Strength & Size - Reps & Weights [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Strength & Size - Reps & Weights

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

Posted by: Josh

I've come across discussions on hi weight low reps vs low weight hi reps, and learned that we need to do both of them with the reason that they target different muscle types available in our bodies, thus by doing both of them we can improve all muscle types, thus achieving optimal training.

But I've also read elsewhere that hi weight low reps scheme produces strength and not size/mass, while low weight hi reps scheme produces size/mass and not strength. I am not sure whether this is because of the different muscle types addressed, any explanation?

If above is true, does this mean if my main goal is to gain mass then I should concentrate more on doing low weights with more reps in my exercises? In fact, why should I cycle to the other scheme if I'm not that interested in becoming very strong? Or is mass so related to strength that eventually I have to work on strength as well if I want to continue gaining mass, thus like it or not I have to revert to hi weight low reps as well to gain more mass?

- Josh

Posted by: Lightman009

You've got it mixed up. When you do High reps low weight, your going for more strength and cut then size. Low reps, high weight yields more muscle mass and bulk.

Posted by: Josh

Hm..that's not what I read, or at least understand. I read that volume training aims to increasing size while increase in strength is not optimal; reverse, HIT style training aims to increasing strength while increase in size is not optimal. Now I interpreted volume training as high reps low weight, and HIT training as high weight low reps. Maybe my interpretation is not correct? Or maybe my reference is wrong?

- Josh

Posted by: ponyboy

According to the ACSM, optimal rep range for gaining musular strength is anywhere from 3-9 repetitions. How many works best can depend on a number of factors. As for size, generally when a muscle increases in strength the fibers in the muscle grow (hypertrophy) and this causes the increase in size. Lower weight and higher reps actually builds muscular endurance.

Posted by: pumpchaser

My own experience and reading suggests medium weight, medium reps of 8-15 per set. Medium reps put more emphasis on the muscle tissue vs. a greater emphasis/strain on ligaments, tendons and joints using higher weight. Medium resistance combines well with medium/high reps to create the best synergy and intensity on the tissue itself rather than on the ligaments, tendons and joints as experienced with heavy weights, which also translates to higher chances of injury. Medium and higher reps make injury unlikely if prefaced by a couple of warmup sets, and create a superior burn and pump in the tissue itself.

You'll end up plenty strong, without much injury risk if resistance is continually increased using medium reps.

There's some truth that using heavy weights creates a more powerful look, but if you've worked up to serious weight over years with medium reps that your ligaments have aclimated to, you'll have the same effect IMO. As far as using heavy weights for low reps for variety in workouts from time to time, it would help a little but to me the injury potential outweighs the marginal benefits, unless you're one of those who never seems to get injured.

Posted by: SJ69

Generally low rep (1-5) are used to produce the greatest increase in strength which is usually accompanied by an increase in mass.
Medium reps 6-12 are most often used for gains in mass.
12-30 reps are more of a "toning" type workout in general. High reps are also used to achieve a pump and sometimes in cutting routines.

Posted by: pmech

Originally Posted by SJ69

Generally low rep (1-5) are used to produce the greatest increase in strength which is usually accompanied by an increase in mass.
Medium reps 6-12 are most often used for gains in mass.
12-30 reps are more of a "toning" type workout in general. High reps are also used to achieve a pump and sometimes in cutting routines.

ooooooohhhh.....You said the Dirty "T" Word, I am telling

Posted by: Saturday Fever

Goodness, folks.

There are 3 methods to gaining strength:

1. Maximal Effort Method. Lifting, obviously, as much weight as you can. If you don't train heavy, you don't get strong.
2. Dynamic Effort Method. Lifting low weights as FAST as possible. This isn't even done for reps. You do low reps (1-3) with very submaximal weights, but you lift the weight FAST.
3. Repetitive Method. Lifting submaximal weights for reps. This doesn't mean loading 20% of your 1RM and doing 20 reps. This means working within the guidelines of something like Prilepin's Table, where you're working in what is truly between 70-90% of your 1RM.

Now onto gaining size. SIZE IS DIET. If you don't eat enough, no rep range will make you grow. Likewise, if you eat a TON, you will gain regardless what routine or rep range you're doing.

So, in conclusion, if you want to grow, eat. If you want to get stronger, train. And train correctly.

Posted by: pumpchaser

Diet's a huge factor, but you can't simply distill it down to 3 of your very own favorite theories. Those 3 points are too doctrinaire, and it's best to follow general tenets rather than absolutist dogmas, things aren't that exact. For example, one of the most effective methods is to do max. work in minimum time. However, this doesn't mean only using light weights, not at all.

Posted by: Saturday Fever

For size, diet is THE factor. If you think you're right and I'm wrong, ask the established bodybuilders on this site.

As far as strength and my "very own favorite theories" I think you should do your homework before you try to discredit mine. Or you can try to convince me that your knowledge far exceeds that of the following people:

Dr. Mel Siff
Yuri Verkoshansky
Dr. Prilepin
Dr. Michael Yessis
Dr. Fred Hatfield

There are not just 3 random theories I pulled out of the air because they sounded good. These are not even theories. They are based on real evidence that science has proven. The methods have been tested on thousands of athletes. Prilepin's Table, alone, was created after studies done across close to 5000 russian athletes.

For example, one of the most effective methods is to do max. work in minimum time.

Effective for what and what basis do you have for this claim?

Read Supertraining by Dr. Siff. It cites studies and research done by hundreds of the world's most respected and knowledgable people in the area of strength training, including his own works. It will open up your eyes.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

Originally Posted by pumpchaser

For example, one of the most effective methods is to do max. work in minimum time.

I don't think this is accurate, though I'm not entirely sure. I remember reading a study that indicated push-ups had one of the highest ratios of effort expressed (in terms of work done a second) related to amount of time, but it's typically not considered better than any kind of bar or dumbell press used to work the same muscles.

Posted by: pumpchaser

Again, you're simply off the mark thanks to your arrogance. Diet's key, that's obvious and was never part of this discourse until you brought it up.

You can drop theories, 3 key points, all the literature and research that you want, and while there's probably some merit somewhere, but there are many, many useful studies, some of which discredit other, equally viable theories. Sometimes common sense and experience in generous dollops trumps or parallels name dropping and research studies de jour delivered in much the same self righteous fashion used by bible thumpers who bore us with passage after passage in a father knows best fashion. Praise the lord Jimmy!

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

I think it's safe to say that, given the dissension between "experts" in the field that nobody (anywhere) is even relatively close to knowing exactly what is best. Perhaps we should respect people with differing opinions instead of talking down to them. I think the level of respect between forum users, despite disagreement, is what seperates Ironmagazine from so many others.

Posted by: pumpchaser

Precisely, that's why i always preface that it's only an opinion; nothing's curved in stone unless you're a preacher or are with Hari Krishna.

Posted by: SJ69

It's really not all that complicated.
Eat hard, lift hard = gains in strength and size.
Lifting 50% 1RM isn't liftin' hard (sure speed reps esp as in West Side, but you still have to lift heavy)
Ronnie said it best to paraphrase "Everyone wants to get big, but no one wants to lift heavy ass weights."

Posted by: largepkg

Originally Posted by SJ69

Ronnie said it best to paraphrase "Everyone wants to get big, but no one wants to lift heavy ass weights."

I want to lift heavy ass weights but heavy ass weights to me = pussy ass weights to you!

Posted by: SquatBenchDead

Virtually every book I've read on the subject of strength traininghas been vague on the exact prescription for strength training with the exception of a couple.

Science and Practice of Strength Training - Zatsiorsky
Secrets of Soviet Sports Fitness and Training - Yessis
Power - Hatfeild
The Strongest Shall Survive - Starr
Power to the People - Tsatsouline
Designing Resistance Training Programs - Fleck and Kraemer
52 Week Football Training - Cook
Powerlifting - Groves
Serious Strength Training - Bompa and Cornacchia

You definately have to figure out what they are tring to say because they sure don't spell it out for you. The Strongest Shall Survive - Starr and Power to the People - Tsatsouline actually tell you what to do more than any of the others. These give the best insite on how to periodize weights, sets and reps. Though I feel there is a better way.

Posted by: SJ69

Originally Posted by largepkg

I want to lift heavy ass weights but heavy ass weights to me = pussy ass weights to you!

It's all relative
Heavy ass weights = 85% to 100% of YOUR 1 rep max.
BTW YOUR 1 rep max will keep getting heavier for a long time.
To some degree most of us are guilty of judging the weight we use by comparing to others, but it's not really about that.
Instead, compare what you did this month to what you did last month.

Posted by: V Player

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

For size, diet is THE factor. If you think you're right and I'm wrong, ask the established bodybuilders on this site.

The absolute gospel. I cant count the number of teenie boppers and start ups on my other board who all they want to know is "what supps and what rep range for mass" without ever once ever asking for diet tips. Then the same type of people go and make gospel type proclamations on rep schemes like they KNOW, in all their 3 or so years of bodybuilding

, that its THE ONLY way to go.

Now Im NOT saying all teenagers do this, but a preponderance of them on my other board do. I always tell these kids to load up heavy and then not eat heavy and see what they get. Never had a taker to that challenge. Diet is the homeplate around which everything about bodybuilding revolves. Even if you're on juice.

Having said that, I always go 4-6 reps when bulking and 15-20 for toning and maintenance. With the right diet, of course. This is what has worked best for me over the course of the years. But thats just ME. As Duncans said "nobody (anywhere) is even relatively close to knowing exactly what is best."

My brother's and sisters, no truer words have ever been spoken. Period.

Posted by: Saturday Fever

Well, while we could argue all month about "exactly" what is best, I figured I'd just point out one small FACT, and then the general masses can stew over it or debate it all they want. But realize you're debating a FACT and unless you agree, you're debating is a waste of everyone's time.

The biggest bench pressers in the world, follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

The biggest squatters in the world follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

The biggest deadlifters in the world follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

Coincidence? I think not. How else do you explain a guy who was weighed 218 pounds for the last 10 years who has taken his squat over 1000lb? Obviously he's training right, training the way Siff, et al taught, and he didn't cop out and use some lame excuse about "genetics" or being "genetically gifted." He did things right. And the end result? The first guy short of the super heavyweights to squat over 1000 pounds.

And yet his weight is always consistent? What does this blatantly and obviously tell us? Two things.

1) Size is all about diet.
2) Strength is all about training right.

But I said that in the beginning. Call me arrogant, call me an ass. But I'm right.

Posted by: pumpchaser

Uh, what if you're not, or are partially right? Keep that research comin'..Praise God, Jimmy! Hari Krishna, Hari Rahma...

Posted by: Saturday Fever

Like I said, you're wasting your time. Keep chasing that pump and reading FLEX.

Posted by: SJ69

But quality size is about diet AND training.
Almost anyone can get big if they work hard enough at eating, but to get big and muscular you must train right and eat right.

Posted by: Duncans Donuts

You are probably right, but quite certainly arrogant.

Posted by: camarosuper6

Dynamic Effort Method seems only to be useful for sport specific training. It seems that fast reps would increase the risk of injury and only load the muscle mimimally, momentum playing much to strong a role.

That being said, diet is key to gaining mass and very important in gaining strength as well. Strength and Mass are related, although one can be strong and not "huge", and one can be huge, but not "strong" (at least by powerlifting standards). Still, there arent many huge guys that arent incredibly strong and vice versa. I think people try to play off strength in their quest to get big, when in fact, they should embrace it.

Posted by: PreMier

Doesnt someone who is right, have the right to be arrogant when talking bout their field of expertise?
If SF doesnt know his shit, then I dont know who does

Posted by: P-funk

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Well, while we could argue all month about "exactly" what is best, I figured I'd just point out one small FACT, and then the general masses can stew over it or debate it all they want. But realize you're debating a FACT and unless you agree, you're debating is a waste of everyone's time.

The biggest bench pressers in the world, follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

The biggest squatters in the world follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

The biggest deadlifters in the world follow the studies of the folks I mention repeatedly. Siff. Verkoshansky. Zatsiorsky.

Coincidence? I think not. How else do you explain a guy who was weighed 218 pounds for the last 10 years who has taken his squat over 1000lb? Obviously he's training right, training the way Siff, et al taught, and he didn't cop out and use some lame excuse about "genetics" or being "genetically gifted." He did things right. And the end result? The first guy short of the super heavyweights to squat over 1000 pounds.

And yet his weight is always consistent? What does this blatantly and obviously tell us? Two things.

1) Size is all about diet.
2) Strength is all about training right.

But I said that in the beginning. Call me arrogant, call me an ass. But I'm right.

I couldn't agree more. Like I have said before.....What size?? Eat a ton of food and go pick something up. Size doesn't just happen, you have to eat for it. Train for pump all you want but it isn't magic.

Posted by: pumpchaser

SF's just another opinion bro. Time to smell the coffee.

Posted by: P-funk

I like coffee.......

Posted by: PreMier

Sorry, but I have yet to read something of value that you posted. I have followed what SF does, and his theories work.

Posted by: camarosuper6

I dont think anyone has the right to be arrogant under any circumstances.

Posted by: pumpchaser

Sorry, I've yet to read anything you or SF have stated that's even interesting let alone thought provoking; basically all blather..

Posted by: camarosuper6

That directed towards me?

Posted by: PreMier

Originally Posted by camarosuper6

I dont think anyone has the right to be arrogant under any circumstances.

One thing I dont understand is how you can take someone as being arrogant on a message forum? I guess you are right though, I was making my comment based on someone not being arrogant to me.

He was talking to me Camaro lol

Posted by: camarosuper6

Heh.. gotcha.

I wasnt saying anyone in particular was arrogant, or implying it. I was just responding to your comment about arrogance in general.

Hows life coming along Prem.... feeling better?

Posted by: PreMier

Yea, I feel pretty good. Both shoulders still a bit sore, so I have to wait 4-6 weeks to get back. And I agree about your comment. I have just never experienced an arrogant person online, so was a bit biased.

How did the move go for you?

Posted by: camarosuper6

Im actually leaving tonight at 1 am.

Sucks to leave behind all my friends/family, but Ill be back

Posted by: PreMier

Drive safely!

Posted by: Saturday Fever

Originally Posted by pumpchaser

Sorry, I've yet to read anything you or SF have stated that's even interesting let alone thought provoking; basically all blather..

It's cool. Lift how you want. And on your best day, you'll still never be me.

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

Strength & Size - Reps & Weights

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