What's the Theory Behind Low Reps for BBing Purposes?

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
challer1 wrote:
When you lift something “esplosivly”, you recruit both fast and slow twitch motor neurons at once.

The fact that you can sort of selectively recruit fast twitch muscle fibers is the main theory for low reps for BBing purposes.

It’s not about low reps, it’s about the amount of force required by a given muscle. You can lift something explosively with a moderate-low load and generate significant power, greater than that lifting with a higher load, but not elicit any increases in muscle size.
[/quote]

When did I say anything about producing power? Didn’t even mention that word. Of course if you are flinging around light weight you’re going to get mostly neural adaptations rather than structural, and I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise… training for peak power makes you better at producing peak power, it’s not enough weight to produce significant structural changes.

At any rate, the original question was about what is the theory behind lifting for low reps for hypertrophy, and my answer still stands - by lifting explosively for low reps you can “work around” the size principle and target type II a + b fibers. Even if you are only using lighter loads, you can still potentiate these fibers and then perform heavier work.

If you handle more load and volume with lower rep ranges, you’ll get bigger. If you handle more load and volume at higher rep ranges, you’ll get bigger. If you do both, you’ll get even bigger. I don’t think we’re disagreeing on that really, my point is (since the OP specifically asked about theory) that the size principle doesn’t describe the situation that can occur during explosive movements .

The word explosive implies power. Fuck, you’re a bit sensitive aren’t you. I get sick of guys on this site getting all defensive at the first signs of entering an actual interpretative discussion with the proverbial line

“when did I say…”

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What needs to be abolished is the idea that a specific number of reps produces a specific result in and of itself. I am not sure where that idea took hold, but it is as if some of them actually believe “12-15” reps somehow produces “hypertrophy” simply because you did 12-15 reps.

Somewhere along the lines, the idea that PROGRESSION is what produces growth fell by the wayside.

My guess is, the idea that big muscles are weak helped that thought process along.

[/quote]

Completely agree with you!!!

I think that whole point I’ve seen you argue against many times of “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”
has screwed people up about what actually works and how to do it.

And yes, I’ve changed my avatar to my favorite football team…it’s football season baby yeah!!! They may have been beated by a rookie coach and QB, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
And yes, I’ve changed my avatar to my favorite football team…it’s football season baby yeah!!! They may have been beated by a rookie coach and QB, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER!!![/quote]

When did I say the Texans were a shitty team?

Don’t get all butthurt because you can’t pick the right team from Texas.

FTR I grew up a Giants fan, and still know which team in Texas is the best team in Texas…

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Great little write up. I actually printed that out to give to a couple of kids at my gym who keep asking me the same damn question at least once a week -lol

S
[/quote]

Be sure to include Professor X’s posts as well because that post alone is pretty confusing to the everyday dude. I have been reading this site pretty regular now, trying to absorb every ounce of info I can and my head hurt after reading that. If anything, that post alone will get you nothing but many, many more questions.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
GluteusGigantis wrote:
And yes, I’ve changed my avatar to my favorite football team…it’s football season baby yeah!!! They may have been beated by a rookie coach and QB, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!

When did I say the Texans were a shitty team?

Don’t get all butthurt because you can’t pick the right team from Texas.

FTR I grew up a Giants fan, and still know which team in Texas is the best team in Texas…[/quote]

Trick question…there is no good football team in texas. Go Giants.
Sorry for the hijack had to do it

[quote]The.Mentalist wrote:
GluteusGigantis wrote:
Low rep training infers you are training at high relative intensities (%1RM over 80% for example).

As you require your muscles to generate more force, or tension, your nervous system drives the muscles harder which in turn tends to recruit your higher threshold motor units, which drive your large type II muscle fibers.

You tend to recruit more high threshold motor units with higher load, and if the load is progressively lifted for more repetitions (obviously the total amount of reps you can lift at a high intensity varies between individuals).

Your type II muscle fibers are very responsive to the intensity of your lift, the higher the relative intensity you lift at the more hypertrophy (increased fiber size) you will see in the type II fibers.

Type I fibers tend to hypertrophy to a similar level regardless of the intensity used.

The level of fatigue does not mean you will recruit different types of motor units. If you are lifting a heavy load, it is not possible to recruit more type I fibers as you fatigue to help the lift as they simply are not strong enough, and more importantly, they more than likely have already been maximally recruited (Henneman’s size principle if you want to go read something else).

The mix of volume vs intensity, and other issues about how many reps per muscle group tend to work, are interesting discussions that have been raised in the T-cell.

Motherfucker knows his shit![/quote]

But it should be ‘implies’ not ‘infers’, sorry :slight_smile:

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
And yes, I’ve changed my avatar to my favorite football team…it’s football season baby yeah!!! They may have been beated by a rookie coach and QB, BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER!!![/quote]

Cowboys FTW