They’re both effective for building muscle. People have built muscle with 1 to 20 reps! There is no perfect rep scheme! Most bodybuilders who want to build muscle stick mostlywith 6 to 12 reps because that’s efficient, while extreme rep ranges (1-3 or >15) on the “big” exercises are avoided because they wreck people when done too frequently and are time consuming and overly fatiguing or overly burdensome on the joints (1 to 3).
However somewhere along the line people noticed the quads, calves, and traps respond to high reps. i think they just noticed and didn’t fret too much over which reps in a set we’re doing the trick. Example: Dorian Yates did high reps for quads and lower reps for hamstrings (5-8). I bet he wasn’t racking his brain over it.
If you’re going to start with the petty insults and comments you’ll get them back.
Greg Nuckols, who I’m not a fan of, came in here and we had respectful dialog back and forth because that’s how he approached it. If you’re going to start by insulting me then you’ll get it back the exact same way.
The effective reps for growth is actually based on parameters we know happens that is the actual stimulus for creating muscle growth. That is, the mechanical tension. What I’m getting from your post is that you simply don’t understand those things so of course, you’re going to insult it.
It’s interesting that Dorian settled into 6-8 reps for upperbody work and 10-12 for lower body. Instinctively, that is. Because those are the ranges I’d most often prescribe for people literally based on what we know from both the research and the anecdotal evidence based around muscle growth.
Sure thing man, since this is the part you felt you wanted to get smart ass about.
And since so many people liked your statement here, I’m more than willing for you to provide me some links where volume is talked about in terms of how many growth reps are being performed in a training session, instead of looking at things like volume load or just sets performed.
I’ve read where Ian has broken it down on a reps performed in terms of experience and goals, but that’s not what the effective reps method is talking about at all. It’s talking about the reps that are actually mechanically loading the muscle, creating the stimulus for growth.
I’m legit asking what it is you’re referring to from decades ago that talked about this in this exact same manner…since we haven’t even used the term mechanical loading for decades, I’m not sure how the hell Ian King was talking about what exact reps are responsible for it…
Paul the idea that only the last few reps of a set do anything has been around since at least Arnold, I’m not going to waste time digging around for quotes but suffice to say they are out there.
I’ve definitely heard plenty of coaches talk about the idea. They didn’t use the term “effective reps” or “mechanical loading” but they talk about the ideas all the same.
Unless he explicitly said it to you, you honestly think Thibs wasn’t really even aware of the idea that the end of a set is the effective part? Or that it’s 5 reps exactly? Or that he has to credit you every single time he mentions how the last reps of a set are the effective reps? Nonsense. Not to mention I have read plenty of times where he has credited you in his articles and forums.
How many days, weeks, months, or years have to pass before he can talk about the idea without saying “Paul carter showed me that…”?
Surely you have learned things from people and talked about them without mentioning the source.
It’s silly that you think you “need to have a talk with him” about this. Or that you are essentially accusing him of stealing your idea on the site you both work for.
Been a fan of your stuff for a long time but this is not a good look for you.
No you aren’t. If you were “legit asking” you wouldn’t be branding reps as “effective reps” or “growth reps” when all you were actually talking about was the difference in recovery time for the quads vs. biceps which is a very well established and often used paradigm to explain the recovery process.
Throwing in a term you made up doesnt make it new.
At all points prior to this term, reps, whether there were 12 or 8 or 7 or what ever–were assumed, more often than not, to be effective. Whether it’s the first 3 that get you to the last 3 or first 6 that get you to the last 5, they are all “effective”.
If they aren’t then most people would just add some weight.
Real life example–“I’m hitting this weight at 12 reps and it doesn’t feel like I’m really working.”.
People have talked about the idea that the last few reps of a set are the ones that stimulate growth, but when pressed and asked “ok so how many of those reps actually go towards stimulating muscle growth?” there’s just some arbitrary number thrown out.
So is it…3? 2? 6?
Because there’s a big difference in 6 reps going towards growth stimulus and 3 reps going towards it when you start factoring in how many sets are going to be optimal for stimulating growth without overrunning both muscular and systemic recovery.
And why would you even need a set of 8 if only 2 reps go towards growth? Why not just do doubles at max poundage and get the same response?
Someone talking about the concept or an idea is not the same as it being broken down in a way that’s more exact and useful, not to mention giving the reasons as to why it’s been broken down that way. Ian King never did this. No.
My comment about Thibs was related because as soon as we had a conversation about it he’s talking about it, then writing articles about it when I was the one that brought it to him. There’s no mention of such. That’s kinda weird, but ok.
Except that’s not true. Not all reps are effective when it comes to stimulating growth.
And this is why I told you to stop giving input while simultaneously taking shots at me. Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
For example, when your proximity to failure becomes a certain point away from failing, not only do you not stimulate growth but you create inroads into systemic fatigue. So you’re basically training to get tired.
There comes a point within a set where you’re mechanically loading the muscle, and activating more of the motor units connected to larger segments of fibers. Not all reps achieve this to the same degree.
I didn’t “invent” the term. There is science behind all of this, and no Ian King didn’t f’n know it.
Hes trying to say that, even though the first 5 reps of a set of 10 dont stimulate growth, you have to go through them in order to get to the last 5, so in a way they are “effective” because they are necessary.
People have been getting big and strong without knowing if its 2,3,6 or 5 reps that are “effective” for a long, LONG time. Maybe knowing scientifically what the exact number is doesnt change the fact that Ian King might have known only the last “few” reps are working towards building the muscle.
People have been talking about stimulating and fatiguing for along time, literally decades.
I believe John Maccallum was talking about the last few reps of squats being where the growth happened in the 60s. Muhammad Ali claimed to only start counting reps when they started hurting. These are just two examples off the top of my head.
I believe Paul has developed a system to quantify this, which may well be new territory.
Mechanical tension is qualified through some certain parameters being met physiologically. For you and the person who keeps liking your shit.
Moving a weight faster activates more of the HTMU…which is part of the mechanical loading equation…but the other part is the force velocity curve where force production is highest.
And that’s my point - Ian King didn’t know this shit and neither do you. But you guys don’t understand it so what you do is take shots at me, then tell me that “it’s not a good look on you” when I fire back at your bullshit
No shit Sherlock, where’d you park the car Dick Tracy?
The point is, they absolutely did not understand the exact number of reps involved, or how far you could train from failure and still achieve stimulating reps did they? No.
These kinds of things give a lot deeper insight into programming because NOT ALL REPS ARE STIMULATING GROWTH REPS.
If a muscle was “mechanically loaded” the way ding bat describes it before, then you could just grow from picking up shit around the yard or your house. Duh. It doesn’t quite work that way.
And there’s points in proximity to failure where growth isn’t stimulated at all if you’re far enough away…and volume won’t fix that problem. Yet there’s plenty of people doing tons of volume, and not growing, and wondering why…when they keep getting told volume drives growth and that you can train X away from failure and get all the same benefits, etc.
Dude if you don’t like my answers don’t be in here. It’s not hard.
Like I said, if you wanna have a discussion about it then leave the snarky comments at the door. IF you’re going to bring them in with you then just expect it back, and try not to keep crying about it when that happens.
Same for you, Lonnie. Or anyone. I can talk shop all day but once you start chirping I’m gonna lay the hammer down.
So you guys set the tone and I’ll reciprocate that tone. But you don’t get to come in and throw smart ass comments around and then turn into a whimpering victim when I respond back similarly.
Greg Nuckols and I had some great back and forths because he came with respect so he got it back.
