How important is a consistent number of reps?

fret_wimp2

Il take an example of my squat thrusts using kettle bells.

I used to use 8kg kettlebells. I could do about 16 squat thrusts, break of 60-90 seconds, then in my next set i could do about 10-12 and for the last set i could do maby 8-10 before my arms give way.

The same goes for my chin ups, first set is about 10, next is 7-8 and last is 6-8, reaching total muscle fatigue each set.

Ive heard that consistent numbers of reps are better, so if i instead, didnt push my arms to total fatigue each time, but done 3 reps of 10 I would be better off.

whats the logic and current thinking behind this?

Thanks

Penrose

Depends on how you look at it, you can lift the same level of weights time and again but focus on increasing the weight or you could increase the weight and do the same amount of reps.

All your doing is adapting the muscle - if you want mass do 8-10 reps at moderate if you want strength do 1-5 reps moderate to heavy with few sets.

Mellor

Tico wrote: »

if you can do the same amount of reps with the same amount of weight for all three sets then the first two sets are pointless, .....

That is absolute nonsense.
By that logic, 5x5 at a max effort is basically 4 pointless sets, and then one good set of 5 reps.

fret_wimp2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tico
if you can do the same amount of reps with the same amount of weight for all three sets then the first two sets are pointless, .....

That is absolute nonsense.
By that logic, 5x5 at a max effort is basically 4 pointless sets, and then one good set of 5 reps.

im just saying what the gym instructor said, thats why i questioned it here, it didnt feel right.

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

That is absolute nonsense.
By that logic, 5x5 at a max effort is basically 4 pointless sets, and then one good set of 5 reps.

There's been an outrageous amount of crap posted on the forum recently. The post you quoted's a perfect example.

Ragging on Smolov AGAIN.

Will Heffernan

Tico wrote: »

sounds perfect to me? if you can do the same amount of reps with the same amount of weight for all three sets then the first two sets are pointless, every set should be made to count so the way your reps are breaking down is perfect, it shows your pushing and challenging the muscles your using and that they are fatiguing which is what you want.

Excuse me...what was that? Would you like to explain that one to me?

Will Heffernan

I didn't read the rest of the posts...I really have to start doing that.

Hanley wrote: »

There's been an outrageous amount of crap posted on the forum recently.

I was just going to suggest you stop posting.

Hanley

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I didn't read the rest of the posts...I really have to start doing that.

I was just going to suggest you stop posting.

Oh. Sh!t. Really. Sorry Will.

Mr. Loverman

I don't fully subscribe to the 8+ for mass and < 5 for strength. I only ever do 4 - 6 reps and I pack on mass no problem.

However I am a lot stronger than guys twice my size, but I don't know (genuinely) if that's my problem or their problem.

Hanley

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I don't fully subscribe to the 8+ for mass and < 5 for strength. I only ever do 4 - 6 reps and I pack on mass no problem.

However I am a lot stronger than guys twice my size, but I don't know (genuinely) if that's my problem or their problem.

This.

Hanley

Where's Tico's posts gone?