Heavy Weights/Low Reps Vs Light/More Reps?

I've been reading from different sources that lifting heavy and low reps/longer rest periods is better as opposed to light weights and more reps and shorter rest periods and vice versa. My goal is size, so I want to know if you all can pitch in on what works best for you to see growth? I know there's more to it than that, for example contraction and technique, making sure I do it right. I don't go to a regular gym as I have one in my apartment so my goal is not to impress people on how much I can lift. What has worked for you where you saw better results?

Heavy weight = bigger muscle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyToronto

I've been reading from different sources that lifting heavy and low reps/longer rest periods is better as opposed to light weights and more reps and shorter rest periods and vice versa. My goal is size, so I want to know if you all can pitch in on what works best for you to see growth? I know there's more to it than that, for example contraction and technique, making sure I do it right. I don't go to a regular gym as I have one in my apartment so my goal is not to impress people on how much I can lift. What has worked for you where you saw better results?

---

Everyone has a different fast/slow twitch combination which makes everyone different. The generic answer is 4-6 reps. This is backed by a study in 2007 from Goteburg Univ that training with weights between 70-85% of your one rep max produced maximum hypertrophy. That American college of sports medicine published a paper in 2002 that 5-6 reps is most effective for increasing strength.
Ohio Univ also backed this up.
With that being said there is a lot more to it than that, but I believe that this satisfies your question.
I myself mix it up. It is probably more mental than scientifically proven.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My research does not rest within the studies. It comes from watching the truly big guys work out.

Muscle Group Dependent

If you are going for size the actual weight is not important to the largest degree. Hypertrophy is. The most realistic guy about workouts there is imho is Kai Greene. He works out in public and people blog his daily workout. 20 reps or die. No way you are at 70-percent max and pushing out 20 reps.

My bench went down 30 kilo....and my muscle size added 20 percent. Ill take that everyday of the week.

If you are the guy that is in it to say my max is X....then hypertrophy is not your game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicagotarsier

My research does not rest within the studies. It comes from watching the truly big guys work out.

Muscle Group Dependent

If you are going for size the actual weight is not important to the largest degree. Hypertrophy is. The most realistic guy about workouts there is imho is Kai Greene. He works out in public and people blog his daily workout. 20 reps or die. No way you are at 70-percent max and pushing out 20 reps.

My bench went down 30 kilo....and my muscle size added 20 percent. Ill take that everyday of the week.

If you are the guy that is in it to say my max is X....then hypertrophy is not your game.

---

So, low weight and high reps is your opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicagotarsier

My research does not rest within the studies. It comes from watching the truly big guys work out.

Muscle Group Dependent

If you are going for size the actual weight is not important to the largest degree. Hypertrophy is. The most realistic guy about workouts there is imho is Kai Greene. He works out in public and people blog his daily workout. 20 reps or die. No way you are at 70-percent max and pushing out 20 reps.

My bench went down 30 kilo....and my muscle size added 20 percent. Ill take that everyday of the week.

If you are the guy that is in it to say my max is X....then hypertrophy is not your game.

---

I just happened to be looking for studies on max hypertrophy recently trying to maximize my results. Once I get past my BB competitions, I am going to be following the routine supported by science.
With that being said, the science results are without AAS. AAS maximizes the results. If you are on AAS and you exercise, you will grow with 20 reps or 6.
I switch up my routine, but the basis is increasing the weight and decreasing the reps every set. I use 20/15/12/10/8 reps as the basis.
I really find it hard to believe that Kai uses 20 reps as his basis and got that big. I am following that protocol right now and I am 2 weeks out from competition.
I am a little concerned going that heavy with my joints, especially at my age. Before I become a naysayer, I will try it to see what happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyToronto

I've been reading from different sources that lifting heavy and low reps/longer rest periods is better as opposed to light weights and more reps and shorter rest periods and vice versa. My goal is size, so I want to know if you all can pitch in on what works best for you to see growth? I know there's more to it than that, for example contraction and technique, making sure I do it right. I don't go to a regular gym as I have one in my apartment so my goal is not to impress people on how much I can lift. What has worked for you where you saw better results?

---

Technique/Form builds muscles. Weights only provide the resistance to which the muscles will work. A body builder will put on moderate amount of weight and press the weight using very strict form. The goal is to increase nitrogen intake and hypertrophy by repeatedly working against resistance. The weights just provides the resistance. A body builder can't lift as much weights because he is isolating the muscle he is putting under load. A body builder is not a weight lifter. He lifts weights but if shoveling horse manure will build muscles faster, that's what he'd do for exercise. A weight lifter's goal is to put up as much weights as possible. I've been guys on the bench press with an amazing arch and they only have to bring the weight down 6 inches to touch their chest. They can lift a ton of weight because they have a different goal and use different technique. Ok, enough rambling. What is your goal? Build muscle? Use whatever weight you need to get 10 to 12 reps using STRICT form. That's the most amount of weight you can lift. As your muscles develop, you will be able to lift more weights but just know that a weight lifter using weight lifting technique will always be able to lift more weights than you.

When it comes to the pro's you have to remember what got them to that level is not necessarily what they do now. Massive growth is not normally realistic once they reach a certain size so the effort becomes more refinement.

Little of both, variety is the spice of body building

As heavy as you can, with perfect strict for and controlled reps....

I run low reps at 10 or less all I can hack. To break plateaus or just change up I run higher reps and alternate push pull with zero break for three sets each. When I have a workout or two where my low reps just isn't giving me the painful ly tight pump I am looking for I do this. As couch said variety is good. Doing the same routine for the same reps gets positively stupid and will burn you out. Eventually you will be going through the motions with half effort if you dont switch up.

I agree with kel on the pros. They have gotten to a point where maitenance is what they shoot for rather than gain.

Btw, on weight high or low oand reps high and low, the amount of effort you put in with little to no break makes all the difference. I break two minutes on squats between sets but only cause I am a puss I guess. My arms shoulders back days I am drenched with sweat with the thermostat all the way down.
I hear people say break till you catch your breath and there is no way I could do that it would take five minutes. I have a home gym thank god, because people would think I was dying on arm day running between machines and throwing plates off panting and leaking and drooling.
I dont think reps has as much to do with it as sheer effort and HIT.

I think that we are all saying the same thing... there are more variables than just reps. Also remember that everyone is different in the quantity of slow twitch and fast twitch fibers which will also make a difference.

Obs- I think that the "panting and leaking and drooling " is the result of too much efedrine. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charger69

I think that we are all saying the same thing... there are more variables than just reps. Also remember that everyone is different in the quantity of slow twitch and fast twitch fibers which will also make a difference.

Obs- I think that the "panting and leaking and drooling " is the result of too much efedrine. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Whatever it takes! Lol

I have no idea what "the best" is, but what I believe is that it comes down to two simple things (already said repeatedly here):

1) intensity
2) consistency over time

Everything seems to work if you try hard enough, and you do it long enough.... diet, lifting weights, running from bears... everything.

C-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obspowerstroke

Btw, on weight high or low oand reps high and low, the amount of effort you put in with little to no break makes all the difference. I break two minutes on squats between sets but only cause I am a puss I guess. My arms shoulders back days I am drenched with sweat with the thermostat all the way down.
I hear people say break till you catch your breath and there is no way I could do that it would take five minutes. I have a home gym thank god, because people would think I was dying on arm day running between machines and throwing plates off panting and leaking and drooling.
I dont think reps has as much to do with it as sheer effort and HIT.

---

When I started to lift weights, which was about 2 years ago, I've been following the heavy weights/low reps idea, I learned about it from going onto the site muscleforlife.com, and study after study according to this site says lifting heavy with low reps is the way to lift weights with a rest of 3-4 mins in between sets, because apparently studies show when you have a longer rest period between sets, you can lift more heavy as compared to shorter rest periods. So the program on this website entails a workout of mostly 1 body part a day, because of the longer rest period. I don't know if it's effective because he includes triceps and biceps and one chest workout in one day, which is a push and pull workout. And I've read elsewhere is to to separate workouts in pull and push days. Ever since starting this workout, I've rarely done lower weights and more reps with shorter rest periods.

So many different techniques and opinions etc. I guess I have to find what works for me. But when I read "this is the most effective way to work out", it makes you believe that's how one should workout.

Being that I was a practicing exercise physiologist for a time this
Was a frequent topic of debate at conferences and such. The science does have some key points that almost everyone agrees upon. But as far as which method is best, experts were kinda back and forth. But as Charley pointed out the first key factor is Consistency. Building muscle mass is a process, and it must be done in a consistent manner so that the body is constantly stimulated to lay down new muscle mass. Maintaining muscle is very expensive for the body and it will only hyperthopy as much as it has too and no more. As soon as the stimulation is took away then it starts to pull it back.

A second key point is time under tension or how effective the negative phase of the contraction is at stimulating or eliciting micro trauma to the myofibrals. The research is pretty clear that the negative phase of contraction is very important in hypertrophic training. How you accomplish that is a matter of personal opinion I think.

If you watch pro bodybuilders, sometimes you see the worse form ever on an exercise. I mean absolutely horrible and if you saw a skinny dude you would think well that's why he's skinny. Yet you see a pro do it, you're like, wow he seems to know what he's doing. You can't discount genetics, some people are just more prone to putting on muscle than others. I myself always responded very well to exercise and have nice shape. But I could never be 300 lbs of mass and 5% lean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

Being that I was a practicing exercise physiologist for a time this
Was a frequent topic of debate at conferences and such. The science does have some key points that almost everyone agrees upon. But as far as which method is best, experts were kinda back and forth. But as Chicago pointed out the first key factor is Consistency. Building muscle mass is a process, and it must be done in a consistent manner so that the body is constantly stimulated to lay down new muscle mass. Maintaining muscle is very expensive for the body and it will only hyperthopy as much as it has too and no more. As soon as the stimulation is took away then it starts to pull it back.

A second key point is time under tension or how effective the negative phase of the contraction is at stimulating or eliciting micro trauma to the myofibrals. The research is pretty clear that the negative phase of contraction is very important in hypertrophic training. How you accomplish that is a matter of personal opinion I think.

If you watch pro bodybuilders, sometimes you see the worse form ever on an exercise. I mean absolutely horrible and if you saw a skinny dude you would think well that's why he's skinny. Yet you see a pro do it, you're like, wow he seems to know what he's doing. You can't discount genetics, some people are just more prone to putting on muscle than others. I myself always responded very well to exercise and have nice shape. But I could never be 300 lbs of mass and 5% lean.

---

Interesting, the reason why I ask is because my weakness is my biceps and shoulders. And I know for the most part they're the smaller muscle group which takes longer to build. My arms are naturally thin, so it will take longer to develop. Meanwhile my chest and back are developing well because I have a naturally bigger chest. I want my bi's and shoulders to get big already...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

Being that I was a practicing exercise physiologist for a time this
Was a frequent topic of debate at conferences and such. The science does have some key points that almost everyone agrees upon. But as far as which method is best, experts were kinda back and forth. But as Chicago pointed out the first key factor is Consistency. Building muscle mass is a process, and it must be done in a consistent manner so that the body is constantly stimulated to lay down new muscle mass. Maintaining muscle is very expensive for the body and it will only hyperthopy as much as it has too and no more. As soon as the stimulation is took away then it starts to pull it back.

A second key point is time under tension or how effective the negative phase of the contraction is at stimulating or eliciting micro trauma to the myofibrals. The research is pretty clear that the negative phase of contraction is very important in hypertrophic training. How you accomplish that is a matter of personal opinion I think.

If you watch pro bodybuilders, sometimes you see the worse form ever on an exercise. I mean absolutely horrible and if you saw a skinny dude you would think well that's why he's skinny. Yet you see a pro do it, you're like, wow he seems to know what he's doing. You can't discount genetics, some people are just more prone to putting on muscle than others. I myself always responded very well to exercise and have nice shape. But I could never be 300 lbs of mass and 5% lean.

---

Muscle- do you have references? I am presently reading Stuart McGilll that you previously referenced. Damn I need to think hard to understand his writings which is why it is taking me so long.
I have another theoretical on hypertrophy but that is in line waiting I cannot seem to get enough. At my age, I am looking at optimization because my time is limited.
I am not like Scotchguard who looks like a 25 yo at 60. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charger69

Muscle- do you have references? I am presently reading Stuart McGilll that you previously referenced. Damn I need to think hard to understand his writings which is why it is taking me so long.
I have another theoretical on hypertrophy but that is in line waiting I cannot seem to get enough. At my age, I am looking at optimization because my time is limited.
I am not like Scotchguard who looks like a 25 yo at 60. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not on me, there are several review papers out there on pubmed that are floating around. For the lay person, that is an easier way of wading through what the present body of evidence is saying. As opposed to going through 50 individual studies.

I guess I should say, those two points I mentioned are in my opinion what I think are two key points based on all that I've read through the years. Of course nutrition and rest are as vitally important. But all things being equal on that front, designing an exercise program to maximize muscle growth consistency and negative rep stimulation are something that needs to be in every program.

I believe it helps to switch things around.
Once you've been training for a while,you should be able to'feel' what's working,and what isn't.
Very few people,and none that i know,lift heavy and strict,it's borderline impossible,and the way
some of the guys at my gym throw the weight around,well,they're not going to be able to do it
much longer.
I've dropped a bit of poundage,my last couple of sessions,and went strict,and believe me,i don't
half know i've hit the muscle i was aiming at.I've never felt as sore the next day,but in a positive way.
I'm also stressing my joints,a hell of a lot less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nogbad the bad

I believe it helps to switch things around.
Once you've been training for a while,you should be able to'feel' what's working,and what isn't.
Very few people,and none that i know,lift heavy and strict,it's borderline impossible,and the way
some of the guys at my gym throw the weight around,well,they're not going to be able to do it
much longer.
I've dropped a bit of poundage,my last couple of sessions,and went strict,and believe me,i don't
half know i've hit the muscle i was aiming at.I've never felt as sore the next day,but in a positive way.
I'm also stressing my joints,a hell of a lot less.

---

Well said, you can do ten reps the wrong way with 30 lbs more than you can get one rep out of the proper way, isolating and controlled negatives.

https://youtu.be/XUAPKdFHB8g
Speaking of form just look at this dumbass and his shitty military press form! Pathetic!

https://youtu.be/y93U7xHagJc
Seth feroce volume chest workout.
He switches up everything constantly and preaches it.
Try on of his workouts just once.
Notice the way he works till he maxes out the sort of takes a five second break with the weights and squeezes out another rep. He does this constantly.
His workouts are a bitch to follow.

I believe you should get the best of both worlds. I have heavy days and light days sometimes my heavy days are low reps sometimes i push through and lift heavy with higher reps light days its all about endurance and on those days i mostly pyramid and really beat the shit out of my muscles. I train 6 days a week sometimes 5 days in a row are heavy day 6 i go light 7th day complete rest and when its time to get back in the gym i listen to my body, if i feel a bit fatigued still ill go light again then ramp it up the next day. Ive never followed a program, im a firm believer in progressive overload and listening to your body, push yourself until you fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelkel

When it comes to the pro's you have to remember what got them to that level is not necessarily what they do now. Massive growth is not normally realistic once they reach a certain size so the effort becomes more refinement.

---

I can't stress this enough! As Kai Green was mentioned above... yes, that it true. But he's already at the absolute pinnacle of his body building journey. He may throw a pound or 2 on here and there, but it's all about maintaining what he has created. He's already done that part. A lot of young guys look to him the way I used to look to Arnold. I guess he's the Arnold of this generation. I used to do 5 sets of 20 flyes or whatever I read Arnold did. But once I realized what got Arnold there, I had a whole new approach. I do think it's good to keep things mixed up and fresh because burnout is not good. I like to mix high reps in at the end of a workout. Only on isolation movements though. Squats, deads, and bench can lead to permanent injury because the body isn't made to overwork the CNS like that. So on the big movements, I say keep low. Fewer reps of heavy weight will do less damage than high reps of a lower weight.

I agree. If I had 10 guys I was training that was equally hard core motivated for a year....I would do things very different than guys working 40 hour a week jobs and like beer on the weekend haha.

I see the working class in the gym daily...doing the same crap. Working with too much weight..plateaued...not progressing...saying fuq it and quitting after 3 months. High reps allow a person to track progress better then low rep heavy weights...but again this is for the working class. I see the two guys other than me over genetic potential doing HITT high weight low reps. I am the only one that does high rep training. Who progresses faster? I do not know..those 65 kilo China guys really do not translate to a 130 kilo white boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicagotarsier

I agree. If I had 10 guys I was training that was equally hard core motivated for a year....I would do things very different than guys working 40 hour a week jobs and like beer on the weekend haha.

I see the working class in the gym daily...doing the same crap. Working with too much weight..plateaued...not progressing...saying fuq it and quitting after 3 months. High reps allow a person to track progress better then low rep heavy weights...but again this is for the working class. I see the two guys other than me over genetic potential doing HITT high weight low reps. I am the only one that does high rep training. Who progresses faster? I do not know..those 65 kilo China guys really do not translate to a 130 kilo white boy.

---

Working Class guys as compared to those who don't have a job/work?

I would definitely consider what charger69 has said.

charger69

Everyone has a different fast/slow twitch combination which makes everyone different. The generic answer is 4-6 reps. This is backed by a study in 2007 from Goteburg Univ that training with weights between 70-85% of your one rep max produced maximum hypertrophy. That American college of sports medicine published a paper in 2002 that 5-6 reps is most effective for increasing strength.
Ohio Univ also backed this up.
With that being said there is a lot more to it than that, but I believe that this satisfies your question.
I myself mix it up. It is probably more mental than scientifically proven.

I also like what Musclescience said:


A second key point is time under tension or how effective the negative phase of the contraction is at stimulating or eliciting micro trauma to the myofibrals. The research is pretty clear that the negative phase of contraction is very important in hypertrophic training. How you accomplish that is a matter of personal opinion I think.

Something I may add is think of all your muscle fibers as potential for each to grow. It's not that you want to hit just the type 2 fibers... You want growth of all your fibers. Type 1 included. So if you hit the rep ranges of all the fiber types they will grow to some extent instead of just hitting a narrow range of only type 2 fibers. With this is mind something else I can add is best your previous 1RM. What I've found is nothing stimulates muscle hypertrophy more then besting your 1RM say on bench. Get as strong as you can on some of the big lifts and you will see growth/hypertrophy.