So I was curious as to why we use certain numbers for our rep ranges. Obviously singles, doubles and triples are understandable, but then 4 is skipped usually for 5’s and 7’s are skipped along with 9 for example.
Why is this? Is there a scientific reason or it’s simply the norm and we’ve learned to revolve around these numbers?
Just looking for a discussion on it, I know it probably comes down to majoring in the minors but I was thinking of trying out some 4’s during assistance work instead of 5’s.
Just copying Western mathematical bases and conventions. My training partner and I were talking about this just the other day actually lol. We were like “Do you think we’d be stronger if we had no concept for preferring certain rep numbers and instead just did the exact appropriate number of reps each set?”
A funny academic thing to think about the topic came up when we realized we had literally never done a 4 rep max, 6 rep max, or 9 rep max, etc…
I personally find 5 to be a terrible rep range. You’re not quite working on strength, you’re not quite working on size. I know there is a bit of both in there, I just don’t believe the middle ground in strength vs size is all that helpful in either.
That’s what I figured. For assistance work instead of of say 10, 8 and 5 reps respectively, I was going to try 8, 6 and 4 just so I can go a little heavier and try something different.
As an aside, I typically don’t know what my rep range will be in my failure set. I have a pretty good idea going into it, but if I hit 10 and have more in the tank, even if it’s just 1, I go for it. If I just upped the weight on a lift, I may fail before 10.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
What rep range do you want to be strong in?
I personally find 5 to be a terrible rep range. You’re not quite working on strength, you’re not quite working on size. I know there is a bit of both in there, I just don’t believe the middle ground in strength vs size is all that helpful in either. [/quote]
I like 5’s for say a main lift, just for the fact that it’s easily compared to other peoples records etc. But for my main assistance I wanted to try different rep ranges.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
As an aside, I typically don’t know what my rep range will be in my failure set. I have a pretty good idea going into it, but if I hit 10 and have more in the tank, even if it’s just 1, I go for it. If I just upped the weight on a lift, I may fail before 10. [/quote]
I agree failure sets are something that you can’t really predict the exact reps completed, but this would be numbers I know I could hit. As I thought though it does seem to just be “bro-science” lol
[quote]Samson18 wrote:
So I was curious as to why we use certain numbers for our rep ranges. Obviously singles, doubles and triples are understandable, but then 4 is skipped usually for 5’s and 7’s are skipped along with 9 for example. [/quote]
Mike Mentzer spoke of this. I believe there is some type of psychological connection to the numbers used. Why, who knows?
[quote]
Why is this? Is there a scientific reason or it’s simply the norm and we’ve learned to revolve around these numbers? [/quote]
Simply the norm, considering people have grown and gotten stronger with reps of 1 to 20.
[quote]
Just looking for a discussion on it, I know it probably comes down to majoring in the minors but I was thinking of trying out some 4’s during assistance work instead of 5’s.
Honestly, I feel the notion of rep ranges has been a far greater detriment to training than benefit. Many seem to ignore that the intent of providing a rep range/effect explanation was more to explain about the impact of time under tension, which is really an entirely different animal for most.
3 reps is supposed to be in the power range of training. Well lets say I do 3 fast reps with 60% 1rm? Then yeah, I’m developing power. What about 90% of 1rm? Now it’s strength. What about if I did 10 sets of 3 with 75% and 1 minute of rests between sets? Now I’m developing hypertrophy. What about a weight circuit, where I do 3 reps of dips, 3 reps of chins, and 3 reps of kettlebell swings for 15 minutes? Now it’s endurance/conditioning.
Lets go back to that 3 reps with 90% set. Say I’m doing squats. On one set, I lockout each rep at the top and pause for a second before starting the next rep. On the second set, I don’t lockout at the top and immediately begin the next rep before coming completely to the top of the last one. Did both sets accomplish the same degree of strength/size development? They were both 90% of 1rm for 3 reps.
There are far more variables at play than rep range, and honestly, I think moving away from thinking in “rep ranges” and more in terms of how everything builds to the overall goal is a boon. I go by feel for the most part these days, and measure success as my outcome.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Honestly, I feel the notion of rep ranges has been a far greater detriment to training than benefit. Many seem to ignore that the intent of providing a rep range/effect explanation was more to explain about the impact of time under tension, which is really an entirely different animal for most.
3 reps is supposed to be in the power range of training. Well lets say I do 3 fast reps with 60% 1rm? Then yeah, I’m developing power. What about 90% of 1rm? Now it’s strength. What about if I did 10 sets of 3 with 75% and 1 minute of rests between sets? Now I’m developing hypertrophy. What about a weight circuit, where I do 3 reps of dips, 3 reps of chins, and 3 reps of kettlebell swings for 15 minutes? Now it’s endurance/conditioning.
Lets go back to that 3 reps with 90% set. Say I’m doing squats. On one set, I lockout each rep at the top and pause for a second before starting the next rep. On the second set, I don’t lockout at the top and immediately begin the next rep before coming completely to the top of the last one. Did both sets accomplish the same degree of strength/size development? They were both 90% of 1rm for 3 reps.
There are far more variables at play than rep range, and honestly, I think moving away from thinking in “rep ranges” and more in terms of how everything builds to the overall goal is a boon. I go by feel for the most part these days, and measure success as my outcome.[/quote]
I like this response, of course you’re entirely right but it does give food for thought.
As to seeing how I feel I’ve come to realize this seems to be a great approach, I’m learning that auto-regulation is something I really need to do rather than following a specific plan, especially as I am getting back into Strongman again.
Thanks for responses so far guys this is just making me want to try out different things more haha
It really is a non-issue. Programs prescribing the exact set-rep schemes are more for beginners anyway. As soon as you advance in your strength training career (be it BBing and/or PLing), auto-regulating your sessions (incl. set-reps per exercise) will take over and “odd” rep sets will happen organically.
[quote][LankyMofo wrote:
I personally find 5 to be a terrible rep range. You’re not quite working on strength, you’re not quite working on size. [/quote]
Not telling what “should” work for you, but Marty Gallagher has written a bit about how 5-rep sets were common mainstays for a lot of great powerlifters like Ed Coan and Kirk Karwoski. Just an interesting side note. I think it can also be a good place for “experienced beginners” to work on. Once they get past the raw, fresh, new lifter smell-stage, I think it’s fine to really push around 5-ish reps to start learning what “heavy” feels like.
I never really like the idea of shooting for a specific rep goal per set. I prefer rep ranges for each set. 3-5, 4-6, 8-10, etc. It’s sort of a built-in autoregulation - if you hit the high end and could keep going, increase the weight. If you’re grinding to hit the low end, maintain the weight or drop it a bit.
[quote]Brickhead wrote:
Simply the norm, considering people have grown and gotten stronger with reps of 1 to 20.[/quote]
I recently did Waterbury’s SOB Training program that rotated the set/rep scheme twice a week, and I felt great and saw some nice results.
10x3, 2x30, 6x5, 4x15, 12x2, 1x50, 3x20. Hitting everything in such a wide variety of rep ranges was really interesting to go through.
Waterbury’s also written a ton about how to manipulate sets and reps to achieve different results. I still think this holds up as one of the best articles on the topic:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
3 reps is supposed to be in the power range of training. Well lets say I do 3 fast reps with 60% 1rm? Then yeah, I’m developing power. What about 90% of 1rm? Now it’s strength. What about if I did 10 sets of 3 with 75% and 1 minute of rests between sets? Now I’m developing hypertrophy. What about a weight circuit, where I do 3 reps of dips, 3 reps of chins, and 3 reps of kettlebell swings for 15 minutes? Now it’s endurance/conditioning.
…
There are far more variables at play than rep range, and honestly, I think moving away from thinking in “rep ranges” and more in terms of how everything builds to the overall goal is a boon.[/quote]
Yep. Looking at reps outside of the context of total volume (sets and reps) and intensity/load is kinda silly.
I’m glad others have all this science-y stuff and interesting insights. Because my best response would be, “Because bigger and smarter people told me to.”
[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m glad others have all this science-y stuff and interesting insights. Because my best response would be, “Because bigger and smarter people told me to.”
Good enough for me. shrug[/quote]
Good point. Wasn’t trying to say that the people prescribing these rep ranges are wrong, far from it. I just wondered if there would be any difference to doing other reps instead. Obviously I know there wouldn’t be a huge difference but I just thought it was something interesting.
I could be wrong, but I was just thinking it might have something to do with weight percentages. Like, 9 reps equate to some weird percent like 83% or some shit. Just thinking out loud on a computer though. Good question
the topic came up when we realized we had literally never done a 4 rep max, 6 rep max, or 9 rep max, etc…