Best Number of Reps for Mass

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Now that we are on the subject of reps, Charles Poliquin made an interesting observation.

I’m not sure if I agree with this but he said the higher your 1RM is (over time) the lower your reps will be for a given percentage.

I always thought that if you can bench 250 for 8 and max 300, then by the time you reached 500 x 8, your 1RM would be 600.

In other words, it would be exactly the same ratio.

According to Poliquin, If you ever did reach a 600 lb 1RM, your best for 8 would be more in the 400 lb. range, etc…

I know Poliquin’s a stud, but that sounds a bit far-fetched to me. What do you guys think?[/quote]

Makes sense. As training age progresses (assuming you train with a relatively heavy weight to your 1RM), the muscles that have the biggest size and strength increase are the fast twitch fibres. Eventually, your fast twitch fibres will be so big and strong that you’ll become “fast twitch dominant” in a sense (because your slow twitch fibres didn’t get as much hyprotrophic stimulus). Therefore, with training age, you can oomplete less reps with the same percentage of your 1RM.

Now about Tom Platz and Fred Hatfield. Hatfield is a powerlifter so he trains in low reps. Tom is a bodybuilder who loves high reps. Since their training styles are different, you’d expect different results. Another thing that can cause their rep difference is their genetically predisposed muscle fibre ratios.

42

[quote]JamFly wrote:
I am surprised by the answers here since I have found cycling different rep ranges over blocks of time is best for increased strength and size particularly on big lifts like the bench. Having said that I find high reps of heavy squats, 10 and up, seperate the men from the boys in terms of big strength and mass gains and also pain threshhold gains.
J[/quote]

True. I think this is what some coaches call accumulation and intensification. Accumulation hammers the muscles more while intensification nails the CNS more. When you change phases, you stimulate one more while giving the other some recovery.

43

[quote]goya wrote:
MytchBucanan wrote:
Now that we are on the subject of reps, Charles Poliquin made an interesting observation.

I’m not sure if I agree with this but he said the higher your 1RM is (over time) the lower your reps will be for a given percentage.

I always thought that if you can bench 250 for 8 and max 300, then by the time you reached 500 x 8, your 1RM would be 600.

In other words, it would be exactly the same ratio.

According to Poliquin, If you ever did reach a 600 lb 1RM, your best for 8 would be more in the 400 lb. range, etc…

I know Poliquin’s a stud, but that sounds a bit far-fetched to me. What do you guys think?

There is an anecdote in which Fred Hatfield did a 1RM of 800lb+ and Tom Platz did a 1 RM of 600lb. Then they lowered the weights to 500lb to determine their RM at that load. Platz got 23 reps with the 500lb and Fred only got 6 reps.

But maybe Fred would have gotten 6 reps with 600 as well? Or he just did not really recover enough to do as many reps as he could have done rested. But the bottom line is that Fred was more of a low rep-er than Tom.

Now I am sure they both had different strength-endurance ratios. But I am not sure if it changed much throughout their career.

Maybe with steroids you can increase the amount of FT fibers over ST? Not sure if this is possible. But I am sure people that perform well in powerlifting already have plenty of FT muscle and are naturally better with high weights and low reps.[/quote]

Interesting, but I don’t think those numbers are correct. I know for a fact that Tom could squat 600 for 10 during the same period when he could get 500 for 23.

Hatfield also squatted like a powerlifter. He used max leverage such as low bar, knees back and wide stance.

Tom on the other hand kept his feet close, knees forward, torso erect and high bar style. I would put money on Tom Platz having more actual “quad strength” than Fred.

I didn’t mean to divert the topic, but BB and PL style squats are just too different.

44

hi there guys, i think that low reps are the best (3-6) but training smart, read DINOSAUR TRAINING by BROOK KUBIK and you will see why.

about the other topic it’s a logical think, think about it, would a power lifter that squats 700 do reps with his 80%? i doubtit, in stead they all use MANY sets of LOW reps so they can get enought volume and dont kill them selves in the squat rack

45

[quote]Old Dax wrote:
5-8[/quote]

5-8 has seems to work the best for me too. 5x5 works good and 3x6-8 works good for me.

46

thinking back to when i first started and all the “comebacks” i’ve made over the years, if i had to guess what one number constituted the majority of sets throughout all those years and workouts in terms of reps, i’d say it’s probably 7. although now i include a wider variety of rep ranges so it’s a higher number now.

47

[quote]sawadeekrob wrote:
I feel that the older you get the higher the rep range should be. Not because of safety reasons, but because your muscles become much denser and grainy with the higher reps.

When I was younger my main range was 4-8 upper and 11-16 for lower. However now that I am approaching 40 the rep ranges of 15-25 upper and 20-30 for lower (and sometimes more) have proven to give me more muscle mass. I still lift progressively heavier, so don’t confuse this. Always strive to lift heavier than last session.

I also think that diet plays a bigger role the older you get. [/quote]

Interesting. When I was a beginner I could do 20+ reps on everything and see regular strength gains. I’m sure it wouldn’t work for me now.

48

I think these discussions prove that there is no such thing as a science of bodybuilding. It is simply a myth touted by all the elementary literature and websites on bodybuilding. The myth makes fairly obvious rep distinctions. It must be confusing for a poor bastard beginner. The beginner will read a book saying “8-12 is the stuff of bodybuilding”.

Beginner: OK.

Then beginner goes online and on a site like T-Nation. Runs to an article which explodes in his face with capitalized letters: “BEEN DOING THEM HIGH REPS,HUH? MEATHEAD, DO SINGLES FOR ONE YEAR! BIG WEIGHT MEANS BIG GAINS!”

49

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
It depends on what muscle group.

Legs: 15-20
Back: 12-15
Chest: I wish I knew. Probably less than back
Shoulders and Arms: 6-8
Calves: 25-1,000,000,000

[/quote]

Funny, I was have said that pulling exercises require lower reps than pushing exercises. Similarly I feel quads need more reps than ham/glutes.

50

[quote]Alffi wrote:
The beginner will read a book saying “8-12 is the stuff of bodybuilding”.

Beginner: OK.

Then the beginner goes to the gym and does sets with 8-12 reps and makes great gains for a very long time, possibly for as long as they train.
[/quote]

I wanted to fix that for you… it’s not that complicated if people don’t let it become that way.

51

30 x 1 near max weight, 60 second rest

52

[quote]goya wrote:
I think it depends a lot on the individuals.

A test I like a lot is to take a few exercises (works best for single joint exercises), and measure your 1 rep max. Don’t use calculators that would defeat the purpose.

Once you have measured your 1 RM, wait at least 5 min (or do it on another day), take 80% of the weight and do as many reps as possible to failure.

Some people can only do like 4 reps with that weight while some rare exception do more than 20 reps. Average is around 8. And most 1RM calculators are based on this. There is speculation that people that do low reps have more FT muscle while people that do higher reps have more ST muscle. Also from what I have seen and read, this number does not change regardless of how you train and how much you train. But you might get slightly different numbers on different exercises.

Anyways the idea is that whatever number you get, you stick to that +/- 1 or 2 reps, but use a load large enough to stimulate gains. Obviously someone that can only do 4-5 reps with 80% 1 RM will need to use ridiculously light weights to do high reps. Not productive.

On the other hand someone that can do 15+ reps with 80% 1RM would probably do well with high reps since he can handle more weight at higher reps.

Now this part is very speculative, but is based on my experience. If you fall in the low rep end of the spectrum, high volume may not be for you. These individuals will tend to fatigue very fast, so lot of sets might not be beneficial. And if multiple sets are used, still stick to low reps. On the other end people with high endurance, might do better with more volume.

In my case, when I did the test for military presses. I found out that my 1RM was 20 pounds higher than what was estimated by the 1 RM calculator. But I was only able to do 5 reps with 80% of that weight. So the calculator was totally off in this case.

So I increased the load and lowered the reps from 8-10 to 4-6 and I have been increasing in shoulder size and strength ever since. It’s been 2 months since I made the changes and I have not reached a plateau yet, which is another positive.

So I think the load is more important than the # reps. Make sure you work at a high enough % of your max and adjust from there. [/quote]

This seems like a fantastic idea. I think this is what I might do in the final days of my deloading week!

53

This was very interesting. A lot of good points came out this as well.

Now I am going to get little theoretical here flame me if you will but this is something I have considered for a while but not really practiced.

I believe the truth is that you can gain size in all rep ranges to some degree. Either fast twitch or slow twitch fibers can be trained to increase in size. Reps range, rest, cadence all being factors to this end. Even a muscle that is predominently fast twitch can be increased in size by training specifically to stimulate what slow twitch fibers that are there and vice versa. I would venture to say that if a person wanting to gain maximum size would train to hypertrophy both fiber types, that person would ultimately have larger overall musculature than a person who has trained towards only increasing the size of the predominent fiber type.

I think that over the years after I stopped PLing I have tended to gravitate towards a pattern that stimulates the predominent fibers of a muscle. My perception would be that I see faster size gains in various rep ranges because of the muscle fiber distribution differences in some muscles. I think that may be part of the reason we are seeing varied answers here as well as guys telling us that they see better results using varied rep ranges per body part. Power lifting training did make me bigger and much stronger there is no doubt but the training I have done since that period has increased my size even more so.

I measure significantly larger now that I have been training more in the mid rep ranges and am only now nearing my old PRs I had when I PLed years ago.

Also of note that kind of supports this idea is that a few veteran guys have noted that they are seeing size increases from higher rep ranges. Could this be a result of them reaching a large amount of hypertrophy using lower rep ranges earlier in life and now naturally selecting to train in higher rep ranges because they are visibly seeing size increases due to hypertrophy in the other fiber types?

This might be yet another motivator for those guys out there who dont like to do their cardio work. They could in theory be seeing faster size gains if they were doing it as they would be stimulating the endurance fibers.

Now the question that I have is can a person effectively train both fiber types simultaneously and thus gain size at the maximum rate or is that too much to ask of our bodies growth and recovery rates? Is this why we typically train for one or the other?

54

[quote]goya wrote:
I think it depends a lot on the individuals.

A test I like a lot is to take a few exercises (works best for single joint exercises), and measure your 1 rep max. Don’t use calculators that would defeat the purpose.

Once you have measured your 1 RM, wait at least 5 min (or do it on another day), take 80% of the weight and do as many reps as possible to failure.

Some people can only do like 4 reps with that weight while some rare exception do more than 20 reps. Average is around 8. And most 1RM calculators are based on this. There is speculation that people that do low reps have more FT muscle while people that do higher reps have more ST muscle. Also from what I have seen and read, this number does not change regardless of how you train and how much you train. But you might get slightly different numbers on different exercises.

Anyways the idea is that whatever number you get, you stick to that +/- 1 or 2 reps, but use a load large enough to stimulate gains. Obviously someone that can only do 4-5 reps with 80% 1 RM will need to use ridiculously light weights to do high reps. Not productive.

On the other hand someone that can do 15+ reps with 80% 1RM would probably do well with high reps since he can handle more weight at higher reps.

Now this part is very speculative, but is based on my experience. If you fall in the low rep end of the spectrum, high volume may not be for you. These individuals will tend to fatigue very fast, so lot of sets might not be beneficial. And if multiple sets are used, still stick to low reps. On the other end people with high endurance, might do better with more volume.

In my case, when I did the test for military presses. I found out that my 1RM was 20 pounds higher than what was estimated by the 1 RM calculator. But I was only able to do 5 reps with 80% of that weight. So the calculator was totally off in this case.

So I increased the load and lowered the reps from 8-10 to 4-6 and I have been increasing in shoulder size and strength ever since. It’s been 2 months since I made the changes and I have not reached a plateau yet, which is another positive.

So I think the load is more important than the # reps. Make sure you work at a high enough % of your max and adjust from there. [/quote]

This is quite interesting. I predominantly lift low reps (5 and below) and have wondered for a while now why my arms seem to progress at a much faster rate than my other upper body lifts. I hardly even work biceps, maybe 1 curling exercise every 2 weeks or so, and i have 17 3/4 inch arms. Dont get me wrong by no means am i saying thats great or anything, but compared to the rest of my body it stands out. The weight i am able to use on curls also seems out of wack compared to other lifts. Going by your test, my biceps fall right in the 4 range, whereas chest and shoulders are more like 9-10. Coincidence? Possibly, but im going to switch my focus to that higher range for a while on those muscles and see how i progress there.

55

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
30 x 1 near max weight, 60 second rest[/quote]

Really?
Sounds like an awful lot of work, what % is ‘near max’ ?

56

[quote]sawadeekrob wrote:
I feel that the older you get the higher the rep range should be. Not because of safety reasons, but because your muscles become much denser and grainy with the higher reps.
[/quote]

Sorry, but that sounds like complete bollocks!

57

[quote]Old Dax wrote:
sawadeekrob wrote:
I feel that the older you get the higher the rep range should be. Not because of safety reasons, but because your muscles become much denser and grainy with the higher reps.

Sorry, but that sounds like complete bollocks![/quote]

I have to agree with Old Dax. As you get older your skin gets thinner and this may give you a more “grainy” look. Unless you do a biopsy you would have no way of telling how dense a muscle is. I would assume low reps would make your muscles more dense because of more fast-twitch hypertrophy instead of sarcoplasmic.