Quote:
Originally Posted by FETCHER.
(Post 1269333)
Um, why would a body builder train for endurance? They don't need to do anything except hold poses.
|
8-14 isn't an endurance based repetition range, it's smack bang in the middle of strength reps and endurance reps. It is not as black and white as 4-6 repetitions for size and strength, anything over is for endurance. There's a chunk in the middle which targets size that you're ignoring.
Muscle hypertrophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Muscle hypertrophy involves an increase in size of skeletal muscle through an increase in the size of its component cells. Hypertrophy can be broken down into two types of categories: myofibril and sarcoplasmic. Each of these specific types of muscle hypertrophy will result in increasing size of cells, but not of equal effect. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is focused on increasing the actual size of the muscle, and less on increasing strength. Myofibril hypertrophy will focus more on strength increase and less on an increase in the size of the skeletal muscle.
|
So bodybuilders aim for that, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, i.e. increasing the size of the muscle. It is accepted that the lower end of the rep range is for strength and explosiveness i.e. myofibril hypertrophy, sprinters train this way, as do boxers and any athlete who would need to stay in a certain weight class and doesn't want to gain extra bulk but wants to improve strength, i.e. pound for pound strength.
Bodybuilders are unique in athletics as they do not train for strength, therefore pretty much every athlete who lifts weights, other than a bodybuilder, would train in the 4-6 range or even less.
Quote:
I am being deadly serious, I study this ****. 4-6 reps are for strength and with strength comes size, it's common sense...
|
But to gain
size you do not train for
strength, they are different goals. You will get bigger doing 4-6 reps per set, yes, but it is not the best rep range for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, it won't maximise it. Likewise, you will get stronger doing 8-14, but it is not the most effective rep range for strength. If you wanted to get stronger, you would be told to train with low reps, high weight, mass would follow, but not to the same extent as it would if you were training to achieve sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and to achieve sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, you would generally base your routine around higher repetitions than 4-6, closer to 8-14, source:
Bodybuilding.com - What Is The Best Rep And Set Range For Building Muscle?
Quote:
Bodybuilders have known intuitively for decades that high volume training is the quickest way to big muscles. When bodybuilding split from Olympic weightlifting in the 1940s, most serious musclemen began training with higher reps and multiple sets (Fair, 1999). It's not because they "felt like it". It's because they saw that it worked.
|
Quote:
There is an inverse link between strength gains and hypertrophy (Sale, 1992). When you lift weights, your muscles learn to work better (through neural adaptation) and you become stronger. However, your body recruits less muscle fibre the more it adapts (Ploutz et al, 1994). And the less muscle fibre you stimulate, the less you grow.
Trained Olympic lifters, for example, were shown over a two-year period to have significant strength increases with barely noticeable increases in muscle mass (Hakkinen et al, 1988). I had a similar experience when I used AST's Max-OT principals. My strength went up like crazy, but I gained very little size.
Obviously, traditional strength training with low volume and low sets (1-6 reps, 3 or less sets) is not the best approach. Strength training does cause hypertrophy (Hakkinen et al, 1985), but it won't cause maximum hypertrophy.
|
Quote:
High volume, multiple set programs (6-12 reps, 3 to 6 sets) have been shown to create greater hypertrophy for two important reasons:
The higher workload is more effective at creating microtrauma because of the extra time under tension and extra number of fibres recruited (Shinohara et al, 1998; Smith & Rutherford, 1995; Moss et al, 1997)
High volume, multiple set programs are more effective at increasing the body's production of testosterone and growth hormone (Kraemer et al, 1991; Kraemer et al 1990)
|
Rep Out: The Truth About Rep Ranges And Muscle Growth | Muscle & Strength
Quote:
Moderate Reps
This rep range is typically defined as the 6-12 rep range. Moderate rep ranges have consistently been proven in study after study to lead to the greatest amount of growth. The reason that this rep range is so effective for building muscle is because it does a little bit a everything.
|
All about rep range: Bodybuilding vs. powerlifting | Blog
Quote:
The difference in muscle “look” is largely due to the different training styles but it is not entirely clear why. Strength athletes (I’ll admit I am using a very broad phrase here) rarely exceed the 1-5 rep range, choosing the training that helps them develop muscles to the strongest degree by targeting the type II fibers almost exclusively. Most (most, not all) bodybuilders, on the other hand, tend to focus on the 8-12 rep range.
|
Quote:
The lower 1-5 rep range tends to be the range where myofibrillar hypertrophy is maximized. This means more contractile proteins being built – more actual “structures” being put in place – increasing the density of the muscle. Obviously this also means more strength capability. The higher 8-12 rep range tends to maximize sarcoplasmic hypertrophy – the expansion of the sarcoplasm liquid
|
Quote:
I will upload photos of my own notes and papers if you need me to. I study sports and fitness which is a mixture between training to become a PT and a sports coach, half of my whole working week is dedicated to spending time in the gym and learning all different techniques (like compound and isolated exercises, free weight exercises and various other techniques for becoming 'healthy' or helping the client achieve certain goals.) I will come back in here when I go on my laptop and go through your weekly exercise regime. I don't think I know best either, I'm just telling you what I've been learning which is approved by the Scottish qualifications authority. In something like sports and fitness loads of people have loads of different ideas, so when you use the Internet you're gonna become likely to read a lot of it. I'm not saying its bs, I'm just suggesting it might not be as effective.
|
I think where the confusion has come in, is that both rep ranges improve strength and increase size, but both are for different goals and improve either goal to different effects. Bodybuilders are not strength athletes so you wouldn't tell one to train like a strength athlete. So it is true what you're saying, that strength follows mass, that is scientific fact and widely accepted, but it doesn't work to the extent where you train
for strength to
increase mass, because if that were the case all powerlifters and bodybuilders of equal weight would have equal strength but they don't, powerlifters are much stronger yet they're not bigger.
4-6 reps will increase muscle size in the same way sprinting will increase stamina. You wouldn't tell a marathon runner to do sprints, because they are different goals, this is generally speaking of course.
8-14 has been proven to maximise sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, I don't see why we're disagreeing over this.
Anything over 15+ would be endurance based. I have not looked at a gymnast's routine but I'd be willing to bet it'd be a combination of repetitions over 15+ with their own bodyweight, and under 6, because they would train for endurance and strength.
