SeanW36

Myth #4 "You need high reps for definition and low reps for mass."



A muscle can only do one of three things. It can get bigger, it can get smaller, or it can stay the same size.

The way to make a muscle bigger is to subject it to a progressive intensity of overload. That is, the intensity of today's workout needs to be a little higher than your last workout for that muscle. If you want to keep a muscle the same size you can just perform the same workout every time. And making a muscle smaller is easy... just don't exercise it.

However, the idea that one type of exercise "defines" muscle and another type of exercise makes it bigger has no basis in reality. Muscle definition is a function of two characteristics in the body: muscle size and the absence of bodyfat. So if you want better definition you need to increase the size of your muscles through the aforementioned progressive intensity and you need to reduce your bodyfat.

So I can hear someone asking, "But don't high reps burn off bodyfat the way running or cycling would?" Well, yes, any long duration activity will burn more calories. But if you use light weights and high reps to burn calories how will you make your muscles bigger? You won't. It makes much more sense to burn calories and reduce bodyfat through jogging or cycling or some other repetitive activity and to simultaneously build more muscle mass through heavier, lower rep weight training. As a bonus, your new muscle mass will also burn more calories and contribute to fat loss. So next time you hear this myth, correct it by thinking: "Low, heavy reps for mass, lower bodyfat for definition."


This is part of an article I happened to come across online. Is there any truth to it? Especially the part where it is claimed that a muscle can only grow bigger or smaller. I always thought that you can make it tighter and get it more ripped up by doing higher reps, calisthenics or cardio. When I used to wrestle in High School my muscles seemed very hard. Not big but very defined and I had a lot of endurance to keep up a very physical activity for a long time. Now i'm bigger, I still have the same percentage of bodyfat however my muscles don't feel nearly as tight. This also goes against a lot of information I have been given by people who are very knowledgeable. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

BigDyl

I think you have more bodyfat now.

Total ownage.

SeanW36

But what about the muscle itself, can't things happen to it besides for just simply getting bigger or smaller. For example can't your muscles get in better shape without gaining size. For example a distance runner. Some people have very slender bodies such as theres but can not do what they do. There muscles will not hold up for a 26 mile run. The runners don't have large muscles but the muscles themselves seem to be more ripped up and functional for what they do.

BigDyl

They train for the 26 mile run, and running that far will leave you with not much body fat. I think they also train different fiber types as opposed to a short distance sprinter.

As for the answer to muscle being different, I'm not 100% sure, but I think someone else is going to say NO WAY!

Total ownage.

KarlW

Actually it's a good question, I've heard about the "fast twitch" and "slow twitch" fibre thing in the muscles, and that high reps, long dist running etc trains the slow twitch, whereas low reps heavy weight trains the fast twitch. Now is it only by training the fast twitch that you get growth? Along dist runner sure has low bf% but are the muscles any different from a person who doesn't run marathons?


ps Sorry for throwing more questions into the thread and no answers.

What this means is that when we drop a ball and it falls to the ground, it wasn't the ball that moved (down to the ground), but the ground that moved (up to the ball)

camarosuper6

True. While we dont know exactly how many reps equals what, most people, myself included stay within the 4-10 range for mass/density.

IMO, intensity is the key to bigger and stronger muscles. Muscle fibers fire according to weight. The higher the weight, the more fibers that are fired. But building muscle also has to do with time-under-tension and nutrition as well.

"TOLERANCE is the virtue of a man without convictions"

G.K.Chesterton


Boot Shine and Polish $15.
New Uniforms: $250
New gun and holster: $450
Looking like a stud in uniform: Priceless

Girl: Me and this new guy are getting kinda chummy.
Me: Good chummy? Like friends forever?
Girl: Ya
Me: Or Chummy like, spank my ass chummy?

KarlW

So why not just do 1-2 reps max out sets all the time if that fires more fibres?
Is it the tearing of muscle fibres that are then repaired to create growth? If that true then do no fibres get torn by doing 50 reps?

What is intenstity exactly? If I do 30 reps this week and 35 next week haven't I increased intensity?

What this means is that when we drop a ball and it falls to the ground, it wasn't the ball that moved (down to the ground), but the ground that moved (up to the ball)

SeanW36

bump

Evil ANT

It seems to me that higher-reps would give you more of a cardio-type workout and hence burn more fat, while lifting heavier and with less reps would be just for gaining strength and not necessarily for losing weight. I know after I do a pyramid of 12 reps, 10 reps, 8 reps, and 6 reps, I start to break a sweat. If I lift heavy and just do a pyramid of 6 reps, 4, reps, 2 reps, and 1 rep, I don't feel my heart pumpin' as much.

Bench: 330
Squat: Not enough!
Deadlift: 475

rangers97

i dont know, but when I do a HEAVY set of 4-6 reps to failure, I am huffing and puffing my brains out, my heart feels like it is going to rip out of my chest and run down the block! Of course doing a lighter set with 10 reps and short rest produces similar effects, so I think heavier weight low reps is MORE of a heart pumping workout in my mind