I'm male, 33 yrs old, grad student at the University of Buffalo, Comp-Sci. I guess I would consider my self a new to weight training. I have done weight training before, but nothing very serious. Anyway, I am hoping someone here could explain something to me.
I have read on several sites that (in general) if you want to build mass, you should do like 8-12 reps, and if you want to build strength like 6-8 reps. Now, I have also read that in order to continue building mass, you must keep increasing the weight in any given excercise. Now wouldn't increasing your strength allow you to build more mass, becuase you can use more weight? So, why then not do the 6-8 reps as suggested for pure strength training? Of course I realise, it is not so cut and dry as this, and either range of reps will build some strength and mass over time. But, why is the best way of increasing strength not also the best way of increasing mass? : I hope my question is clear.
Thanks.
Posted by: dg806
By doing different number of reps, you are affecting different muscle fibers. BTW, welcome! I see you already posted the question in training!
Posted by: Prince
erik150x welcome to IM!
building absolute strength is best achieved in the 4-6 rep range, building mass is a combination of many set and rep schemes, anywhere from 4-15, the ultimate goal is to cause adaption. training for strength is different than training as a "bodybuilder".
I do not want to get into any more detail here, please start a thread about this in the training forum.
I hope my question is clear.