Heavy weight-low rep vs medium weight-higher rep?
NadNight
Posts: 794 Member
I've been reading around about the difference between using heavy weights at low repetition and medium weights at higher repetition. I'm just starting out and don't really know where to begin. There's a lot of information knocking about!
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
0
Replies
-
I've been reading around about the difference between using heavy weights at low repetition and medium weights at higher repetition. I'm just starting out and don't really know where to begin. There's a lot of information knocking about!
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
First, I'd recommend a good beginner routine. If you like lower body, I'd recommend starting with StrongCurves. Regarding reps/weight. Ideally, once you build your foundation of strength (coming from lower rep higher weight), one should work a variety of rep ranges and weights. This way you work both fast twitch (strength) and slow twitch (endurance) muscle fibers. This way, you also provide yourself with the greatest chance of getting strength and providing a change for muscles gains from hypertrophy.
So what's best, is not thing of one or the other as being better, but recognize that each rep range and weight ranges has their benefits and limitations. Personally, I train from 3 to 5 reps, all the way to 15 to 20 reps.1 -
I've been reading around about the difference between using heavy weights at low repetition and medium weights at higher repetition. I'm just starting out and don't really know where to begin. There's a lot of information knocking about!
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
First, I'd recommend a good beginner routine. If you like lower body, I'd recommend starting with StrongCurves. Regarding reps/weight. Ideally, once you build your foundation of strength (coming from lower rep higher weight), one should work a variety of rep ranges and weights. This way you work both fast twitch (strength) and slow twitch (endurance) muscle fibers. This way, you also provide yourself with the greatest chance of getting strength and providing a change for muscles gains from hypertrophy.
So what's best, is not thing of one or the other as being better, but recognize that each rep range and weight ranges has their benefits and limitations. Personally, I train from 3 to 5 reps, all the way to 15 to 20 reps.
All of this! I had a whole answer typed out and you summed it up way better than I did, even down to the muscle fiber mention
I also use a variety of rep ranges, and have found great success that way.0 -
I've been reading around about the difference between using heavy weights at low repetition and medium weights at higher repetition. I'm just starting out and don't really know where to begin. There's a lot of information knocking about!
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
First, I'd recommend a good beginner routine. If you like lower body, I'd recommend starting with StrongCurves. Regarding reps/weight. Ideally, once you build your foundation of strength (coming from lower rep higher weight), one should work a variety of rep ranges and weights. This way you work both fast twitch (strength) and slow twitch (endurance) muscle fibers. This way, you also provide yourself with the greatest chance of getting strength and providing a change for muscles gains from hypertrophy.
So what's best, is not thing of one or the other as being better, but recognize that each rep range and weight ranges has their benefits and limitations. Personally, I train from 3 to 5 reps, all the way to 15 to 20 reps.
All of this! I had a whole answer typed out and you summed it up way better than I did, even down to the muscle fiber mention
I also use a variety of rep ranges, and have found great success that way.
LOL. That reminds me, I need to add to one of your questions.0 -
Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.
This is going to largely depend on your goals and programming. I leave reps on the table all the time. But I also work the same muscle group back to back and 5x per week so going to max wouldn't make sense for me0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.
This is going to largely depend on your goals and programming. I leave reps on the table all the time. But I also work the same muscle group back to back and 5x per week so going to max wouldn't make sense for me
I'm just explaining the training philosophy that I follow. It's not for everyone.2 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.
Italicized isn't Max reps then And Bolded is definitionally Failure.
If you're leaving reps on the table, you're improving recovery, and building good habits as a beginner.
At intermediate and advanced levels, when you're doing 2-3 programmed reps and grinding every one, Great. You've got 4-10 minutes programmed recovery before you do that again. And again. and Again.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
ETA: If someone likes the programming and can stand the volume, than I wouldn't change what you are doing. But I know for me, that volume would cause my tendinitis to flare up.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.2 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.
This is going to largely depend on your goals and programming. I leave reps on the table all the time. But I also work the same muscle group back to back and 5x per week so going to max wouldn't make sense for me
I'm just explaining the training philosophy that I follow. It's not for everyone.
When you said 'you aren't recruiting max potential' I took it to mean that anyone who leaves reps is training suboptimally (as in not to their full potential). Sorry if I misunderstood!0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
Yea doing 35 deadlift reps in a row (ouch) vs 12.. rest.. 12.. rest.. 12.. will make a huge difference in what weight can be lifted0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Training to failure is training to fail.
Max reps every session is a recipe for disaster as soon as you get past your beginner/newbie gains.
Not training to failure. Stopping before you fail or when your form starts to break down. If you're stopping at am arbitrary number every time and leaving reps on the table, you aren't recruiting max potential. As I said, Shaw explains it better.
This is going to largely depend on your goals and programming. I leave reps on the table all the time. But I also work the same muscle group back to back and 5x per week so going to max wouldn't make sense for me
I'm just explaining the training philosophy that I follow. It's not for everyone.
When you said 'you aren't recruiting max potential' I took it to mean that anyone who leaves reps is training suboptimally (as in not to their full potential). Sorry if I misunderstood!
Sorry, wasn't knocking other philosophies, just trying to explain the thinking behind it! You've obviously found something that works really well for you.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Just to be pedantic: 3x12=36. As such, you're leaving a rep on the table by only doing 35 reps.
1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Just to be pedantic: 3x12=36. As such, you're leaving a rep on the table by only doing 35 reps.Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
I would also argue that with that set/rep scheme, you're not resting enough between sets.3 -
I've been reading around about the difference between using heavy weights at low repetition and medium weights at higher repetition. I'm just starting out and don't really know where to begin. There's a lot of information knocking about!
Over the Christmas holidays I've been working out at home using our elliptical machine (10-15 minute cardio, increasing speed at medium resistance then 10 minutes on medium high to very high resistance) and the dumbbells we have at home which are only 6 kg each. I've been doing basic routines of squats, lunges and the like carrying 12 kg (2 dumbbells), looking at 10 reps 3 times over.
I guess there's no standard weight you should lift, whatever challenges you is where you're at. Currently what I'm doing seems to be challenging my body but I'm unsure how to progress. When I go back to uni in a couple of weeks I'll have access to the gym and much heavier weight than what I have at home so I have the option to lift heavy (well what I consider heavy anyway) with low reps as well as working with medium weights.
What are the different results they will achieve? Is one considered better than the other or are they just different?
A lot of info so far in this thread, not sure how entirely useful it will be to you yet.
First, you need to identify what you're trying to achieve with weight lifting. Are you looking to significantly increase your strength? Support athletic development for a sport? Health and quality of life? Etc.,
Heavy weight & low reps vs. Medium weight and Med reps or higher reps... First, understand that heavy weight and low reps is typically something around 80% of your training max and probably no more than 5 reps. At this point your training both your muscles and nervous system to handle heavy loads. Med weight / reps, this can vary but can be anywhere from 6 to 12 reps depending on the type of system you're using and 75% or less of your training max is typically used.
Another med is to focus on strength-endurance and core strength & stability training. The intensity here is typically med to light with unilateral exercises being about 6 to 10 reps and bilateral exercises 12-20 reps with anywhere from 1 to 3 sets. This is where you can start combining exercises into more of a circuit to be more aerobically challenging as well
The other thing that's left out of the discussion is the frequency in-which you train also affects your overall volume. Frequency will likely vary depending on what you want to do as well. Without being very specific with what you want, this can be a very broad and generalized conversation. There isn't really a right / wrong way to train, just train in a manner that achieves your goals.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:
https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.
It works for me.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.
It sounds like it’s based on RPE, which is perfectly fine IMO.
I think people are misunderstanding, thinking that he’s doing an AMRAP and aiming for 35 reps per set, which is not at all how I’m reading it.0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.
It sounds like it’s based on RPE, which is perfectly fine IMO.
I think people are misunderstanding, thinking that he’s doing an AMRAP and aiming for 35 reps per set, which is not at all how I’m reading it.
I thought my explanation was clear in my first post... but, to be fair, I'm home sick today with a really foggy head LOL0 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.
It sounds like it’s based on RPE, which is perfectly fine IMO.
I think people are misunderstanding, thinking that he’s doing an AMRAP and aiming for 35 reps per set, which is not at all how I’m reading it.
Yep. RPE 101.1 -
Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Davidsdottir wrote: »Any rep range will work as long as you choose a weight that is challenging for that range. I prefer to use Steve Shaw's rep/goal system, which has you essentially max out every set. Instead of doing 3 x 8-12 and stopping when you hit 12 just because you're at the high end of the rep range for the set, I do 3 x max reps that add to 35. So, set 1 could be 15, set 2 could be 12, and set 3 could be 9 (total reps over 3 sets would be 36, so the following week I'd move up my weight).
Steve Shaw explains it in his Massive Iron ebook, but if you browse his YouTube channel, he explains it all for free as well.
Unless a person's goal is super ultra endurance, if you can hit 35 reps, you probably chose the wrong weight. I know that regardless if I am 3 to 5 reps or 15 to 20 reps, I choose the weight appropriate to that range and often struggle to hit the top number. I do agree with others that failure is not a good thing, unless you finish with a failure set.
35 total reps is the same as 3 x 12.
Yes, but most people would have to deload on weight to hit 35 reps. So the loss in strength wouldn't be worth it to many.
It's the discussion of strength vs endurance.
I don't think I understand. The 35 total reps would still be over 3 sets.
Is there a video? Because how would this be any different than 3 sets at a std rep range if neither are going to failure?
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
So instead of a range, its a rep goals. So not much difference. But i can see how someone would like it.
It sounds like it’s based on RPE, which is perfectly fine IMO.
I think people are misunderstanding, thinking that he’s doing an AMRAP and aiming for 35 reps per set, which is not at all how I’m reading it.
I thought my explanation was clear in my first post... but, to be fair, I'm home sick today with a really foggy head LOL
My only proviso would be that the sources I trust most for information (Lyle McDonald, Eric Helms, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc.) all say that training to failure is something that should be used judiciously. The common recommendation is to take your sets to an 8-9 RPE (leave one or two reps in the tank) and maybe occasionally go to a 10 RPE (failure) on the last set. Hitting failure every set of every workout has the potential to cause recovery issues because you're putting an enormous demand upon the CNS. Your gains aren't made during the workout, they're made during the recovery period (supercompensation), and inadequate recovery can lead to decreased gains.1 -
Explained here:https://youtu.be/M3K3yvyfcGw
[/quote]
Interesting, so someone put a name and a "system" to describe what I think most of us who started with standard 3x10 set type programs self modified to. Naturally I agree its a good way to go about it I always found the 3x10 or 12 etc not to work well at all, and if I want to maintain to some increase in strength, I default to max approximate 10 range set with weight, and the next two are always a bit less than that first set (like a 25 rep goal). For more strength gain, I alternate workouts with essentially "lower rep goal" workouts.
0 -
Another point worth noting is that people tend to think of the adaptations to different rep ranges as being a black and white thing - low reps is pure strength and no hypertrophy, middle reps is for hypertrophy with no strength gain and high reps are purely for muscular endurance. The truth is that it's a continuum, and nowhere near as cut and dried as people think. Greg Nuckols wrote a great article/research review about it here, which includes this graphic:
2 -
I'm certainly not a true body builder but I've read quite a bit that implies you should mix it up (high reps and low reps). Like a few others have already noted, each serves a different purpose. Two things stood out to me. The 10K KB swing challenge (created by Dan John) and this article by Pavel S.
https://www.strongfirst.com/should-you-train-your-slow-fibers/
I'm not sure the 10K KB challenge is a smart thing to do (if someone isn't used to doing a lot of heavy KB work) but the fact that everyone that participated had gains in all their major lifts (without doing them for a month) was telling.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions