Low reps vs High reps?

00MARTZ00

Hi folks
Just wondering if anyone can clear something up for me.
Recently started back doing weights. I always remembered hearing that low reps with a heavier weight built muscle while lighter weight and higher reps where for endurance. Something I was wondering though, three weeks ago I tried using a heavier weight to see how I got on and after completing each exercise I was b*****ed but didn't really feel any burning sensation. Last week I decided to try a lighter weight at 12 reps and after completing the exercises I really felt the burn.
So here is my question. Which do you think is actually more effective?
Any replies or info would be appreciated.

Chancer3001

you are correct with what you heard.

ignore the "burn".

Just ensure the weights for the low reps are high enough.

"effective" changes depending on waht your goals are

Hanley

"burn" means nothing when it comes to progress

"endurance" isn't build thru 1 minutes worth of work with weights

"effective" depends on what you're trying to achieve?

AntiVirus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Just ensure the weights for the low reps are high enough.

What about the high rep sets? The weights can't be to light, so is there any way to tell whats the best weight to use? Like x% of your 1RM etc...

Chancer3001

the way id do it is set targets, maybe do 15 of each exercise. after 1 or 2 gos youll know if a weight is too light/heavy

AntiVirus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

the way id do it is set targets, maybe do 15 of each exercise. after 1 or 2 gos youll know if a weight is too light/heavy

I suppose its different for each person, it alls depends on the amount of sets/rest your doing. Ignore my first question

and cheers for the reply

Chancer3001

no prob.

Getting toned is all about long term effort. Putting in high reps repeatdly witha good diet will get results.

You/one will very quickly recognise if a weight is too heavy or light for high reps.

i would also recommend he mixes it up. Vary exercises and vary workouts. Kettle bells are excellent. So are chin ups as somebody else suggested.

Michael 09

There are benefits to both high reps and low reps as far as I know. Why not do high reps one day and low reps the next, adjusting your weight accordingly. It can make your workout more interesting by changing it up like that.

NinjaK

low reps for strength and high reps - 8-12 for muscle gains!

Hanley

NinjaK wrote: »

low reps for strength and high reps - 8-12 for muscle gains!

Dogma++

ridonkulous

AntiVirus wrote: »

What about the high rep sets? The weights can't be to light, so is there any way to tell whats the best weight to use? Like x% of your 1RM etc...

Say if the target is 12-15 reps whatever the exercise. If you can do any more than the 15 increase the weight. Gauge how many more reps you felt you could do and increase the weight accordingly, this is all trial and error (When I start a new program I use it to gauge my weights for the rep range and then look to increase from there). Then if/when you go below the 12 rep minimum on the current weight on set X drop the weight until you are again within then 12-15 rep range without being able to go over the 15 rep max.

AntiVirus

ridonkulous wrote: »

If you can do any more than the 15 increase the weight.

I know I could push out 20 in a 1 max set so this would indicate that I maybe using a weight thats to light for high reps but I couldn't complete 4 sets of 15 reps with the same weight with a 60 second rest period. I'm I doing the high reps wrong?

ridonkulous

AntiVirus wrote: »

I know I could push out 20 in a 1 max set so this would indicate that I maybe using a weight thats to light for high reps but I couldn't complete 4 sets of 15 reps with the same weight with a 60 second rest period. I'm I doing the high reps wrong?

Certain exercises will have greater drop off rates than others. I'd possibly look at your plan. When I do higher rep programs I generally attack/focus on one muscle group and then go onto a completely different one and focus on that with some rest in between exercises, an A1,A2,B1,B2 style plan whereby I complete all A's before moving onto the B's. So in total I've probably rested each muscle group by 2-3 minutes before going into the second set on each. Obviously this all depends on the type of exercise and the muscle group being worked.

Chancer3001

a lot of programs say do the exercise 5 times...

Doug Cartel

Hanley wrote: »

Dogma++

Really?

Hanley

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Really?

Yes.

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

Yes.

Explain.

Hanley

g'em wrote: »

Explain.

I've yet to see "calories" mentioned in this thread. They'll have a far bigger determining factor that rep ranges.

Weightlifters work primarily low rep plus high volume and are f*cking jacked.

Gymnasts do similar.

Does that explain it enough?

Before anyone throws bodybuilders in as an opposing view I'll throw out the whole increased protein synthesis ability (and therefor enhanced recovery and growth) issue.

And as one final point "balance". That thing where you don't have to do one OR the other and can actually do both.

EDiT: dammit you tricked me. There was no question mark at the end of
That sentence.

kevpants

Hanley wrote: »

I've yet to see "calories" mentioned in this thread. They'll have a far bigger determining factor that rep ranges.

Weightlifters work primarily low rep plus high volume and are f*cking jacked.

Gymnasts do similar.

Does that explain it enough?

Before anyone throws bodybuilders in as an opposing view I'll throw out the whole increased protein synthesis ability (and therefor enhanced recovery and growth) issue.

And as one final point "balance". That thing where you don't have to do one OR the other and can actually do both.

EDiT: dammit you tricked me. There was no question mark at the end of
That sentence.

I can tell your development into a S&C guru is continuing because you're contradicting this jaysus out of yourself like mad. Online fame awaits!

In less sarchastic terms I'm confused about your argument, agree that breaking down a muscle so it comes back stronger doesn't involve a calculator so 10x3 or 5x5 ar 2x20 is irrelevant. I linked to a study confirming this recently, but am too lazy to find it.

At the same time I know you're a big believer that people or scared of isolation because barbells are shique and if you want bigger arms/chest/delts you need to specifically target them.

Getting stronger will bring an element of jacked with it whether it be from a gymnastics/weightlifting/powerlifting perspective but the best way to get the jackedness isn't to do heavy snatch singles.

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

I can tell your development into a S&C guru is continuing because you're contradicting this jaysus out of yourself like mad. Online fame awaits!

In less sarchastic terms I'm confused about your argument, agree that breaking down a muscle so it comes back stronger doesn't involve a calculator so 10x3 or 5x5 ar 2x20 is irrelevant. I linked to a study confirming this recently, but am too lazy to find it.

At the same time I know you're a big believer that people or scared of isolation because barbells are shique and if you want bigger arms/chest/delts you need to specifically target them.

Getting stronger will bring an element of jacked with it whether it be from a gymnastics/weightlifting/powerlifting perspective but the best way to get the jackedness isn't to do heavy snatch singles.

I'm not sure how exactly youre disagreeing with my post?

You get stronger, eat enough and get bigger. You of all people know that. Don't try and use a stickman to polarize my argument becaue you know well I wasn't suggesting heavy snatch singles are the key. Weightlifters also do things like squats, presses and rows ya know.

And I never said high reps wouldn't make you big. I said it was a dogmatic belief. Both methods and styles work. But a mix of both is almost certainly the best option, in my opinion.

I love the way not speaking in absolutes and having the audacity to disagree with conventional wisdom makes me an internet guru :rolleyes:

Michael 09

So after all of this are we all in agreement that 'do both' is the better option?

It has worked for me anyway!

kevpants

Hanley wrote: »

I love the way not speaking in absolutes and having the audacity to disagree with conventional wisdom makes me an internet guru :rolleyes:

You're an internet guru. Deal with it. You're only at stage 2 though, "denial", and most of the following stages revolve around either branding shakers or T-shirts and certifying people in various things and stuff.

You do realise disagreeing with conventional wisdom is what internet strength guru's do? I give you the Mike Boyle vs Squatting case of 2009.

You know we have the same view on this stuff but you can see how easy someone learning what's what will wonder why his biceps aren't getting bigger even though he's training and inmproving his squat/bench/deadlift.

You're dead right on doing both being the answer but the dogma isn't complete BS considering isolation and all that ponsey stuff is a preety good way of making bits of individual muscle stick out more.

Hanley

Michael 09 wrote: »

So after all of this are we all in agreement that 'do both' is the better option?

It has worked for me anyway!

Middleoftheroadfitness.com - I WILL start that website some day.

It'll be an attack on anyone with polarised opinions, because the answer to all fitness related questions is usually one of moderation, compromise and sensibility.

Brian?

First HanleyFitHeals t-shirt:

"Everything in moderation, including moderation. "

I'm sure Buddha mind.

Doc Daneeka

Can I ask the gurus what is the better option for building strength as opposed mass? Or is it all bull and lifting weights equals bigger and stronger without the possibility of focusing on one over the other.

00MARTZ00

so the general consensous is the better option is to do both?

TeddyTedson

It's all about putting **** in your body

reganovich

Lad on this site contradicts what I thought was the conventional wisdom..
He says
Low reps heavy weights for muscle density
High reps(10-12 range) for size/strength/mass

I always thought the opposite


link below..see what you reckon on his explanation

http://www.notyouraveragefitnesstips.com/best-workout-routines/low-weight-high-reps-training-to-failure

Chancer3001

what is muscle density if its not size strength or mass?

Lago

I would really like not to know who came up with this idea that different numbers of reps makes your body grow different kinds of muscle. Whoever he is, he's a **** who screwed up weightlifting for a lot of people......

Mellor

Lago wrote: »

I would really like not to know who came up with this idea that different numbers of reps makes your body grow different kinds of muscle. Whoever he is, he's a **** who screwed up weightlifting for a lot of people......

Are you disagreeing with the idea that there are different types of muscle growth.
Or the idea that rep ranges determine the type of growth.

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

Are you disagreeing with the idea that there are different types of muscle growth.
Or the idea that rep ranges determine the type of growth.

I vaguely remember reading a study on sarcoplasmic versus myofibrilliar hypertrophy and it pretty much said its all a load of goose...

Chancer3001

"different numbers of reps makes your body grow different kinds of muscle"

some reps dont build muscle at all. you can do all the light reps you want but youll build fack all muscle.
you WILL increase your stamina in the muscle, but it wont get much/any bigger

Spunge

High reps for toning, if you don't want to get too bulky.

not serious

Chancer3001

that is the truth though. You can lift weights with the intention of staying the same size but increasing muscular endurance

Dr.Tom

The more I read the more this whole weightlifting lark is gone way too techno-political. Im off to deadlift some driftwood :cool:

Mellor

Hanley wrote: »

I vaguely remember reading a study on sarcoplasmic versus myofibrilliar hypertrophy and it pretty much said its all a load of goose...

I believe they both exist. I just don't think that they are as isolated from each other as is suggested. And whether one or the other or both occur is defendant on far more than just the rep range. Especially diet.

If you follow a "strength" program, and eat all around you. Your body will increase mass as a response to this.
Follow a BB routine, and you'll still get stronger.

I also that there is a difference between strength, and the ability to lift a max weight. Low reps helps 1RMs more because its the same movement with a load as close as possible to your max.
Then on top of that, you've got assistance stuff, where prehaps you shouldn't be trying to lift your max weight, and you just need to work different muscles or maybe get blood going to the area on a cellular level.