# can you get bigger, without lifting heavy?



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

well as per the title really, can I get bigger without lifting super heavy weights?

Will lower weight and higher reps get me bigger?

I am thinking around 70% of max lift training.

The reason for this is that I have had 2 microdiscectomy's and cant risk going to heavy in case it happens again. At the moment I am having great results but I am cutting. when it comes to growing will I be wasting my time? I was born with a narrow back channel and any movement or bulging of disks results in instant sciatica and normally they cannot get it back in so I have to be operated in. Most people would say weight training isnt for me but I really want to give it another go. If I have to dabble into the gear later on to help me grow that wont be a problem but as I am seeing great results at the moment I feel I want to stay natural as long as I am seeing results every few months. And to keep the wife off of my back!

Sorry for the boring story, thanks for any advice or replys


----------



## Beefcake91 (May 30, 2016)

In short, yes.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Studies says, if you lift 40% of your 1RM you will grow. IMO, Food determines whether you will grow or skrink.

70% of your rep max is a good weight to lift IMO.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Yes, provided you go to failure, and gradually increase the reps/weight over time.

Whatever rep range you train in you still need to be sensible regarding your back though. (As in follow professional advice.)


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> *Studies says, if you lift 40% of your 1RM you will grow*. IMO, Food determines whether you will grow or skrink.
> 
> 70% of your rep max is a good weight to lift IMO.


 Got any links to back this up? I'm not being a pr**k (for a change) but genuinely interested to read up about this.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Gary29 said:


> Got any links to back this up? I'm not being a pr**k (for a change) but genuinely interested to read up about this.


 That would be tough to find mate from n numbers of bookmark that i have. But, i can try and will surely post if i will find.


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> That would be tough to find mate from n numbers of bookmark that i have. But, i can try and will surely post if i will find.


 Thanks, but don't worry about it mate, I'll do some searching myself, just never seen the 40% of your 1RM quoted before so I found it interesting.


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

brilliant news, thanks for the replys guys! some things I just dont do, deadlifts, bent over rows etc. as literally bending over can make the pain in my back come on. I should start pilates or yoga but really dont have the time at the moment! plus I am loving being in the gym, and eating properly feels great! better then it ever has before. Really hope I can stick to it!


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

To be fair u can grow with light or heavy weight, i have done with both .. although i prefer lifting heavy and going for pbs but when i had injury i lifted lighter still built muscle just made sure i was progressing


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Gary29 said:


> Thanks, but don't worry about it mate, I'll do some searching myself, just never seen the 40% of your 1RM quoted before so I found it interesting.


 1) Three sets to failure with 30% of 1RM resulted in equal hypertrophy gains as three sets to failure with 80%. This indicates that the weight used isn't the main factor for stimulating muscle growth. If it were, the 80% group would have achieved more results.

2) Three sets to failure at 80% led to about twice the gains as one set to failure with 80%. This might seem to indicate that volume is important for hypertrophy. But the fact that three sets at 30% led to the same gains as three sets with 80% shows that volume itself isn't the main reason for the hypertrophy.

3) The lifters using only 30% to failure obviously got a lot more reps per set than 80% to failure, yet both groups had the same hypertrophy response. So volume or the number of reps done per set can't be the reason for the hypertrophy stimulation.

Couldn't find the whole study mate. Don't know where i have kept it but managed to get my hands over some related extract.


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> 1) Three sets to failure with 30% of 1RM resulted in equal hypertrophy gains as three sets to failure with 80%. This indicates that the weight used isn't the main factor for stimulating muscle growth. If it were, the 80% group would have achieved more results.
> 
> 2) Three sets to failure at 80% led to about twice the gains as one set to failure with 80%. This might seem to indicate that volume is important for hypertrophy. But the fact that three sets at 30% led to the same gains as three sets with 80% shows that volume itself isn't the main reason for the hypertrophy.
> 
> ...


 The human body is amazing isn't it! Thanks


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Gary29 said:


> Thanks, but don't worry about it mate, I'll do some searching myself, just never seen the 40% of your 1RM quoted before so I found it interesting.


 Think it may have been one of the mods that posted a study in one of the threads, that basically said training to failure with 30% was as good as anything.

Trying to remember the name of the tread now. It was something about myths in bodybuilding or truths about it or something or what I've learned in bodybuilding.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Gary29 said:


> The human body is amazing isn't it! Thanks


 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B5T7eDfzMt_qUoRg2Er3GWmwapRvZfaZq06PPJfs3Ng/preview?pref=2&pli=1

Here it is. Link of the study mate. Thanks @Denied for reminding me 

EDIT :- http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012033


----------



## invisiblekid (Jun 18, 2006)

I have very similar condition @FF03STY. It's fookin' horrible. I've just (well, 11 months ago) got back in the gym after a 3yr absence after a discectomy/decompression. During that time I put a lot of time and effort in to core stability and strengthening, and touch wood, so far, so good. Sadly I've had to limit weight on some lifts to a degree and I can't do deads, squats, leg press, bent over rows or alternate bicep curls. Quite a few fundamentals in there.

I'm making progress and I'm close to the size and weight I was before surgery (although a little tubby due to limited cardio), but interestingly I'm stronger, thanks to var, on some lifts such as bench.

I've found managing the condition is better rather than pushing on regardless or worse still giving up. Progress is slower, but ultimately you can carry on. See which lifts you can do safely, keep good form and keep the weight sensible - you should find you grow.


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

Thanks for the reply @invisiblekid and glad your doing well! I have packed in football, cricket and golf as these are all fast moving actions that twist my spine. Hoping weight training with sensible movments is really going to help. I also think being alot lighter will help. I am aiming for 13.5 stone as apposed to 15.5-17 stone normally 

Once I am trim and hopefully looking decent, I will increase my carbs a bit and add 2-300 calories and see if I can slowly gain.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

No .... you will shrink.









A big muscle is a strong muscle.


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

Natty Steve'o said:


> No .... you will shrink.
> 
> 
> View attachment 134062
> ...


 But that's two different extremes. I'd say 70% of 1 rep max is still pretty heavy, it's about 12 reps according to online calculators.


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

Natty Steve'o said:


> No .... you will shrink.
> 
> 
> View attachment 134062
> ...


 I feel like him on the left to be honest!!!


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

12 reps is good. It is to the upper limit of the "Hypertrophy range" I would say using progressive overload between the 6 - 12 rep range is the optimum range. Working through this range is the way to go. IMO.

I personally aim for my sweet spot which is the 8 rep mark. I'll train up to the 10 reps over the 3 sets then increase the weight which may drop my reps back down as low as 7 reps, even 6 on my last set, however I don't like to go too low (6) over the 3 sets.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

FF03STY said:


> I feel like him on the left to be honest!!!


 If you 15.3 or whatever it was you can't be like the guy on the left lol.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Course you can.

% of 1rm is irrelevant. You can make x kg feel twice as heavy as it is by adapting technique. Takes discipline not to cheat though.

Here's Pakulski teaching a group of people a lesson about lifting using less weight and more control:


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Looking at what some guys chuck about in the gym i'd say that i lift relatively light for my size, i'm not a form Nazi but i'd rather lift less weight properly than try pushing weights that are on the limit.

I have lifted heavy in the past but certainly when you hit middle age injuries are definitely something that you should put at the forefront of your mind when you're training.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Smitch said:


> *Looking at what some guys chuck about in the gym i'd say that i lift relatively light for my size, i'm not a form Nazi but i'd rather lift less weight properly than try pushing weights that are on the limit.*
> 
> I have lifted heavy in the past but certainly when you hit middle age injuries are definitely something that you should put at the forefront of your mind when you're training.


 I've been thinking this quite a lot recently too.. there are a lot of guys where i train lifting more than I do but terribly in most cases and seemingly without being leaps and bounds ahead of me for it either.

even found myself uttering the words 'no, thats too heavy' the other day!


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

andyboro said:


> I've been thinking this quite a lot recently too.. there are a lot of guys where i train lifting more than I do but terribly in most cases and seemingly without being leaps and bounds ahead of me for it either.
> 
> even found myself uttering the words 'no, thats too heavy' the other day!


 You just get to learn what's right for you though don't you.

You know what you need to do to grow, but everyone likes to train differently so there's probably no right or wrong.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The trouble with really high reps to failure is that it's tougher than lifting heavy. There was one trial looking at I think 30 reps and it had people throwing up and a higher drop out rate than usual for studies of its type.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> The trouble with really high reps to failure is that it's tougher than lifting heavy. There was one trial looking at I think *30 reps and it had people throwing up and a higher drop out rate than usual for studies of its type.*


 Why do 30 reps when you can hit the muscle just as hard with 8?

Training till you throw up is one sure way to 1 burn you out or 2 stop you from wanting to train.

I enjoy my training and feeling the pump from a good strict heavy leg session. Remember the weight deemed as heavy is relative to each person. Intensity is a better way to describe what we are looking for. ...This is where it becomes very individual. It's all about being strict with yourself and targeting the muscle, the weight is just ONE tool used to create the intensity. Form, speed, rest, varying rep ranges, are some of the others.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

most strength routines are around 75-90% max with off season training GVT


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Why do 30 reps when you can hit the muscle just as hard with 8?


 One reason is the OP's - injury. It's also something that has actually partly been investigated with a view to addressing muscle loss in the elderly (sarcopenia).

Injury prevention could also perhaps be argued as a benefit of higher rep training, although I could see counter arguments as well.

The evidence for higher rep training is growing all the time, so while in the past I've guided people mostly to the 6 to 10 rep range I now couldn't honestly justify this.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> One reason is the OP's - injury. It's also something that has actually partly been investigated with a view to addressing muscle loss in the elderly (sarcopenia).
> 
> Injury prevention could also perhaps be argued as a benefit of higher rep training, although I could see counter arguments as well.
> 
> The evidence for higher rep training is growing all the time, so while in the past I've guided people mostly to the 6 to 10 rep range I now couldn't honestly justify this.


 I feel high reps in these ranges are more dangerous. As the reps increase the form slowly goes out of the window as fatigue creeps in. The body compensates by utilising other muscle groups other than the intended. Not to mention the routine is 3 x longer than the normal 10 rep routine would be.

I train for 45 - 60 mins top per intense session. I can't really imagine thrashing on for 3 hrs max. It's just madness and not indicative to muscle building IMHO.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

*

*

*








*

*

*

*
Primary Goal - Building Muscle
*

Strength - Under 6 reps (30% of exercise volume)

Hypertrophy - 6-15 reps (60% of exercise volume)

Endurance - 15+ reps (10% of exercise volume)

*
Primary Goal - Increasing Strength
*

Strength - Under 6 reps (80-100% of exercise volume)

Hypertrophy - 6-15 reps (0-20% of exercise volume)

Endurance - 15+ reps (0-10% of exercise volume)

*
Primary Goal - Optimal Fat Loss
*

Strength - Under 6 reps (0-15% of exercise volume)

Hypertrophy - 6-15 reps (70-85% of exercise volume)

Endurance - 15+ reps (15% of exercise volume)


----------



## Andy Dee (Jun 1, 2008)

Rob Richies did


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

I like bodyweight exercises too, very hard to push yourself too hard with them, unweighted of course.

A simple routine of pull ups, dips and press ups will get you in pretty good shape compared to the average Joe on the street


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> *
> 
> *
> 
> ...


 I would say this info is now out of date.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I feel high reps in these ranges are more dangerous. As the reps increase the form slowly goes out of the window as fatigue creeps in. The body compensates by utilising other muscle groups other than the intended. Not to mention the routine is 3 x longer than the normal 10 rep routine would be.
> 
> I train for 45 - 60 mins top per intense session. I can't really imagine thrashing on for 3 hrs max. It's just madness and not indicative to muscle building IMHO.


 I'd argue that for most trainers bad form comes in as a result of trying to lift too heavy rather than trying to hit high volume. I totally agree with the relative nature of heavy though and probably wouldn't suggest that anyone overly new trained the way I do - there's a bit of a learning curve to go through first and for me, that means serving your time in the standard 3x10 area.

Personally though, I have found higher volume far more effective now that I'm no longer 20 and carrying a couple of niggles but still wanting to progress.

my sessions are seldom longer than an hour and reps range from 6-60 depending on the day and where I'm at in my training cycle, this definitely isn't about 8hr biceps lol


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> That info is out of date, as I referred to above.


 Nothing worse than out of date data! lol

So the studies that backed it up must be wrong then ????

It all boils down to muscle fibers and the stimulation of said fibers.

Red / Slow (Type I fibres, 'slow twitch fibres')

Red / Fast (Type IIa fibres, 'fast oxidative fibres')

White / Fast (Type IIb fibres, 'fast glycolytic fibres')

These fibers are designed around muscle performance and endurance, rep ranges stimulate varying degrees of these fibers and thus induce hormone change protein breakdown and synthesis. The high rep bulshit is not indidcative to building large muscle mass.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

1. Slow twitch fibres (Type I): Slow twitch fibres contract slowly but can contract repeatedly over long periods. They have a good blood supply, hence they are 'red fibres', and are suited to endurance activity using the aerobic energy system which relies on oxygen from the blood for the supply of energy. (Check out the energy system folder at ptdirect to see how the different energy systems function).

Slow twitch fibres are smaller and develop less force than fast twitch fibres. Walking or cycling for 30 minutes at low intensity would use mostly slow twitch fibres.

2. Fast twitch fibres (Type IIa): Fast twitch IIa fibres have a fast contraction speed and can use aerobic (oxygen dependant) energy sources as well as anaerobic (no oxygen used) energy sources. Fast twitch IIa fibres are 'white fibres' as they are less reliant on oxygen supplied by the blood for energy and therefore fatigue faster than slow twitch fibres.

Fast twitch type IIa fibres are suited to speed, strength and power type activities, *such as moderately heavy weight training (8-12 reps)* and fast running events such as the 400metres.

3. Fast twitch fibres (Type IIb): Fast twitch IIb fibres contract extremely rapidly, create very forceful muscle contractions and fatigue quickly. Fast twitch IIb fibres are also 'white fibers' but unlike IIa fibres they can only use anaerobic energy sources.

Like type IIa fibres the fast twitch type IIb fibres are also suited to speed, strength and power type activities. Heavy weight training (1-3 reps), power lifting, and 100metre sprints are examples of activities that predominantly require IIb fibres.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> 1. Slow twitch fibres (Type I): Slow twitch fibres contract slowly but can contract repeatedly over long periods. They have a good blood supply, hence they are 'red fibres', and are suited to endurance activity using the aerobic energy system which relies on oxygen from the blood for the supply of energy. (Check out the energy system folder at ptdirect to see how the different energy systems function).
> 
> Slow twitch fibres are smaller and develop less force than fast twitch fibres. Walking or cycling for 30 minutes at low intensity would use mostly slow twitch fibres.
> 
> ...


 You realise that copying and pasting stuff doesn't change the evidence there is for higher rep training producing comparable size and strength gains, right?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

andyboro said:


> I'd argue that for most trainers bad form comes in as a result of trying to lift too heavy rather than trying to hit high volume. I totally agree with the relative nature of heavy though and probably wouldn't suggest that anyone overly new trained the way I do - there's a bit of a learning curve to go through first and for me, that means serving your time in the standard 3x10 area.
> 
> Personally though, I have found higher volume far more effective now that I'm no longer 20 and carrying a couple of niggles but still wanting to progress.
> 
> my sessions are seldom longer than an hour and reps range from 6-60 depending on the day and where I'm at in my training cycle, this definitely isn't about 8hr biceps lol


 I disagree, anyone who trains correctly does not lift too heavy hindering form. Anyone who does needs to get back to basics and relearn what it is they are trying to achieve.

You probably take gear too which IMO is a totally different argument in terms of the parameters of muscle building.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> You realise that copying and pasting stuff doesn't change the evidence there is for higher rep training producing comparable size and strength gains, right?


 The thing is, it does not. Once you go over 15 or so reps you enter the endurance range which can be detrimental to gaining optimum growth and muscle size. I'm not saying you cannot build muscle in this range. What I am saying is you will gain better results sticking to the range that stimulates the fast A & B fibers. Slow fibers do not have the same capacity of growth in terms of size. No amount of new research can or will change this. 

There are too many people trying to claim they have reinvented the wheel.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I disagree, anyone who trains correctly does not lift too heavy hindering form. Anyone who does needs to get back to basics and relearn what it is they are trying to achieve.
> 
> You probably take gear too which IMO is a totally different argument in terms of the parameters of muscle building.


 To be fair, anyone who allows their ego to inhibit correct form should probably go back a step or two regardless of how they're training at the time. I still think that this is far more likely to occur when chasing weight on the bar though.

Is it totally different though? It grants me the opportunity to push a little more and arguably get away with a little more too but the principles are the same.. if they weren't then there wouldn't be so many people using and not really getting anywhere lol.

On balance, I'd probably go with @Ultrasonic on overall results actually being comparable tbh.. these kinds of debates have and will go on forever and realistically, what ever someone can do consistently without injury is in most cases the right thing to do.

Personally, in the early days I was taught that strength was all important and 'you never see a small strong man' which I guess is true.. There's more than one way to skin a cat though and I enjoy this way far more as well as seeing more for my efforts too.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Good nutrition plays a major part in all of this without it you won't grow to your potential.

Train in high reps and you will never be as muscular as you would by training in the optimum range. 

100m sprinters are bigger and more muscular them 400m sprinters!

400m sprinters are more muscular than 8 - 1500m runners!

1500m runners are more muscular than marathon runners!

Just take a look at the the olympics, the events and athletes. The human body adapts to what stimulus/training it is subjected to. All of the athletes have the same muscle fiber groups which adapt to speed, power and endurance alike. Whichever the greater demand which is put on the specific fiber group it grows or adapts thus shaping the body. Its simple human physiology adaptation. you don't need any studies just use your own eyes.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> The thing is, it does not. Once you go over 15 or so reps you enter the endurance range which can be detrimental to gaining optimum growth and muscle size. I'm not saying you cannot build muscle in this range. What I am saying is you will gain better results sticking to the range that stimulates the fast A & B fibers. Slow fibers do not have the same capacity of growth in terms of size. No amount of new research can or will change this.
> 
> There are too many people trying to claim they have reinvented the wheel.


 You're welcome to believe this but it can no longer be stated as fact as far as I'm concerned. I used to think differently but am prepared to be proved wrong by new evidence and adjust my view accordingly...


----------



## AbuDina (Apr 16, 2016)

Smitch said:


> A simple routine of pull ups, dips and press ups will get you in pretty good shape compared to the average Joe on the street


 You can build a great physique with the above three exercises alone. In fact, they form the main parts of my upper body routine.


----------



## AbuDina (Apr 16, 2016)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Good nutrition plays a major part in all of this without it you won't grow to your potential.


 I think nutrition is massively underrated IMHO. I stopped tracking my food intake for the last 3 months and my gym sessions are all over the place.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> *You're welcome to believe this* but it can no longer be stated as fact as far as I'm concerned. I used to think differently but am prepared to be proved wrong by new evidence and adjust my view accordingly...


 I do.... It's been proven through the fullness of time.

When I see the next MR O only doing sets of 30 with 20kg dumbbells then and only then will I change my mind. All Mr O lift heavy..... BUDDDDDDYYYYYYY Light weight. They may throw some light high volume stuff in there but big weights make big men.

LOL


----------



## Ken Hutchinson (May 29, 2009)

If you train natural, I would keep it under 12 reps, if on gear you can do anything and grow bigger and stronger.


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I do.... It's been proven through the fullness of time.
> 
> When I see the next MR O only doing sets of 30 with 20kg dumbbells then and only then will I change my mind. All Mr O lift heavy..... BUDDDDDDYYYYYYY Light weight. They may throw some light high volume stuff in there but big weights make big men.
> 
> LOL


 I think it's very person specific and you need to know what works for you personally. My chest grows well from high rep cables to failure 30 second rest then repeat then drop weight then repeat until I'm doing just the cable lol this doesn't work for my other muscles groups. Triceps I prefer heavier less intensity. The key is finding what works for you as the way I train may not work for you and vice versa


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I do.... It's been proven through the fullness of time.
> 
> When I see the next MR O only doing sets of 30 with 20kg dumbbells then and only then will I change my mind. All Mr O lift heavy..... BUDDDDDDYYYYYYY Light weight. They may throw some light high volume stuff in there but big weights make big men.
> 
> LOL


 Many Mr Olympia competitors have done LOADS of high rep work over the years, but as always my comments purely refer to people who don't use AAS.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

@FF03STY here is a similar recent thread, that provides info. on the most relevant recent study:

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/289800-lifting-weights-no-need-to-go-heavy/?do=embed&embedComment=5494956&embedDo=findComment#comment-5494956


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> @FF03STY here is a similar recent thread, that provides info. on the most relevant recent study:
> 
> https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/289800-lifting-weights-no-need-to-go-heavy/?do=embed&embedComment=5494956&embedDo=findComment#comment-5494956


 said the skinny guy.....

The study is flawed...

Which brings me back to intensity rather than weight.

People who are not experienced in weightlifting will have a natural response to any resistance stimuli. When I first started training i struggled to bench the 20kg bar.

The findings add to those of a previous study by the same group of researchers, which found that lifting lighter weights was just as effective as lifting heavier weights for building muscle *in men who were not experienced weight lifters.*


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

some guy in my gym is massive, only ever seen him use 10 & 8kg dumbbells.


----------



## Sphinkter (Apr 10, 2015)

Smitch said:


> I like bodyweight exercises too, very hard to push yourself too hard with them, unweighted of course.
> 
> A simple routine of pull ups, dips and press ups will get you in pretty good shape compared to the average Joe on the street


 Love circuit training man pick 5/6 exercises do them with no rest for a 3/4 rounds at about 80% of your max reps and tell me that is not a workout lol


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> The study is flawed...


 It's the single best hypertrophy assessing study I've ever read, but of course it isn't perfect and if you read it there is a discussion of these. If you are concerned about a flaw that isn't acknowledge then please share it. Do actually read it some time...



> Which brings me back to intensity rather than weight.
> 
> People who are not experienced in weightlifting will have a natural response to any resistance stimuli. When I first started training i struggled to bench the 20kg bar.
> 
> The findings add to those of a previous study by the same group of researchers, which found that lifting lighter weights was just as effective as lifting heavier weights for building muscle *in men who were not experienced weight lifters.*


 Zero points for reading comprehension there as I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. The PREVIOUS study was on inexperienced lifters, whereas the new one was carried out using people with an average of 4 years lifting experience. This was one of the key points of the study.

The reasonable question to raise is whether it is a novelty effect, in that although participants had lifting experience they probably hadn't trained using such high reps before.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Why put a number and % If the volume does not matter and fatigue is key ? Load of bulshit IMO

"between 30 and 50 percent of the maximum for 20 to 25 repetitions"






These guys all lift big.


----------



## bossdog (Aug 25, 2011)

Banzi would have been all over this thread he mentioned quite a few times how he used to watch guys in gym struggling with heavy weights and risking injury when he used to train with a lot lighter weights than them and according to him he looked a lot better


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> It's the single best hypertrophy assessing study I've ever read, but of course it isn't perfect and if you read it there is a discussion of these. If you are concerned about a flaw that isn't acknowledge then please share it. Do actually read it some time...
> 
> Zero points for reading comprehension there as I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. The PREVIOUS study was on inexperienced lifters, whereas the new one was carried out using people with an average of 4 years lifting experience. This was one of the key points of the study.
> 
> The reasonable question to raise is whether it is a novelty effect, in that although participants had lifting experience they probably hadn't trained using such high reps before.


 Using this study and way of thinking marathon runners would be huge alas they are not. As long as the muscle is fatigued. Its you who cannot grasp the fundamentals of basic physiology limitations of muscle growth vs endurance the two cannot go hand in hand. There is an optimum for both ends of the scale and a huge variance for anything in between.

Go read some more studies fella .....


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Good nutrition plays a major part in all of this without it you won't grow to your potential.
> 
> Train in high reps and you will never be as muscular as you would by training in the optimum range.
> 
> ...


 That's not true mate. Everyone has different kind of muscle fibers in respective muscle group. I may have more slow switch muscle fibers and you may have more fast muscle fibers in your biceps(for e.g). Therefore, you may respond better to heavy weight and I might respond better to high reps.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> That's not true mate. Everyone has different kind of muscle fibers in respective muscle group. I may have more slow switch muscle fibers and you may have more fast muscle fibers in your biceps(for e.g). Therefore, you may respond better to heavy weight and I might respond better to high reps.


 Rubbish read my quote which you have in bold.

They all have all of the same groups of fibers period.

They may vary in quantities but all fiber groups WILL be present.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

bossdog said:


> Banzi would have been all over this thread he mentioned quite a few times how he used to watch guys in gym struggling with heavy weights and risking injury when he used to train with a lot lighter weights than them and according to him he looked a lot better


 I have trained with

@banzi


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Using this study and way of thinking marathon runners would be huge alas they are not.


 Doing a 25 rep set *TO FAILURE* is a world away from running a marathon. Usain Bolt takes 41 steps (~20 per leg) to run 100m, and doesn't reach failure.


----------



## naturalguy (Jan 21, 2016)

2004mark said:


> Course you can.
> 
> % of 1rm is irrelevant. You can make x kg feel twice as heavy as it is by adapting technique. Takes discipline not to cheat though.
> 
> Here's Pakulski teaching a group of people a lesson about lifting using less weight and more control:


 Pakulski

HAHAHAHA


----------



## naturalguy (Jan 21, 2016)

bossdog said:


> Banzi would have been all over this thread he mentioned quite a few times how he used to watch guys in gym struggling with heavy weights and risking injury when he used to train with a lot lighter weights than them and according to him he looked a lot better


 One person doing something doesn't make it right or proof.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Doing a 25 rep set *TO FAILURE* is a world away from running a marathon. Usain Bolt takes 41 steps (~20 per leg) to run 100m...


 Which proves my point.

He aint no body builder yet he will hold a considerable amount more muscle compared to a 800m runner.

Thanks for that


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Which proves my point.
> 
> He aint no body builder yet he will hold a considerable amount more muscle compared to a 800m runner.
> 
> Thanks for that


 The same holds for all sprinters. Marathon runners are as relevant to this thread as aardvarks.

You are also deliberately overlooking the effects of reaching failure and progressive overload which were fundamental to the study.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> The same holds for all sprinters. Marathon runners are as relevant to this thread as aardvarks.
> 
> You are also deliberately* overlooking the effects of reaching failure and progressive overload *which were fundamental to the study.


 No... This has been taken into consideration. By utilising more of the slow twitch endurance orientated fibers which correlates to the high rep ranges stated (20 - 30) reduces the growth % potential against using the fast a & b twitch fibers. This stuff ain't rocket science. Dorian, Ronnie, arnold, jay, Ramey, Bolt, Lewis, jackson, Cram, Coe, Mo. are or were at the top of their game. All of their bodies engage a different cross section of these muscle fibers. They are trained and adapted to best support the body's needs in terms of physicality of their chosen sport.


----------



## benji666 (Apr 18, 2015)

I have always held the belief that to a good extent poundage used is more about building the ego than the muscle. At my gym,before it got into the state it's in now, we had some serious powerlifters would train down there , they were at the college that they call a university these days and the college gym was always crowded and had rules so they trained with us.

They would shift some serious weight, deadlifts, squats OHP, yet they were no where near the size of the bodybuilders who used significantly less weight. Arnold used to say,people would look at him doing say bicep curls but be mystified by the weight he used , yet he said they don't understand how extremely strict form for 5 sets of moderate tio high reps can make a light weight by most estimations much heavier. I see people trying for max benches all the time, and they wonder why they can't get bigger. or using their lower back and legs to haul while doing bicep curls and wonder why their arms stay the same size.

Serge nubret who I personally think had the best body I have ever seen in bodybuilding was an advocate of extremely long punishing workouts using light to moderate weight rest of 30 secs between sets but highly strict form.

I would say though you are just at much risk of injury training like serge did, as training heavier but with lower reps and less strict form, end of the day a muscle /joint/ ligament is under stress especially when you get serious with this,you need to stress the muscle to grow. You are also probably more at risk of CNS and psychological overload as well training like serge did.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> No... This has been taken into consideration. By utilising more of the slow twitch endurance orientated fibers which correlates to the high rep ranges stated (20 - 30) reduces the growth % potential against using the fast a & b twitch fibers. This stuff ain't rocket science.


 Please either read the study or stop commenting on it, because all you're doing is repeating things that you've always believed but that aren't actually borne out by recent research. One of the ways the study in question is excellent is that they used muscle biopsies to assess growth of type I and type II fibres seperately, and showed equivalent growth of both types of fibre for the two training regimes (8-12 and 20-25 rep ranges).

This isn't what I or many others would have expected, but I'm open minded enough to admit I was wrong. I have advised people on this forum against higher rep training in the past, particularly nattys, because this has always been the perceived wisdom. Recent research brings this dogma into question and at the very least has demonstrated that both new and experienced lifters can make gains for at least a few months using higher rep training. I'm not trying to get you to change your trainng BTW, but it's wrong to just dismiss higher rep training (to failure), and particularly using arguments based on outdated assumptions to do so.


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

well after reading all these i still dont have a fecking clue, thanks for the replys though!

What I willdo it keep training with my highest set of 10 around 70% max weight, then I drop abit lower to 60% and hit 12, they stay at that doing 12 - 10 with a 45 sec break.

Until I come to the bulking stage I guess I wont know whats working, but at the moment I am starting to look better, am loosing weight and feel a lot better!!

when i was 22 i dabbled in gear and trained and ate solid for 7-9 months, max bench was 100kg over 2-3 reps, then 90kg over 6-7 reps and 80kg could do 10 no problem.

now I am doing 50kg on my heavy set and 40 without, also 20kg dumbells for presses. I am going to increase this though I have only been training for 5 weeks, I am 29 now.

I reken I can build my bench up to 60-70kg again fairly quickly, and laying on the bench isnt to bad on my back.

I practice good form and rerally going slow and squeezing the muscles. I trained legs by doing squats with a 10kg medicine ball and that felt as good as 60kg in the squat rack! but alot safer for my back.

Great site here guys! keep it up


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

FF03STY said:


> well after reading all these i still dont have a fecking clue, thanks for the replys though!


 Read through the thread again and you'll see the debate is about 10 to 1 in favour of one side of the argument...

The single most important thing for growth is progressive overload. No matter what the rep range you need to be continously pushing yourself to do more reps or lift more weights. Doing sets of 10, or 15, or whatever without pushing for and achieving this progress won't get you anywhere.


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

I have normally failed by rep 12 and cant finish a 13th rep, thats how I am training right now, then I repeat this once more 45 secs - 1 min later or drop down and go again.

will read through again tomoz as i cant keep my eyes open now!


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

depends on your body and genetics


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Read through the thread again and you'll see the debate is about 10 to 1 in favour of one side of the argument...
> 
> The single most important thing for growth is progressive overload. No matter what the rep range you need to be continously pushing yourself to do more reps or lift more weights. Doing sets of 10, or 15, or whatever without pushing for and achieving this progress won't get you anywhere.


 ......and that is the take home message mate as far as im concerned, regardless of 'rep range' consistent progressive overload will be the key to improvement.

Ill have a look over the link to the studies youve posted as i too have dismissed the 'lighter weights' arguments in the past....thanks mate :thumb


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Apparently gymnasts, even the olympic medal winners don't train with weights and they look like they lift.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Apparently gymnasts, even the olympic medal winners don't train with weights and they look like they lift.


 Oh dear oh dear......

Gymnasts in general are fu**ing tiny.

*All-Around (individual) gold medal winners*:
2000 Sydney, Alexei Nemov (RUS) - 173 centimetres (5 feet 8 inches)
2004 Athens, Paul Hamm (USA) - 163 centimetres (5 ft 4 in)
2008 Beijing, Yang Wei (CHN) - 160 centimetres (5 ft 3 in)
2012 London, Kōhei Uchimura (JPN) - 161 centimetres (5 ft 3.5 in)

I also think because of the average lifestyle of human beings and the lack of any real physical work coupled with our pre packaged convenience food supply which is rife. We have a very poor relationship with simple sugars in dietary terms. Skinny fat is now seen as the normal physique of the average joe. If you go back as little as 30 years you would see a marked difference in terms of natural physiques. People were more lean and thus looked fitter more muscular simply because of food preparations and workload.

Looking at a gymnast your seeing a person who has good diet and large physically challenging activity as their workload. This is quite normal for what they do. A skinny fat person who looks at these tiny fit as f**k people are astonished. Stand one of these people next to a Dorian or Ronnie they would look miniscule.

It's all about perspective.

No matter how many studies are carried out, high rep training alone is not indicative to fulfilling your maximum muscle growth potential. It in simple terms targets the wrong type of muscle fiber. Studies cannot change the human physiology which has evolved over 200,000 years.

I do believe if you incorporate a small percentage of high volume training into your 6 - 12 rep hypertrophy all of the muscle fibers will be trained/stressed and respond, however it is proven that the slow muscle fibers do not yield the same results as the fast a & b fibers in terms of sheer size/hypertrophy vs stimuli.

Training as a skinny fat trainer trainer you will see gains in terms of body composition using the high range, however you need to stress the muscle in the correct ranges and intensity to stimulate your maximum potential. IMO anyone who states otherwise without any real world proof is a quack and a fake. Show me a MR O who has trained solely in this manner and I will change my mind.

Anyone who has any real size lifts 70-90% in the proven hypertrophy range.

I'm off to the gym now to hit the muscle hard in the 8 -10 rep range.

Natty Steve'O

5' 10"

16st 5Lb

33" waist

18.2" biceps

18" neck

15% ish bf

*100% natural lifter *


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Evolved over 200,000 years.
> 
> Natty Steve'O
> 
> ...


 Earth is 6000 years old. Man in the sky said.

Why emphasis on natural, nobody really cares. You just take longer to get everything. Like the knob in my gym who wears "know I'm not on steroids thanks for asking" vests. Yet I know he's gets growth ... So probably gets other stuff.

Ass...


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

todai said:


> Earth is 6000 years old. Man in the sky said.
> 
> Why emphasis on natural, nobody really cares. You just take longer to get everything. Like the knob in my gym who wears "know I'm not on steroids thanks for asking" vests. Yet I know he's gets growth ... So probably gets other stuff.
> 
> Ass...


 I see you care not enough to comment. :lol:

I made that comment to prove what i'm doing is working in the tried and tested rep ranges without any ass-istance.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

Natty Steve'o said:


> I see you care not enough to comment. :lol:
> 
> I made that comment to prove what i'm doing is working in the tried and tested rep ranges without any ass-istance.  Plain and simple.


 Surely with or without assistance it does not matter. If the body as you define grows under a certain stimulates then assited or not does not make a difference?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

todai said:


> Surely with or without assistance it does not matter. If the body as you define grows under a certain stimulates then assited or not does not make a difference?


 ****in lol at this......Then why juice in the first place. Of course it makes a difference. Resistance training increases anabolic activity via hormone release and protein synthesis blah blah blah. Injecting and elevating these hormones to these levels without training gives a muscle building utopia. "PED, AAS" there's clue in there somewhere.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

Natty Steve'o said:


> ****in lol at this......Then why juice in the first place. Of course it makes a difference. Resistance training increases anabolic activity via hormone release and protein synthesis blah blah blah. Injecting and elevating these hormones to these levels without training gives a muscle building utopia. "PED, AAS" there's clue in there somewhere.


 What's to LOL at? Are you slow?

You're talking about muscle growth. So if your assisted or not the muscle should grow under the same stimulus of overload.

How quick it reacts and how long your body is in an anabolic state etc yes is defined by AAS - but the mechanism of growth, via muscle tears etc short reps or long reps or 45 seconds whatever you believe should not be effected by natty or not?

So, if by your own comment it makes a difference as you said, then if your assisted your rep range doesn't apply... So what's the assisted rep range?


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Oh dear oh dear......
> 
> Gymnasts in general are fu**ing tiny.
> 
> ...


 In general they're tiny but you can still be an olympic athlete at 179cms tall, google Louis Smith. And if you're doing gymnastics to get a good physique and not be a competitive athlete, then height seems not to be a problem. Cheers Steve. Keep lifting them weights if you want though.


----------



## workinprogress1 (Oct 1, 2015)

bossdog said:


> Banzi would have been all over this thread he mentioned quite a few times how he used to watch guys in gym struggling with heavy weights and risking injury when he used to train with a lot lighter weights than them and according to him he looked a lot better


 why where is he?

i like lifting lightweights

at my best i could do 4-5 sets of 80-90kg bench press but i'd much prefer to do 12 reps or to failure with 60kg, my muscles seem to feel the burn a lot more, i seem to gain better from it, and tbh i dont ever lift for strength, i love training but lifting ridiculously big weights has never been my thing and i enjoy a session far more the less i use

i still feel just as knackered and like i've had a proper session but it doesnt feel like a chore


----------



## FF03STY (Aug 2, 2016)

wow never thought one of my threads would get this many comments! I should get extra likes or something for the bantz! #Bantz


----------



## workinprogress1 (Oct 1, 2015)

FF03STY said:


> wow never thought one of my threads would get this many comments! I should get extra likes or something for the bantz! #Bantz


 and you should have them all deducted for using a hashtag


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

workinprogress1 said:


> and you should have them all deducted for using a hashtag


 No need for it. #pointless


----------



## Devil (May 31, 2016)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Good nutrition plays a major part in all of this without it you won't grow to your potential.
> 
> Train in high reps and you will never be as muscular as you would by training in the optimum range.
> 
> ...


 This is called specific drug/PED use and training specificity.

Worst examples.


----------



## Gavinmcl (Jul 1, 2010)

I've been using 5x5 as I've had a month off to get some lifts back to where they were at after the 4 week period I'll resort to higher reps of upto 15

I tend to switch everything up very often and I find it works well in terms of getting back into shape , I've not tried higher reps for long enough to say it's predominantly better for muscle growth

I don't care what works best I just switch it up as it keeps the gym fresh and it's constantly challenging


----------



## Andy Dee (Jun 1, 2008)

AbuDina said:


> You can build a great physique with the above three exercises alone. In fact, they form the main parts of my upper body routine.


 My routine few years ago using only squat, bench, military press, tricep dips and pullups using a 5+ rep range gave me the best size and strength gains ive ever ever had. But maybe thats just me.


----------



## 19072 (Aug 11, 2010)

I would say if you focus on the the rep range of 8-12(hypertrophy) with progressive overload each week you will grow. All being well your diet is in check as this is the key factor in growing.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

todai said:


> *What's to LOL at? Are you slow? *


 Yes very....But I'm big, strong and can lift heavy things....


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Yes very....But I'm big, strong and can lift heavy things....


 That's nice but a trained fighter half your size would drop you quickly.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> That's nice but a trained fighter half your size would drop you quickly.


 Wouldn't get no where near me I'm very quick and light on my feet for a big lad. The lill fk would be out cold.

A good big n will beat a good little n. This is why they have weight divisions  .


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Wouldn't get no where near me I'm very quick and light on my feet for a big lad. The lill fk would be out cold.
> 
> A good big n will beat a good little n. This is why they have weight divisions  .


 So you're very slow but you're quick? OK then.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> So you're very slow but you're quick? OK then.


 Obviously

Do you not read my posts. :lol:


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Obviously
> 
> Do you not read my posts. :lol:


 Easy on the icecream mate, it's making you forget what you say.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Easy on the icecream mate, it's making you forget what you say.


 Nah mate, the "very slow" comment was a sarcastic retort, nothing more.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Nah mate, the "very slow" comment was a sarcastic retort, nothing more.


 Quick.....for your size.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Quick.....for your size.


 Lightning reflexes, good hand speed, accuracy and power. Light on my feed with good head movement. I did have a video up on youtube of one of my heavy maize bag workouts. I took it down a while ago.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

If you want to build muscle you have to force your body to grow by providing a massive amount of overload. What do you think is going to do that more effectively?

Doing heavy weights for a set of 5-8 reps?

Or doing light weights for a set of 15-20 reps?

Obviously, the heavy set will provide more overload.

I could end this post here by telling you to train heavy, because that's really the gist of it. But lets get into a little more details on exactly why that is.

The first thing you need to know is that each body part is different. That means it's compromised of varying degrees of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers.

Fast twitch fibers are for high performance and respond best to low reps, lower overall training volume, more rest between sets and lower overall training frequency. These muscles have the greatest potential for growth.

Slow twitch fibers are more for endurance and respond better to higher reps, slightly more volume, less rest between sets and a bit more frequency. These muscles have less potential for growth.

If you were to train one fiber type exclusively it would be the fast twitch fibers.

I like to 80/20 everything in life and training is no different. You will get 80% of your growth from training the fast twitch fibers. Training slow twitch fibers (and using the methods best used to target them like high reps and low rest periods) will only result in* 20%* of your muscle gains.

*

*

Training with low reps will increase myofibrillar hypertrophy. This is actual real growth of the muscle fibers.

Training with high reps is said to increase sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is an increase in the fluid volume stored in the muscles, consisting of non-contractile tissue.

It's easy to increase the size of a muscle through sarcoplasmic hypertrophy but there are limits to it. You only get a small amount of actual size increases and it goes away rather quickly. Muscle built through low rep and heavy weight training always maintains the same dense look.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy induced through lighter, high rep training methods tends to disappear as soon as you lower your training volume or your carbs/fluid intake. And if you take a week or two off of training it can look like you lost ten pounds.

That doesn't happen with low rep, heavy training, which is why it has to be the cornerstone of your training program.

Why Lower Rep Training is Actually Safer

Lower reps come with a lower injury risk when training the big lifts. I don't believe in doing any of the traditional powerlifting or Olympic lifting exercises for more than 6-8 reps unless you have really solid technique and at least a year of experience.

When you go higher than that on the big lifts the injury risk increases exponentially with each rep as form starts to deteriorate. That's because your smaller, stabilizer muscles will give out before your big prime movers.

When you squat for high reps your lower back will crap out from fatigue long before your legs do.

Remember that one of the keys to developing strength, while remaining injury free, is the ability to maximize tension. You can only maximize tension for about six reps, maybe eight, tops.

It's easy to get tight, breathe properly and really dial in your form for a handful of reps. But when you start adding fatigue and labored breathing into the equation your form deteriorates. When that happens you form breaks down. Then you eventually get injured.

The Fatigue and Soreness Factor

When you focus on low reps in your training you will find that you suffer from less overall systemic fatigue than you do when training with traditional high rep, bodybuilding style workouts. This is huge if you are an athlete, a weekend warrior, or someone who just wants to feel great all the time.

When I stick to low rep training I feel like I'm floating down the street when I walk. When I start doing too much high rep pump work I feel like Frankenstein just trudging along the sidewalk.

There's also the soreness factor to consider. The higher reps sets always produce more soreness even if the total reps are the same.

This means that doing five sets of six (30 total reps) will produce less soreness than three sets of ten (30 total reps). I don't know about you but I hate being sore all the time. I love being fresh and ready for anything that life throws at me.

When you do high rep bodybuilding style training you can't just jump into a pickup game at the park or beach because you're usually suffering from residual fatigue or are just too damn sore.

A Guide to Slow and Fast Twitch Fibers

Some muscles are predominantly fast twitch, some are predominantly slow twitch, and others are mixed.

Let's start from the top down. But before get into let me just state that again that newbies should always stick with low rep training, no matter what. Higher reps should only be considered after you have trained properly for at least two years. And even at that point, they should only make up about 20-30% of your overall training volume.

Neck
Many people assume that since it's a postural muscle the neck would be predominantly slow twitch, but it's been shown that the sternocleidomastoid is actually closer to 65% fast twitch. However, due to safety issues you should train the neck with higher reps.

Traps
These are postural muscles and thus, slow twitch dominant. But that doesn't mean you should do a dozen sets of high rep shrugs at every workout. You see plenty of powerlifters and Olympic lifter who have huge traps from deadlifts, cleans and snatches, which are all done with low reps.

The real benefit of this information is in knowing how to keep your shoulders healthy. You should do things like face pulls and incline shrugs for sets of 8-12 reps to help avoid a shoulder injury. Just don't ever make high rep training the main focus of your training.

Shoulders
The shoulders are an interesting muscle group in that you should train them with both low and high reps. Pressing is all about performance and should be done for low reps. Then, to maximize the size of your side and rear delts you'll want to add in some higher rep sets. This only applies to people who have trained properly for at least two years. Newbies should always stick with low rep training.

Chest
The chest is predominantly fast twitch and responds best to low reps and heavy weight. I generally recommend sets of 5-8 reps, but if you do enough volume, you can good results by doing sets of 4 and even 3 reps for chest work. I'd be very careful and limit the work you do in the lower end of the rep range, however, as it can be very hard on your joints.

On the other hand, if you do too much high rep pressing not only will your muscle growth suffer but you may notice an increase in shoulder pain from your chest getting too tight.

Lats
The lats are generally of mixed composition and thus respond best to medium reps. You can't go wrong sticking with an average of 6-8 reps per set on lat work.

Lower Back
This is a postural muscle so it is predominantly slow twitch. If you train the lower back with movements like back extensions and reverse hypers they should be done for high reps. If you only train the lower back with deadlift and Olympic lift variations you'll want to stick with low reps.

Glutes
Generally slow twitch muscles that respond better to slightly higher reps. But again, you can build great glutes with squats, lunges, deadlifts and glute ham raises, all of which should be done for low reps.

Hamstrings
They are performance muscles responsible for speed and power. That means they are fast twitch and are to be trained with low reps.

Quads
The quads are comprised of a nearly equal mix of fibers. That's why Olympic lifters and power lifters get huge quads from doing sets of 1-3 reps and why speed skaters and cyclists get huge quads from the long time under tension their sport demands.

Twenty rep squat programs became popular for a reason- because they work.

All that being said I still recommend sticking with predominantly low rep strength training for quads. One reason being that it works better for steroid-free, average lifters. The second reason being that you will already be getting "high rep" leg training in at least 1-2 times per week with your HIIT (high intensity interval training) workouts that consist of bike or sled sprints. No need for more than that.

Putting it All Together

The main takeaway is that you should focus 80% of your training on working in the range of 5-8 reps with compound movements. That's how you build muscle most effectively.

Do nothing but low reps during your first two years of training.

After that sprinkle in some higher reps on:

Neck exercises like loaded flexion and extension (10-20 reps)

Rear delt fly variations (10-15 reps)

Lateral raise variations (10-15 reps)

Face pulls (8-12 reps)

Triceps extensions and pushdowns (8-12 reps)

Back raises and reverse hypers (10-20 reps)

Glute bridges and hip thrusts (8-12 reps)

What About if I'm Over 40?
If you're over 40 and have been training for many years you might want to stick with an average of 8-10 reps per set. And when you are strong and advanced you can actually get great results by sprinkling in a few more sets of 15-20 reps. Heavy weights for high reps can be very effective. But the key is being able to use enough load and to be able maintain proper form throughout the set. But that's a whole other article in itself.

As long as you feel good and don't have any serious injuries I'd still recommend training as heavy as you safely can.

What About if I'm a Female?
Because females generally tend to have more slow twitch fibers, I usually recommend that they bump the reps up slightly. There is still a time and place for sets of 5-7 reps, but in general, 8-10 reps should play a bigger roll in your training program.

And that's a wrap, my friends.

Train hard, train heavy, train smart.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Lightning reflexes, good hand speed, accuracy and power. Light on my feed with good head movement. I did have a video up on youtube of one of my heavy maize bag workouts. I took it down a while ago.


 Bags don't hit back. I'll leave you now so you can let the forum know how big and hard you are, bye.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Bags don't hit back. I'll leave you now so you can let the forum know how big and hard you are, bye.


 Nice bit of trolling

see ya


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

@James Llewellin

What's your prefered rep range for building muscle?

Curious ?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> @James Llewellin
> 
> What's your prefered rep range for building muscle?
> 
> Curious ?


 You seem to have rather lost sight of the OP's question Steve...


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> You seem to have rather lost sight of the OP's question Steve...


 Nope... I have stated it is possible to a degree.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

I could disagree with a lot of the above... but the best approach is do whatever works for you, and thats different for most people and... work towards your goals.


----------



## UK2USA (Jan 30, 2016)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Lightning reflexes, good hand stroking, accuracy and power. Light in my loafers with good head movement. I did have a video up on youtube of one of my heavy makeouts. It was taken down by the gay police.


 Fixed.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Natty Steve'o said:


> Nope... I have stated it is possible to a degree.


 Glad you cleared that up as I'd thought it was solely about endurance training.

/thread.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

UK2USA said:


> Fixed.


 :lol:

Quality .

Should have read "loafers while giving good head"..... :thumbup1:


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Glad you cleared that up as I'd thought it was solely about endurance training.
> 
> /thread.


 If you want to add muscle mass as fast as your genetics will allow, lifting heavy weights should still be the main focus of your training. But the addition of some high rep work to a program that already includes heavier training is a great way to get bigger and stronger.

There is some research to suggest that lighter weights and higher reps promote greater gains in type I muscle fibers. Heavier weights and lower reps, on the other hand, increase growth in the type II fibers to a greater extent.

From Dr Brad Schoenfeld:

"If your goal is to build as much muscle as possible, it seems appropriate to train across the spectrum of loading zones; use lighter loads to target type I fibers and heavier loads to target type IIs. In this way, you ensure maximal development of all fiber types."


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

There's hope for you yet Steve  . Brad Schoenfeld is someone well worth everyone listening to, and a researcher carrying out some of the most informative studies right now, including important research into low load training.

For info here is an extract from a recent interview where he discusses the paper I have referred to (Morton 2016):

*Bret: What sayeth you in response to the theory that motor unit activation drives hypertrophy, and as long as volitional failure is reached for a particular load, all motor units in the muscle will be activated according to the size principle, and optimal hypertrophy will be achieved.*

Brad: It is well established that MU activation drives hypertrophy - ultimately maximal hypertrophy involves full recruitment of the spectrum of MUs while maintaining high firing rates in these MUs for a sufficient period of time (which is the essence of MU activation). The question as to whether adaptations are the same between any loading intensity given training to muscular fatigue remains speculative, and there is reason to hypothesize this isn't the case.

There is now compelling evidence that a muscle will hypertrophy using even very low loads. Our lab has shown this happens with trained subjects (Schoenfeld et al 2015), and recent research out of Stu Phillips lab confirms our findings (Morton et al, 2016). (Side note: This is one of the aforementioned topics that I've changed my opinion on based on emerging evidence - I'd previously held the belief that lower loads produced only minimal hypertrophic increases).

That said, many things remain to be determined here. EMG work compellingly shows higher amplitudes associated with high vs low load training to failure. The applicability of these findings to training-induced adaptions is not clear, but they at least provide a reason for caution when attempting to conclude that it all comes down to training to failure. Moreover, from a mechanistic standpoint we can't necessarily assume that results between loading conditions are purely a mechanical phenomenon - effects mediated by metabolic stress and/or muscle damage may be involved in the response. No study has endeavored to look at mechanistic actions, and I can't fathom how this could be accurately assessed.

Moreover, there is evidence that the hypertrophy manifests differentially at higher versus lower loads, with greater type I increases noted in lower load training and greater type II increases noted in higher load training (although the recent study from Stu's lab seems to contradict these findings and show no differences). And it's also possible that some of the hypertrophic increases in the lower load condition may be related to increases in other non-contractile tissue (i.e. mitochondrial content). Finally, the short-term nature of resistance training studies leaves open the possibility that results may be at least in part attributed to a novelty effect and that findings might diverge over time.

So my feeling based on current evidence and practical expertise, and given the possibility of differential effects between loading zones, is that training through a spectrum of repetition ranges is best for those looking to maximize muscle growth. Our recent study looking at a varied versus constant loading protocol suggests a potential benefit to such an approach, at least for increasing growth in the upper body musculature (Schoenfeld et al 2016). But science is ever-evolving and, as previously noted, I'll be the first to change my opinion in the face of compelling new evidence

The full interview is here:

https://bretcontreras.com/discussing-muscle-hypertrophy-science-with-brad-schoenfeld/


----------



## AbuDina (Apr 16, 2016)

andysutils said:


> My routine few years ago using only squat, bench, military press, tricep dips and pullups using a 5+ rep range gave me the best size and strength gains ive ever ever had. But maybe thats just me.


 This x 1000000


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

2004mark said:


> Course you can.
> 
> % of 1rm is irrelevant. You can make x kg feel twice as heavy as it is by adapting technique. Takes discipline not to cheat though.
> 
> Here's Pakulski teaching a group of people a lesson about lifting using less weight and more control:


 Exact same argument I have with rows........ people always like to ego lift though.


----------

