Old rule of thumb:
“Lift big get big†and “High reps, High definitionâ€
Now how much truth do you really believe is behind this?
I’m not speaking of “Big lifts†like squats, bench, over head press. Yada yada. I’m speaking of lower reps, higher weight vs higher reps, lower weight.
Chest for example I can see how Big lifts will = big size. But many muscles are used for example in a flat press. Shoulders, Tris even traps and lats a little. I can see how higher weight could result in a less defined chest maybe….as other muscles are helping pick up the load.
For Biceps though, you really only have 2 options, curls or hammers, it is a simple movement and your arms move in simple ways to work biceps. Do you really feel that higher reps burn fat around the muscle to make it more defined? Or does muscle just grow one way?
I guess I’ve always looked at this situation like this. To get big, you lift heavy with lower reps, but keeping your form proper. Keeping your reps around 6-8, maybe even less. When you want definition then….the key is diet not altering your reps to sacrifice size. I just don’t understand how higher reps can make for more definition. I can understand going higher reps to change up the norm, keep your body in a state of shock and using it to get over a platue.
Interested in hearing others opinions and experiences.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by tcw
