could adding more reps be just as beneficial as adding more weight?
im thinking definitely not but my boy says yeah? hes just from a small hick town wit no gym so this is what he was used to having limited weights to work wit
Printable View
could adding more reps be just as beneficial as adding more weight?
im thinking definitely not but my boy says yeah? hes just from a small hick town wit no gym so this is what he was used to having limited weights to work wit
fail in 6-8 reps for mass.
My dad didn't have access to a gym and this was in the early 60s when gym equipment couldn't be bought for home use. By age 18 he had built 15.5" arms simply by doing dips and pullups, doing high numbers of reps for many sets with no rest in between. Later on he moved onto weighting them and doing more exercises and his arms got up to 16.5" until he quit through injury.Quote:
Originally Posted by dellio
In a way, the idea of setting a rep range is a myth, because as long as you get a high level of intensity and improve each session with higher reps, you are getting stronger and bigger. I'm not brave enough to up the reps though, I prefer to increase the weight because that is how I have always seen results for myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
You say that rep range doesnt matter? Pretty bold statement there buddy....your word against a lot of the bodybuilding books and mods on here. what makes you think it doesnt matter?
I agree with Flexor. I read an article by strength coach Charles Staley that said as long as you do more work than your last workout, you will improve. You could increase reps or weight. You could also do the same workout in less time. Etc., etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
Nowhere did it say it doesn't matter, you've just made that up. I said in a way its a myth, because I've seen how my dad built his muscles. I also said that I'm not changing my rep target of 8 because its working. I personally believe that anything will build muscle as long as you work hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
you call the rep range a myth...myth meaning a fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology? in my opinion, setting a range between 6-12 will build muscle....of course doing numberous reps will build muscle and strength but the IDEAL rep range for muscle and strength is going to be around 8.
I understand what you are saying. What Flexor was trying to say is true. Read an article by Charles Staley call EDT Training and it will have a more scientific explanation. It's over at t-nation.com.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
no offense man but right now i really dont feel like reading an article unless its a pro's column from Muscular Development..DAMN I LOVE THAT MAGAZINE...but striker dude what do you think is the best for building mass and strength? high reps or reps in the 6-8 range? i mean if high reps were ideal then we would be watching ronnie coleman doin dumbell presses with 100 pounds instead of 200 pounds and squats with 500 pounds instead of 800 pounds right?Quote:
Originally Posted by striker93
You are just twisting everything, can't you read english? I said in a way it was a myth, I didn't say it WAS a myth! I think its pretty damn obvious that anywhere around 8 reps is the optimum, but like striker said, there are other ways to build muscle and that is what I have been saying. No one said high reps was better than 8-12, capiche?Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
does ronnie even do squats ?
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
increase reps, increase weight or both
its all increase in load
as long as you're contunually increasing in load then you're cool
and if you aren't...u gotta change somethin else up!
oh and optimal rep range is something you gotta figure out thru trial and error but yea 6-12 pref 8-12 is cool depending on the type of training you do
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryamigo
I've trained high rep for years.
I've also incorporated a combination of the two: dropsets
Dropsets allow me to go as heavy as humanly possible...yet still facilitate high reps.
see boldQuote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
:thumbsup:
It is relative...overload is over load phsyiologically speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by dellio
But i'd assume certain benefits of weight-training (i.e. increased skeletal load and the consumate increase in calcium deposition in response to weight-bearing exercises) increase with workload...as opposed to in relation to time under tension.
Yep - Just get in the gym and do better than last time - whether it is more weight, more reps, less wait time between sets, etc. etc.
Nark highlighted one important word...."Intensity"
yes i have been agreeing with everything you have just said...i am just stating that yes it is effective to do reps to failure but it is ideal to range from 6-12....for instance your dad who didnt have a gym could have done push ups with someone sitting on his back...or do dips extremely slow and do pullups real slow....thus failing between range of 6-12. lets jsut stop this argument its pointless...lets just be men and let this go. and dont be disrespectful and ask me if i can read english, please. or say "capiche."Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
I have a right to say capisci, I'm half Italian. Capiche is just the american version so that you could relate to it. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful though, peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
Depends on the muscle group and your body type. If you really want to see if you improved, increaseing reps or total load- do this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dellio
((total load) * (total reps)) * (total sets) = TOTAL LIFTED
then...
(TOTAL LIFTED) / (total minutes spent lifting it) = TOTAL POWER
That equation would spit out how much weight you lifted per minute in the workout - if the number keeps going up... you are getting stronger.
For example say I did 405 for 5 reps, 5 sets in 30 minutes... 405*5=2025*5=10125lbs
10125/30=337.5 pounds per minute on that lift
Now lets say I could do 365 for 8 reps, 5 sets in 30 minutes... 365*8=2920*5=14600lbs
14600/30=486.7 pounds per minute on that lift
I got stonger using less weight... see how that works? http://forums.anabolicreview.com/ima...s/bluewink.gif
BTW - some bodyparts (and some individuals) are capable of recovery very fast and will shrug off anything less than 10 reps or 30-40 seconds of total time under tension. And others benefit from low reps with all out raw explosive lifting. Watch your rest intervals... don't spend too much time bullsh!ting - you can see here how that can really impact the benefit of the workout.
Cheers warrior, very interesting. I'm going to do some number crunching now :wg:
I've always used a 1RM max calculator to check if I have gained strength.
www.kalanen.fi/maxrepcalculator
E.g.
8 deads at 220 = 1RM of 275
12 deads at 200 = 1RM of 271
So If I had done 12 deads (for 1st set) and next workout upped the weight 20lbs and did 8 deads (for 1st set), I would know from this basic calculation that I had most probably gained strength.
Warrior what is your opinion of this method? It's probably not that accurate right? I've found it useful though.
http://forums.steroid.com/members-pictures/205110-pics-6-weeks.html
here's what low reps high weight did for me in the last 6 weeks.
read the thread to see what my workout was.
It depends man, I know some people that can load up a bar and bust out 10 reps - then tun around and do it again in less than a minute. I knew a guy in Vegas that had phenomenal recovery ability... he was very lean too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
To figure out what give you a high number in that equation is finding that sweet spot (what give you a higher power index each workout), which lies between rest, load and reps for each bodypart... if you do that - this is what I call really dialing in and documenting your training ability and planning. If you keep a training log, make sure you right down times in it for now on.
Oh sorry, I forgot to mention, what I said was for FIRST sets only, on different weeks!! Do you think the 1RM calculator is accurate with this in mind. I didn't mean for subsequent sets after the 1st, I've reworded my original post so it makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior
I've always kept a training log and now on I will try to include times.
No - its a general calculator... like I mentioned, some people have very unique musclular ablilities... and it differs per muscle group.
Like I might be able to push 405 for doubles and then drop to 365 for 5's... you might be able to push 405 for doubles, but can drop to 365 and still push out 7 or 8. This can vary by muscle group to... for example, I have noticed while doing delt presses that they can maintain their strength much longer than chest can doing flat presses. You can see this to really be true and obvious in calve work - you can do sets to failure of 15-20 reps for multiple sets - but try that with chest!
The concept of calculating the power you actually produced, as we have discussed with that equation above, is a far more superior method - a much more accurate way to measure your gains...
Thanks man, helps a lot. I'll use the method you described and do a few sums on all my previous workout data.
Nice warrior...nice!
:thumbsup:
yeah warrior...thanx for clearing that up for us man. appreciate it
No problem gents... glad you find the info helpful/useful... Sisco and Little have a book out called Power Factor Training that goes into this concept deeper. Its a really good read.
I think it is also important to point out a little something in this: when you play with these numbers you will find what rep range gets you your highest power output - and with this you may find that working over 90 percent your 1RM will hurt your overall score. But there is something to gain in working over 90 percent though... and that is increasing your limit strength via overloading your CNS... basically getting use to heavier loads.
There is an old powerlifting bench pressing theory that is based on two flat pyramids. You warm up to your 1RM then do 5 sets of singles with 2 minute rest intervals. The you drop about 50 pounds (again, depends on your muscle structure) and do 5 sets of 5 with the same RI's. The theory behind this is - after you push out the singles and get your adren**** pumping from lifting heavy... the load using 50 pounds less "seems" lighter. This type of training attacks any self doubts you have about goin' heavy. And in the long run - will benefit your power output.
So use the formula above - but mix up your training a bit for days when you trying and break your PR's in limit strength... especially in the major freeweight lifts...
If you can achieve a power output close to what you usually achieve by doing 3 reps instead of 8, in other words through more sets, hypertrophy in the type II C muscles will occur in addition to the greater neuromuscular adaptation.
Some people believe the myth that low reps improves strength but does not stimulate hypertrophy, which is totally wrong of course. If you can achieve enough total reps through doing many sets of low rep exercise, actually more hypertrophy will occur through causing greater damage handling heavier weights.
Low reps/strength training improves strength AND overall development. Lets face it, your going to be bigger when you are pushing 315 for 10 reps rather than 225 for 10!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor
This gets into periodizing your training in micro/macro cycles to focus on either one... personally I like breaking a routine into two types of workouts (micro cycles), workout A would focus on strength, while B would focus on getting the most power output... alternating between the two... A,B,A,B, ... where B would require the most rest days.