PDA

View Full Version : What's new is what's good.



UzbeKodiak
08-16-09, 2:45 pm
So, as the saying goes, hit your body with what it's not expecting, change it up a bit, and it might well be a decision which benefits you.

Well, I was wondering, is there really a difference in doing 3 x 10 of squats and say 5 x 6 of squats of the same weight? It's been widely speculated (or even known) that lower reps build mass. And higher reps builds capillaries (in the words of Kevin Levrone) and hence bringing definition to the muscle. So ultimately for size, which is generally better to opt for? And do the two really make a difference, if at all?

Thanks.

mcbeast
08-16-09, 2:47 pm
How about..Powerbuilding?

Flush yourself with a few sets of 8-12, get nitty and gritty with a few sets of 2-4 then burnout with 12-15? Best of both worlds right there...

MrMonday
08-16-09, 3:01 pm
What builds muscle isn't about a rep range, although that does play some minor role depending on the individual and how their body reacts best to training (eg: kyoshi moodi responds best to 15-20 reps of all exercises, whereas someone like levrone grew best from keeping everything in a 4-8 rep range... both huge strong guys obviously).

If you're benching 100lbs more now than you were a year ago, your chest doesn't really care whether you did it by lifting for 6 reps or lifting for 10 reps. The difference is which rep range can YOU make the most PROGRESS in... because what builds muscle isn't about reps, it isn't about volume, its about lifting MORE this time than you did last time. Progressive resistance.

And all of that is besides the fact that no bodybuilder lifts in the SAME rep range for EVERYTHING, not even working with the same exercises, and a lot of people have found that 15+ reps is the best way to build the thighs and calves.

Eg:

Most people would go heavier on their benching, slightly higher reps on some dumbell or machine benching, and then keep the reps at 10+ for pec deck and flies...

But even with just the bench press, most bodybuilders will lift a weight they can only handle 5 or 6 reps with, and work with it until that becomes 8-10 reps, so what "rep range" are they gaining in? 5 reps? 10 reps? The answer is all of it, because they are repping it out and lifting more each time.. and once you get to a more advanced amount of weight you will find that even if you can't do another rep this time compared to last time, you can lift the weight with better technique and more control - an often ignored form of progress.

The number of reps doesn't matter as long as they are in a general range where you can still maintain a good mind-muscle connection, and they aren't so high that it becomes unreasonable to progress in weight.

So 1-3 reps isn't great because a lot of people have to focus more on just getting the weight from point A to point B rather than using the target muscle group, and 25+ reps isn't great because you have to lighten the load so much that it becomes more a cardio/endurance challenge, and progressive overload is too infrequent.

I personally don't go below 6 reps because I progress best in a 6-10 rep range. You find what works for you.

Muscleguy93
08-16-09, 6:12 pm
What builds muscle isn't about a rep range, although that does play some minor role depending on the individual and how their body reacts best to training (eg: kyoshi moodi responds best to 15-20 reps of all exercises, whereas someone like levrone grew best from keeping everything in a 4-8 rep range... both huge strong guys obviously).

If you're benching 100lbs more now than you were a year ago, your chest doesn't really care whether you did it by lifting for 6 reps or lifting for 10 reps. The difference is which rep range can YOU make the most PROGRESS in... because what builds muscle isn't about reps, it isn't about volume, its about lifting MORE this time than you did last time. Progressive resistance.

And all of that is besides the fact that no bodybuilder lifts in the SAME rep range for EVERYTHING, not even working with the same exercises, and a lot of people have found that 15+ reps is the best way to build the thighs and calves.

Eg:

Most people would go heavier on their benching, slightly higher reps on some dumbell or machine benching, and then keep the reps at 10+ for pec deck and flies...

But even with just the bench press, most bodybuilders will lift a weight they can only handle 5 or 6 reps with, and work with it until that becomes 8-10 reps, so what "rep range" are they gaining in? 5 reps? 10 reps? The answer is all of it, because they are repping it out and lifting more each time.. and once you get to a more advanced amount of weight you will find that even if you can't do another rep this time compared to last time, you can lift the weight with better technique and more control - an often ignored form of progress.

The number of reps doesn't matter as long as they are in a general range where you can still maintain a good mind-muscle connection, and they aren't so high that it becomes unreasonable to progress in weight.

So 1-3 reps isn't great because a lot of people have to focus more on just getting the weight from point A to point B rather than using the target muscle group, and 25+ reps isn't great because you have to lighten the load so much that it becomes more a cardio/endurance challenge, and progressive overload is too infrequent.

I personally don't go below 6 reps because I progress best in a 6-10 rep range. You find what works for you.


VERY well said bro!

strivin for more
08-16-09, 10:59 pm
i agree a lot with what was said above. he seemed to stress its not necessarily the amount you do, but whether or not the weight gets the job down. because bottom line, its whether or not youre sore the next morning (ya ya i know not ALWAYS true, but) and also its form. people start benching more and more, but neglect form and dont hit the chest as hard as they did 20 pounds ago, because theyre "ego pressing"

LegendKillerJosh
08-17-09, 1:31 pm
So, as the saying goes, hit your body with what it's not expecting, change it up a bit, and it might well be a decision which benefits you.

Well, I was wondering, is there really a difference in doing 3 x 10 of squats and say 5 x 6 of squats of the same weight? It's been widely speculated (or even known) that lower reps build mass. And higher reps builds capillaries (in the words of Kevin Levrone) and hence bringing definition to the muscle. So ultimately for size, which is generally better to opt for? And do the two really make a difference, if at all?

Thanks.

That's not the same at all. just because you are doing 30 reps doesn't mean it's the same because the amount of fiber recruitment would be different. If you tried to squat 225 for 3 sets of 10 reps, you might not recruit that many fibers at all since that would be fairly easy for someone to do. However, if you tried to do all 30 reps in 1 set you would start burning out big time and recruit the most fibers.