Rep ranges for hypertrophy + size?

daveywavey08

Don't flame for title - I meant "hypertrophy and strength"



I refer to this recent thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055426059

What are people's opinions on rep ranges for a mix of strength and growth/size?

I've been trying to keep my workouts around the 5 rep range, but higher when blasting biceps cos they never grow for me.

Surely if a person is doing 5x5 they will make some decent growth, as 5x5 is quite a high volume. Would gains be in size far more significant in the, say, 5x6-8 rep range whereas strength gains would not be as vast?

Cheers,

quirkster

forget what amount of sets u need.

if u bring ur muscle to failure, it will grow as fast as your genetics and diet allow. doing one working set, but bringing the muscle to failure and beyond, will force it to grow as much , if not more, than doing multiple sets

daveywavey08

Are you trying to say 1x8 with a heavier weight is as effective as 3x8 with, say 70-80% of that weight? I've heard this theory before but I don't buy it

quirkster

not at all.
im sayin, if u bring the muscle to failure, where u cannot lift the weight another inch, and then u try some more, with a training partner, the muscle will grow as fast as genetics and diet allow.

why would mroe sets make a difference? the point of resistance training is to encourage muscle growth, a muscle will be more inclined to grow (in order to survive) if it is brought to failure

thats a fact, and if you can bring the muscle to failure in one set ( also doing negatives and statics), with good form, then thats all u need to grow

AvrilLavigne

I have seen this example

Week(s) 1 (2)
12 x 10kg, 10 x 11kg, 8 x 12kg for easier movement exercises

12 x 5kg, 10 x 5.5kg, 8 x 6kg for harder ones

You would then up the weight every 1 or 2 weeks by 1kg for easier and 0.5kg for harder.

Week(s) 2 (3)
12 x 11kg, 10 x 12kg, 8 x 13kg for easier movement exercises

12 x 5.5kg, 10 x 6kg, 8 x 6.5kg for harder ones

You may decide to up the reps first instead of upping weight until you reach

16 x 10kg, 14 x 11kg, 12 x 10kg for easier movement exercises

16 x 5kg, 14 x 5.5kg, 10 x 6kg for harder ones


I think upping weight is supposed to be better for size, as you asked, while uppping reps is more for definiton.

Forgot to say, these are with dumbbells. Obviously adjust so that 12 x Xkg is the max you can do on the first exercise.

quirkster

never go with a program that contains exact reps or weights.
every workout u shud try get a one extra rep or one extra pound increase (this is why its advisable to keep a log)
but whos to say your strength levels are down or whatever, thus not allowing u to lift the exact reps or weight that ur program calls for

if ur gona do a program, id advise that its set so that it has the number of sets and then aim for a certain rep range, eg. between 8 or 12 reps

AARRRGH

As a general rule, you do less than 6 reps for strength and more than 6 reps for size.

I personally aim for between 6 and 8 reps before failure. I find this gives me both good strength and size gains.

Doing a few sets is a good idea, as it forces more muscle fibre to get used.

Make sure your diet is right. There is no point having a great routine and a poor diet. Also, lots of sleep and not too much cardio.

quirkster

AARRRGH wrote: »

Doing a few sets is a good idea, as it forces more muscle fibre to get used.

if you bring the muscle to complete failure again and again, and use negatives and statics, it is forced to use all the fibres it can.

evolution dictates so.

throw in a drop set if ur getting picky!

quirkster

quirkster wrote: »

not at all.
im sayin, if u bring the muscle to failure, where u cannot lift the weight another inch, and then u try some more, with a training partner, the muscle will grow as fast as genetics and diet allow.

why would mroe sets make a difference?

thats a fact

So your saying I go down the gym and do one rep of max weight until failure of each exercise I'll grow?

No I won't.

I posted this in the other thread, people should read it regarding set and reps and what does what.

http://www.freedomfly.net/Articles/Training/training29.htm

quirkster

if you do it correctly, incorporate negatives and statics, and do no more than 3 exercises for each body part, then yes, one set will do, as long as u stimulate it enough by goin to failure.

its called high intensity training, and is extermely popular for the gains made

here is a result of it:
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/body_builder_14sfw.gif

thats dorian yates, one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time. he used high intensity training alone.

now your going to say that it doesnt make you grow?

sit down son

quirkster

quirkster wrote: »

forget what amount of sets u need.

if u bring ur muscle to failure, it will grow as fast as your genetics and diet allow. doing one working set, but bringing the muscle to failure and beyond, will force it to grow as much , if not more, than doing multiple sets

I question this by saying if I do one set containing one rep of MAX WEIGHT, will I grow? You then come in and start spouting more additional crap off.

Doing ONE REP as I specified is not HIIT. It's not even training. It's called A WASTE OF TIME.

Would you mind posting your credentials, like what size, height, weight you are, sports you compete in etc? What you practice regularly as I am finding it very difficult to accept anything you say. You have touted the website universalnutrition.ie about 8 times now and then you come out with confusing generally unhelpful advice.

"Never go near a program that has set and reps in it"????? Where did you get this crap from. If it suits your goals, it suits your goals. Do you train regularly or do you just take 5 protein shakes a day? You must be at least 270 lbs and shredded.

quirkster

yes your right, but i never ever ever mentioned doing ONE REP alone....that was you...doing a working set (for HIT its usually about the 6 rep mark, in and around)

and i realise i have mentioned that site a couple of time...so what...i dont see what that has to do with anything?!

and yes, do not go near a program that has specific reps in it...rep ranges are good..specific reps arent helpful..thats what i said..

i train to the best of my ability, i learn as much as i can, and i do my best to help other people who ask for help. i try to advise them in ways that in my opinion will benefit them. and i certainly dont post to argue with someone ill never meet over words that he insists i wrote...

if you want to get nitty and gritty, im 6'2, 13stone, around 13% bodyfat, 18 years old.

thats coming from the guy who was 6'2, 9.5stone, and 15% bodyfat 2 years ago, before i found the gym

i had great gains off the conventional '4 sets x 12 reps' approach, and in the last month have done HIT which i absolutely love. both work
the point i am making, is that you can grow from doing one working set per exercise

g'em

The Entrepeneur, we try to avoid call outs in the forum - it generally ends in a sh*tstorm. A person's size and weight doesn't dictate the quality of advice they can give (but obviously someone who can practice what they preach will lend credibility to what they say).

quirkster - take it easy, patronising other posters is hardly going to endear them to your cause.

HIT is one way to train, sure it's been effective for a few of the greats but let's not forget that they would, by and large, have had the help of not-entirely-legal supplements.

quirkster wrote: »

if you bring the muscle to complete failure again and again, and use negatives and statics, it is forced to use all the fibres it can.

evolution dictates so.

Evolution says nothing of the sort. Getting huge and swole was never evolutionarily advantageous and has never been a survival strategy for humankind. Bringing muscle to complete failure again and again will however tire you out in record time, and possibly lead to fcuking up your CNS for a considerable period.

kevpants

quirkster wrote: »

forget what amount of sets u need.

if u bring ur muscle to failure, it will grow as fast as your genetics and diet allow. doing one working set, but bringing the muscle to failure and beyond, will force it to grow as much , if not more, than doing multiple sets

quirkster wrote: »

not at all.
im sayin, if u bring the muscle to failure, where u cannot lift the weight another inch, and then u try some more, with a training partner, the muscle will grow as fast as genetics and diet allow.

why would mroe sets make a difference? the point of resistance training is to encourage muscle growth, a muscle will be more inclined to grow (in order to survive) if it is brought to failure

thats a fact, and if you can bring the muscle to failure in one set ( also doing negatives and statics), with good form, then thats all u need to grow

quirkster wrote: »

if you bring the muscle to complete failure again and again, and use negatives and statics, it is forced to use all the fibres it can.

evolution dictates so.

throw in a drop set if ur getting picky!

For a mix of size and strength you should bring a muscle to complete failure then do negatives? I don't want to come across as rude but you've been throwing this around and no one has pulled you up on it.

Your method is gonna do nothing for strength, in fact much the opposite, you'll notice some initial size gains based on the hypertrophy effect (but nothing unique to that program) but the constant overloading will do precisely that to your CNS which will result in one thing. Stagnation.

Mentzer's program is a bodybuilding program that may have some effects on a 120kg slab of muscle who is using testosterone, insulin or anabolics to aid recovery but in terms of building up a base of size and strength it's a swing and a miss I'm afraid.

Davey I can only speak from personal experience and my experience was pissing about for about 10 years until I started my log. My current program is really about strength but the size gains are very evident (hence the title of the log!), so whatever it is about combining heavy compounds with 5 sets of 5-15 of targeted assistance exercises it's added a lot of mass.

Dubdude

one set training that is crazy talk and as for your dorian yates comments about how he done it have you any evidence to back this up because i dont think this guy got to look like that from only doin one set to failure...

kevpants

g'em wrote: »

The Entrepeneur, we try to avoid call outs in the forum - it generally ends in a sh*tstorm. A person's size and weight doesn't dictate the quality of advice they can give (but obviously someone who can practice what they preach will lend credibility to what they say).

quirkster - take it easy, patronising other posters is hardly going to endear them to your cause.

HIT is one way to train, sure it's been effective for a few of the greats but let's not forget that they would, by and large, have had the help of not-entirely-legal supplements.


Evolution says nothing of the sort. Getting huge and swole was never evolutionarily advantageous and has never been a survival strategy for humankind. Bringing muscle to complete failure again and again will however tire you out in record time, and possibly lead to fcuking up your CNS for a considerable period.

Thanks for stealing my thunder G'em! I had a real head of steam built up there. Pffff Mods!

g'em

kevpants wrote: »

Thanks for stealing my thunder G'em! I had a real head of steam built up there. Pffff Mods!

Ah no thunder stolen, you rant much better than I do - consider it a "great minds think alike" moment

kevpants

g'em wrote: »

Ah no thunder stolen, you rant much better than I do - consider it a "great minds think alike" moment

Oh you! I do love a rant. Been getting through quite a few recently.

COH

quirkster wrote: »

if you do it correctly, incorporate negatives and statics, and do no more than 3 exercises for each body part, then yes, one set will do, as long as u stimulate it enough by goin to failure.

its called high intensity training, and is extermely popular for the gains made

here is a result of it:
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/body_builder_14sfw.gif

thats dorian yates, one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time. he used high intensity training alone.

now your going to say that it doesnt make you grow?

sit down son

Yes he used HIT methods, but not from day one. His training came as a result of years of experience using many differant methods (and *substances*) that got him to a level where he could physically take the type of punishment he put his body through. He does not advocate this type of training for someone starting off, or even intermediate lifters.

quirkster

i stand somewhat corrected, as i hadnt considered the use of illegal supp's in the progress of yates
The results you get from HIT can only be dependant on your ability to recruit a large amount of muscle fibres in a short space of time and so that is why advanced lifters can get great gains from this.

If you are not as advanced then doing multiple sets will improve your CNS ability to recuit more fibres and therefore during training you will stimulate more muscle growth. i believe i have somewhat improved my CNS's ability over the last 18 months, hence why im tryin HIT now.

HIT works if done properly. there are two many examples to list, mike mentzer himself being one, a man who never touched roids.

BOTH WEIDERS AND MENTZERS IDEAS WORK and of course HIT is going to increase strength...its a low rep philosophy, which is what has been cited as the most effective way to increase strength.....

DUBDUDE-have a look at a DVD called blood and guts, or else read mike mentzers book. or else research it on the internet....

3 exercises for example, per muscle group, one working set, per exercise of around 6 reps to failure, 15 second pause, lift again to failure (maybe get 2 more reps), 15 second pause again, lift to failure (maybe only get 1 rep)
follow this up by negs and statics and my muscles have been stimulated well enough to grow as much as they can

tell me why this is not the case

Al_Fernz

quirkster wrote: »

HIT works if done properly. there are two many examples to list, mike mentzer himself being one, a man who never touched roids.

Seriously? I doubt it.

daveywavey08

Jaysus. The condescending posts from quirkster are so funny! I think you're the one who needs to sit down, son. 13 stone is small, bro, sorry. I'm 15.5st and 6'5" and still look small. You didn't even consider Dorian's anabolics, HGH, insulin, and the rest of the whatever else was in his huge medicine cabinet.
Are you really that stupid that you believe Mentzer never touched roids? You must be out of your mind.

Thanks for the helpful responses from others, especially kevpants. I have been following your log brother, but I'm just trying to gauge what personal opinions are of experienced lifters like yourself of what seems to be the preferred rep range for this.

quirkster

hahahahaha leave your ego out of it man!

i never ever said i was huge?

and being big has absolutely nothing to do with your knowledge on a subject...anyone knows that and its already been said!
and im not out of my mind...and im certainly not stupid to believe that Mentzer didnt touch them...

how have i been condescending?!im offering my opinion...and people are laughing at the notion that HIT might just possibly work...

when its been proven for a fact that it does!

BobbyOLeary

never go with a program that contains exact reps or weights.

Exactly. This piece of wisdom is the reason why programs like Starting Strength just don't work. I mean making linear gains in sets of 5 reps on all your big compound lifts, thats for pansies. Random rep ranges and horrendously heavy weights are what real men do.

quirkster

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Exactly. This piece of wisdom is the reason why programs like Starting Strength just don't work. I mean making linear gains in sets of 5 reps on all your big compound lifts, thats for pansies. Random rep ranges and horrendously heavy weights are what real men do.

id have to disagree with you there dude.
ill admit i havent come across SS before so i dont know what it preaches, but common sense would say that going into a gym, with a mindset to do only 12 reps at 10kg, when you might be able to get 12 reps at 15 kg, is silly

rep ranges as in, 8 - 12 reps, not 12 reps on its own, in my opinion work better for everyone.
real men train smart...and know how to get a point across without having to lower themselves to sarcasm

Al_Fernz

Outlandish claims, personal insults....this thread is going down quicker than Paris Hilton's drawers.

BobbyOLeary

You haven't heard of Starting Strength? Fair enough. Heard of linear progression in compound lifts? If not then we've got a bigger problem than I thought.

Al_Fernz

Hey Daveywavey,

Here's a decent page that quotes published academic journals.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/topicoftheweek8.htm

daveywavey08

Good link Al, will make for an interesting read

Roper

So in summation...

Train until the barbell nearly chokes you every time, then get your spotter to lift it off you.

Oooookaaaaayyyy..... Reading too many websites methinks.

brianthebard

quirkster wrote: »

HIT works if done properly. there are two many examples to list, mike mentzer himself being one, a man who never touched roids.

Dude if you want people to believe a particular programme should be tried, you need a better basis than two people using it and succeeding. Now if three people got gains out of it, that'd be different...

Knowledge = power unfortunately the outrageous claims in this thread are not knowledgable!!!!! Anything but!

Quirkster, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and learn the basics.

rubadub

quirkster wrote: »

why would mroe sets make a difference? the point of resistance training is to encourage muscle growth, a muscle will be more inclined to grow (in order to survive) if it is brought to failure

I have read a few studies saying 1 set is enough. Though this can be untrained people, but most would recommend 2-3 sets after a while, many say 1 set is fine for beginners. You also mentioned 3 exercises per musclegroup, which is sort of like people doing 3 sets of 1 exercise per musclegroup. I guess that when you do 1 set it uses a lot of your muscle fibres, then on the last 2 it uses the remaining ones that were not used in the first. i.e. most of the muscle is used and exhausted/tired, so your body sort of searches and uses any remaining ones left to do the last set, thereby using more muscle fibres than just 1 set. In a previous thread I said the following...

They say beginners can benefit from only 1 or 2 sets, which might be in your case. It also think it depends on the person.

e.g. some really enjoy training for long hours. I like to keep it short & sweet & intense. I read of one BBer guy only doing 1 set (he was in his 60s or 70s). I don't think he was able for the full workout with 3sets each, but also he made a valid point that if you only set out for 1 single set you will give your all, knowing it is your last one, think he only worked out once a week too.

I will often just do one set, but I usually finish with negatives. So instead of 3x8reps, I do 8reps, then immediately 6-8more negatives. This takes less time than 2 sets, and the next day it feels like I have done more than 3x8, I still get DOMs the odd time. I might only do 3 exercises, 1 set each, so really do go all out doing them, while starting out I did maybe 10 exercises, 3x8-12reps, and was giving a half-hearted attempt by the end.

Thing is I do not train as often as many here, I probably have enough time to recover form negatives. I would not really go to all out failure before the negatives. And many times doing negatives I feel I could do loads more, but ease off.

RE mike mentzer, I heard he only took up HIT afterwards, and it seems like a marketing thing, selling a quick fix. Just like lads build themselves up in the gym doing normal protocols, and then appear on slendertone ads as though getting elecrocuted got them that way.

quirkster

ill agree with you there, the marketing for his book does somewhat come across as a 'quick fix' but the content is anything but. and he trained HIT for the 78' ( i think) Olympia, and came a very controversial second.

we were asked for our opinions on rep/set ranges. i gave mine.

i now have people who seem to have a mental block to other training theories in their mindsets, knocking my opinions down. i believe both types work, but that intensity rules over volume.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump8.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/par43.htm


read, learn and open your minds to different theories

i bid you all good day

BobbyOLeary

we were asked for our opinions on rep/set ranges. i gave mine.

No. You told us that other ways were wrong (e.g. fixed amount of reps) and that HIT was the only way to go.

knocking my opinions down

As is the case in modern life the onus is on the claimant (is that a word?) to prove his theory correct (journal articles, basic empirical evidence, not just two example BBr's). Don't get your knickers in a twist because noone is willing to accept your opinion blindly.

Good day to you too pal.

You're lacking when it comes to explaining what you mean as well Quirkster, you come out with stuff, people disagree, and then you add to it and say it's what you meant all along.

g'em

Alright, I think quirkster gets the message now thanks folks, can we stay OT please?