Is there any reason to do less weight, more reps to failure than more weight, less reps to failure? The former seems like wasting time to get to the same result.
Pick related, my workout idol.
Is there any reason to do less weight, more reps to failure than more weight, less reps to failure?
on average there's little difference between using loads from 30-85% of 1RM to failure. but individual response may still differ a lot. so you could respond a lot better to either low load training or high load training.
depending on the exercise, higher or lower reps is more useful:
>heavy compounds like DL: 5 reps
>other compounds like squat, row, bench, ohp: 5-10 reps
>isolations: 10-15 reps
high load on heavy compounds is good if you want to get strong at them. and low load/high reps on heavy compounds is very fatiguing, als making it hard to keep good form until the end.
high load on isolations puts a lot of strain on the tendons and joints.
What does 'interaction' mean on that chart?
combined effect on hypertrophy (of mechanical stress + blood lactate).
there's no units for the vertical axis? How am I suppose to utilize this graph
it just illustrates how mechanical tension and metabolite accumulation decrease and increase respectively with the number of reps.
but without a unit I have no idea if the difference is negligible or something I should actually concern myself with
the graph loses all meaning without the output unit
are you dumb? the units don't matter if you're only interested in the relative differences. e.g. compared to the peak of the "interaction", how much (relatively) lower is it at other reps?
anyway, you can ignore the chart and just focus on the text I wrote here
I see you did not enjoy proper education.
You only have to look at “interaction” chart. You can see it has a maximum at 10. That means on average at 10 reps you have the best result. Before that you have increased returns, after that diminishing returns. But as other anon said you/muscle/exercise might not be represented by average
Neither of you approached answering my question .
I understand how diminishing returns work, I am saying there is no unit to indicate HOW MUCH it is diminishing. Without that information, arguing about it doesn't matter because it could be a tenth of an ounce of muscle over a year.
we did, you just failed to understand it.
the "interaction" is the TOTAL stimulated/hypertrophic effect of the exercise.
so if you could gain 5 lbs of muscle at 100% (peak) effect, then you could gain only 2.5 lbs if you did the same amount of sets at 50% effect (e.g. very low rep sets).
how much lbs the maximum is you can actually gain is of course not available in any chart, because that depends on a gazillion factors like your genetics, hormones, sleep, diet, training, etc.
jesus frick you could have said that shit when I asked
Very good summary
Once you actually get strong (not a problem for most people here) and older it's generally better to do more volume at lower weight just to avoid injuries. Going as heavy as you can = definitely gonna tweak shit more often
>Going as heavy as you can = definitely gonna tweak shit more often
Mostly because there's a tendency to jerk or use bad form. The secret is to keep good form.
facts. kids need a variety and circuits to be entertained. adults need rest periods correlated with the muscle fibers they want to strengthen. geriatrics need high volume and low weight to maintain bone density and avoid atrophy.
More time under tension results in better hypertrophy results.
Is less strenuous on the body so less likely to injure yourself.
Even if your goal is strength, am hypertrophy phase will ve necessary at some point to break through plateaus.
>More time under tension results in better hypertrophy results.
wrong. from 5-30 reps there are no differences in hypertrophy.
and intentionally slowing down reps to increase time under tension not only isn't better than doing fast concentrics, it's way worse (see image).
I didn't talk about rep speeds, mechanical tension is one of the best drivers of hypertrophy, doing more volume results in better muscle gains and the other two points remain.
And doing less weight with higher reps leads to bigger volume because heavier sets are more intense thus you can't do as many.
Can you explain the graphs you posted? It says "strength", not muscle mass, and "bar speed" increased. Without having access to the study, I will assume that "strength" refers to the 1RM. In other words, if you train with fast concentrics, you learn to lift heavy things fast whereas training with slow concentric teaches you how to lift less heavy things slowly. The results don't mention hypertrophy.
I’ll give you a good example. I have 19” arms. I curl at most 65#s on a straight bar. Generally I use 45-55 pounds. 1-2 seconds concentric and 3-4 seconds eccentric. I do not count reps. I only worry what the weight is doing to the biceps. I try to inflict as much pain as I can. How many sets? Until I feel like I’m done. On the other side of the coin there’s a guy in my gym who does very heavy curls around 155 pounds for 6-8 reps. My arms are much bigger as he measures progress with strength. In other words if you are going for size, get a good workout and if you get stronger along the way that’s a plus.
thats not a good example. i use the heaviest weight with low reps no negative for my arms and i have the biggest arms at my gym while the dyels do 2-3s conventric and eccentric and use light weight snd have small arms.
i just gave an anecdote that completely contradicted your anecdote. genetics play a role in muscle building.
Who's that? Literal goal bdy
Charles Bronson (the actor, not the inmate with the same name)
I believe it's more stimulating. hard to say though, we can't control for study participants not pushing themselves.
You got gyno dude
He probably used some orals
Information about the sideeffects were scarce
>Is there any reason to do less weight, more reps to failure than more weight, less reps to failure? The former seems like wasting time to get to the same result.
no there is no reason to do many singles however u rep/set them - time under tension is of utmost importance, above all else time under tension need too meet it's requirement
>so if i do an rep of curl and then do another rep of curl then it doesn't count unless i decelerate weight at bottom and never reach bottom of movement and bicep relaxation
i mean it counts, it counts as two shitty singles because that is what it is u fricking moron bot
literal Chad