The great debate: High reps or high weight?

seanezekiel

Lets say my main goal is to lose fat and not build bulk. I was at 305lbs and am currently at 220lbs with a goal of 200lbs. I have been told opposite things when it comes to lifting. I use mostly free weights with some cable pull machine. For my question lets just give an example of one exercise.

Flat bench with dumbbells working chest. I usually do this, 50lbs in each hand trying for 5 sets of 12. The first 3 sets are 12 then as I get weaker from the lifting it goes down to like 9-10 then 6-8 for the last. On the last set I then grab some 30lb weights right after the 6-8 and try for as many as i can get. Then move to the next chest exercise.

Now some people tell me I should go down to 40lbs and go for 16+, basically as many as i can each set, this will burn more cal and more fat and make me leaner. Others tell me that heavy lifting actually burns more calories and i should up to 60lbs and try for 6-8 each set.

Any thoughts?

*edit* Lets assume for the sake of argument I am maintaining enough calorie deficit to lose 1-2lbs per week while doing this. I gym 3 days per week and walk 4 days per week. All of this is included in the deficit. I eat more when I burn more calories and up my protein intake.

3foldchord

Bumping to see answers... As I too have a goal of lower body fat percentage but not bulking, but I am still eating at a deficit, so probably can't bulk... But still curious as to which way is better, IF there is a better.

BUMP.

psuLemon

Well neither approach will bulk you up if your calories are in a deficit. High weight low rep will work fast twitch muscle fibers which provide explosive power (stronger). Low weight high rep will work slow twitch muscle fiber and provide endurance. In terms of fat loss, they are equal pending calories are equal. It just depends what you are looking for. I generally like a combination of the both.

SideSteel

My thoughts are that the amount of fat you burn during the actual exercise is not very important.

You should create a calorie deficit through diet+activity and your lifting should be done with the goal of preserving lbm through that deficit. Generally speaking, lifting heavier accomplishes this better but at some point we are splitting hairs.

Given only the two options you've presented I'd go heavier.

seanezekiel

Thanks for the advice. I realize a lot of factors can change the example and appreciate the response to a very simple example.

3foldchord

This answers the question I didn't know I wanted to ask! Thanks!

Well neither approach will bulk you up if your calories are in a deficit. High weight low rep will work fast twitch muscle fibers which provide explosive power (stronger). Low weight high rep will work slow twitch muscle fiber and provide endurance. In terms of fat loss, they are equal pending calories are equal. It just depends what you are looking for. I generally like a combination of the both.

Now to read a bit more about slow and fast twitch muscle fibers.

Sarauk2sf

This answers the question I didn't know I wanted to ask! Thanks!

Well neither approach will bulk you up if your calories are in a deficit. High weight low rep will work fast twitch muscle fibers which provide explosive power (stronger). Low weight high rep will work slow twitch muscle fiber and provide endurance. In terms of fat loss, they are equal pending calories are equal. It just depends what you are looking for. I generally like a combination of the both.

Now to read a bit more about slow and fast twitch muscle fibers.

I did this write up on another thread that may help explain rep ranges:

Rep ranges

Different rep ranges cause a different type of stress on the body and it reacts differently to each.

The lower rep range (1 – 5) causes neurological adaptations, which is your body developing its ability to activate muscle fibers by increasing the frequency of neural impulses sent to the brain as well as improving intra- and inter-muscle coordination. Basically it makes you stronger but does has a lesser impact to your muscle mass.

The mid rep range (6 – 12) the impact is more on the metabolic and cellular level where you gain muscle mass but strength gains are not as significant as you would get in the lower rep ranges. This is the general rep range for hypertrophy, or mass gains.

The higher rep ranges (13+) stimulate muscle endurance primarily with only a small amount of hypertrophy and very little strength and as such is not considered strength training in the strict sense of the word.

Note, that there is no hard and fast line between the effects of the above, but rather a continuum. Also, the number of sets plays into how much is strength v hypertrophy v endurance. For example, you can do 5 sets of 6 reps for a total of 30 lifts, or you can do 10 sets of 3 lifts for a total of 30 lifts. If you do them to an equivalent level of failure, the time under tension will be the same. The number of sets does not automatically turn it from strength to hypertrophy due to the rest periods between sets, but it does have a bearing on where in the continuum the routine lies.

So, in summary:
1 – 5 reps = strength
6 – 12 reps = hypertrophy
12+ = endurance

So, the appropriate rep ranges really depend on your goals as well as your overall lifting program. Most ‘standard’ programs focus on the upper end of the strength range so benefits of both strength and some hypertrophy are gained.

chrisdavey

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-2.html

Summing Up
So that’s that, a look at weight training for fat loss. As I noted in Weight Training for Fat Loss Part 1, there are both pros and cons to the different types of weight training while dieting for fat loss. Assuming that maintenance of muscle mass is the goal, some form of heavy weight training must be kept in the program. In fact, if only one kind of weight training were to be performed, that’s what I’d pick (with the possible exception of complete beginners).
However, the volume and frequency can (and generally, should) be brought down when maintenance is the goal. Recovery always goes down on a diet (unless you’re taking drugs) and that means that training must be reduced to avoid killing the dieter.
So long as intensity (in this case, weight on the bar) is maintained, volume and frequency can be reduced by up to 2/3rds each without significant loss of strength or muscle mass. Basically, from the standpoint of strength and muscle maintenance, it’s far better to get 2 high quality sets than 6 half-assed ones.
If desired, that will allow other types of training, in this specific case metabolic work, to be added to the training program. Sequencing will depend on the individual, how well or poorly they recover and the specifics of the diet but hopefully I’ve given enough information for folks to set things up for themselves.