Low Reps VS High Reps For Muscle Growth

#LowReps #HighReps #MuscleGrowth

[patrickwendling]

I am 58yrs old amateur competitor in men's physique, I find high reps get the job done w/o trashing my joints & soft tissue, As long as I take it very close to failure.. love your videos and knowledge.. thank you

[JosephNJ]

People like Greg, Ryan, and other 'enhanced' bodybuilders have advocated for high reps, 12 to 20 reps or more, I've experimented with it for the last year. For me it sucked; didn't work at all. I went back to 6 to 8, pyramid style, with 12 as a max even for the smaller muscles, and I'm making progress again.

[marcusorillius]

Key to this study NOT mattering is “untrained individuals”. Anything, of course, will work for an untrained person.

[cassolmedia]

"I'll link the study down below" ..main reason I love this channel! not just spouting off information (correct or not) but providing tools to do my own research and the freedom to draw different conclusions! love that I found this channel! keep it up man!

[beardedtyke]

Rep ranges really don’t matter that much. What really matters is proximity to failure or how intense your work is. It’s ok saying something like 6-8 reps is best but that is far too broad. 6-8 is good if your at 2-0 RIR but pretty useless if your 5 RIR. Same goes for any rep range all the way up to 30. For me, I don’t like doing less than 8 and more than 15. 20 for legs. But I train to technical failure or very close. Get strong across different rep ranges, don’t over complicate your exercise selection and train very hard and you’ll be fine.

[segasys]

Great analysis! I would add that one should use this information ultimately not as an end goal but as a means to figure out what works best for your mind and body. If you put your mind to it, after years of lifting you'll seeing patterns in how your body responds to different modes of training. Never stop learning!

[aquamarine]

I seem to recall just hearing that volume was again determined to be the driving factor in hypertrophy (but not strength) in another recent study. But as much fun as it is to move really heavy weight fewer reps, it's a bit dangerous without a spotter if you exercise to failure. More reps/less weight seems the safe, practical, and timesaving solution.

[boxerfencer]

Who were the authors, what was the study called?

[GrantHarris-dfuf]

This just flat worked wonders for me. That's all I have to say. It blew my mind the amount of muscle I started putting on. You got to work to almost failure, meaning it's not a walk in the park. 16-18 reps.. too heavy. Back it off till you're doing 25 -30 and it's getting harder each time. Especially after 3 reps and there's 2 to go.
Good luck

[charlesjarman-price]

Always simple and well explained info. Thanks Layne.

[alec]

I don’t like doing high rep ranges because my conditioning and cardio pales compared to my strength. If I do more than 15 reps and I still have plenty of reps in reserve, I get tired before the target muscle. So I usually prioritize progressive overload between 8-12 reps per set with 1-2 reps in reserve. My last set which is typically my 4th, I either do a drop set or use the same weight to failure just so I know what failure feels like. If I could do 8 reps with certain weight, that means I’m at the correct weight. If I could do more than 8, that’s how I know I’m getting stronger. If I could do 12 for most of my sets then I move up weight and test if I could reach 8 reps with a heavier load.

[AlexanderMoen]

"I'll link to the study in the description."
Description: *crickets*

[LeoandLongevity]

Layne, where did you do your undergrad and grad degrees?

[folsomatgranitebay]

I’m 54, been lifting as consistently as I can for 8 years, I do both high/low reps. But you’re not going to PR on a weight if you don’t lift heavy consistently for awhile….which perplexes me..if I PR on a lift and try again in 2-3 weeks and fail..obviously lost strength..did I loose muscle?!?

[wishbone]

Just for the heck of it I will throw this out there. I am 76 and training for 62 years and still doing it. When I cut, I do 15 12 10 8 6. I often split this into thirds for normal training. 15 12 10 for endurance or 12 10 8 for growth or 10 8 6 for strength. How long you cycle these is up to you.

[kapuaalakapikola]

Quick clarification: wouldn’t (weight)(reps)(sets) = tonnage? Isn’t volume expressed as (sets)(reps)?

[abracadabra]

So basically, it's a choice between: do you want to be big? Or do you want to be big AND strong

[busta]

the really effective volume = reps where motor recruitment ist highest and contraction speed is low.its the last 5 reps of a set to failure, but not those of a really high rep set because then cns fatigue happens and high motor unit recruitment cant be achieved.
and come on a study with untrained. untrained people react to anything.

[davidstevenson]

W hat were the differences in rest periods and/or intervals.

[jarilo]

Aren't high reps better in that case since you are able to do more overall volume? If you have 45 minutes to train, you can do a 10x10 with 50-60% that will get you far more volume then 5x5. The limiting factor in real life is either time or recovery but it is never volume and higher reps give more volume and are easier to recover from. You can always do another set, whether you have the time or recovery capacity or not is a different issue.