid (sarcoplasm). Note that these two components tend to stay in the same proportions to one another regardless of whether the muscle shrinks or grows - and regardless of how you train.
2) What is STRENGTH? A simple measure is the peak force a muscle can produce. This will determine how much weight you can lift in a 1-rep-maximum effort attempt for a simple movement.
There are actually 2 components to strength:
- The size of the muscle - more fibers means more ability to contract and produce force. Size is the most important factor for strength.
- Neural factors - how well your brain coordinates the firing pattern of all the fibres in your muscle (or lots of muscles together in the case of a complex movement).
So how do you train for each of these qualities?
1) Training for SIZE is most closely related to the amount of volume you perform. The best and simplest way of measuring volume is the number of HARD SETS you do for a particular body part over the course of 1 week.
- We use sets not reps because actually the number of reps is just not that important, you can grow muscle with higher or lower reps within a wide range (say from 1-30 reps per set).
- We call them HARD sets because you have to train up to or very close to the point of FAILURE in every set. It's still possible to grow from using less exertion than this - but if you are interested in measuring your volume, this can muddy the waters.
- Research shows that 10 hard sets for each body part, done over 1 week is a good starting point for hypertrophy. This tends to need to increase the more experienced you get.
2) Training for STRENGTH. From reading the above it should be clear that you are most interested in growing the muscles involved - because a bigger muscle is stronger. If your goal is to be as strong as possible, you also need to give some thought to the previously mentioned neural factors. It turns out that training with heavier weights is better for training neural efficiency.
So can we have both??
You will get both anyway - in any program. As a novice, you can maximise your ability to acquire both without any compromise. This is what novice routines that use 5 rep sets are for!
Once beyond the novice stage, you will find that you need more and more volume to keep the results coming. THIS is where problems with lower rep sets will make themselves apparent. The problem with using very heavy weights all the time are that you are at greater risk of injury especially when approaching the point of failure. Doing enough hard sets with a heavier weight also produces a lot more fatigue than using lighter weights. So you will find that if you want enough volume to maximise hypertrophy you cannot keep up training over a long period with heavy weights.
You have to specialise. If you are a bodybuilder, you have to compromise by reducing the weight and accepting that your neural gains will not be as good. If you are a powerlifter, you will have to reduce work done on exercises that don't affect strength in the big 3 lifts as much (like bicep curls for example).
Do novices have to train for strength first even if they want size?
I'm going to say no - but consider everything I've written above. And also remember that novices gain mostly neural efficiency in their first 4-6 weeks - gains from this will far outstrip mass gains - but like I said they should get both at the same time and do not need to use a high rep program. There is the possibility that more strength can lead to more ability to grow muscle once you are more experienced and have to work harder to produce a growth stimulus... this is somewhat uncertain - but if you can max out both why wouldn't you!?
The key point worth repeating is that 5 rep sets can maximise muscle growth in novices. It's just that they don't often see their results as soon as they would like because their body composition is usually worse than they imagine it is. It's not until you get to mid intermediate stage with 14% or lower body fat that you actually start to look "in shape"
--------
[I wrote this in response to another thread along similar lines, I think this is a concise way to address the rep range and size vs. strength thing...]
There isn't the distinction you think there is between strength and hypertrophy training.
When you train in a given rep range, you get better at performing in that rep range. This adaptation could be called strength if it's a lower rep range or endurance if it's a higher rep range - but it's essentially a specialisation of your motor pathways. Ask yourself why you need it if your ultimate goal is muscle gain. It's really only something to worry about for sport specific training.
Hypertrophy happens in almost all rep ranges - only at the very fringes does it become inefficient (very low or very high weight) at building muscle. What matters is the total volume - the best way of measuring that is by the number of hard sets you do. Yes, hard sets of 3 or 5 reps count just as much as set of 8 or 10 but may be harder to sustain over time.
As for progression
- regularly increase weight if you can
- if you can't, increase reps per set (you can reset to lower reps when you move up in weight)
- if you can't do that then increase total volume by adding sets (you can reduce sets back down after a deload).
The weight used depends on the exercise but for most things, a weight that yields sets of between 5 and 15 reps works fine for sustained hypertrophy training.
|
Thread: Training for STRENGTH vs. SIZE
-
03-09-2018, 06:00 AM #1
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
Training for STRENGTH vs. SIZE
Last edited by SuffolkPunch; 02-13-2019 at 05:39 AM.
-
03-09-2018, 06:46 AM #2
-
03-09-2018, 07:09 AM #3
-
03-09-2018, 07:10 AM #4
-
-
03-09-2018, 08:19 AM #5
-
03-09-2018, 08:25 AM #6
-
03-09-2018, 11:38 AM #7
-
03-09-2018, 12:12 PM #8
-
-
03-09-2018, 02:38 PM #9
-
03-09-2018, 02:41 PM #10
-
03-12-2018, 08:34 AM #11
-
03-12-2018, 04:19 PM #12
-
-
03-13-2018, 12:45 AM #13
-
03-17-2018, 01:03 PM #14
-
03-17-2018, 02:28 PM #15
-
03-23-2018, 04:50 AM #16
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
Here is more information relating to the structure of muscle that's built, in particular the notions of "sarcoplasmic" vs. "myofibrillar" hypertrophy:
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...ionalmyth.htmlLast edited by SuffolkPunch; 03-23-2018 at 05:56 AM.
-
-
03-23-2018, 11:27 PM #17
So what does an experinced lifter like myself do? Ive done 5x5 for years, I did 3x10 for a while, I am currently doing a PPL, which for me so far is the best. I need a lot of volume these days. I am doing sets of 3x8 for mains and 3x12 for others. I am trying to get strong and big, which apparently according to your post is not possible.
Maybe a week of something like 5/3/1 then a week of 3x8-10 and repeat?
-
03-24-2018, 12:18 AM #18
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
It is possible, just that you won't get the best neural efficiency you possibly could. Unless you are entering a powerlifting competition, this need not worry you. You will still get strong in the sense that a larger muscle is a stronger muscle.
Here is a scheme that can be used by intermediate lifters which varies parameters like rep range over time to prevent adaptation:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...hp?t=174402191
-
03-27-2018, 06:00 AM #19
Must also mention that there are 3 tipes of muscle that are all activated during any rep range but some rep ranges favor others
type 1 = endurance
type 2 = strength/speed
type 3 = one rep max power
Bodybuilders usually have less type 3 muscle fibers than non lifters but have more type 1 fibers than actual olympic endurance athletes while powerlifters usually have the most type 3 while fighters usually have the most type 2 fibers
Edit : the forum won't let me post links to sources cause I don't have enough rep power or somethingLast edited by Ekaen; 03-27-2018 at 06:10 AM.
-
03-29-2018, 01:02 AM #20
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
I like this article on the subject:
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/muscle-fiber-type/
-
-
04-01-2018, 11:44 AM #21
Good post, spot on accurate!
(one typo to edit if your going to sticky it, this part,
"and more fluid (sarcomere)"
change sarcomere to sarcoplasm there, like you mention later, sarcomere is physical part of the fibril (the individual contraction 'modules'), sarcoplasm is the fluid your speaking of, just in case someone looks this up and gets confused. )Articles I've written for Weightrainer website
http://www.weightrainer.net/articles.html#Ron_Sowers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Must read books
Enoka: Neuromechanics of Human Movement
Siff: Supertraining
Schoenfeld: Science and Development of Muscular Hypertrophy
Komi: Strength and Power in Sport
McRobert: Beyond Brawn
-
04-01-2018, 02:44 PM #22
-
04-01-2018, 04:03 PM #23Articles I've written for Weightrainer website
http://www.weightrainer.net/articles.html#Ron_Sowers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Must read books
Enoka: Neuromechanics of Human Movement
Siff: Supertraining
Schoenfeld: Science and Development of Muscular Hypertrophy
Komi: Strength and Power in Sport
McRobert: Beyond Brawn
-
04-03-2018, 08:14 PM #24
Sooo, from a purely theoretical standpoint, is the below accurate?
If I want to increase my 1RM, 5 sets of 3 is better than 3 sets of 5 (assuming both set groupings are equally "hard".)
If I want to increase mass, 5 sets of 3 is still better than 3 sets of 5, since I have more hard sets? (Again, assuming both set groupings are equally "hard".)
Still a bit confused, but thank you so much for the write up.
-
-
04-03-2018, 11:58 PM #25
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
Yes, most probably on both counts. I remember Greg Nuckols saying that even at 3 sets, the 'hard sets' rule of thumb still holds. Such rules of thumb are not infallible and tend to come apart at the margins but that one it pretty reliable.
Of course, you may find 5x3 with a heavier weight more taxing in the long run compared to 3x5.
-
04-04-2018, 04:17 AM #26
Thank you. Been listening to Israetel (and others) on hypertrophy. They seem to agree that 8-15 reps is a reasonable range, as is a MINIMUM of ten hard sets per muscle group per week (which you also noted).
If I'm hitting each muscle group 2x/week, I need a minimum of 5x8 and maybe more like 7x12+ each session? Seems like a lot, but is this what it takes?
One more question: in a program like SS that calls for 3x5, is that preferred because of the novice lifter, and the ability to practice on lower weights? Aside from that, it seems the 5x3 wins out? Or what other considerations are in play here?
Again, thank you.Last edited by ChairmanWaffle; 04-04-2018 at 04:34 AM.
-
04-04-2018, 05:16 AM #27
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
^ Remember the number of sets is per bodypart not per exercise. So if you had 10 sets total and 2 exercises (say overhead press and lateral raise), you could do:
3 x overhead press
2 x lateral raise
twice a week.
As I mentioned in my OP, high weight and low reps reach a limit in terms of fatigue produced and the strain on your connective tissue etc.
-
04-04-2018, 06:36 AM #28
-
-
04-07-2018, 01:28 AM #29
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: Bristol, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 41
- Posts: 2,585
- Rep Power: 22567
Only seeing this today - another great read, thanks Suffolk!
"Listen, I want you to come down here and go dancing with me and we'll have fun together. You know you like The Spaniard, you know you like The Sith Lord, you know that. Hello? You're blushing, I know you're into The Sith Lord, I know it! Hello? Hello? Helloooo? Aww I lost connection."
-
04-10-2018, 06:16 PM #30
From this when training for Mass
is it better:
To go close to failure from the first set of an exersize and take the hit on the subsequent sets
i.e having to lower the weight in order to get the desired rep range.
Or to leave "enough in the tank" to achieve the reps at the same weight over the sets.
Also:
When is a novice no longer a novice?
Thanks for the post.Last edited by Ultradian; 04-10-2018 at 06:34 PM.
Bookmarks