controversy of low rep vs high rep

**rastling1** · 03-04-2006, 09:06 AM

As far as weight loss is concerend i read so much conflicting ideas that high weight low rep with long rest between burns more fat. Vs the theory of high rep high intensity training. For me fat loss was always better when i did cirucuits of short rest time, high rep, high intensity and really got my heart rate up and a huge sweat going. Any thoughts.

**Mealticket** · 03-04-2006, 09:09 AM

for "pure fat" burn you need to keep your h/r below 65% max.

So if you have a 200 max hr you train @ 130bpm?...WTF?
Ya....you don't feel anything @ that intensity.

Do what you're doing. Circuit training keeps the HR elevated thus burning more overall calories. Doesnt matter if it comes from your fat stores or ATP stores, calories are calories, just be sure to hydrate and re-fuel properly when doing higher intensity

**novastepp** · 03-04-2006, 09:10 AM

i personally don't think reps is as important as intensity and shorter rest periods. i train with 8-10 reps during a cut for hypertrophy but i decrease rest periods and try to incorporate supersets where i can. works pretty well for me.

**timtim** · 03-04-2006, 10:00 AM

regardless of cutting or bulking you should constantly be changing rep ranges for maximum growth. reps are the first thing your body adapts to. usually takes no longer than 3 weeks to adapt.

**rastling1** · 03-04-2006, 10:59 AM

well whats everyones opinion on what burns more fat?

**timtim** · 03-04-2006, 12:01 PM

probably tempo training but you cant do that every week, it loses its effect quickly. i'm talking like 5 second eccentric and 2 to 3 second concentric pace for 8 rep sets straight.

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-04-2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by rastling1

As far as weight loss is concerend i read so much conflicting ideas that high weight low rep with long rest between burns more fat. Vs the theory of high rep high intensity training. For me fat loss was always better when i did cirucuits of short rest time, high rep, high intensity and really got my heart rate up and a huge sweat going. Any thoughts.

JEBUS CHRISTMAS!!! ok last time am saying this, YOU CANT LIFT TO GET CUT you want to get cut it is all about cardio and diet. thats it, circuit training is for the geriatrics and novice lifters. higher reps to failure will put on size , lower reps not to failure with weights over 70% and above you max percentage will help with strength. lifting for cardio is just a waste of time, and ie that is circuit training and give it or take it thats my opinion,waste of time and effort

**WHOADY4SHOADY** · 03-04-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Doc.Sust

JEBUS CHRISTMAS!!! ok last time am saying this, YOU CANT LIFT TO GET CUT you want to get cut it is all about cardio and diet. thats it, circuit training is for the geriatrics and novice lifters. higher reps to failure will put on size , lower reps not to failure with weights over 70% and above you max percentage will help with strength. lifting for cardio is just a waste of time, and ie that is circuit training and give it or take it thats my opinion,waste of time and effort

I agree, good post.

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-06-2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by WHOADY4SHOADY

I agree, good post.

i am glad you do, i have had it with that question

**WHOADY4SHOADY** · 03-07-2006, 07:10 AM

Well, it really is common sense if you think about it. If you have to keep your heart rate at 65-70% of your max, for one its much easier to walk at a steady pace and have your heart rate stable for a certain amount of time than it is to let it keep shooting up and down while your lifting. It just doesnt make any sense. You lift to build the muscle to burn the fat.

**rastling1** · 03-07-2006, 08:19 AM

Well, Lifting for cardio isn't a waste of time if your an athlete. It has incredible funcitional advantages. For a bodybuilder it might be a waste. But I wrestle Division one. Which is almost like a full body spring and you need to do crazy circuits to be able to put your body through that. At this point I am fortunate of how I look but thats really ont my concern. I want to be extremely low body fat for athletic purposes, fast as hell, strong as an ox, and be able ot sprint for miles and miles and not breathe heavy. Obvioulsy exaggerated but you get the drift. My basic overall question is this. I guess I should have been clearer. Say your 1 RM is 200lbs for round numbers

Are you going to burn more fat by doing 10 reps at 60% or 120lbs
or buy doing 3-5 reps at 80% 160lbs. Thats all i was asking. ANyone have any thoughts. THey would be appreiciated. And the whole theory of lifting for cardio as a waste of time. That really really depends on what your using it for.

**novastepp** · 03-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by rastling1

Well, Lifting for cardio isn't a waste of time if your an athlete. It has incredible funcitional advantages. For a bodybuilder it might be a waste. But I wrestle Division one. Which is almost like a full body spring and you need to do crazy circuits to be able to put your body through that. At this point I am fortunate of how I look but thats really ont my concern. I want to be extremely low body fat for athletic purposes, fast as hell, strong as an ox, and be able ot sprint for miles and miles and not breathe heavy. Obvioulsy exaggerated but you get the drift. My basic overall question is this. I guess I should have been clearer. Say your 1 RM is 200lbs for round numbers

Are you going to burn more fat by doing 10 reps at 60% or 120lbs
or buy doing 3-5 reps at 80% 160lbs. Thats all i was asking. ANyone have any thoughts. THey would be appreiciated. And the whole theory of lifting for cardio as a waste of time. That really really depends on what your using it for.

See this shit is what disappoints me about this forum. too many guys ask such vague general questions and then get shitty when they don't get the answers they want! MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US YOU WRESTLED DIVISION ONE! and who cares anyway. you are concerned with losing WEIGHT, any weight possible. I wrestled for team Indiana for 2 years. I'm not flaming im just going to go general from here on out...
if you do not want opinions ask a SPECIFIC question. give us ALL of the relevant information we need to make a good intelligent response. too muchof this... "what is better for fat burning"... and "which is better" is GETTING F*CKING OLD! Sorry for the rant, but damn i hate attitude when individual ignorance is to blame...

**helium3** · 03-07-2006, 10:33 AM

you will burn some fat but for most people it would be negligible,you need to keep your heart rate steady around 70% for over 20mins(roughly) to get into the fat burning zone,otherwise its mainly glycogen (carbs/sugars) ETC you are burning.

**helium3** · 03-07-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by novastepp

See this shit is what disappoints me about this forum. too many guys ask such vague general questions and then get shitty when they don't get the answers they want! MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US YOU WRESTLED DIVISION ONE! and who cares anyway. you are concerned with losing WEIGHT, any weight possible. I wrestled for team Indiana for 2 years. I'm not flaming im just going to go general from here on out...
if you do not want opinions ask a SPECIFIC question. give us ALL of the relevant information we need to make a good intelligent response. too muchof this... "what is better for fat burning"... and "which is better" is GETTING F*CKING OLD! Sorry for the rant, but damn i hate attitude when individual ignorance is to blame...

amen brother!

**WHOADY4SHOADY** · 03-07-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by novastepp

See this shit is what disappoints me about this forum. too many guys ask such vague general questions and then get shitty when they don't get the answers they want! MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US YOU WRESTLED DIVISION ONE! and who cares anyway. you are concerned with losing WEIGHT, any weight possible. I wrestled for team Indiana for 2 years. I'm not flaming im just going to go general from here on out...
if you do not want opinions ask a SPECIFIC question. give us ALL of the relevant information we need to make a good intelligent response. too muchof this... "what is better for fat burning"... and "which is better" is GETTING F*CKING OLD! Sorry for the rant, but damn i hate attitude when individual ignorance is to blame...

I know why this set you off Nova, and I dont blame you. It has to do with alot of post, but especially that guy FlOo's post huh?

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-07-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by novastepp

See this shit is what disappoints me about this forum. too many guys ask such vague general questions and then get shitty when they don't get the answers they want! MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD US YOU WRESTLED DIVISION ONE! and who cares anyway. you are concerned with losing WEIGHT, any weight possible. I wrestled for team Indiana for 2 years. I'm not flaming im just going to go general from here on out...
if you do not want opinions ask a SPECIFIC question. give us ALL of the relevant information we need to make a good intelligent response. too muchof this... "what is better for fat burning"... and "which is better" is GETTING F*CKING OLD! Sorry for the rant, but damn i hate attitude when individual ignorance is to blame...

agreed!!!!!!

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by helium3

you will burn some fat but for most people it would be negligible,you need to keep your heart rate steady around 70% for over 20mins(roughly) to get into the fat burning zone,otherwise its mainly glycogen (carbs/sugars) ETC you are burning.

100% right!!!!!!

**rastling1** · 03-09-2006, 02:09 PM

I just didn't think wrestling that really had anything to do with my question.

Are you going to burn more fat by doing 10 reps at 60% or 120lbs
or buy doing 3-5 reps at 80% 160lbs. Thats all i was asking. ANyone have any thoughts. THey would be appreiciated. Basically the whole idea of Higher reps/light weight...or high weight/low reps. Which burns more fat.

That was the essence of my question. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough for you nova.

**kaptainkeezy04** · 03-09-2006, 02:20 PM

if you get in the habit of using lighter weights but higher reps while cutting, you will lose muscle...if you train lighter than your body tells itself oh we dont need all that muscle anymore cuz he aint even lifting heavy anymore. just like when ronnie coleman takes 3 months off of training a year he looks a lot smaller, but then when he gets back into it he literally blows up.

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-09-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by rastling1

I just didn't think wrestling that really had anything to do with my question.

Are you going to burn more fat by doing 10 reps at 60% or 120lbs
or buy doing 3-5 reps at 80% 160lbs. Thats all i was asking. ANyone have any thoughts. THey would be appreiciated. Basically the whole idea of Higher reps/light weight...or high weight/low reps. Which burns more fat.

That was the essence of my question. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough for you nova.

IMO the difference in calorie burning btwn 5 to 10 reps is miniscule, it wont make or break you. if you soley trained with high reps and another lifter did lower reps and a slight amount of cardio, the lifter that did cardio will lose more weight

**timtim** · 03-09-2006, 04:58 PM

if you get in the habit of using lighter weights but higher reps while cutting, you will lose muscle...if you train lighter than your body tells itself oh we dont need all that muscle anymore cuz he aint even lifting heavy anymore. just like when ronnie coleman takes 3 months off of training a year he looks a lot smaller, but then when he gets back into it he literally blows up.

i disagree with this statement. light weight, slower tempo workouts are necessary just as much as the low rep max effort days. stimulating fast and slow twitch fibers requires using various rep ranges mixed in your routine. it's all about periodization.

**kaptainkeezy04** · 03-09-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by timtim

i disagree with this statement. light weight, slower tempo workouts are necessary just as much as the low rep max effort days. stimulating fast and slow twitch fibers requires using various rep ranges mixed in your routine. it's all about periodization.

i never said one was more important than the other. i said dont get into the habit of doing light weight with high reps.

**timtim** · 03-09-2006, 06:42 PM

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-09-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by timtim

i disagree with this statement. light weight, slower tempo workouts are necessary just as much as the low rep max effort days. stimulating fast and slow twitch fibers requires using various rep ranges mixed in your routine. it's all about periodization.

not exactly either, i love periodization, but many lifters do noy use this, they use max effort, sub maximal rep. method, and speed traing combined with no real set up or rep scheme or percentages and they make great strength gains

**timtim** · 03-10-2006, 05:00 AM

not exactly either, i love periodization, but many lifters do noy use this, they use max effort, sub maximal rep. method, and speed traing combined with no real set up or rep scheme or percentages and they make great strength gains

like the west side principles?

***Doc.Sust*** · 03-10-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by timtim

like the west side principles?

west side , exactly! it doesnt work for me,but alot of others swear buy it, now weather it is the traing that works or the combination of supportive equipment and AAS year round i am not sure, al i know is westside isnt for me, and it kills my dedlift numbers evertime i have tried it

**novastepp** · 03-10-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by rastling1

I just didn't think wrestling that really had anything to do with my question.

Are you going to burn more fat by doing 10 reps at 60% or 120lbs
or buy doing 3-5 reps at 80% 160lbs. Thats all i was asking. ANyone have any thoughts. THey would be appreiciated. Basically the whole idea of Higher reps/light weight...or high weight/low reps. Which burns more fat.

That was the essence of my question. I am sorry I wasn't clear enough for you nova.

look i dont know how you want your question answered by my final answer is i never use weight training as a fat burner. I build muscle with it. fat burn is minimal seeing as you are catabolic, cardio burns my fat.

**timtim** · 03-10-2006, 02:19 PM

west side , exactly! it doesnt work for me,but alot of others swear buy it, now weather it is the traing that works or the combination of supportive equipment and AAS year round i am not sure, al i know is westside isnt for me, and it kills my dedlift numbers evertime i have tried it

same with me. my body falls apart quick on all those max effort days. i have really found periodizing routines is the way for ME. i do like to try alot of other programs like poliquin principles but in my opinion you need aas to be successful on most of his routines and many others.