Posted by
Message
LSU Patrick
US Space Force Fan
Member since Jan 2009
66635 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
I mean , you can find at least one study that opposes anything that is said about fitness. There is a reason that most people aren't doing 3 sets of 20 bench presses at the gym, though. Now, link a study that shows that there isn't at least one study that opposes everything that has been said about fitness.
This post was edited on 1/4 at 1:51 pm


jennyjones
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Apr 2006
8090 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

Ain’t nothing but a peanut


Ronnie did high reps, very high weights and high volume



lsu777
LSU Fan
westlake
Member since Jan 2004
15691 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
its not a study, its a meta analysis, learn to read. and no you will not find a meta analysis showing that is wrong.

Do you even science bro?


LSU Patrick
US Space Force Fan
Member since Jan 2009
66635 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
Here is one by the same authors that was actually more of an experiment rather than a meta-analysis.

Abstract

quote:

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared with LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively), and there was a trend for greater increases in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared with HL (16.6 vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.
This post was edited on 1/4 at 2:56 pm


LSU Patrick
US Space Force Fan
Member since Jan 2009
66635 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

Do you even science bro?


Probably more than you, bro.

quote:

The findings indicate that maximal strength benefits are obtained from the use of heavy loads while muscle hypertrophy can be equally achieved across a spectrum of loading ranges.


BTW, how does this abstract demonstrate anything significantly different from what I was saying? I don't have access to the full meta-analysis, so I have no idea what the max rep ranges were in the studies included, but these same authors included some of their own studies in it, and all of the ones I saw maxed out at 12 reps. I think just about everything I have ever read or heard from experts in fitness, kinesiology, physical therapy, etc. would agree with the general principles I was referring to.

There will always be some exceptions. I'm sure I am not the only poster who doesn't want to write 10 pages of crap every time I provide a general response to another post to include all of the possible exceptions, limitations, etc. Anyhow, this ended up being way more than I wanted to invest in responding to a message board "actually" today. Happy lifting, folks.
This post was edited on 1/4 at 3:12 pm


lsu777
LSU Fan
westlake
Member since Jan 2004
15691 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
did you read your link?


quote:

These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.




I have never said that higher load did not lend itself to a higher 1 rep max. I specifically said that it does not matter for hypertrophy so long as you take it close to failure (1-2 RIR)


as far as you sciencing more than me....apparently not

go read Schofields book and get Kreigers Weightology manuals, the AAAR report and other monthly science reports and read them.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
21
lsu777
LSU Fan
westlake
Member since Jan 2004
15691 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
you said

quote:

more than 12 reps is going to accomplish very little for larger muscles


and thats false. Schofeld and Kreiger have done multiple studies and meta analysis that shows going to or close to failure and progressive overload are much bigger mechanisms and have found that up to 30 reps, that this is the case.

All i was pointing out in the beginning that there is no real hypertrophy range and volume/progressive overload are the key factors to hypertrophy.

Go read the RP book on it.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
21
MWP
Alabama Fan
Kingwood, TX via Monroe, LA
Member since Jul 2013
8935 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

Ronnie did


enough shite to probably kill a horse and look at him today. However, Prime Ronnie was without a doubt the best bodybuilder to walk the planet. I watched him train one day at my old gym in Monroe back in my powerlifting days and I just thought I was strong.

I guess you make a deal with the devil, you have to pay up at some point.


jennyjones
New Orleans Pelicans Fan
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Apr 2006
8090 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

However, Prime Ronnie was without a doubt the best bodybuilder to walk the planet. I watched him train one day at my old gym in Monroe back in my powerlifting days and I just thought I was strong.


Yeah.... I've seen him, Jay Cutler and Phil Heath working out at Red's (in separate years that they won the Olympia) when they were in town for the LA championships. They all looked way bigger in person than pictures would indicate

But this is very true
quote:

you make a deal with the devil, you have to pay up at some point.



Hu_Flung_Pu
USA Fan
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
20037 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
Is it really outrageous to copy a steroid bodybuilder though? Muscles still work the same just at different rate.

Maybe you can't get 200 reps in a day, just dial it down to 150 but do the same things and schemes.

If something worked better for a natural lifter, wouldn't it work even better for a steroid user?
This post was edited on 1/5 at 11:44 am


TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors
Advertisement
DeafJam73
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16545 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

Ronnie did high reps, very high weights and high volume


He’s in a wheel chair now. I understand why some might want to admire him, but to emulate his training would be disastrous.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
DeafJam73
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16545 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
Ronnie Coleman is in a wheel chair BECAUSE of how he trained. Instead of taking rest days and letting injuries heal, he would take pain killers and keep pushing. Also, body builders are good at one thing: getting big. To take strength training advice from one is less than optimal.

ETA: Not all body builders, but some. I’ve seen enough “programs” written by body builders to see that a lot of them don’t really know what they’re talking about.
This post was edited on 1/5 at 1:03 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
Homey the Clown
LSU Fan
Member since Feb 2009
4465 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
I rotate both into my routine. I mostly like to do more weight, less reps for my main lifts (compound lifts), i.e. presses, squats, deads. Then higher reps less weight for the auxiliary lifts, i.e. flys, arm workouts, shoulder workouts that aren't presses, leg extensions/curls, etc.

If I notice I'm not getting as sore or I'm not making the progress I think I should be making, then I'll change it up a little, and do pyramids or something like that for my compound lifts.

I just try not to get comfortable. Always switching up the order of the lifts, the weight, and the reps.

ETA: I consider "low reps" to be between 4 and 6 reps per set for 5 or 6 sets (I try to get between 30 or 40 reps per exercise regardless of how many reps I'm doing per set). I consider "high reps" to be between 8 and 12 reps per set for 3 to 4 sets. I typically do 5 or 6 different lifts per targeted area (shoulders, back, chest, legs, bis, tris).
This post was edited on 1/5 at 1:29 pm


SouthernInsanity
LSU Fan
Shadows of Death Valley
Member since Nov 2012
7303 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
Thanks Homey


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
lurkr
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2008
12084 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
I do 5 sets, 15 reps of all my exercises. I also have been doing full body everyday for a year now. I've added cardio from when the gyms were closed. I'm stronger than I have been in 10 years, 20lb lighter than a year ago. It works for me, doesn't work for everyone.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
bayouvette
LSU Fan
Raceland
Member since Oct 2005
2280 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
You can lift either way. The results you want come from how you eat. I know people get tired of hearing that buy it is true. You can do the same workouts when cutting as you do bulking.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
emanresu
LSU Fan
Member since Dec 2009
7453 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

Trainer at the gym told me low weight, high reps (hypertrophy) makes your muscles bigger and adds definition.. High weight, low reps is for gaining strength.

This reps/weight myth has been broscience for decades. There is no evidence that it is true.

The "adds definition" is just dumb. You get definition by losing surrounding adipose.


GeorgeTheGreek
Michigan State Fan
Sparta, Greece
Member since Mar 2008
60577 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
Depends on what he means by strength. You’ll be stronger in your weight range and have more capacity, but your 1RM will be lower.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
01
lsu777
LSU Fan
westlake
Member since Jan 2004
15691 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
quote:

This reps/weight myth has been broscience for decades. There is no evidence that it is true.

The "adds definition" is just dumb. You get definition by losing surrounding adipose.


Yep, it's funny cause Menno just posted a new meta analysis by Lopez and discusses this.

LINK warning Facebook link

quote:

One of the great classic bodybuilding myths is the idea of the 6-12 rep hypertrophy zone for maximum muscle growth. This was based on a wrong interpretation of the strength-endurance continuum.

The strength-endurance continuum is a well-established finding, meaning that strength is specific to the rep range you train in. We often reserve the word 'strength' for 1RM strength, but if you want strength-endurance, you may be better off training with higher rep ranges.

Hypertrophy was traditionally placed in the middle of the two, but this makes no logical sense, as hypertrophy is not a performance measure but a morphological adaptation.

Intuitively, it probably made bro sense, because weights at or above 15RM feel 'too light' and heavy weights don't make you get a pump.

However, we now have very strong evidence, supported now by a new meta-analysis by Lopez et al., that muscle growth per set is actually similar across a range of about 5-30 reps, provided you train (close) to failure.

Light weights can be equally effective as heavier weights due to the Size Principle of muscle recruitment: neuromuscular fatigue lowers the recruitment threshold of higher-threshold motor units, causing them to be recruited later in the set even with lighter weights, so in the end you can still subject all motor units to high mechanical tension. Below ~30% of 1RM this doesn't seem to be possible anymore though due to other limiting factors coming into play than muscular tension.

Very heavy weights are effective for muscle growth per rep, but the time under tension is low, so you may need to do more sets to stimulate a given level of muscle growth.

This does not mean your reps per set are irrelevant for muscle growth though. Your rep range still influences strength gains, which may influence muscle growth (see my recent review on this), injury potential, neuromuscular fatigue and possibly which growth pathways are activated. Due to these factors, it's actually best *not* to limit yourself to the 6-12 rep range for maximum muscle growth. You should employ multiple rep ranges in your training.


emanresu
LSU Fan
Member since Dec 2009
7453 posts

re: High reps less wt vs low reps heavier wt
I don't see any analysis much less a meta-analysis in what you posted. Post a link to an actual study in a credible journal. This quote is an op-ed.


first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram