you do not need HEAVY weight/ Low reps to GROW muscle

[J777]

Lets say you grab the weight that you can do 20 times and fail on the 21st. Without going to failure, keep doing as many sets as you can with that weight avoiding failure.You will see that with each progressive set your pump will be getting better and that it will be harder and harder to do the same amount of reps as your last set. This is because your muscles work according to the size principle. As you progress through the sets, your muscle fibers will be tiring out and new ones will be coming into the game. So you get the following:

1) You will work and fatigue a lot of muscle fibers
2) The pump with short rest periods between each set will be trapping causing the metabolic magic
3) You avoid failure and can do more volume
4) No need to use heavy weights to cause muscle fiber damage: *****://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/6083371-bodybuilding--vs-powerlifting-type-training-which-builds-more-strength

so you use moderate weight, short rest period


breaking down muscle fibers is borderline a myth. There are some problems with that:

1) Muscle damage is not an indicator of muscle growth: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/214/4/674.full.pdf , *****://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ijshs/1/1/1_1_1/_article
2) Volume seems to be the deciding factor for causing muscle growth: *****://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/6083371-bodybuilding--vs-powerlifting-type-training-which-builds-more-strength
3) Slow eccentrics is not necessary: http://www.danogborn.com/training/sl.../#.U2ikhscYVDk
4) Muscle fiber principle dictates that muscles work together, there is no reason to separate them. High reps will also work the type II muscle fibers, given that cumulative fatigue will be achieved by doing work
5) Muscle failure is merely an event, not a prerequisite for muscle growth

[christophersie]

I see, nice post

[SuffolkPunch]

You don't NEED them but then it becomes a question of efficiency. You still get results with a very wide range of protocols. However everything I've seen from experienced lifters and scientists tends to indicate that it's good to have both higher and lower tension training with both high and low numbers of reps per set.

If you want to keep it simple, the sweet spot is the 8-12 rep range.
http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/...ionalmyth.html

[sonnydfrizzy]

Interesting post OP but my question to you is... why would I want to train not to failure for 20 reps with light weight when it looks badass lifting a lot of weight for triples? It is shown in science that with equal volume, sets of 10, 20, and 3 all have almost exactly the same hypertrophy response.

[SuffolkPunch]

sets of 10, 20, and 3 all have almost exactly the same hypertrophy response.

Be careful, this probably refers to the results of a single study which will be influenced by many things, especially the design. Other studies show slightly different things. The main takeaway point IS that rep range is not a strong influence on hypertrophy but it's not totally uncorrelated.

[KDG730]

Sure you'll get a great pump lifting the 20lb DB's for 20 reps over and over again but in time I feel like it will really inhibit you from strength gains you could be getting from using lower rep ranges as well, which would make your hypertrophy work more effective because you'd be able to lift more weight

[J777]

Sure you'll get a great pump lifting the 20lb DB's for 20 reps over and over again but in time I feel like it will really inhibit you from strength gains you could be getting from using lower rep ranges as well, which would make your hypertrophy work more effective because you'd be able to lift more weight

you get stronger in whatever rep range you train. And lower rep work is mainly about neurological conditioning, not for bodybuilding purposes.

[J777]

Interesting post OP but my question to you is... why would I want to train not to failure for 20 reps with light weight when it looks badass lifting a lot of weight for triples? It is shown in science that with equal volume, sets of 10, 20, and 3 all have almost exactly the same hypertrophy response.

singles, doubles and triples are still inferior as they do not allow for metabolic amplification/growth response. And it is very easy to get burnt out training that way, it is very inefficient. Unless you like it and you are not after maximal muscle growth, then you can train that way to get stronger in singles/doubles/triples.

[KDG730]

you get stronger in whatever rep range you train. And lower rep work is mainly about neurological conditioning, not for bodybuilding purposes.

I know you get stronger in whatever rep range you train. But youll get a lot stronger a lot faster using low reps/heavy weights than doing high reps with light weights. And by getting stronger, you increase the amount of weight you will be able to use when training with higher reps which will increase your growth. Do you get what i'm saying? Like lets say you only use high rep training, you might plateau at say 225 for bench at 15 reps, but if you use heavy training in your program you might get strong enough to do say 315x15 for your sets. Who do you think is going to have more potential growth?

I like using both but anyone that doesn't use heavy weight for low reps at least occasionally is missing out

[Retardo-pex]

singles, doubles and triples are still inferior as they do not allow for metabolic amplification/growth response. And it is very easy to get burnt out training that way, it is very inefficient. Unless you like it and you are not after maximal muscle growth, then you can train that way to get stronger in singles/doubles/triples.

He basically just said it is in fact not inferior though. It is becoming more and more apparent that the title of this thread is true, but also the exact opposite of this thread title is also true. All other things being equal rep range seems to count less than total volume. As a natural lifter I'm inclined to believe a mix of both is always superior. My size and strength tend to go together, if I'm smashing the weights chances are I'm looking as good as I can look at my current body fat as well.

Everyone always seems to have this all or nothing approach...its garbage. In one workout I can train single and triples as well as sets of 15...why wouldn't I?

[zpascoe]

to GROW or INCREASE in size, you need to hypertrophy.

pump fluids into the muscle and increase the cytoplasm in the muscle to be BIGGER.

[krysix]

I know you get stronger in whatever rep range you train. But youll get a lot stronger a lot faster using low reps/heavy weights than doing high reps with light weights. And by getting stronger, you increase the amount of weight you will be able to use when training with higher reps which will increase your growth. Do you get what i'm saying? Like lets say you only use high rep training, you might plateau at say 225 for bench at 15 reps, but if you use heavy training in your program you might get strong enough to do say 315x15 for your sets. Who do you think is going to have more potential growth?

I like using both but anyone that doesn't use heavy weight for low reps at least occasionally is missing out

That goes against the SAID principle. You are saying that if we have 2 guys with the same exact strength and then one trains with high reps and other with low reps the one with low reps will have a higher rep strength too. If you have a decent routine and good diet you shouldn't plateau with higher reps.

[Wildtim]

Everyone always seems to have this all or nothing approach...its garbage. In one workout I can train single and triples as well as sets of 15...why wouldn't I?

Agreed.

I've run programs using no more than 5 reps per set, and darn few sets.

I've also run programs doing as many as sixty sets in a workout with some sets of some exercises running to a hundred reps.

The best programs I've stayed on the longest and seen the most success with for both strength and looks have a fairly wide range of reps throughout the program. The program I'm on right now has singles in it and also 20 rep sets.

[TonyJH]

I didn't read but I agree. you get bigger through progressive overload, which doesn't always have to be through weight increase - it can be through rep increase and other variable increases within the exercise

[Jasonk282]

train in a variety of rep ranges, not just low or high reps, anything from 1-20 reps will produce results.

Something like below would be a great quad builder

squats 3x3
squats 3x8 using 75% 1RM
leg press 4x10

[KDG730]

That goes against the SAID principle. You are saying that if we have 2 guys with the same exact strength and then one trains with high reps and other with low reps the one with low reps will have a higher rep strength too. If you have a decent routine and good diet you shouldn't plateau with higher reps.

Very confused by what you wrote. What im saying is that the person that trains with lower reps as well as high will gain more strength faster and over time than the person that only uses high reps. THUS, they will be able to use heavier weight in there hypertrophy sets over time and have potential for more growth. Its basically the principle of layne norton's PHAT, and it makes sense. Heres a section explaining it....

"Probably the most important thing heavy training can do is increase your overall capacity for muscular growth through significant strength gains. Training with lower reps and heavier weights is going to stimulate far greater increases in strength than training with light weights for higher reps. But how is that anabolic? I’m sure you are thinking “I am a bodybuilder; I don’t care how much I lift!” But by increasing your strength you will increase the amount of weight you will be able to lift when you train with a higher rep, ‘bodybuilding style’ training which will increase your potential for growth. For example, if one trained only straight high reps (15-20 reps) on an exercise you may end up plateauing at a squat of 300 lbs for 15 reps (not necessarily, just an example). If that same individual incorporated heavy training into their regiment however, perhaps they get strong enough that they can squat 400 lbs for 15 reps. Who do you think will have the greatest potential to increase their mass over the long haul? Most likely it will be the person using more weight if all other variables are equal because they will be able to create more overload and greater muscle damage, evoking a greater growth response. So while pure bodybuilding style training may give you more growth over the short term, a combination of heavy weights for low reps and light weight for high reps over the long term is going to provide more muscle by increasing your growth potential"

[krysix]

Very confused by what you wrote. What im saying is that the person that trains with lower reps as well as high will gain more strength faster and over time than the person that only uses high reps. THUS, they will be able to use heavier weight in there hypertrophy sets over time and have potential for more growth. Its basically the principle of layne norton's PHAT, and it makes sense. Heres a section explaining it....

"Probably the most important thing heavy training can do is increase your overall capacity for muscular growth through significant strength gains. Training with lower reps and heavier weights is going to stimulate far greater increases in strength than training with light weights for higher reps. But how is that anabolic? I’m sure you are thinking “I am a bodybuilder; I don’t care how much I lift!” But by increasing your strength you will increase the amount of weight you will be able to lift when you train with a higher rep, ‘bodybuilding style’ training which will increase your potential for growth. For example, if one trained only straight high reps (15-20 reps) on an exercise you may end up plateauing at a squat of 300 lbs for 15 reps (not necessarily, just an example). If that same individual incorporated heavy training into their regiment however, perhaps they get strong enough that they can squat 400 lbs for 15 reps. Who do you think will have the greatest potential to increase their mass over the long haul? Most likely it will be the person using more weight if all other variables are equal because they will be able to create more overload and greater muscle damage, evoking a greater growth response. So while pure bodybuilding style training may give you more growth over the short term, a combination of heavy weights for low reps and light weight for high reps over the long term is going to provide more muscle by increasing your growth potential"

why?, if I spend the next year training only with 10 rep sets (with a sensible routine) and you do the same with low reps I'm pretty sure that I would lift more weight for 10 reps than you so the argument that training with low reps lets you "use heavier weight in there hypertrophy sets" would be pretty bad.

[KDG730]

why?, if I spend the next year training only with 10 rep sets (with a sensible routine) and you do the same with low reps I'm pretty sure that I would lift more weight for 10 reps than you so the argument that training with low reps lets you "use heavier weight in there hypertrophy sets" would be pretty bad.

What do you think by going heavy it only makes you stronger in low rep sets? You're using heavier weight, you get stronger overall. Thus, when you do hypertrophy sets, you are able to lift more, I don't know how you can really argue that???

The stronger person is always going to have a higher 10 rep max unless they are completely unconditioned and only do singles

[krysix]

What do you think by going heavy it only makes you stronger in low rep sets? You're using heavier weight, you get stronger overall. Thus, when you do hypertrophy sets, you are able to lift more, I don't know how you can really argue that???

The stronger person is always going to have a higher 10 rep max unless they are completely unconditioned and only do singles

I still disagree, why do you still believe that a guy training with high reps cant get stronger, in fact he will get stronger faster in his rep range than one doing low reps, its the SAID principle, the body adapts to what you are doing.

In 1993, Tom Platz, owner of perhaps the biggest wheels in bodybuilding history, entered into a squatting competition with Fred Hatfield (aka "Dr. Squat"), the first guy to squat 1,000 pounds.

Although Tom's legs were much bigger than Fred's, Fred kicked his butt in a one-rep max, hoisting 855 pounds to Tom's 765 pounds. But when they took some plates off the bar and decreased the weight to 525 pounds for a test of lower-body endurance, Tom dusted Fred, performing 23 reps compared to Fred's 11.

Edit:
http://www.exercisebiology.com/index..._for_strength/

[KDG730]

I still disagree, why do you still believe that a guy training with high reps cant get stronger, in fact he will get stronger faster in his rep range than one doing low reps, its the SAID principle, the body adapts to what you are doing.

In 1993, Tom Platz, owner of perhaps the biggest wheels in bodybuilding history, entered into a squatting competition with Fred Hatfield (aka "Dr. Squat"), the first guy to squat 1,000 pounds.

Although Tom's legs were much bigger than Fred's, Fred kicked his butt in a one-rep max, hoisting 855 pounds to Tom's 765 pounds. But when they took some plates off the bar and decreased the weight to 525 pounds for a test of lower-body endurance, Tom dusted Fred, performing 23 reps compared to Fred's 11.

Edit:
http://www.exercisebiology.com/index..._for_strength/

Well if you read my post before I said you can get stronger using any rep range over time. That's only one individual case so I'm not gonna read that much into it but i'm done trying to convince you. It makes sense to me. If you wanna only do high reps, enjoy

[krysix]

Well if you read my post before I said you can get stronger using any rep range over time. That's only one individual case so I'm not gonna read that much into it but i'm done trying to convince you. It makes sense to me. If you wanna only do high reps, enjoy

I don't say that I only do high reps or I recommend it, mixing rep ranges has it's benefits. It's just that many people here say that the reason to use low reps is to be stronger later on high reps and that doesn't make sense, if your goal were being stronger on high reps you should train high reps.

[vadimmmo]

I'd read all that


But you're red

[Jasonk282]

I don't say that I only do high reps or I recommend it, mixing rep ranges has it's benefits. It's just that many people here say that the reason to use low reps is to be stronger later on high reps and that doesn't make sense, if your goal were being stronger on high reps you should train high reps.

it makes perfect sense. The stronger you Max us the more weight you can handle overall.

The person with a 315 Max in squats can handle more weight than a person with a 225 Max. In fact the 3 plate person can Rep the 2 plate persons max

[J777]

it makes perfect sense. The stronger you Max us the more weight you can handle overall.

The person with a 315 Max in squats can handle more weight than a person with a 225 Max. In fact the 3 plate person can Rep the 2 plate persons max

not important, good yes, but for growth it will just come along as you train. No need to max out, at all

[JaredPunch]

Lyle McDonald had a convincing explanation as to why 8 reps circa is the best rep range
Seems like if you train at high rep range 15 reps, your slow-twich fibers recover before allowing the fast-twich ones to kick in
If you train at low reps 3-5 reps, your fast-twich fibers fatigue soon and slow-twich ones never get involved.

Something like that

[J777]

Lyle McDonald had a convincing explanation as to why 8 reps circa is the best rep range
Seems like if you train at high rep range 15 reps, your slow-twich fibers recover before allowing the fast-twich ones to kick in
If you train at low reps 3-5 reps, your fast-twich fibers fatigue soon and slow-twich ones never get involved.

Something like that

if you keep your rest periods down, you will ensure continuous muscle fiber recruitment and stimulation.

[OregonLife]

Nauseating amount of bro science in the thread.

[Jasonk282]

not important, good yes, but for growth it will just come along as you train. No need to max out, at all

Never said you had to Max. Just that the person with a higher Max, real IR calculated, will be able to hand more Wright in the 8-12 or higher range than someone with lower strength.

[SuffolkPunch]

I am skeptical about the idea that you can gain mass faster if you are stronger - given equivalent muscle size. The only thing that could account for such a strength difference is differing levels of neural efficiency entrainment.

But to max out your tissue growth potential, you don't need to use all that strength since what you really need is to be above a certain threshold in terms of tension - and to get a large number of reps done at that level - with accompanying metabolic fatigue that accumulates from rep to rep and from set to set.

[JaredPunch]

if you keep your rest periods down, you will ensure continuous muscle fiber recruitment and stimulation.

Straight to the point: what your ideal workout for size and aesthetics would be? What exercises? What reps range? How many sets and what kind of progression would you use?