HIGHER REPS and Cardio QUESTION!

**anavar100** · 12-06-2006, 12:58 PM

I usually stick to around 8-10 reps and 3-4 sets ive seen some ppl stay at around 15 reps? what is bennifit of doing higher reps? oppossed to lower ones?

also ive heard that running burns not only fat but muscle? is this true.. ive been trying to cut down on my BF and keep as ,much muscle as possible. should i stick to running or say the eliptical on a low setting for a longer peroid of time?

**slopland** · 12-06-2006, 01:37 PM

The high rep lifting your referring to is hypertrophy training. It is used by a lot of body builders to gain volume and a higher pump. Its basically measured by volume (sets x reps x weight). Normally about 4 sets per exercise with about 4-5 exercise's being completed. The more volume the better. High reps 10-15 with short rests (less than 1 min between sets) stimulates the release Growth hormone releasing factor which causes the release of growth hormone. This helps in glycogen storage and protein synthesis. You can still gain some strength by this method, but size (volumizing effect) and muscle endurance are the main results. Its good to mix it up. A month or so with hypertrophy, then go to strength..Mix it up...

During aerobics, you will burn both fat and carbs. But, you can actually target one more than the other according to VCO2 exchange machines. When your intensity is 80% and higher (according to the karvonen method), your geared toward burning carbs, but you will burn calories faster. When your around 60-75% of your Max HR, with longer durations (greater than 30 min), you burn more fat. If you want to maintain mass, but cut some fat, I would recommend moderate pace for a long duration (around an hour at
4-4.5mph with about a 7-12% grade (be careful, this grade is hard on the knees) or the ellipitcal set at around 9 on the resistance for an hour. Keep your hear trate controlled around the percentages. (remember, 20 minutes is about the time when you START primarily burning fat)

An easy way (not karvonen) to figure out your needed heartrate is take your age minus 220 and multiply by 60, 70, 80, or 90% (change them to fractions) and the result is your target heart rate.

**Pete789** · 12-06-2006, 05:23 PM

Hey that is very helpful.thanks Ananvar good work.
Pete

**bazerk** · 12-06-2006, 06:33 PM

What would you say the duration of time on burning fat is if you do cardio after a workout? Would it be shorter than 30 min. to burn fat or longer, still?

**slopland** · 12-09-2006, 11:09 PM

Great question: actually, I adjusted my workout recently just for that. I found that I'm cutting quicker. I do about 45 min to an hour of hypertrophy which with the short rests gets your HR up. With resistance training, your primarily burning carbs, but with the long duration of elevated HR, your burning fat just as well. So, by the time you get to the cardio, your already in a fat burning state so just tack on the tiime of cardio + resistance minus about 20 min and you have a lot of time in the fat burning zone!!

**MuscleScience** · 12-09-2006, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by slopland

The high rep lifting your referring to is hypertrophy training. It is used by a lot of body builders to gain volume and a higher pump. Its basically measured by volume (sets x reps x weight). Normally about 4 sets per exercise with about 4-5 exercise's being completed. The more volume the better. High reps 10-15 with short rests (less than 1 min between sets) stimulates the release Growth hormone releasing factor which causes the release of growth hormone. This helps in glycogen storage and protein synthesis. You can still gain some strength by this method, but size (volumizing effect) and muscle endurance are the main results. Its good to mix it up. A month or so with hypertrophy, then go to strength..Mix it up...

During aerobics, you will burn both fat and carbs. But, you can actually target one more than the other according to VCO2 exchange machines. When your intensity is 80% and higher (according to the karvonen method), your geared toward burning carbs, but you will burn calories faster. When your around 60-75% of your Max HR, with longer durations (greater than 30 min), you burn more fat. If you want to maintain mass, but cut some fat, I would recommend moderate pace for a long duration (around an hour at
4-4.5mph with about a 7-12% grade (be careful, this grade is hard on the knees) or the ellipitcal set at around 9 on the resistance for an hour. Keep your hear trate controlled around the percentages. (remember, 20 minutes is about the time when you START primarily burning fat)

An easy way (not karvonen) to figure out your needed heartrate is take your age minus 220 and multiply by 60, 70, 80, or 90% (change them to fractions) and the result is your target heart rate.

I disagree with you, all the rescent literature has pointed to low rep, high intensity training with emphasis on speed of contraction and longer rest for glycogen recover.

**slopland** · 12-10-2006, 10:49 AM

What are you disagreeing with? Do you disagree with the entire statement (which I know is fact) or are you saying that strength training (low reps, long rests) burns more calories than hypertrophy and you have research to back it? I would love to see the research. I'm doing research in grad school as we speak and have not seen anything remotely close to that. Send me the PCID or AN and I'm assuming its peer reviewed and respected such as NSCA or ACSM or even APTA? LOL, hope its not from mens health...that doesnt count!!!!!

**MuscleScience** · 12-10-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by slopland

What are you disagreeing with? Do you disagree with the entire statement (which I know is fact) or are you saying that strength training (low reps, long rests) burns more calories than hypertrophy and you have research to back it? I would love to see the research. I'm doing research in grad school as we speak and have not seen anything remotely close to that. Send me the PCID or AN and I'm assuming its peer reviewed and respected such as NSCA or ACSM or even APTA? LOL, hope its not from mens health...that doesnt count!!!!!

I respectfully disagree with the statement that high rep high volume is more conducive to hyperthropy, all the papers in the last five years have pretty much shown that low reps with heavy weight is more effective. Of course you will see results with either method and I have seen some that say other wise it seems however the general consensus in the last few years is towards the low rep high weight method. I just graduated from graduate school in exercise phys and my thesis will be appearing soon in the literature Dr. Brown from the Recent NSCA article is widely disagreed with by many around the Exercise Science community he is the main proponent of this theory right now. I dont know if you were at the ACSM conference in Denver last May but they had some great speakers on this very subject. And I only look at Mens health for the chicks in it.

**slopland** · 12-10-2006, 06:17 PM

Nothing wrong with disagreement especially when its respectful as you did. Must be an ongoing discussion/theory because for the last 5 years, everything I have seen points to hypertrophy being from high reps, high sets, short rests. And yes, you will see results whether it is strength or hypertrophy. The basis of the high rep theory is total volume (sets x reps x weight). Even the respected NSCA and the CSCS certification still recognize high rep as hypertrophy training. Also, just for clarification as to not confuse hypertrophy with endurance training, its recommened that with the short rests, you fail on every last rep of each set or come as close to possible. The weight should be around 70-85% of your 1RM. Maybe your thinking endurance or maybe I simply havent seen the literature. Let me know when your thesis is out, I would like to take a look at it. BTW, congrats on grad school graduation:
PS for anavar : even though this is being discussed, hypertrophy is the best for your question, in the context of fat burning: The short rests keep your HR in the correct zone for a longer period more consistantly.