Less weight more reps? or more weight less reps?

[pudgey01]

So from my understanding, lifting less weights and more reps helps to tone but lifting more weight and a reasonable amount of reps helps to bulk up. Is this true? or only half true?

Also, I have this annoying habit of clenching my teeth when lifting a really heavy weight and this kills my jaw the next day. How bout you guys, got any annoying habits?

 

[Bench Polkov]

The first bit's a pile of crap. Diet, cardio and lifting heavy gets you "toned" (fukc I hate that word), Diet and lifting heavy with minimal cardio gets you bulk.

Go buy a cheap mouthguard. A lot of powerlifters wear them to protect their teeth while lifting.

 

[Bazza20]

Getting toned is just losing body fat.

 

[Goosey]

Grab an empty bar and curl it all day, then get back to us.

Don't grit your teeth, it doesn't help the weight move, trust me.

 

[pudgey01]

haha yeh silverback, thats why I call it a habit. I dont mean to do it, sometimes I dont even realise. But when I do, I force myself to stop.

 

[Fadi]

Less weight more reps? or more weight less reps?

Both.


Fadi.

 

[The Hamburgler]

So less weight and less reps it is!

 

[Goosey]

Both.


Fadi.

Both will take full advantage of muscle growth.
We all have twitch fibers that respond differently to resistance, we all have different combinations of these throughout the body, a smart weight training protocol incorporates different high/low rep ranges for upper and lower body musculature to optimize the stimulation of a muscle.

 

[strong enough?]

there is such a thing as "muscle tone" or "tonus". It's the tension of a muscle at rest. Having "toned" muscles means the muscle fibres are more activated all the time. Training can increase "tone" as well as hypertrophy, but overactive muscle fibres are not necessarily a good thing from a performance perspective.

reps vs intensity is not simply a matter of tone vs size.

The following chart from Practical Programming for Strength Training is the best explanation I've seen of the differences of training in different rep ranges.

 

[craze]

Do both!

 

[Martigan]

Here is another perspective from Brooks Kubik copied from his blog.

"Is Volume Training Necessary?‏

There's plenty of silly stuff on the
internet discussion boards and Facebook
about "sets and reps for building size
vs. sets and reps for building strength."

You also see it in books and articles.

And I haven't been to a commercial gym
in ages, but I suppose if I visited one,
I'd hear guys arguing about it there,
as well.

Most people who follow the debate firmly
believe that you need to do "volume
training" to build size ("hypertrophy).

In essence, they contend that you need to
do many sets of many reps and many different
exercises to build size.

And the same people will tell you that low
reps (five or less per set) are only good for
building strength.

I find this to be hilarious, because I built
myself from 180 to 225 by doing progressively
heavier singles in most of my exercises -- and
doing five reps per set in a couple of others.

That's 45 pounds of muscle -- and I did it on
a program of heavy singles in the squat, bench
press and deadlift. I trained 3x per week, for
about one hour per session. That sure as heck
isn't "volume training."

That surprises a lot of people, and it certainly
flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

But if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

You see, it's not about volume. It's about hard,
heavy consistent effort -- compound exercises --
progressive poundages -- and the iron will to
succeed.

Frankly, volume talk is a gimmick. What really
counts is adding weight to the bar. As you get
stronger, your muscles become larger and thicker.
And you end up having a good mix of strength and
size.

Many years ago, there was a famous bodybuilder who
followed the pumping method of training. He ended
up looking pretty good and weighing something like
210 or 215 pounds.

But he struggled to perform a single military press
with 180 pounds!

In contrast, John Grimek could military press close
to 300 pounds.

Grimek trained for strength as well as size. He ended
up with both.

The other man trained for size alone -- and that's
all he got.

I like the Grimek approach.

As always, thanks for reading, and have a great
day. If you train today, make it a good one!

Yours in strength,

Brooks Kubik"

 

[AusNino]

Here is another perspective from Brooks Kubik copied from his blog.

"Is Volume Training Necessary?‏

There's plenty of silly stuff on the
internet discussion boards and Facebook
about "sets and reps for building size
vs. sets and reps for building strength."

You also see it in books and articles.

And I haven't been to a commercial gym
in ages, but I suppose if I visited one,
I'd hear guys arguing about it there,
as well.

Most people who follow the debate firmly
believe that you need to do "volume
training" to build size ("hypertrophy).

In essence, they contend that you need to
do many sets of many reps and many different
exercises to build size.

And the same people will tell you that low
reps (five or less per set) are only good for
building strength.

I find this to be hilarious, because I built
myself from 180 to 225 by doing progressively
heavier singles in most of my exercises -- and
doing five reps per set in a couple of others.

That's 45 pounds of muscle -- and I did it on
a program of heavy singles in the squat, bench
press and deadlift. I trained 3x per week, for
about one hour per session. That sure as heck
isn't "volume training."

That surprises a lot of people, and it certainly
flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

But if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

You see, it's not about volume. It's about hard,
heavy consistent effort -- compound exercises --
progressive poundages -- and the iron will to
succeed.

Frankly, volume talk is a gimmick. What really
counts is adding weight to the bar. As you get
stronger, your muscles become larger and thicker.
And you end up having a good mix of strength and
size.

Many years ago, there was a famous bodybuilder who
followed the pumping method of training. He ended
up looking pretty good and weighing something like
210 or 215 pounds.

But he struggled to perform a single military press
with 180 pounds!

In contrast, John Grimek could military press close
to 300 pounds.

Grimek trained for strength as well as size. He ended
up with both.

The other man trained for size alone -- and that's
all he got.

I like the Grimek approach.

As always, thanks for reading, and have a great
day. If you train today, make it a good one!

Yours in strength,

Brooks Kubik"

well said.. i am also a fan of the heavy approach

 

[RyanF]

Both are useful, for sure. Since I started training, I've gained about 20kg (including up to 5kg fat, so ~15kg fat-free mass). The first of those 10kg came with training in the 8-15 rep range. The last of those 10kg came with seldom going above 5 reps per set on anything other than pull ups and the occasional isolation exercise.

 

[Aiden3121]

Phil Heath says he really dosnt change the amount of reps or weight he pushes when cutting.
His philosophy is that you have worked so hard to be able to push that weight around for 5-10 reps and then your just going to half that wieght and do more reps.
He says he only changes his diet,cardio,and rest time between sets (shorter)
And I also presume he changes his drugs too, if you run cycles

 

[TTT]

I find this to be hilarious, because I built
myself from 180 to 225 by doing progressively
heavier singles in most of my exercises -- and
doing five reps per set in a couple of others.

That's 45 pounds of muscle

good article but... seriously?
why would you make a claim like that?
he gained 20kg of pure muscle did he?

 

[Martigan]

^Here is some credentials, This guy has been in the game a long time.
[YOUTUBE]BXfo_hKO__M[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]zElIxRo1KjE[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]8_i-sX_Bzac[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]Mlc4Tx247eQ[/YOUTUBE]