- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Weight training - any pointers on how to cycle between hypertrophy and strength?
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:01 pm to Powerman
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:01 pm to Powerman
yall realize that number of reps doesnt even matter...right? atleast up to about 30 reps.
its about how close you get to failure, did you progressively overload and lift sufficient tonnage to cause an adaptation.
you could easily get just as much or more out of 10 sets of 3 as you could 3 sets of 10. prolly get way more out of it.
its about how close you get to failure, did you progressively overload and lift sufficient tonnage to cause an adaptation.
you could easily get just as much or more out of 10 sets of 3 as you could 3 sets of 10. prolly get way more out of it.
Posted on 3/18/24 at 12:45 pm to lsu777
quote:
its about how close you get to failure, did you progressively overload and lift sufficient tonnage to cause an adaptation.
Does it not also depend on the goal? If the goal is to increase maximal strength, the low reps would be suggested to create a CNS adaption. Sure, you can see some increase to mass, but if the goal is hypertrophy, then the higher reps would lend more towards muscle fatigue and building.
I know the studies that say a range of 30 reps is ideal, but I still think that has to fit within the context of a person’s goals.
quote:
you could easily get just as much or more out of 10 sets of 3 as you could 3 sets of 10. prolly get way more out of it.
I think that too depends on the individual. I think 3 x 10 and 10 x 3 have their respective places. For example, in my current training, I would use 3 x 10 for accessory work on externally stabilized exercises so I can push weights and push fatigue. I would use the 10 x 3 scheme for main lifts where I need the volume, but I’m under a 86-95% load. The extra sets give me the volume without sacrificing the integrity of my technique due to fatigue on high rep sets.
ETA: I think I should also state that I am competitive, so my training philosophy may not always be relevant to non-competitive people
This post was edited on 3/18/24 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 3/18/24 at 1:20 pm to lsu777
quote:
yall realize that number of reps doesnt even matter...right? atleast up to about 30 reps.
5-30 is what renaissance periodization recommends. The majority would be better off just eating in a surplus and get stronger. It’s really not that hard. No one that deadlifts or squats 500 is small.
Good example is Denim. Anyone look at that guy and think he’s weak? If he cut, do you think he’s going to look skinny? Hell no he won’t
Posted on 3/18/24 at 5:59 pm to lsu777
quote:
yall realize that number of reps doesnt even matter...right? atleast up to about 30 reps.
its about how close you get to failure, did you progressively overload and lift sufficient tonnage to cause an adaptation.
you could easily get just as much or more out of 10 sets of 3 as you could 3 sets of 10. prolly get way more out of it.
I resisted doing heavy lifting because I was worried my joints, ancillary muscles, and tendons needed to get used to the load. I think I'm at the point now where I could go heavier. That being said, you're sort of saying 2 conflicting things. If the number of reps doesn't matter, then why would you say you would probably get more out of 10 3 rep sets as opposed to 3 10 rep sets? Can you clarify what you mean there?
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)