Better for Hypertrophy? Low Reps vs. High Reps.

[NoAddedHmones]

Ive previously agreed that overall volume-frequency (weekly) are crucial variables here, so to some extent I agree with you.

But if we keep variables minimised, the reason I think 10 rep sets are superior to say 3 or 5 is that they tend to strike the perfect balance between tension/load and fatigue; lower and higher rep sets tend to overemphasise one at the expense of the other.

This, of course, assumes that hypertrophy is best stimulated through appropriately balancing tension-fatigue.

In short, I dont think that low rep training is as effective at generating adequate levels of acute fatigue even given higher volume. I mean, youd likely have to go to extremes.

Agree with what you are saying. As you noted however, power sessions generate much less muscular fatigue but at the same time you are moving additional volume and perhaps can fit more workouts in a fixed period of time and total if we are saying that total volume is the significant factor in hypertrophy, then it can be viewed as superior.

Do you have any thoughts or experience on whether increasing say a 3 rep max on a lift transitions into additional reps/or weight being moved when undertaking hypertrophy work?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Agree with what you are saying. As you noted however, power sessions generate much less muscular fatigue but at the same time you are moving additional volume and perhaps can fit more workouts in a fixed period of time and total if we are saying that total volume is the significant factor in hypertrophy, then it can be viewed as superior.

I think getting more volume strictly on hypertrophy days by way of techniques such as rest-pause is still going to be superior, even if one is generating greater weekly volume by throwing in power sessions, simply because you are working in an optimal tension-fatigue ratio.

Again, I think youd have to be going to some pretty lengthy extremes to see power sessions benefiting where hypertrophy work wont.

Do you have any thoughts or experience on whether increasing say a 3 rep max on a lift transitions into additional reps/or weight being moved when undertaking hypertrophy work?

Sure, from my own experience and what Ive read the carryover effect is a real phenomenon. But the question (in this context) is to just what extent? I dont think its definitively predictable, at least not in any '1rm calculator' kind of way.

If we are correct that a 10rm is the ideal balance between tension-fatigue, then a 3rm is going to emphasise the tension factor but not the fatigue (as you noted, too). But, performing a 10rm will require a certain degree of fatigue resistance (ie endurance). The question is just how effective training with a 3rm is going to be at increasing ones endurance, the kind of endurance brought into play when attempting a 10rm. Well, obviously training with ones 3rm is not going to do a hell of alot for ones endurance at 10 rep max attempts; if anything, training with a 3rm will improve ones fatigue resistance (endurance), as small as it may be, at just that, 3 reps.

Same applies for higher rep sets. A 20 rep set will emphasise fatigue adaptation at the expense of tension. So, even though you will get some carryover (eventually) to your 1rm, it wont be as significant as training closer to your 1rm would be.

Thus, IF a 10rm is the perfect balance between tension-fatigue, and IF a perfect balance between tension-fatigue is what most optimally stimulates hypertrophy, it makes sense to train specifically to increase your 10rm.

 

[NoAddedHmones]

I think getting more volume strictly on hypertrophy days by way of techniques such as rest-pause is still going to be superior, even if one is generating greater weekly volume by throwing in power sessions, simply because you are working in an optimal tension-fatigue ratio.

Again, I think youd have to be going to some pretty lengthy extremes to see power sessions benefiting where hypertrophy work wont.



Sure, from my own experience and what Ive read the carryover effect is a real phenomenon. But the question (in this context) is to just what extent? I dont think its definitively predictable, at least not in any '1rm calculator' kind of way.

If we are correct that a 10rm is the ideal balance between tension-fatigue, then a 3rm is going to emphasise the tension factor but not the fatigue (as you noted, too). But, performing a 10rm will require a certain degree of fatigue resistance (ie endurance). The question is just how effective training with a 3rm is going to be at increasing ones endurance, the kind of endurance brought into play when attempting a 10rm. Well, obviously training with ones 3rm is not going to do a hell of alot for ones endurance at 10 rep max attempts; if anything, training with a 3rm will improve ones fatigue resistance (endurance), as small as it may be, at just that, 3 reps.

Same applies for higher rep sets. A 20 rep set will emphasise fatigue adaptation at the expense of tension. So, even though you will get some carryover (eventually) to your 1rm, it wont be as significant as training closer to your 1rm would be.

Thus, IF a 10rm is the perfect balance between tension-fatigue, and IF a perfect balance between tension-fatigue is what most optimally stimulates hypertrophy, it makes sense to train specifically to increase your 10rm.

Very good points and discussion. This thread is back on track

 

[kboxer7]

I've experimented a lot over the years, and for me personally, high rep range (typically 10-12) and high volume gets the job done the best.

To mix it up and push past plateaus I throw in finishing sets to each workout consisting of one of the following for 1-2 weeks: pyramids, reverse pyramids, tempo changes, burn down sets., rest-pause, and low rep strength sets (3-5) maxed out.

Regards,

 

[Quads_of_Stee]

lower reps with heavier weight with the same volume as higher reps. They did a study on this recently

 

[Jiigzz]

I do think that any rep range from 1-20 should be employed during a workout routine. However, consider the following:

volume-equated bodybuilding-type training program vs. a powerlifting-type routine in well-trained subjects

And the next:

hypertrophy-type resistance training group that performed 3 sets of 10 repetition maximum (RM) with 90 seconds rest or a strength-type resistance training (ST) group that performed 7 sets of 3RM with a 3-minute rest interval.

And findings:

After 8 weeks, no significant differences were noted in muscle thickness of the biceps brachii. Significant strength differences were found in favor of ST for the 1RM bench press, and a trend was found for greater increases in the 1RM squat. In conclusion, this study showed that both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength.

So personally I like to have the best of both worlds. Upper lower strength days (Big lifts focus) and upper lower hypertrophy.
Strength days following a simple 2-5RM periodisation and hypertrophy following a 6-20 (way broader rep range that changes based on exercise).

This constant rep changing is also mentioned here:

The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) for strength gains. Twenty men (age = 21 +/- 2.3 years) were randomly assigned to LP (n = 10) or DUP (n = 10) groups. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press as a pre-, mid-, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (bench press and leg press), 3 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 8 RM during weeks 1-4, 6 RM during weeks 4-8, and 4 RM during weeks 9-12. The DUP group altered training on a daily basis (Monday, 8 RM; Wednesday, 6 RM; Friday, 4 RM). Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring the DUP group between T1 to T2 and T1 to T3. Making program alterations on a daily basis was more effective in eliciting strength gains than doing so every 4 weeks.

 

[elhosk]

lower reps with heavier weight with the same volume as higher reps. They did a study on this recently

interesting, have you got any links to it?

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Yeah, 8 weeks. Personally, I think the time frame is far too short to come to any significant conclusion.

Plus, from memory, the weekly frequency was suboptimal for hypertrophy training (but adequate for strength adaptations).

Edit: just rechecked, and yes the study used a bro-split, but it was far from optimal. I mean, chest once per week? Interestingly, the power group trained chest 3x per week, so their frequency was greater. Furthermore, there was no direct bicep work, and bicep grwoth was used as a distinctive marker...what hypertrophy program omits direct bicep work?

All in all the study favoured the power group and disadvantaged the hypertrophy group.

 

[KilaCali]

Everyone responds differently to certain rep ranges. So no one answer is correct or wrong IMO.

I'm all about the volume though

I agree, some people can put on mass with 1-5 rep ranges, others with 8-12.. , heres a little tidbit though that kind of explains some things for people who aren't real familiar with hypertrophy;

Strength training typically produces a combination of the two different types of hypertrophy: contraction against 80 to 90% of the one-repetition maximum for 2–6 repetitions (reps) causes myofibrillated hypertrophy to dominate (as in powerlifters, Olympic lifters and strength athletes), whereas several repetitions (generally 8–12 for bodybuilding or 12 or more for muscular endurance) against a submaximal load facilitates mainly sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (professional bodybuilders and endurance athletes).

I think im going to have to go with higher reps overall to a certain extent can work for everyone (TO a certain extent) of course you cant stick to the same routine forever, your body begins to stagnate, but I think for beginners and pro's alike the 8-12 range has always been useful in one way or another, and specially for those secondary muscle groups

(side/rear delts, rhomboids - good example) those are almost impossible to get to grow in the low rep range, atleast from experience, not only personally but with people I've trained and witnessed everyone had to start out in the 8-12-16 rep range to get those to grow.. so ill go with that.. BUT im not sticking to it lol

 

[KilaCali]

I also found a great article that really explains studies on lower and higher rep ranges and their effects and pretty much explains what a lot of us know already, one is really no better then the other and also brings up different aspects of these findings ie; training/protein synthesis/retention etc.. very interesting with colorful graphs too! hah

http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/are_low_reps_1-6_better_than_high_reps_8-12_for_muscle_growth/

I think this is more of a personal opinion/experience thread rather then a "tell me what I already know" maybe??

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah, 8 weeks. Personally, I think the time frame is far too short to come to any significant conclusion.

Plus, from memory, the weekly frequency was suboptimal for hypertrophy training (but adequate for strength adaptations).

You'd find even as the duration continued, so would the trend.

Even in frequency studies volume equation becomes the pre dominant factor.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

You'd find even as the duration continued, so would the trend.

Even in frequency studies volume equation becomes the pre dominant factor.

I edited my post:

Edit: just rechecked, and yes the study used a bro-split, but it was far from optimal. I mean, chest once per week? Interestingly, the power group trained chest 3x per week, so their frequency was greater. Furthermore, there was no direct bicep work, and bicep grwoth was used as a distinctive marker...what hypertrophy program omits direct bicep work?

All in all I think the study favoured the power group and disadvantaged the hypertrophy group. The weekly volume, given the frequency variable, was far too low to be fairly considered a 'hypertrophy' schedule. The higher frequency of the power group somewhat compensated for the volume. I mean, who of us would actually use the 'hypertrophy' routine in the study and find it in any way adequate to our goals? Of the two, the power routine is most like an actual strength routine guys like us might use.

 

[Jiigzz]

I edited my post:

Edit: just rechecked, and yes the study used a bro-split, but it was far from optimal. I mean, chest once per week? Interestingly, the power group trained chest 3x per week, so their frequency was greater. Furthermore, there was no direct bicep work, and bicep grwoth was used as a distinctive marker...what hypertrophy program omits direct bicep work?

All in all I think the study favoured the power group and disadvantaged the hypertrophy group. The weekly volume, given the frequency variable, was far too low to be fairly considered a 'hypertrophy' schedule. The higher frequency of the power group somewhat compensated for the volume. I mean, who of us would actually use the 'hypertrophy' routine in the study and find it in any way adequate to our goals? Of the two, the power routine is most like an actual strength routine guys like us might use.

I think you're looking at this all wrong. The way you see it is that you are quick to dismiss as it doesnt fit your ideal program type, yet it is more to see if their is a difference between the two if volume is equated. If it was a program you would use, then volume wouldnt be equated. You need to be mindful of that.

A typical BB split is to do each muscle group once per week?

Again It is volume equated, not frequency equated and the data on frequency doesnt favour more sessions either.

You would need to read the full text to see all measured sites.

Bret contreras has good articles on the subject: http://bretcontreras.com/training-for-maximum-muscle-growth-explained/

Obviosuly if you comapre a pro BBer to a pro PLer there will be notable differences in size and muscularity, but those guys do tend to use things that cater specifically for holding more muscle mass, whereas powerlifters gear more toward things that help them move more as well, so the effectiveness of any routine gets blurred a lil.

I always go for both and its treated me right

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I think you're looking at this all wrong. The way you see it is that you are quick to dismiss as it doesnt fit your ideal program type, yet it is more to see if their is a difference between the two if volume is equated. If it was a program you would use, then volume wouldnt be equated. You need to be mindful of that.

A typical BB split is to do each muscle group once per week?

Again It is volume equated, not frequency equated and the data on frequency doesnt favour more sessions either.

You would need to read the full text to see all measured sites.

The best that study can say is that given the specific volume equated for in the study, there is little difference between high-low rep ranges as far as hypertrophy is concerned.

I disagree that any general extrapolation can be made regarding low-vs-high rep range training, simply because the volume of the hypertrophy group in the study was so low. In other words, if the weekly volume was significantly increased but still equated, I think you would see the hypertrophy group begin to out-measure the power group. Why? Because the weekly volume would now be in a more suitable range given the tension-fatigue variables of the hypertrophy group, and general recovery rates. The hypertrophy group in the study was potentially undertraining, hardly conducive to generating any hypertrophy, let alone enough to out-do the power group.

 

[ma70]

I like high frequency over high volume for hypertrophy....but I guess that is sort of like saying high reps?

 

[spaizkadett]

Stop counting reps and use TUT instead. And add some tempo work as well.
5-20 secs = strength
20-40 strength/hypertrophy
40-60 hypertrophy
>60 endurance

Tempo for benchpress/rows T30X0
Tempo squat et al T40X0

But I recommend mixing up the tempo's from time to time.

 

[aaronuconn]

Stop counting reps and use TUT instead. And add some tempo work as well.
5-20 secs = strength
20-40 strength/hypertrophy
40-60 hypertrophy
>60 endurance

Tempo for benchpress/rows T30X0
Tempo squat et al T40X0

But I recommend mixing up the tempo's from time to time.

This is what I was going to say. I like higher reps as it increased TUT.

 

[Shasow]

It's different for everyone thus impossible to answer definitively. I can say confidently though that mixing training styles from time to time works for everyone.

 

[bdcc]

There are a couple of research papers which opened this topic up.

For example, the aforementioned powerlifting vs bodybuilding study compared 7 x 3 vs 3 x 10 with equal cross sectional area increase in the biceps brachii (apparently they wanted to use quad measurements but couldn't get accurate readings) however in this study, rep range was not the only thing which was changed, the programme differed in rest periods and frequency of training muscle groups.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538

Then we have a direct low load (high rep) vs high load (lower rep) study which compared 8-12 reps to 25-35 reps with similar muscular gains in both groups (strength increases favoured the 8-12 group).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25853914

However, the important thing to note in these studies;
- In the first study, the 7 x 3 group had workouts which lasted 70 minutes vs 17 minutes in the 3 x 10 group. So similar hypertrophy was achieved in both but the traditional bodybuilding rep range did it for far less time cost. This also means it is possible they could have added more work onto the end of the workout and perhaps achieved even greater gains.
- In the second study, although there weren't significant differences in muscular growth, 3 x 8-12 is a total of 24-36 reps per exercises vs 3 x 25-35 which totals 75-105 reps per exercise so again, in terms of time cost, 8-12 reps achieved the same level but quicker.

So, muscular growth can be achieved over a wide spectrum of rep ranges.

In terms of time efficiency, it appears to still make sense to use the 8-12 rep range as the foundation of a hypertrophy programme. Combining repetition ranges is a sensible strategy.

 

[Quads_of_Stee]

good point about time ben. The economy of training should make it so you do the most work in least amount of time possible. Also schedules and lives play a role too

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Even if we assume that weekly volume can be taken purely as a raw number (no matter how high or low), and that this number is the most significant variable (meaning, how that number is split up over the week ie frequency, rep range, sets, etc is of much lesser significance), I am skeptical that those who actually utilise 'low-high' rep ranges during the week are in fact equating the volume as per the study.

In other words, Id fathom a guess most guys who adopt some form of weekly undulating periodization for hypertrophy purposes tend to apportion more volume to the higher rep (8+) work.

Id make a further guess, then, that some of these same guys may be using studies to justify their largely psychological need for weekly training variety.

 

[asooneyeonig]

One must be better.

Don't chicken out! :lol:

One may be better. How many sets are we comparing to? How often during a weekly or monthly cycle?

Many people forget about volume and frequency when they ask what intensity is better for something. All 3 play a role and should be considered.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Everyone responds differently to certain rep ranges. So no one answer is correct or wrong IMO.

I'm all about the volume though

That is true to a degree. What can muddy the issue is that the same person can react differently to different rep ranges of the span of their lifting career. So IMO what is most important is how long have they been lifting and what have they mainly used in the past.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Higher volume is better for hypertrophy. Whether you do high weight low reps or low weight high reps, your overall volume will be the largest factor of your hypertrophy.

Can the volume come from the total reps per set, total sets per workout, total reps per all sets pee workout, total volume per training cycle whether it be a week or month, etc?

 

[kbayne]

That is true to a degree. What can muddy the issue is that the same person can react differently to different rep ranges of the span of their lifting career. So IMO what is most important is how long have they been lifting and what have they mainly used in the past.

This is where total volume and frequency take place. As well as different training intensities.

 

[Jiigzz]

Even if we assume that weekly volume can be taken purely as a raw number (no matter how high or low), and that this number is the most significant variable (meaning, how that number is split up over the week ie frequency, rep range, sets, etc is of much lesser significance), I am skeptical that those who actually utilise 'low-high' rep ranges during the week are in fact equating the volume as per the study.

In other words, Id fathom a guess most guys who adopt some form of weekly undulating periodization for hypertrophy purposes tend to apportion more volume to the higher rep (8+) work.

Id make a further guess, then, that some of these same guys may be using studies to justify their largely psychological need for weekly training variety.

Its not uncommon for a training session on my strength days to have 10 sets per exercise over 3 or 4 exercises. Usually in the form of doubles or triples and occasionally up to 4-5 reps. The volume per session is immense and can leave me absolutely taxed. Of course the time factor plays a role, but as I work in this environment and can workout on my lunch break, it doesn't add any extra hours to my day.

But then I also have hypertrophy specific days where the volume is around 3-5+ sets per exercise (depending on rest and other techniques) and 3 exercises per muscle group. As I train upper/lower twice, it is becomes pretty standard weekly volume for each muscle group however personally I have seen better growth adopting this routine than in all my time following a 8-12 rep range which only affords the use of a range over 5 reps.

So I don't think we can just say, no this range is better than that range for this goal, when people who PL also develop considerable muscularity as well. So personally I try and get the best of both worlds and if others like strength as well, then it won't hinder their size.

 

[NattyForLife]

High reps! Usually never ever go below 8 reps....very rarely will i go below 8 reps, and if i do i used to much weight! Im all about high reps and volume!

 

[EMPIREMIND]

Everyone responds differently to certain rep ranges. So no one answer is correct or wrong IMO.

I'm all about the volume though

I agree with this.

I have always grew the most doing high volume with heavy weights mixed in. Intensity and failure are what matters in my training. Once those are achieved, you give your body a reason to grow. Your rest nutrition and recovery in my opinion are the biggest determinents of growth imo.

 

[Abe Lincoln]

I just read some stuff on this topic and it would seem 8-12 sets of 10 reps would be ideal for 8 weeks and proceed to do 2 weeks of 4-6 sets of 10 reps. Repeat from beginning. Have yet to try this method but seems interesting

 

[Jiigzz]

I just read some stuff on this topic and it would seem 8-12 sets of 10 reps would be ideal for 8 weeks and proceed to do 2 weeks of 4-6 sets of 10 reps. Repeat from beginning. Have yet to try this method but seems interesting

Just 10 reps forever?

 

[KilaCali]

Stop counting reps and use TUT instead. And add some tempo work as well.
5-20 secs = strength
20-40 strength/hypertrophy
40-60 hypertrophy
>60 endurance

Tempo for benchpress/rows T30X0
Tempo squat et al T40X0

But I recommend mixing up the tempo's from time to time.

very good analogy!! TUT is a very huge factor I think.

 

[KilaCali]

I just read some stuff on this topic and it would seem 8-12 sets of 10 reps would be ideal for 8 weeks and proceed to do 2 weeks of 4-6 sets of 10 reps. Repeat from beginning. Have yet to try this method but seems interesting

yea that's kind of like the 10x10 routine, I like those too, they do work pretty good for a 6 to 8 week routine I think, after that your body kind of gets used to it after that even with weight changes.. but their all great routines I think, its good to try just about everything and for each individual to find their own perfect routine like mine is 5 muscle groups 1 per day 5 days per week has worked great for me for almost 3-4 years now with a little change up here and there, and usually I just either add in super/tri/quad sets, rest pause sets, negatives.. just depending on the day and it seems that alone throws enough mix in it for my body to keep working hard and growing... great discussion this is. lol

 

[Abe Lincoln]

Just 10 reps forever?

Kind of. Slingshot training is what I was thinking about.

 

[Sean1332]

This kind of throws Pripin's Chart into the mix with direction as to optimal reps for whatever percentage load you're working with.

https://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=4677737

 

[conkertheking]

I'm getting good gains using the formula of an 8-12 target range, wherein you select a weight you can only barely do 3 sets of 8 reps, and then keep lifting it until you're in the range of 10-12 on each set (say, 12, 12, 10 or 12, 11, 11), then again increase to a new weight of which you can just about do 3*8.
I generally avoid going lower than 8, I find that just causes plateaus. The odd exception is ok (for example, 8*7*8 and I'll give it another try next time I train that muscle. 7*7*7 and I'll generally drop back down to something a bit lighter. 9*9*9 I keep going where I am. Etc.

That's just me though, I highly doubt any one formula is going to work for every bodybuilder. There are just too many variables involved, from your training history, what you've adapted to, your diet, your hormone levels, your general health, and just plain differences between people. Another guy could try my formula and get nowhere, but equally what really works for him could absolutely destroy my progress. I've seen this happen with many friends who've teamed up to gym and thus adopted a more or less identical workout - usually, one of them will falter significantly if they had previously been doing well with a radically different setup.

All anecdotal of course, but then much of bodybuilding is.

 

[roy_jones]

I'm surprised reading this thread because I would have guessed there would be a much larger representation of low-rep people. I felt like I was unusual with my higher rep routine. I know I typically feel that way at the gym.

My perception is that people do lower reps in the gym partly out of a desire to be able to be seen racking a lot of weight.

 

[Admin]

I'm surprised reading this thread because I would have guessed there would be a much larger representation of low-rep people.

Same here.

 

[Sean1332]

I'm surprised reading this thread because I would have guessed there would be a much larger representation of low-rep people.

Well, I rarely, if ever, train over 5 reps for my competition lifts, but there will still be some volume behind it. I'd like to think that I have a decent size. My supplemental lifts will range 2-6 reps for 2-4 sets, and my assistance work will range anywhere from 3x8 to 4-5x10-15. I can't find the Chris Duffin article where he referenced the study, but he was saying that (example) 7 sets of 3 may produce the same results as 3 sets of 7 would.

 

[Matthew1237]

High reps for hypertrophy scientifically and experience wise I would say is better.

But low reps have their place. The strength gains attained from low rep training translate over to greater poundage able to be used in high reps.

I like to think of Strength as the Fish tank and my muscles as the fish. The fish will only get as big as the tank allows.

#****tyanalogies

 

[asooneyeonig]

here is a thought.

5 sets of 10, or 10 sets of 5. which is better for hypertrophy?

10 reps is likely done at 70% of a 1RM. say your max is 300 that would make the weight 210. at 50 reps that is 10,500 lbs lifted.

5 reps can be done at 80%. so 240, is the weight. at 50 reps that means you lifted 12,000lbs.

sure, some would say you can't do that many sets at 80%. ok, maybe. i can see that but who said this was over 1 workout. most bodybuilders would say you hit a muscle once a week. knowing that, one can do 5x5 twice a week. they have more first reps which means more effort can be applied and better form can be had. you also list more weight over the same time span. there is less total work done per workout so recovery happens faster.

we know hypertrophy happens with increased musculature tension, or increased weight under increased TUT. the lower reps with more weight done more often fits that bill better.

now, are we going to split hairs more and go over nervous system adaptation and fatigue? how about work capacity and recovery ability of a lifter? asking which is better is like asking who is hotter, the blonde or the brunette but giving any other details. hell we don't even know if they are a woman or a man or even human we are asking about.

 

[booneman77]

I'm surprised reading this thread because I would have guessed there would be a much larger representation of low-rep people. I felt like I was unusual with my higher rep routine. I know I typically feel that way at the gym.

My perception is that people do lower reps in the gym partly out of a desire to be able to be seen racking a lot of weight.

That last sentance is very true... but how many of these guys are actually "big"?

In essence, is what they're doing optimal for hypertrophy. If I went by that conclusion, I'd tend ot lean towards higher reps since I usually see the bigger guys repping out with reasonable weights, vs slamming 3 reps of barbell curls.

 

[Jiigzz]

That last sentance is very true... but how many of these guys are actually "big"?

In essence, is what they're doing optimal for hypertrophy. If I went by that conclusion, I'd tend ot lean towards higher reps since I usually see the bigger guys repping out with reasonable weights, vs slamming 3 reps of barbell curls.

I see more small lifters doing 8-15 than small doing <5. In fact (and after working in a commercial gym), those that do that rep range are also the ones that never seem to grow.

Edit: This is mostly because this is where the other factors come into play (volume, density, periodization etc.) as many people can train within the ranges, but do not have a plan to progress so they get nowhere.

If you came in to the gym and said you want to be a BBer and were PLing, I might ask if your energy was better spent doing other things specifically for that. But if you can still get dem muscles from lifting heavy and lighter and you enjoy both and still want to be big, you can rest in the knowledge that both will help to some degree

But LOL if you do 3 reps for BB curls

 

[EMPIREMIND]

That last sentance is very true... but how many of these guys are actually "big"?

In essence, is what they're doing optimal for hypertrophy. If I went by that conclusion, I'd tend ot lean towards higher reps since I usually see the bigger guys repping out with reasonable weights, vs slamming 3 reps of barbell curls.

^^^ most advanced bodybuilders that ive met or seen train will say its not how much you do, but how you do it. The last time i asked my mentor how many reps he laughed and said when your f#&$kn your girl you hit it till you cant anymore right? So when you lift do the same. Its a based off feeling and intensity. If you do two sets of 10, then on your third set your pump is crazy and you feel you can do five more, why would you stop?

 

[booneman77]

I see more small lifters doing 8-15 than small doing <5. In fact (and after working in a commercial gym), those that do that rep range are also the ones that never seem to grow.

But LOL if you do 3 reps for BB curls.

3 reps on curls, in the squat rack. All gainz bro.

 

[Jiigzz]

3 reps on curls, in the squat rack. All gainz bro.

I had a picture in my mind of this guy I saw at my gym doing heavy curls. I just don't get how such a simple exercise can be done so wrong so often.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

I see more small lifters doing 8-15 than small doing <5.

Maybe because, generally, a larger proportion of trainees will be doing 8-15?

I mean, the other day at the gym 100% of the trainees I saw doing <5 were fat (no, not me).

 

[Jiigzz]

Maybe because, generally, a larger proportion of trainees will be doing 8-15?

I mean, the other day at the gym 100% of the trainees I saw doing <5 were fat (no, not me).

It was a generalisation saying that either way, people can be small doing either, or large doing either.

The main question I have is that if you put a PLer on the same amount and type of gear that a BBer uses, could you have a large PLer who looks like a BBer?

 

[NoAddedHmones]

I had a picture in my mind of this guy I saw at my gym doing heavy curls. I just don't get how such a simple exercise can be done so wrong so often.

Haha i get it all the time at my gym, im there doing a couple of finisher exercises on biceps with around 9kg dumbbells, 120lb teens walk in pick up 20s off that bat and proceed to use every muscle bar biceps each rep hahaha. All the while peering over at me smiling at how low the weights are im using.

 

[Oldbdybldr]

I have always subscribed to the notion that low reps <8 were effective for hypertrophy. My perspective is that it is all about muscle activation and activating as many muscle fibers as you can as quickly as you can. I want to use all the energy that is stored inside in my muscle to do the maximum amount of work. I say why do 15 reps when the first 10 reps I am simply burning calories and using muscle energy (ATP & glucose) on reps where I am not activating the whole muscle. My failure at rep 15 comes from lactic acid build up and ATP and Glucose depletion as appose to complete muscle activation and failure. Why not "bust it" from the get go activating that muscle and bringing it to complete activation and failure as quickly as possible?

 

[breezy11]

It was a generalisation saying that either way, people can be small doing either, or large doing either.

The main question I have is that if you put a PLer on the same amount and type of gear that a BBer uses, could you have a large PLer who looks like a BBer?

Here's an old article from Bret Contreras and Brad Schoenfeld:

https://www.t-nation.com/training/why-bodybuilders-are-more-jacked-than-powerlifters