Lifting Reps or Heavy?

[kenpoengineer]

Polling to see whether your body bulk responds better to:

1) Lighter weights but high reps
Or
2) Heavy weights but low reps

Researching this I find recommendations all over the spectrum.

 

[hvactech]

I'm good heavy in the 5-6 rep range with a high volume finisher..

 

[napalm]

I can't remember the last time I did >5 reps...

 

[GeekPoop]

everything I usually do is 10+ reps with ~45 second rests. Unless its like squatting or something, than ~3 minutes or so

 

[bolt10]

In relation to what? Muscle hypertrophy? I wouldn't neglect any rep range if looking for optimal muscular size improvements.

 

[PaulBlack]

Your body bulk responds best and is influenced the most, by how much food you are eating, first. (I know guys who never do much more than 3-5 heavy reps. A few are still very thin as they don't eat as much food as a few others I know, who use the same rep schemes and are quite thick & bulky. (of course genes play a role too)
*Loads at 75%-85% of a 1 RM, for multi sets of around 3-10 rep ranges, shows some of the most promise for muscle hypertrophy. Lower & your gearing for almost pure strength and higher, most likely has you using loads that do not tax enough of the fibers / systems to make the greatest inroads.

 

[AZMIDLYF]

Look into PHAT training by Layne Norton. It deals with both realms nicely.

 

[asooneyeonig]

both, you also didnt ask about total volume. one can do sets of 20 but 5 sets. someone else can do sets of 5 and do 5 sets and are they the same volume? maybe, but the intensity is different. they have to be as volume and intensity is inversely related.

everyone will gain on both especially if they recently switch to the other setup after spending months on one. i am big believer that a person should have 1 main movement in a workout that they hit hi weight and low reps. then all accessory work done with lower weight and much higher reps and much more volume. i cover both ends that way.

 

[kisaj]

For size, I respond best in the 75% 1rm range for 6-8 reps over 5-6 sets. Every 4 months I work in 6 weeks of GVT to really crush myself. These are my favorite workout ranges, but size is no good without strength, so between each routine, I do 4-6 weeks of heavy sets. Generally 3-5 sets at 3-4 reps- after warmup.

 

[Jiigzz]

In relation to what? Muscle hypertrophy? I wouldn't neglect any rep range if looking for optimal muscular size improvements.

This. Week 1 i do 6-7, week two: 7-9, week three: 9-11 and week four: 11-15

 

[TexasGuy]

My scale weight always goes up when I lift heavy, in the 3-5 rep range. I get noticeably thicker too.

I typically lift in this range from now through the fall, then switch to higher rep training in the spring and summer where I get much more defined but lose strength and overall size per the scale. Some of this is no doubt due to diet but I do believe that heavy sets illicit more growth for me.

That said, I've always been a better sprinter than long distance runner too. Could be due to muscle fiber make up and entirely dependent on the individual.

 

[cedman1]

This is a great question. I find myself varying depending on the exercise and the weight I'm using. Its nice to read the thought processes behind what others do and why.

 

[Young Gotti]

8-12 reps....sometimes on the last set i'll go heavy and not worry to much about the amount of reps...but it also depends largely on the movement, i'm not going to do 3-5 reps on a chest press machine or fly machine

 

[bigflex0]

My joints suck and now my tendons and ligaments are giving me trouble. What this means is low rep heavy weight is more or less a thing of the past. Most that have been training for almost 20 years like my self will understand this. 10 reps are now low for me and this is only when everything is clicking and feels good and I am warmed up thoroughly. Otherwise I hang out in the 15-50 rep range. Mind you I built a solid base with years of heavy low rep(4-8) lifting. I think once the base is built you can lighten things up and still get by.

 

[kisaj]

Going on year 22 here and the sports I play have not been kind to my joints and body. I still have heavy routines, but they are starting to find their way out of the mix because as you mention, I have a very solid base and staying in the higher rep ranges works better for me now.

My dad is 73 this year and still hits the gym 5 days a week, with focus only on high reps. He is 5' 10", 225 of mass and looks completely ripped. It is actually shocking to see when he is around other men his age. But his routine is like this:

Chest/arms- bench 5 x 25 @ 135
incline 5 x 25 @ 135
curls 5 x 30 @ 95 (barbell)
pushups to failure
Legs- squat 5 x 15 @ 225
leg press 5 x 10 @ 5-6 plates per side
leg extensions to failure with the stack

Back- Single arm row 5 x 15 @ 55 db
bent over 5 x 15 @ 95 bb
dips to failure

Then he takes a day off and starts again. He has done this for the last 5 years and seems to really enjoy it because he is no longer limping up the stairs and having shoulder issues from all the heavy lifting.

 

[bigflex0]

If you are not used to training in the 15 and up range it is a whole nother level of hard. Pushing past the pain barrier is the only limit. If you can do 15 you more than likely get 20. If you can get 20 you more than likely can get 25 and so on. The burn is intense and the pump insane.

 

[kisaj]

Most definitely. If people are only used to 3-6 range, then it can be demoralizing for two reasons. You aren't used to loading up lighter weights and you need to reprogram your thinking, and secondly, after the few few sets you can't believe how hard it actually is.

 

[Quatie]

Polling to see whether your body bulk responds better to:

1) Lighter weights but high reps
Or
2) Heavy weights but low reps

Researching this I find recommendations all over the spectrum.

I do wendlers 531 with high reps at the end so I am getting strength and hypertrophy. Works for me.

 

[MrKleen73]

There is no one answer fits all with this question. We all have genetic differences that effect how are bodies respond to different stimuli. So one person may grow tremendously in the 8-12 range while someone else grows better never doing more than 5 reps. Hell even on the same body different bpdy parts respond better to different rep ranges. My legs will grow like a mofo from really high reps. I also thing how you perform the amount of reps is a huge factor. Some people lift in the 20 rep range and they use light weight. Others lift in the 20 rep range and use weight that is basically max effort in that rep range. Huge difference between someone doing 20 squats with 185 and someone forcing themselves through a grueling 20 reps with 275.

All in all especially for your specifically Kenpo I would look into a program that works all rep ranges, and hits every facet of conditioning. The level of functionality and muscular development you are looking for you do not have to solely focus on hypertrophy. That being said regardless of rep range as long as you are progressively loading the bar with more resistance in that rep range you are going to grow.

I have actually been contemplating doing something like starting with a certain weight and working with it for reps and just sticking with the same weight to see how I progress just adding reps. Something like say 205 on bench and BB Rows and maybe 275 on squats and just going for either max reps or going up in weight once I get to 25 reps. I bet there would be a lot of progress both in muscle size and overall strength.

 

[kisaj]

There is no one answer fits all with this question. We all have genetic differences that effect how are bodies respond to different stimuli.

In the end, this is the only answer. There are proven methods and rep/set routines, but does that mean it is ideal for you? No, it simply means that it has been proven to work for a desired effect. One of the things I think that has provided the drive for me in the gym after so many years is the constant experimentation I am conducting in my own mind and body. Not just the basic strength and size goals, but adding in highest endurance, mental state, energy, alpha, lack of joint pain (lol), etc... Once I think I found it, I get bored and start again.

Try explaining that lunacy to a person that hasn't dedicated as much time as many of us have to lifting weights!

 

[asooneyeonig]

There is no one answer fits all with this question. We all have genetic differences that effect how are bodies respond to different stimuli.

really genetic differences? so are you trying to say that the mechanisms behind stimulus and adaptation are different for all homo sapiens?

or do you mean that the mechanisms behind all homo sapiens are the same but are affected by training age, past training, nutrition, sex, intensity, sleep, and i will go so far as to say belief, in the program. i would think those variables would place a many fold difference between optimal training for varying people. much more so that mice and men (2.5% difference in genetic code).

 

[MrKleen73]

really genetic differences? so are you trying to say that the mechanisms behind stimulus and adaptation are different for all homo sapiens?

or do you mean that the mechanisms behind all homo sapiens are the same but are affected by training age, past training, nutrition, sex, intensity, sleep, and i will go so far as to say belief, in the program. i would think those variables would place a many fold difference between optimal training for varying people. much more so that mice and men (2.5% difference in genetic code).

No I meant exactly what I said. Genetically predisposed responses to specific stimuli. You and I are genetically similar obviously however you and I do not share the same genetic coding. I could have a higher concentration of Type 1 or Type 2 muscle fibers than you so my response to the exact same stimuli as you would be different. I might have far more androgen receptors in my muscle tissue than you and grow much easier. You could have more active myostatin keeping your muscle from growing as quickly. You may respond much better growthwise to high volume due to having higher higher Type 1 fiber count. I may be naturally very explosive and able to grow very well from very low reps, while you could get stronger in that range and not build much mass.

Yes all of those factors you mention are also part of the equation but so are your genetics and when you are pointing out optimal training for a person then genetics HAVE to be a consideration. Sure genetically there may only be 2.5% difference between a mouse and a human, but it only takes a fraction of that fraction to make a huge difference in the resulting creature. Just between homo sapiens alone the obvious genetic differences are vast, and can not be argued. To assume the responses to stimuli would not differ greatly among such a diverse group or even not enough to be an important factor would be erroneous.

 

[pyrobatt]

Polling to see whether your body bulk responds better to:

1) Lighter weights but high reps
Or
2) Heavy weights but low reps

Researching this I find recommendations all over the spectrum.

Depends. I change it every 8 to 16 weeks. Right now im playing with tempo and I find if I slowly lower the weight and pause at the bottom then explode up I get more out of my workout vs banging out the reps. I do go heavy though. 4 to 8 reps is my sweet spot. Once I get to 10 reps I move up.

 

[asooneyeonig]

No I meant exactly what I said. Genetically predisposed responses to specific stimuli. You and I are genetically similar obviously however you and I do not share the same genetic coding. I could have a higher concentration of Type 1 or Type 2 muscle fibers than you so my response to the exact same stimuli as you would be different. I might have far more androgen receptors in my muscle tissue than you and grow much easier. You could have more active myostatin keeping your muscle from growing as quickly. You may respond much better growthwise to high volume due to having higher higher Type 1 fiber count. I may be naturally very explosive and able to grow very well from very low reps, while you could get stronger in that range and not build much mass.

Yes all of those factors you mention are also part of the equation but so are your genetics and when you are pointing out optimal training for a person then genetics HAVE to be a consideration. Sure genetically there may only be 2.5% difference between a mouse and a human, but it only takes a fraction of that fraction to make a huge difference in the resulting creature. Just between homo sapiens alone the obvious genetic differences are vast, and can not be argued. To assume the responses to stimuli would not differ greatly among such a diverse group or even not enough to be an important factor would be erroneous.

in other words you do not mean genetic differences. what i mentioned covers the bases for what you think is genetics. we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation.

a different genetic code while still being homo sapien would be like someone with down syndrome. the mechanisms for a person with down syndrome for muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same. genetics did not alter those mechanisms.

 

[MrKleen73]

in other words you do not mean genetic differences. what i mentioned covers the bases for what you think is genetics. we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation.

a different genetic code while still being homo sapien would be like someone with down syndrome. the mechanisms for a person with down syndrome for muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same. genetics did not alter those mechanisms.

So being blonde or brunette, or the color of a persons skin has nothing to do with genes? What about the Origin and Insertion points of muscle is that not genetically controlled either? It definitely has a major effect on strength due to leverage. What about the color of someones skin? Is that not genetically decided? I mean we all know that melanin / pigmentation of the skin happens to protect it from the damaging sun rays. Yet no matter how long you put a white man in the dessert he will never become as dark as a black man exposed to the same situation. He will get darker but he is not genetically programmed to have as much melanin as a black man. Basically genetic differences within the homo sapeins classification causing different varying degrees of results to the same stimuli based on a genetic trait / difference.

You realize you are trying to really over simplify genetics. Certainly the structure of the double helix is common for all homo sapiens but the genes in each position of that helix determine the traits expressed and there are a plethora of traits to express with in the homo sapiens classification. These traits are "genetic differences" you can not possibly look at something with so many possible genetic trait variations and think each and every one of these will respond the same to external stimulus. I am not saying you do not have an understanding but your comment here is simply incorrect as far as genetics not having any part in the results a person gets from training. I agree with you that all the other factors you mentioned have an effect on how efficient a type of training is for you. However I completely disagree with your statement that there are not genetic factors to consider. Some people have naturally higher or lower insulin resistance making them more or less carb tolerant, thins of that nature which are passed down genetically when you look at most people family history. Some people have higher type 2 fibers naturally and grow better at lower reps. Others have higher type 1 fibers and it takes higher reps to really tax them for growth. All kinds of factors both external and genetic to take into account.

 

[asooneyeonig]

bla bla bla. I agree with you that all the other factors you mentioned have an effect on how efficient a type of training is for you. bla bla bla.

it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.

 

[pyrobatt]

it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.

Ohh dont forget the fact some focus on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy and base training programs around them but in actuality a good routine will do both.

 

[PaulBlack]

IMO, I think more important factor(s) that "seem" to make differences come from the mental aspect ie: whether or not people respond better from rep numbers or differing levels of intensities etc. in peoples training, are more from what they are comfortable doing, enjoy doing, or wrap their heads around, than an actual "under the microscope" reason why certain things work for certain people.

 

[MrKleen73]

it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.

First not sure when we went from a discussion to being condescending to one another... Second, I am far from digging myself out of a hole because I am not in one. I am simply discussing this with you and would be happy to tip my hat to you and say I was wrong if I felt you had proved your side of the argument. You have not. You have proven that you know for a program to be universally effective it has to address the mechanism for muscular adaptation across the board for everyone. You have not proven that genetics do not play a part in the results of your training and or which method of training may be ideal for you.

Let me make sure I understand your stance here. Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with how your body responds to training. So if I take 2 untrained people with very different genetic traits, let's just say one can naturally run distance pretty easily, but is not very fast in sprinting, can't lift a lot of weight but can do a lot of reps with low-moderate weight. Then take someone who is not a great endurance runner, but is a naturally fast sprinter, is extremely explosive, and can lift a lot of weight. Then train them both the same way that they would get the same results in strength and muscle mass gains because the mechanisms of training are the same so the adaptation should be the same therefore the results would be identical if genetics were not a factor.

 

[asooneyeonig]

You have not proven that genetics do not play a part in the results of your training and or which method of training may be ideal for you.

thats cause i have not tried to, nor will i. i will hold by my statement that genetics as you have defined them plays such a minor role, and that the mechanisms as i have stated, are the same from person to person so they make such a greater part of the variables to determine what works and does work that your genetics just dont matter. it would be analogous to saying that drinking orange juice over grape juice is better. i ask better for what? and by how much? a significant amount? enough of an amount that different people can measure the same results in the same and different people with enough accuracy to be considered viable..... i say not. again, majoring in the minors.

Let me make sure I understand your stance here. Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with how your body responds to training.

nope. you stated here:
What about the Origin and Insertion points of muscle is that not genetically controlled either?

i responded and you even quoted:
now does leverages make a difference, sure they do.

which if you may have missed. was my reference to your insertion/origin point. that was an interpretation of the intent of that which i stated as leverages. which insertion and original points do directly affect leverages, thank you physics.

So if I take 2 untrained people with very different genetic traits, let's just say one can naturally run distance pretty easily, but is not very fast in sprinting, can't lift a lot of weight but can do a lot of reps with low-moderate weight. Then take someone who is not a great endurance runner, but is a naturally fast sprinter, is extremely explosive, and can lift a lot of weight. Then train them both the same way that they would get the same results in strength and muscle mass gains because the mechanisms of training are the same so the adaptation should be the same therefore the results would be identical if genetics were not a factor.

do you think they would get the same results? i am guessing you would think no. and you would be correct. but not for the reason you think. the mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same between them, therefore they will both respond to the training. training age can allow for varying effect. so can age, sex, hormone levels, nutrition, sleep and stress habits. much more so than your defined genetics.

training age being a huge part here especially with their type of training. a marathoner trains like a marathoner and therefore does not have 1RM absolute strength of a sprinter, and sprinter does not have the endurance capacity of the marathoner. we know from research that type 2b fibers can change their main focus. now you may think that is genetics, but that is a mechanism. therefore they will get different results and not because of genetics but due to training age, past training, and likely actual age and hormonal levels, and even possibly sex and actual age. all of which have a much greater impact on training than your defined genetics.

to wrap up, someone can train to be more specific and someone can train to have more endurance. then they can switch to train for the other. as their training age increases per their specific training that has a great effect on training. and in no way am i saying genetics dont have an effect, just not in they way you seem to keep thinking and stating.


now back to the OP, this is a great discussion as well as some other posts to maybe help your answer. both can help. training age, hormone leves, sleep, nutrition, and belief in the program can have an effect of which is better.

 

[MrKleen73]

thats cause i have not tried to, nor will i. i will hold by my statement that genetics as you have defined them plays such a minor role, and that the mechanisms as i have stated, are the same from person to person so they make such a greater part of the variables to determine what works and does work that your genetics just dont matter. it would be analogous to saying that drinking orange juice over grape juice is better. i ask better for what? and by how much? a significant amount? enough of an amount that different people can measure the same results in the same and different people with enough accuracy to be considered viable..... i say not. again, majoring in the minors.



nope. you stated here:
What about the Origin and Insertion points of muscle is that not genetically controlled either?

i responded and you even quoted:
now does leverages make a difference, sure they do.

which if you may have missed. was my reference to your insertion/origin point. that was an interpretation of the intent of that which i stated as leverages. which insertion and original points do directly affect leverages, thank you physics.

do you think they would get the same results? i am guessing you would think no. and you would be correct. but not for the reason you think. the mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same between them, therefore they will both respond to the training. training age can allow for varying effect. so can age, sex, hormone levels, nutrition, sleep and stress habits. much more so than your defined genetics.

training age being a huge part here especially with their type of training. a marathoner trains like a marathoner and therefore does not have 1RM absolute strength of a sprinter, and sprinter does not have the endurance capacity of the marathoner. we know from research that type 2b fibers can change their main focus. now you may think that is genetics, but that is a mechanism. therefore they will get different results and not because of genetics but due to training age, past training, and likely actual age and hormonal levels, and even possibly sex and actual age. all of which have a much greater impact on training than your defined genetics.

to wrap up, someone can train to be more specific and someone can train to have more endurance. then they can switch to train for the other. as their training age increases per their specific training that has a great effect on training. and in no way am i saying genetics dont have an effect, just not in they way you seem to keep thinking and stating.


now back to the OP, this is a great discussion as well as some other posts to maybe help your answer. both can help. training age, hormone leves, sleep, nutrition, and belief in the program can have an effect of which is better.

Okay so I started typing up a response to this but decided to think on what you are saying to make sense in my head over the conversation. Let me take a stab at this and see if I have arrived at some understanding of what you mean. Since we actually agreed on so much and you seem educated in the matter I tried to see if I could come up with a bridge to the gap in our conversation. The last part of your post in bold is what got me thinking a little differently.

My thought process was that there may be a genetic predisposition for certain attributes, IE someone being naturally muscular, explosive and powerful. That this person would get better results training specifically for his natural given traits like heavy lifting and lower reps. So it would seem that genetically that type of training would be ideal for him. Say another guy was very thin, not strong but could run distances without any training. Thought would be that higher reps and endurance training might be ideal for him.

Now after taking a moment to process what you were saying regarding proven programs use universally proven mechanisms of training stimulus, it began to occur to me that perhaps as you say the training mechanism being universal that the results are the only thing that is individual. That brought me to this though process.

If the mechanisms behind the training are the same, EI the two people listed above are both doing 5x5, they will get results, albeit different results. However the different results are not due to if the training was ideal for the genetics but if the genetics were ideal for growth/strength. Meaning the naturally muscular guy is probably going to make more muscular gains than the naturally skinny guy regardless of what type of resistance training they use because he is made to naturally carry more muscle. So certainly genetic traits has something to do with it, but there are more important factors that can actually be manipulated which are the factors we have been agreeing on thus far like training age, rest, stress and all of the other factors.

So is that along the same lines as what you have been saying? Someone may be naturally inclined toward a type of training because they are naturally gifted in that area. However that does not mean that the training is any more ideal for him than training in a completely different and opposite end of the spectrum. Basically a naturally muscular guy will gain more muscle than a naturally skinny guy whether on a high volume moderate weight, low volume heavy resistance or moderate volume moderate weight program because he is naturally predisposed to gaining and holding more muscle.

Is that more along the lines with how genetics would play a role from your understanding?

I hope others are actually enjoying or learning from this conversation. I think it is a good one and you seem to be intelligent which is why I bother to go back and forth with you at all. It is always good to discuss things, and if you don't just close the book on people with different views there is so much to learn out there.

 

[kenpoengineer]

I've been reading and following. Your debate is a good read. Interesting points and logic from both of you.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Is that more along the lines with how genetics would play a role from your understanding?

I hope others are actually enjoying or learning from this conversation. I think it is a good one and you seem to be intelligent which is why I bother to go back and forth with you at all. It is always good to discuss things, and if you don't just close the book on people with different views there is so much to learn out there.

well sh!t. if that wasnt well put i dont know what is. that is what i am [trying] to say.

the way i have commonly tried to explain how different people get different results even on a proven program i got from a chemist. they know mathematically how things will react. but mathematics allow for a controlled environment. if a chemical reaction is not as expected there was something else involved in the reaction. this can still be explained mathematically but that variable is an unknown and needs to still be taken into account.

to add to that. genetics plays a role in this example that say we take 2 people and one person has way higher test levels. using directly the chemical reaction analogy we know we are going to get a different solution from the chemicals/hormones involved. mechanically the process is the same but the amounts used were different so the outcome is different.

does that make sense?

 

[TexasGuy]

Without reading all the arguments, I know I've always responded better to heavy weight, performed sprints better than long distance runs etcetera. Whether the tiny genetic percentage difference between myself or another guy is statistically insignificant, performance wise I am oceans apart from endurance athletes where the rubber meets the road.

 

[MrKleen73]

well sh!t. if that wasnt well put i dont know what is. that is what i am [trying] to say.

the way i have commonly tried to explain how different people get different results even on a proven program i got from a chemist. they know mathematically how things will react. but mathematics allow for a controlled environment. if a chemical reaction is not as expected there was something else involved in the reaction. this can still be explained mathematically but that variable is an unknown and needs to still be taken into account.

to add to that. genetics plays a role in this example that say we take 2 people and one person has way higher test levels. using directly the chemical reaction analogy we know we are going to get a different solution from the chemicals/hormones involved. mechanically the process is the same but the amounts used were different so the outcome is different.

does that make sense?

Cool, I can totally make sense out of that. Basically genetics should not be the deciding factor for training but instead the training should be focused toward your specific goal at the time. Genetics will have a factor in your results but on a much broader stroke across all forms of training, not one type specifically.

I would add that personal preference is a factor in getting a lot out of your program. If you really enjoy doing it and pushing yourself with the training you will make better gains because you give more of yourself to the endeavor. I would say shocking the body but really that comes to the training age since it is typically "new training" to the body even in a trained state.

 

[herderdude]

Here's a brilliant training mind giving a short discourse on the very topic you guys are covering:

http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/petrosino-quick-flip-concurrent-training/

 

[MrKleen73]

A timely find here. I just ran across this video from Elliot Hulse and he touches on this very thing.

[video=youtube_share;1xaqCsH0_5M]http://youtu.be/1xaqCsH0_5M[/video]

 

[MrKleen73]

Here's a brilliant training mind giving a short discourse on the very topic you guys are covering:

http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/petrosino-quick-flip-concurrent-training/

Thanks I will check it out.

 

[herderdude]

Thanks I will check it out.

Good discussion, by the way!

 

[napalm]

I heart Jenny P...

 

[herderdude]

I heart Jenny P...

Me too. She warms my, um, heart. And stimulates my, um, brain. Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

 

[Fizzeek]

Staying within your anaerobic threshold will yield the best results. It is the fast-twitch muscle fibers that have the primary function of the contractions within a muscle group that is under great resistance and use more phosphate than glucose...and will also hypertrophy in a greater degree of response than slow-twitch muscle fibers will. However, some individuals though, do not HAVE fast-twitch fibers as the dominant makeup of their muscle groups or certain muscle groups. Instead, they have more slow-twitch, "endurance type" fibers that do not hypertrophy as much. But they do. Going short of having your dominant fiber type determined by an anatomist, simply experimenting to find your "prescription" for reps is all you can do.

 

[kisaj]

Wow. You may as well be a bot with that cut and paste response.

 

[Fizzeek]

Whatever that is. I wrote it.

Before that; I learned it in 10th grade biology class.

 

[jmiyamoto]

I've heard that it's more about total weight lifted than a particular rep scheme.

 

[asooneyeonig]

I've heard that it's more about total weight lifted than a particular rep scheme.

this is true in a way. one way to look at it is to refer to prilipins chart. that shows, at least for strength, a good range of total volume when compared to intensity to reach ones goals. training for size can get away with lower intensity and can use/need much more volume. i think it was zirred that posted a research article he found that showed that rep range was secondary to going to concentric muscular failure on the last rep of a set. so whether it was 5 reps or 10 or 20 it was how hard you worked not how many reps.

 

[jmiyamoto]

I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.

 

[asooneyeonig]

I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.

Thats why I was certain to clarify concentric and not eccentric or isometric failure.

 

[jmiyamoto]

Saw that now. Gotcha.

 

[Fizzeek]

I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.

It depends on the fitness level, and many other factors, of the person going that far. If you're a beginner; that's too much...it can force too high of a lactic acid and blood CK level to recover from in a practical amount of time.