[quote]pzehtoeur wrote:
dankid wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
If you aren’t very strong or have troulbe putting on mass then low reps. If you are really strong then high reps.
LOL Wut?
I got “really strong” by keeping my reps often around 4-10. Why do you continue doing this?
That proves my point, you didn’t get really strong by doing 10+ .
EDIT: And its spelled, W-H-A-T. I’d figure a doctor would know this.
Dentists are not doctors.
/sarcasm[/quote]
lol ur avatars wicked
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
pzehtoeur wrote:
dankid wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
If you aren’t very strong or have troulbe putting on mass then low reps. If you are really strong then high reps.
LOL Wut?
I got “really strong” by keeping my reps often around 4-10. Why do you continue doing this?
That proves my point, you didn’t get really strong by doing 10+ .
EDIT: And its spelled, W-H-A-T. I’d figure a doctor would know this.
Dentists are not doctors.
/sarcasm
lol ur avatars wicked
[/quote]
Have you guys seen the video similar to that avatar? The trojan olympics.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
If you aren’t very strong or have troulbe putting on mass then low reps. If you are really strong then high reps.
LOL Wut?
I got “really strong” by keeping my reps often around 4-10. Why do you continue doing this?
That proves my point, you didn’t get really strong by doing 10+ .
[/quote]
So why would he do 10+ now that he is really strong?
Btw you spelt ‘trouble’ wrong. =(
I read something interesting in the Arnold Schwarzenegger book Encyclopedia.
Arnold recommend days with power training, and says that muscle size and density created by a program that includes heavy training are easier to maintain for a long periods of time.
He also says that with high rep training only, much of the growth is the result of transient factors such as fluid retention and glycogen storage, but muscle hard as a granite wall through power training comes as a result of an actual increase in muscle fiber size.
Then he says Franco says that the muscle cell walls themselves grow thicker and tougher, so they tend to resist shrinking.
Know its a old book, but the stuff about maintain, transient factors and cell walls are new to me, have never read it before. So not sure what to think about it. Anyhow I use to do both high and low reps. Now I drive all my workouts from 8-12 reps quit high on reps.And have planned to start training one muscle group each week with really low reps, to mix it up, like this week squat, next week , bench, after that deadlift.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
So why would he do 10+ now that he is really strong?
Btw you spelt ‘trouble’ wrong. =(
[/quote]
Because doing a set of 300x15 on bench is a hell of a lot more effective than 135x15.
[quote]bob84 wrote:
I readed …[/quote]
I stopped reading after that…
med reps for size in general, but that varies per bodypart. IE Calves, Forearms would need high reps IN MOST CASES like 15-20+ per set.
6-10 or 12 is the most accepted size range. There are some BBers who respond better to high reps, probably because of dif. fiber makeup.
[quote]bob84 wrote:
He also says that with high rep training only, much of the growth is the result of transient factors such as fluid retention and glycogen storage, but muscle hard as a granite wall through power training comes as a result of an actual increase in muscle fiber size.
[/quote]
AKA Sarcoplasmic and Myofibrillar Hypertrophy.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
bob84 wrote:
He also says that with high rep training only, much of the growth is the result of transient factors such as fluid retention and glycogen storage, but muscle hard as a granite wall through power training comes as a result of an actual increase in muscle fiber size.
AKA Sarcoplasmic and Myofibrillar Hypertrophy.
[/quote]
Not this shit again,
If you do either one with enough intensity to illicit muscle growth. Then eat to fuel that growth, you will get bigger and stronger.
The answer to your question then is both, given you’re stuffing your face.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Goodfellow wrote:
So why would he do 10+ now that he is really strong?
Btw you spelt ‘trouble’ wrong. =(
Because doing a set of 300x15 on bench is a hell of a lot more effective than 135x15.
[/quote]
So the Prof should stop training with “low” reps now that he’s strong?
both.
yeah i would say calves need high reps. low reps dont feel that they really get in there
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
bob84 wrote:
He also says that with high rep training only, much of the growth is the result of transient factors such as fluid retention and glycogen storage, but muscle hard as a granite wall through power training comes as a result of an actual increase in muscle fiber size.
AKA Sarcoplasmic and Myofibrillar Hypertrophy.
[/quote]
There’s no conclusive research to back up this idea, they’re just fancy terms that writers like to throw around to make their training ideas sound cool. The only thing people need to worry about is finding what works for them, and eating.
optheta : sorry, I know my English sucks. So i guess it should stand Read? I have fixed it now.
But what about the cell wall get ticker stuff that Franco sad?
I’m just curious because haven’t read anything about this other places… hehe maybe for a reason.
[quote]trav123456 wrote:
both
and eat
/thread[/quote]
Amen!
My recent experience has been low reps 2-5 has made very large strength gains. I’ve never seen strength gains across the board like this. I have also been eating close to my body weight in grams of protein and dialed my TRT. The timing of all three variables makes it difficult to say exactly which of them is really making the biggest a difference. The protein powder also has some creatine in it so that could also be having an influence.
Iâ??ve been lifting for years doing exercises with sets that range from lows of 1 or 2 on the bench but finishing up with sets of 10. Most of my work out had consisted of sets of 7-10 reps and typically 3-5 sets. A good work out would give me a hell of a good pump but never any lasting strength.
Last week I got sucked into the hype on this â??I Bodybuilderâ?? article (still donâ??t know weather they are eventually trying to sell something or just providing some good advice). The article got me to try changing my work out to just sets of low reps (2-5). In the past I donâ??t think I ever saw any increase in max weights but lately Iâ??ve been moving more weight than Iâ??ve ever seen.
So I guess the bottom line is that I really canâ??t add anything that constructive to this discussion other than my ramblings because I donâ??t know what is working for me right now. All I know is that something seems to be working and that makes getting in to lift a much more fulfilling activity.
No one ever got big doing only reps of 15+, I assure you.
I find that reps of 2-8 yield the most growth in terms of strength and sustainable mass. Reps above 10 can bring growth, but think of them as icing on the cake you made with the lower reps.
Good ol’ Arnie was correct when he said that higher reps cause what is known as transient hypertrophy; which is just a temporary increase in sarcoplasmic volume. There is likely also some residual inter-celluar fluid that contributes to this.
Lower rep training (assuming the use of heavy weight is what necessitates the lower reps) actually increases contractile proteins, which is what translates to strength gains AND sustainable mass.
Of course lower-rep training DOES cause some transient hypertrophy and higher-rep training DOES cause some increase in contractile proteins, but from a physiological standpoint doing a bunch of high reps with moderate weight isnt sufficient stimuli to induce development of more contractile proteins on a noticeable scale, because your muscle isnt being challenged with heavy, difficult poundages. In other words, if all you did was high reps without a progressive load increase, your size gains would be minimal. Your body would simply become more efficient at moving those weights.
The moral of the story is that in order to fully exhaust the range of fiber types found in skeletal muscle, you need to train the full spectrum of repetitions. Heavy singles, doubles, and triples; along with good old bodybuilding sets of 8-12, followed by some sets of 15-30 reps for fluid affluence and GPP.
[quote]eremesu wrote:
yeah i would say calves need high reps. low reps dont feel that they really get in there[/quote]
Pic of your calves?
I’ve been doing lately anywhere from 3 to 15 reps, I don’t hesitate to up them on traps (but prefer to up the sets on this one), forearms, and calves.