Heavy weight-low rep vs medium weight-higher rep?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Arguing over training systems what works, what doesn't, what's a beginner / advanced program, gets silly after a while. Bottom line, you must train in a means that accomplishes your goals and within a system that "speaks" to you. It's hard to argue with people like Shaw and Dan John who are incredibly accomplished in this field and they all have some similar yet different approaches. Mix in other's like Charles Poliquin, Louis Simmons, John Meadows and you'll find many varied approaches.
It comes down to understanding one's goals, being aware of what training systems are available that show positive results towards such a goal, or work with an intelligent fitness professional. Once you get to that point, just use what appeals to you most.
When it comes to myself I'm not very objective and I overthink my own training plan, so I actually use existing plans. It's quite sad that I'm not more objective with myself, but it is what it is. Wendler's Maximal Training method (Beyond) was good to me for a long time, even before I went to school, and then I messed around on my own and had some good results, tried JTS 2.0 and it was up and down, found myself coming back to Wendler's system. Sometimes it takes time to find what truly works for you but when you do you'll know it.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions