How important is the rep range, really?
>>35408282
Kind of important, but vastly overstated for most purposes.
What happens if I do 6 or 7 reps?
If you have to ask it isnt important to your body yet
>tfw have to switch to 13+ soon for the season
hold me brehs.
>>35408319
you dont exist
>>35408282
If you want maximum limit strength, you need to do heavy singles. Beyond that, it's all about volume above 80% of your 1RM.
As you advance, you'll vary weight and reps from workout to workout. Starting of with low weight for lots of reps and moving to heavy weight with few reps. Or vice versa. Or going up a bit then down a bit, gradually increasing volume from week to week or month to month.
But that's for intermediate to advanced lifters. Anything between 5 to 15 reps is fine for noobs.
>>35408319
You can't
>>35408319
No gains. Your entire workout is null and void.
>>35408282
It is important.
However
>Not may may important.
It all depends on body goals, according to fit 6-7 reps gives nothing to the equation which is fucking retarded.
I stick to either 5 or 10 because I like making life simpler.
>>35408323
This desu lads
>>35408332
Can you elaborate more on this? So do you cycle up to like 3x20 then back down? At what point are you ready to do so?
strength work is done from 3 - 12 reps
below that you're not doing shit except risking injury
above that you're not really doing a hard work out, you're jogging - walking with your muscles
>>35408319
The same as if you were to divide by zero
It's more about volume and frequency than rep range.
i'm thinking of switching from 3x8 to 4x12
wish me luck
>>35408437
There's a lot of ways to do this. The traditional way involves starting at a relatively high rep range (say, 12-15), adding a bit of weight every week and dropping the rep range every few weeks so you don't hit a wall.
So a twelve week cycle might go:
3 weeks of 4x12, adding 5lbs each week
3 weeks of 4x10, adding 5lbs each week
3 weeks of 4x8, adding 5lbs each week
3 weeks of 4x6, adding 5lbs each week.
If you were looking to max out afterwards, you'd take a couple more weeks to knock out some triples, then an easy week, then test your maxes.
That's just an example though. There's a metric fuckton of ways to arrange this sort of thing.
This sort of thing becomes useful when you're at the point where it takes more than a couple of weeks for you to hit PRs. Before then, you don't need the longer cycles.
>>35408282
>How important is the rep range, really?
Not as important as total volume, in the long run.
http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
If you don't know this blog, you're welcome.
>>35408342
this desu
>>35408567
How much volume do I need then?
>>35408599
>How much volume do I need then?
As much as you care to do, and as much as you can recover from.
Everyone's training will eventually be limited by their ability to recover.
>>35408599
Are you failing to make gains? Do more
Are you getting overworked and injured? Do less.
That's rpetty much the long and the short of it.
>>35408282
Muscular overload to the point of momentary failure, trained with enough volume to get results, but avoid CNS burnout. That is all that is important. Numbers are arbitrary and meaningless.
Just focus on progressive overload. Either add weight to the bar and lift in the lower ranges, or try to work out in the 8-10 rep range and add an extra rep or two from your previous workout if you can. Both will promote growth and add to your 1rm as long as you eat enough.
>>35408282
Why does everyone treat total reps like they're important? You go until failure. If you hit 10 and you can do another, you go to 11. If you wanted to go 8 but you literally can't move past 6, then your set is done.
i personally rotate weekly. One week I max out and go until I hit a 1RM, the next week I lower the weight and go for form + reps, working my way back up to the 1RM.
2 months into lifting I'm at 1 1/2 pl8 aiming for 2pl8 by the end of feb
>>35408494
then that would imply that doing a body part split will be the most beneficial
>>35408772
>2 months into lifting
Your strategy towards loading will change when you are out of beginner status.
If you read the article here >>35408567, you'll see that more sets near failure is more advantageous for size and strength than one all out set to failure.
>>35408282
>some guys at the gym were repping 40-45 kilos for 8 reps each
>the last two reps their spotter helped them
>they say i'm working out wrong when i bench 70kilos for 4 sets of 5 and one set of 4 (i failed the very last rep, FUCK)
Why do dyels, like total dyels who can't even 1rm 1pl8 on the bench , always think they know best?
>>35408810
You ignore them and unlike them grow until they accuse you of being on gear.
>>35408282
I just realized today that 1 rep maxes are actually the lifts that build endurance, and doing 10+ reps is what actually builds strength.
The 1RM helps refine form and also make you more comfortable re-performing the lift. But it doesn't stimulate you enough to progress.
We should stop comparing lifters to runners.
>>35408319
you turn gay
>>35408567
"At this point, we can only conclusively look at muscle growth on a large scale and say that picking things up and putting them down a lot makes muscles get bigger."
Wow great article anon, totally worth the 12-24 min read.
i would like some advice.
i started working out a couple months ago and i have seen a lot of progress both in fat loss and in muscle gain. i just dont know how many sets or most importantly total reos for a given muscle group.
i do a 3 day split only hitting a muscle group once a week.
monday: chest, triceps, abs
wednesday: back, biceps
friday: legs, shoulders
i am focusing on strenght with some mass right now so i typically do a set to 6 reps meaning that i try to use a weight where i can not do more than 6 repetitions.
what i dont know is how many sets to do. or how many reps should i do for muscle group a week.
i used to do 24 reps for small muscles and 48 for bigger ones but i recently moved it up to 36 reps for small and 72 for bigger muscles.
im still trying to figure out if that is good enough or if i need to adjust my sets better but i need some advice on this,
>>35409105
>started working out a couple months ago
>hitting each bodypart once a week.
>Gaining muscle while losing fat.
Man you are the definition of noob gains. Hit each muscle at least twice a week, and adjust your calorie intake accordingly.
>>35408567
I've seen this chart many times. The takeaway is lower reps = strength, while total volume = hypertrophy. But at what point is it too much volume? Is there even such a thing because
>8 hour arms
>>35409167
The point at which you're consistently not recovering between sessions and digging yourself into a deeper hole each week.
>>35408319
Dost thou even hoist? Its either 5 or 8
>>35408319
You will literally grow a vagina
>>35409167
Watch Eric helms video about volume, intensity and frequency, in it he talks about a study that said that 40 to 70 reps are the adequate amount of volume per body part, assuming you are a beginner you should try and stick to 40 making your way up to 70. As you get stronger and advanced certainty adjustments will have to be made, but I'm assuming you aren't advance. Now 8-12 is mostly used in hypertropy routine because that's the easiest way to accumulate volume with a moderate intensity, where as if you were to lift with a strength rep range ( 1-6) it would take you far too much to do the same amount of volume. Many studies suggest that lets say 10x3 will give you more hypertropy than 3x10 and much more strength also, but in reality no one has the time to do such thing. Bottom line is if you are focused on hypertropy stick to the 8-12 reps and finish off with a 12-15 rep range so 3/4 8-12 and 1/4 12-15.
>>35409167
>not doing 8 hour arms everyday
You some kind of a sissy?
>>35408282
Not super important, but important. I'd say 8-20 is a good range for hypertrophy, and no more than 10 when you are training for strength, with most of your working sets being less than 6. A lot of it has to do with how much volume you want and how much time you have to get it done.
>>35408452
>below that you're not doing shit except risking injury
Tell that to all the world class, record holding olympic lifters and powerlifters who train heavy singles and doubles all the time.
>>35408772
You can do any retarded workout and make gains when you're two months in. Once you hit your first couple plateaus, you start to learn what programs really work.
>>35409167
At the point where you start to see significantly increased risk of injury. 8 hour arms is about a mile past this point.
>>35408319
/r/ing that infograph
>>35409474
Powerlifters for those most part don't do a lot of heavy singles and doubles until they peak for competition.
Oly lifting is a whole different story, at least in part because its not a strength sport in the same way powerlifting or just plain lifting weights is.
>>35409541
Ok. I'll ignore the fact that there are many world class PLs, for example Eric Lilliebridge, who do heavy singles and doubles on the top sets of the majority of their workouts year round. Would you say that, while powerlifters are peaking for their meet and doing the heavy singles and doubles, they aren't doing shit except risking injury? And how is Oly lifting not a strength sport?
>>35409584
Most of their singles are down around 85% or so. That's not exactly heavy relative to their strength, and its one session out of six. The others are all AMRAP top sets basically. They're doing two things peaking like that. One is risking injury (which is inevitable and the risk thereof is part of the reason most don't work in that range year round) and the other is prepping themselves for maximal attempts at the meet, which again has injury risks that most people don't need to undergo.
Oly lifting is, for lack of a better way of putting it, a power and technique sport. Maximal strength isn't a part of the competition lifts (although obviously its influential on power output) and that makes a huge difference in terms of how stressful and how risky near-max attempts are.
>>35408319
i dont understand
>>35409635
No powerlifter worth his salt does AMRAP top sets during a peaking cycle, and no the singles are not around 85% or so that would be fucking dumb and pointless.
Strength is the word we made up for muscular power, the two are interchangeable. Obviously technique does play into oly lifting more than PL, but strength is still a huge factor and the best way to build strength, as long as you have the time and the ability to recover is with as many heavy singles as possible.
>>35409730
It wasn't that long ago that the Lilliebridges put their programming out for sale. I'm pulling from their own damn training manuals.
And no, strength is not fucking interchangeable with power. Two different qualities.
>>35409748
Yeah, I'm sure the program they sell is the same one they use, especially because Eric does singles that are higher than the ones he hits in his meet all of the time.
Explain the distinction please.
>>35409772
Strength is about maximal force production. Power is about fast force production.
If I pull 600lbs for a grinder and then pull 500lbs fast, the former is demonstrating greater strength and the latter is demonstrating greater power (because power is about weightxtime, basically - slow lifts always have shitty power even when they're damned heavy). The nature of oly lifts (that you're basically reliant on momentum generated early in the lift to carry you through a leverage dead zone) makes them much more about power than about strength.
There's relation between the two qualities to an extent, but they're different things.
>>35409814
In order to move the weight as quickly as possible, you need to exert on it a maximal amount of
*drumroll*
force. Both scenarios you described are maximal force production, it's just that if you exert the same force on a lighter weight it will move more quickly. Oly lifting, in addition to being about maximal force production, is also highly technique sensitive, but that's the only distinction here.
>>35409861
See the problem there is that increased maximal strength does not necessarily grant you the ability to move lighter weights faster. Its why people do dedicated speed work on top of their strength work.
>>35409885
Yeah you're right I'm just arguing for no reason cause I got sucked in. Anyways, my original point that heavy singles and doubles are an important part of strength training still stands.
>>35408452
yea they really should redo the weightlifting and make them snatch triples instead of singles
>>35408506
Anon thanks a ton for this. Do you have any books/links/reading to further my understanding of this?
Bro-tip; Instead of focusing on how to get bigger or swole as fuck focus more on athletic performance.
Srsly pick a sport and just try to get better at said sport while supplementing strength training, you will get more gainz that way
>>35408319
>>35408437
>3x20
>above 80% 1rm
yeah anon, good luck with that
>reps range
Literally bro science. Sprinters do not do reps, they fucking run for 100-200m while blasting their feet with quadrupled bodyweight, and they're jacked.
I'd the defining factor is obviously genetics, some people will grow from high reps, some from low, some gifted assholes will just grow from eating potatoes and arguing on /fit/
>>35410811
>7 months
>It's from power lifting guys I swear
>>35410811
Holy shit, looking at his facebook apparently his squat went up from 460 to 500 in a week. Totally normal.
>>35411506
tren hard, anavar give up, dbolish your goals and you will winny it all
Question
Would you say it's more important to focus on strength 3-5 reps with compound exercises and hypertrophy 8-12 reps with isolated exercise?
>>35411773
Strength because hypertrophy is a joke. There is nobody that is swole that isn't pulling serious weight. The problem is, most of these fucking retards pushing hypertrophy routines of endless garbage lifts with light weight are on gear. So some skinny fat faggot thinks he's going to get that way following their advice.
>>35411773
The amount of reps aren't that important, just do a lot of working sets on the big excercises.
>>35408319
Nothing happens.
>>35411320
One of the best pieces of comedy on /fit/
>>35408319
that's impossible bro xD
the creatine in your muscles is subject to a battering with every rep. anything up to 12 is a workout, but 13 is the amount of muscle contractions required to destroy the ATP cells. it's like squeezing a balloon, it's fine until it finally pops. if you accidentally hit a 13th rep you can minimise the loss of gains by IMMEDIATELY getting on an l-arginine IV drip and injecting 25 cc of BCAAs (powder form) directly into your spine, to trick your CNS into stopping the protein necrosis. with proper treatment you can limit loss to perhaps the last two months of progress
this is actually the origin of 13 as an unlucky number. ancient greek gladiators who fought in the octagon were the first to realise that if they overtrained they would quickly lose their mass and be assigned as a cinaedus (roman fuck boy). they engineered the unlucky 13 superstition to steer future societies away from such a fate
>>35409102
11/10
>>35411460
that pic is 99% lighting.
he isn't even that big, and the pic he is using is ancient as fuck.
7 months of noob gains totally accounts for that.
also, steroids are no longer a factor in the UFC... why do you think jose aldo shrunk and lost all dominance? why do you think his camp tried to not allow the drug testing people to come onto the training grounds?
they have been going crazy with drug testing as of late.
reversing the PED epidemic.
now everyones epitest:test ratio is checked, and there is no real fooling that method of testing
