What is the best rep range for packing on muscle. I tend to favor the lower rep range because I like lifting heavy. But, I may be missing out. What is the best rep range for mass?
8-12.
Here are the general rules:
You should always pick a target rep range then use a weight such that you fail within your target range.
For strength: target is 7 reps or less
For mass: target is 8 - 12 reps
For endurance: target is 12+ reps
Now obviously this is “in general.” Even us bodybuilders who typically stay in the middle mass building range can benefit from doing a little bit of powerlifting (low reps) or endurance training (high reps) here and there to keep the muscles guessing. Also powerlifting can help you blast through a plateau. But for your “standard” workout the general rules hold. Also, certain exercises work better with more (or less) volume.
Joel and Jim:
This is an EXCELLENT time for me to jump in, because it brings up a topic I HOPE that we’ll discuss at length on this thread.
I agree with you guys 100% on the rep ranges (even though I am sure it will spark debate…but that’s all good…that’s one way in which we learn…)
The topic is the need for not only hitting that 8-12 range for hypertrophy BUT also making sure that you are at around 75-80% of your 1RM to induce that hypertrophy. (This is a hypothetical extreme, but it illustrates the point. Ronnie Coleman could do 8-12 reps till the cows come home on Biceps Curls; but if he is using just the bar, or 50 pounds or so, he ain’t gonna grow!)
So…what are your thoughts, or what have you guys read and found in your reading and/or personal experience on the need to not only push a certain rep range BUT also to push a certain % of your 1RM for each exercise in order to grow?
Mufasa
There’s NO WAY in a million years I can hit 12 reps with a slow temp with 75-80% of 1RM. Actually I cant ever remember seeing any individual perform this.
I think that making a broad brush stroke and saying that the 8-12 range is best for everyone is a little short sighted.
Take fiber type and amount of type II a/b fibres into account and you may find you’re more conducive to growth working in lower rep ranges.
Your neural effeciency is also a variable to consider. That’s one of the reasons why some can lift in the 8-12 range with 80% of your 1 R.M. and some can’t.
I find that 5X5 and other similar protocols put more mass on me than any other protocols. Obviously the intensities and rest times can be manipulated to get the desired training effect, but I respond better at 80% and higher.
Big: Agree about the individuality. I look at what Jim listed as sort of “starting points”, especailly for the beginner. I think many would agree that ultimately we have to monitor how our body responds.
To BOPS comment…even if 75-80% of a 1RM does not work for you, there has to be SOME loading parameter to start with (again…the Coleman example I gave…)
Most people tend to fall into a category where 8-12 reps/set is ideal for their particular fiber makeup. Those people who are (in general) slower or faster twitch might benefit more from lower or higher reps. I tend to get bigger when I use lower reps and more weight… not that that’s my goal, but it just works out that way.
I think Jim H makes a good point about deviating from the 8-12 rep range occasionally... it makes sense to me that you would want to work as many fibers as you can in order to get the most hypertrophy possible.
Point of training career…beginner, intermediate, or advanced…as well as % of genetic max already reached…as well as any chemical or supplemental “assistance” being used…as well as trainer age all come into play as well as the points made previously.
Wanted to add…Bryan Haycock’s HST may be the best of all worlds…although I find 5x5 a useful and productive protocol.
I tend to think that time under tension is much more important then rep ranges for adding muscle.
In the beginning, I used the 8-12 rep range. But then, I was rather young. NOW, I can gain with less reps.
I agree with Heb, on the factors involved in determining the rep range. And also agree that the 8-12 rep range is probably the average for many trainees in gaining mass.
YEs, using heavy weight is important - hence this statement in my first post - ‘You should always pick a target rep range then use a weight such that you fail within your target range.’ The idea is that your muscles are bloodied to a pulp and you cant lift that bar anymore - thats probably a different % of 1RM for different people. I for one don’t even test one rep max, as it has no bearing on my goals (Im a bodybuilder not a powerlifter) and it is a good way to get injured if your not accustomed to doing it.
Everybody is different. I grow best on 3-4 reps and stale on higher reps. Though for my legs I grow better in 6-8 rep range. Experiment, see what works best for you. It took me years to find the rep range where I grow well, all those bullshit theories about 8-12 reps got me stagnated and not progressing for years.
Depends on too many factors to make a blanket statement towards rep ranges. Not just the speed of movement but how the speed of movement is broken up. A 3-0-1 (ecc,pause, conc.)tempo with a given weight or movement is a lot different than a 1-0-3 tempo with the same weight and movement with the latter being more intense. I generally agree with the 75-80% of 1rm recommendation however it can change really quick when you start using methods such as pre-exhaustion, supersets etc. (time under tension methods). But if one wanted to determine which rep range they are most likely to respond to on a given movement or muscle using the 75-80% load and repping to failure is a pretty effective way to determine that. There will be a lot of variability between muscle groups. Another muscle mass recommendation is to recommend a time under tension between 40-60 seconds. For most people my feeling is this is a bit high and something like 25-35 seconds would be better.
Thanks for the responses. Awesome to get all the feedback. I have always stayed low reps range because I saw improvement with my lifts, i.e., poundages went up. When I tried the 8-12 range I didn’t feel like I was making any progress. But, I am 6’4 and noticable gains don’t come easy, so maybe I didn’t give it enough time. I am going to give it (8-12) a go for the next 6 weeks and see what happens. I think that 75% of my 1 rep max is doable in this range.
Bryan, only You will know the answer to that question (in time). Try ALL of the rep ranges. Give each one an honest effort. Document your training/results and see what happens. What “BIG JOE” does for mass may NOT be the best thing that will give you the same results. Just be sure to use proper form and a slow, controlled tempo. Trial and error. In the end you’ll have that much more knowledge to apply.
The load should be chosen so that when you reach the point that you can longer do a rep in proper form you will be in the desired rep range. You should not attempt the rep you will not complete in proper form, however. (That’s the only way I could say it without using the word “failure.”)
The % of 1RM in which the above mentioned phenomena occurs will vary greatly with training age/experience.
Beginners will respond well to most anything provided that other "growth" factors such as nutrition and rest are taken care of.
This whole arguement makes me point out the greatness and simplicity of a Staley type approach with his EDT. With so many variables, rep pace, rest, actual 1rm, etc, what is better than taking a weight and counting the number of quality reps, regardless of rep tempo, and striving to up the total reps done, and adding load when a % increase in quality reps is accomplished. I propose that we outhink ourselves too often, getting analysis paralysis, and wuss out when it comes to the frequency of training, substituting extended half assed training sessions in frequently and say that we need a week to recover. We fall prey to the siren like, psuedo scientific exotic or complex training routines. super slow, giant sets, micro managed rest time and micro manged nutrition, complex splits, all hooey. One guys opinion.