# Squats: Low rep vs High rep for hypertrophy



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

*What works best for you for quad mass?*​
Low (5 or less) 1523.81%Moderate (6-10+) 3657.14%High (15+)1219.05%


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Thought this might make an interesting poll. As per the title, this is mainly aimed at those who train for bodybuilding/hypertrophy purposes. Cast your vote!

I've personally found high rep to work best for me. I stick to a 15-20 rep range, do my set to failure, dropset with similar reps, and generally create an excrutiating pump so my legs turn to jelly. It's painful, but it works :thumbup1:


----------



## Ste7n (Jul 12, 2011)

If you had an option for both i'd of took part in the poll...


----------



## Mince Pies (Dec 3, 2014)

High Rep everytime, none of that hippie sh1t.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

SouthPaw said:


> If you had an option for both i'd of took part in the poll...


Well... if you had to choose one, based purely on what works, which one would you pick


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Mince Pies said:


> High Rep everytime, none of that hippie sh1t.


I've found GVT (10x10) to work well for quads & glutes as well. I think anything based on light weight and going for a solid pump works well for me tbh. My arms and rear delt are both the same.


----------



## Ste7n (Jul 12, 2011)

I said:


> Well... if you had to choose one' date=' based purely on what works, which one would you pick  [/quote']
> 
> Well I'd go with heavy and low...
> 
> but then i'd dropset light and high till i couldn't walk right... :lol: So i still technically can't split them...lol


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> I've found GVT (10x10) to work well for quads & glutes as well. I think anything based on light weight and going for a solid pump works well for me tbh. My arms and rear delt are both the same.


Layne Norton and others have stated from studies that there is no difference between high and low reps for hypertophy.

You can build just as big legs from 8x3 as 2x12.

Hypetrophy is simply a side effect of progressive overload, you cant train specifically for it.

This is why powerlifters are just as jacked as bodybuilders, only they dont have the symmetry.


----------



## The doog (Aug 6, 2013)

I like to do some thing like 5,3,2,1, then lower the weight and grind out three or four sets of higher reps (10-20 normally). Best of both worlds. Plus heavy squats are the best exercise, no exceptions.

All other work like hacks,front, leg press etc I normally go 10-15 reps so might as well go heavy on the squats.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> Layne Norton and others have stated from studies that there is no difference between high and low reps for hypertophy.
> 
> You can build just as big legs from 8x3 as 2x12.
> 
> ...


Well, I disagree with them. What science and studies (which are almost always done on relatively inexperienced lifters, so bares no relevance to those of us that have been lifting for a couple of years or more) say quite often have no resemblance in real life.

I did 5x5 and I've done heavy work for legs over significant periods of time, and my quads never really responded. When I train at higher reps, they grow like weeds. The same or vice versa with other muscles. But hey, maybe I should switch back to low reps, despite knowing it doesn't work well, because science and some bloke with a PhD apparently knows my own body better than I do? I'll pass mate, thanks.


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

> Well, I disagree with them. What science and studies (which are almost always done on relatively inexperienced lifters, so bares no relevance to those of us that have been lifting for a couple of years or more) say quite often have no resemblance in real life.
> 
> I did 5x5 and I've done heavy work for legs over significant periods of time, and my quads never really responded. When I train at higher reps, they grow like weeds. The same or vice versa with other muscles. But hey, maybe I should switch back to low reps, despite knowing it doesn't work well, because science and some bloke with a PhD apparently knows my own body better than I do? I'll pass mate, thanks.


it seems like you havent actually read the study layne norton references. its not as simple as low reps and high reps when comparing hypertrophy. if you do 2 sets of 3 its obviously not going to be as taxing as 10 sets of 15. its about the total volume of the workout as far as hypertrophy is concerned. this is the study if you wanted to read it: Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading str... - PubMed - NCBI

although the sample size isnt that great and more studies would be beneficial, it provides alot more evidence than just how you feel. maybe low reps didnt work for you because you didnt do it right


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Straighthate said:


> Layne Norton and others have stated from studies that there is no difference between high and low reps for hypertophy.
> 
> You can build just as big legs from 8x3 as 2x12.


Which makes you wonder why Layne Norton bases his whole training strategy around alternating power workouts & hypertrophy workouts.

I've always thought that a variety of rep schemes is going to work the best


----------



## Jamieson (Jul 11, 2014)

1 set of squats twice a week, 4-6 reps with a rep speed of 4/8 per rep has worked wonders for my leg development.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

scott08 said:


> it seems like you havent actually read the study layne norton references. its not as simple as low reps and high reps when comparing hypertrophy. if you do 2 sets of 3 its obviously not going to be as taxing as 10 sets of 15. its about the total volume of the workout as far as hypertrophy is concerned. this is the study if you wanted to read it: Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading str... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> although the sample size isnt that great and more studies would be beneficial, it provides alot more evidence than just how you feel. maybe low reps didnt work for you because you didnt do it right


Define "didn't do it right"? As I said, some of my bodyparts respond well to it, others didn't. Somehow I probably just wasn't doing it right on others though? Good logic :thumbup1: Same sort of volume for all major groups as well.

It'll be a great day when bodybuilders stop relying on science and studies so much and find out what works through trial and error. It's all well and good using them for ideas for your own training, but brushing ideas under the carpet because of what a study says is madness IMO.


----------



## J1mmyc (Mar 25, 2012)

6-8 reps 2 sets back 2 sets front high reps while bulking is to knackering heres my legs before i started bulking not to bad

View attachment 163303


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

> It'll be a great day when bodybuilders stop relying on science and studies so much and find out what works through trial and error. It's all well and good using them for ideas for your own training, but brushing ideas under the carpet because of what a study says is madness IMO.


I think a balance needs to be struck. If you've ever read Alan Aragon's research review - that's a really good example of how* critical application* of scientific studies can be helpful.

In the AAR, Aragon doesn't just present the studies at face value - he drills into them, and talks a lot about the relevance of the study to seasoned bodybuilders. One of his most common criticisms is that the study used untrained subjects who are going to gain no-matter what they eat.

When you read his comments, it's amazing how some of these studies make the most blindingly obvious school-boy errors - like not controlling for total calories or total protein.

Another thing that often pops up is that when you take two samples of subjects, you can get similar average results, but lots of in-sample variation. Comparing low carb with low fat diets is a prime example - average results are usually similar, but you get some individuals who clearly do better on one or the other.

Maybe when formal comparisons between high & low rep turn up no real difference, we've got something like this going on.


----------



## Tag (Jun 19, 2013)

Found higher reps better for definition for me, but my legs (and by extension, body) feel stronger with lower reps

High rep DB Lunges are an extremely underrated exercise for example

My favourite is Front Squats though, prefer them to Back Squats

At the moment I'm doing Front Squats, Stiff Legged Deadlift, Calf Raises then finishing with DB Lunges

Nice mix of low and high reps


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

> Define "didn't do it right"? As I said, some of my bodyparts respond well to it, others didn't. Somehow I probably just wasn't doing it right on others though? Good logic :thumbup1: Same sort of volume for all major groups as well.
> 
> It'll be a great day when bodybuilders stop relying on science and studies so much and find out what works through trial and error. It's all well and good using them for ideas for your own training, but brushing ideas under the carpet because of what a study says is madness IMO.


exactly how i mentioned, by not doing the equivalent amount of work load and not taking rest time into account. if you have the same workout duration but one workout was low reps and the other high reps, assuming you were going at full intensity, you wouldn't get as much hypertrophy from the low rep set due to the nature of low rep sets and the time you need between them.

relax fella. no one is brushing anything under the carpet. most of the people who have an opinion on the matter would suggest both high and low rep training for a few reasons, some outside of just hypertrophy. it also takes a lot longer to get the same amount of total volume from a low rep workout than it is from a high rep one, which is why it is usually preferred for hypertrophy as less time has to be spent in the gym

maybe some like to look into the science to expand their knowledge on the activity that consumes a lot of their lives, as well as to take out some of the guess work in what they're doing and make intelligent and informed decisions with their approach to diet and training


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

scott08 said:


> exactly how i mentioned, by not doing the equivalent amount of work load and not taking rest time into account. if you have the same workout duration but one workout was low reps and the other high reps, assuming you were going at full intensity, you wouldn't get as much hypertrophy from the low rep set due to the nature of low rep sets and the time you need between them.
> 
> relax fella. no one is brushing anything under the carpet. most of the people who have an opinion on the matter would suggest both high and low rep training for a few reasons, some outside of just hypertrophy. it also takes a lot longer to get the same amount of total volume from a low rep workout than it is from a high rep one, which is why it is usually preferred for hypertrophy as less time has to be spent in the gym
> 
> maybe some like to look into the science to expand their knowledge on the activity that consumes a lot of their lives, as well as to take out some of the guess work in what they're doing and make intelligent and informed decisions with their approach to diet and training


Granted, but then as I said I find that lower repsdo indeed work very well for other parts of my body, namely chest and back. Certainly not that I don't know what I'm doing - what you're telling me about volume is not news to me at all. It's just that training with lower reps on legs does nothing for me, simple as that. Same with other parts of my body.

You seem to be mistaking what I've said. As I've already said, I haven't shunned low rep training, at all. A mixture is good. I also said that using research and studies to supplement your knowledge is all well and good, you can learn a lot from them. However, far too many people read one study, take it as gospel and proceed to shun any opposing opinion, even when it's clear that neither way is THE absolute and only correct method. As has also been pointed out by others in this thread, many studies are massively flawed and, although somewhat useful, shouldn't be taken as the final word on the subject.


----------



## Benchbum (Apr 20, 2011)

When I actually want my legs to grow and put my mind to it

Every five days and I rotate though this:

10 x 10 back squat

6 x12 back and 3 x 8 front

8 x 5 heavy back

Piramid to a 1 or 2 rm finish with front to failure.

Back to the start.

Three cycles takes 60 days and never ever fails to make a clear visual difference


----------



## Mince Pies (Dec 3, 2014)

IMHO you should be maxing out at 8-12 good reps (and a few cheat reps) x 4 or 5 sets . If you cant get 8 good reps in then lighten the weight. In my experience and from most of the bro science i've read you will get much better results in a higher rep range. You will fill out better. If your looking for strength then higher weight low reps ftw.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Straighthate said:


> Layne Norton and others have stated from studies that there is no difference between high and low reps for hypertophy.
> 
> You can build just as big legs from 8x3 as 2x12.


You have misunderstood Layne there, as this is not what he says and this is not what the limited studies show. It is volume and not total reps that is the dominant factor. Volume is sets x reps x load (weight). 8x3 is higher workload than 2x12 due to the significantly higher weight used and so would be expected to produce more hypertrophy.

However, Layne does not claim that volume is the only factor, and recommends training with a variety of rep ranges with other factors in mind. It is possibly also worth noting that Layne's personal current goals are powerlifting rather than hypertrophy focused.

I'll be interested in the results of this poll.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

TommyBananas said:


> the results of this poll are meaningless.


I'm a scientist and pay a lot of attention to the results of well conducted studies. I do not however agree that the results of this poll are meaningless.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

TommyBananas said:


> >science
> 
> >bunch of people who dont know how to train voting on a poll


That makes no sense.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

TommyBananas said:


> Because of your inability to make sense of things - doesn't mean something doesn't make sense.


Actually it does, but this is an incredibly silly argument so I'll leave it here!


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm a scientist and pay a lot of attention to the results of well conducted studies. *I do not however agree that the results of this poll are meaningless*.


They are...

If there is no empirical evidence that support everyones claims ITT (including mine) then it is useless.

Everyone is using their intuition, e.g 'I *feel* like high reps makes my legs grow'.

What they feel and what is reality may be completely different.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Straighthate said:


> Everyone is using their intuition, e.g 'I *feel* like high reps makes my legs grow'.
> 
> What they feel and what is reality may be completely different.


Yes. But if someone trained for a while one way and got little growth, but then changed to another and did get growth, then that is more than a 'feeling'. One person saying this is of limited use, but a poll with input from a large number of people is more meaningful. The studies that are carried out are for limited periods of time with small numbers of volunteers, so they are far from perfect as well. From your first post I take it that you respect Layne Norton's opinions. If so you should bear in mind that he absolutely does not dismiss empirical evidence.

At the very least this poll will tell us if there is a prevailing view amongst posters on this forum, which in itself is interesting. And note all I said was that the poll was interesting, not that it would give a definitive answer! I also didn't say it was scientific; it isn't.


----------



## theBEAST2002 (Oct 16, 2011)

SouthPaw said:


> If you had an option for both i'd of took part in the poll...


Both would of been a better option. 6-10 reps works well, 20+ with heavy weight works better. Mixing up the 2, will yield consistent results.


----------



## gaz90 (Jun 19, 2014)

after my max effort squatting, when a bit off extra muscle is needed, I like to do 1-2 sets of 20+ reps with about 120kg. I dont like squatting for multiple sets so 1-2 hard sets suits me.


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

> Granted, but then as I said I find that lower repsdo indeed work very well for other parts of my body, namely chest and back. Certainly not that I don't know what I'm doing - what you're telling me about volume is not news to me at all. It's just that training with lower reps on legs does nothing for me, simple as that. Same with other parts of my body.
> 
> You seem to be mistaking what I've said. As I've already said, I haven't shunned low rep training, at all. A mixture is good. I also said that using research and studies to supplement your knowledge is all well and good, you can learn a lot from them. However, far too many people read one study, take it as gospel and proceed to shun any opposing opinion, even when it's clear that neither way is THE absolute and only correct method. As has also been pointed out by others in this thread, many studies are massively flawed and, although somewhat useful, shouldn't be taken as the final word on the subject.


thats fair enough, seems to have just been a misunderstanding then.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Personally, my belief is that periodizing loading, frequency and volume is the best option for continued long term progression but that higher reps are generally better for increasing muscle hypertrophy. There are so many factors that make research on this topic very difficult to do in a way that could provide a meaningful answer and there is also a lack of research in general as most resistance training studies on athletes look more at performance and strength. Chris Beardsley did a good review article of data available here (How does training volume affect hypertrophy? - Strength & Conditioning Research) that shows a possible slight advantage for volume, but most of the studies don't either use trained athletes or typical workout routines.


----------



## Calanthe (Aug 26, 2014)

5 reps X 8-10 sets (for each exercise) (for 1 month) (120 second rest between sets)

10-12 reps X 3-4 sets (for each exercise) (for 2 weeks) (60 second rest between sets)

* not so much exercises for each body part, 3 exercises for big muscles, 2 exercises for small ones.


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

scott08 said:


> it seems like you havent actually read the study layne norton references. its not as simple as low reps and high reps when comparing hypertrophy. if you do 2 sets of 3 its obviously not going to be as taxing as 10 sets of 15. its about the total volume of the workout as far as hypertrophy is concerned. this is the study if you wanted to read it: Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading str... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> although the sample size isnt that great and more studies would be beneficial, it provides alot more evidence than just how you feel. maybe low reps didnt work for you because you didnt do it right


Genuine question, why do people reference studies like this? As you've said the sample size was poor, it was conducted over 8 weeks and there areas many other factors to consider, to me it serves absolutely I purpose at all.

I personally feel, referencing studies like this serves your argument no purpose at all, if anything it probably detracts from it. Not a dig at you by the way,I just don't understand why clued up guys like Layne Norton would use bull**** studies like this to try and state a case


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

My squat routine for the next couple of months is this..

Saturday - HIT : warmups, then max set for 5-8reps, 2nd set with 10% less, 3rd set with another 10% less. All 3 sets done to the point where I think the next rep is likely to end up on the catcher racks.

Tuesday -Volume : warmups, then multiple sets of 10 reps. I'll start with 5 sets & work the number of sets up as the cycle goes on.


----------



## Kjetil1234 (Jun 10, 2014)

I do both, but if I had to choose I'd do low reps.


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

MR RIGSBY said:


> Genuine question, why do people reference studies like this? As you've said the sample size was poor, it was conducted over 8 weeks and there areas many other factors to consider, to me it serves absolutely I purpose at all.
> 
> I personally feel, referencing studies like this serves your argument no purpose at all, if anything it probably detracts from it. Not a dig at you by the way,I just don't understand why clued up guys like Layne Norton would use bull**** studies like this to try and state a case


it was mentioned by another poster, i linked it so others can see what he was referring to.

agreed, it could have been done better, however the study isnt invalid. most people will notice growth over an 8 week period unless at the advanced/ elite level, so what this study shows is that atleast in a relatively small group of trained individuals, hypertrophy in the short term is the same regardless of rep range. it provides some evidence supporting the fact that rep range for growth is irrelevant, however more studies need to be done to see the results with larger groups and over a longer period of time. from what i understand though its fairly hard to do studies on trained people due to them being at different stages of progress (making comparisons difficult) and just difficulty in finding enough trained individuals for the study who are willing to take part in something that could potentially net them no gains.


----------



## theBEAST1990 (Aug 4, 2012)

I do a lot of low reps, heavy squats but found 5x20 with 100kg to destroy my quads and make them grow.


----------



## Big Man 123 (Aug 1, 2013)

Everything below 10 reps do nothing for me, especially Squats.

Thank god I got rid of the "How much I lift" virus fast when I started lifting.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

My legs at by far more developed than my

Upper body (assume I have much better leg genetics also) but all Ive done is squat sub 5 reps 3x a week and focus on getting stronger


----------



## Dawson86 (Aug 17, 2014)

Lower reps are better for me, did 8-10 rep sets for about 6 Months and made little progress in terms of size or strength, started 531 to gain strength and my quads grew quickly


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

AlQaholic said:


> Has your upper body been hit with same frequency or running stronglifts or something similar? They always leave the upper body lagging.


Well it has the same frequency as its full body, but my upper body just won't grow (have tried higher reps/volume also) sucks


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

To all the people saying "these studies are crap - what worked for me was..." are missing an important fact about scientific studies.

They use groups of subjects, average out the results between the two groups and see if the combination of the difference between the means and the standard deviations informs you of a significant difference between the groups.

What is often lost is the fact that although the group results may show that method A works better than method B, there are probably individuals within the group that do much better on B than on A.

Low carb v low fat studies generally show this effect. Test decent sized groups, and no significant difference emerges - yet there are individuals that do much better on one or the other. It would be surprising if the same didn't apply to rep schemes or intensity v volume.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I really wish studies would publish the data for individual participants as well as the averages. For the typically small numbers participants this would be feasible, and definitely informative.


----------



## Stephen9069 (Dec 11, 2013)

Im doing 3 sets of 20 reps on back squats then 3 sets of 10 reps on front squats but this is due to a back injury i got doing heavy yoke.

Its been varied over the years from 5x6, 6x3, 8x2 which all had decent results but after years of heavy squatting it will be interesting to see what high rep stuff will do


----------



## johnmosley662 (Jun 9, 2015)

High reps are for building heavy reps are for strength


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

johnmosley662 said:


> High reps are for building heavy reps are for strength


Thanks for the input, Johnmosley662.


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Low, high, moderate it all works..... for a time. Progression and a good mindset are what makes squatting effective imho


----------

