I've been lifting for a few years on and off, and I've just managed to get seriously back into it again. I want to make sure that I'm making the most of my time, and I get differing opinions when I ask this question:
Are the number of reps, or the time spent on a set more important?
I've lifted based solely on the number of reps per set, increasing my weight on an exercise when I can do 12 reps, and backing off to 8 when I move up in weight. I've also lifted based solely on time, where I time how long I can move a certain weight through an exercise, using a 4 second contraction/4 second expansion/ 2 second rest phase. With that, I'd up the weight when I was too comfortable with it, but keep the time the same.
Additionally, what are your opinions on super-exertion timed reps for mass building? (i.e. 30 to 60 second contraction, 30 to 60 second expansion phases thru an exercise, with only about 75% of your regular set weight)
Are the number of reps, or the time spent on a set more important?
I've lifted based solely on the number of reps per set, increasing my weight on an exercise when I can do 12 reps, and backing off to 8 when I move up in weight. I've also lifted based solely on time, where I time how long I can move a certain weight through an exercise, using a 4 second contraction/4 second expansion/ 2 second rest phase. With that, I'd up the weight when I was too comfortable with it, but keep the time the same.
Additionally, what are your opinions on super-exertion timed reps for mass building? (i.e. 30 to 60 second contraction, 30 to 60 second expansion phases thru an exercise, with only about 75% of your regular set weight)
posted by:
|
Seattle
|
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Mon, November 15, 2004 - 12:42 PMI think your best course is to experiment on yourself and keep records. I think some people have the genetics to handle high reptition and respond well, and others do not. (My personal choice for almost seven years has been short, very slow, lighter-weight sets worked to failure.)
You should also experiment with more time off between workouts, because rest & sleep are also part of the muscle-building equation. In seven years, I've increased the time between my workouts twice because of extended plateaus in my growth, and that has paid off in results and more free time. :) -
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Mon, November 15, 2004 - 12:46 PMGary,
I couldn't agree more. Variation is important. Experiment and keep records. That way you can accurately track progress.
-
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Mon, November 15, 2004 - 2:16 PMI've been taught reps exept in cardio for size time for strength
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Mon, November 15, 2004 - 6:04 PMI'm definitely keeping top shape records, from my sleep to my food to my exercise, so that log book is set. I'll vary things after a couple months, and see if a change in routine improves things.
As for time between, I know how important that is. I don't hit the same group within 4 to 7 days usually, depending on the intensity of my last workout for that group. I used to do whole body workouts, back when I was just lifting once a week for a little more strength in my running, but now I've got targetted group days since I'm working on building some mass.
It's a rough time putting on noticeable mass when you're my size, though. At 6'6", even 15 pounds doesn't look like much. Slow, safe and steady goes my journey... Right now, I'm working with some training software that plans my workouts, my nutritional balance, etc. and it seems to be doing pretty well for me.
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Mon, January 17, 2005 - 11:38 PMDepends on your goals. Might be different for strength vs hypertrophy.
Number of reps will dictate what intensity you can work at and what energy pathways you train. High reps = low intensity, so low training of the sarcomeres, but lots of training of the sarcoplasm. Low reps, assuming you use higher intensity would mean the reverse.
TUT is much debated. What is not debated is that progressive resistance works.
Workout frequency is the holy grail of natural lifters. Lifting to failure destroys your ability to workout frequently.
Superslow is shite.
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Fri, February 25, 2005 - 7:44 PMwhat i have been told by the body builder that runs the gym where my dad works out is this: For small groups you need to do everything very close together and quickly. An example is if you are working your arms you do four sets of weight where you can lift to extinction. You make sure you take only a forty-five second break in between each set. What I have been told is that doing a slow rep really doesn't help you all that much with small muscle groups. The more vigorously you are moving the more blood will flow into those muscles. Plus, you have the added benefit of burning off more calories. When working the small groups it is best if you do all of your workouts within 45 minutes. Because if you are taking more time than that; you are dicking around. (which I have problem of doing). If you are not really used to it; the pain will be ungodly but then you get used to it. The guys at the gym follow his instructions and they are wicked massive. The schedule these guys go on is like this.
Day one:chest
Day Two:Shoulders and Back
Day three:arms
Day Four:legs
Large group days you are supposed to space it out more and take larger breaks between sets because those are groups you don't use all that much. I mean seriously one of the only things you can do with a 300lb bench press is push off a really fat women after a bad night of binge drinking.
When you finish the four day cycle; you take three days off, because if you are doing things right you will need it. -
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Fri, February 25, 2005 - 8:36 PMI do whats called large to small groups
Chest Bi's
Back Tri's
Legs
Shoulders Lats
-
Re: Reps vs. Time
Sat, February 26, 2005 - 1:34 AMLarge mucscle groups are made of the same skeletal muscle tissue as small muscle groups.
How about:
Day one: everything
Day two: everything
Day three: everything
Or for strength:
Day one: half of everything
Day two: the other half
Day three: rest
Day four: half of everything
Day five: the other half
Hell, its not like there are tons of studies that show this. Oh wait, there are:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Mar;35(3):456-64. Related Articles, Links
A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development.
Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA. matthew.rhea@asu.edu
PURPOSE: The identification of a quantifiable dose-response relationship for strength training is important to the prescription of proper training programs. Although much research has been performed examining strength increases with training, taken individually, they provide little insight into the magnitude of strength gains along the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes. A meta-analysis of 140 studies with a total of 1433 effect sizes (ES) was carried out to identify the dose-response relationship. METHODS: Studies employing a strength-training intervention and containing data necessary to calculate ES were included in the analysis. RESULTS: ES demonstrated different responses based on the training status of the participants. Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum elicits maximal gains in untrained individuals, whereas 80% is most effective in those who are trained. Untrained participants experience maximal gains by training each muscle group 3 d.wk and trained individuals 2 d.wk. Four sets per muscle group elicited maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals. CONCLUSION: The dose-response trends identified in this analysis support the theory of progression in resistance program design and can be useful in the development of training programs designed to optimize the effort to benefit ratio.
J Strength Cond Res. 2004 May;18(2):377-82. Related Articles, Links
Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.
Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com
The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.
-
