heavy weight less reps or lightweight more reps , or both

[tempest818]

Hello wise sages and gurus of the iron dungeons.

As a natty, ive been told to keep reps from 6-8 and train my heaviest each set.

As of now i follow more of a 12-10-8-8 rep and set scheme where i go moderate weight for 12-10 and heaviest for 8 reps for 2 sets. I might follow with a drop set of 10 reps.

Is this wrong? Should i do something like warmup/8/6/6 or 8 8 6?
Does it really make a difference
Considering i go to failure on my last 2 sets?

If im stimulating the muscles to the point of failure , whats the difference if i do it with less reps and more weight? I still go to failure ya know?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

What are your goals?
Size, strength, endurance, athletic ability, etc...
Can't tell you what to do without knowing what you want.

[novastepp]

Hello wise sages and gurus of the iron dungeons. As a natty, ive been told to keep reps from 6-8 and train my heaviest each set. As of now i follow more of a 12-10-8-8 rep and set scheme where i go moderate weight for 12-10 and heaviest for 8 reps for 2 sets. I might follow with a drop set of 10 reps. Is this wrong? Should i do something like warmup/8/6/6 or 8 8 6? Does it really make a difference Considering i go to failure on my last 2 sets? If im stimulating the muscles to the point of failure , whats the difference if i do it with less reps and more weight? I still go to failure ya know?

Read Marcus300s posts about HIT. Failure is a place that, once you hit it, you won't have another set left in you. Great posts here about it.

Generally failure is what you want to hit and there are stickies here that lay out different lifting programs and techniques. Some like to hit failure in various rep ranges, Iron Mans HIT, others like failure with heavy reps with some beyond positive failure techniques. Take a few months with each different lifting strategy and see which you respond best to, in regard to strength and hopefully size.

[tempest818]

I want to be shredded to the socks. Im on a cut now lol but regardless, size is my goal.

[tempest818]

Hey nova,

I try dude...but ive never done an exercise to such failure that i couldnt do another set. Another set of less weight sure but to completely anihilate with one set, i never understood. Even with assisted reps after i cant bust anymore out, i can give a 40 second rest and go back at it.

I will look at those programs forsure. Thanks!!

[73rr]

I kinda like how Nova put that. Try all the ways out there. Lift heavy lifting light with high reps! Try it all.

I say this because I believe everyone's body acts differently. (Not everyone will agree to that) I my self don't count sets. I will count reps but only because I want to push my self to really go past the last one. I start heavy and drop weight every set until I can't anymore or it got to light.(if it got to light before failure I no I did something wrong!)

I hope this makes sense to u

[hellomycognomen]

Only way to be "shredded" is to have low body fat %. Its been shown that the most important factor for muscle hypertrophy is volume. Volume trumps all (failure, time under tension, load, muscle damage, metabolic build up, intensity, etc) So when volume is accounted for you will get roughly equal amounts of hypertrophy regardless if you do high weight/low reps, or low weight/high reps.

However the more load you lift the stronger you will become so overall as long as you are progressing, then you are on the right path.

Keep in mind that high loads will require more rest time in betweeen sets and thus generally take longer.

I do a daily undulating periodization workout. This is in my opinion the most optimal way to train and make gains. I have 2 workout routines for back, chest/shoulders/arms, and legs. One will consist of heavy low reps, and the other I reduce the weight and do higher reps. The lower reps, high weight help improve my strength and the higher rep workout helps to increase my overall total volume.

Again volume is #1. Training to failure is a good tool that you can use but never at the expense of volume.

-Cheers

[tempest818]

It makes perfect sense 73rr and that is EXACTLY how i like to train but i keep hearing that natties should stay at a 6-8 rep range and some other bullshit that basically adds up to me counting my sets and reps. I like to throw iron around until i get tired and i feel like 6 reps or 15 reps dont make a difference as long as in the end, i cant throw weight around lol.

[tempest818]

Well yeah but i was just emphasizing im more size and conditioning oriented than strength. But more volume means more reps/sets?

[73rr]

Hey man what ever works works. I can tell u that usually after I warm up. My next set is somewhere around the 4 to 5 rep range and I'm always focusing on what ever muscle I'm working on. (So if I'm working chest I'm going to be flexing and squeezing my chest as hard as I can). Then I will take maybe 10 lbs off of pretty close to my max and make sure I do 4 or 5 hoping for 6 reps. So on so fourth. Until I'm at about 8 to 10 reps and I'm usually so sore and beat that I cant make that rep range and need to take off more then just 5 or 10 pounds.

[73rr]

Also I try not to rest longer the 1 min. Normally it starts with me saying a set every 40 seconds and thenot I'm hard of breathing and it gradually goes to 1 min haha. When I'm changing lifts I give my self about 5 minutes maybe a little longer to rest and getores water and such.

Hope this helps. Let me now what u figure out!

[hellomycognomen]

Well yeah but i was just emphasizing im more size and conditioning oriented than strength. But more volume means more reps/sets?

Volume = weight x reps x sets. Like I said when volume is accounted for the hypertrophy will be the same whether you do high reps/low weight or low reps/high weight. However with the heavier loads you will also have the benefit of gaining more strength. This gained strength will then allow you to move to heavier loads or do more reps, so its a significant benefit.

That is why daily undulating periodization is the most optimal. It allows you to work in both arenas and maximize the benefit.

-Cheers

[fxrjuiceman]

Honestly I get better muscle seperation from high reps10-12 low reps and heavy just made my one rep max weight go waaaaay up but didn't look as defined again this is my experience

[tempest818]

Ahh that makes so much sense. I will try to keep a log now and account for volume overall. And every workout try to increase it by either extra weight, reps or sets.

[hellomycognomen]

Ahh that makes so much sense. I will try to keep a log now and account for volume overall. And every workout try to increase it by either extra weight, reps or sets.

If I'm not mistaken it was Stewart Phillips, PhD from McMasters University who published a very good paper showing that volume is the most important factor. I will try and find it and post the link here when I do that.

In the mean time here is one of my favorite publication by Brad Schoenfeld PhD on the different aspects of muscle hypertrophy.

http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/articl...ypertrophy.pdf

-Cheers

[novastepp]

Hey nova,

I try dude...but ive never done an exercise to such failure that i couldnt do another set. Another set of less weight sure but to completely anihilate with one set, i never understood. Even with assisted reps after i cant bust anymore out, i can give a 40 second rest and go back at it.

I will look at those programs forsure. Thanks!!

The idea is to make the mind muscle connection over many sessions so that one can push themselves to absolute complete positive failure (unable to perform more reps), and then try a beyond failure technique like the forced reps you mentioned. If you can find the weight, say on decline barbell bench press, that you are able to lift to positive failure between 4-7 reps and then use a spotter to hit 1 or 2 forced reps, and perform a nice slow negative after the assisted reps... you should not could not, be able to perform another set.

This is an extremely stimulating and difficult style of training, HIT, and I suggest you read and ask questions before you try it. Many here believe it trumps volume training as well.

At the basis of all training methods, you want to destroy the muscle, eat, and rest. Then progress in your lifts.

[MrFreshmaker]

Before i used to train for 2 hours,doing 8-10 exercises per muscle,4-5 sets,10-12 reps for each exercise,every muscle twice per week.
Now i do it HIT style,40-50 min training to failure,one body part per weeek,and believe me,when i finish i am more exhausted then when I trained for 2+ hours,and i am seeing muscle growth faster.

[novastepp]

If I'm not mistaken it was Stewart Phillips, PhD from McMasters University who published a very good paper showing that volume is the most important factor. I will try and find it and post the link here when I do that.

In the mean time here is one of my favorite publication by Brad Schoenfeld PhD on the different aspects of muscle hypertrophy.

http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/articl...ypertrophy.pdf

-Cheers

I love you. Studies are the best. I just read that entire study and please...post the other!!!

[novastepp]

I think I found it. Amazingly educational read. Is this it?

A Brief Review of Critical Processes in Exercise-Induced Muscular Hypertrophy - Springer

[novastepp]

I think I found it. Amazingly educational read. Is this it?

A Brief Review of Critical Processes in Exercise-Induced Muscular Hypertrophy - Springer

Hell, that isn't it. I'm looking I'm looking...

[novastepp]

Here:
PLOS ONE: Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men

scroll down for full text.

[hellomycognomen]

I love you. Studies are the best. I just read that entire study and please...post the other!!!

Haha thanks man. I have the paper in hard copy format but here is the abstract link:
Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. - PubMed - NCBI

It's another Brad Schoenfeld PhD paper. I think Stewart Phillips PhD had another correlating study showing similar findings.

I'll go to the library tomorrow and see if I can get an electronic pdf of it from their partner research publications suite.

-Cheers

[kelkel]

Again volume is #1. Training to failure is a good tool that you can use but never at the expense of volume.

I think Dorian Yates, the Mentzer brothers and many others may be of a different opinion.

[hellomycognomen]

I think Dorian Yates, the Mentzer brothers and many others may be of a different opinion.

When gear is added to the mix everything changes. Individual genetics also become a major factor.
I have nothing against going to failure, its a very good tool to have and use when appropriate.

Here a good video by Layne Norton PhD

Everyone is different and will respond differently to different stimuli and training methods. Research is good, gym experience is also valuable. Combine both and see what works best to optimize results. -Cheers

Failure discussion starts at 10:04 time, if you wanted to skip to it.

[kelkel]

Everyone is different and will respond differently to different stimuli and training methods. Research is good, gym experience is also valuable. Combine both and see what works best to optimize results. -Cheers

Exactly.

[novastepp]

I think Dorian Yates, the Mentzer brothers and many others may be of a different opinion.

Kel, I think you would appreciate the discussion I read the other day that attempted to investigate into Mike Mentzer's success with HIT and a very interesting point was discussed that can be summed up by saying that Mike's success with HIT may partially be due to the fact that he frequently implemented pullbacks that included more volume and higher reps, that still included failure. Some believed that these pullbacks were actually spurring his growth more-so than the HIT style of training he regularly implemented.

Obviously, this was opinion, but it was still interesting and quite honestly for me, was just another way of saying that he knew what he was doing and what worked for him, and he actually god-damn did it!

[novastepp]

When gear is added to the mix everything changes. Individual genetics also become a major factor.
I have nothing against going to failure, its a very good tool to have and use when appropriate.

Here a good video by Layne Norton PhD

Everyone is different and will respond differently to different stimuli and training methods. Research is good, gym experience is also valuable. Combine both and see what works best to optimize results. -Cheers

Failure discussion starts at 10:04 time, if you wanted to skip to it.

I very much appreciate your posts! Thanks again for the abstract and the video.

[kelkel]

Kel, I think you would appreciate the discussion I read the other day that attempted to investigate into Mike Mentzer's success with HIT and a very interesting point was discussed that can be summed up by saying that Mike's success with HIT may partially be due to the fact that he frequently implemented pullbacks that included more volume and higher reps, that still included failure. Some believed that these pullbacks were actually spurring his growth more-so than the HIT style of training he regularly implemented.

Obviously, this was opinion, but it was still interesting and quite honestly for me, was just another way of saying that he knew what he was doing and what worked for him, and he actually god-damn did it!

Absolutely correct. Pullbacks, rest, etc., all play into individual success. In the video he compares squatting to failure vs volume during a routine where he's squatting 3 days a week. It's a flawed comparison as in a true HIT routine you would not even consider squatting to failure three times per week. All that said, there is no "one correct way" to build muscle. You have to find what works for you and take it to it's limit. I do enjoy his video's though. I've watched many of them.

[novastepp]

Absolutely correct. Pullbacks, rest, etc., all play into individual success. In the video he compares squatting to failure vs volume during a routine where he's squatting 3 days a week. It's a flawed comparison as in a true HIT routine you would not even consider squatting to failure three times per week. All that said, there is no "one correct way" to build muscle. You have to find what works for you and take it to it's limit. I do enjoy his video's though. I've watched many of them.

Wise.

[MrFreshmaker]

Absolutely correct. Pullbacks, rest, etc., all play into individual success. In the video he compares squatting to failure vs volume during a routine where he's squatting 3 days a week. It's a flawed comparison as in a true HIT routine you would not even consider squatting to failure three times per week. All that said, there is no "one correct way" to build muscle. You have to find what works for you and take it to it's limit. I do enjoy his video's though. I've watched many of them.

Also in that video,when he talks about squats,on the first set he goes to failure,he does all sets with same weight,which is weird for me,i wouldnt call that training to failure!

[novastepp]

Also in that video,when he talks about squats,on the first set he goes to failure,he does all sets with same weight,which is weird for me,i wouldnt call that training to failure!

I don't know what his adaptations are (from his level of training, I would say they are advanced) but it does seem extremely difficult to believe that failure on the first set, would produce those reps on subsequent sets. I suppose his ability to recover after a set may be more than I've giving him credit for, but still seems very tough.

I think many gurus and well respected guys also refer to failure as the moment your form during the rep is compromised. That being said, it may help understand what he is referring to.

[kelkel]

I don't know what his adaptations are (from his level of training, I would say they are advanced) but it does seem extremely difficult to believe that failure on the first set, would produce those reps on subsequent sets. I suppose his ability to recover after a set may be more than I've giving him credit for, but still seems very tough.

I think many gurus and well respected guys also refer to failure as the moment your form during the rep is compromised. That being said, it may help understand what he is referring to.

True. His definition of failure does not seem to be what a HIT aficionado's would be.

[marcus300]

True. His definition of failure does not seem to be what a HIT aficionado's would be.

Norton is a well know knob who is out to extract money from guys who think he is natty who produces great gains, he's no idea IMHO and goes again everything I see as the way forward. The guy is a joke with an annoying voice. Studies what are funded by his sponsors and come on he is classed as a joke across the you tubers.

A good solid HIT workout would destroy each member in this thread apart from Kel who actually says what he does and not just copies other peoples work and writes about it.

some cvnts are very sad

Now not every body is suited to HIT even though they say they are but some are more suited to different approached like volume but for my body type and the thickness and size I want to gain and maintain there is no option but attack HIT

[novastepp]

Norton is a well know knob who is out to extract money from guys who think he is natty who produces great gains, he's no idea IMHO and goes again everything I see as the way forward. The guy is a joke with an annoying voice. Studies what are funded by his sponsors and come on he is classed as a joke across the you tubers. A good solid HIT workout would destroy each member in this thread apart from Kel who actually says what he does and not just copies other peoples work and writes about it. some cvnts are very sad Now not every body is suited to HIT even though they say they are but some are more suited to different approached like volume but for my body type and the thickness and size I want to gain and maintain there is no option but attack HIT

Many of Norton's comments in regard to research and volume are empirically proven. That training style has served him well, as an award winning strength athlete and as a trainer of literally thousands of people. I see no reason to attack him personally and generalize about what some may say about him; everybody has haters.

I also don't see the need to passive-aggressively say that other members would be destroyed by HIT style training. If it is not for them, and they choose to employ other methods, then I would think it should be applauded that they are trying to find what works for them. I would support anyone in that journey.

His video about periodization should be viewed by everyone on their journey to improvement in training. It is a sound principle that he helps break down and explains it very well; not all of his videos are winners but some are very well thought out and helpful!

[marcus300]

Many of Norton's comments in regard to research and volume are empirically proven. That training style has served him well, as an award winning strength athlete and as a trainer of literally thousands of people. I see no reason to attack him personally and generalize about what some may say about him; everybody has haters.

I also don't see the need to passive-aggressively say that other members would be destroyed by HIT style training. If it is not for them, and they choose to employ other methods, then I would think it should be applauded that they are trying to find what works for them. I would support anyone in that journey.

His video about periodization should be viewed by everyone on their journey to improvement in training. It is a sound principle that he helps break down and explains it very well; not all of his videos are winners but some are very well thought out and helpful!

Those comments were not address to anyone except you

please stop quoting me I really don't want to respond to you I thought we had an agreement

[tempest818]

This is my method of madness.

I do 3 sets an exercise for maybe 3-4 exercises depending on which muscle. First set besides warmup goes to 12 reps. Take a break, add weight and hit an 8 rep max. Then i keep the same weight and do maybe 7 reps because i hit the set before to failure. Then i move to anither exercise and repeat. What would you call this...HVT or HIT or just plain stupid lol. I love this way. My main goal is to work the muscle to failure in as many sets as possible. Is this a wrong way of training?

[marcus300]

This is my method of madness.

I do 3 sets an exercise for maybe 3-4 exercises depending on which muscle. First set besides warmup goes to 12 reps. Take a break, add weight and hit an 8 rep max. Then i keep the same weight and do maybe 7 reps because i hit the set before to failure. Then i move to anither exercise and repeat. What would you call this...HVT or HIT or just plain stupid lol. I love this way. My main goal is to work the muscle to failure in as many sets as possible. Is this a wrong way of training?

Tempest. Are you making and building muscle each year? If so carry on y it. If not find what works for you

[novastepp]

Those comments were not address to anyone except you please stop quoting me I really don't want to respond to you I thought we had an agreement

I don't see how any of that is helpful to the thread. I'm not following you around posting stuff.

[novastepp]

Haha thanks man. I have the paper in hard copy format but here is the abstract link: Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. - PubMed - NCBI It's another Brad Schoenfeld PhD paper. I think Stewart Phillips PhD had another correlating study showing similar findings. I'll go to the library tomorrow and see if I can get an electronic pdf of it from their partner research publications suite. -Cheers

Read another Schoenfeld abstract that also mentioned that lower rep ranged exercises to failure didn't show a statistically significant difference between gains of folks who trained in the 6-8 rep range. Seems that progression, however accounted for, may be paramount, which I think we all have agreed on here over time.

Very good thread.

[marcus300]

I don't see how any of that is helpful to the thread. I'm not following you around posting stuff.

That's because your already regurgitated my posts from my thread.

Don't worry I'll stay out of it

Your just a fool and my own fault in replying to your post directed at me.

Like I've said don't quote me again