# Bigger Leaner Stronger: 4-6 Reps Best For Natural Lifters?



## Vanchatron (Sep 25, 2006)

I recently bought the book 'Bigger Leaner Stronger' just for some general training/diet advice and because I'd been hearing great things about the book all over the internet so I figured I'd give it a shot.

I'm at the section where he starts talking about optimal rep ranges (and I know this has been discussed to death over the years on forums) and was surprised when he said that for natural bodybuilders they should pretty much be doing ALL their lifts in the 4-6 rep range. He goes on to say that the reason AAS using bodybuilders get decent results from using 10-12 reps in their lifts is because they're drug assisted, and that if a natural person uses over the 4-6 rep range then their results are basically gonna be crap. He claims all it's doing is giving you a bigger pump in the gym and only making your muscles look large WHILST training, whereas the 4-6 rep range makes your muscles bigger in general at all times.

Well if that's the case then I just wondered, why don't drug assisted bodybuilders just train in the 4-6 rep range? He says that training with 10-12 reps etc does nothing extra to bring out striations in your muscles etc, and that it's basically pointless. He claims that they are able to gain muscle using higher rep ranges because of the steroids they're on. If what he says is true (that 4-6 reps is the best for bodybuilding) then why don't they just use that rep range because if it's "the best" as he claims, then even the drug assisted lifters can get better results in that rep range.

I'm just reading through the book wondering about several things, because before I picked up the book I was training using the "Reverse Pyramid" method (6/8/10/12 reps per exercise) and it seemed to be working alright. Now he's basically suggesting that I shouldn't be doing that because the higher rep ranges are pointless. So I'm kinda stuck now... I know people say good things about this book and it's sold over 100,000 copies but surely just staying in the 4-6 rep range the whole time isn't gonna be optimal is it?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)




----------



## Vanchatron (Sep 25, 2006)

Cheers!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Just to add, I think that what is likely to be optimal is to train with a variety of rep ranges i.e. some lower rep strength work and some higher rep (higher volume) work. Different rep ranges stimulate different adaptations in the muscle and to maximise growth I think it makes sense to exploit them all. (This paper gives you more information than you probably want, but I'll mention it just in case you're interested.)

One time when I think focusing on lower rep training (e.g. 5x5) is good is when someone just starts training. One major reason for this is that initial strength gains are largely from neurological adaptations rather than muscles getting bigger, and it is good to get through this phase quickly so that the growth most people really want can begin sooner.

Training frequency is a more important factor than rep ranges as far as I'm concerned, but it always gets far less attention. This is worth a read I think:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/training-frequency-for-mass-gains.html/


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Natty? 12 reps for sets? Weights not heavy enough!


----------



## ZUKOSAURUS (Nov 23, 2014)

Nonsense.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

i usually do 3 and half reps per set and get my spotter to do another 3


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

The rep range is same whether you are on AAS or not, the goal is still to build muscle. That is achieved not by hitting one particular rep range, but multiple rep ranges.


----------

