Are low reps or high reps better for muscle in trained

[anoopbal]

If you are a trained lifter, which repetition range is better for muscle growth? This was the question asked by a recent study. Here is my review: Are low reps or high reps better for muscle growth in trained lifters?.

 

[NattyForLife]

Get ready for controversy! Ha

My opinion is as follows....high reps AND low reps work to build hypertrophy!

 

[koi1214]

Get ready for controversy! Ha

My opinion is as follows....high reps AND low reps work to build hypertrophy!

Agreed.

 

[anoopbal]

Looking at all the evidence, it is always better to stick with high reps for muscle growth. I just don't see any point for low reps for a bodybuilder.

 

[Driven2lift]

Looking at all the evidence, it is always better to stick with high reps for muscle growth. I just don't see any point for low reps for a bodybuilder.

Just no. Lol.

Fast twitch and slow twitch fibres can both grow and should both be trained.

Certain muscle groups respond better to high, others to low, Ben Carpenter recently did a good post ti Facebook on this and here is a chart from it

This is one of the reasons I like PHAT, nothing gets neglected

 

[hvactech]

Just no. Lol.

Fast twitch and slow twitch fibres can both grow and should both be trained.

Certain muscle groups respond better to high, others to low, Ben Carpenter recently did a good post ti Facebook on this and here is a chart from it

<img src="http://anabolicminds.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=107866"/>

This is one of the reasons I like PHAT, nothing gets neglected

Ben Carpenter is dreamy.....

 

[anoopbal]

Just no. Lol.

Fast twitch and slow twitch fibres can both grow and should both be trained.

Certain muscle groups respond better to high, others to low, Ben Carpenter recently did a good post ti Facebook on this and here is a chart from it

Fast twitch and slow twitch can grow. But there is no evidence to show that if you training with low reps ( 4-6) , you maximize the hypertrophy of Type 2 fibers.In fact, if you train with high reps (8-12), you get both fast and slow fibers.Do you have anything that shows it?

There is some evidence to suggest that very high reps like 30, might increase the hypertrophy of slow fibers. But we need more studies AND that too in trained lifters.

 

[kenpoengineer]

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/exercise-science/236454-lifting-reps-heavy.html

 

[superbeast668]

Muscles understand nothing but tension. They respond to it by growing. Who cares how many reps as long as you're spending enough time under tension to grow?

 

[anoopbal]

Muscles understand nothing but tension. They respond to it by growing. Who cares how many reps as long as you're spending enough time under tension to grow?

I see your point. A better and practical approach is to say if you are getting stronger, the rep range wont matter. It is just hard to know if you are growing muscles, but much easy and objective to track strength gains.

 

[hipoint]

Muscles understand nothing but tension. They respond to it by growing. Who cares how many reps as long as you're spending enough time under tension to grow?

You still need a load of 80%-95% to encourage hypertrophy because low load high reps do nothing for grow it's called maintenance.

 

[mikespe]

Layne Norton just did a vLog on Periodization that explains rep ranges very nicely

[video=youtube_share;JjfHCU88_gc]http://youtu.be/JjfHCU88_gc[/video]

 

[AaronJP1]

Resistance.

What ever weight/rep scheme that you feel resistance from.

Sets, repetitions, exercises undertaken, intensity (weights used), frequency of sessions, rest between sets all have an effect.

:bigok:

 

[superbeast668]

You still need a load of 80%-95% to encourage hypertrophy because low load high reps do nothing for grow it's called maintenance.

Bull.

 

[Montego1]

Bull.

Yep.

 

[Driven2lift]

Yep.

Indeed.

 

[anoopbal]

Layne Norton just did a vLog on Periodization that explains rep ranges very nicely

Thanks for the video. I just don't see a point for low reps if you strictly into muscle growth and bodybuilding. You can get a lot more volume, less fatigue, less injuries and less worrying about complicated periodization planning stuff if you stick with high reps.

If strength is a concern or u wanna do powerlfiting, I see the point of low reps and such.

 

[hipoint]

Bull.

Show research or even a reputable article by strength coach or legit trainer that claims high reps lower weight builds density and size? Cause I use have been doing it all wrong the last 20 years

 

[Spaniard]

If you are a trained lifter, which repetition range is better for muscle growth?

All of them

Total muscle fiber recruitment

 

[bdcc]

Ben Carpenter is dreamy.....

Correct.

Just no. Lol.

Fast twitch and slow twitch fibres can both grow and should both be trained.

Certain muscle groups respond better to high, others to low, Ben Carpenter recently did a good post ti Facebook on this and here is a chart from it

This is one of the reasons I like PHAT, nothing gets neglected

<3

Show research or even a reputable article by strength coach or legit trainer that claims high reps lower weight builds density and size? Cause I use have been doing it all wrong the last 20 years

Here is a good .pdf by Jeremy Loenneke which examines volume vs intensity.

I think it serves well to help people question their views rather than providing firm answers as a lot of the research was preliminary.

Thanks for the video. I just don't see a point for low reps if you strictly into muscle growth and bodybuilding. You can get a lot more volume, less fatigue, less injuries and less worrying about complicated periodization planning stuff if you stick with high reps.

If strength is a concern or u wanna do powerlfiting, I see the point of low reps and such.

If I had to pick just one rep range, I would lean towards agreeing with you.

Although Schoenfeld's bodybuilding vs powerlifting study had equal hypertrophy for equal volume load, the fact that the traditional bodybuilding group had a lower incidence of injuries and their session was a lot quicker would clearly demonstrate a more time efficient and safer manner to reach the same end goal.

However, this is not to discount the potential of low reps within the context of a periodised plan. One theory would be as a strength phase to allow you to handle heavier loads during your subsequent hypertrophy phase.

 

[CobbledPath]

As DUP shows (imo), no one way is best and you have to discover for yourself what you best respond to. So get under the bar and squat till you got the hippy shakes

 

[anoopbal]

If I had to pick just one rep range, I would lean towards agreeing with you.

Although Schoenfeld's bodybuilding vs powerlifting study had equal hypertrophy for equal volume load, the fact that the traditional bodybuilding group had a lower incidence of injuries and their session was a lot quicker would clearly demonstrate a more time efficient and safer manner to reach the same end goal.

However, this is not to discount the potential of low reps within the context of a periodised plan. One theory would be as a strength phase to allow you to handle heavier loads during your subsequent hypertrophy phase.

Exactly. Also protein synthesis study has shown that going above 60%RM didn't show any increase in protein synthesis. Also the high rep could have easily done more volume and even maybe saw greater gains.

People who think going low reps are good for strength and hence should be included in bodybulding, like PHAT is missing a major point that strength is specific to the rep range. If you do low reps, your get really good at low rep strength. If you do high reps, you get good at high rep strength. If in the schoefeld study, they had tested the 10RM, the bodybuilding group would have been more stronger.

To the other poster, how do you measure density of your muscles? Also, Brad's new study with 30 reps and 10 reps in trained showed hypertrophy even with 30 reps!

 

[Rodja]

Things like this are when science become detrimental to training. To say that training in low reps only makes you good at low reps is completely false. Low rep training carries over to high rep, but high rep does not carry over to low rep. The tightness and stability you develop from low reps is something that is vastly unappreciated and ignored by the moderate to high rep crowds.

When these debates come up and each side makes their claims, it only leads to paralysis by analysis with very little benefit coming. The one line that was written that cracks me up was you won't need to have a complicated periodization program with higher reps. That is everything that is wrong with training right now. People just think that you can haphazardly lift and expect things to continue to change. It's not going to happen without some sort of methodical periodization program. Spending more time learning the proven ones and understanding the methodology behind them is what should be pushed as important and not silly studies like these.

 

[hipoint]

^^^agree

 

[hipoint]

I won't get into to a debate but I think the ideal rep range for growth is 8-12 range you can add lower volume heavy weight to help increase strength in that 8-12 range but I don't see how doing 30 reps of any exercise increase actual growth I will conced that it does make you more cut but it does not increase actual size. Because if that was the case of repetitive motions runners would have quads like platz and thats just not the case so you can all claim that high reps lower weight creates hypertrophy which means actual growth then I say BS imo...

 

[hvactech]

I won't get into to a debate but I think the ideal rep range for growth is 8-12 range you can add lower volume heavy weight to help increase strength in that 8-12 range but I don't see how doing 30 reps of any exercise increase actual growth I will conced that it does make you more cut but it does not increase actual size. Because if that was the case of repetitive motions runners would have quads like platz and thats just not the case so you can all claim that high reps lower weight creates hypertrophy which means actual growth then I say BS imo...

I love 8-12 rep routines... are you saying high reps will make someone more "cut"

 

[Spaniard]

Things like this are when science become detrimental to training. To say that training in low reps only makes you good at low reps is completely false. Low rep training carries over to high rep, but high rep does not carry over to low rep. The tightness and stability you develop from low reps is something that is vastly unappreciated and ignored by the moderate to high rep crowds.

When these debates come up and each side makes their claims, it only leads to paralysis by analysis with very little benefit coming. The one line that was written that cracks me up was you won't need to have a complicated periodization program with higher reps. That is everything that is wrong with training right now. People just think that you can haphazardly lift and expect things to continue to change. It's not going to happen without some sort of methodical periodization program. Spending more time learning the proven ones and understanding the methodology behind them is what should be pushed as important and not silly studies like these.

What sort of periodized methods do you personally recommend? Non-linear, block...?

 

[Rodja]

What sort of periodized methods do you personally recommend? Non-linear, block...?

I'm a big fan of block because of its flexibility. With the two ranges, you can do straight sets or change it to speed sets if you prefer during the accumulation phase.

 

[anoopbal]

Things like this are when science become detrimental to training. To say that training in low reps only makes you good at low reps is completely false. Low rep training carries over to high rep, but high rep does not carry over to low rep. The tightness and stability you develop from low reps is something that is vastly unappreciated and ignored by the moderate to high rep crowds.

You are clearly not reading it right. Nowhere did I write training at low reps makes you ONLY good at low reps. As I wrote, if in the study if the 10RM was tested the high rep group would have higher 10RM than the low rep group. But since the 1RM was tested the low rep group obviously showed greater improvements.

According to your logic, if anyone is doing high reps for years, their 1RM should be still the same as when they started!! Everything transfers, the question is how well. Tightness and stability: As I said, a bodybuilder doesn't care about the tightness, stability or whatever those words mean. What they worry is how big the muscles, not how tight they are in a lift.

And you don't need any complicated periodization. because the fatigue generated is pretty low with high reps. When you are a powerlifter, you need all the cycling, not to failure, periodization and such because the are dealing with low reps most of the time. Ans this is pretty obvious if you look at the typical bodybuilders and powerlifters routine.

 

[anoopbal]

I won't get into to a debate but I think the ideal rep range for growth is 8-12 range you can add lower volume heavy weight to help increase strength in that 8-12 range but I don't see how doing 30 reps of any exercise increase actual growth I will conced that it does make you more cut but it does not increase actual size. Because if that was the case of repetitive motions runners would have quads like platz and thats just not the case so you can all claim that high reps lower weight creates hypertrophy which means actual growth then I say BS imo...

Nothing conclusive. I think the study on untrained showed similar hypertrophy and similar protein synthesis levels with 10 reps. Brad recently did a study on 30 reps and 10 reps in trained. I know the results, but it is better to wait till he gets it published.

I think the analogies you make are not right. Tom platz progressively added weights every often. Imagine Tom platz doing bodyweight squats his whole life and getting the same size. So progressive overload is a big component. Also endurance training for a long time is totallly different from weigh training. A lot of natural bodybuilders use high reps.

Also, being cut has very little do with with reps. You should know this by now.

 

[kisaj]

I wish your logic were true when I am running GVT or PHAT because I sure generate a lot of fatigue- much more so than low rep work. This takes recovery that is not experienced with low re/heavy training. I can say that I also am sure glad I have the stability and tightness developed from heavy training to help keep form and added resistance when working higher reps as it sure helps save from injury.

But who gives a crap about all that stuff when the only goal is to find a way to grow them muscles.

 

[anoopbal]

I wish your logic were true when I am running GVT or PHAT because I sure generate a lot of fatigue- much more so than low rep work. This takes recovery that is not experienced with low re/heavy training. I can say that I also am sure glad I have the stability and tightness developed from heavy training to help keep form and added resistance when working higher reps as it sure helps save from injury.

But who gives a crap about all that stuff when the only goal is to find a way to grow them muscles.

I guess you know that PHAT used low reps. And GVT is very high volume and not a typical bodybuilding routine. The point is a typical bodybuilding routine generates much less fatigue than a typical powerlifting routine. Hence the simple reason powerlifters talk about not going to failure, periodization, autoregulation which most bodybuilders probably never heard off/or worry about. Also same reason why you give 3-5 min rest after low reps and only just 1-2 after high reps.

And as you said, there maybe a stability and tightness that you felt. If that is important for you, do low reps. My point is that most people do low reps in a bodybuilding routine bcos they believe that strength is all about low reps and you need to do low reps to gain strength hence you can lift more weight and grow more. Or reasons like someone previously posted about how low reps is better for type 2 fibers which is not true.

 

[Driven2lift]

I guess you know that PHAT used low reps. And GVT is very high volume and not a typical bodybuilding routine. The point is a typical bodybuilding routine generates much less fatigue than a typical powerlifting routine. Hence the simple reason powerlifters talk about not going to failure, periodization, autoregulation which most bodybuilders probably never heard off/or worry about. Also same reason why you give 3-5 min rest after low reps and only just 1-2 after high reps. And as you said, there maybe a stability and tightness that you felt. If that is important for you, do low reps. My point is that most people do low reps in a bodybuilding routine bcos they believe that strength is all about low reps and you need to do low reps to gain strength hence you can lift more weight and grow more. Or reasons like someone previously posted about how low reps is better for type 2 fibers which is not true.

PHAT is not low rep... It alternates power and hypertrophy days, both high and low rep. It has treated me very well arsthetically.

Saying BB's typically get less fatigue than powerlifters is extremely false.
Both disciplines can undergo a lot of fatigue, generated in a different fashion.
to say a BB doing GVT or PHAT is not generating as much fatigue as a powerlifter is strait up wrong no debate lol.

 

[kisaj]

This will go no where as anoopbal has his mind set.

 

[anoopbal]

PHAT is not low rep... It alternates power and hypertrophy days, both high and low rep. It has treated me very well arsthetically.

Saying BB's typically get less fatigue than powerlifters is extremely false.
Both disciplines can undergo a lot of fatigue, generated in a different fashion.
to say a BB doing GVT or PHAT is not generating as much fatigue as a powerlifter is strait up wrong no debate lol.

I said PHAT uses low reps, not PHAT ONLY uses low reps.

Bro do you know that we are we are talking about a study which actually equalized the volume between low reps and high reps and found the low rep group subjects to be extremely fatigued and was ready for a break. From the paper" Moreover, personal communication with subjects both
during and after the study revealed that those in the ST group generally felt highly fatigued both physically and mentally from the workouts while those in the HT group tended to report being willing and able to extend the duration of training sessions.".

 

[kisaj]

Oh, well that settles it then since those members were tired. /thread

 

[Driven2lift]

This will go no where as anoopbal has his mind set.

Yup agreed lol

 

[Rodja]

You are clearly not reading it right. Nowhere did I write training at low reps makes you ONLY good at low reps. As I wrote, if in the study if the 10RM was tested the high rep group would have higher 10RM than the low rep group. But since the 1RM was tested the low rep group obviously showed greater improvements. According to your logic, if anyone is doing high reps for years, their 1RM should be still the same as when they started!! Everything transfers, the question is how well. Tightness and stability: As I said, a bodybuilder doesn't care about the tightness, stability or whatever those words mean. What they worry is how big the muscles, not how tight they are in a lift. And you don't need any complicated periodization. because the fatigue generated is pretty low with high reps. When you are a powerlifter, you need all the cycling, not to failure, periodization and such because the are dealing with low reps most of the time. Ans this is pretty obvious if you look at the typical bodybuilders and powerlifters routine.

If you don't understand how tightness and stability aka TECHNIQUE is important to any rep range, then you should stop writing articles on strength training. Also, if you're only doing high reps, your 1RM is not going to change unless they're a complete neophyte because the CNS isn't going to be primed for strength along with having lacking the aforementioned technique.

 

[anoopbal]

If you don't understand how tightness and stability aka TECHNIQUE is important to any rep range, then you should stop writing articles on strength training. Also, if you're only doing high reps, your 1RM is not going to change because the CNS isn't going to be primed for strength.

You know that you can always have good technique with high reps. You don't have to do low reps to know or learn that. it may help some.

Are you saying if you do only high reps, your 1RM will not increase? Maybe I am not understanding right. maybe ur saying it will increase, but not as much if you do low reps too

And there is no reason to be confrontational or have a condescending tone. I do appreciate your input and your knowledge.

 

[Rodja]

You know that you can always have good technique with high reps. You don't have to do low reps to know or learn that. it may help some. Are you saying if you do only high reps, your 1RM will not increase? Maybe I am not understanding right. maybe ur saying it will increase, but not as much if you do low reps too And there is no reason to be confrontational or have a condescending tone. I do appreciate your input and your knowledge.

You missed my point again. You cannot replicate the tightness and stability needed for low reps by using high reps. Most failure on 1RM is not physical; its technical. Either by missing the groove, lacking tightness, improper holding of air, etc. This is why you can see people muscle up multiple reps with atrocious technique, but can't get anywhere a true 1RM because they're so inefficient with the movement.

BB'ers are far from technicians and seldom can teach optimal technique since they focus on the primary and not the ancillary, which is where the technique is really honed. For example, benching doesn't work your lats, but learning how to properly engage and set the weight there makes the lift more efficient, stronger, and safer.

For newbies (<5 years training), practically anything will work with the right mindset and consistency. Unfortunately, these are also the subjects most often use for data.

 

[hipoint]

Agreed we are talking about more advanced training these studies are mostly on untrained people so any training will have results even bad training.. Also yes I meant you get cut with higher reps to caloric burn but also of course the bf% has to be low so diet is an issue a subject all on it own. I believe low reps can help increase strength in the 8-12 range but as long as you use it sparingly and carefully to avoid injuries, applied to bb not power lifting.. Also I believe most training has to be 8-12 range is optimal for the advanced training. know how hard it is to gain 10 lbs of muscle for advanced training? . Most pros aim for 10-20lbs a year if possible but also think hgh and slin has a lot to do with that... So I think we can agree that most people build the most muscle in that 8-12 range... My other question is how many sets? I have run anywhere from 12-25 sets so I'd like to hear what people believe is optimal for large muscle groups and for smaller groups what creates the most hypertrophy?

 

[anoopbal]

You missed my point again. You cannot replicate the tightness and stability needed for low reps by using high reps. Most failure on 1RM is not physical; its technical. Either by missing the groove, lacking tightness, improper holding of air, etc. This is why you can see people muscle up multiple reps with atrocious technique, but can't get anywhere a true 1RM because they're so inefficient with the movement.*

BB'ers are far from technicians and seldom can teach optimal technique since they focus on the primary and not the ancillary, which is where the technique is really honed. For example, benching doesn't work your lats, but learning how to properly engage and set the weight there makes the lift more efficient, stronger, and safer.*

A bodybuilders technique is optimal for what their goal is. That is hitting the chest muscle the most in bench press. For a powerlifter, their technique is optimal for lifting as much weight as they can in bench press. I don’t see any reason for a bodybuilder to change technique bcos it isn't "optimal":

Also people who do all the setting and stabilization do it because they learned it or somebody taught them not because they just did low reps oneday. People muscle up low reps with atrocious form too. You do have a point, but I just don’t think it is so cut and dry as you are trying to make it.

 

[anoopbal]

Agreed we are talking about more advanced training these studies are mostly on untrained people so any training will have results even bad training.. Also yes I meant you get cut with higher reps to caloric burn but also of course the bf% has to be low so diet is an issue a subject all on it own. I believe low reps can help increase strength in the 8-12 range but as long as you use it sparingly and carefully to avoid injuries, applied to bb not power lifting.. Also I believe most training has to be 8-12 range is optimal for the advanced training. know how hard it is to gain 10 lbs of muscle for advanced training? . Most pros aim for 10-20lbs a year if possible but also think hgh and slin has a lot to do with that... So I think we can agree that most people build the most muscle in that 8-12 range... My other question is how many sets? I have run anywhere from 12-25 sets so I'd like to hear what people believe is optimal for large muscle groups and for smaller groups what creates the most hypertrophy?

you are reading too much flex and muscle & fitness bro lol . When you are on juice, pretty much everything works. The last thing you need to worry about is how many reps and sets or whatever.

Try looking up some of the natural bodybuilders. For an advanced natural bodybuilder, if you get 1-2 lb per year you are doing awesome!

 

[Rodja]

A bodybuilders technique is optimal for what their goal is. That is hitting the chest muscle the most in bench press. For a powerlifter, their technique is optimal for lifting as much weight as they can in bench press. I don’t see any reason for a bodybuilder to change technique bcos it isn't "optimal": Also people who do all the setting and stabilization do it because they learned it or somebody taught them not because they just did low reps oneday. People muscle up low reps with atrocious form too. You do have a point, but I just don’t think it is so cut and dry as you are trying to make it.

Out of curiosity, what kind of actual lifting experience do you have and numbers do you have? I get the feeling that there's too much lab work and not enough bar work in this.

At no point are you actually understanding what I'm conveying regarding actual technique and what it all requires.

 

[herderdude]

Tightness and stability: As I said, a bodybuilder doesn't care about the tightness, stability or whatever those words mean. What they worry is how big the muscles, not how tight they are in a lift.

Here's a good test for you. Load up the bar to a weight that a pro bodybuilder would use, and just unrack it and feel the weight in your hands or on your back. If you try this, you will have learned something no study can teach you: you better know what the word tightness means if you wanna knock out 400 for reps on bench, or 500 for plenty reps on squat like the big boys do. I think something both bodybuilders and powerlifters can agree on is that if you aren't strong, and I mean strong in the eyes of the strong, you probably ain't all that big either.

You know that you can always have good technique with high reps. You don't have to do low reps to know or learn that.

Baloney. How can you improve technique when you're pushing a high rep set to muscular failure. Take a look at at a set of squats. If you can perform a set of 20 without the last five or so looking like complete crap, it's cardio. Hell if you can do a set of eight and the last rep looks the same as the first, it's a warm-up weight. When you're training purely for hypertrophy aka higher reps to complete muscular failure, there is no way you can perform perfect reps on more than 75% or so of your reps. You don't improve technique when you do that.

 

[anoopbal]

Out of curiosity, what kind of actual lifting experience do you have and numbers do you have? I get the feeling that there's too much lab work and not enough bar work in this.

At no point are you actually understanding what I'm conveying regarding actual technique and what it all requires.

I never trained purely for strength, even if I do low reps, it is always bodybuilding focused. I have deadlifted regular style, with no straps or belt, 2.5 times my BW. Even when I trained deadlift, always go slow the eccentrics to get more for the back. Bench I never really feel anything in my chest. So my technique is always elbow flared , touching the mid chest , with no arch, and a pause. Elbows tucked, with lats flared, back arched I feel zilch in my chest. The maximum I did was 1.4 times my BW. OHP I have done BW *3 times. Squat my technique is high bar, ass to the ground, with a pause at the bottom, the max I ever did was 275 for 3. My BW is 160. I am now 167 at 5 7.5''. I know I can easily weigh more, but just don’t want to lose my abs. and I am past my mid 30's.

I am sure your numbers are way higher. Maybe when I get to lifting 3-4 times my BW like you I might understand what you are trying to say.

 

[anoopbal]

Here's a good test for you. Load up the bar to a weight that a pro bodybuilder would use, and just unrack it and feel the weight in your hands or on your back. If you try this, you will have learned something no study can teach you: you better know what the word tightness means if you wanna knock out 400 for reps on bench, or 500 for plenty reps on squat like the big boys do. I think something both bodybuilders and powerlifters can agree on is that if you aren't strong, and I mean strong in the eyes of the strong, you probably ain't all that big either.

i never said you shouldn't be strong. In fact, the first article I wrote in 2006 about muscle growth ended basically by saying the stronger you are the bigger you and bodybuilders forgot the whole progressive overloading. It just doesn't mean you have to be stronger in a particular rep range. You can be stronger and have progressive loading in an 8-12 range too. Dorian yate was one of the very few bodybuilders who believed in weight progression, but just got too many injuries doing too low reps and had to stop.

Also, yet to see, too many elite natural bodybuilders benching 400 raw for reps.

 

[Rodja]

I never trained purely for strength, even if I do low reps, it is always bodybuilding focused. I have deadlifted regular style, with no straps or belt, 2.5 times my BW. Even when I trained deadlift, always go slow the eccentrics to get more for the back. Bench I never really feel anything in my chest. So my technique is always elbow flared , touching the mid chest , with no arch, and a pause. Elbows tucked, with lats flared, back arched I feel zilch in my chest. The maximum I did was 1.4 times my BW. OHP I have done BW *3 times. Squat my technique is high bar, ass to the ground, with a pause at the bottom, the max I ever did was 275 for 3. My BW is 160. I am now 167 at 5 7.5''. I know I can easily weigh more, but just don't want to lose my abs. and I am past my mid 30's. I am sure your numbers are way higher. Maybe when I get to lifting 3-4 times my BW like you I might understand what you are trying to say.

Respectable numbers, but the fact that you've never trained purely for strength shows that you haven't experience what I'm trying to convey with my posts.

i never said you shouldn't be strong. In fact, the first article I wrote in 2006 about muscle growth ended basically by saying the stronger you are the bigger you and bodybuilders forgot the whole progressive overloading. It just doesn't mean you have to be stronger in a particular rep range. You can be stronger and have progressive loading in an 8-12 range too. Dorian yate was one of the very few bodybuilders who believed in weight progression, but just got too many injuries doing too low reps and had to stop. Also, yet to see, too many elite natural bodybuilders benching 400 raw for reps.

Dorian attributes most of his injuries to doing low reps during the midst of his extreme diets and not the training itself.

 

[hipoint]

you are reading too much flex and muscle & fitness bro lol . When you are on juice, pretty much everything works. The last thing you need to worry about is how many reps and sets or whatever.

Try looking up some of the natural bodybuilders. For an advanced natural bodybuilder, if you get 1-2 lb per year you are doing awesome!

Well of course I'm talking about while on gear and this is my experience not flex in the 20 years of lifting I may have read 2 flex magazines and maybe an issue or two of m&f so I don't read that garbage, I use practical real life experience... I. May sound like a corny mag but what works is what works. Also since I'm old now I can't military press sets 225 anymore you have limitations on strength after 40 I have to be honest with myself to avoid injuries and also I believe a fair amount of technique, exercise sequence and trying different stuff makes people realize what works.. As I have said before bodybuilders don't look like poweifters and vice versa some do but not usually the rule of thumb, yes a great amount of strength is need to get bigger. But I think if that was the case we all do sets of 1-5 reps and be huge and that's not the case, we need strength to aid in hypertrophy for proper load while performing 8-12,reps not sure why people think this is a canned answer maybe people don't want to believe the truth...

you are reading too much flex and muscle & fitness bro lol . When you are on juice, pretty much everything works. The last thing you need to worry about is how many reps and sets or whatever.

Try looking up some of the natural bodybuilders. For an advanced natural bodybuilder, if you get 1-2 lb per year you are doing awesome!

 

[anoopbal]

Respectable numbers, but the fact that you've never trained purely for strength shows that you haven't experience what I'm trying to convey with my posts.

Thanks bro. I just couldn't do deadlift and squats bcos of my low back pain for a few years. I am starting back and almost there. So I hope to beat all those.

I agree about the strength, but once I start worrying too much abt strength, I change my technique and then I don’t feel much in my muscles. In deadlifts, I know If I drop the weight instead of putting it back slowly, I can get a lot more volume with less fatigue and get a bit more stronger. But then I am not really hitting my back. The same with squats & bench. Wanna post you tube videos and stuff, but need to get done with this Phd thing.

Dorian attributes most of his injuries to doing low reps during the midst of his extreme diets and not the training itself.

I remember reading in his book how once he got injured, he started doing more 8-10 reps and he felt he could feel the muscle more. I think it is in his book. I don’t have it now. And as you said he handled a lot of weight, but he used a lot more bodybuilding style technique. So that could be a factor too.

Talking about injuries, just was really surprised to see Ronnie colemann after his hip replacement surgery. And he used to lift a lot. When I think about some of these examples, you may have a point about high rep technique/bodybuilding technique not very suitable/safe for low reps weight.

Dorian is always my favorite bodybuilder. He was way ahead of his times. And was one rare bodybuilder who kept track of the weights he was lifting and tried to beat it every time. And this is probably the biggest myth in bodybuilding that you don't have to strong to get big.