Thread: Muscle Growth/Development question

Originally Posted by drag0n

Say I'm benching 200lbs at 3 x 4 and progress up to 3 x 8 and then to 3 x 12... and so forth without increasing weight only reps...

Obviously the muscle will grow and strengthen up to a point, but say if i was doing 3 sets of 20 of the same weight would there be a point or would it be needless reps? I know there would be muscle endurance but would there be any visual improvments? i.e muscles cutting in

Thanks

It is normally/generally accepted that for muscle growth, you use reps in the 8-12 range. If you have more slow twitch fibers then you up the reps to say 15 or so. Note that calfs, forearms and to a lesser extent delts are slow twitch dominant muscles. To shake things up (shock) once in a while, you can use more reps, like 30 or 40 reps via a rest pause exercise.

However, everyone is different and you will have to get to know your body to determine if you are better off in the lower reps or upper reps for muscle growth. Good luck.

I've read that the more training experience a person has, the higher intensity they need to lift to further elicit adaptation (hypertrophy, in this case.)

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

I've read that the more training experience a person has, the higher intensity they need to lift to further elicit adaptation (hypertrophy, in this case.)

Yeah, more experienced lifters use higher intensities by default because they recruit more motor units.

Originally Posted by Phred

It is normally/generally accepted that for muscle growth, you use reps in the 8-12 range. If you have more slow twitch fibers then you up the reps to say 15 or so. Note that calfs, forearms and to a lesser extent delts are slow twitch dominant muscles. To shake things up (shock) once in a while, you can use more reps, like 30 or 40 reps via a rest pause exercise.

However, everyone is different and you will have to get to know your body to determine if you are better off in the lower reps or upper reps for muscle growth. Good luck.

i've always read/ heard/ been told that mass building is 4-6 reps range...

Im kinda at the same place trying to figure out what works better for me high reps or low reps with more weight. I have always tried to hit atleast ten and then i realized eight is ok and maybe even six occasionally but i dont feal right doing less than that i thought if i could only do 3 or 4 reps doesnt that usually mean its too heavy for you and you should drop weight just a little unless of course you are trying to max out. even when i increase weight which i do frequently (progressive overload) i still try to hit atleast eight. isnt it good to keep your muscles under strain for as long as possible and wouldnt a higher rep range help do that i dont know my body responds to lots of different training tactics ill just have to do the old trial an error.

Originally Posted by cheesegrater

i've always read/ heard/ been told that mass building is 4-6 reps range...

mass = size = 8-12 range
strength = 4-6 range

Two different things with some relation, obviously.

mass workouts also require less rest between sets(45-90 secs) while strength rest between sets can b from 3-5 minutes

Originally Posted by drag0n

Say I'm benching 200lbs at 3 x 4 and progress up to 3 x 8 and then to 3 x 12... and so forth without increasing weight only reps...

Obviously the muscle will grow and strengthen up to a point, but say if i was doing 3 sets of 20 of the same weight would there be a point or would it be needless reps? I know there would be muscle endurance but would there be any visual improvments? i.e muscles cutting in

Thanks

Yes, you are going to have to increase the intensity at some point. After a while the intensity will drop to a point where you are merely improving muscular endurance. Not to mention, your body adapts to the repetition range you are working in. So, when you plateau, and you will, then staying within that range is going to give you suboptimal results.

Muscles don't cut. It doesn't happen. They grow and they shrink. Getting cut is a function of lowering your body fat. No exercise, tempo, or repetition scheme is going to cause your muscles to look more defined. You have to get yourself into a negative energy balance while maintaining the muscle that you have.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Yeah, more experienced lifters use higher intensities by default because they recruit more motor units.

not necessarily. 80% of ur 1RM will always be 80% of ur 1RM, regardless of how much weight you are lifting. This has nothing to do with motor unit recruitment.

I should've been more clear in my original post. I've read that after a person has a few years of lifting under their belt...lower rep ranges must be used to further promote structural adaptation. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but I think it was discussed briefly in an article I read by charles poliquin.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Yes, you are going to have to increase the intensity at some point. After a while the intensity will drop to a point where you are merely improving muscular endurance. Not to mention, your body adapts to the repetition range you are working in. So, when you plateau, and you will, then staying within that range is going to give you suboptimal results.

Muscles don't cut. It doesn't happen. They grow and they shrink. Getting cut is a function of lowering your body fat. No exercise, tempo, or repetition scheme is going to cause your muscles to look more defined. You have to get yourself into a negative energy balance while maintaining the muscle that you have.

Thanks for that man, really helpful

Does anybody else not like using the word "mass" anymore???

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

Does anybody else not like using the word "mass" anymore???

why?

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

not necessarily. 80% of ur 1RM will always be 80% of ur 1RM, regardless of how much weight you are lifting. This has nothing to do with motor unit recruitment.

I should've been more clear in my original post. I've read that after a person has a few years of lifting under their belt...lower rep ranges must be used to further promote structural adaptation. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but I think it was discussed briefly in an article I read by charles poliquin.

Your post was clear enough. Mine wasn't (or it's faulty) I think. I didn't mean 'intensity' as in a percentage of 1RM. I meant that more advanced lifters are capable of recruiting more motor units (and they have better neurological efficiency). Therefore they're automatically putting more stress on their body when lifting.
I read that's why more advanced lifters generally need more rest. No?

Originally Posted by P-funk

why?

just bad conotation for me at times. People saying "this exercise builds MASS and this exercise gives you DEFINITION or TONES". I just here it misused more than I here it used correctly.

Kind of like "here" and "hear"

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

just bad conotation for me at times. People saying "this exercise builds MASS and this exercise gives you DEFINITION or TONES". I just here it misused more than I here it used correctly.

I see more trainers starting to dislike words like 'core' and 'functional' too.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Your post was clear enough. Mine wasn't (or it's faulty) I think. I didn't mean 'intensity' as in a percentage of 1RM. I meant that more advanced lifters are capable of recruiting more motor units (and they have better neurological efficiency). Therefore they're automatically putting more stress on their body when lifting.
I read that's why more advanced lifters generally need more rest. No?

O I don't know...lol....sounds good to me!!

Originally Posted by Witchblade

I see more trainers starting to dislike words like 'core' and 'functional' too.

Yeah, I hate those words too. I pretty much never use the word functional. The problem is that people equate functional with something squishy like a BOSU or a stability ball, which is crap. So squatting isn't functional? Rowing isn't functional? Lunging isn't functional? Get the idea? I try to make sure everything I do with my clients is funcitonal!

Core is okay, but it just pisses me off because I hear it too much. It's a damned fad, and most people's idea of core training is a combination of situps and crunches (With poor form at that) with the occasional plank thrown in.

When somebody says "functional" to me i think of stuff like pushing a car or pulling a sled or something, but i squat and lunge more in a week to pick things up off the floor than ive ever pushed a car, lol.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Yes, you are going to have to increase the intensity at some point. After a while the intensity will drop to a point where you are merely improving muscular endurance. Not to mention, your body adapts to the repetition range you are working in. So, when you plateau, and you will, then staying within that range is going to give you suboptimal results.

Muscles don't cut. It doesn't happen. They grow and they shrink. Getting cut is a function of lowering your body fat. No exercise, tempo, or repetition scheme is going to cause your muscles to look more defined. You have to get yourself into a negative energy balance while maintaining the muscle that you have.

This brings up a question...

If I wanted to train for numbers...my rep range would be 6-10, possibly less, yes?

If I wanted to train for size...my rep range would be 8-12..?

What if I wanted to cut? I think this gets confused with endurance...and I can see why.

I understand that when you cut, your intensity should still be high to teach your body that it needs to keep these muscles to move this heavy weight. However, the strength has got to dwindle eventually...then what? Drop intensity?
This might be a newbie topic too....beside what I just described, the reason why I can see why endurance and cutting are confused is cuz the body is moving more, thus burning more calories. This has got to have a place in cutting at some point..yes? Or no?

Originally Posted by AKIRA

This brings up a question...

If I wanted to train for numbers...my rep range would be 6-10, possibly less, yes?

If I wanted to train for size...my rep range would be 8-12..?

What if I wanted to cut? I think this gets confused with endurance...and I can see why.

I understand that when you cut, your intensity should still be high to teach your body that it needs to keep these muscles to move this heavy weight. However, the strength has got to dwindle eventually...then what? Drop intensity?
This might be a newbie topic too....beside what I just described, the reason why I can see why endurance and cutting are confused is cuz the body is moving more, thus burning more calories. This has got to have a place in cutting at some point..yes? Or no?

If you are training for pure strength, there is not much reason to go over 8 reps other than an unloading week or to stimulate hypertrophy.

Yeah I was thinking even less.

Would it be real far off to do say 2 exercises at 5 sets of 3 max strength workouts followed by 2 exercises at 3 sets of 12 for hypertrophy? lets say the template is a push/leg/pull day and its push day.

You got max strength and hypertrophy in one push day... I wonder if some exercises would get in the way of others.

God damn this Monster is making my head explode.

Originally Posted by AKIRA

This brings up a question...

If I wanted to train for numbers...my rep range would be 6-10, possibly less, yes?

If I wanted to train for size...my rep range would be 8-12..?

What if I wanted to cut? I think this gets confused with endurance...and I can see why.

I understand that when you cut, your intensity should still be high to teach your body that it needs to keep these muscles to move this heavy weight. However, the strength has got to dwindle eventually...then what? Drop intensity?
This might be a newbie topic too....beside what I just described, the reason why I can see why endurance and cutting are confused is cuz the body is moving more, thus burning more calories. This has got to have a place in cutting at some point..yes? Or no?

I wouldn't use high rep training during a cutting phase, unless you want to look like Lance Armstrong. I could be totally wrong, but I would imagine that the calories burned during high rep sets vs low rep sets is so miniscule in the overall scheme of things that it woudn't matter. Let your activities outside of weightlifting, ie, cardio, gpp, etc, dictate the fat loss and let the weightlifting dictate your strength and muscle levels

Originally Posted by Stewart20

I wouldn't use high rep training during a cutting phase, unless you want to look like Lance Armstrong. I could be totally wrong, but I would imagine that the calories burned during high rep sets vs low rep sets is so miniscule in the overall scheme of things that it woudn't matter. Let your activities outside of weightlifting, ie, cardio, gpp, etc, dictate the fat loss and let the weightlifting dictate your strength and muscle levels

I agree. I like to keep lifting heavy while I cut. I let my diet and overall activity levels take care of the fat loss, and the weights take care of building, or at least maintaining, muscle mass.

But what would a cutting template look like? In other words, why would a person who wanted to lose weight do a 8-12 rep scheme when he/she knows its for size?

And if max strength is 4-8 reps, if strength will go down, how long does a person who is cutting do that?

Trying to find a gray area here...

Originally Posted by AKIRA

But what would a cutting template look like? In other words, why would a person who wanted to lose weight do a 8-12 rep scheme when he/she knows its for size?

And if max strength is 4-8 reps, if strength will go down, how long does a person who is cutting do that?

Trying to find a gray area here...

Well, it is pretty much a given that strength will go down in a caloric deficit, but don't change the intensity of the weightlifting to compensate for that, that would result in the loss of muscle, IMO.

Just use the same rep scheme and use as heavy a weight as you can for that particular time. If you started being able to do say 300 x 5, and after 3 weeks, can only manage 275x4, I still think that is more beneficial that dropping to say 225x8 just to do more rep work

Good. Thank you for the example.

tension work and mechanical work are important. don't put all your eggs in one basket.