# How many reps?



## richlagoe (May 2, 2015)

As a natural guy who is taking protein and creatine. I have only being training since Xmas after a long time off. Due to kids! I train 3-4 times a week

How many reps should I be doing?

I'm currently doing

Squats 3x20

Deadlifts 3x15

And anything else 3sets of 10-12


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

richlagoe said:


> As a natural guy who is taking protein and creatine. I have only being training since Xmas after a long time off. Due to kids! I train 3-4 times a week
> 
> How many reps should I be doing?
> 
> ...


how many reps to do will depend on your goal.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

What has worked for you in the past, and what is your whole training programme like?

Broadly I think it is best not to restrict yourself to a particular rep range but rather use a mix of low and high reps.


----------



## Snake (Sep 30, 2014)

15 reps on deadlift?? So you're doing cardio?!


----------



## richlagoe (May 2, 2015)

The 15 for deadlift and 20 for squat is what I read in a book called super squats years ago. The thinking was that as thighs were a large muscle it was difficult to train to complete exhaustion in a set of 10.

Maybe it was bull?

I guess I'm not trying to get massive but reasonably dense muscle and well defined.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I'd always thought supersquats recommended a single set of trenty reps, rest pause style? Not that I've read it! Nothing wrong with high rep squats though.

Personally I only do low rep deadlifts, and I seriously doubt I could maintain good (safe) form for 15 reps.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Thought increased work load was main priority and rep range can be personal preference?


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

richlagoe said:


> The 15 for deadlift and 20 for squat is what I read in a book called super squats years ago. The thinking was that as thighs were a large muscle it was difficult to train to complete exhaustion in a set of 10.
> 
> Maybe it was bull?
> 
> I guess I'm not trying to get massive but reasonably dense muscle and well defined.


if you're working at 20 reps you're working more muscular endurance opposed to either hypertrophy, strength or power.

if you feel you need more to exhaust them add more weight or lower your rest periods or even superset them.


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Thought increased work load was main priority and rep range can be personal preference?


not at all.

intensity is key but certain things occur more at certain rep ranges.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

zasker said:


> not at all.
> 
> intensity is key but certain things occur more at certain rep ranges.


Unless volume is matched


----------



## richlagoe (May 2, 2015)

Looks like I need to mix it up a bit. At least then it keeps your muscles guessing.


----------



## mrwright (Oct 22, 2013)

All of them.


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Unless volume is matched


volume? volume as in amount of weight lifted?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

zasker said:


> if you're working at 20 reps you're working more muscular endurance opposed to either hypertrophy, strength or power.
> 
> if you feel you need more to exhaust them add more weight or lower your rest periods or even superset them.


20 rep squats are a well respected old school bodybuilding protocol, they definitely can build size.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Super Squats: How to Gain 30 Pounds of Muscle in 6 Weeks Reloaded | old school trainer


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> 20 rep squats are a well respected old school bodybuilding protocol, they definitely can build size.


20 reps is aimed more at muscular endurance opposed to hypertrophy, im not saying it wont cause adaptations as it will but they wont build as much size as someone working more in a hypertrophic rep range.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

zasker said:


> volume? volume as in amount of weight lifted?


Sets x reps x weight


----------



## richlagoe (May 2, 2015)

Thanks ultrasonic for finding the link. Looks like I add to many sets over the years. I haven't read the book for 20years.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

zasker said:


> 20 reps is aimed more at muscular endurance opposed to hypertrophy, im not saying it wont cause adaptations as it will but they wont build as much size as someone working more in a hypertrophic rep range.


I don't think it is anything like as clear cut as that, check out my last link. As I thought though supersquats was based on a single all out set though.

There is a growing body of work showing even higher rep work being good for hypertrophy, provided failure is reached.

The reason for using different rep ranges is that they can stimulate different adaptations. Structuring a training programme to try to maximise all routes to hypertrophy makes sense to me, and more so for natties who are more experienced.

(Personally I don't go above 15 reps on any exercise but I don't think anyone can categorically say 20 rep squats are clearly a bad idea.)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

richlagoe said:


> Thanks ultrasonic for finding the link. Looks like I add to many sets over the years. I haven't read the book for 20years.


You've still read it more than me! But it is a well known protocol.


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Sets x reps x weight


oh yeah... had my head in books all day im fvcked :lol:



Ultrasonic said:


> I don't think it is anything like as clear cut as that, check out my last link. As I thought though supersquats was based on a single all out set though.
> 
> There is a growing body of work showing even higher rep work being good for hypertrophy, provided failure is reached.
> 
> ...


im not saying its categorically wrong, not at all. im saying it is aimed more at muscular endurance. anything above 12 reps is considered muscular endurance, im taking a more quantitative approach on this as i've had to memorise all these figures for an exam late next week, so yes real world will be slightly different for each one of us but;

muscular endurance is done at 12 reps or more, 2-3 sets and 67% or less of 1rm, where as hypertrophy is 6-12 reps 3-6 sets with 67-85% of 1rm.

so yes, you could do 40 reps for both ME and hypertrophy but it would be 2 sets of 20 for ME and 4 sets of 10 for hypertrophy... and im sure you can lift more for 10 reps than you could for 20, so you would see a greater hypertrophic response from that as the session would be more intense, which is the key thing to manipulate in training.

i would have posted sooner but i were eating  food 1st, ukm 2nd :lol:


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

My point is that 20 reps can cause hypertrophy. I can't tell whether by calling it muscular endurance you are saying it won't cause hypertrophy or not?

Hopefully @dtlv will have time to comment on this discussion at some point.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

This paper may be of interest @zasker:

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men | Journal of Applied Physiology

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone exclusively trains with very high rep sets, just that it is a valid part of a varied (e.g. DUP) training programme. As with all training, how the reps are performed matters too, this can't just be reduced to a numbers game. (That's a limitation of the it's all the same when you equate for volume argument I feel, as it can lead to some people focusing on volume and nothing else.)


----------



## zasker (Jun 21, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> This paper may be of interest @zasker:
> 
> Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men | Journal of Applied Physiology
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone exclusively trains with very high rep sets, just that it is a valid part of a varied (e.g. DUP) training programme. As with all training, how the reps are performed matters too, this can't just be reduced to a numbers game. (That's a limitation of the it's all the same when you equate for volume argument I feel, as it can lead to some people focusing on volume and nothing else.)


we got there in the end, but we've been arguing the same thing just in two different ways :lol:

im not going to read that paper as i dont have time at the moment, as im revising for a psychology exam... im sh*t at psychology so need to revise as much as i can, but thanks for the link ill look at it another time.

i werent saying it wont cause hypertrophy, just that it isnt aimed at hypertrophy... pretty much damn near every rep range will cause some form of it, but different rep ranges are more focused on one area, power, strength, hypertrophy or muscular endurance.


----------



## stevieboy100 (Oct 30, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> 20 rep squats are a well respected old school bodybuilding protocol, they definitely can build size.


I love 5/3/1 with widowmakers as the first set last try for 20 reps


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

zasker said:


> i werent saying it wont cause hypertrophy, just that it isnt aimed at hypertrophy... pretty much damn near every rep range will cause some form of it, but different rep ranges are more focused on one area, power, strength, hypertrophy or muscular endurance.


If you get chance to look at it sometime you'll see that the point of the paper is that the same amount of hypertrophy was caused by the low and high load training protocols in the study. That is, it provides some evidence that low load (high rep) training may be a valid approach for someone whose primary goal is hypertrophy, as opposed to someone training for indurance who as a fringe benefit gets a little bit of hypertrophy. This is an area where there are a few groups doing research at the moment, and one which I'm watching with interest. For now I'm just less dismissive of low load training than I would have been a few years ago.

Good luck with your exam!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ultrasonic said:


> This paper may be of interest @zasker:
> 
> Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men | Journal of Applied Physiology
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone exclusively trains with very high rep sets, just that it is a valid part of a varied (e.g. DUP) training programme. As with all training, how the reps are performed matters too, this can't just be reduced to a numbers game. (That's a limitation of the it's all the same when you equate for volume argument I feel, as it can lead to some people focusing on volume and nothing else.)


Yep, low load to failure has multiple studies showing equal efficacy in improving muscle hypertrophy, and in each study there is a small advantage for the lower load:

PLOS ONE: Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H2012-022#.VU5yB_lViko

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie - Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise

and this one using well trained individuals:

Effects of Low- Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Musc... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research



zasker said:


> im not saying its categorically wrong, not at all. im saying it is aimed more at muscular endurance. anything above 12 reps is considered muscular endurance, im taking a more quantitative approach on this as i've had to memorise all these figures for an exam late next week, so yes real world will be slightly different for each one of us but;
> 
> muscular endurance is done at 12 reps or more, 2-3 sets and 67% or less of 1rm, where as hypertrophy is 6-12 reps 3-6 sets with 67-85% of 1rm.
> 
> ...


I think what people forget is that the main muscle fibers that are targeted during hypertrophy training, the fast twitch and intermediate fibers, are primarily anaerobic and that when you get a pump/burn in a muscle during exercise that is a sign of anaerobic muscular activity. Endurance training is primarily aerobic and as such does not cause a pump or lactic acid burn, just elevated pulse and slightly deeper breathing - resistance training in sets of 30-40 reps are still very much working the fast twitch fibers.

The main difference between heavy load/low rep to failure sets and sets to failure in the above higher rep zones are more one of fiber recruitment patterns and CNS adaptations - both forms of training hypertrophy the muscle equally, but higher rep stimulates increases mitochondrial capacity more than low/rep heavy while low rep/heavy stimulates less increase in mitochondrial capacity but greater CNS adaptations to increase fiber recruitment patterns and strength.... so while it is true what you say that higher rep training increases endurance capacity more than low rep and low rep increases maximal strength more than higher rep, the hypertrophic response in both conditions is actually equal, and maybe even a tiny bit higher for the higher rep condition.

As said though that shouldn't mean always doing high rep/low load only, as for continued progression you limit the rate of progression if you forget about building strength in favor of volume increases only - you need to do both to keep progressing longer with maximum rate of hypertrophic gain and minimal drop of gains-for-effort and episodes of plateauing. IMO all training should include both aspects.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

dtlv said:


> ...and this one using well trained individuals:
> 
> Effects of Low- Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Musc... : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research


Thanks for this link. I new Brad Schoenfeld had been working on this study but I'd not spotted it had been published yet. As you highlighted it is particularly interesting since it was carried out using trained subjects.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Different rep ranges for different body parts for me.

For legs , 15-30

For delts and chest, 8-12

For biceps, 6-10

For tri, 12-15

For back, 6-10


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)

richlagoe said:


> As a natural guy who is taking protein


Watch that Protein mate


----------

