Why does high reps = mass and low reps = strength?

Canis Lupus

Mate asked me in the gym why I was only doing 5 rep sets. I explained cos I'm not terribly interested in being hoooge, I'm happy with being strong.

He looks blankly

I explain generally, high reps and lower weight = big muscles whilst low reps and heavier weight = strength (comparitively).

He asked why, when he thought the bigger you are the stronger you are and there I draw a blank. I know the above simply from reading this lovely forum and so on but I don't actually know WHY this is true. I googled it but don't really see anything definite about the matter.

Does anyone have a good article they can share?

Cheers

A

Parsley

it isn't true. at all. bingo bango.

J-Fit

Higher reps with a lower weight gives rise to greater acidity within the muscle cell and a concurrent increase in muscular damage. The muscles effectively repair themselves, i.e. synthesise protein in anticipation of the next pounding they're going to receive. Lower reps mean lower muscular damage and less hypertrophy.

Work up to your max while just doing singles and you'll see you probably won't be as sore as when you hit a set to failure on 75% of your max.

The bigger you are the stronger etc. doesn't necessarily hold true. Neural efficiency has as much to do with strength as muscle size.

The lower reps thing doesn't always hold true either. If you're busting your ass to lift the 5th rep on a 5/3/1 max set, you're still causing a fair degree of muscular damage and you will experience increases in muscle size.

We Were Promised Jetpacks

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Mate asked me in the gym why I was only doing 5 rep sets. I explained cos I'm not terribly interested in being hoooge, I'm happy with being strong.

He looks blankly

I explain generally, high reps and lower weight = big muscles whilst low reps and heavier weight = strength (comparitively).

He asked why, when he thought the bigger you are the stronger you are and there I draw a blank. I know the above simply from reading this lovely forum and so on but I don't actually know WHY this is true. I googled it but don't really see anything definite about the matter.

Does anyone have a good article they can share?

Cheers

A

Check out sarcoplasmic vs myofibrillar hypertrophy online for some light bedtime reading

Might be a bit heavy but check out http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/Moore_Sarcoplasmic.html

Plenty of references on there too.

jank

Hmmm I always thought it was the opposite. Low weights & high reps = Stamania while high weights & low reps = strength + muscle mass.

I suppose I better think again.

This Wiki picture is a good guide;






Hypertrophy increases the size of the cells, Hyperplasia increases the number of cells. More cells = more strength.

(I'm no expert, by the way, but this thread made me go and look it up).


So... Theoretically, you could become both stronger and bigger by doubling you workout routine. The first time do heavy weights for lesser reps, the second time, do lighter weights for more reps?

Hmm..

J-Fit

jank wrote: »

Hmmm I always thought it was the opposite. Low weights & high reps = Stamania while high weights & low reps = strength + muscle mass.

I suppose I better think again.

No need, that's pretty much the way it is.

rubadub

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Does anyone have a good article they can share?

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/nonfunctionalmyth.html

And an article on gymnasts minimising hypertrophy http://sportsci.org/jour/0003/was.html

jank wrote: »

Hmmm I always thought it was the opposite. Low weights & high reps = Stamania while high weights & low reps = strength + muscle mass.

Depends on what you consider low & high reps. When most people talk of high reps is 12 or maybe up to 15 -while you could be thinking of 100 pushups.

Canis Lupus

Thanks all

steveoracle

That Wikii article is awesomeness, I always wondered if this was true, cos neither seems to work for me.... Maybe I was just doing it wrong..

S

Blindside87

I do a different amount of reps depending on which muscle I'm working. If I'm working my chest I normally aim to do sets of 6 reps, with arms I aim to do 8 reps. I thought this kind of gets the best of both worlds?

cmyk

Deleted User wrote: »

Hypertrophy increases the size of the cells, Hyperplasia increases the number of cells. More cells = more strength.

I had always understood that hyperplasia had not been proven with regard to human muscle.

papajimsmooth

cmyk wrote: »

I had always understood that hyperplasia had not been proven with regard to human muscle.

Yeah your right i think the wiki article he quoted is just explaining what hyperplasia and hypertrophy are, he just assumed it applied to skeletal muscle.

Will Heffernan

Parsley wrote: »

it isn't true. at all. bingo bango.

I'll second that.

As with most issues...it's about frame of reference and context.

Mickk

My very simplistic theory on it is that if you you have just done 5 reps and you are pretty nackered you will probably not get a 6th rep, it's an extra 20% of the set (and mentally you probably wont attempt it). Whereas if you have just done 10 reps and you are just as nackered, there is twice the chance you will be able to squeeze out another rep. As arnie will tell you, it's all about that last rep...

Brian?

Mickk wrote: »

My very simplistic theory on it is that if you you have just done 5 reps and you are pretty nackered you will probably not get a 6th rep, it's an extra 20% of the set (and mentally you probably wont attempt it). Whereas if you have just done 10 reps and you are just as nackered, there is twice the chance you will be able to squeeze out another rep. As arnie will tell you, it's all about that last rep...

Or you could be bored by the time you get to that 10th rep and just want to stop.

It really doesn't matter though as long as you're getting stronger I reckon.

ducie

ok so i want to tone up. am i better off doin heavy enuf so im just about able to do the 12th?

Will Heffernan

ducie wrote: »

ok so i want to tone up. am i better off doin heavy enuf so im just about able to do the 12th?

'Toning up' is about losing bodyfat and improving your body composition.

You can do this by:
a) doing no training at all and just dieting and creating a calorie deficit.
b)doing low reps high intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
c) doing higher rep lower intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
d) taking up ten pin bowling and creating a calorie deficit.
e) going for a walk...finding a bar to do some pull ups on and doing some push ups and creating a calorie deficit.
f) flying kites and creating a calorie deficit.
g) doing all of the above consecutively and creating a calorie deficit.

ducie

Will Heffernan wrote: »

'Toning up' is about losing bodyfat and improving your body composition.

You can do this by:
a) doing no training at all and just dieting and creating a calorie deficit.
b)doing low reps high intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
c) doing higher rep lower intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
d) taking up ten pin bowling and creating a calorie deficit.
e) going for a walk...finding a bar to do some pull ups on and doing some push ups and creating a calorie deficit.
f) flying kites and creating a calorie deficit.
g) doing all of the above consecutively and creating a calorie deficit.

so what ur saying is i need to create a calorie dificit?

when you say high intensity do you mean more weight?

Will Heffernan

ducie wrote: »

so what ur saying is i need to create a calorie dificit?

Did I mention that?

when you say high intensity do you mean more weight?

Yes.

d'Oracle

Will Heffernan wrote: »

'Toning up' is about losing bodyfat and improving your body composition.

You can do this by:
a) doing no training at all and just dieting and creating a calorie deficit.
b)doing low reps high intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
c) doing higher rep lower intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
d) taking up ten pin bowling and creating a calorie deficit.
e) going for a walk...finding a bar to do some pull ups on and doing some push ups and creating a calorie deficit.
f) flying kites and creating a calorie deficit.
g) doing all of the above consecutively and creating a calorie deficit.

For time?

ducie

Will Heffernan wrote: »

'Toning up' is about losing bodyfat and improving your body composition.

You can do this by:
a) doing no training at all and just dieting and creating a calorie deficit.
b)doing low reps high intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
c) doing higher rep lower intensity weight training and creating a calorie deficit.
d) taking up ten pin bowling and creating a calorie deficit.
e) going for a walk...finding a bar to do some pull ups on and doing some push ups and creating a calorie deficit.
f) flying kites and creating a calorie deficit.
g) doing all of the above consecutively and creating a calorie deficit.

so ur saying you dont have to do any weights atall to "tone up" or lose body fat?

Nate--IRL--

ducie wrote: »

so ur saying you dont have to do any weights atall to "tone up" or lose body fat?

Correct, to lose body fat you must create a calorie deficit, there is no other way.

Weights along with a good diet can help with creating this deficit though.

Nate

ducie

ok thanks for the info.
ill start after oxegen:D

Scuba Ste

But if you do no training at all and just eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight all right but you may not get the infamous 'toned' look. You can end up just looking skinny. If you do some training and cut calories you can build some muscle mass and look 'toned' or athletic or fit or whatever you call it. That's my 2c.

Will Heffernan

d'Oracle wrote: »

For time?

What?

d'Oracle

Will Heffernan wrote: »

What?

Lil' joke.
Sorry.

Will Heffernan

ducie wrote: »

so ur saying you dont have to do any weights atall to "tone up" or lose body fat?

Your muscle doesn't lack 'tone'...even prisoners of war have 'tone'...I don't suggest that as a fat loss strategy though....although at least then you could say you went to a proper boot camp.

Will Heffernan

Scuba Ste wrote: »

But if you do no training at all and just eat a calorie deficit you will lose weight all right but you may not get the infamous 'toned' look.

Half true...you'll still look 'toned' there just won't be much to look at.

Scuba Ste wrote: »

You can end up just looking skinny.

Absolutely true.

Scuba Ste wrote: »

If you do some training and cut calories you can build some muscle mass and look 'toned' or athletic or fit or whatever you call it. That's my 2c.

Doesn't happen...not with out a pharmaceutical intervention...you are not building mass on a calorie deficit. Simple as that.

Will Heffernan

d'Oracle wrote: »

Lil' joke.Sorry.

I'm pretty thick...you need to type slower.

floggg

ducie wrote: »

so ur saying you dont have to do any weights atall to "tone up" or lose body fat?

Well do the kids in the live aid videos look like they've been pumping iron?

ducie

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Half true...you'll still look 'toned' there just won't be much to look at.

Absolutely true.


Doesn't happen...not with out a pharmaceutical intervention...you are not building mass on a calorie deficit. Simple as that.

Not talkin about building mass, talkin bout toning what is already there..

d'Oracle

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I'm pretty thick...you need to type slower.

It probably wasn't a good one.

Nate--IRL--

ducie wrote: »

Not talkin about building mass, talkin bout toning what is already there..

What most people refer to as muscle tone is achieved by low body fat.

Nate

Will Heffernan

ducie wrote: »

Not talkin about building mass, talkin bout toning what is already there..

Are you trying to argue with me about someone elses post?

This could get confusing.

Are you saying that Scuba Ste didn't say:

If you do some training and cut calories you can build some muscle mass.

Because I am pretty sure that's what they said....I know this because I just copied and pasted it. Or are you wanting to disagree with what I said in principle or something else entirely?

What do you think is happening to your muscles? Are you planning on having yourself placed in a coma while you diet? Because I'm pretty sure you can diet and live a normal life and that your muscles will look just fine.

I've worked with models previously who did little or no exercise at all and essentially ate an apple or two, drank sugar free stim drinks and or vodka and smoked cigarettes. They pretty much ate like crap, drank like fishes, smoke like chimneys and get paid shed loads of money for the 'quality of their muscle tone'...for how their chasis looks. They do just fine without benching

We Were Promised Jetpacks

ducie wrote: »

Not talkin about building mass, talkin bout toning what is already there..

It's amazing the power of the word 'tone'....really what people mean when they say they want to 'tone' is that they want to be less fat.

TheZ

What kind of training or no training was Christian Bale in The Machinist doing compared to say Brad Pitt in Fight Club.

Maybe it was just lighting as well it being the movies and all.

Question - what is best way to reduce body fat and maintain muscle mass?
Is it a more controlled (smaller) calorie deficit.

ducie

ok this is getting confusing. heres the deal. im 6ft 13 half stone, i want LESS FAT around my stomach and chest area. to me dat wud mean i want to TONE my stomach and chest area. comments and advice welcome..

TheZ

We Were Promised Jetpacks wrote: »

It's amazing the power of the word 'tone'....really what people mean when they say they want to 'tone' is that they want to be less fat.

No they don't mean that - most people by the word tone mean they want to be less fat but with visible muscles

Nate--IRL--

ducie wrote: »

ok this is getting confusing. heres the deal. im 6ft 13 half stone, i want LESS FAT around my stomach and chest area. to me dat wud mean i want to TONE my stomach and chest area. comments and advice welcome..

Calorie deficit.

Eat less, move more. Simple.

TheZ wrote: »

What kind of training or no training was Christian Bale in The Machinist doing compared to say Brad Pitt in Fight Club.

Maybe it was just lighting as well it being the movies and all.

Question - what is best way to reduce body fat and maintain muscle mass?
Is it a more controlled (smaller) calorie deficit.

For the Machinist, Bale reportedly ate 1 can of tuna day, until he dropped to that weight. In a calorie deficit, you will lose muscle mass if you don't give your body a reason to keep it (ie use it).

A proper Weight lifting program along with a good calorie deficit diet and patience, will get you the "Toned" look you want.

Nate

J-Fit

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Doesn't happen...not with out a pharmaceutical intervention...you are not building mass on a calorie deficit. Simple as that.

Hmmm......whilst almost always true, I've seen complete novices do it. The muscle simply has to adapt to the stress and the adaptation won't strictly be neural for a complete beginner. Protein's can synthesise in the absence of positive energy balance (from what I've seen) but not beyond the honeymoon period, i.e. a training age of three months. I think he has a very small window to do both but I'm not saying he should try.

Scuba Ste

ducie wrote: »

ok this is getting confusing. heres the deal. im 6ft 13 half stone, i want LESS FAT around my stomach and chest area. to me dat wud mean i want to TONE my stomach and chest area. comments and advice welcome..

To me wanting LESS FAT would mean you want LESS FAT. To get less fat you need to eat less calories.

rubadub

briankeating wrote: »

It really doesn't matter though as long as you're getting stronger I reckon.

And people have different opinions on what is "strong", i.e. most people posting here define it as your 1RM, but somebody might have no interest in 1RM as they never ever lift it. In the article I linked before it was saying a BBer might have a greater 12RM and lower 1RM than a powerlifter -just since they train in those regions, so which is the stronger person? I guess most will say the higher 1RM.

Some here train to compete in comps where 1RM is essential, others (like me) train just to be strong in daily life so getting stronger to me might be a better 10RM rest pause session if I am used to lifting 10 boxes in quick succession in a row in work. I have heard people say gripper tools only make you stronger in that action -in my daily life the most grip strength I use would be using manual tools like pliers etc so it makes sense for me to train that action -however that might not be the best way for a powerlifter to train grip for his deadlift.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Doesn't happen...not with out a pharmaceutical intervention...you are not building mass on a calorie deficit. Simple as that.

What do you make of the Anacat protocol, in effect mini bulk & cut sessions all the time, so on a weekly basis you might have an average calorie deficit but have a surplus when it matters. Personally I was about 12stone+/-3lb for about a year losing fat all the time, so had to be building muscle. It might not be the most efficient but it suited me -I was a beginner and hear it can happen in that case, but many people are only starting to lift so it is worth a mention. While on a calorie deficit my cuts still heal, so the body is obviously capable of levels of repair, I do not think it is so far fetched to think it could grow new muscle if it was triggered into thinking it was essential for survival.

Scuba Ste wrote: »

To me wanting LESS FAT would mean you want LESS FAT. To get less fat you need to eat less calories.

Yes, less calories, this does not necessarily mean eating less fat, if you want to maintain muscle it could be more efficient to actually increase your fat intake, esp. if your usual diet is very high in carbs and already low in fat.

Will Heffernan

J-Fit wrote: »

Hmmm......whilst almost always true, I've seen complete novices do it. The muscle simply has to adapt to the stress and the adaptation won't strictly be neural for a complete beginner. Protein's can synthesise in the absence of positive energy balance (from what I've seen) but not beyond the honeymoon period, i.e. a training age of three months. I think he has a very small window to do both but I'm not saying he should try.

Ahhh...there a trainer by the name of Einstein who disagree's with you...one of his laws of training was that energy cannot be created or destroyed...so...if you are training in a calorie deficit you are not gaining muscle...even if it might look like that...it just doesn't happen.

I know people will post about their client that did...or that they did...or about that Polish guy in the gym that did...trust me...or trust Mr Einstein...they didn't...you didn't...no body did.

If you need references...let me know

We Were Promised Jetpacks

J-Fit wrote: »

Hmmm......whilst almost always true, I've seen complete novices do it. The muscle simply has to adapt to the stress and the adaptation won't strictly be neural for a complete beginner. Protein's can synthesise in the absence of positive energy balance (from what I've seen) but not beyond the honeymoon period, i.e. a training age of three months. I think he has a very small window to do both but I'm not saying he should try.

Isn't this another way of saying that you can create something out of nothing? Like building a house without any bricks?

d'Oracle

ducie wrote: »

ok this is getting confusing. heres the deal. im 6ft 13 half stone, i want LESS FAT around my stomach and chest area. to me dat wud mean i want to TONE my stomach and chest area. comments and advice welcome..

Your problem here is the use of the word tone.
No I'm not going into the word, what I think of it or what it means, cos I have been pillared on here for doing so in the past.

But it boils down to this: People don't use it along any standard definition, i.e. it means different things to different people.

Suffice to say, if you want to loose fat around your chesticles and abz, you need to LOOSE FAT. As Ste has pointed out. You can't reduce in some bits and not in others.

J-Fit

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Ahhh...there a trainer by the name of Einstein who disagree's with you...one of his laws of training was that energy cannot be created or destroyed...so...if you are training in a calorie deficit you are not gaining muscle...even if it might look like that...it just doesn't happen.

I know people will post about their client that did...or that they did...or about that Polish guy in the gym that did...trust me...or trust Mr Einstein...they didn't...you didn't...no body did.

If you need references...let me know

No need for the refs, thanks!

Maybe so but science doesn't always explain everything. I accept your point but I'm not talking about creating energy, I'm talking about muscles adapting to imposed stresses. I run the risk of sounding crazy here but when you break a bone it does not require a calorie surplus to repair the damage. Ok, bones are non-contractile proteins but they still knit back together and adapt to the imposed stress. This is going nowhere, I'd think we should get back on to rep range here .

In the presence of doubt, eat more, get big. Simple as.

Will Heffernan

J-Fit wrote: »

No need for the refs, thanks!

Maybe so but science doesn't always explain everything.[/QUOTE]
Science does pretty clearly explain this one. If you are going to deny science over blind faith maybe you should go to the religion forum if there is one here.

I accept your point but I'm not talking about creating energy, I'm talking about muscles adapting to imposed stresses.

You don't really have to accept my point...if you want to deny it and prove that I'm wrong you should ring the Nobel organisation and tip them off...just so they can get their stuff together.

I run the risk of sounding crazy

Too late for that...I think you already have.

here but when you break a bone it does not require a calorie surplus to repair the damage. Ok, bones are non-contractile proteins but they still knit back together and adapt to the imposed stress.

I can explain tissue healing and repair to you as well if you'd like...don't mind at all....will make a change from talking about protein.

This is going nowhere, I'd think we should get back on to rep range here .

I think you should definitely get out of this argument as fast as you can

In the presence of doubt, eat more, get big. Simple as.

That I can live with.

mloc

It's not quite creating something out of nothing; the body is more complicated than that.

Theoretically, when you break down fat (e.g. burn fat, lose fat) you convert it to energy. This energy is then used by the body. If you are consuming protein, the circulating amino acids together with a process called glyconeogenesis mean that in terms of what your body needs to create protein (e.g. muscle), it has it. Whether muscle cells are going to be in a state of anabolism however, is unlikely, as the catabolic reaction of beta-oxidation (e.g. fat burning) does not create an environment in which cells are likely to divide and grow. That will largely depend on the status of your endocrine system and how it is stimulated.

</science>

TheZ

Building muscle on a calorie deficit - funny how nobody focuses on what a calorie deficit means or how you test for it.

is it a deficit over a day, an hour or a week or a month

Human body is not an internal combustion engine running at the same constant speed in same conditions. A deficit in December may not be one in June etc etc.

A calorie is only defined as the amount of energy required to heat one gram of water by one degree Celsius or 4.184 joules. How many joules a day you need is an estimate at best.

I would guess most people who say they are building muscle on calorie deficits are not on deficits.


Will, head over to www.steorn.com where they are challenging the laws of physics:D

Brian?

rubadub wrote: »

And people have different opinions on what is "strong", i.e. most people posting here define it as your 1RM, but somebody might have no interest in 1RM as they never ever lift it. In the article I linked before it was saying a BBer might have a greater 12RM and lower 1RM than a powerlifter -just since they train in those regions, so which is the stronger person? I guess most will say the higher 1RM.

Some here train to compete in comps where 1RM is essential, others (like me) train just to be strong in daily life so getting stronger to me might be a better 10RM rest pause session if I am used to lifting 10 boxes in quick succession in a row in work. I have heard people say gripper tools only make you stronger in that action -in my daily life the most grip strength I use would be using manual tools like pliers etc so it makes sense for me to train that action -however that might not be the best way for a powerlifter to train grip for his deadlift.

What I meant was it doesn't matter what rep range you work in as long as your strength in that range is improving. Well as long as that rep range is less than 15.

Its the most reliable guide that you're making progress, if you spend the next year progressing by adding weight to your 1RM,5RM,8RM or 12RM you will be adding muscle, as long as you're eating enough.