For reps vs for time

Seems like you should ask your current instructor what (s)he means by the instruction.

Related to the original question: which is better? (Please differentiate between for building muscle or for burning more calories, if there is a difference):

Trying to fit as many reps into a set amount of time? E.g.: in 5 mins do as many reps as possible
OR
Trying to do a set number of reps as quickly as possible? E.g.: 12 reps x 3 Set as quickly as possible

Kita1818 wrote: »

Related to the original question: which is better? (Please differentiate between for building muscle or for burning more calories, if there is a difference):

Trying to fit as many reps into a set amount of time? E.g.: in 5 mins do as many reps as possible
OR
Trying to do a set number of reps as quickly as possible? E.g.: 12 reps x 3 Set as quickly as possible

For muscle building, neither is ideal - it's best done at an unrushed pace. And it shouldn't be easy enough that you can do a set for 5 minutes. More like 30-60 seconds and you're done.

Fast reps or long sets are useful for general conditioning, stamina, & athleticism.

The calorie burn difference is negligible, so pick whatever matches your other fitness goals - strength, endurance, cardio health, etc.

lorrpb wrote: »

So someone said today “my coach said to just ride for time today.” I asked “what does that mean?” She said “ride for an hour with no speed or distance goals.”
That sounds like opposite of what you guys just said, that “for time” means “set reps/distance as fast as possible”???

I can see cardio being different from a crossfit/WOD routine which is what I thought you were talking about.

Riding/ running for time is about building endurance where the focus is on the duration of the workout, and things like speed, distance, etc matter less, if at all.

Cherimoose wrote: »

Kita1818 wrote: »

Related to the original question: which is better? (Please differentiate between for building muscle or for burning more calories, if there is a difference):

Trying to fit as many reps into a set amount of time? E.g.: in 5 mins do as many reps as possible
OR
Trying to do a set number of reps as quickly as possible? E.g.: 12 reps x 3 Set as quickly as possible

For muscle building, neither is ideal - it's best done at an unrushed pace. And it shouldn't be easy enough that you can do a set for 5 minutes. More like 30-60 seconds and you're done.

Fast reps or long sets are useful for general conditioning, stamina, & athleticism.

The calorie burn difference is negligible, so pick whatever matches your other fitness goals - strength, endurance, cardio health, etc.

Actually both scenarios are very useful for hypertrophy if programmed intelligently. This is assuming when stating quickly as possible we are not including the actual movement and trying to over head press the actual rep faster for example.

Myo reps are a perfect example utilizing a extremely short rested sets after a activation set and has evidence that suggests equal hypertrophy response to some smaller muscle groups compared to more traditional rep/rest schemes. AMRAP on a 6 or 7 minute timer can be very efficient as well and I utilize this particularly in some of my hypertrophy templates.

I wouldn't fill out a template full of either scenarios, but either is fine within intelligent programming.

OP I would just ask the trainer(s). If they definitions differ, then maybe make your concerns about confusion known to them and go from there.

Kita1818 wrote: »

Related to the original question: which is better? (Please differentiate between for building muscle or for burning more calories, if there is a difference):

Trying to fit as many reps into a set amount of time? E.g.: in 5 mins do as many reps as possible
OR
Trying to do a set number of reps as quickly as possible? E.g.: 12 reps x 3 Set as quickly as possible

Muscle building is a process where you cause intentional damage to the muscle fiber, then as you recover the cells not only repair the damage but structurally reinforce the area against future damage. So your goal should be to maximize the amount of regrowth, which starts with increasing the amount of damage done in an intelligent manner (working so hard you get injured is not smart, trying to "damage" the same area before it had a chance to recover is not smart, etc).

One of the most popular methods for controlled damage is keeping track of time under tension, or TUT. You can increase TUT by doing more reps, so 4 sets of 12 has more TUT than 3 sets of 12. You can also increase TUT by doing the same number of reps but moving slower through each rep, i.e. taking 3 seconds to raise the weight, 3 seconds to lower vs just pounding the reps as fast as possible.

Knowing this, logically then doing 3 sets of 12 curls super fast will actually provide LESS muscle building than doing 3 sets of 12 curls slow, even using the same weight, because the second method increases TUT.

So why bother with fast reps? Maybe for convenience, allowing you to actually fit a workout in when you otherwise couldn't (3x12 fast curls does more than no curls at all). But for other people, it allows you to squeeze more work into a limited time. So if you have an hour to workout, some people prefer doing 3 chest exercises, while others will try to get in 6 chest exercises in that same hour.

Which is best for you? Ultimately only you can decide, taking into account input from your doctor, your trainer, and your own body's aches and pains and results over time. To make things even worse, your own body can change over time. When I was 30, I got great results from hitting each body part from a dozen different angles each week; now at age 42, I prefer doing the entire body every workout, but only a single exercise per body part done in a controlled manner.

YMMV (your mileage may vary, for those like me who were clueless what that acronym meant for several years)