Your Opinions on Rep Ranges in Strength Training

[Jungnaut]

I just want to know what your experience with rep ranges with respect to strength training, long term. As I am a bit stuck with my training.

Most popular beginner programs advocate a 5 reps to build a foundation of strength. This works well as long as there is linear gains to be made. Well, what happens beyond this?

What I have found is that while I can continue to make gains on a 5 rep range, trying to do the equivalent on a higher rep range (8 or more) has me seriously lacking even with a lighter weight. This is more obvious with pushing exercises.

For example, my bench is 95kg 5 reps. I can push 3 reps out at 100kg. But what good is that if I can barely get 8 reps out at 90kg? So - what really should I be doing, keep grinding away at 8 reps or drop the weight down and start doing 8 reppers?

In short, I don't feel particularly strong when I am failing at 8 reps at a lower weight than my 5 rep weight. Even with sufficient rest periods between sets. So what can I do from now to try and build my strength/stamina up?

 

[0ni]

I find that most people get the best results with using a rep range and percentage they enjoy.
I fucking hate sets of 5, they are miserable especially on squats. I like to max out and feel the heavy weight, although cutting weight I feel myself leaning towards a more Sheiko approach

I also like starting off with high reps and lots of sets then adding weight until I am hitting maxes, that fucking rocks, especially on deadlifts where I seem to be adding reps as the weight increases, haha

So ultimately, do what you ENJOY

 

[Darkoz]

I don't understand the question

 

[Semillon]

I just want to know what your experience with rep ranges with respect to strength training, long term. As I am a bit stuck with my training.

If you are stuck, then the problem is not rep ranges but your periodisation or your recovery or both.

Everything else being equal, sets of 5 have been shown to be the most effective rep range for strength gains.

 

[Sticky]

My best results have always been;
3-5 sets of 5 on squats
5-10 sets of 2-4 on bench
3-5 sets of 3 on deads.

Frequency plays a big role....
I'm going to squat 3x a fortnight, bench 4x a week, and deadlift every other Friday.

 

[Snoochies]

Not that I can speak with experience like most here but found Madcow worked for me for awhile when I started to struggle on squats. It's based on 5 reps.

Squats for instance. Monday was 5 reps, Wednesday was deload for 5 reps, and Friday was heavy day (basically life more than Monday) for 3 reps. The next Monday you would lift what you did on Friday for 5 reps and so forth.

Alot better workouts out there but I enjoyed it for what it was.

 

[ink81]

I work on 3-5 sets of 3's (triples). Works fine for me.

 

[Dale]

If you've never done heavy higher rep sets before you'll be weak at them. You'll need to adapt to them and learn how to pace yourself throughout the set.

 

[Goosey]

All rep ranges work, it's the last two reps of the set that are the key to stimulating growth.
From growth comes size, from size comes the ability to increase strength of the muscle.

One trick I use, if stuck on a number is to actually increase the weight by a couple of kg's.

But some people respond better to a set number of reps, for an example, in my case, 6~8 reps for the dip is my sweet spot.

Whereas 12~15 could be for someone else.

Experiment and find what works.

 

[spartacus]

Silverback, again well said.

You are one wise gorilla.

 

[Jungnaut]

Interesting comments here. I get it, what works for one person may not be right for the next. Got to experiment a bit and find the sweet range.

It's just that after working strictly in the 5 rep range for the past year or so (and getting reasonable results from it), anything more than that is a struggle. So I'll give it a bit of time and see if the body would settle with this change-up. I'd like to find out if 8 reps really is that holy grail of hypertrophy as I seem to read just about everywhere.

 

[Felixflex]

I guess stick to the rep range that suits you, I stick to 4-6 rep range personally for most of my compounds.

 

[Snoochies]

No different to running, you may have done sprints for along time but you'll struggle to run fast over a long distance. You have to have ago and learn to adapt.

 

[0ni]

Everything else being equal, sets of 5 have been shown to be the most effective rep range for strength gains.

Since when? Did you just read Starting Strength or something?

 

[Goosey]

Since when? Did you just read Starting Strength or something?

Bill Starr used and adopted 5x5.


Do you know why?

 

[0ni]

Bill Starr used and adopted 5x5.


Do you know why?

Because it worked for him and was a simple mass produced program that he could give to his athletes while allowing them enough recovery to train for their sport.

Literally the only people that used 5's were a fringe group of American football players and now everything thinks it's the "most efficient" way to train. Fuck efficiency. I have no idea why you'd want your training to be "efficient" as a strength athlete unless you needed to concentrate on another sport. I think I've been through this before. If it worked so well there wouldn't be entire subreddits dedicated to people trying to get their shitfest of a back squat up to 400lb

Saying that 5's are the most effective rep range for "strength gains" is so wrong it's not funny. It will get you good at doing 5's. If you're after maximal strength, you need to practice maximal strength. Build on volume then ramp up the weights. You can't do this with any one rep range. I also can't find shit on Bill Starr's training, as far as I can see it was just a routine he made for his athletes

 

[aljada]

Why would you ever stick to one rep range? Different rep ranges have different effects and they all have their place.

 

[Goosey]

Because it worked for him and was a simple mass produced program that he could give to his athletes while allowing them enough recovery to train for their sport.

Literally the only people that used 5's were a fringe group of American football players and now everything thinks it's the "most efficient" way to train. Fuck efficiency. I have no idea why you'd want your training to be "efficient" as a strength athlete unless you needed to concentrate on another sport. I think I've been through this before. If it worked so well there wouldn't be entire subreddits dedicated to people trying to get their shitfest of a back squat up to 400lb

Saying that 5's are the most effective rep range for "strength gains" is so wrong it's not funny. It will get you good at doing 5's. If you're after maximal strength, you need to practice maximal strength. Build on volume then ramp up the weights. You can't do this with any one rep range. I also can't find shit on Bill Starr's training, as far as I can see it was just a routine he made for his athletes

You are right that the 5x5 was primarily for football.
5x5 was chosen because he felt it was an easy number for his troops to remember.

0ni, read "the strongest shall survive" to give yourself perspective, and settle the fuck down.

 

[Grunta]

I cover both ends, for example, on bench I'll rep out 3 sets of about 120kg b/w 10 to 6. Then rest 2 minutes and pump out a double, try for triple at 160kg.
This way I'm doing both ends.

 

[Atti]

Is there any science study to back up whats the best rep range to get the growth or it is just need to work it to failure doesnt matter what weights you lifting or rep. In my opinion it doesnt matter as long as its been worked there will be growth. If you do more reps you built denser muscle cause of more micro tears then if you do heavyer weights built bigger muscle but not as dense ? I dont know say take bruce lee for example he probaly cant bench 180 kg 5x but can probaly easily pump out 150 kg x 20 ? Agile compared to raw strength.