-->
Pages: 1

The myth(?) of higher reps + lower weights = cutting/ripping the muscles


(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)



Posted by: juggernaut2005

I always thought using lower weights with high rep range 15-25 would cut up the muscles but after a few months on IM I realized diet is the key to cutting.. So what happens to this myth? does it hold any merit? I would think theres some difference between high rep, low weight and lowrep heavy weights with regards to how they affect muscle stimulation?


Posted by: tenxyearsxgone

MYTH...

you can't change the shape of your muscle or "cut" it up...its all about appearance..

You can enlarge certain muscles to give a certain look

You can build up muscle while dieting, which then decreases fat and shows more muscle "cut up"

kinda like ... "oh the moon isn't out tonight"

well the moon and sun are always out, its just a matter of why we can and cannot see them!!!

High rep/Low Rep dependson your goals and genetic make up

some people are dominated by fast twitch muscles and benefit most from low rep/heavier weight (85-95% of 1RM)

some people are dominated by slow twich muscles and benefit most from higher rep/moderate weight (75-85 % of 1RM)

however, you should have both ... do research on periodization and how to effectively create cycled routines hitting both fibers...

Other people will have advice...this is my last piece of advice since you've obviously not done any research since your last post...

www.t-nation.com


Posted by: CowPimp

I have read that using low intensity weights is good for oxidizing intramuscular fat stores, but I have never verified this piece of information with a secondary source. From what I can tell, it really makes no difference. In fact, it seems to me that lifting heavy is a good idea while on a cut because it better promotes retention of LBM.


Posted by: Squaggleboggin

Quote:
Originally Posted by juggernaut2005
I always thought using lower weights with high rep range 15-25 would cut up the muscles but after a few months on IM I realized diet is the key to cutting.. So what happens to this myth? does it hold any merit? I would think theres some difference between high rep, low weight and lowrep heavy weights with regards to how they affect muscle stimulation?
As far as I know, the only way in which high repetitions 'cuts' one up is by burning more calories during the actual exercises. However, to my knowledge, there is a post-workout metabolism spike associated with heavy lifting that lasts up to 48 hours that is extremely effective for burning calories, and that may actually make a significant difference in caloric intake. Whether this is true or not, I'll have to research (especially since I included it in a research paper I'm writing).


Posted by: The13ig13adWolf

benefits of higher reps and lower weights = hogwash


Posted by: slider

25 reps isn't enough at the 40-50% range, up to 20 reps only use a select amount of fibers. you need to do up it into the 50 range and go on a 6 weeks cycle probally 25 reps, 30 reps, 50 reps, 100 reps(put 2 articulations together 50/50), 200reps(4 artics 50/50/50/50), 400( 8 artics 50.......) take one minute rest between set.

it burns the fat that is right on your fascia give you more "definition" mix this with cardio and shoot for 2 pounds a weeks.

holey turd balls it is mentaly taxing but works very effectivly.


Posted by: CowPimp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
As far as I know, the only way in which high repetitions 'cuts' one up is by burning more calories during the actual exercises.
Yeah, pretty much it is calories in vs. calories out. However, there are things that one can do to alter cellular metabolism and promote greater usage of fat stores for energy. One method that comes to mind is sprinting. Nonethless, you still need to be on a hypocaloric diet to see fat loss unless you are a total beginner with resistance training and your body does a mild recomposition.


Quote:
However, to my knowledge, there is a post-workout metabolism spike associated with heavy lifting that lasts up to 48 hours that is extremely effective for burning calories, and that may actually make a significant difference in caloric intake. Whether this is true or not, I'll have to research (especially since I included it in a research paper I'm writing).
Studies are at odds on this. It seems that vigorous aerobic exercise promotes a longer sustained increase in metabolic rate after exercise when compared to resistance trianing. Strength training is not as effective unless, of course, you use really low rest intervals or perform circuit style training, thus generating a higher average heart rate throughout the session. The primary factors involved in determining how great and how long this afterburn effect lasts seem to be intensity (How much you elevate your heart rate) and duration (How long it stays elevated).

Based on what I have read, it seems that the vast majority of the additional calories burned after a workout occur in the first 12 hours after vigorous aerobic activity, although measurable increases have remained for up to 48 hours after the workout in some individuals in some studies.

I must mention that strength training does promote other benefits related to the endocrine system that are favorable to improving body composition, even assuming long rest intervals and less stimulation of heart rate. Most notable would be increased protein synthesis and decreased insulin sensitivity.


Posted by: Rissole

I have just finished competing and was in the best condition i have ever been in.
I only did high reps and light wieghts in the last week to help deplete my muslces of glycogen to aid in the carb deplete and load... or thats what i was told i was doing


Posted by: Mudge

Quote:
Originally Posted by The13ig13adWolf
benefits of higher reps and lower weights = hogwash
= increased heart rate, thats about as exciting as it gets. Circuit training or full body training has a place, and its place is for people who want to keep the heart rate elevated thusly burning more calories and/or for conditioning purposes.

It will cause no direct burning of fat stores, muscles dont do that.


Posted by: lil2fiddyguy

Sorry this has nothin to do with the thread but...Mudge in one of ur pictures u look like juggernaut


Posted by: Mudge

I dont think I have any pictures posted?


Posted by: Rissole

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudge
It will cause no direct burning of fat stores, muscles dont do that.
You might wanna amend that statement buddy....



(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40