highest number of reps

[raymond3]

I was reading an article from berardi, and basically it said that high reps give you a more softer "puffy" look, as lower reps with heavier weight gives you a more harder look, my question is what is the highest rep range you should use? For example, what would be considered too high of rep range 12,15, or 10. What is a good guideline, between 5 reps and what for the highest?

[TA Baracus]

Depends on what you are looking to develop.....power, strength or hypertrophy (muscle growth).

Strength and power development usually uses heavy weights at low reps, in the 3-6 rep range. Hypertrophy I've seen anywhere from 8-15.

[F1]

Mike Robertson in an article for T-mag (Program design 101), outlined the rep ranges for various goals:

1-3 reps; max strength
1-6 reps; strength, speed or power
4-8 reps; functional hypertrophy
8-12 reps; structural hypertrophy
13+ reps; Endurance

From the above you would want to keep to 8 reps or below, to develop functional hypertrophy (i.e. muscle size increase with strength carryover). As opposed to 8-12 reps (size increase with limited carryover to strength). Lower reps with heavier weight will produce a denser muscle, due to the increase in muscle fibre size. Higher reps tend to increase the quantity of the stuff that's in between the fibres; hence the "puffy" look.

For interests sake, I read an article in Muscle Media mag (forget the date), by Pavel Tsatsouline; he mentioned that traditional strong men used to consider 7 reps too many for any sort of exerise. If I remember rightly, they recommended no more than 5 reps per set.

Not to insult your intelligence, but some exercises are probably better done with higher reps. Mainly exercises which work the small muscles, like external rotators; work in the higher rep range (8-12) as they're easily injured.

Also some muscles are predominantly comprised of slow twitch muscle fibres, so may respond better to higher reps, if your looking to gain the maximum hypertrophy from them (calves, abdominals etc).

Hope that's of some use to you
mac

[dos]

F1 wrote...

Lower reps with heavier weight will produce a denser muscle, due to the increase in muscle fibre size. Higher reps tend to increase the quantity of the stuff that's in between the fibres; hence the "puffy" look.

Don't know how scientifically-sound this statement is F1. Sounds pretty 't-mag' to me when we start saying that heavier weight will produce 'denser muscles' etc. This is akin to the H.I.T. advocates saying that the 'longer the tension on the muscle, the deeper the muscle fiber gets stimulated'...huh?! When you say that w/ lower reps and heavier weights you will get 'denser muscle due to the increase in fiber size'...isn't this hypertrophy? Muscle fiber size will increase in size as this is part of hypertrophy regardless of how we ended-up getting to hypertrophy right? I would have to question the validity of these statements about denser muscles and the 'puffiness' coming from increasing the quantity of the "stuff" between the muscles...BTW, what "stuff" are you referring to as the last time I checked, the only thing capable of hypertrophy in a muscle was the muscle. Oh, and BTW, I don't know how 'puffy' Ron Coleman and his oversized buddies are....they sure do lots of 8-15 rep training. I know, I know, they're all on the sauce but we're talking about their TRAINING


Lastly, in regard to hypertrophy only occuring at the higher reps, just take a look at any Olympic Lifter regardless of weight class ....you'll see significant hypertrophy in their traps, quads, glutes etc. ....Keep in mind that these athletes will rarely do more than singles or maybe doubles in any of their training (pulls, squats etc.) all-year-round.

[joshman]

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a different phenomenon than myofibrillar hypertrophy, so it's not too far of a stretch to say that at lower body fats you might be able to see the difference is it?

http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm

Originally posted by dos:
F1 wrote...

quote:

---

Lower reps with heavier weight will produce a denser muscle, due to the increase in muscle fibre size. Higher reps tend to increase the quantity of the stuff that's in between the fibres; hence the "puffy" look.

Don't know how scientifically-sound this statement is F1. Sounds pretty 't-mag' to me when we start saying that heavier weight will produce 'denser muscles' etc. This is akin to the H.I.T. advocates saying that the 'longer the tension on the muscle, the deeper the muscle fiber gets stimulated'...huh?! When you say that w/ lower reps and heavier weights you will get 'denser muscle due to the increase in fiber size'...isn't this hypertrophy? Muscle fiber size will increase in size as this is part of hypertrophy regardless of how we ended-up getting to hypertrophy right? I would have to question the validity of these statements about denser muscles and the 'puffiness' coming from increasing the quantity of the "stuff" between the muscles...BTW, what "stuff" are you referring to as the last time I checked, the only thing capable of hypertrophy in a muscle was the muscle. Oh, and BTW, I don't know how 'puffy' Ron Coleman and his oversized buddies are....they sure do lots of 8-15 rep training. I know, I know, they're all on the sauce but we're talking about their TRAINING


Lastly, in regard to hypertrophy only occuring at the higher reps, just take a look at any Olympic Lifter regardless of weight class ....you'll see significant hypertrophy in their traps, quads, glutes etc. ....Keep in mind that these athletes will rarely do more than singles or maybe doubles in any of their training (pulls, squats etc.) all-year-round. [/quote]

[poopy pants]

Now I'm confused even more.

[chris_f]

Chad Waterbury is a country farmer, and personal trainer. He's also a writer for T-Mag, and is a huge advocate of low-rep, high weight training for hypertrophy.

Here's a program/article to get you started:
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle....ticle=244anti2

have fun. And honestly, I just finnished up a 5x5 routine (5 sets of 5 reps), and my muscles are definately harder than any 3x8 routine ever made them (and bigger too!). Maybe not scientific, but results I can see are good enough for me! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chris Correia]

Dos:

How'd you get the picture of me? I'm really impressed, too, with how you used Photoshop to make my skin darker. Cool.

Now, regarding rep ranges, after four+ months of Mike Mejia's Homegrown Muscle routine, which I started the year with, and which covered a multiple of rep ranges, I've started a generic sports routine Mike has in the Home Workout Bible, and I really like how my body is responding, even early on. The sets/reps are essentailly 5x5 or 4x6. Yet, I seem to get a nice "pump", to use the street term, from the workout.

Just really felt I had to share that.

[Chris Correia]

Hey, I couldn't edit that post, and I went right back to it . . .so . . .

Dos:

Your training with athletes must involve lower rep work, yes? And I've seen some football players with some pretty darn good bodies. Yes, diet and genetics surely contribute to those situations, but you, if anyone, must see some good aesthetic changes in athletes, even with lower rep training?

[dos]

Chris posted....

Dos:

Your training with athletes must involve lower rep work, yes? And I've seen some football players with some pretty darn good bodies. Yes, diet and genetics surely contribute to those situations, but you, if anyone, must see some good aesthetic changes in athletes, even with lower rep training?

Yes we use lots of low volume-high load work but we also spend time in traditional 'hypertrophy phase' during the off-season and the pre-season (we are actually going thru a few weeks of hypertrophy phase right now...). Yeah, we see lots of great physiques and we never really do any 'bodybuilder-type' exercises if you know what I mean. here's a link to see what our football players are doing for the next 8 weeks.....
Football 4-day w/periodization

Lastly, I don't know about many others out there but personally, I don't know what's harder (or what will cause more discomfort and 'pump')than 4 x 10 or 4 x 8 on something like bench or squats. When we perform our sets, our athletes are told to essentially fail at or very near their last rep....this would mean that the 1-2 reps that precede the final rep will be very tough. I can understand though, that one may not feel the full range of discomfort if they were to perform 4 x 8 or 4 x 10 with a less than maximal load.

Take care! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[raymond3]

I guess its just trial and error, I just subscribed to mens health mag (I need something to read while at work) and they sent me this, how can I say it, guide to a better body, it recommends doing 3 sets of 10 for everything(squats, bench, rows,etc) and this is according to "The journal of applied physiology" and it states exercise scientist have known that doing hard , 10-rep sets followed by short rest periods produces dramatic increases in growth hormone. And then goes on to say that it doesnt just build muscle, but also obliterates flab by making your fat cells smaller, according to physiologist William J. Kraemer , Phd. , but then like I said, berardi says keep the reps low, and Im thinking he means 5x5, but not 100% sure, me Im looking to cut, gain a little lean muscle and burn some excess fat. Here are my pics, maybe somebody can shed some light for me. The password is rocio333 just in case.

http://img58.photobucket.com/albums/v177/Raymond32701/

[raymond3]

Also my diet, does it look in order, Im 30 yrs old, 5'11 about 198, looking to cut, I figured my maintenence is 3100 calories, so Im at 2450-2500 calories, prot- 228, carbs-184, fat 78

Break:
1/2 cup of oatmeal
1/2 cup 1% milk
1/2 scoop ON whey
1 tablespoon peanut butter

snack:
1 slice of ww bread
3 oz turkey breast
almonds or peanuts

lunch:
1/2 cup brown rice
4 oz chicken breast
string beans
peanuts or almonds

snack:
1 can tuna
low fat mayo
apple
peanuts or almonds

dinner:
1/2 cup rice
chicken or lean meat
salad

pwo:
fruit juice, whey protein

protein shake:
On whey
1 cup 1% milk

Am I good, or no?

[F1]

Hi dos,

Muscle hypertrophy can be explained by a training response resulting “in more myofibrils, more actin and myosin filaments, more sacroplasm, more connectice tissue, or any combination of these” (Wilmore and Costill, 1999, p.90).

Different training results in different training responses: greater sarcoplasmic hypertrophy or greater myofibrillar hypertrophy…

“Unless you include low-rep strength training, you will never achieve the hardness and density necessary to create a truly first-class physique” (Schwarzenegger, 1998, p.142).

“If you don’t do heavy lifts, it shows immediately on stage. There is a soft look that shows itself clearly. Power training puts tremendous strain on relatively few fibres at a time, causing them to become bigger and thicker (hypertrophy), and they also become packed much tighter together. This contributes enormously to that hard, dense look of the early champions…With high rep training only, much of the growth is the result of transient factors such as fluid retention and glycogen storage” (Schwarzenegger, 1998, p.144).

References

Schwarzenegger, A. (1998). The encyclopaedia of modern bodybuilding. 2nd Edition. New York, NY, Simon & Schuster.

Wilmore, J.H. and Costill, D.L. (1999). Physiology of Sport and Exercise. 2nd Edition. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics.

Schwarzenegger? scientific? I know , but couldn't get the references I wanted (i.e. I'm not going near the library today). If you want some more let me know and I'll do my best tomorrow [img]smile.gif[/img]

[raymond3]

ok but back to my question: what is the line which considers high and low, is low considered 4-10 and high 10-15, in other words if you do 3x10, would this be considered high reps, or would it still fall in the low rep range?

[chris_f]

ok but back to my question: what is the line which considers high and low, is low considered 4-10 and high 10-15, in other words if you do 3x10, would this be considered high reps, or would it still fall in the low rep range?

Dude, there is not definative high and low. It's all relative to your workout history.

I would say for almost anyone, 20 reps is too high to do much of anything but increase blood flow. You would do 20 reps of anything pretty much only as "active rest" after a very heavy lifting day.

In terms of low reps, you can do 12 sets of 1 rep and still see hypertrophy. Did you read that Chad Waterbury article/routine i linked?

[dos]

Ahh...going back to muscle cell physiology...I remember those days Anyway, my point was that the mechanism of muscle hypertrophy comes from the increase in diameter of individual myofibrils. We can't count the increase of blood flow that automatically comes from using the muscle during exercise as this will dissapate after the training session (in spite of what NO2 sales people will say [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). This is what I am assuming was meant when it was said that 'other stuff' gets bigger. Here's a link to the UC San Diego page on basic muscle cell hypertrophy.

Muscle Hypertrophy - UCSD

We are talking about the increase in actin and myosin filaments....no 'magic' here folks


Lastly, it might be reaching a bit to site Arnold on muscle cell physiology, who's next? Tony Little?

As far as what is 'high' or 'low' reps....the research has shown that higher volumes with shorter rest periods have been associated with greater muscle hypertrophy. Generally this range is the 8-12 rep range with loads that elicit failure by the end of the set. Understand that you can sure as hell go heavy doing a set of 8 or 10 reps can't you? We had a football athletes do a set of full front squats of 8 reps with 405lbs. I think if we asked him (or me...), he would say that was pretty heavy.

[Chris Correia]

Originally posted by dos:
We had a football athletes do a set of full front squats of 8 reps with 405lbs.

But, was he truly working hard, or was he coasting