Another Point of View: High Reps

Training Bodybuilding
21

i think you answered your own question. you said he does some lower rep work also. the problem with high rep only training is that it is very hard to yeild strength gains and hence progressive overload is limited. if say one uses low rep ‘strength’ gain rep ranges, increases strength, then goes back to high rep ranges using a higher weigh than previously used, this would indicate progression and have its place in a program.

i would be interested to see if your mate would plateau or not if he removed the 6 rep sets from his program?

22

[quote]mr popular wrote:
forbes wrote:
so they only used ONE working set (in regards to the pyramiding)?

and when you say trained to failure, do you mean concentric failure only, or absolute failure (concentric, isometric and eccentric).?

For example, pyramiding 5 sets of a bench press might look like this.

135lbs x 12
185lbs x 10
225lbs x 8
275lbs x 6
315lbs x 7*

*concentric failure.

The first 4 sets are slowly warming up the muscle and readying it for the heavy weight, and they aren’t meant to go to failure. The fifth set is your “working weight”, the heaviest weight you can handle for a predetermined rep range (eg:4-8).

You find a good top-limit amount of reps for yourself, usually this is anywhere from 6 to 12 reps depending on the exercise and the person… and you work with that working weight each week until you can get, for instance, 8 solid reps with it.

Then the next workout you move on to a heavier working weight (heavy enough that maybe you can only get 3-5 reps with it, and you work with that each week until you’re knocking it out for 8).

Some guys will use beyond-failure techniques like drop sets and triple-rest-pause but its entirely dependant on their own recovery abilities and preferences.

Most of the natural guys I know of will just do the normal pyramid sets for 2-3 exercises for a big muscle group and then finish with a pumping exercise (eg: pec deck) not really worrying about sets or reps just doing as many sets as it takes to finish of the muscle and pump as much blood into it as possible.

But like I said… it’s usually a progression and it’s entirely individual anyway. Some guys use straight sets forever and it works for them, however I will say that most of the really big, REALLY strong bodybuilders you see will go for one top set to failure and give it their utmost intensity.[/quote]

I love training that way. It just feels so right… just so exciting.

23

Yeah it’s how I prefer to train when the time and the goals allow for it.

24

Mr. Popular:

When you say “go to failure on the top set”, do you mean go until you hit a rep that you really struggle with and you know the next rep you won’t be able to get up, or do you mean go until you hit a rep and halfway through the rep you reach failure and have to dump the weight? Because the latter could get you injured very quickly on something like deadlifts or squats where form is essential for protecting the spine.

Also how is that any different from HIT, where you have one working set and everything else is just warm-ups?

25

With the heaviest and most dangerous movements (eg: squats, deadlifts) going to “failure” means going to the point of form breakdown. Once you can no longer complete reps in good, safe form, then you end the set.

It’s just a judgement call you have to make for yourself in your training.

On something like a barbell curl this isn’t an issue (obviously don’t degrade into terrible form, i’m saying there is little risk of injury when pushing yourself), and personally I feel that if you get to the point where your last rep was a struggle (you feel another rep won’t happen)

Then it can be beneficial to complete another negative - but obviously there are certain exercises (eg: bench press) where this shouldn’t be done unless you have a training partner there all the time to spot you. But like I said, if it’s something very managable like a barbell curl, overhead press, leg curl, etc… go the extra mile!

The Doggcrapp guys tend to train that way, and it’s one of the reasons a large portion of their exercises are done on machines or in the smith - so that they can get that extra negative and not have to worry about needing to dump the weight.

And the difference between ordinary bodybuilder training and HIT is pretty fucking significant. haha

HIT guys, if i remember correctly, only hit a muscle once every 14 days. And they blast it with ridiculous beyond-failure techniques into oblivion.

26

[quote]gswork wrote:
The way a big BBer trains today isn’t necessarily the way he got to be big in the first place.[/quote]

Quoted for truth.

27

So Mr. Popular, would the number of sets done in the pyramid style you described depend on the final amount of weight? For example, if you were lifting 500 lbs on an exercise, would you do more sets to get to that final weight than you would for an exercise in which you could only do 200 lbs? I guess what I am getting at here, is do the previous sets have any purpose other than to warm you up for the balls to the wall final set and post failure techniques?

Couldn’t a program like that be written as warmup, 1x4-8 (or whatever rep range)

28

The heavier the weight, the more warmups you need to adjust your body to lifting that much.

Some people also think that the previous sets do a good job of fatiguing the slow-twitch muscle fibers first to be recruited, so that what you’re left with once you get to your top set is an environment primed for fast-twitch muscle fiber growth.

When I train that way I just write down what I got with my workout weight. Writing down the warmup sets is just a waste of space because the weight and reps is just dependant on what your working weight is going to be.

29

[quote]irishpowerhouse wrote:
12 year old errection.

[/quote]

30

RE method/ high reps is an integral part of WS4SB.

Remember reading natural bodybuilder kiyoshi moodys posts here where he said his training took off when he switched to 20 rep sets.

31

I have a question similar to this, so rather than starting a new post, i’ll post it here.

Im not going to even try to argue whether high reps or low reps is better. I think most people will need to do both to some extend to get a good amount of growth.

My question though, is how much strength does one need to develop to really develop a good physique. Now I know that more strength doesn’t equal more muscle, but its pretty safe to say that if you increase your bench press 30lbs, your likely going to be more muscular, OR have an easier time adding muscle in the future.

But rather than always focus on increasing max strength, you can also try to lift those heavy loads more times. We’ve all seen the articles on here about the different methods of progression.

You can get to a point where you cant get bigger unless you increase max strength, but conversely you can get to a point where you aren’t going to get stronger unless you add muscle.

So isnt it safe to say theres a point where you develop a certain amount of strength relative to your size or weight, and then you should focus on the other progressions?

For example:

I myself can deadlift around 350 for approximately 3 reps. This isn’t a spectacular max, but is still a significant amount of weight on my small 180lb frame. Now im sure I can still increase my max a bit more without focusing on hypertrophy, but what if instead of worrying about increasing my max, i focus on increasing workload and density.

Training in the 80-90% range of my max should be enough to maintain my strength, while getting some rep work in. That puts me lifting anywhere from 280-315. Then I can just follow the different set/rep recomendations put forth by this site, like what CW recomends.

It seems pretty obvious that lifting a max of 350 for 3 reps is gonna be far less effective than lifting 315 for a total of 30+ reps. I guess this is nothing really new, but I think we all focus a little too much on increasing the load, and not enough on the other progressions.

So what is an acceptable relative strength in the different lifts, to where you could say your strength isn’t holding your size back, and in fact your size is holding your strength back?

32

what in the hell are you talking about

33

[quote]dankid wrote:
I have a question similar to this, so rather than starting a new post, i’ll post it here.

Im not going to even try to argue whether high reps or low reps is better. I think most people will need to do both to some extend to get a good amount of growth.

My question though, is how much strength does one need to develop to really develop a good physique. Now I know that more strength doesn’t equal more muscle, but its pretty safe to say that if you increase your bench press 30lbs, your likely going to be more muscular, OR have an easier time adding muscle in the future.

But rather than always focus on increasing max strength, you can also try to lift those heavy loads more times. We’ve all seen the articles on here about the different methods of progression.

You can get to a point where you cant get bigger unless you increase max strength, but conversely you can get to a point where you aren’t going to get stronger unless you add muscle.

So isnt it safe to say theres a point where you develop a certain amount of strength relative to your size or weight, and then you should focus on the other progressions?

For example:

I myself can deadlift around 350 for approximately 3 reps. This isn’t a spectacular max, but is still a significant amount of weight on my small 180lb frame. Now im sure I can still increase my max a bit more without focusing on hypertrophy, but what if instead of worrying about increasing my max, i focus on increasing workload and density.

Training in the 80-90% range of my max should be enough to maintain my strength, while getting some rep work in. That puts me lifting anywhere from 280-315. Then I can just follow the different set/rep recomendations put forth by this site, like what CW recomends.

It seems pretty obvious that lifting a max of 350 for 3 reps is gonna be far less effective than lifting 315 for a total of 30+ reps. I guess this is nothing really new, but I think we all focus a little too much on increasing the load, and not enough on the other progressions.

So what is an acceptable relative strength in the different lifts, to where you could say your strength isn’t holding your size back, and in fact your size is holding your strength back?[/quote]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

seriously?