High Reps vs Low Reps: The Science

[Will Brink]

What does the science say? Based on the excellent recent meta-review of the data by Brad Schoenfeld et al, I have add some thoughts on the matter, with links to some additional reading by BrinkZone author Monica Mollica, etc. Should those focused on hypertrophy incorporate high rep training into their programs? Find out...

Higher reps vs lower reps has been a debate for decades among those focused on hypertrophy, such as bodybuilders and casual lifters just looking to add some muscle mass. When people ask me what rep ranges are best for hypertrophy, my typical response is “all of them!”

There’s been a number of studies looking at higher rep ranges using lower loads that support the use of higher reps in programs focused on hypertrophy covered by Monica M HERE worth reading if you have not already. Anything by Monica is always worth reading, but I digress.

Recently, a large meta review of studies examining the topic and using a stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review, that lower reps with higher % of 1RM and higher reps using lower % of 1RM have similar effects on hypertrophy. If the specific goal is improvements in 1RM in a given lift, than higher loads and lower reps is superior, although increases in 1RM strength does take place with higher rep/lower load training.

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/bodybuilding/high-reps-vs-low-reps-the-science/

 

[Saul]

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I have been working in higher reps (with a lower weight), mostly to avoid too much weight on the spine and due to shoulder issues, so nice to know that is a worthwhile option.

 

[Loki]

What does the science say? Based on the excellent recent meta-review of the data by Brad Schoenfeld et al, I have add some thoughts on the matter, with links to some additional reading by BrinkZone author Monica Mollica, etc. Should those focused on hypertrophy incorporate high rep training into their programs? Find out...

Higher reps vs lower reps has been a debate for decades among those focused on hypertrophy, such as bodybuilders and casual lifters just looking to add some muscle mass. When people ask me what rep ranges are best for hypertrophy, my typical response is “all of them!”

There's been a number of studies looking at higher rep ranges using lower loads that support the use of higher reps in programs focused on hypertrophy covered by Monica M HERE worth reading if you have not already. Anything by Monica is always worth reading, but I digress.

Recently, a large meta review of studies examining the topic and using a stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review, that lower reps with higher % of 1RM and higher reps using lower % of 1RM have similar effects on hypertrophy. If the specific goal is improvements in 1RM in a given lift, than higher loads and lower reps is superior, although increases in 1RM strength does take place with higher rep/lower load training.

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/bodybuilding/high-reps-vs-low-reps-the-science/

My answer to this and I think you stated it is all of the above .... I can say from personal experience I feet I get a better workout, bigger pump and am more sore from high reps. I also love to challenge myself in regards to strength so I get much better results doing the typical pyramid 10,8,6,4. Increasing weight as I go down in reps. My chest day will have sets that I do 30-40 reps and sets I do 4-6 reps. I have never done a run or anything outside of what I state here and I have 19 in arms with no pump and can bench 500+, rep 225 over 50 times... So this all of the above works very well for me...

 

[TheDude]

Strength is merely the production of force by your muscles. The more weight you lift, the more force you produce. Since you can't lift as much weight 10 times as you can 5 times, 5 heavy reps is a heavier weight than 10 heavy reps. Therefore, 5 heavy reps makes you stronger than 10 heavy reps.

And that's really all you need to know, because it really is this simple. The more weight you can lift, the stronger you are, and the heavier the weight you use in your training, the stronger you will become. Even you. A heavy set of 10 is mathematically lighter than a heavy set of 5. And there you have it.

But more importantly, sets of 10 are not just inefficient for building strength – they are counterproductive in a couple of ways. First, fatigue is the result of more repetitions of a weight, even a lighter weight. You know this yourself from working with your body. Any task repeated many times produces fatigue, and the heavier the task the more rapidly fatigue sets in. Walking doesn't count because walking isn't hard. Shoveling snow is a better example, and it's easy to get pretty tired pretty quick with a big shovel.

Here's the critical point: fatigue produces sloppy movement, and sloppy movement produces injuries. A set of 10 gets sloppy at about rep number 8 or 9, unless you're an experienced lifter, and even then it's damned hard to hold good form on the last reps of a high-rep set. A set of 5 ends before you get fatigued – 5 reps is an interesting compromise between heavy weight and higher reps. Unless you're a heart/lung patient, 5 reps won't elevate your breathing rate until after the set is over, but a set of 10 will have your respiration rate elevated before the end of the set.

A fatigued movement is a potentially incorrect movement, the more so the less experience you have. Practicing a new exercise that requires balance and precision under conditions of fatigue will have you practicing it incorrectly, thus creating a poor learning environment for your lessons in correct movement under load. Not only is the weight too light to make you strong, it is probably heavy enough that you're doing it wrong at the end of the set because you're tired.

Secondly, an experienced lifter using a heavy set of 10 is not the same person who listened to his doctor say, “Just lift lighter weights and do more reps.” Experienced lifters may have specific reasons for using higher reps, because higher reps produce a different training adaptation than heavier weights.

Think about the continuum between the heaviest weight you can lift once and a weight you can lift 50 times. The limiting factors controlling each extreme are the abilities that each extreme develops. The heavy weight requires strength, and the light weight done 50 times requires muscular endurance, the ability to breathe effectively, and the ability to deal with the boredom. So lifting the heavy weight builds strength and lifting the light weight builds endurance. But a set of 50 doesn't build strength, because none of the reps is actually heavy, not even the last one – it merely feels like shit because you are fatigued. And merely feeling like shit does not meet the criterion for getting strong: lifting more weight.

The physics here is really very simple: the heavier the weight, the higher the force must be to lift it. And strength is force production. Even for you.

Strength and endurance both deteriorate as we age. But think about the relationship between the two, and the relative value of each. If you are not strong enough to get up off the toilet without using your hands, do you really think that a lack of endurance is your biggest problem? And what do you think happens to your endurance if you become strong enough that a repetitive task becomes easier – when each repeated motion is less difficult because you're stronger? For a weaker person, strength produces endurance without doing any endurance-specific work.


Nonetheless, the advice to lift lighter weights just keeps rolling along. The fact is that doctors repeat this mythology because they just don't know any better. Medical school provides no training or education in the field of strength development, this simplistic approach sounds plausible to uninformed people, and most doctors don't really appreciate the value of getting stronger because most of them haven't experienced it personally.

Nobody using a correctly designed program gets underneath a weight they can't actually lift. A correctly designed program starts off with an easy weight and becomes progressively heavier as time goes on, producing a strength increase because the numbers go up. The weight on the bar increases a little every time, you lift the weights correctly every time, and nobody gets hurt. You just get stronger. It's just not dangerous. And it's not that complicated.

But if you let somebody talk you into doing a program in which the weight never gets heavy enough to challenge your strength, it's not a strength program – it's a patience program, one that may also get you hurt. Keep the reps at 5s, go up gradually, and enjoy the process of getting stronger.

 

[Saul]

Dude, without agreeing or disagreeing to anything you said, your focus is on strength. As I understood Will's post, it had to do with hypertrophy which relates to size. At this phase in my life, I am less concerned with strength. My days of playing football, carrying a fridge down the stairs or tracking how much I can bench or squat have passed. I am focused on how I look and hence muscle size/definition is more important to me. Beyond that, most of my activities are focused on a combination of endurance and strength, like skiing, biking, or off-road motorcycle riding. I need moderate leg strength and need to use my legs for long periods of time. That being said, nothing wrong with strength training, but not everyone's focus.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Thank you. I prefer high reps and low weight because i feel more pump and there is lower risk of injury

 

[Will Brink]

Strength is merely the production of force by your muscles. The more weight you lift, the more force you produce.

Don't have the time nor energy to address all that you posted, but you're already missing the point. Per above: "lower reps with higher % of 1RM and higher reps using lower % of 1RM have similar effects on hypertrophy. If the specific goal is improvements in 1RM in a given lift, than higher loads and lower reps is superior,"

Topic is about hypertrophy vs strength, and the two, while obviously connected, are not directly interchangeable. If strength is the goal, lower reps and higher loads are the way to go.

 

[Will Brink]

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I have been working in higher reps (with a lower weight), mostly to avoid too much weight on the spine and due to shoulder issues, so nice to know that is a worthwhile option.

Dependent on goals and other variables, it's absolutely a worthwhile option.

 

[Nashtide]

Thanks Will. Good to see the science behind the ideas.