High rep vs low rep

bugman said:

What's the difference really of the total weight moved is the same? My brain isn't comprehending this.

For instance. Back day

5 exercises, 5 sets of 14 equal 26,660 lbs.
Or
5 exercises 5 sets of 6 at 26,400 lbs.

Click to expand...

BRICKS said:

Hey Bugman!! The first answer to your question just isn't correct. The answer is, it doesn't matter. Stsrt with basic muscle physiology 101:

The moneural junction is an all or nothing unit. Depolarization of the nerve causes muscle fiber(s) to contract. There is no partial contraction. The nerve fires or it doesn't, if it does the muscle fiber contracts 100%. The issue therefore, become recruitment of all the muscle fibers of a particular muscle. Example: hold out your hand palm up and place a 2.5 lb plate in it. You are using X number of fibers of the affected muscle to hold that weight up. All of those fibers used are contracting 100%. Now, add another 2.5. And another. With each successive increase in weight you're recruiting more muscle fibers, all of which are firing/contracting 100%.

So what does all that bullshit mean, BRICKS? What matters in the end is 100% recruitment of all the fibers of the muscle being worked. Whatever weight, sets, reps you do should be aimed at that goal. Think about it. Time under tension, supersets, focussing on the eccentric phase of the lift.....all intended to get that 100% recruitment of miscle fibers. Now, studies have been done that demonstrate the best rep range to achieve that, but rep ranges above or below are effective and it's probably a good idea to vary reps.

Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Intel.imperitive said:

Thanks for clearing that up! High IQ post. I did say I wasn't sure. Just saw the thread with zero replies so I responded. Glad I did, we got a helpful answer now

Click to expand...

Intel.imperitive said:

Thanks for clearing that up! High IQ post. I did say I wasn't sure. Just saw the thread with zero replies so I responded. Glad I did, we got a helpful answer now

Click to expand...

Trendkill said:

To build on what @BRICKS said there is a difference in training for muscular hypertrophy and muscular strength. There is crossover between the two but increases in strength are often the result of gains in neurological efficiency and inter and intra muscular coordination i.e. the ability for the central nervous system to recruit and coordinate the maximum number of motor units from multiple muscle groups into one cohesive movement. This is only accomplished under loads at or above 90% of a 1RM and with very low reps per set usually 1-3. This will also stimulate some hypertrophy but it is not an ideal rep range for that. This is why multiple rep ranges, sets, intensities and volume are used in training program and will vary depending on an individuals goals, training experience, etc.

Click to expand...

bugman said:

What's the difference really of the total weight moved is the same? My brain isn't comprehending this.

For instance. Back day

5 exercises, 5 sets of 14 equal 26,660 lbs.
Or
5 exercises 5 sets of 6 at 26,400 lbs.

Click to expand...

CJ said:

I do think rep range is important if something like strength gain is the goal, but for pure hypertrophy, as long as you're training close to failure, a wide variety of rep ranges will work. Intensity of EFFORT is paramount though.

Some ranges are more practical than others though, as sets of 30 squats to failure would be the fukkin worst. Conversely, heavy sets of 3 doing preacher curls is just asking for a blown out tendon.

Here's a recent meta by Brad Schoenfeld if you'd care to read further...

Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum

Loading recommendations for resistance training are typically prescribed along what has come to be known as the “repetition continuum”, which proposes that the number of repetitions performed at a given magnitude of load will result in specific adaptations. Specifically, the theory postulates...

www.mdpi.com

Click to expand...

Intel.imperitive said:

Don't quote me on this, but I think it's gaining type I or type II muscle fibers. Endurance Vs Strength. Strong men and bodybuilders aren't endurance runners and endurance runners can't lift the same weight for a reason. This thread I better in the training section.

Click to expand...

Intel.imperitive said:

Don't quote me on this, but I think it's gaining type I or type II muscle fibers. Endurance Vs Strength. Strong men and bodybuilders aren't endurance runners and endurance runners can't lift the same weight for a reason. This thread I better in the training section.

Click to expand...

CJ said:

I do think rep range is important if something like strength gain is the goal, but for pure hypertrophy, as long as you're training close to failure, a wide variety of rep ranges will work. Intensity of EFFORT is paramount though.

Some ranges are more practical than others though, as sets of 30 squats to failure would be the fukkin worst. Conversely, heavy sets of 3 doing preacher curls is just asking for a blown out tendon.

Here's a recent meta by Brad Schoenfeld if you'd care to read further...

Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum

Loading recommendations for resistance training are typically prescribed along what has come to be known as the “repetition continuum”, which proposes that the number of repetitions performed at a given magnitude of load will result in specific adaptations. Specifically, the theory postulates...

www.mdpi.com

Click to expand...

Test_subject said:

Not to mention that if you can do 30 reps of something, the first 15-20 reps are junk volume (assuming that we’re talking about straight sets) that isn’t doing anything but accumulating wear and tear on your joints.

The “high vs. Low rep” thing is silly. Effective rep ranges depend largely on the movement as you said. Doing 1RM facepulls is retarded as is doing deadlifts for sets of 50.

Click to expand...

Test_subject said:

Not to mention that if you can do 30 reps of something, the first 15-20 reps are junk volume (assuming that we’re talking about straight sets) that isn’t doing anything but accumulating wear and tear on your joints.

The “high vs. Low rep” thing is silly. Effective rep ranges depend largely on the movement as you said. Doing 1RM facepulls is retarded as is doing deadlifts for sets of 50.

Click to expand...

CJ said:

Also totally believe in wear and tear on high volume vs low volume in regards to total sets

One person does 15 sets for a body part leaving a few reps in the tank, vs another person who only does 6 sets for a body part, but all 6 are pretty much right to failure.

Sure, they'll both work for hypertrophy, but the sheer number of extra reps the first guy has to do has to cause more wear and tear damage over time.

Click to expand...