T Nation

Rep Number and Rep Speed

I’ve read from both Kurz’s website and an article by the American College of Sports Medicine that for a given muscular endurance training session, moderate reps (about 10-15 reps) should be done at a slow pace (about 2-5s) while high reps (15-25 reps or higher) should be done at a moderate to fast pace. I understand that performing a rep at a slow pace places more time under tension and therefore become more metabolically demanding for the worked muscle(s); however, I also thought that the faster you performed an exercise the quicker you fatigue.

For instance, if you compared sprinting to middle or long distance running, not only are you able to only complete a short distance but also you tire out quicker whereas with middle or long distance running your pace is significantly slower yet you could generally go on and on continuously at a much greater distance.

Once again, I would appreciate any feedback.

I don’t have an answer for you, but I wanted to comment on your sprinting vs middle/long distance analogy.

Sprinting is really quite different than any form of distance running. It’s not really “faster paced running”. Middle/long distance is generally based on reaching a certain speed and maintaining it; The actual load per stride is really just what it takes to propel your body forward, using your current momentum. Sprinting, on the other hand, is not about maintaining speed, but rather about continually accelerating the body. The load per stride is very very different.

(real) Sprinting is an anaerobic activity, like lifting. Distance running is an aerobic activity. There’s a fundamental difference in how the energy is produced: anaerobic energy production doesn’t require oxygen, whereas aerobic activity does.

The energy production for 15-25 reps is really not at all similar to distance running… it’s more like a slower paced sprint. Doing a set of 300 pushups is much closer to distance running. Metabolically speaking, at least.

Now, as far as the relationship between TUT, pacing, and rep range, I believe it all depends on what you’re trying to achieve. E.g., if you’re trying to maximize strength, you’d do things differently than if you’re trying to maximize hypertrophy.

If I understood what the studies were showing, this is the recommended range for muscular endurance.

As for why, I don’t know enough to answer that.

Have you actually tried both approaches yourself?

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Have you actually tried both approaches yourself?[/quote]

On muscular endurance exercises with 30 reps or more on each of the exercise, I have tried both a moderate pace (about 1 full sec concentric, 1 ful sec. eccentric) and a fast pace (less than 1 sec. concentric, 1 sec. eccentric). I actually found it harder and more tiring to do the exercises at a fast pace than it doing them at a moderate to slow pace especially when trying to complete 60 reps per set of hindu squats. Also, my coach says that doing light loads at a slow pace is easier than doing them at a moderate to fast pace. However, according to Tom Kurz and the american college of sport medicine article on strength training, doing high reps (15-25 reps or more) at a moderate to fast pace is to supposed to be less metabolically demanding or difficult than doing them at a slow pace. This is frustratingly confusing to me.

[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Have you actually tried both approaches yourself?[/quote]

On muscular endurance exercises with 30 reps or more on each of the exercise, I have tried both a moderate pace (about 1 full sec concentric, 1 ful sec. eccentric) and a fast pace (less than 1 sec. concentric, 1 sec. eccentric). I actually found it harder and more tiring to do the exercises at a fast pace than it doing them at a moderate to slow pace especially when trying to complete 60 reps per set of hindu squats. Also, my coach says that doing light loads at a slow pace is easier than doing them at a moderate to fast pace. However, according to Tom Kurz and the american college of sport medicine article on strength training, doing high reps (15-25 reps or more) at a moderate to fast pace is to supposed to be less metabolically demanding or difficult than doing them at a slow pace. This is frustratingly confusing to me. [/quote]

Why do you need to understand it?

What are you trying to get from it?

Just my opinion but I think if you,re thinking too much about how many seconds eccentric vs concentric or whatever it can takeaway from intensity. I wouldn’t worry too much about what is most metabolic demanding according to sports medicine but rather what feels like it’s most demanding.
Science is theories and hypotheses be your own experiment.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Have you actually tried both approaches yourself?[/quote]

On muscular endurance exercises with 30 reps or more on each of the exercise, I have tried both a moderate pace (about 1 full sec concentric, 1 ful sec. eccentric) and a fast pace (less than 1 sec. concentric, 1 sec. eccentric). I actually found it harder and more tiring to do the exercises at a fast pace than it doing them at a moderate to slow pace especially when trying to complete 60 reps per set of hindu squats. Also, my coach says that doing light loads at a slow pace is easier than doing them at a moderate to fast pace. However, according to Tom Kurz and the american college of sport medicine article on strength training, doing high reps (15-25 reps or more) at a moderate to fast pace is to supposed to be less metabolically demanding or difficult than doing them at a slow pace. This is frustratingly confusing to me. [/quote]

Why do you need to understand it?

What are you trying to get from it?[/quote]

Because I want to make sure that I am doing my weight training exercises correctly.

[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Why do you need to understand it?

What are you trying to get from it?[/quote]

Because I want to make sure that I am doing my weight training exercises correctly.

[/quote]

Why not ask your coach?