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

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.

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.

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 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.

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...

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 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 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?

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 wrote: »

What?

Lil' joke.
Sorry.

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?