Heavy weight vs light weight? Which is better for BBing?

[Deleted member 123722]

Bullshit bro.......but I hope you have fun doing 30 rep curls to failure with 10kg coz that's what your research told you to do.

If 30 isn't enough for failure...maybe try 50 or 100 reps.

If you use a weight that makes you fail at 30 reps, and can't do more than 30, you've failed...50 or 100 aren't magic numbers.

the problem with high reps, as John Meadows said, is that you also need the mental fortitude to get through the lactic acid burn of those 30 reps, but if you do, and you reach failure, then you've reached failure. But doing 30 reps on a squat, is probably retarded, as your lungs will probably give out before your legs; so these higher-rep sets are probably better for isolation, especially for knees and elbow movements.

Again, I don't do reps of 30; the highest I'd go is 20. And like I've said, lately I've been doing 6-8 reps, with less rest and more volume, and I enjoy it very much.

If you're doing triple drop sets, you're going to failure with higher reps as well. If you do 10 reps, then drop, 5, then drop 5, then drop 5, you just did 25 reps lol.

Don't take my posts as what I'm doing; I'm sharing information and thoughts.

 

[Demondosage]

Traditional sets of 6-12 reps are nice, but they’re for beginners. Once you get to a certain point that beginner, cliche bullshit doesn’t work anymore.

And to be completely honest here, most guys don’t have what it takes to take a set of something to 100 reps, then return the following week and try to add 5 or 10 lbs and blast out another 100 reps. That’s right, that’s equivalent to another 500-1,000 lbs moved in the same unit of time, you go through all those reps just to MAYBE break it next week. Anyone can hit a heavy set of 6-12 reps when their fresh and strong, that ain’t shit. This is when you have to be mentally tough and go to your happy place during the set

 

[freakyjacked29]

When enhanced weight isn’t key you can go in and use the exact same weight as last week month year and grow once you’ve built a base of strength it’s risk to reward isn’t ideal

use weight that you I feel comfortable with short rest 35-45 seconds 12-15 and again weight means nothing your going to stimulate growth using what you did last week say incline 3 plate on smith repeat so long is gear is real food diet is good.

 

[Demondosage]

The thing is this; most guys just don’t get to the point of passing progressive resistance training before they give it up. I trained with progressive resistance for at least the first 15 years in the gym, but then there came a point where the shit wasn’t working anymore and I had to experiment with other ways to achieve results. I’m not saying to really put a time stamp on it, but if you are in there long enough then something is going to have to change or you’re gonna get injured.

 

[Rickt]

I agree with what you wrote, especially as an older guy. I aim for 10-15 reps in general, which means a bit lower weight.

Higher risk of tendon injuries by using heavier weight / lower weights. My shoulder tear was from higher weight (3 rep max).

I also personally find it easier to have multiple reps close to failure when I use higher reps. The fatigue is building up more slowly, several of the last reps feel close to failure. With high weight, I kind of hit the wall, no fucking way I'll get another rep. With lower weight, i may squeeze out 1 or 2 more. On the assumption that it's those reps close to failure that really counts, that trigger hypertrophy.

Guys have become big size on both high rep and low rep programs, but above reasons are primarily why I personally prefer higher reps.

I am really not sure whether the pump actually contributes to hypertrophy or just limits max output. Mega pump in lower arms until you barely can hold the pull-down bar certainly doesn't help.

Look forward to hearing opinions of more knowledgeable people.

I think you have it covered perfectly. I agreed with each point. As i get older i cant lift as heavy. But i dont want to be doing 50 rep sets. An hour workout would take for ever.

 

[Joseph Plunkett]

Interesting.

The more I research into this, it seems the only thing that really matters is getting to or very close to failure; everything else is preference.

It’s not preference.

Weekly volume is the most important factor.

Anywhere for 3-20 reps will build muscle with 5-15 being the most optimal.

Although yeah, just follow a bro split off Google….

 

[Joseph Plunkett]

Traditional sets of 6-12 reps are nice, but they’re for beginners. Once you get to a certain point that beginner, cliche bullshit doesn’t work anymore.

And to be completely honest here, most guys don’t have what it takes to take a set of something to 100 reps, then return the following week and try to add 5 or 10 lbs and blast out another 100 reps. That’s right, that’s equivalent to another 500-1,000 lbs moved in the same unit of time, you go through all those reps just to MAYBE break it next week. Anyone can hit a heavy set of 6-12 reps when their fresh and strong, that ain’t shit. This is when you have to be mentally tough and go to your happy place during the set

That’s pointless.

It’s just type 1 fibres your activating.

Anything over 30 reps or sets over 90 seconds targets the type 1 fibres.

The endurance fibres.

 

[Deleted member 123722]

It’s not preference.

Weekly volume is the most important factor.

Anywhere for 3-20 reps will build muscle with 5-15 being the most optimal.

Although yeah, just follow a bro split off Google….

You come off like an arrogant prick, which right off the bat makes you seem like someone who wants to be believed, but has no clue wtf they are talking about; people like you are cancers to forums, and I will always slap your type down, because you deserve it.

So let's begin:

First, you retardedly admit 3-20 reps will build muscle, (quite a big range one can choose from: preference), but then you arbitrarily give another rep-range with 5 to 15 (literally 10 rep range), claiming it is "optimal" because I guess the body just arbitrarily responds to mathematical abstract numbers, rather than getting close to or to failure. You see, studies have shown three reps shy of failure has almost the same effects as to failure; this is where RIR-type training comes in. I personally don't like training with RIR at all; I always go to technical failure, but many people have created programs and use this method as a way to track progressive overload, with a shit ton of variance in their rep ranges, all the way up to 30 reps if they choose.

Then you indirectly shit on bro splits, as if they don't work and the 90's never happened lol. Most pros use bro splits, and the reason is because as they become stronger, they can move more weight, their bodies adapts much more to training, and they literally need to destroy the muscle one at a time. There has been a return to PPL and other twice-a-week splits by some people (frequency), but their volume is reduce per session so they can make their split work. However, if someone doesn't like to train that way, they will not stick to their program, especially if it doesn't fit their schedule or lifestyle. At the end, it makes no difference: studies have shown that if volume is equated, literally everything works so long as you work hard, are consistent, and bring your muscles close to or to failure.

You see, if actually knew what you were talking about, getting close to or to failure recruits every fiber type; muscles fire in a sequence. What matters is mechanical tension, which can be achieved in many ways, with various techniques, and intensity; however, you need a certain amount of your 1RM to get the proper tension, which is why you can't pick up a 5lb dumbbell and do 1000 reps, thinking you'll get jacked. So anywhere from your 30% to 70% IRM is what studies have shown will induce hypertrophy; the issue with the former is, can one fight through the lactic acid and burn? Probably not, so it is actually much easier to train with a bit heavier load to reach failure faster: imagine trying to do 30 rep squats vs 10; your lung will probably give out before your legs. But this doesn't mean one is better than the other; in fact, each have their pros and cons, so you pulled this "optimal range" out of your ass. Tom Platz would do retarded high rep sets and his quads are the most insane in bodybuilding history; I guess he didn't train optimal enough lol.

You can do as much volume as you want, if it is not creating mechanical tension, you're not going to grow. If volume was the main factor, every retard in the gym would keep growing just by adding more sets, but they aren't. Moreover, low-volume methods disprove volume as the "most important factor." Take Yates and others like him for example who trained with low volume and low frequency but super-high intensity, going BEYOND failure which isn't even necessary, but because he did, forced him to spend more time in recovery, and needing way less volume. If volume was the "most important factor," Yates should have never grown at all, nor won Mr. O several times.

So no, volume is not the most important factor, so kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking down to people.

 

[1tank1]

You come off like an arrogant prick, which right off the bat makes you seem like someone who wants to be believed, but has no clue wtf they are talking about; people like you are cancers to forums, and I will always slap your type down, because you deserve it.

So let's begin:

First, you retardedly admit 3-20 reps will build muscle, (quite a big range one can choose from: preference), but then you arbitrarily give another rep-range with 5 to 15 (literally 10 rep range), claiming it is "optimal" because I guess the body just arbitrarily responds to mathematical abstract numbers, rather than getting close to or to failure. You see, studies have shown three reps shy of failure has almost the same effects as to failure; this is where RIR-type training comes in. I personally don't like training with RIR at all; I always go to technical failure, but many people have created programs and use this method as a way to track progressive overload, with a shit ton of variance in their rep ranges, all the way up to 30 reps if they choose.

Then you indirectly shit on bro splits, as if they don't work and the 90's never happened lol. Most pros use bro splits, and the reason is because as they become stronger, they can move more weight, their bodies adapts much more to training, and they literally need to destroy the muscle one at a time. There has been a return to PPL and other twice-a-week splits by some people (frequency), but their volume is reduce per session so they can make their split work. However, if someone doesn't like to train that way, they will not stick to their program, especially if it doesn't fit their schedule or lifestyle. At the end, it makes no difference: studies have shown that if volume is equated, literally everything works so long as you work hard, are consistent, and bring your muscles close to or to failure.

You see, if actually knew what you were talking about, getting close to or to failure recruits every fiber type; muscles fire in a sequence. What matters is mechanical tension, which can be achieved in many ways, with various techniques, and intensity; however, you need a certain amount of your 1RM to get the proper tension, which is why you can't pick up a 5lb dumbbell and do 1000 reps, thinking you'll get jacked. So anywhere from your 30% to 70% IRM is what studies have shown will induce hypertrophy; the issue with the former is, can one fight through the lactic acid and burn? Probably not, so it is actually much easier to train with a bit heavier load to reach failure faster: imagine trying to do 30 rep squats vs 10; your lung will probably give out before your legs. But this doesn't mean one is better than the other; in fact, each have their pros and cons, so you pulled this "optimal range" out of your ass. Tom Platz would do retarded high rep sets and his quads are the most insane in bodybuilding history; I guess he didn't train optimal enough lol.

You can do as much volume as you want, if it is not creating mechanical tension, you're not going to grow. If volume was the main factor, every retard in the gym would keep growing just by adding more sets, but they aren't. Moreover, low-volume methods disprove volume as the "most important factor." Take Yates and others like him for example who trained with low volume and low frequency but super-high intensity, going BEYOND failure which isn't even necessary, but because he did, forced him to spend more time in recovery, and needing way less volume. If volume was the "most important factor," Yates should have never grown at all, nor won Mr. O several times.

So no, volume is not the most important factor, so kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking down to people.

You're quite passionate about this heavy/light debate aren't ya bro and the number "30" seems to have a high level of importance

You post some valid points but I also think you're taking "numbers/reps/studies" a little bit too seriously.

Bodybuilding isn't an exact science with 1 set of rules....

 

[Deleted member 123722]

You're quite passionate about this heavy/light debate aren't ya bro and the number "30" seems to have a high level of importance

You post some valid points but I also think you're taking "numbers/reps/studies" a little bit too seriously.

Bodybuilding isn't an exact science with 1 set of rules....

Not really, I just don't like pricks on here.

The studies are what they are, but they are showing consistent results, especially in metanalyses. But even so, the fact bodybuilding isn't an exact science that only strengthens my point: that it comes down to preference. We have seen champions using different methods of training to get their physiques, so of course the preference has to also fit their genetics, lifestyle, etc.

 

[Titan18]

You come off like an arrogant prick, which right off the bat makes you seem like someone who wants to be believed, but has no clue wtf they are talking about; people like you are cancers to forums, and I will always slap your type down, because you deserve it.

So let's begin:

First, you retardedly admit 3-20 reps will build muscle, (quite a big range one can choose from: preference), but then you arbitrarily give another rep-range with 5 to 15 (literally 10 rep range), claiming it is "optimal" because I guess the body just arbitrarily responds to mathematical abstract numbers, rather than getting close to or to failure. You see, studies have shown three reps shy of failure has almost the same effects as to failure; this is where RIR-type training comes in. I personally don't like training with RIR at all; I always go to technical failure, but many people have created programs and use this method as a way to track progressive overload, with a shit ton of variance in their rep ranges, all the way up to 30 reps if they choose.

Then you indirectly shit on bro splits, as if they don't work and the 90's never happened lol. Most pros use bro splits, and the reason is because as they become stronger, they can move more weight, their bodies adapts much more to training, and they literally need to destroy the muscle one at a time. There has been a return to PPL and other twice-a-week splits by some people (frequency), but their volume is reduce per session so they can make their split work. However, if someone doesn't like to train that way, they will not stick to their program, especially if it doesn't fit their schedule or lifestyle. At the end, it makes no difference: studies have shown that if volume is equated, literally everything works so long as you work hard, are consistent, and bring your muscles close to or to failure.

You see, if actually knew what you were talking about, getting close to or to failure recruits every fiber type; muscles fire in a sequence. What matters is mechanical tension, which can be achieved in many ways, with various techniques, and intensity; however, you need a certain amount of your 1RM to get the proper tension, which is why you can't pick up a 5lb dumbbell and do 1000 reps, thinking you'll get jacked. So anywhere from your 30% to 70% IRM is what studies have shown will induce hypertrophy; the issue with the former is, can one fight through the lactic acid and burn? Probably not, so it is actually much easier to train with a bit heavier load to reach failure faster: imagine trying to do 30 rep squats vs 10; your lung will probably give out before your legs. But this doesn't mean one is better than the other; in fact, each have their pros and cons, so you pulled this "optimal range" out of your ass. Tom Platz would do retarded high rep sets and his quads are the most insane in bodybuilding history; I guess he didn't train optimal enough lol.

You can do as much volume as you want, if it is not creating mechanical tension, you're not going to grow. If volume was the main factor, every retard in the gym would keep growing just by adding more sets, but they aren't. Moreover, low-volume methods disprove volume as the "most important factor." Take Yates and others like him for example who trained with low volume and low frequency but super-high intensity, going BEYOND failure which isn't even necessary, but because he did, forced him to spend more time in recovery, and needing way less volume. If volume was the "most important factor," Yates should have never grown at all, nor won Mr. O several times.

So no, volume is not the most important factor, so kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking down to people.

Love posts like this. I've been lifting awhile and have tried almost every method of training, but having things broken down to the basics helps. It eliminates all the unnecessary or irrelevant factors like magic splits or the "perfect number" of reps for growth.

 

[Demondosage]

That’s pointless.

It’s just type 1 fibres your activating.

Anything over 30 reps or sets over 90 seconds targets the type 1 fibres.

The endurance fibres.

No, it’s not just 1 type of fibre, that’s not every set, I said I will follow up with traditional 8-12 rep sets in the workout, I sort of go back and forth. Hey, it works for me

 

[Mac11wildcat]

hot take: the SINGLE reason 6-12 (I prefer 6-15) rep ranges TO FAILURE are best suited for most people is because almost all people I’ve met in the gym can’t estimate RIR/RPE for shit AND as you approach higher and higher rep ranges the delta from what “feels” like failure and what actual mechanical failure is gets much larger. For instance, 1 rep short at say, 8-12, can easily “feel” like 3-4 reps or more short does at 25+.

We know that proximity to failure and volume have an interaction. The exact intersection will be different, but what we seem to know now is sets further from failure require more sets total to elicit a similar end response.

What I’ve seen communicated recently by people far more invested in the science/literature than I am is that the mechanical slowing of reps near failure is what produces hypertrophy as there is a relation between rep speed and tension in the fiber.

Advanced trainees can certainly benefit from a volume approach when they’ve spent adequate time training to understand where failure is. Brand new trainees get the benefit of the body basically not giving a fuck since it’s never seem the stimulus at all. When you’re in the middle (and realistically, anywhere on the experience spectrum) going to failure always works (the major exception being when a deload is required).

The major difference in the two approaches is time. If you’ve got 3hrs and understand your body well enough, have at the volume approach.

Now we can argue about injury, but you’ll notice most every big/high achieving bodybuilder that’s using training to failure is also using a robotic like rep execution. Minimizing injury thru execution should be everyone’s goal, regardless tho.

Many ways to skin the growth cat, but I think there’s serious value in learning what failure actually is and driving in execution near failure to avoid injury.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

Happened to stumble upon this today. Convenient. Don’t forget to read that top right box.

Two caveats: total time and ability to approach true failure.

 

[malfeasance]

Good stuff here, at least among the folks that are not too busy calling others names and declaring that they already know it all.

I found some better results lately adding an exercise with 30 second rests between sets to some of my body parts - for example, on leg day, where I normally shoot for 12-20 reps on my exercises, ending with leg extensions with 30 second rests between sets shooting for 20 reps . . . It is like FST-7, although I have not yet managed to do all seven sets, and still I have seen results from it lately in my quads, which is probably my most stubborn, resistant body part (yeah, Mac11wildcat, we know you had to take a year off of training legs, and we all hate you for it, lol).

 

[Demondosage]

hot take: the SINGLE reason 6-12 (I prefer 6-15) rep ranges TO FAILURE are best suited for most people is because almost all people I’ve met in the gym can’t estimate RIR/RPE for shit AND as you approach higher and higher rep ranges the delta from what “feels” like failure and what actual mechanical failure is gets much larger. For instance, 1 rep short at say, 8-12, can easily “feel” like 3-4 reps or more short does at 25+.

We know that proximity to failure and volume have an interaction. The exact intersection will be different, but what we seem to know now is sets further from failure require more sets total to elicit a similar end response.

What I’ve seen communicated recently by people far more invested in the science/literature than I am is that the mechanical slowing of reps near failure is what produces hypertrophy as there is a relation between rep speed and tension in the fiber.

Advanced trainees can certainly benefit from a volume approach when they’ve spent adequate time training to understand where failure is. Brand new trainees get the benefit of the body basically not giving a fuck since it’s never seem the stimulus at all. When you’re in the middle (and realistically, anywhere on the experience spectrum) going to failure always works (the major exception being when a deload is required).

The major difference in the two approaches is time. If you’ve got 3hrs and understand your body well enough, have at the volume approach.

Now we can argue about injury, but you’ll notice most every big/high achieving bodybuilder that’s using training to failure is also using a robotic like rep execution. Minimizing injury thru execution should be everyone’s goal, regardless tho.

Many ways to skin the growth cat, but I think there’s serious value in learning what failure actually is and driving in execution near failure to avoid injury.

This is one of the most accurate and articulated responses I’ve heard on the board. Thanks for that!

 

[zeiko]

hot take: the SINGLE reason 6-12 (I prefer 6-15) rep ranges TO FAILURE are best suited for most people is because almost all people I’ve met in the gym can’t estimate RIR/RPE for shit AND as you approach higher and higher rep ranges the delta from what “feels” like failure and what actual mechanical failure is gets much larger. For instance, 1 rep short at say, 8-12, can easily “feel” like 3-4 reps or more short does at 25+.

We know that proximity to failure and volume have an interaction. The exact intersection will be different, but what we seem to know now is sets further from failure require more sets total to elicit a similar end response.

What I’ve seen communicated recently by people far more invested in the science/literature than I am is that the mechanical slowing of reps near failure is what produces hypertrophy as there is a relation between rep speed and tension in the fiber.

Advanced trainees can certainly benefit from a volume approach when they’ve spent adequate time training to understand where failure is. Brand new trainees get the benefit of the body basically not giving a fuck since it’s never seem the stimulus at all. When you’re in the middle (and realistically, anywhere on the experience spectrum) going to failure always works (the major exception being when a deload is required).

The major difference in the two approaches is time. If you’ve got 3hrs and understand your body well enough, have at the volume approach.

Now we can argue about injury, but you’ll notice most every big/high achieving bodybuilder that’s using training to failure is also using a robotic like rep execution. Minimizing injury thru execution should be everyone’s goal, regardless tho.

Many ways to skin the growth cat, but I think there’s serious value in learning what failure actually is and driving in execution near failure to avoid injury.

10/10 response. Thanks for this, it's helped me connect the dots on a few things that've been rattling around my head for a while. I wish I'd have seen such a succint summary back when I first started!

 

[OmL]

This was a very interesting read.

 

[GetBig0087]

Alot of valid points in here and from an exercise science point of view working both types of muscle fibers yields maximum results. Individual difference equates to a higher amount of either so training varies person to person. Another arguable point is training varies greatly based upon what PED/how much, etc is used as well. There's no one size fits all unfortunately, it takes years to find out what works for each of us, and then at different points certain methods won't work either. There are so many variables that go in to this that no one can be right or wrong.

 

[CDNGass]

Great thread, should be a sticky !