# High rep vs low rep



## bugman (May 12, 2022)

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.


----------



## Intel.imperitive (May 12, 2022)

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
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## BRICKS (May 12, 2022)

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.


----------



## Intel.imperitive (May 12, 2022)

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%.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## TODAY (May 12, 2022)

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


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

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


You shouldn’t respond to anything


----------



## Trendkill (May 12, 2022)

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.


----------



## Intel.imperitive (May 12, 2022)

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.


This is exactly what I was trying to say but failed


----------



## CJ (May 12, 2022)

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


----------



## MisterSuperGod (May 12, 2022)

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
> 
> ...



After way too many injuries, i've been asking myself the same question.

80 reps of upright rows with 100 lbs is the same weight moved as 40 reps with 200 lbs, but without the strain on the joints and accessory muscles.


----------



## bugman (May 12, 2022)

Thanks for the replies.  CJ, thanks for the further reading.  I go to the gym and move weights around but don't know the science behind it and replies like these help me every time.   

I am strong for what little knowledge i have and have been much stronger in the past.  I should be back to what I would consider normal by Christmas.  This time, I'm looking to have the size that fits the strength...


----------



## Test_subject (May 12, 2022)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

Total weight moved across a training session is a bad way of looking at it. Total weight moved isn’t really what matters. 
what matters is the mechanical tension or load on the muscle at a given time. 
The more you can move the load within a set the stronger you are the bigger you will be. 
In your example  b would theoretically be bigger and stronger because they were able to lift more weight. 
4sets of 500x4=2000lbs
4 sets of 250x8=2000lbs
4 sets of 125x16=2000lbs 
These are not the same stimulus. 
It’s not the same.


----------



## Undecanator (May 12, 2022)

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.


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

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.


This literally has not a fucking thing to do with the question asked


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

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.
> 
> ...


Is the question really about rep ranges or total weight moved during the workout?


----------



## Undecanator (May 12, 2022)

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.


Yeah at the end of the day, it’s all about quality (hard)  set and reps. I like John Meadow’s philosophy on this topic.


----------



## lifter6973 (May 12, 2022)

Thank you @TODAY for continuing to post @Intel.imperitive pic especially when he gives incorrect, irrelevant and/or horrible advice.
If noobs happen across said advice and see the pic of who is giving the advice, they will automatically know to disregard.
You have done noobs a great service and I bet you didn't even realize it. You get a gold star!
Congratulations!


----------



## CJ (May 12, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## wotmeworry (May 12, 2022)

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.


Too right, and extra volume will also amplify any damage from bad technique.  Set quality over quantity for results and longevity.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 12, 2022)

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
> 
> ...


Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.

More work being done is not necessarily always better.

I always refer back to this chart from Brad Schoenfeld as far as rep ranges:







It may be a broad generalization that can vary by the lift or exercise but it has been useful to me as a general guideline.

Learned a few months ago that lower reps are a good way to increase muscle density or make muscles harder. So even though I am not a powerlifter it is good to go heavy sometimes.

I can usually feel what type of benefit the lift is having for my muscles. The hardening from heavy sets, the fatigue from hypertrophy sets, and the pump and burn from high rep sets.

It is possible to:

have strength and lack endurance
have hypertrophy and lack strength
...etc.

That's why periodization or varying rep ranges is usually a good idea.


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.
> 
> More work being done is not necessarily always better.
> 
> ...


It’s not possible to have size (hypertrophy) and a lack of strength. 
The driver of hypertrophy is load aka mechanical tension. You can’t get bigger without getting stronger 

I also don’t believe you can build density.
Muscle grows, shrinks, or stays the same.
The look is predetermined by genetics.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 12, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> It’s not possible to have size (hypertrophy) and a lack of strength.
> The driver of hypertrophy is load aka mechanical tension. You can’t get bigger without getting stronger
> 
> I also don’t believe you can build density.
> ...



Nonsense poopy pants!

For 2 years I lifted mostly within only hypertrophy ranges. Muscles got bigger but I could still not go very heavy. Muscles were soft and lacked density. I got a little more strength.

When I started going heavier for lower reps is when I got way stronger, my muscles got way harder and increased density. I'm living proof!

Powerlifters are stronger and can lift more weight than bodybuilders on average.

Bodybuilders have larger muscles on average than powerlifters.

There are reasons for that!!









						Building Muscle Density
					

One of the main questions I’m asked is how I’ve been able to get such a dense look with my physique. Recently I joined a new gym, Powerhouse Gym in Burbank, CA. It’s straight-up old school and has just the right amount of equipment so you’re not overwhelmed, yet all of the perfect equipment for…




					www.muscleandfitness.com
				












						Muscle Density, but Not Size, Correlates Well With Muscle Strength and Physical Performance - PubMed
					

Muscle density is more strongly associated with muscle strength than muscle size andin women muscle density was also more strongly associated than muscle size with physical performance. Therefore, muscle density may represent a more clinically meaningful surrogate of muscle performance than...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Nonsense poopy pants!
> 
> For 2 years I lifted mostly within only hypertrophy ranges. Muscles got bigger but I could still not go very heavy. Muscles were soft and lacked density. I got a little more strength.
> 
> ...


It’s objectively true. Mechanical tension is the primary driver of growth. 
It’s not an opinion. 
If you grew new tissue you got stronger. 

Powerlifters also move the weight differently. But no there aren’t small strong powetlifters. There are no small strong men 
Comparing plers to bbers is disingenuous and comparing apples to oranges
There are NO big bodybuilders who didn’t move heavy weight to build their size.


----------



## bugman (May 12, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.
> 
> More work being done is not necessarily always better.
> 
> ...


That's awesome. Thanks!


----------



## BigBaldBeardGuy (May 12, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.
> 
> More work being done is not necessarily always better.
> 
> ...






The chart is missing explanation or I missed it. I understand the rep number. What do the rows mean?


----------



## Send0 (May 12, 2022)

BigBaldBeardGuy said:


> View attachment 22081
> 
> 
> The chart is missing explanation or I missed it. I understand the rep number. What do the rows mean?


Strength, power, hypertrophy and muscular endurance.... How much benefit you get out of each for a given rep range. 

This is what I'm guessing it's trying to show. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## BigBaldBeardGuy (May 12, 2022)

Send0 said:


> Strength, power, hypertrophy and muscular endurance.... How much benefit you get out of each for a given rep range.
> 
> This is what I'm guessing it's trying to show. 🤷‍♂️


Really? Geezus. I know how to read. 🤦‍♂️

It’s missing a lot of stuff like how much weight and what the colors mean and why the bigger font and the ampersand on power. I dunno. That’s why I asked.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 12, 2022)

BigBaldBeardGuy said:


> View attachment 22081
> 
> 
> The chart is missing explanation or I missed it. I understand the rep number. What do the rows mean?


I don't think the rows mean anything, just a way for you to visualize the rep ranges easier. I would assume that the larger font and bolded letters are meant to indicate more emphasis. Here is the article that goes with it...





						» What is the Best Rep Range for Muscle Strength and Size?
					






					www.lookgreatnaked.com


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 12, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> It’s objectively true. Mechanical tension is the primary driver of growth.
> It’s not an opinion.
> If you grew new tissue you got stronger.
> 
> ...



Build Muscle: The 3 Basic Methods You Need

Mechanical Tension - Heavy Set for 5 reps

Lift heavier and lift longer. To maximize mechanical tension, prioritize compound movements that use a large range of motion where your body has more potential to lift heavier weights in a controlled manner. Ideal exercises include: squat, press, deadlift, leg press or hack squat, row, pull-up, and lat pulldown.

Key Takeaway: The more weight you can lift for more reps, the more muscle you'll build.


Muscular Damage - Slow Eccentric Hypertrophy Set for 10 reps

When lifting, you have both concentric (lifting) and eccentric (lowering) contractions. Both contractions damage the muscle, but eccentric contractions cause more muscular damage. Think about how sore you get when performing Romanian deadlifts or slow-tempo reps.

If you want to maximize muscular damage, perform the eccentric portion of the lift slowly and under control. Muscular damage causes micro-tears in the muscle (muscle soreness). These micro-tears then signal the body to rebuild itself bigger and stronger than before, resulting in hypertrophy.

Key Takeaway: Lower the weights slowly under control and use a full range of motion.


Metabolic Stress - High Rep Pump Set for 15+ reps

Chase the pump. Think like a bodybuilder: do light to moderate weight for high reps to pump your muscles full of as much blood as possible. The "pump" or burning sensation you feel when performing continuous muscle contractions is actually the result of restricted blood flow to the muscle (occlusion) that causes a buildup of metabolites like lactate and hydrogen ions, hence the term "metabolic stress."

Key Takeaway: Just think of drop sets, burnout sets, pyramid sets, or basically any way you can perform a high number of reps with short rest periods. You'll accumulate metabolic stress (get a pump) and build muscle.

I think Yano is pretty strong for his size! : )


----------



## MisterSuperGod (May 12, 2022)

BigBaldBeardGuy said:


> Really? Geezus. I know how to read. 🤦‍♂️
> 
> It’s missing a lot of stuff like how much weight and what the colors mean and why the bigger font and the ampersand on power. I dunno. That’s why I asked.



Oh, i get it now. The bold text is the sweet spot for that particular goal.


----------



## Trendkill (May 12, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> It’s objectively true. Mechanical tension is the primary driver of growth.
> It’s not an opinion.
> If you grew new tissue you got stronger.
> 
> ...


I disagree.  Lamar Gant 132lb multi world champion and the first man to deadlift 5 times bodyweight in competition.  John Haack 750 Sq, 580 BP, 887 DL @198.  Taylor Atwood 668/430/750 @165.  I could provide a hundred more examples of this from powerlifting.  There are many, many small powerlifters with tremendous strength.  There are also many huge bodybuilders that can perform impressive lifts for reps but not for singles.  Strength is largely neurological and must be specifically trained for.  Muscular size plays a role but it is not everything.


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

Trendkill said:


> I disagree.  Lamar Gant 132lb multi world champion and the first man to deadlift 5 times bodyweight in competition.  John Haack 750 Sq, 580 BP, 887 DL @198.  Taylor Atwood 668/430/750 @165.  I could provide a hundred more examples of this from powerlifting.  There are many, many small powerlifters with tremendous strength.  There are also many huge bodybuilders that can perform impressive lifts for reps but not for singles.  Strength is largely neurological and must be specifically trained for.  Muscular size plays a role but it is not everything.


You can disagree with the sky being blue but it doesn’t change it. 
Plers lift differently. They’re trying to move weight efficiently from point a to b. 

This guy is small? John Hack. 
Nope.
Lamar Grant doesn’t weigh much but he’s pretty jacked. 

A lot of things come into play like genetics and diet and how you lift the weight. 

Mechanical tension is proven without question full stop to be the primary driver of growth.
Taylor Atwood isn’t without muscle either.


----------



## Trendkill (May 12, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> You can disagree with the sky being blue but it doesn’t change it.
> Plers lift differently. They’re trying to move weight efficiently from point a to b.
> 
> This guy is small? John Hack.
> ...


I never said these guys lacked muscle mass.  They are, however, very light compared to the weight being lifted.  I also never said anything about mechanical tension, no argument there.  My point is that strength is largely a neurological phenomenon.  This explains why a guy like Haack weighing under 200lbs can pull 887.  Leverages also play a role and clearly genetics do as well.  To say there are no small powerlifters lifting big weight is flat our wrong.  There are lifters with far more muscle mass that lift much, much less in powerlifting.  Neurological efficiency is the differentiator with a lot of these guys.


----------



## Trendkill (May 12, 2022)

Additionally powerlifters are not looking to move the weight in the most efficient manner but in the manner that best suits their individual leverages.  If it was just about efficiency everyone would squat wide, bench wide and pull sumo.  This is never the case and often times lifters will us a stance/grip/technique that is less efficient but allows greater use of their individual strengths.


----------



## RiR0 (May 12, 2022)

Trendkill said:


> Additionally powerlifters are not looking to move the weight in the most efficient manner but in the manner that best suits their individual leverages.  If it was just about efficiency everyone would squat wide, bench wide and pull sumo.  This is never the case and often times lifters will us a stance/grip/technique that is less efficient but allows greater use of their individual strengths.


Efficient for the individual. They want to move the most weight from point a to b in radiate way possible. 
A lot of these are in weight classes so theyre not eating enough calories to gain weight


----------



## GSgator (May 12, 2022)

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.


I will have to try this I’ve been going lighter due to the fact heavy weight just kill my joints what you say makes since. But just let’s say 225 just getting it off the bar I’m kinda holding my breath . I can put 185 on and not feel that oh shit this might be it strain/pressure in my shoulders. I guess in the end the 185 is creating more so wear and tear. I’m just going to be so sketch out going forward with weights I can only lift  in the 6-8rep range


----------



## CJ (May 12, 2022)

GSgator said:


> I will have to try this I’ve been going lighter due to the fact heavy weight just kill my joints what you say makes since. But just let’s say 225 just getting it off the bar I’m kinda holding my breath . I can put 185 on and not feel that oh shit this might be it strain/pressure in my shoulders. I guess in the end the 185 is creating more so wear and tear. I’m just going to be so sketch out going forward with weights I can only lift  in the 6-8rep range


It was meant more in regards to getting the most out of every set, vs half assing twice the number of sets. 

You can absolutely use lighter weight, it's more important to get closer to failure the lighter you go, as it's easy to stop at "the burn" vs true failure.


----------



## Charger69 (May 14, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.
> 
> More work being done is not necessarily always better.
> 
> ...





Skullcrusher said:


> Volume is just that...volume. Whichever equals more actual work being done.
> 
> More work being done is not necessarily always better.
> 
> ...



I have previously provided numerous peer reviewed references that were ignored. 
He has his thoughts and will not budge despite showing studies. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> I have previously provided numerous peer reviewed references that were ignored.
> He has his thoughts and will not budge despite showing studies.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My “thoughts” are based on evidence and actually what the studies show whether Mike Isratel or Brad Schoenfeld agrees or not. 

So kindly fuck off


----------



## wotmeworry (May 14, 2022)

Now RiRO, you do realise that these maturity lapses you display when your assertions are rejected show insecurity not confidence, don't you?


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

wotmeworry said:


> Now RiRO, you do realise that these maturity lapses you display when your assertions are rejected show insecurity not confidence, don't you?


Surprise surprise you’re wrong yet again about something.
It’s frustration is what it is. 
Thank you for yet again adding nothing of value.


----------



## Test_subject (May 14, 2022)

My best gains come when I eat food and lift weight and don’t worry about if 15.265725 reps are better than 6.287269 reps and just focus on progress.


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Test_subject said:


> My best gains come when I eat food and lift weight and don’t worry about if 15.265725 reps are better than 6.287269 reps and just focus on progress.


Yessir. Just eat progressively, lift progressively, rest and repeat. 
I don’t care if 1 rep or 30 reps do the above and you will grow


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

This here says it all
Hypertrophy and strength happen in all these rep ranges. 
Certain rep ranges are more optimal for certain goals but you can grow in every one of these rep ranges. 
You’ve just gotta progressively get stronger and eat enough
Damn all of this shit is so simple and basic.
Guys can over complicate it. 
What moves the weight? Your muscles. 
Why do they grow? Adaptation to heavier loads or more reps.


----------



## MisterSuperGod (May 14, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> This here says it all
> Hypertrophy and strength happen in all these rep ranges.
> Certain rep ranges are more optimal for certain goals but you can grow in every one of these rep ranges.
> You’ve just gotta progressively get stronger and eat enough
> ...



This confused a few of us in the other thread, so before someone starts scratching their head, the breakdown goes as such...

Strength: <2-6 reps
Power: <2-5 reps
Hypertrophy: 6-12
Endurance: 13-20>


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

MisterSuperGod said:


> This confused a few of us in the other thread, so before someone starts scratching their head, the breakdown goes as such...
> 
> Strength: <2-6 reps
> Power: <2-5 reps
> ...


Yes sir


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Here’s a better one


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 14, 2022)

There is also the other end of the spectrum which nobody ever talks about.

Do both bodybuilders and marathon runners get hypertrophy in their quads? Yes, of course.

Does it take strength to be a marathon runner? Also yes.

Why do natural bodybuilders have bigger leg muscles than marathon runners?

Why are powerlifters able to move more weight than marathon runners?

Gee golly gosh Wally, I don't know! 







Say I wanted to know what number of reps is optimal for both strength and hypertrophy.

I could look at this chart and know that 6 reps would be ideal.

Hypertrophy and endurance, the yellow is not as solid though.

Maybe because as reps increase so does the potential to burn muscle?


----------



## CJ (May 14, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> Here’s a better one


This is the better graph.


----------



## CJ (May 14, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Do both bodybuilders and marathon runners get hypertrophy in their quads? Yes, of course.


Marathon runners have some of the smallest legs you'll ever see on an "athlete". Why you ask? Because weight matters. They're simply not using a high enough % of their max for it to matter. That, and the ROM used is basically trivial. 


Skullcrusher said:


> Why do natural bodybuilders have bigger leg muscles than marathon runners?


Because they train their legs. How about we take a look at cyclists or speed skaters? Endurance sports that actually USE the leg musculature at a high % of their max. They have GIANT quads, even though they're training at extremely high reps. Why? Because they're riding the line of failure for extended periods of time, AND use a heavy load. 


Skullcrusher said:


> Why are powerlifters able to move more weight than marathon runners?


Apples and oranges. Not relevant at all.


Skullcrusher said:


> Maybe because as reps increase so does the potential to burn muscle?


See the cyclist and speedskater example above. Or pics


----------



## CJ (May 14, 2022)

I'll also add, that I've heard Brad Schoenfeld say himself on several occasions, that equal hypertrophy is achieved across ALL the rep ranges, provided it's at least 30% of one's max weight being used, and the sets are taking up to failure.

He's the guy who created that graph, but it's misleading, because he also said it's MORE EFFICIENT to use certain ranges, because doing heavy 1-3 all the time will crush you, and also doing sets of 30 to failure just fukkin suck.


----------



## wotmeworry (May 14, 2022)

CJ said:


> I'll also add, that I've heard Brad Schoenfeld say himself on several occasions, that equal hypertrophy is achieved across ALL the rep ranges, provided it's at least 30% of one's max weight being used, and the sets are taking up to failure.
> 
> He's the guy who created that graph, but it's misleading, because he also said it's MORE EFFICIENT to use certain ranges, because doing heavy 1-3 all the time will crush you, and also doing sets of 30 to failure just fukkin suck.


More efficient and harder to misinterpret or cheat ... easier to gauge one rep from failure at 6 reps than 30.

Given Schoenfeld's findings it is not surprising that most programmes include a mix of rep ranges within and across mesos.  Keeps training fun, too.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 14, 2022)

CJ said:


> Marathon runners have some of the smallest legs you'll ever see on an "athlete". Why you ask? Because weight matters. They're simply not using a high enough % of their max for it to matter. That, and the ROM used is basically trivial.
> 
> Because they train their legs. How about we take a look at cyclists or speed skaters? Endurance sports that actually USE the leg musculature at a high % of their max. They have GIANT quads, even though they're training at extremely high reps. Why? Because they're riding the line of failure for extended periods of time, AND use a heavy load.
> 
> ...


They were rhetorical questions.

I don't like to argue about anything so I won't.

I'll shut the fuck up now.


----------



## Intel.imperitive (May 14, 2022)

Not that's it's relevant, but I agree with CJ. Wish SkullCrusher would make debate out of it because I'm sure he has something interesting to say. But he's cooling off and that's just fine.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 14, 2022)

10 Reasons Bodybuilders Are Bigger Than Powerlifters
					

They both lifts weights. They both train hard. They both use drugs at the pro levels. So why are bodybuilders more jacked than powerlifters?




					www.t-nation.com


----------



## CJ (May 14, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> 10 Reasons Bodybuilders Are Bigger Than Powerlifters
> 
> 
> They both lifts weights. They both train hard. They both use drugs at the pro levels. So why are bodybuilders more jacked than powerlifters?
> ...


You love to compare apples to oranges. How about you find something relevant, like high rep vs low rep hypertrophy training results, like in the meta I posted earlier, ironically by Brad Schoenfeld.

Here it is again... 








						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


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> 10 Reasons Bodybuilders Are Bigger Than Powerlifters
> 
> 
> They both lifts weights. They both train hard. They both use drugs at the pro levels. So why are bodybuilders more jacked than powerlifters?
> ...


You’re either doubling down for argument sake and know you’re wrong
Or you’re truly that ignorant when it comes to building muscle. 
Stop trying to make this argument.
Some are smaller because of genetics, they have to stay in a weight class so they’re not eating enough calories to grow, they use technique that moves the weight the most efficiently (maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense) from point a to b. Trying to grow your chest it would be dumb to bench like a power lifter. Trying to grow your quads it would be dumb to squat like a powelifter. A bodybuilder also should not deadlift like a powerlifter in order to make a deadlift an effective back movement.
Why? Because a bodybuilder isn’t just trying to move weight from point a to b. 
They’re trying to isolate the muscle as much as possible. 

There’s so many variables that you just look ignorant making the comparison.


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 14, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> You’re either doubling down for argument sake and know you’re wrong
> Or you’re truly that ignorant when it comes to building muscle.
> Stop trying to make this argument.
> Some are smaller because of genetics, they have to stay in a weight class so they’re not eating enough calories to grow, they use technique that moves the weight the most efficiently (maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense) from point a to b. Trying to grow your chest it would be dumb to bench like a power lifter. Trying to grow your quads it would be dumb to squat like a powelifter. A bodybuilder also should not deadlift like a powerlifter in order to make a deadlift an effective back movement.
> ...


Yeah you can fuck off.


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Skullcrusher said:


> Yeah you can fuck off.


So you admit that you’re wrong then


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 14, 2022)

CJ said:


> You love to compare apples to oranges. How about you find something relevant, like high rep vs low rep hypertrophy training results, like in the meta I posted earlier, ironically by Brad Schoenfeld.
> 
> Here it is again...
> 
> ...


I don't even know what the fuck apples to oranges is supposed to mean. 

Sorry...I don't speak fruit market.

So I'm no good at making analogies? Whatever. 

To me it made sense until you came along and fucked it up.

Ironically the article I posted does talk about high reps and lists Schoenfeld in the references too.


----------



## Charger69 (May 14, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> So you admit that you’re wrong then



Cmon RIRO- it’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about looking at things another way. Nothing is absolute in this field. Thinking that you know everything and that it’s all absolute will make you an extinct dinosaur. 
I just read a peer review the other day that the thought behind type 1 and type II muscles essentially being determined ( for the most part) at birth now has some flaws and you can transition more than previously thought. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> Cmon RIRO- it’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about looking at things another way. Nothing is absolute in this field. Thinking that you know everything and that it’s all absolute will make you an extinct dinosaur.
> I just read a peer review the other day that the thought behind type 1 and type II muscles essentially being determined ( for the most part) at birth now has some flaws and you can transition more than previously thought.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah you can grow more type 2 or 1 fibers by how you train up to a point 
I don’t know everything and I’ve changed my views a lot over the years and even recently but what I do I know I know without a doubt and it is proven time and time again in studies and most importantly in the trenches


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

@Skullcrusher i can’t see the chat box


----------



## RiR0 (May 14, 2022)

wotmeworry said:


> More efficient and harder to misinterpret or cheat ... easier to gauge one rep from failure at 6 reps than 30.
> 
> Given Schoenfeld's findings it is not surprising that most programmes include a mix of rep ranges within and across mesos.  Keeps training fun, too.


And he actually says this in one of his studies


----------



## CJ (May 14, 2022)

Charger69 said:


> I just read a peer review the other day that the thought behind type 1 and type II muscles essentially being determined ( for the most part) at birth now has some flaws and you can transition more than previously thought.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you're more interested in fiber type research, check out Dr Andy Galpin. He's at the forefront, pretty solid youtube channel.


----------



## wotmeworry (May 15, 2022)

Along with rep range, rep quality (in the sense of consistency of range of movement/time under tension) needs to be considered.  No point me fixating on 6 rep vs 12 rep sets if my form is inconsistent.  Reps are a handy way to quantify stimulus (hard to measure actual tension) and allow meaningful progress tracking, so a rep has to = a rep over time ... think I draw on Joe Bennett (Hypertrophy Coach) for this point (can't recall exactly).


----------



## BrotherIron (May 15, 2022)

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.


And dont forget about rest times too. The time depends on the goal being worked on as well.


----------



## BRICKS (May 15, 2022)

If there are any who doubt that poweifters can compete in bodybuilding at the same time, I will refer you Hunter Henderson and Carry Grissinger.





						Login • Instagram
					

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.




					instagram.com
				








						Login • Instagram
					

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.




					instagram.com
				




Both female, yes but both putting up more weight than most guys in here in competitive powerlifting and IFBB pros.


----------



## presser (May 15, 2022)

its the negative that actually tears the muscle fibers and the contractionr that pushes more build into the muscle..

tut is another thing where weight don't mean shit and you can grow moving the weight slowly up and down and for time..... try it... it will feel llke 400 lbs in the end... come on guys... wtf. keep it simple... most of these dudes are genentic freaks and build muscle while they fart... i have seen it.. the most laziest moving guy in my gym grew muscle and didn't even think about his weight or rep ranges...

just squat bro


----------



## CJ (May 15, 2022)

presser said:


> its the negative that actually tears the muscle fibers and the contractionr that pushes more build into the muscle..
> 
> tut is another thing where weight don't mean shit and you can grow moving the weight slowly up and down and for time..... try it... it will feel llke 400 lbs in the end... come on guys... wtf. keep it simple... most of these dudes are genentic freaks and build muscle while they fart... i have seen it.. the most laziest moving guy in my gym grew muscle and didn't even think about his weight or rep ranges...
> 
> just squat bro


Time under tension is a grey area. Which is better, 6 ultra slow reps at a given weight, or 12 quality controlled reps at the same weight? I'd be willing to bet that both are going to take equal time. So I'd personally opt for the 12 reps.

Ever try to hold a weighted stretch on your last rep for 30 seconds or so, vs ultra slow reps throughout? Might be the best of both worlds.


----------



## presser (May 15, 2022)

CJ said:


> Time under tension is a grey area. Which is better, 6 ultra slow reps at a given weight, or 12 quality controlled reps at the same weight? I'd be willing to bet that both are going to take equal time. So I'd personally opt for the 12 reps.
> 
> Ever try to hold a weighted stretch on your last rep for 30 seconds or so, vs ultra slow reps throughout? Might be the best of both worlds.





CJ said:


> Time under tension is a grey area. Which is better, 6 ultra slow reps at a given weight, or 12 quality controlled reps at the same weight? I'd be willing to bet that both are going to take equal time. So I'd personally opt for the 12 reps.
> 
> Ever try to hold a weighted stretch on your last rep for 30 seconds or so, vs ultra slow reps throughout? Might be the best of both w
> 
> ...


o


----------



## presser (May 15, 2022)

presser said:


> o


also everyone is different too..... my body needs alot of diff stim to grow and to get stronger. some can do the same thing over and over and grow and get stronger too. i have seen that as well... but for me i get all kinds of injuries etc if i do the same thing over and over....


----------



## Skullcrusher (May 15, 2022)

Schoenfeld talks about muscle fibers...









						Light Weights for Big Gains
					

Lift heavy and grow, right? Well, it turns out that lifting light weights may make you grow muscle equally as well.




					www.t-nation.com


----------



## presser (May 15, 2022)

this girl trains harder than alot of guys i know...


----------



## CJ (May 15, 2022)

presser said:


> this girl trains harder than alot of guys i know...


@Bobbyloads , you gonna leg a girl out train you on leg day bro?!?  🤔


----------



## BRICKS (May 15, 2022)

Vivi Winkler's trainer is Caril Vaz.  She'd kill anyone in the gym.  And high reps or low reps, if you guys trained legs like the wellness division women trained legs at weights proportional to your size strength, well, you couldn't.  If I tried training my legs like Mrs. BRICKS at proportional weights, pretty sure I'd die in the gym.


----------



## dirtys1x (May 15, 2022)

Too much thought. Nobody knows for sure, and everyone has been successful training an infinite amount of ways lol. There is no right answer.

Bottom line is: muscle building is a signal dependent process. Requires stimulus. Train hard and be consistent.


----------



## RiR0 (May 16, 2022)

BRICKS said:


> Vivi Winkler's trainer is Caril Vaz.  She'd kill anyone in the gym.  And high reps or low reps, if you guys trained legs like the wellness division women trained legs at weights proportional to your size strength, well, you couldn't.  If I tried training my legs like Mrs. BRICKS at proportional weights, pretty sure I'd die in the gym.


Mrs Bricks puts most of the physiques on this board to shame. You don’t build that physique without some hard ass training and work ethic


----------



## dragon1952 (May 16, 2022)

Lift Lighter Weights to Grow Muscle
					

Lift heavy or go home. That's always been the mantra. But new evidence suggests you can lift light, grow muscle, and stick around. Info here.




					www.t-nation.com


----------



## Bobbyloads (May 16, 2022)

CJ said:


> @Bobbyloads , you gonna leg a girl out train you on leg day bro?!?  🤔


She prob beat my ass too


----------



## CJ (May 16, 2022)

Bobbyloads said:


> She prob beat my ass too


You'd like it too. 🥰


----------



## Bobbyloads (May 16, 2022)

CJ said:


> You'd like it too. 🥰


Girls got cooties except my wife


----------



## knightmare999 (May 23, 2022)

I love the pump from high rep.
I've read/heard that the pump helps stretch muscle fascia, so high reps would be preferred for size gains over low rep.
Idk, but I love high reps (e.g. 20-25+).
Always loved supersets and drop sets, too.


----------



## j2048b (May 23, 2022)

lifter6973 said:


> Thank you @TODAY for continuing to post @Intel.imperitive pic especially when he gives incorrect, irrelevant and/or horrible advice.
> If noobs happen across said advice and see the pic of who is giving the advice, they will automatically know to disregard.
> You have done noobs a great service and I bet you didn't even realize it. You get a gold star!
> Congratulations!


Need to lock his avatar to the pic


----------



## MisterSuperGod (May 23, 2022)

knightmare999 said:


> I love the pump from high rep.
> I've read/heard that the pump helps stretch muscle fascia, so high reps would be preferred for size gains over low rep.
> Idk, but I love high reps (e.g. 20-25+).
> Always loved supersets and drop sets, too.



i think if it were that easy no one would lift over 100 lbs and every bean pole that goes to the gym on even a semi-regular basis would be jacked.

i'm with you on the high rep pumps. They're way better than what i get from high weight, low rep work, but i don't see 20 inch arms in my future never curling more than a 50 lb barbell.


----------



## knightmare999 (May 23, 2022)

MisterSuperGod said:


> i think if it were that easy no one would lift over 100 lbs and every bean pole that goes to the gym on even a semi-regular basis would be jacked.
> 
> i'm with you on the high rep pumps. They're way better than what i get from high weight, low rep work, but i don't see 20 inch arms in my future never curling more than a 50 lb barbell.


Agreed, sir.  I'm not advocating dedication to one extreme or the other--I believe in synergy and balance.  I do like to think the pump increases potential, and I understand that's because I'm addicted to it and biased.

Balance, consistency, and adaptability. 
Oh, and ice cream.  😃


----------



## RiR0 (May 23, 2022)

knightmare999 said:


> I love the pump from high rep.
> I've read/heard that the pump helps stretch muscle fascia, so high reps would be preferred for size gains over low rep.
> Idk, but I love high reps (e.g. 20-25+).
> Always loved supersets and drop sets, too.


No. Blood flow cannot stretch fascia. 
You can’t stretch fascia it’d be like trying to stretch steel


----------



## knightmare999 (May 23, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> No. Blood flow cannot stretch fascia.
> You can’t stretch fascia it’d be like trying to stretch steel


Can I pretend as long as I don't spread misinformation?
🤣
Seriously, thank you.
Why is that?  Density or how fibers connect and overlap vs hydraulic force your vascular system can support before springing a leak?


----------



## RiR0 (May 23, 2022)

knightmare999 said:


> Can I pretend as long as I don't spread misinformation?
> 🤣
> Seriously, thank you.
> Why is that?  Density or how fibers connect and overlap vs hydraulic force your vascular system can support before springing a leak?


You can pretend 😂 
It’s not really your fault for believing it’s possible. Its really common even in the pt community.
For one the tensile strength is around 8000lbs per sq inch.


----------



## Send0 (May 23, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> You can pretend 😂
> It’s not really your fault for believing it’s possible. Its really common even in the pt community.
> For one the tensile strength is around 8000lbs per sq inch.


So you're saying I should dangle 8000lbs from my arms, or at least hook them up to two winches.

Challenge accepted!


----------



## RiR0 (May 23, 2022)

Send0 said:


> So you're saying I should dangle 8000lbs from my arms, or at least hook them up to two winches.
> 
> Challenge accepted!


This is gonna turn out well


----------



## CJ (Jun 20, 2022)

RiR0 said:


> This is gonna turn out well


Worked for those birds. 😁


----------

