rep range when cutting

[ark]

I am finally commited to leaning out! I would like to know the optimal rep range for cutting. I am not a fan of higher reps......... will I see results using lower reps like 6x3, 4x6, and 5x5's?? Of course I will be at a caloric deficit.

I don't have a lot of muscle, therefore I want to preserve what I have.

[Cynic]

Body composition changes are 80% diet.

Change your diet. Choose any good workout. You're golden.

[JoshDunn]

Originally Posted by ark

I am finally commited to leaning out! I would like to know the optimal rep range for cutting. I am not a fan of higher reps......... will I see results using lower reps like 6x3, 4x6, and 5x5's?? Of course I will be at a caloric deficit.

I don't have a lot of muscle, therefore I want to preserve what I have.

From those rep ranges it sounds like you've come from a Chad Waterbury program. If you have he has great fat loss programs that can be found on TESTOSTERONE NATION | World's Largest Bodybuilding and Weight Loss Underground Nation or MUSCLE WITH ATTITUDE .

As cynic said make careful consideration to changing your diet.

[ark]

Thanks Josh Dunn and Cynic! I appreciate your input!

[coach hale]

There is no specific rep range to follow when attempting to lose bodyfat

The key issue is creating a calorie defiict.

The recommendations that suggest high reps for cutting are Nonsense. Any rep range can be used when attempting to cut.

thanks
Coach Hale
www.maxcondition.com

[PowerManDL]

I'm having this discussion on another board as we speak. Here's some highlights:

1) Training for hypertrophy/bulking is the same concept as training to maintain muscle while losing fat; the difference is in the amount of volume and progression in weight that you can support. Maintaining requires much less volume, and in turn represents much less of a stress on the system.

If you're bulking you can scale up the volume and diversify the weights/rep ranges you use. For a calorie deficit condition, you need to maximize the economy of your training.

2) Using strength-endurance methods (high reps, intermittent/interval work, etc) is occasionally useful as accessory work, but should not be the emphasis. Optimally heavy weights with low to moderate volumes will stimulate the hypertrophy pathways/blunt the atrophy pathways without causing some of the problems inherent to metabolic work.

If you use these methods, diet needs to be adjusted accordingly; AMPK will antagonize the Akt/mTOR pathway responsible for protein synthesis if glycogen is depleted. Good for fat loss, not so good for hanging on to muscle.

You have to have some kind of balance in play.

3) Heavy is better, but only to a point. From a return on investment standpoint, working with a handful of sets in the 4-8RM range will likely be the best bet. Keeping the volume in check, and not chasing after PRs is important; the less calories you have, the less of each you need. Too heavy is bad because it won't provide adequate stimulus; too light is bad for the same reason.

[PowerManDL]

I wanted to add as well that the rep range per se isn't that important, it's rather the weight on the bar. It should be something you can handle for a 4-8RM, but you don't necessarily have to do those reps.

Triples, sets of 5, and even singles are all useful for dieting if the weight is heavy enough. I'm doing something similar atm, for example.

[stroutman81]

With your singles, Matt.... are you jacking up the intensity to match the lower volume per set? Or are you keeping the intensity in check (which would seem the case based on what you said above) but adding more total sets to mimic the volume of say, 3 sets of 4-8 or something like that?

If so, what's the difference between a total volume of 18 by way of 3x6 and a total volume of 24 by way of 18x1?

[PowerManDL]

You'd want the total volume reduced any way you cut it, but you can keep the singles heavier. The lower the intensity, the more you can do and vice-versa.

[stroutman81]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

You'd want the total volume reduced any way you cut it, but you can keep the singles heavier. The lower the intensity, the more you can do and vice-versa.

I understand the reduced volume regardless simply due to recoverability while dieting.

But what are you getting by doing singles opposed to sets of 4-8, assuming volumes are similar? More weight on the bar, is that it? If so, I got it..... thinking too much.

[PowerManDL]

Less metabolic/fatigue involvement for an equivalent volume and weight. Less tissue damage to recover from, basically.

[Alan Aragon]

Originally Posted by coach hale

There is no specific rep range to follow when attempting to lose bodyfat

The key issue is creating a calorie defiict.

The recommendations that suggest high reps for cutting are Nonsense. Any rep range can be used when attempting to cut.

thanks
Coach Hale
www.maxcondition.com

This is dead-on.