login
Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps
-
No new posts
 2010-01-27 4:14 PM |
 10 |  Subject: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low RepsI have been strength training for somewhere around 8 months. I usually do somewhere around 2 or 3 sets of 15 reps per exercise. After talking to a personal trainer the other day, I think I want to change up my routine. My question is though, Which would be better for building STRENGTH not bulk. I don't want to put on much muscle. I just want to get stronger. Should I do less weight but more reps or more weight and less reps. I know more weight less reps causes the muscle to tear more, but does that mean I will increase my overall strength? |
| 2010-01-27 9:43 PM in reply to: #2638371 |
Elite 2608    Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Lifting heavy weight will increase maximal strength. It involves more than just muscle tearing. |
| 2010-01-28 6:27 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
New user 60 Austin | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps You can try-6 weeks of 3 sets 7,8, or 9 reps then-6 weeks 3 sets 5,4,3 reps in the off season- then 3 sets 13-15 reps while in your tri training. That really worked for me. I put on about 5 lbs of muscle in the first phase then got stronger in the second phase. The high reps i do to maintain strength. |
| 2010-01-28 9:31 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps For your stated goal of gaining STRENGTH, the 1-5 rep range is ideal. |
| 2010-01-28 11:09 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
Expert 1123 Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Whatever rep amount allows you to increase weight steadily.. which is usually reps of 5. Bulk (once you reach a certain level of musculature) only comes from eating more calories than you burn and lots of progress in the weight room (increasing lifts over time) |
| 2010-01-28 11:44 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps BTW, I don't mean to suggest that you do your 1RM (one-rep max) every time out. In fact, I hardly ever do them personally, but they do have a place in STRENGTH training, in particular for your stated goal. I agree that you should focus on a 5-rep routine with either 3 sets or 5 sets depending on the time you plan to devote to training. Since you'll be doing higher weight and lower reps, make sure you warm up properly. I do light stretching and a little bit of jump rope/jumping jacks/jogging, then I do just the 45 lb bar for about 10 reps followed by about 4 more warm up sets before my work sets. |
| 2010-01-29 1:28 PM in reply to: #2638371 |
Regular 81 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Hey Runner Dude, |
| 2010-02-01 3:24 PM in reply to: #2638371 |
Veteran 201 A van down by the river | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps 26.2 runner dude - 2010-01-27 4:14 PM I have been strength training for somewhere around 8 months. I usually do somewhere around 2 or 3 sets of 15 reps per exercise. After talking to a personal trainer the other day, I think I want to change up my routine. My question is though, Which would be better for building STRENGTH not bulk. I don't want to put on much muscle. I just want to get stronger. Should I do less weight but more reps or more weight and less reps. I know more weight less reps causes the muscle to tear more, but does that mean I will increase my overall strength? I agree with ramping up the weight and reducing the rep ranges to 6-12 with 3 "working sets" Your 12 should be a controlled warmup and then pyramid up from there. If you are finishing your last set to failure and you get 6, time to add weight the next time out. Honestly I have used this workout for everything from cutting to bulking to maintaining. For strength or just a plateau buster, I'm a big believer in Bill Star's 5x5 workout. Better pack a lunch though. It gets real in about the third week. I am probably going to run through an 8 week cycle in March. Also, when it comes to bulk, that has as much to do with your diet as anything. If you don't want to gain weight, don't take in the additional calories. When people say that diet is 85% of it, they aren't just blowing smoke. If your diet is right, you will only be gaining muscle weight anyway. |
| 2010-02-04 12:07 PM in reply to: #2648218 |
Regular 81 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps GorgeousGeorge - 2010-02-02 12:24 AM When people say that diet is 85% of it, they aren't just blowing smoke. If your diet is right, you will only be gaining muscle weight anyway. Amen. It's always funny to see people come back when the "light bulb comes on" to tell you they finally get it about eating clean and smart. It's like you were lying to them whole time or something...sorry the world is really round, Al Gore is a liar, and Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.  |
| 2010-02-14 8:06 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
| New user 1 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps 26.2 runner dude - 2010-01-27 4:14 PM I have been strength training for somewhere around 8 months. I usually do somewhere around 2 or 3 sets of 15 reps per exercise. After talking to a personal trainer the other day, I think I want to change up my routine. My question is though, Which would be better for building STRENGTH not bulk. I don't want to put on much muscle. I just want to get stronger. Should I do less weight but more reps or more weight and less reps. I know more weight less reps causes the muscle to tear more, but does that mean I will increase my overall strength? hi, I had a similiar problem to you but I beleive you won't get any stronger if you are lifting wieghts that are too easy for you. I would suggest doing 5x5 training where you do 5 sets of 5 reps but the wieght you are lifting has to be the maximum you can lift. You shouldn't put on a lot of muscle mass because to increase muscle mass people use hypertrophic training where you do 3 sets with 10 reps with short breaks. When you do 5x5 training you will need to rest for 2-3 minutes between each set hoplefully this will help increase your strength and make you stronger. |
| 2010-02-17 6:23 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Training for strength without adding mass is more like going to a pool and try not to get wet. |
| 2010-03-01 8:40 AM in reply to: #2638371 |
| 2 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps I think people are overly concerned with "adding bulk". It takes A LOT of effort to add any significant bulk. Besides, it's easy to limit muscle growth if that really becomes a problem. It's not like you're going to explode into a body builder overnight, that takes YEARS. |
| 2010-03-01 8:45 AM in reply to: #2699405 |
Veteran 201 A van down by the river | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps notorq - 2010-03-01 8:40 AM I think people are overly concerned with "adding bulk". It takes A LOT of effort to add any significant bulk. Besides, it's easy to limit muscle growth if that really becomes a problem. It's not like you're going to explode into a body builder overnight, that takes YEARS. haha, totally agree. People who haven't trained for it, have no idea how hard it is to add muscle mass. 90% of girls will always say something to the effect of "I don't do weights, bc I don't want to get big" I want to tell them its that doughnut in your hand thats going to make you big. Not the squat. Its all in the diet. |
| 2010-03-05 6:52 AM in reply to: #2699413 |
Extreme Veteran 877 Pa | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps I want to tell them its that doughnut in your hand thats going to make you big. Not the squat. Its all in the diet.[/QUOTE] ha ha That's funny! Recently I've been dabbling in bench press competitions and I knew it was REALLY hard to gain mass like that but in the back of my head was still worried that I would "get big" from doing shorter reps more sets. I haven't gained a single pound and am now benching more than I weigh. Strong like Bull! ;-) Edited by carrie1 2010-03-05 6:53 AM |
| 2010-04-06 8:31 PM in reply to: #2638371 |
Extreme Veteran 417 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Good info in this thread. So I assume that a byproduct of gaining strength is to gain size? Like others in here, I want to be stronger but not add a TON of size and weight. It looks like they go together unfortunately. So if I don't want to add a bunch of size, I should just stick to lighter weight and 10+ reps? |
| 2010-04-06 9:22 PM in reply to: #2772648 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps krisko - 2010-04-06 9:31 PM Good info in this thread. So I assume that a byproduct of gaining strength is to gain size? Like others in here, I want to be stronger but not add a TON of size and weight. It looks like they go together unfortunately. So if I don't want to add a bunch of size, I should just stick to lighter weight and 10+ reps? Size is not necessarily a byproduct of gaining strength. Size is a byproduct of increased calorie consumption, but you can gain strength w/o getting heavier. And 10+ reps at a lighter weight is what is considered the hypertrophy (mass building) range. So you're better off doing higher weight/lower reps if you don't want to increase size. Unless of course you mean high reps at a weight that isn't challenging, which is kind of a waste of time. |
| 2010-04-07 2:25 AM in reply to: #2772747 |
Extreme Veteran 371 Jakarta Selatan, Unknown | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 4:22 AM krisko - 2010-04-06 9:31 PM Good info in this thread. So I assume that a byproduct of gaining strength is to gain size? Like others in here, I want to be stronger but not add a TON of size and weight. It looks like they go together unfortunately. So if I don't want to add a bunch of size, I should just stick to lighter weight and 10+ reps? Size is not necessarily a byproduct of gaining strength. Size is a byproduct of increased calorie consumption, but you can gain strength w/o getting heavier. And 10+ reps at a lighter weight is what is considered the hypertrophy (mass building) range. So you're better off doing higher weight/lower reps if you don't want to increase size. Unless of course you mean high reps at a weight that isn't challenging, which is kind of a waste of time. You probably confused with the theory a bit. For a muscle building (bulking) training, it is adviced to increase the weight and lower the volume, hence for maintenance and weight loss is vice versa. Example of this is power and olympic lifters whom doing only 1-6 reps per set with very heavy loads. Heavier lift creates more micro-trauma to the muscle fiber, which allow them to replace the damage muscle with a new and stronger muscle during recovery. |
| 2010-04-07 9:05 AM in reply to: #2773029 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps otongki - 2010-04-07 3:25 AM ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 4:22 AM krisko - 2010-04-06 9:31 PM Good info in this thread. So I assume that a byproduct of gaining strength is to gain size? Like others in here, I want to be stronger but not add a TON of size and weight. It looks like they go together unfortunately. So if I don't want to add a bunch of size, I should just stick to lighter weight and 10+ reps? Size is not necessarily a byproduct of gaining strength. Size is a byproduct of increased calorie consumption, but you can gain strength w/o getting heavier. And 10+ reps at a lighter weight is what is considered the hypertrophy (mass building) range. So you're better off doing higher weight/lower reps if you don't want to increase size. Unless of course you mean high reps at a weight that isn't challenging, which is kind of a waste of time. You probably confused with the theory a bit. For a muscle building (bulking) training, it is adviced to increase the weight and lower the volume, hence for maintenance and weight loss is vice versa. Example of this is power and olympic lifters whom doing only 1-6 reps per set with very heavy loads. Heavier lift creates more micro-trauma to the muscle fiber, which allow them to replace the damage muscle with a new and stronger muscle during recovery. That's incorrect. There is a great chart out there that compares rep ranges to their effects (power, strength, hypertrophy, etc.) but I don't recall the name of it. There is a simpler version at the following wikipedia link. Suffice it to say that approx. 8-20 is the hypertrophy rep range, whereas 1-5 is the strength rep range. This is why body builders use higher reps than strength athletes. The size of strength athletes is largely due to the ridiculous amounts of calories they consume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training |
| 2010-04-07 11:53 AM in reply to: #2773472 |
| Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 10:05 AM That's incorrect. There is a great chart out there that compares rep ranges to their effects (power, strength, hypertrophy, etc.) but I don't recall the name of it. There is a simpler version at the following wikipedia link. Suffice it to say that approx. 8-20 is the hypertrophy rep range, whereas 1-5 is the strength rep range. This is why body builders use higher reps than strength athletes. The size of strength athletes is largely due to the ridiculous amounts of calories they consume. I think you are talking about the NCSA charts? I have them in my textbook here at home, but there are quite a few reproductions of that online. Check page 2 of this .pdf document. http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Specificity%20for%20Sport.pdf and another link to program design, showing 8-20 as the hypertrophy range: http://myweb.wwu.edu/~chalmers/PDFs/A%20sample%20program%20for%20periodizing%20the%20general%20athlete.pdf At any rate, they both pretty much agree with what you wrote  Edited by DMW 2010-04-07 11:56 AM |
| 2010-04-07 1:25 PM in reply to: #2773472 |
Expert 1123 Falls Church, VA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 10:05 AM otongki - 2010-04-07 3:25 AM ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 4:22 AM krisko - 2010-04-06 9:31 PM Good info in this thread. So I assume that a byproduct of gaining strength is to gain size? Like others in here, I want to be stronger but not add a TON of size and weight. It looks like they go together unfortunately. So if I don't want to add a bunch of size, I should just stick to lighter weight and 10+ reps? Size is not necessarily a byproduct of gaining strength. Size is a byproduct of increased calorie consumption, but you can gain strength w/o getting heavier. And 10+ reps at a lighter weight is what is considered the hypertrophy (mass building) range. So you're better off doing higher weight/lower reps if you don't want to increase size. Unless of course you mean high reps at a weight that isn't challenging, which is kind of a waste of time. You probably confused with the theory a bit. For a muscle building (bulking) training, it is adviced to increase the weight and lower the volume, hence for maintenance and weight loss is vice versa. Example of this is power and olympic lifters whom doing only 1-6 reps per set with very heavy loads. Heavier lift creates more micro-trauma to the muscle fiber, which allow them to replace the damage muscle with a new and stronger muscle during recovery. That's incorrect. There is a great chart out there that compares rep ranges to their effects (power, strength, hypertrophy, etc.) but I don't recall the name of it. There is a simpler version at the following wikipedia link. Suffice it to say that approx. 8-20 is the hypertrophy rep range, whereas 1-5 is the strength rep range. This is why body builders use higher reps than strength athletes. The size of strength athletes is largely due to the ridiculous amounts of calories they consume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training There's actually two kinds of muscular hypertrophy, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. Myofibrillar is when the muscle fibers actually grow and is associated with strength training in the 5-8 rep range. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is due to an increase in liquid/glycogen storage capacity and is best reached in the 8-12 rep range. This is covered in Starting Strength and is why 5 reps were chosen for the program None of this will happen without enough calories, although working in the lower rep range will improve neuromuscular development to increase strength without gaining size. |
| 2010-04-07 2:39 PM in reply to: #2774133 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps DMW - 2010-04-07 12:53 PM ScoopJackson - 2010-04-07 10:05 AM That's incorrect. There is a great chart out there that compares rep ranges to their effects (power, strength, hypertrophy, etc.) but I don't recall the name of it. There is a simpler version at the following wikipedia link. Suffice it to say that approx. 8-20 is the hypertrophy rep range, whereas 1-5 is the strength rep range. This is why body builders use higher reps than strength athletes. The size of strength athletes is largely due to the ridiculous amounts of calories they consume. I think you are talking about the NCSA charts? I have them in my textbook here at home, but there are quite a few reproductions of that online. Check page 2 of this .pdf document. http://www.nsca-lift.org/HotTopic/download/Specificity%20for%20Sport.pdf and another link to program design, showing 8-20 as the hypertrophy range: http://myweb.wwu.edu/~chalmers/PDFs/A%20sample%20program%20for%20periodizing%20the%20general%20athlete.pdf At any rate, they both pretty much agree with what you wrote Same idea, but the one I am thinking of is more detailed. If I find it I'll post it. Thanks for those links - the second one in particular looks like a good one. |
| 2010-04-07 2:49 PM in reply to: #2774471 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps Bioteknik - 2010-04-07 2:25 PM There's actually two kinds of muscular hypertrophy, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. Myofibrillar is when the muscle fibers actually grow and is associated with strength training in the 5-8 rep range. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is due to an increase in liquid/glycogen storage capacity and is best reached in the 8-12 rep range. This is covered in Starting Strength and is why 5 reps were chosen for the program None of this will happen without enough calories, although working in the lower rep range will improve neuromuscular development to increase strength without gaining size. Hypertrophy in the body building sense is sarcoplasmic (8-12 rep range). The question was if it were possible to gain strength w/o additional size. Hence my suggestion to stay in the lower rep ranges. And myofibrillar hypertrophy, which corresponds to strength, is actually best achieved in the 1-3 or 1-5 rep range, not 5-8. |
| 2010-04-13 7:40 PM in reply to: #2638371 |
| 13 | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps If you want to get stronger, you want to do 5 sets, 5 reps each. Start with low weights and work up. Also, not sure if the exercises were discussed, but you want to focus on complex functional movements such as squats, deadlifts and shoulder press. Curls, tri's etc are a waste of time, as are any "isolation" movement. Read this http://www.aasgaardco.com/store/store.php?crn=199&rn=312&ac... (Work family safe link) |
| 2010-04-14 8:45 AM in reply to: #2789731 |
| New user 420 Charlotte, NC USA | Subject: RE: Low weights/High Reps VS High weights/Low Reps gobirdgo - 2010-04-13 8:40 PM If you want to get stronger, you want to do 5 sets, 5 reps each. Start with low weights and work up. Also, not sure if the exercises were discussed, but you want to focus on complex functional movements such as squats, deadlifts and shoulder press. Curls, tri's etc are a waste of time, as are any "isolation" movement. Read this http://www.aasgaardco.com/store/store.php?crn=199&rn=312&ac... (Work family safe link) There are a lot of good programs out there aside from a 5x5 type routine. Starting Strength recommends 3x5 (3 sets of 5 reps each), then Wendler has a 5/3/1 routine that a lot of folks rave about. The key is sufficient volume and intensity. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK