1

votes

bulking up with high repetition weighs

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM

can you gain more muscle mass doing say 135 pound dead lift 50 times for multple repetitions, or sets of 30 chest flys? or squating 135 50 times, etc

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on November 24, 2012
at 06:37 PM

Note, I have no studies to back this up and no horse in this race to justify the effort to find any, but I'm guessing any regular listeners to Robb's podcast can at least corroborate that he sees it this way.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on November 24, 2012
at 06:36 PM

I actually think this is the right answer. On Robb Wolf podcast, Robb and Greg often say that higher reps with lighter weights tends to increase muscle mass more where as lower reps with heavier weights tends to build power more. Obviously, muscle mass and power are correlated, so either exercise should increase both, but I think it's generally a myth (and backwards thinking) likely perpetuated by poorly educated physical trainers that if you want to avoid bulking up, you should do more reps with lighter weight. I think many bodybuilders specifically use high rep sets to build mass.

2f6ef8ed84e943285c1386254d3c66ea

(195)

on November 01, 2012
at 11:17 AM

You couldn't be more wrong @dieyoung. Read the answer below - or show some scientific literature to back up what your saying.

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10480)

on October 19, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Yes, lots of idiots. This is the same person that says "Christian Bale loses weight fast, you can too if you're disciplined." I think Mr. Pro Muay Thai has been kicked in the head once too many times.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 19, 2012
at 06:17 PM

dieyoung, thanks for your comment. Do you have links to studies that prove high rep ranges increase HGH more than heavy lifting, because every study I have ever read seem to disagree with that. Also, gymnast might be ripped, but soccer players and bicyclist tend to be leaner, so those might not be good examples.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 19, 2012
at 02:55 AM

This is a terribly worded question.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 20, 2012
at 03:39 PM

The researchers conclude in Table one that one should train to muscular failure using greater than 80% of there 1RM. This is difficult to do safely without spotters. Most strength training programs recommend doing 3X5 or 5X5 at this weight range to achieve a similar effect. Marathon runners are physically weak. If high reps produced the same physiological effect, this would not be the case.

2f6ef8ed84e943285c1386254d3c66ea

(195)

on June 20, 2012
at 03:26 PM

Using such a high rep range will not create the right stimulus to create a hypertrophy adaptation. using such a high repetition will lead to a muscular endurance adaptation. Potentially some of these methods can be used as shock tactics, but for mere mortals I have seen great results on myself and others using the method described above, and professional athletes use these methods also. The real trick is to periodize your workouts, this is how athletes separate themselves from the average gym goers who seem to get stuck doing similar things to often.

C2ecbc6f2948c232d60a639c50b7f4f9

(504)

on June 20, 2012
at 02:30 PM

deadlift 135 for sets of 50 vs 315 for sets of 10-12

631b29d5ab1146e264e91d08103bb72c

(1277)

on June 20, 2012
at 02:12 PM

I disagree. There is a long history of fringe, freak strongmen that packed on unbelievable muscle with 20, 30, or even 50 rep range. Dan John includes high rep squats in his most recent book, mass made simple. Now from a practical standpoint, it is highly unlikely the poster (or virtually anyone else) has the base to take on this kind of program but you can't say it doesn't work.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 20, 2012
at 01:17 PM

I concur. It's nice to see information like this on these boards. starting strength is a good book for sure but the unquestioning following of that type of lifting is too common across the paleo world. Training design depends merely on your goals. If hypertrophy is the goal then Ripp's book is OK but there are better approaches.

892d177f50b16f118152219229870e4e

(776)

on June 20, 2012
at 12:09 PM

Do a barrel roll !

631b29d5ab1146e264e91d08103bb72c

(1277)

on June 20, 2012
at 01:06 AM

As compared to what? 50 Deads at 135 vs ??????? What does 135 represent? 50% 1rm or 10%?

  • C2ecbc6f2948c232d60a639c50b7f4f9

    asked by

    (504)
  • Views
    3.4K
  • Last Activity
    1283D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

9 Answers

best answer

2
E2ccd768a8e7957eee74e6964d779848

on June 20, 2012
at 03:21 AM

I guess enough you could, but you should try to get more weight to see what it will do. Personally, for me, I use to do higher reps. Then I did heavier weights and went from about 10-15 reps down to 6-8 reps and I saw muscle gains quickly. Just a thought and personal experience.

892d177f50b16f118152219229870e4e

(776)

on June 20, 2012
at 12:09 PM

Do a barrel roll !

best answer

1
4517913d02268db3869032fb1ac7fb06

on October 19, 2012
at 05:31 AM

Wow. a lot of idiots on this board. High rep. range increases HGH more than heavy lifting.

And high rep. doesn't increase muscle size? tell that to soccer players, bicyclist, gymnast and ME. i am a pro muay thai, never do less than 20 reps on any muscle and any exercise and I am built like a brick shit house.

if in doubt do both, a few sets high, a few sets low. I bet you gain like crazy.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 19, 2012
at 06:17 PM

dieyoung, thanks for your comment. Do you have links to studies that prove high rep ranges increase HGH more than heavy lifting, because every study I have ever read seem to disagree with that. Also, gymnast might be ripped, but soccer players and bicyclist tend to be leaner, so those might not be good examples.

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10480)

on October 19, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Yes, lots of idiots. This is the same person that says "Christian Bale loses weight fast, you can too if you're disciplined." I think Mr. Pro Muay Thai has been kicked in the head once too many times.

2f6ef8ed84e943285c1386254d3c66ea

(195)

on November 01, 2012
at 11:17 AM

You couldn't be more wrong @dieyoung. Read the answer below - or show some scientific literature to back up what your saying.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on November 24, 2012
at 06:37 PM

Note, I have no studies to back this up and no horse in this race to justify the effort to find any, but I'm guessing any regular listeners to Robb's podcast can at least corroborate that he sees it this way.

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on November 24, 2012
at 06:36 PM

I actually think this is the right answer. On Robb Wolf podcast, Robb and Greg often say that higher reps with lighter weights tends to increase muscle mass more where as lower reps with heavier weights tends to build power more. Obviously, muscle mass and power are correlated, so either exercise should increase both, but I think it's generally a myth (and backwards thinking) likely perpetuated by poorly educated physical trainers that if you want to avoid bulking up, you should do more reps with lighter weight. I think many bodybuilders specifically use high rep sets to build mass.

6
2f6ef8ed84e943285c1386254d3c66ea

(195)

on June 20, 2012
at 12:39 PM

The answer is simply no!

For muscle size gains/hypertrophy one should perform 3 - 6 sets of 6 - 12 repititons, most people respond better to 10 - 12 reps, at load (%1RM) 67 -85%, resting for 30 - 90 seconds between sets. performing 2 or more exercises per body part - depending on training experience.

This information is from 'Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning' (2008), by Baechle and Earle. During my time at university my strength and conditioning lecturers referred to this book as the bible for strength training.

You follow this advice you can't go wrong.

631b29d5ab1146e264e91d08103bb72c

(1277)

on June 20, 2012
at 02:12 PM

I disagree. There is a long history of fringe, freak strongmen that packed on unbelievable muscle with 20, 30, or even 50 rep range. Dan John includes high rep squats in his most recent book, mass made simple. Now from a practical standpoint, it is highly unlikely the poster (or virtually anyone else) has the base to take on this kind of program but you can't say it doesn't work.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on June 20, 2012
at 01:17 PM

I concur. It's nice to see information like this on these boards. starting strength is a good book for sure but the unquestioning following of that type of lifting is too common across the paleo world. Training design depends merely on your goals. If hypertrophy is the goal then Ripp's book is OK but there are better approaches.

2f6ef8ed84e943285c1386254d3c66ea

(195)

on June 20, 2012
at 03:26 PM

Using such a high rep range will not create the right stimulus to create a hypertrophy adaptation. using such a high repetition will lead to a muscular endurance adaptation. Potentially some of these methods can be used as shock tactics, but for mere mortals I have seen great results on myself and others using the method described above, and professional athletes use these methods also. The real trick is to periodize your workouts, this is how athletes separate themselves from the average gym goers who seem to get stuck doing similar things to often.

1
68294383ced9a0eafc16133aa80d1905

(5795)

on October 19, 2012
at 03:57 AM

I actually like to mix it up.

For instance, heavy dead lifts for 5 sets, 8-10 reps, maybe 70% 1RM.

I'll follow that up with something like 4 sets of high-rep back squats (whatever is comfortable or you can handle/to failure) of 20% 1RM.

You can then reverse this during your next session and go heavy on the squats and do the dead lifts for reps.

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 19, 2012
at 06:22 PM

high reps definitely can work -- look at the P90X guys, that whole program is high reps.

However, I think it is more efficient to lift in the 3x8-12 (70% 1 RPM) range if your goal is muscle size with a periodized 3x5 (85%-90% 1 RPM) to shake it up.

0
59fa7cd87fb9d669adf21e5cf3e7ada5

on October 19, 2012
at 03:47 PM

I think it depends more on your genetics than on the details like number of reps, if you don't have the right genes you aren't going to bulk up no matter how you do it.

0
03d7a6dd4bfda91ade6a1a5ecc73fefc

on October 19, 2012
at 03:07 PM

Depends on your fibre type distribution, but assuming you're a "normal" guy (and therefore "normal" recommendations apply to you) then I don't see why you wouldn't incorporate both into your training.

See strength training as an investment: OK, you won't get hyooge right now by using a lower volume and more weight, but you will get a lot stronger. This strength means that in 3, 6 months time when you decide to get bigger then you can grow with the extra mechanical load you're exerting on your muscles, courtesy of your +30lb weight numbers relative to now.

However, I don't see why you need to do either/or - what is wrong with incorporating both? What do you have to lose by trying it? If there were three options: pure strength training, mixed training, and pure hypertrophy (which will include more volume) then pick the one which seems most like you'd enjoy.

After all, life's too short not to enjoy your training time. I can't help but think we'd enjoy it more if we took off our wristwatches, put away our "Progress Diary" and just learned to love the process - surely that will ensure that we keep doing it, and paradoxically, keep progressing and improving (but not worrying if we don't, because we love each opportunity to train for what it is).

0
F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 20, 2012
at 12:35 AM

Here's an interesting review paper:

http://versita.metapress.com/content/h86m566718338834/fulltext.pdf

The research they cited showed no significant difference from 2RM to 100-150 RM for strength gains.

Doesn't mention hypertrophy, though.

81fca18329e68e227cdfef3857bfef96

(1320)

on June 20, 2012
at 03:39 PM

The researchers conclude in Table one that one should train to muscular failure using greater than 80% of there 1RM. This is difficult to do safely without spotters. Most strength training programs recommend doing 3X5 or 5X5 at this weight range to achieve a similar effect. Marathon runners are physically weak. If high reps produced the same physiological effect, this would not be the case.

-1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 19, 2012
at 02:47 AM

Generally higher reps are associated with muscular size while lower reps deal with strength and density. Find out more here.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!