Very high repetitions for muscle gain

[LWW]

O

Just curious, what is your training?
How do you approach it?
What exercises and how many reps?
How long do these workouts take?

Same question for OP.


PS: Just to be clear, I am arguing about efficiency here. I am not saying one cannot increase his muscle mass with 50-100 reps.

I do the minimal basics with a barbell as I train mostly in my garage.

I do one high rep set and vary the rep ranges.

Squats, I haven’t done any rep ranges under 50 for over a year except maybe twice. This week I did a set of 60reps then two days later another 61reps with a # heavier. I add a pound and a rep every time. I also do 75-85 reps.

Curls I rarely do 25. I get stronger and bigger doing 40-50+ reps.

I trained floor press daily for months missing a day or two here and there.

Now I try to train most exercises every other day, 1-2sets.

This takes like 20-30 minutes.

Sometimes I do 1-exercise at noon, then another 1 or 2 exercises at evening.

All depends on my schedule, with a garage I can doing something every time I go in it.

[air2fakie]

For the vast majority doing a light set of 40-50 with more in the tank is more efficient/effective than trying train heavy most of the time. The number 1 reason is injures, there is nothing efficient about injuries.

It’s almost a guarantee physically you can beat your previous set of 50-60reps by 1-2 reps each session, or you can go a bit heavier and shoot for 35-40reps.

Consistantcy is key, hence higher reps wins in consistency.

Consistency = efficiency.

If you can find a way to lift 400 all the time, than you are set, most can’t and the ones who do aren’t training for size.

I do the minimal basics with a barbell as I train mostly in my garage.

I do one high rep set and vary the rep ranges.

Squats, I haven’t done any rep ranges under 50 for over a year except maybe twice. This week I did a set of 60reps then two days later another 61reps with a # heavier. I add a pound and a rep every time. I also do 75-85 reps.

Curls I rarely do 25. I get stronger and bigger doing 40-50+ reps.

Injuries are highly individual, and results from a combination of managing volume, work capacity, load, exercise variations, rep ranges, etc. - and other things that are out of our control... such as age, general wear & tear, past injuries (often from non-lifting activity) and genetics. Rep ranges are only one aspect of that, and you probably manage all of that appropriately for yourself.

For many, 50+ rep ranges especially for certain exercises could leave them more prone to injury than a lesser range - which many are able to manage without injuries via proper programming.

Regardless, you sound like you've figured out what works for you and have evolved (& continue to evolve) over time. Plus, unlike OP, you sound like you're using equipment even if minimal to adjust resistance and exercises for your preferences & goals. Rather than simply relying on bodyweight for everything like OP and stating that muscle building results will be the same as if he also gave himself access to other forms of resistance (& rep ranges) and a full array of equipment such free weights, machines, cables, specialized equipment, etc.

[LWW]

Injuries are highly individual, and results from a combination of managing volume, work capacity, load, exercise variations, rep ranges, etc. - and other things that are out of our control... such as age, general wear & tear, past injuries (often from non-lifting activity) and genetics. Rep ranges are only one aspect of that, and you probably manage all of that appropriately for yourself.

For many, 50+ rep ranges especially for certain exercises could leave them more prone to injury than a lesser range - which many are able to manage without injuries via proper programming.

Regardless, you sound like you've figured out what works for you and have evolved (& continue to evolve) over time. Plus, unlike OP, you sound like you're using equipment even if minimal to adjust resistance and exercises for your preferences & goals. Rather than simply relying on bodyweight for everything like OP and stating that muscle building results will be the same as if he also gave himself access to other forms of resistance (& rep ranges) and a full array of equipment such free weights, machines, cables, specialized equipment, etc.

For clarity, I’m not saying there is a best way, it all works at some degree and the individual usually needs to listen to their own body.

I’m just saying that you can grow and build muscle and strength doing super high reps as the main staple.

[LWW]

For many, 50+ rep ranges especially for certain exercises could leave them more prone to injury than a lesser range - which many are able to manage without injuries via proper programming.

For me, I’ve never felt better.

I also use poundages that I have more in the reserve. Once you get to 40-50 reps with something you can get near 60 with all out still makes the muscle dense and hard.

The harder more denser muscle also protects from injuries.

In my avatar I’m about 20# lighter than now with very little muscle development, I had strong tendons, but I trained heavy all the time back then. There was a time I never went under 405 on the deads @ 180# BW and I stood on blocks for deficit. I would pull 1-3reps several days a week plus do all the strongman events and very heavy partial squats 500-600#

[air2fakie]

For me, I’ve never felt better.

I also use poundages that I have more in the reserve. Once you get to 40-50 reps with something you can get near 60 with all out still makes the muscle dense and hard.

Like I said you figured out what works for you, which again, is different than OPs 50-100 reps with only bodyweight until failure for everything.

In my avatar I’m about 20# lighter than now with very little muscle development, I had strong tendons, but I trained heavy all the time back then. There was a time I never went under 405 on the deads @ 180# BW and I stood on blocks for deficit. I would pull 1-3reps several days a week plus do all the strongman events and very heavy partial squats 500-600#

Well that lighter bodyweight & (perhaps lesser, not little) muscle development is largely a result of your diet at the time. It's hardly a result of lifting heavy, although training in a very low rep range exclusively for sure usually isn't the best way to build muscle.

Keep in mind you're training this way now, but didn't always train this way. When someone's starting from scratch, I absolutely think lifting in < 50-100 rep range even with weights is better for building a muscular base & developing proper training habits & technique. Once someone has developed a base level of strength and muscle, if they want to start branching out their training based on their training experience/results, preferences & goals, more power to them.

[joewattie]

I don't understand the concept of only certain rep ranges will lead to hypertrophy.

I don't either.

* Slow Twitch = Endurance.
* Fast Twitch = Power (strength).
* Slow Twitch does have some size but Fast Twitch has MORE Size.

Because I'm Old my first set is high rep (just to make sure things are working OK before I move onto heavier weights). As I'm grunting out rep 23, rep 24 ... I've wondered to myself, "surely the fast twitch must be kicking in by now?" I don't know the answer.

So I looked at it another way, Empirical Evidence? A picture of two runners side by side.

* A long distance runner, endurance, slow twitch fiber. Trim, toned thighs.
* A sprinter, speed, power, fast twitch fiber. Thick muscular thighs.
* Both excellent athletes but with drastically different outward appearances.

For the vast majority doing a light set of 40-50 with more in the tank is more efficient/effective than trying train heavy most of the time. The number 1 reason is injures, there is nothing efficient about injuries.

Agreed, there is nothing efficient about injuries.

As an OLD man (with arthritis and an inventory of injuries) I've moved to the "old guy" stationary weight machines to help reduce the risk of injury.

I also try to hedge my bets by varying rep ranges. Normal days might be sets of ten-ish reps. Good days might be sets of five-ish.

[jaxqen]

So I looked at it another way, Empirical Evidence? A picture of two runners side by side.

* A long distance runner, endurance, slow twitch fiber. Trim, toned thighs.
* A sprinter, speed, power, fast twitch fiber. Thick muscular thighs.
* Both excellent athletes but with drastically different outward appearances.

I don't know if it is about the fibers, or about the fact that the sprinter needs more muscle mass for his sports, so he eats and trains to get bigger until some point.
While the runner needs to be thin because this is what would get him a better time, so he doesn't eat that much to grow muscles.

I went to a 10.5k/21k competition years ago, in a forest.
The male winners had slim legs, while the female winners had bigger, more muscular legs.
Also, there were some awards for age groups.
And the older males had clearly bigger, more muscular legs than the overall male winners.

In my avatar I’m about 20# lighter than now with very little muscle development, I had strong tendons, but I trained heavy all the time back then. There was a time I never went under 405 on the deads @ 180# BW and I stood on blocks for deficit. I would pull 1-3reps several days a week plus do all the strongman events and very heavy partial squats 500-600#

Just curious, what made you switch from strogman stuff/lifting tires to very high reps? Injuries?

Your training seems enjoyable, maybe I'll try something similar someday for one movement pattern, I like to experiment.


PS: air2fakie said "Keep in mind you're training this way now, but didn't always train this way."

And I agree... training like this is not the best thing for beginners, imo.

Let's say a 35 years skinny-fat guy, who has been sedentary his whole life, wants to start to lifting. His purpose is to look like he lifts, so he needs more muscles.
Not sure that the best idea is to put him on a 50-100 reps workout.

[joewattie]

I went to a 10.5k/21k competition years ago, in a forest.
The male winners had slim legs, while the female winners had bigger, more muscular legs.

And a new variable - genetics. Women tend to have better legs and I often see ladies doing decent squats and deadlifts but, when it comes to, say, the bench press, not so much.

So I always keep it back of my mind that it's possible for genetically gifted lifters to promote sub-optimal programs because "it worked for them". (Anything is better than nothing?)

50 rep sets? I've no problem with that. But not for me. Been there, done that; I would drop out from boredom. "Best" sometimes needs to balanced with personal preference.

Back to our runners, distance runners and sprinters. It's not about what is "better". One tends to gravitate towards what they like (and one tends to like what they're innately good at).

How's the old song go, "Listen to your body talk ..."

[air2fakie]

Back to our runners, distance runners and sprinters. It's not about what is "better". One tends to gravitate towards what they like (and one tends to like what they're innately good at).

At least in America, there's a process of natural selection - people who aren't fast and can't play a sport, often do distance running. It's how cross country teams get their members in high school.

Anyone can diet/train to run a long distance in a decent enough time. Not everyone can diet/train to be decently fast or athletic.

[joewattie]

At least in America, there's a process of natural selection - people who aren't fast and can't play a sport, often do distance running. It's how cross country teams get their members in high school.

Anyone can diet/train to run a long distance in a decent enough time. Not everyone can diet/train to be decently fast or athletic.

<lol> You brought back a memory. Back when I was a kid (fifties/sixties) our coaches forbid us from lifting weights. "It was bad for us." They also said, in sports, "those who can do and those who can't ... they lift weights". (Or run cross country?)

One would hope those coaches got a refund from the colleges they learned that from?

[OldFartTom]

https://www.bodybuilding.com/author/danny-kavadlo

OP, start reading the articles he wrote

[dbmata]

people will tell you that rep ranges of 3-5 build muscle. People will also say rep ranges from 10-30 will build muscle. However, if you mention rep ranges above 30 people say it doesn't build muscle. You typically hear something along the lines of "that will only build muscular endurance and not put on muscle" Does anyone have any REAL data stating this is true? Because it makes 0 sense when you think of it logically.

Makes a ton of sense when you think logically. There's a ton of evidence on this exact subject at pubmed, google scholar, and even digested for people by minds like greg nuckols and mike israetel.

[joewattie]

Looking back; I had good luck with high reps but ... better luck with lower reps.

[LWW]

Just curious, what made you switch from strogman stuff/lifting tires to very high reps? Injuries?

.

I still train with atlas stones and an occasional strongman implement. I’m more into looking like I lift now but I prefer doing bodybuilding workouts with strongman gear like lateral raises with chains, sit-ups with chains and stones, etc. A new one I been doing is glute ham raise on the hammer strength machine holding and rowing a 105# round stone!

I found strongman implements much less injury prone because it’s more natural type of lifting.

The exception is super yoke, doing that heavy can fuk you up, and that’s one I did get injured on early because the guys yoke weighed 675 empty and it was my first time and I over did it.

All my other back injuries happened from heavy dead’s with a barbell. The mistake I made was not doing any light days. My thought process was just rest another day instead of doing a light day and go heavy.