Mass responses from low reps

[redline2101]

Ive been trying to keep my reps between 8-12 for mass, but ever since I switched to 1-5 for every set, just massive weight (for me), thats when i've been getting the mass AND strength gains. Is it possible my body just responds differently? If so I think i'm going to change my routine.

 

[TripDog]

I think its mostly associated with the strain, via force on the body. Lifting something heavier forces the body to adapt, and the hormonal output increases to meet the high demand. Its a surge in test, and GH from what I gather. This is why heavy squats are notorious for adding size to your body as a whole, not just your legs.

 

[bboyflash]

this has happened to me b4 but most weight gained will b water and glycogen

 

[Jake Fires]

i thought that lifting around 80% of max 5-8 times would increase your overall muscle size?

 

[darkvard]

alternate between 4-6 reps and 8-12 reps daily you should get better mass and power

 

[walker11]

a 3-5 rep range is what most guys i know use when either trying to gain mass/weight or are in off season and trying to gain stength before going into a training cycle for powerlifting.

 

[Dragon13]

this has happened to me b4 but most weight gained will b water and glycogen

:wtf1:

Don't even know where to start with this. Why don'y you explain why it would be water and glycogen weight gained, and we'll go from there?

 

[Dragon13]

Ive been trying to keep my reps between 8-12 for mass, but ever since I switched to 1-5 for every set, just massive weight (for me), thats when i've been getting the mass AND strength gains. Is it possible my body just responds differently? If so I think i'm going to change my routine.

Hypertrophy, as a general rule, is a function of load + TUT. You can increase either of these variables to grow. If you've always done high reps, low weight, the body adapts to that stimulus over time and growth will slow. But since you've now switched the stimulus - you're going to see some nice new growth here.

Remember, over time your body will adapt to this scheme as well. Then it may be time to switch back to higher reps to avoid stagnation.

 

[redline2101]

Oh alright, I didn't even think about my body adapting. Ive hit plateus before and I think this might be the factor I didnt consider, as I do a routine for months at a time.

 

[SamuraiSid]

:wtf1:

Don't even know where to start with this. Why don'y you explain why it would be water and glycogen weight gained, and we'll go from there?

Bigger Muscles = more water, more glycogen:439: LOL, but I see where you were going with the question.


I myself went from a 3x10 training routine to a 5x5 hybrid and ive had awesome gains, possibly due to changing the stimulus, possibly due to heavy squats and deads and the effects they have on GH output.... But also a while back i came across an old article (from Arnolds day) discussing how a 4-6 rep range is best for both hypertrophy and strength. Now I know science is constantly evolving, but something to think about.

Also i have noticed that my muslce are much harder and fuller looking than when doing a higher rep range.

 

[russy_russ]

Bigger Muscles = more water, more glycogen:439: LOL, but I see where you were going with the question.


I myself went from a 3x10 training routine to a 5x5 hybrid and ive had awesome gains, possibly due to changing the stimulus, possibly due to heavy squats and deads and the effects they have on GH output.... But also a while back i came across an old article (from Arnolds day) discussing how a 4-6 rep range is best for both hypertrophy and strength. Now I know science is constantly evolving, but something to think about.

Also i have noticed that my muslce are much harder and fuller looking than when doing a higher rep range.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, typically, is a result of water and glycogen-other sarcoplasm constituents. Myofibrilar hypertrophy, for simplicity, is a result of the addition of structural and contractile proteins. Stimulus by intensity of load, typically, shifts the hypertrophy into either direction.

 

[B5150]

Change produces change. This too will pass.

 

[VolcomX311]

Change produces change. This too will pass.

concise and correct.

 

[VolcomX311]

Hypertrophy, as a general rule, is a function of load + TUT. You can increase either of these variables to grow. If you've always done high reps, low weight, the body adapts to that stimulus over time and growth will slow. But since you've now switched the stimulus - you're going to see some nice new growth here.

Remember, over time your body will adapt to this scheme as well. Then it may be time to switch back to higher reps to avoid stagnation.

Less concise, but even more correct (accurate).

 

[Dragon13]

Bigger Muscles = more water, more glycogen:439: LOL, but I see where you were going with the question.

OK... but stating that any weight gain will be "mostly" water and glycogen is not accurate.

 

[Dragon13]

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, typically, is a result of water and glycogen-other sarcoplasm constituents. Myofibrilar hypertrophy, for simplicity, is a result of the addition of structural and contractile proteins. Stimulus by intensity of load, typically, shifts the hypertrophy into either direction.

Yet virtually all training will result in both types. Too many people make the mistake of thinking certain types of training result in only sarcoplasmic or only myo- hypertrophy.

This is also why training with both higher reps with "lighter" weight and lower reps with heavy weight will result in the best gains. If increasing either variable in the hypertrophy equation will work... why not increase both?

 

[ShakesAllDay]

As indicated above, one needs to understand the difference between hypertrophy and hyperplasia.

Has hyperplasia finally been scientifically proven to occur? I thought it was simply an unproven possibility.

 

[VolcomX311]

Has hyperplasia finally been scientifically proven to occur? I thought it was simply an unproven possibility.

So far, only confirmed in animals (specifically, felines), but not humans.

 

[Dragon13]

Change produces change. This too will pass.

Great post. :35:

 

[VolcomX311]

Russy-Russ was describing hyperplasia and we don't do that, our muscles only hypertrophy, unless you are some kind of human/cat mix, in that case, I loved you in Avatar.

 

[kingk0ng]

Russy-Russ was describing hyperplasia and we don't do that, our muscles only hypertrophy, unless you are some kind of human/cat mix, in that case, I loved you in Avatar.

I was actually arguing with someone over that exact same thing the other. Hyperplasia has not been proven in humans, right?

 

[TheLastRonin]

Reps of 1-7 in cycles of 7 produce(d)(s) ALL of my strength/mass. High reps are for when I want to train for muscular endurance.

 

[russy_russ]

Russy-Russ was describing hyperplasia and we don't do that, our muscles only hypertrophy, unless you are some kind of human/cat mix, in that case, I loved you in Avatar.

No. I was describing hypertrophy.

 

[russy_russ]

Yet virtually all training will result in both types. Too many people make the mistake of thinking certain types of training result in only sarcoplasmic or only myo- hypertrophy.

This is also why training with both higher reps with "lighter" weight and lower reps with heavy weight will result in the best gains. If increasing either variable in the hypertrophy equation will work... why not increase both?

You are correct, sir.