More reps or more weight?

[total_gym1000]

Each training session i always make sure to at least pump out a few more reps than i did last time or up the weight a little bit to ensure i am still progressing.

Does it make a difference if you do one or the other? Say I did 10 reps of 100kg bench, would that be on par as far as building mass is concerned to say 12 reps of 85kg, still roughly shifting the same total weight or would higher reps of a lighter weight mean more endurance, less mass? :shifty:

[Shutupandsquat]

Research a little. You'll see that most bodybuilders have a 6-10 rep range. 2 less reps, 15 kg heavier. Clearly the one of 10 reps would be better. But if you can get out 10 reps, you aren't going heavy enough

However, you you can still do light weight and high reps to shock the muscle

[Nicolas]

Each training session i always make sure to at least pump out a few more reps than i did last time or up the weight a little bit to ensure i am still progressing.

Does it make a difference if you do one or the other? Say I did 10 reps of 100kg bench, would that be on par as far as building mass is concerned to say 12 reps of 85kg, still roughly shifting the same total weight or would higher reps of a lighter weight mean more endurance, less mass? :shifty:

At the end of the day, doing either will be beneficial. Ultimately, you just want to ensure you're adding variety to a program - either in the form of additional repetitions or extra resistance - to ensure adaptation continues. It doesn't hurt to switch between either option, however, the most popular (and likely more effective method long-term) is to increase the resistance / weight you're lifting once you reach the top-end of your repetition range.

Granted, you should also modify your program so that it's not entirely hypertrophy based every single session. Even if the emphasis is hypertrophy, you may find greater gains from adding a heavy-strength session, or moderate strength-endurance session in once in a while.

[I Declare War]

Each training session i always make sure to at least pump out a few more reps than i did last time or up the weight a little bit to ensure i am still progressing.

Does it make a difference if you do one or the other? Say I did 10 reps of 100kg bench, would that be on par as far as building mass is concerned to say 12 reps of 85kg, still roughly shifting the same total weight or would higher reps of a lighter weight mean more endurance, less mass? :shifty:

At the end of the day, doing either will be beneficial. Ultimately, you just want to ensure you're adding variety to a program - either in the form of additional repetitions or extra resistance - to ensure adaptation continues. It doesn't hurt to switch between either option, however, the most popular (and likely more effective method long-term) is to increase the resistance / weight you're lifting once you reach the top-end of your repetition range.

Granted, you should also modify your program so that it's not entirely hypertrophy based every single session. Even if the emphasis is hypertrophy, you may find greater gains from adding a heavy-strength session, or moderate strength-endurance session in once in a while.

+1 Good post there buddy!

[h-towngear]

Research a little. You'll see that most bodybuilders have a 6-10 rep range. 2 less reps, 15 kg heavier. Clearly the one of 10 reps would be better. But if you can get out 10 reps, you aren't going heavy enough

However, you you can still do light weight and high reps to shock the muscle

dont underestimate high reps for building muscle though, there is an article of moe moussawi doing 1,000 reps in a single train.

Also in a few of ronnies dvds he states that he doesn't go below 10 reps.

just food for thought

[Shutupandsquat]

Research a little. You'll see that most bodybuilders have a 6-10 rep range. 2 less reps, 15 kg heavier. Clearly the one of 10 reps would be better. But if you can get out 10 reps, you aren't going heavy enough

However, you you can still do light weight and high reps to shock the muscle

dont underestimate high reps for building muscle though, there is an article of moe moussawi doing 1,000 reps in a single train.

Also in a few of ronnies dvds he states that he doesn't go below 10 reps.

just food for thought

Never underestimated it. Read my journal. I do plenty of 20+ rep sets.

[Optimass]

Surprised this isn't more heavily contested .... ok I'll fire it up a bit :grin:

Why do you do 10 reps and not 8? or may be 9 reps .... or perhaps 8 reps instead of 12 reps? may be 15 in stead of 7 reps ....

The truth is it does matter about rep range if you are training for hypertrophy - if you do a set and its to failure your muscle will respond accordingly. Will try and explain as simple as I can ...

Rep range is a factor of strength - so if you are training for power, lower rep and more powerful movements are best.

If you are conditioning a muscle for stamina under load, high reps are best.

But this is more a function of powerlifting/strength sports.

For hypertrophy in bodybuilding, the total combined reps in a workout is more appropriate for results.

Within this there are factors that if followed will OPTImise your results; e.g complete your resistance training in 45 minutes to utilise your available test and not fully deplete it: Genetic make up ecto/meso/Endomorph: Choosing exercise that hit the muscle from different angles: managing how many times your muscle hit maxx failure in the workout: Adjusting rep frequenc and rest periods to manipulate intensity: Form and technique i.e 3-5 second eccentric phase/ then pause/ then press ... etc etc etc ....

Powerlifters would use a different set of factors to OPTImise their result.

Weight on the bar matters yes because the heavier you lift the quicker your body will move to cope with the load - this will result in both hypertrophy and strength gains. Which one is better for growth? 20 reps @ 350kg on leg press or 8 reps @ 500kg ... how long is a piece of string.

But reps will only condition the type of strength/power your muscle will operate under.

From personal experience I "enjoy" lower rep heavier training because it makes me strong at the same time. Thats why I do it. My workouts are the same duration as most of my mates doing 12 - 15 reps. My development is very similar.

There is an optimum range for total reps in a workout - Pman covers it here ...

http://www.myosynthesis.com/intensity-training-failure-muscle-gain

Makes a lot of logical sense - good reading.

[testtubebaby]

^ good post and link :clap:

[Nicolas]

Surprised this isn't more heavily contested .... ok I'll fire it up a bit :grin:

This is how I feel with many issues (noted by one of my rants regarding rest periods between sets in another thread).

Unfortunately, those who attempt to challenge what's considered "the norm" are often harassed or abused in an industry striving for definitive answers and which is reliant on a relatively egocentric attitude.

Too often a scientific finding is taking out of context, or praised as a magical silver bullet that will yield identical results for all. The best principle of exercise programming is that of individuality. Kind of speaks for itself.

[crazyfacials]

Pman's articles are always good, I just wish he'd have cliffs for retards like me who have a short attention span when it comes to reading

[Nicolas]

At the risk of being unpopular ... I've found the more recent articles of Poliquin's are starting to become more and more outlandish, borderline insane.

You just need to look at some of his nutrition based discussions. His thoughts on Gluten are a classic example. He mostly uses complicated language and sentencing in an attempt to be 'smart by default' - Particularly because most people just can't be bothered contesting him.

He does have some great articles around, so I'm not claiming his name isn't in some way reputable. Nor am I saying he isn't good at what he does. Just that his reputation isn't a god-given link of causation to correctness. His information is too often treated as gospel, even though some of his conclusions aren't really able to be drawn from the few research articles he references.