High Rep Training

[Android]

Problem is, if 3 rep sets are the same as 10 rep sets then why would 20 rep sets be any different to 10 rep sets...add in Occam's Razor and take that to the extreme, extrapolate out the results and...ugh sore brain.

Thankfully the body can grow with almost anything thrown at it especially if it's not even that big to begin with. Guys who haven't reached their maximum muscle mass can grow on weet-bix and loaves of bread.

What you can't do is try both regimes at the same time and compare the difference in growth.

Thankfully what we do know is that over the years of refining training regimes by people far more dedicated than us...heavy low-medium rep stuff with rest between sets has been the domain of succecssful powerlifters and medium reps to failure and shorter rests the domain of successful bodybuilders.

[HarryB]

I agree with everything everyone says... cos I have no valid argument ha ha ha ha ha

[thatwaslight]

i think the general theme of this thread is:

[southernsamurai]

Lol... 5x20 reps on squats is way more demanding and harder than doing a single or a triple....

Both have their place, look at Tom Platz whose leg workouts consisted of 3/5-60+ reps.

I'd rather do sets of 10-20 reps on squats since they're more beneficial to growth than doing a single etc etc

[Dr Squat]

Lol... 5x20 reps on squats is way more demanding and harder than doing a single or a triple....

Both have their place, look at Tom Platz whose leg workouts consisted of 3/5-60+ reps.

I'd rather do sets of 10-20 reps on squats since they're more beneficial to growth than doing a single etc etc

You probably need to be careful when you are talking about "demanding" bro! A heavy triple (or even a heavy single) is very, very demanding. With respect I'm not talking about 150 kg. A triple on say 300 kg whether it be a squat or a deadlift is one of the hardest things you can do. It is a totally different feeling to doing multiple high reps squats for example. Before the haters start, I have done plenty of high rep squats in my time also. They are brutal. But a really heavy triple will also sort out the men from the boys. Of course it's difficult for most to experience because they never use enough weight. Again, just stating my view, not being disrespectful.

If you are talking about building muscle, have a look at powerlifters quads. Most don't have them. Maybe not the best example as power squats emphasise the hips, glutes and lower back more than the quads. My simplistic view tells me that if you are looking to build muscle then a variety of reps is best with a preference for 5-12. But I don't see the value in spending much time doing singles, doubles and triples. That said, I do believe there is merit in building a base doing some Olympic lifting or powerlifting in the early days.

[greemah]

as I said I reckon different fiber compositions of different muscle groups makes them more responsive to a particular rep scheme.

Agree with this, I hardly got quad growth till I started doing high rep squats, yet hams grew well on low reps

Do you know which muscles typically respond to high or low reps? Wouldn't mind adjusting my training accordingly

[greemah]

Just playing Ricarrdo, Harry.

But I do believe 3 sets of 10 and 10 sets of 3 produces different results...I have no proof other than we can tell a powerlifter or oly lifter from a bodybuilder. Generally speaking but of course you can pick out some odd-balls who look different but everyone I know expects a competant powerlifter to look like X, and a seasoned bodybuilder to look like Y.

Whether juiced or not they are different. Meal timings are different as I am sure bodybuilders eat more often but meal timings don't affect composition...

Not saying you are wrong here, but wouldn't the bodyfat levels be the main difference here since BBers usually keep a lower level and powerlifters don't really care and stay higher in bodyfat? I remembers seeing some top powerlifter a while back had leaned down and looked a lot like an average pro bodybuilder

[AgentOrange]

j

[southernsamurai]

Lol... 5x20 reps on squats is way more demanding and harder than doing a single or a triple....

Both have their place, look at Tom Platz whose leg workouts consisted of 3/5-60+ reps.

I'd rather do sets of 10-20 reps on squats since they're more beneficial to growth than doing a single etc etc

You probably need to be careful when you are talking about "demanding" bro! A heavy triple (or even a heavy single) is very, very demanding. With respect I'm not talking about 150 kg. A triple on say 300 kg whether it be a squat or a deadlift is one of the hardest things you can do. It is a totally different feeling to doing multiple high reps squats for example. Before the haters start, I have done plenty of high rep squats in my time also. They are brutal. But a really heavy triple will also sort out the men from the boys. Of course it's difficult for most to experience because they never use enough weight. Again, just stating my view, not being disrespectful.

If you are talking about building muscle, have a look at powerlifters quads. Most don't have them. Maybe not the best example as power squats emphasise the hips, glutes and lower back more than the quads. My simplistic view tells me that if you are looking to build muscle then a variety of reps is best with a preference for 5-12. But I don't see the value in spending much time doing singles, doubles and triples. That said, I do believe there is merit in building a base doing some Olympic lifting or powerlifting in the early days.

I was talking about demanding in terms of muscles... I have done a 200+ box squat and squatted 100x20. Although the box squat felt like my head was going to pop and having that weight on my traps felt heavy as f*ck, it was all over with one rep whereas 20 reps you just have to keep going and going. Not bagging singles or triples but if you're interested in quad growth higher reps be more beneficial.

A big squat doesnt always equal big legs, nomsayn.

There's the whole Fred Hatfield vs Platz experiment

[AZIDE]

.

[Riccardo]

Agreed, which is why I typically do higher rep front squats for quad development, I go heavy on back squats as I see better development with lower reps (no more than 6 or 8 ) because my leverages (long femurs) mean its more of a hip/posterior chain dominant exercise. My rationale is that various fiber types should be trained in different ways. fiber composition is highly individual so it depends on what you find each muscle group responds best to but for me hammstrings/posterior chain respond better to low reps.

I found this when searching online:

"An indirect method that can be used in the weight room to determine the fiber composition of a muscle group is to initially establish the 1RM (the greatest weight you can lift just once). Then perform as many repetitions at 80% of your 1RM as you can. If you do fewer than seven repetitions, then the muscle group is likely composed of more than 50% FT fibers(Type II's).

If you can perform 12 or more repetitions, then the muscle group has more than 50% ST fibers(Type I's). If you can do between 7 and 12 repetitions, then the muscle group probably has an equal proportion of fibers."

[Dr Squat]

I was talking about demanding in terms of muscles...

I never suggested that low reps were the answer to building muscle.

I'm also talking demanding in terms of muscle. You put enough weight on your back and do a max triple and it's a whole new world. You might not get the lactic acid or the same feeling of burning lungs but there is pain and sometimes fear. And no I'm sorry to say it's not relative.

[southernsamurai]

maybe we could get a bodybuilder to chime in like HarryB or SG:

Both have squatted 300k and 180x20

[trainlikeafreak]

Dr Squat..

so you don't think its all relative? eg someone who can squat say 140 for a triple, someone who can squat 200 for a triple, and someone who can squat 300 for a triple..what your saying is its harder for the guy doing the 300 even though he is stronger? what is hes heavier and has shorter limbs?...and what if 300 for a triple isnt to failure but the guys doing 140 and 200 are at failure?..

serious question keen to hear your opinion.

and for me yes a heavy triple is much more demanding on your head as it leaves ur head spinning and feels as though your eyes are going to explode out of your head but nothing efs your whole body up like 50 reps of back squats lol

[tomsammce]

they are both different physically and mentally so its not really fair to compare them..

some people will find the higher reps harder whereas some will find the triple harder... for everyone who knows who to train and has had years under the bar the amount of weight is irrelevant really for a 20 rep set and a 3 rep set, a 3rm is a 3rm and a 20rm is a 20rm...

you just have to look at the OL on tv at the moment and compare the woman doing the least weight to the man doing the most weight.... both will be feeling the same physically and mentally

[HarryB]

Agreed, which is why I typically do higher rep front squats for quad development, I go heavy on back squats as I see better development with lower reps (no more than 6 or 8 ) because my leverages (long femurs) mean its more of a hip/posterior chain dominant exercise. My rationale is that various fiber types should be trained in different ways. fiber composition is highly individual so it depends on what you find each muscle group responds best to but for me hammstrings/posterior chain respond better to low reps.

I found this when searching online:

"An indirect method that can be used in the weight room to determine the fiber composition of a muscle group is to initially establish the 1RM (the greatest weight you can lift just once). Then perform as many repetitions at 80% of your 1RM as you can. If you do fewer than seven repetitions, then the muscle group is likely composed of more than 50% FT fibers(Type II's).

If you can perform 12 or more repetitions, then the muscle group has more than 50% ST fibers(Type I's). If you can do between 7 and 12 repetitions, then the muscle group probably has an equal proportion of fibers."

Isn't 10 sets of 3 equal to 3 sets of 10 this week?

There was some bullshit you said in that thread about time under tension not being relevant blah blah blah... I couldn't read it the whole way through, my reading comprehension is super limited.

Back on topic, in my experience I actually much prefer to do triples, right to max weight than high rep sets. Having tripled 300 on a number of occassions and also having done sets of 20 with 180, give me the 300 everytime. It's a different kind of mental challenge but I personally find it easier to be up for that than I do for a high rep set with a decent weight.

My 2 cents...

[Riccardo]

Maybe you should stop getting irate and actually read what I say. Maybe that's why you continue to put words into my mouth. What I said is, and I quote:

Time under tension is not in of itself the important factor you are training a particular energy system so you can still tap into different systems using lower rep ranges

the rationale for using a particular time under tension (in this case 30-60sec) is that you are taxing your anaerobic glycolytic energy system (for hypertrophy). You can still do this with low reps by altering rest times, tempo etc. Plus you have the advantage of inflicting more myotrauma and potentially more growth.

In THIS CONTEXT 3x10 and 10x3 are the same everything else being equal.

out of interest does anyone actually time their sets? I think you will find most people performing conventional 8-12 rep sets will have a TUT of less than 30sec.

[HarryB]

Maybe you should stop getting irate and actually read what I say. Maybe that's why you continue to put words into my mouth. What I said is, and i Quote:

Time under tension is not in of itself the important factor you are training a particular energy system so you can still tap into different systems using lower rep ranges

the rationale for using a particular time under tension is that you are taxing your anaerobic glycolytic energy system. You can still do this with low reps by altering rest times, tempo etc. Plus you have the advantage of inflicting more myotrauma and potentially more growth.

In THIS CONTEXT 3x10 and 10x3 are the same everything else being equal.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

[Riccardo]

Maybe you should stop getting irate and actually read what I say. Maybe that's why you continue to put words into my mouth. What I said is, and i Quote:

Time under tension is not in of itself the important factor you are training a particular energy system so you can still tap into different systems using lower rep ranges

the rationale for using a particular time under tension is that you are taxing your anaerobic glycolytic energy system. You can still do this with low reps by altering rest times, tempo etc. Plus you have the advantage of inflicting more myotrauma and potentially more growth.

In THIS CONTEXT 3x10 and 10x3 are the same everything else being equal.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

Its not changable at all its exactly the same from the start. I even said at the start I use different rep ranges for various fiber types.

And ummm yes you can. take a conventional set of 12 reps all it is is essentially 12 sets of a percentage of your 1RM with a very short rest between each set.

[HarryB]

Maybe you should stop getting irate and actually read what I say. Maybe that's why you continue to put words into my mouth. What I said is, and i Quote:

the rationale for using a particular time under tension is that you are taxing your anaerobic glycolytic energy system. You can still do this with low reps by altering rest times, tempo etc. Plus you have the advantage of inflicting more myotrauma and potentially more growth.

In THIS CONTEXT 3x10 and 10x3 are the same everything else being equal.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

Its not changable at all its exactly the same from the start. I even said at the start I use different rep ranges for various fiber types.

And ummm yes you can. take a conventional set of 12 reps all it is is essentially 12 sets of a percentage of your 1RM with a very short rest between each set.

yeah.... errrrmmmm ok man.

[student]

out of interest does anyone actually time their sets? I think you will find most people performing conventional 8-12 rep sets will have a TUT of less than 30sec.

yeah i time my sets from time to time. yeah, i think your right, most people would do 8-12 reps in under 30 secs. i usually aim for about 40-60 sec TUT per set. for ME this is usually 6-10 reps on pressing movements, 12-15 reps on lateral raises, 20 reps on shrugs. for squats i find it takes me about 60 secs to complete 10 reps.

[Pseudonym]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

Come on, Harry. Your debating is verging on the personal side now.

So Riccardo, when you say:

You can still do this with low reps by altering rest times, tempo etc. Plus you have the advantage of inflicting more myotrauma and potentially more growth.

Are you advocating a routine of 10 sets of 3 reps, with a short rest time of say 20 secs between sets?

[trainlikeafreak]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

Come on, Harry. Your debating is verging on the personal side now.

is it not justified? LOL

[Riccardo]

Yip Pseud thats exactly what I am saying. Obviously you wouldn't do this day in and day out and would tend to do this type of training on muscle groups that respond better to low rep training i.e. those with a higher amount of type II fibers. But would still work them into a training cycle for most large muscle groups.

I would start a training cycle with higher rep stuff in the conventional range for hypertrophy up to about 15 reps. As you progress you work in more of the low rep stuff but the key is to keep the overall workout volume still high.

[Android]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks dr dan. You can still tap into diff systems using lower rep ranges.... errmmmm nah... you can't. And why doesn't it apply in any context? Oh that's right, cos it doesn't apply at all.

Not irate Riccardo, just find it interesting how changeable your mindset is and how you rationalise it.

Its not changable at all its exactly the same from the start. I even said at the start I use different rep ranges for various fiber types.

And ummm yes you can. take a conventional set of 12 reps all it is is essentially 12 sets of a percentage of your 1RM with a very short rest between each set.

yeah.... errrrmmmm ok man.

come on Harry you're doing it all wrong...i mean just look at yourself in the mirror ... oh gawd :naughty:

srs, this is just nonsense.

The only way a set of 12 reps will ever have the same effect as 1 rep done 12 times is if you use the same weight, and between each of the reps you rest as long as the guy doing 1 rep 12 times....therefore, they're doing the freak'n same thing...1 rep, 12 times.

Hilarious claims.

Let's take your claim seriously though Ricarrdo.

Let's say 50 reps done same as 1RM rep down 50 times. Do you think that equates to the same result? Really? I think you have to say yes even though the light-as weight will clearly not have the same effect as the 1RM weight on the muscle.

But you might know more than we do, so let's explore...

Let's say you're a natty Ricarrdo, you would grow so slow how would you even know some type of training produces a certain result taking all other factors out of the equation.

You simply can't.

It's just that an enhanced guy adding a kg or two of mass every week does have an idea of what produces a result given he/she only does a body part once a week nothing grows for no reason or no stimulation.

If you're adding a kg in a week you know what did it and you know where it affected the growth.

Oh...sorry Ricarrdo I jumped to a conclusion that you were a natty. Don't have to answer that was just pointing out what an enhanced guy experiences vs a natty in terms of feedback or results for a given effort.