If low weights/high reps is pointless...

kimimila86

Think of it in terms of Physics;
Lifting weights require work and energy as well as time and power. The amount of work it takes to carry a bag up the stairs is the same as it takes to carry a bag straight up a 90 > angle (though this isn't possible). The amount of work is the same, but the amount of exertion felt is a lot different.
In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Power is the amount of work performed during a period of time. So in conclusion, it doesn't matter if you're doing high reps/ low weight, or high weight/ low reps, because in the end the amount of work done is the same. What changes is the amount of time and the effort in that time that's been exerted.


I'm 17 and am taking Physics, when I read this, this is the idea I came across. I'm sorry if I didn't explain it well or if I'm completely wrong .This is just the idea that came to my mind when reading this.

I'm always a fan of a scientific explanation!

But in all reality, something like a Jillian Michaels DVD is more like circuit training and not meant to be a light weight/high rep workout. Circuit training from what I understand is just another form of cardio (maybe even HIIT on the more extreme end of things). :ohwell:

JNick77

It's not pointless but remember that the physical appearance (leanness) is more dictated by diet than exercise. Plus the people that perform in her videos are hand-picked models, exercise enthusiasts, or even her own assistants. There's nothing wrong with it if you have fun and get what you want out of exercise. But if you're comparing the ability to improve strength via JM videos versus a structured lifting plan like StrongLifts, Starting Strength, 5/3/1, Westside, then there's no comparison and JM's work doesn't compare.

Rayman79

Think of it in terms of Physics;
Lifting weights require work and energy as well as time and power. The amount of work it takes to carry a bag up the stairs is the same as it takes to carry a bag straight up a 90 > angle (though this isn't possible). The amount of work is the same, but the amount of exertion felt is a lot different.
In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted. Power is the amount of work performed during a period of time. So in conclusion, it doesn't matter if you're doing high reps/ low weight, or high weight/ low reps, because in the end the amount of work done is the same. What changes is the amount of time and the effort in that time that's been exerted.

I understand your logic, but it's not entirely valid. If the muscles themselves were the only variable being effected by weight training, it would stand to reason that overall effort (eg as a function of time X weight) would always yield the same results. However different methods of training illicit different parts of the body. You have the central nervous system, which is required to adapt to heavy weights, you have muscular adaptation and growth (fast and slow twitch fibres), as well as the impact of CV fitness in some workouts - throw in glycogen and lactic acid etc etc, and you can see the equation is now significantly more complicated.

I stand by my comment that high reps is still far superior to the alternative of no exercise, but that lower reps (eg <20 per set) will still give you a much better bang for your buck in terms of both strength gains and muscle hypertrophy. Whether it is superior for fat loss is debatable.
I'm 17 and am taking Physics, when I read this, this is the idea I came across. I'm sorry if I didn't explain it well or if I'm completely wrong .This is just the idea that came to my mind when reading this.

upgetupgetup

And I saw a thread recently, with vids of a seriously jacked bodybuilder who was doing presses with a ridiculously low weight, and who said you could still get results if you focus on the eccentric part of the movement, can't remember who it was though .

Take it from my experience, you're going to want to ignore any article featuring jacked lifters that doesn't also mention massive amounts of steroids and 10000 calorie diets. Otherwise those articles are fantasy.

I spent years burning myself out trying to follow the advice from fitness mags before I learned that were hiding the real reason for their gains and definition

Fair enough!

It's not just lies to work through, though, legit journals have contradictory conclusions (which is as it should be, given it's science, I guess).

Personally, I'm looking for a way to avoid aggravating my particular biomechanics. Too much loading is reactivating old injuries. But then, I don't want too much volume or impact either. There's got to be something safe AND effective, but until I can get a physical therapist, I have to work through the info as I can, and maybe accept some limits to my goals.

I know I could have a much *better* body if I lifted heavier, it's just that it would also be more broken.

So I'm looking to alternative ways to introduce challenge, like slower movements, or more repetitions, etc.

RyanWilson1993

Just because you get sore does not mean you had a great workout! you can build muscle and strength without getting sore

JamesBurkes

>Sigh< as with all things it depends on your goals.

If your goal is to build muscle mass then low weight / high reps will build some but is FAR less effective at reaching your goal than using high weight / low reps.

If you want to build endurance / work muscles you don't usually use in a way that perhaps is more of a cardio workout (while providing a bit of resistance work, too) then low weights / high reps is for you.

I usually train heavy for 6-10 reps, but I have done a few Body Pump classes. While I wouldn't make them a regular staple in my routine (as it doesn't suit my primary goal of gaining strength and building a bit of muscle), I was impressed at how my muscles felt whilst doing it. As Body Pump is VERY high rep (sometimes 100+!) it gave the same sort of feeling in my muscles that I get in my legs from a hard biking session - which was kind of a weird feeling to get in muscles like your pecs. I can certainly see the value of it if weight loss is your goal and I have considered using it in recovery weeks and/or, as a wannabe triathlete, if I couldn't get to the pool to do my swimming sessions. Again, goals and tools.... what is the best tool for your goal? Statements like "High reps/low weights are useless" mean nothing unless you know someone's goal.

JamesBurkes

I also disagree about there being no such thing as "toned."

Yes, while LOOKING toned is all down to muscle mass / fat levels, BEING toned certainly exists. Just look at cyclist's legs - they do literally thousands of "reps" when cycling, yet their legs are rock hard and have a noticeably different feel to them than a couch potato of equivalent weight and body fat percentage. Ditto, try taking a few weeks off from the gym - your muscles at rest will feel softer. Then hit the squat rack for a couple of sessions and see what happens to your thighs and glutes. You haven't lost fat and you haven't gained muscle (in two workouts!). But your glutes will feel tighter and more uplifted i.e toned. If your bodyfat is fairly low you may even SEE the difference despite body fat and muscle levels being the same as two workouts before. So "Toned" certainly exists, IMO.

However, this doesn't change the fact that it is probably pointless for people with high body fat percentages to worry about getting toned when their main concern, if they just want to look better, should be losing body fat and gaining muscle.

WendyTerry420

I also disagree about there being no such thing as "toned."

Yes, while LOOKING toned is all down to muscle mass / fat levels, BEING toned certainly exists. Just look at cyclist's legs - they do literally thousands of "reps" when cycling, yet their legs are rock hard and have a noticeably different feel to them than a couch potato of equivalent weight and body fat percentage. Ditto, try taking a few weeks off from the gym - your muscles at rest will feel softer. Then hit the squat rack for a couple of sessions and see what happens to your thighs and glutes. You haven't lost fat and you haven't gained muscle (in two workouts!). But your glutes will feel tighter and more uplifted i.e toned. If your bodyfat is fairly low you may even SEE the difference despite body fat and muscle levels being the same as two workouts before. So "Toned" certainly exists, IMO.

However, this doesn't change the fact that it is probably pointless for people with high body fat percentages to worry about getting toned when their main concern, if they just want to look better, should be losing body fat and gaining muscle.

:drinker:

I hate it when people hate on the word "toned."

victoriannsays

I do not "lift heavy" nor do I do small weights/high reps. I use 8lbs for cardio - and I do yoga and body weight training only.

I am interested in lifting heavy to become stronger, not to tone. I will pursue this in the near future

jdavis193

I to thought low weight high reps are pointless but I have been doing Les Mills Pump and it works great. You can also go heavy though you don't have to stay at light weights. I have seen people on here change quit a bit from this workout.

_reno_

HOLY COW there is a lot of bad info on this thread.

First of all saying high weight low reps / low weight high reps is ambiguous.

First you must define how many reps you are talking about. 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, 12-15 ....

Second no mater how many reps you are talking about, you need to be working the muscle to failure (or damn close)

The lower the reps the more the focus will be on strength and muscle density.
The higher rep exorcises build endurance and volume

The higher the reps the shorter your rest period should be between sets. at 8-10 reps you probably want to rest for about 90 seconds. At 3-5 reps you probably want to rest about 5 minutes between sets.

All of those ranges above are going to produce some results if you are working to failure. IMHO most people should be working somewhere in the 3-8 rep range. Again the real key is pushing yourself until you cant do another rep. <<<< Do this, eat correctly and you will get results.

I honestly think working lower reps is easier. Burning out on a low weight high rep exercise is uncomfortable!!!


Also if you are working out at all it is not "pointless", but you should be concerned with getting the most effective workout for the time you spend.

tajmel

It's not pointless at all! Anything that gets you moving is wonderful. Do it do it.

Lifting heavy is a more efficient use of exercise time. For fewer reps you work harder, and thus spend less time in the gym. It also has the fantastic side benefit of making you strong and able, and increasing joint stability and bone density.

But at the end of the day, the best exercise for you is the kind you enjoy - because exercise you enjoy is exercise you actually DO.

_reno_

Just because you get sore does not mean you had a great workout! you can build muscle and strength without getting sore

I disagree!! If your starting a strength program and you aren't getting sore, you aint working hard enough son!

mathjulz

Light weights at high reps does not build strength. Here is a good article to read:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/girls-get-your-guns-why-women-should-lift-weights.html

And yet … when I started JM a year ago, I could barely do 30 day shred with 3 lb weights. Now I can do it with 15+ lbs easily(doing RI 30 and extreme shed & shred). If it doesn't build strength, how come I can lift more weights better now than a year ago?

waldo56

Most in the religion of low rep, lifting heavy would benefit from more high rep work, and most of the afraid of getting bulky clan of high rep weight cardio would benefit from low rep work.

This really isn't an either/or question, but instead should be looked at as an and/both answer.

There is a striking amout of "was told...." in this thread. Way too many people base their programs around nothing more than heresay.

scottcrouch21

Every Personal Trainer or Someone with The Body good enough to take their opinion seriously recommend High reps Lower weight to begin with, well at least who i have taken the time to speak to. It always depends on your Goals. But it is a great start to build a foundation for your body and support your future weight lifting ventures. It will lower the risk in getting injury later on when you do change your approach to lifting weight as it becomes easier. Its a Change for life! So dont rush it if you want to transform yourself.

omnisis

This is a false dichotomy. There is no "better" routine. In general the lower rep range targets strength and the higher rep ranges target muscular endurance and size although beyond a certain number of reps (12-15 for large muscles based on my experience) the condtions for size increases (hypertrophy) are no longer ideal. IMHO there is no such thing as a "perfect rep range". Fans of high reps (volume workouts) have reported desirable gains (google German Volume Training e.g.) and so have fans of lower rep ranges. It all depends on your goals.

My personal preference, hit multiple rep ranges over and extended period. Any rep range when done monotonously without variety will lose it's effectiveness at building muscle. Personally I like to cycle anywhere from 3-5 reps to 15-20 reps for variety and both my recovery and gains in the gym seem to go up while doing this.

If I were you I would focus on intensity. Intensity is the number one way to make your body respond to strength training you can achieve intensity in lots of ways: heavier weigths, lower rest periods or more reps. If you are working out in a progressive, intense fashion while still giving you time to recover you will see gains (assumming diet/nutrition/rest is in check) with any reasonable program.

mathjulz

This is a false dichotomy. There is no "better" routine. In general the lower rep range targets strength and the higher rep ranges target muscular endurance and size although beyond a certain number of reps (12-15 for large muscles based on my experience) the condtions for size increases (hypertrophy) are no longer ideal. IMHO there is no such thing as a "perfect rep range". Fans of high reps (volume workouts) have reported desirable gains (google German Volume Training e.g.) and so have fans of lower rep ranges. It all depends on your goals.

My personal preference, hit multiple rep ranges over and extended period. Any rep range when done monotonously without variety will lose it's effectiveness at building muscle. Personally I like to cycle anywhere from 3-5 reps to 15-20 reps for variety and both my recovery and gains in the gym seem to go up while doing this.

If I were you I would focus on intensity. Intensity is the number one way to make your body respond to strength training you can achieve intensity in lots of ways: heavier weigths, lower rest periods or more reps. If you are working out in a progressive, intense fashion while still giving you time to recover you will see gains (assumming diet/nutrition/rest is in check) with any reasonable program.

Thank you! :flowerforyou:

omnisis

To the OP:

Just wanted to share some more insight to your original question about "why do ppl doing JM's workout get good results?". Obviously that's a somewhat biased question -- as I pointed out earlier you can get "great results" on just about any program that is in line with your goals. You can even get great results by diet alone although it requires more discipline and won't add any LBM. I haven't done the JM program personally but I do have experience with kettlebells and here's my opinion based on personal experience:

To achieve the absolute optimal results from a training program aimed at body recomp (meaning lose weight and maintain LBM at the same time) most ppl will want to combine aerobic and anaerobic (e.g. resistance training) together with a calorie deficit. For the inexperienced trainee or busy person this is hard to do from traditional workouts due to 1) lack of time commitment and 2) lack of true understanding of the intensity and training priniciples to maximize your results. Because kettlebells combines cardio and (esp for someone with limited experience in resistance training) resistance/anaerobic excercise into a single workout it is a very efficient workout in terms of fat loss, calories burned and promotion of LBM.

OTOH, you don't see people walking away from a JM program with a solid 10 lbs of muscle mass that they didn't have before because the type of workout and the motion of kettlebells (which use momentum and don't act in a way that is truly perpendicular to the force of gravity) don't allow for this kind of tension and therefore lead to maximum hypertrophy. Then again, most ppl with hypertrophy goals don't seek out a JM program.

For the average layperson who is pressed for time and can't truly dedicate themselves to separate resistance training and cardio training each week, I think KB training is a really good way to stay fit. When I did it I supplemented with bodyweight excercises and HITT cardio and I got great results as long as my workouts were intense....I have no idea how intense the JM program is but you can always make it more intense if you increase your fitness knowledge.

Understand this: The fitness industry is rife with "one step solutions" and professional models who wil pimp anything that their sponsors throw at them because they get paid to look good. There is no fitness "silver bullet". Fitness is a complicated and very nuanced thing -- there are several paths that lead to you achieving the body you desire but not every path is right for every person. There are some basic truths: energy balance, macro nutrient ratios, training modalities, etc. but even that is not as cookie cutter as people would like to believe. Trust me if there was "one thing" that was scientifically proven to work for "all people regardless of size, physical conditioning and goals" then ppl would just do that one thing and not spend their lifetimes learning and trying things until they find something that works for them.

lasmit4477

This is a false dichotomy. There is no "better" routine. In general the lower rep range targets strength and the higher rep ranges target muscular endurance and size although beyond a certain number of reps (12-15 for large muscles based on my experience) the condtions for size increases (hypertrophy) are no longer ideal. IMHO there is no such thing as a "perfect rep range". Fans of high reps (volume workouts) have reported desirable gains (google German Volume Training e.g.) and so have fans of lower rep ranges. It all depends on your goals.

My personal preference, hit multiple rep ranges over and extended period. Any rep range when done monotonously without variety will lose it's effectiveness at building muscle. Personally I like to cycle anywhere from 3-5 reps to 15-20 reps for variety and both my recovery and gains in the gym seem to go up while doing this.

If I were you I would focus on intensity. Intensity is the number one way to make your body respond to strength training you can achieve intensity in lots of ways: heavier weigths, lower rest periods or more reps. If you are working out in a progressive, intense fashion while still giving you time to recover you will see gains (assumming diet/nutrition/rest is in check) with any reasonable program.

:flowerforyou: