-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Your Opinions on Rep Ranges in Strength Training
Goosey
.
beat me to it stickyIMO specifically training to get stronger and training to look and feel good are different... look at elite powerlifters - they dont necessarily look good, but they're strong as hell. I bet they have plenty of aches and pains too... Whereas a trainer switching to DBs in their older years is likely more focused on the "feel good" bit
Your simplistic view is all too common.
No, you get to a point in life where one needs to train smarter, this is answering your second point.
the whole or sole point of exercise is to increase strength, the by products of strength are many things including flexibility, all of which makes one "feel good"
Carrying fat in powerlifting can assist.
Don't confuse, powerlifting with exercise.
The squat is not just a "lift" but also an exercise, both approached differently.
WarbyD
Cant Squat Kunce
My simplistic view is in response to a simple question which you are complicating. To say that the whole point of exercise is strength is simply incorrect.
the point of exercise is whatever the trainee intends it to be - if they are training specifically for strength then that will be their focus and anything else is a (usually welcome) by-product. If however someone's goal is to "look good" then they likely wouldnt care about strength and any gains in that deparment are incidental. Plenty of people train to look good without significant strength increase..
the point of exercise is whatever the trainee intends it to be - if they are training specifically for strength then that will be their focus and anything else is a (usually welcome) by-product. If however someone's goal is to "look good" then they likely wouldnt care about strength and any gains in that deparment are incidental. Plenty of people train to look good without significant strength increase..
Goosey
.
Last nigh I saw two dudes, young dudes, load up the leg press to max with 20kg plates.
There where none left for anyone else, this leg press has extra long posts, I didn't count the plates, picture that can't remember his name that "yeah baby!" bloke.
Now.
These idiots pushed the weights (banging and clanging) on the negative, bounced of the rubber stoppers, the momentum created was astonishing.
Probably only used the leg muscles for only 250mm of the movement, on the negative their arses lifted completely off the seat, their lower back had absolutely no contact with the back-rest.
The question is.
Is this effectivly biulding strength?
Or is this just a crude method of demonstrating strength?
Five reps I think by the noise.
There where none left for anyone else, this leg press has extra long posts, I didn't count the plates, picture that can't remember his name that "yeah baby!" bloke.
Now.
These idiots pushed the weights (banging and clanging) on the negative, bounced of the rubber stoppers, the momentum created was astonishing.
Probably only used the leg muscles for only 250mm of the movement, on the negative their arses lifted completely off the seat, their lower back had absolutely no contact with the back-rest.
The question is.
Is this effectivly biulding strength?
Or is this just a crude method of demonstrating strength?
Five reps I think by the noise.
Goosey
.
Goosey
.
Ok, I Don't have the time or patience to go any further, good luck.
Last edited:
Darkoz
-
I'll bow out now, it's getting ugly (silly)
Go to the gym and let the ladies perv on you
Goosey
.
That's a plan
Sticky
Active member
Neither......
Big Mick
"2014 - Kunce of the year"
I agree with this, the question was about strength training full stop, not muscle building for 'looks' and 'feel good'.
So there for to build strength you need to lift heavy and low reps. All the irrelevant examples that Silverback brought up have nothing to do with the original question asked, this being in the 'Power lifting/strength section' of the forum.
Again high reps will build muscle, but will do very little for maximum strength gains, no point lifting a weight light enough to allow you to do 20 reps if your goal is to get stronger. I think a lot of people here are confusing strength with conditioning and endurance.
I will repeat my example again, just beacuse someone can bench 180kg does not mean that he can do 200 push ups or vice versa, both persons have trained for different goals and they do not cross over. One task does not affect your ability to complete the other task in any significant way. It is a given that the person doing 200 push ups will have a slight increase in strength over a non trainer, and it is a given that the person benching 180kg will have a better ability to do more push ups, but these benefits would be minimal and incidental.
Once you can do one push up you are strong enough do do push ups, anything after that is conditioning and endurance not strength.
strong enough?
Member
Number of reps per set is a variable that means nothing without an indication of volume (total number of lifts) and intensity (% of 1RM).
This is the probably the most simplistic way of looking at ideal rep ranges:
Each of the rows in the above table will, on balance, for most people, produce the most efficient strength gains, but each row brings about the strength gain in a different way and with different effects. Many of the most well-known effective strength programs are built on this table. You will find that Westside favours the bottom row. Sheiko utilised all the rows, with the bulk of the work being in the first and second row.
When Rippetoe advocated 5s, he made a pretty good argument when you keep in mind his target trainee. He didn't advocate 5s as the be all and end all. If you've read practical programming, he used a chart similar to Prilepin's and basically said that 3 sets of 5 was a good starting point for a beginner because it was most likely to elicit a good balance of strength gains and hypertrophy, without bringing on the technique degradation that a beginner was more likely to experience with higher reps or higher number of sets. That's it.
Here's the actual chart. I think it's quite useful...
Personally, I've had better results with lots of sets of 2-3 at 70-80% of 1RM than blasting out 5s.
This is the probably the most simplistic way of looking at ideal rep ranges:
Each of the rows in the above table will, on balance, for most people, produce the most efficient strength gains, but each row brings about the strength gain in a different way and with different effects. Many of the most well-known effective strength programs are built on this table. You will find that Westside favours the bottom row. Sheiko utilised all the rows, with the bulk of the work being in the first and second row.
When Rippetoe advocated 5s, he made a pretty good argument when you keep in mind his target trainee. He didn't advocate 5s as the be all and end all. If you've read practical programming, he used a chart similar to Prilepin's and basically said that 3 sets of 5 was a good starting point for a beginner because it was most likely to elicit a good balance of strength gains and hypertrophy, without bringing on the technique degradation that a beginner was more likely to experience with higher reps or higher number of sets. That's it.
Here's the actual chart. I think it's quite useful...
Personally, I've had better results with lots of sets of 2-3 at 70-80% of 1RM than blasting out 5s.
Headley
BigRed Kunce
Meh... i use to do a lot of reps with lighter weight at the gym: 12-10-8-6-12-12 benching 60 kilos (for example)
Did about 4 -5 exercises per muscle group and go so fkn strong from it. I use to do a lot of surf boat rowing, so the reps i did at the gym worked well for the sprints we did in the boats.
Out of the boat i was far stronger than i have ever been in my life too
Did about 4 -5 exercises per muscle group and go so fkn strong from it. I use to do a lot of surf boat rowing, so the reps i did at the gym worked well for the sprints we did in the boats.
Out of the boat i was far stronger than i have ever been in my life too
Last edited:
spartacus
Well-known member
Silverback, I am a fan of your logic. I also piss myself at supposed great feats of strength.
There are so many variables in training, yet some want to pin it down to exact science.
To all, good luck with any magical rep formula.
And big Mick, you keep lifting your heavy weights, because that is what you have to do, according to you.
I got up to 172.5kg (touch and go) in bench press, 155kg clean power clean, and I always did mostly moderate weights and higher reps. Perhaps I did not know how to train.
But think about it; Usain bolt was a 200m runner. But, after just a brief period of training for the 100m, boom world records. Logic should tell anyone that there is a transfer from different loads and reps as long as intensity has been stimulated.
Of course, someone can get very strong doing higher reps. Look at Bill Kazmaier. Higher reps, but with intensity.
If a 90kg guy can do 200 strict pushups, not that 2 inch bullshit reps, I will guarantee he will do a good bench (first time).
Herschal Walker is said to have done 170kg first time after a lifetime of just bodyweight exercises (with assistance).
The rep range Strong Enough points to is enough to know that strength can be developed by many types of training over 70% of one's max. I would go as far to say that even 60% is enough to build strength if rests are short enough and intensity remains high. This is my preferred intensity range.
For powerlifters, the need for heavy sets is obvious. In addition to strength, there is considerable skill and feel to lifting such weights, which would indeed be complicated if technique was combined with high reps.
Outside weight lifting and powerlifting, less impediment to a variety of training with a wide range of reps for strength gain.
There are so many variables in training, yet some want to pin it down to exact science.
To all, good luck with any magical rep formula.
And big Mick, you keep lifting your heavy weights, because that is what you have to do, according to you.
I got up to 172.5kg (touch and go) in bench press, 155kg clean power clean, and I always did mostly moderate weights and higher reps. Perhaps I did not know how to train.
But think about it; Usain bolt was a 200m runner. But, after just a brief period of training for the 100m, boom world records. Logic should tell anyone that there is a transfer from different loads and reps as long as intensity has been stimulated.
Of course, someone can get very strong doing higher reps. Look at Bill Kazmaier. Higher reps, but with intensity.
If a 90kg guy can do 200 strict pushups, not that 2 inch bullshit reps, I will guarantee he will do a good bench (first time).
Herschal Walker is said to have done 170kg first time after a lifetime of just bodyweight exercises (with assistance).
The rep range Strong Enough points to is enough to know that strength can be developed by many types of training over 70% of one's max. I would go as far to say that even 60% is enough to build strength if rests are short enough and intensity remains high. This is my preferred intensity range.
For powerlifters, the need for heavy sets is obvious. In addition to strength, there is considerable skill and feel to lifting such weights, which would indeed be complicated if technique was combined with high reps.
Outside weight lifting and powerlifting, less impediment to a variety of training with a wide range of reps for strength gain.
Last edited:
Sticky
Active member
spartacus
Well-known member
yep, totally consistent with what I said, I was looking at % of weight used.
In weight lifting and powerlifting, where technique is an issue, why would you do higher reps. It is extremely tiring to do such movements with high reps. Just try a set of power cleans on any weight over 80%, and even 3 reps requires very good concentration.
If I was a weight lifting coach, I would seldom go over 6 reps and I would ensure longer rest periods. This is more specific to the demands of the sport.
For other sports, not as relevant. Say, 200m which goes for 20 seconds plus, or even 100m.
I hate powerlifting style benches and squats, and I prefer to get stronger with basic movements where technique is much more straight forward (with technique I don't have too think about too much). I am more interested in working a muscle rather than lifting heavy weight (say with technical form more applicable to powerlifting).
Most athletes interested in strength, at least outside weight lifting sports (maximal weights), the low rep option is much less important. Whether you do 5x5, or 4x8, I don't see that much difference. Whatever you prefer.
In weight lifting and powerlifting, where technique is an issue, why would you do higher reps. It is extremely tiring to do such movements with high reps. Just try a set of power cleans on any weight over 80%, and even 3 reps requires very good concentration.
If I was a weight lifting coach, I would seldom go over 6 reps and I would ensure longer rest periods. This is more specific to the demands of the sport.
For other sports, not as relevant. Say, 200m which goes for 20 seconds plus, or even 100m.
I hate powerlifting style benches and squats, and I prefer to get stronger with basic movements where technique is much more straight forward (with technique I don't have too think about too much). I am more interested in working a muscle rather than lifting heavy weight (say with technical form more applicable to powerlifting).
Most athletes interested in strength, at least outside weight lifting sports (maximal weights), the low rep option is much less important. Whether you do 5x5, or 4x8, I don't see that much difference. Whatever you prefer.
Last edited: