The difference between heavier weights with less reps vs. more reps with lighter weights

squats_and_lipsticks

Hey everyone,

since my initial thread in the general health & fitness forum I started to rethink my workout routine. So without any back stories my question today is: What is the difference (respectively for fat loss, not for gaining mass) between less reps with heavier weights VS. more reps with lighter weights.

Let‘s take barbell deadlifts as example. 3x10 with 40lbs VS. 1x60 with 20lbs.
Sure, if you do the math - it’s the same weight you’ve lifted in the end. But I think it’s not the same for the body in sense of „what is happening inside the body“. In my logic (which might be wrong), I‘d probably should do the 1x60 with a high intensity to have a constant high heart rate instead of pausing after each set.

What do you guys think?

tinkerbellang83

I guess the difference is if you're focusing on heart rate, you're doing cardio rather than strength training. If you can do 60 reps without rest at the same weight that's not about strength.

From my understanding progressive overload coupled with adequate protein intake is what helps maintain muscle when you're in a calorie deficit, which is beneficial when losing fat, focusing on a cardio workout with weights would, I presume, just increase your calorie burn and risk of losing muscle. Happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, if this is wrong.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

Going heavy builds strength and increases muscle mass. Going light for longer builds endurance with some strength.

Going as heavy as possible to point of failure is fun, builds big muscles, and makes you strong, but it does carry some risk of injury.

But, if you want to burn calories it's best to do sustained cardio, such as jogging, cycling, swimming, hiking, walking, just about anything you can do for an hour or so without stopping.

jjpptt2

I think part of this conversation should be about mindset...

If you want to build strength and/or retain muscle while losing weight, then your training should be setup with that goal in mind. Similarly, if you want to improve endurance, then training should be setup with that goal in mind.

IMO, DLing 1x60 does neither of those things.

Generally speaking, strength training should be in the range of 2-5 sets, each set 5-15 reps per set. The average person has no reason to deviate from that unless there are extenuating circumstances. This is why it's constantly echoed in here to get on an established training program that is well-suited to your goals. As a beginner, doing your own thing is almost always inefficient.

That said, I'll get down off my soapbox...

To your question, the difference relates to how the muscle is stressed, and the corresponding response by the body to repair/recover. 1x60 leads to muscular endurance and is more in tune to something like a stepper/stairmill for 10 minutes. Strength and muscle retention is about intensity, and you can't get sufficient intensity at high reps.

ninerbuff

The misconception here is that because someone lifts heavy, that muscle is being built. It will to an extent, but you CAN'T keep adding more muscle without the diet to support it. If you lose fat, it doesn't turn to muscle. To gain muscle means you'd have to gain weight and that only happens if you're in a surplus.
So really the biggest difference is that heavy with help to retain the muscle you have and add some strength. Higher reps will lead to MUSCULAR ENDURANCE. You may burn a few more calories, but it's not that significant enough. Again, fat loss comes down to being in a calorie deficit rather that the exercise you're doing.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jseams1234

In a deficit intensity is key. Intensity btw, when it comes to lifting means how much weight is on the bar - not speed or volume.

You can build muscle by substituting intensity for volume - but NOT in a deficit. In a deficit it’s key to maintain intensity. You can sacrifice both volume and frequency but the old idea of lifting light with high volume while cutting leads to significant loss of muscle.


“The basic conclusion, again from both research and practical experience is that both volume and frequency of training can usually be cut by up to 2/3rds (that is, to 1/3rd of what you did to improve it) but with one massively important caveat: the intensity of that training must be maintained.

Put another way, you could maintain volume and frequency at the same level but if you cut intensity, you will lose the adaptation. Basically any combination that’s ever been looked at only works if intensity is maintained.”

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-2.html/

AlexandraFindsHerself1971

ninerbuff wrote: »

So really the biggest difference is that heavy with help to retain the muscle you have and add some strength. Higher reps will lead to MUSCULAR ENDURANCE. You may burn a few more calories, but it's not that significant enough. Again, fat loss comes down to being in a calorie deficit rather that the exercise you're doing.

Thank you, that's helpful. I'm getting over deconditioning and coping with exercise intolerance, and it's nice to know that what feels right to give me more muscle is in fact right.

ninerbuff

jseams1234 wrote: »

In a deficit intensity is key. Intensity btw, when it comes to lifting means how much weight is on the bar - not speed or volume.

You can build muscle by substituting intensity for volume - but NOT in a deficit. In a deficit it’s key to maintain intensity. You can sacrifice both volume and frequency but the old idea of lifting light with high volume while cutting leads to significant loss of muscle.


“The basic conclusion, again from both research and practical experience is that both volume and frequency of training can usually be cut by up to 2/3rds (that is, to 1/3rd of what you did to improve it) but with one massively important caveat: the intensity of that training must be maintained.

Put another way, you could maintain volume and frequency at the same level but if you cut intensity, you will lose the adaptation. Basically any combination that’s ever been looked at only works if intensity is maintained.”

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-2.html/

This.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

sgt1372

Short answer:

Heavier wt, lower reps 4 strength
Lower wt, higher reps 4 endurance

squats_and_lipsticks

sgt1372 wrote: »

Short answer:

Heavier wt, lower reps 4 strength
Lower wt, higher reps 4 endurance

THANKS!!!

AnnPT77

If folks read the OP's other thread (https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10781695/i-feel-like-missing-a-puzzle-piece-on-my-journey-overcoming-a-plateau), it may provide useful context.

I'll be oversimplifying greatly here, but:

Part of her goal was to maintain existing muscle mass but not add much more. She does want to weight train to do that. She feels that she, as an individual, adds mass really quickly and easily.

There were explanations on that thread that mass gain is not a significant risk, especially in a deficit, especially for a woman.

I believe I suggested the usual thread about picking a weight training program (http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1) and suggested that if she was still really worried, she could look for programs that were not primarily targeted at mass gain, and consider muscle-maintenance-focused strategies.

I think that's part of the genesis of this question.

OP, it seems like you're still trying to maximize the heart rate effect in your weight training. That has two general problems, IMO (though others who've posted here are far more expert than I about strength training):

(1) Heart rate is never a perfect determiner of calorie burn, and it's especially bad for things that involve weight work, perhaps especially overhead weight work. You may get an impressive calorie estimate from your fitness tracker or heart rate monitor for fast circuits of high-rep light weights, but the estimate will probably be overstated. (There may also be a higher injury risk from fast reps, BTW, because form tends to suffer.)

(2) By trying to pursue two goals in one exercise activity, the benefits of strength training with the calorie burn of cardio, you're serving neither goal efficiently or well. Devoting the same total amount of time, I think it's quite possible that you'll get better muscle-maintenance results from a more traditional strength program (which need not be time-consuming, especially given your "don't add mass" goal), and better calorie burn from focused steady state cardio (at your best non-exhausting pace), for the balance of the the time you choose to devote.

cwolfman13

squats_and_lipsticks wrote: »

Hey everyone,

since my initial thread in the general health & fitness forum I started to rethink my workout routine. So without any back stories my question today is: What is the difference (respectively for fat loss, not for gaining mass) between less reps with heavier weights VS. more reps with lighter weights.

Let‘s take barbell deadlifts as example. 3x10 with 40lbs VS. 1x60 with 20lbs.
Sure, if you do the math - it’s the same weight you’ve lifted in the end. But I think it’s not the same for the body in sense of „what is happening inside the body“. In my logic (which might be wrong), I‘d probably should do the 1x60 with a high intensity to have a constant high heart rate instead of pausing after each set.

What do you guys think?

For fat loss, nothing. Fat loss comes from having a deficiency of energy consumed.

Lower reps using a higher weight as a % of your 1RM is optimal for building strength.

Moderate reps with moderate weight is optimal for hypertrophy.

High reps with low weight is optimal for muscular endurance.

I work in multiple rep ranges...most of my barbell stuff (2x per week) is either heavy or moderate. I do circuit training once per week for muscular endurance.

kshama2001

AnnPT77 wrote: »

If folks read the OP's other thread (https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10781695/i-feel-like-missing-a-puzzle-piece-on-my-journey-overcoming-a-plateau), it may provide useful context.

I'll be oversimplifying greatly here, but:

Part of her goal was to maintain existing muscle mass but not add much more. She does want to weight train to do that. She feels that she, as an individual, adds mass really quickly and easily.

There were explanations on that thread that mass gain is not a significant risk, especially in a deficit, especially for a woman.

I believe I suggested the usual thread about picking a weight training program (http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1) and suggested that if she was still really worried, she could look for programs that were not primarily targeted at mass gain, and consider muscle-maintenance-focused strategies.

I think that's part of the genesis of this question.

OP, it seems like you're still trying to maximize the heart rate effect in your weight training. That has two general problems, IMO (though others who've posted here are far more expert than I about strength training):

(1) Heart rate is never a perfect determiner of calorie burn, and it's especially bad for things that involve weight work, perhaps especially overhead weight work. You may get an impressive calorie estimate from your fitness tracker or heart rate monitor for fast circuits of high-rep light weights, but the estimate will probably be overstated. (There may also be a higher injury risk from fast reps, BTW, because form tends to suffer.)

(2) By trying to pursue two goals in one exercise activity, the benefits of strength training with the calorie burn of cardio, you're serving neither goal efficiently or well. Devoting the same total amount of time, I think it's quite possible that you'll get better muscle-maintenance results from a more traditional strength program (which need not be time-consuming, especially given your "don't add mass" goal), and better calorie burn from focused steady state cardio (at your best non-exhausting pace), for the balance of the the time you choose to devote.

Yes, my lifting performance skyrocketed when I stopped trying to add in cardio during the same workout (I also went to less reps/more weights at this time.)

I'm female, and still not bulky

squats_and_lipsticks

AnnPT77 wrote: »

OP, it seems like you're still trying to maximize the heart rate effect in your weight training. That has two general problems, IMO (though others who've posted here are far more expert than I about strength training):

(1) Heart rate is never a perfect determiner of calorie burn, and it's especially bad for things that involve weight work, perhaps especially overhead weight work. You may get an impressive calorie estimate from your fitness tracker or heart rate monitor for fast circuits of high-rep light weights, but the estimate will probably be overstated. (There may also be a higher injury risk from fast reps, BTW, because form tends to suffer.)

(2) By trying to pursue two goals in one exercise activity, the benefits of strength training with the calorie burn of cardio, you're serving neither goal efficiently or well. Devoting the same total amount of time, I think it's quite possible that you'll get better muscle-maintenance results from a more traditional strength program (which need not be time-consuming, especially given your "don't add mass" goal), and better calorie burn from focused steady state cardio (at your best non-exhausting pace), for the balance of the the time you choose to devote.

Thank you! That all sounds plausible and you are right - there is no sense in trying to squeeze in the cardio portion into strength training! So what I already did is making an appointment with a trainer at my gym for the upcoming Monday. until then I will read into the thread you suggested, so I can tell exactly what I want / need and we can come up with a new plan which most likely will consist of 2 (or 3) days of cardio a week and 1 (or 2) days of strength training (cause I usually go 3-4 times a week to the gym).

Oh and since we collectively came to the conclusion that I‘ve been overestimating my caloric need and therefore eating with almost none deficit this might be the reason that I had the feeling I was gaining mass that‘s why I was doing mostly cardio the last 3 months. I guess I was trying to find the issue in my workout instead of my nutrition.