April 2020
Should you take the high-reps at a moderate weight route or follow the low-reps using heavy weight protocol? This is a great debate, one that's been going on long before I got into the iron game and will be continuing long after, I'm sure. To not have a go at answering this at least once is to do one's self a disservice so, I narrow the answer down to one very simple and very straight-forward question: what is your goal? That's it.
HIGH REPS at a MODERATE WEIGHT
This is the standard body-builder's program and the reason it continues being so is because it works. For most people. Which probably means it will work for you but what do we mean by "work"? Well, it gets you big. Or to be more specific, it gets most people physically bigger. You will build considerable size and muscle mass on this program style, especially if you start young -- more so if you eat right, sleep right and recover right. Which you probably already know.
Extra more so if you wear string singlets though.
...and, if you're genetically blessed. If you're genetically blessed you just need to think about lifting and you grow!
Does this mean high-reps at a moderate weight won't get you strong? Of course not. The average body-builder is very strong, easily stronger than 80% of the male population if not higher. Bigger muscles always equate to stronger muscles and yes, even professional body-builders juiced up on roids and carrying far, far too much muscle mass are strong. Most of them unbelievably so. Look, you don't get to 200+ pounds injecting drugs and lifting weights years on end without getting strong.
Even chewbacca knows that (go on, click the link).
But note the focus of the high-reps, moderate weight-style program: it is overwhelmingly on size gains. As stated elsewhere, body-building is focused on building the body up i.e. getting bigger whereas, say, Olympic lifting and/or power-lifting is focused on getting physically stronger. In this latter skill-set one's size is only relevant in terms of how it contributes towards over-all strength and even then, both Olympic and power-lifting meets have body-weight categories anyway. Bodybuilding is all about getting bigger.
Remember that another reason the high-rep, moderate scheme is so effective in muscle development is the increased time under tension (TUT). The longer a muscle is under tension, the more stress it's placed under and it's this stress which causes the muscle -- not during the actual exercise but later, whilst you're recovering and at rest -- to grow. Hence the reason you need off days and why there's a multi-million dollar industry offering supplements "guaranteed" to feed nutrients to said muscles for "spectacular" growth.
Yeah right.
People using a body-building scheme often go to failure too and that's not a bad idea if you really are using moderate weight and only hitting said muscle once, possibly twice, a week -- understanding that different individuals can do more than some and recover just as well. You have to be sensible in your programming if you incorporate a going-to-failure protocol I mean, it would be silly hitting arms one day and the following day doing rows, which rely heavily on your (now exhausted) arms!
THE REASON BODY-BUILDERS ON THE JUICE DO SO MANY REPS AND SETS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE JUICE. WHICH IS WHY FOLLOWING A BODY-BUILDER'S PROGRAM IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE WORST SCHEME FOR DRUG-FREE LIFTERS.
So what does a high-rep, moderate weight program look like? The general consensus is anything between 8-15reps per set but personally I consider high-reps to be anything 10-15reps per set. I have no idea why and base this on nothing more than personal bias. How many sets? Anywhere between 3-5, if not higher. As for what moderate weight looks like, the best way to figure that is to do, say, a 3x10 scheme and work out what weight you're able to move for said sets/reps.
If you get to the end of your third set and still feel you could do more, you're "moderate" weight is too light. If you get to the end of your third set and you're grinding it out -- or worse, you don't actually make all reps in your last set -- your "moderate" weight is too heavy. So you'll have to tweak and play round a little bit but so you should. There's no, one-size fits all here because we're all different individuals with different strength levels, goals and time under the bar. Chur.
Take-home point: if it's a size increase you're interested in then it's highly likely a high-rep, moderate weight focus is the way to go. You will physically increase in size and you will get a lot stronger. Understand too that "moderate" doesn't mean light. Doing twenty squats at 80kg is a warm-up for your average bodybuilder whereas for a lot of people -- myself included -- it's a horrible, horrible experience. I hate high-reps anything and look, even chewbacca knows that.
LOW REPS at a HEAVY WEIGHT
Low reps at a heavy weight on the other hand is the standard protocol for Olympic lifters and power-lifters. Sure, they may throw in volume work here and there -- can't stand volume work either -- using lighter weights and yep, they may incorporate bodybuilding protocols to bring up lagging areas, but their focus is always improved strength. Along with that, they also wish to improve their ability to move a heavy weight very quickly (i.e. explosiveness). Dragging shit out is not part of the program.
If you see an Olympic lifter, a power-lifter or even a cross-fitter doing calf-raises or hamstring curls it's not for aesthetics, its to improve the supporting musculature that contributes towards a given lift -- usually a compound exercise, let's face it. These people are focused first and foremost on strength which is my own focus (even though I'm sure they all warm-up with my max), as health and longevity are very important to me. Staying strong as I grow even older will and does enable me to get the most out of life.
I know that sounds cliche but trust me, it's true; having suffered a heart-attack which is debilitating on several levels not least on your physical size, strength and endurance, staying strong and healthy has hit home in a whole new way. I really would like to see my sons grow up and if possible, see and hold their children, my yet to be grand-children. I'd like that. So I really do need to stay strong, exercise and keep moving. I really do need to eat well and be conscious of how I'm treating myself.
...and you know what?
So do you.
So what does a low-rep, heavy weight program look like? Well, let's look at what we mean by "heavy weight" because that's going to be different for everyone. Firstly, disregard any and all -- even my own -- charts, tables, graphs or sites which set out strength standards stating that people at such-and-such a weight (or height) should be moving x-amount of weight. Just focus on what heavy looks like to you and start there. That's the main thing. If a 30kg benchpress is heavy for you then okay, it's heavy for you, let's work from there.
As anyone in the iron game will tell you, comparison is not your friend.
Now low-reps are anything from 1-5reps only we'd call 1-rep a single, 2-reps a double and 3-reps a triple. I've always come back to this protocol and now do it exclusively, even to the detriment of physical size and aesthetic appeal. Yep, that could change one day, but if or when it does it will either be due to the low-rep, heavy weight protocol getting too much for me or because I won't enjoy it any more (I have several programs I can cycle round should this happen).
For those wish to follow the low-rep, heavy weight scheme I'd recommend a 3x3 or a 5x2 (three sets of three reps or five sets of two reps) for working sets to begin with, and find your way from there. A 5x1 at 90% of your 1RM can be good too. The main mantra to keep front and centre is the heavier the weight, the less reps you do, the more recovery you need and hence, permit yourself anywhere from 2-5 minutes between sets to allow your glycogen stores to recharge. Focus on speed.
What that means is pressing the weight up fast or exploding up out of the hole (not to be confused with an intimate act, the "hole" is simply the bottom of the squat whereby you now need to reverse direction and stand back up -- don't blame me, I have no idea who comes up with these terms). Note you're not somehow inexplicably bound to low-rep, heavy weight protocols I mean, if you want to throw in wrist curls and neck raises then be my guest. Plenty of lifters develop their own hybrids.
Does this mean you won't gain size using a low-rep, heavy weight focus? Of course not. You will gain size in fact, it's impossible not to, but very slowly or at least, not as fast (usually) as those on a high-rep, moderate weight scheme. I also tend to think the muscle developed with heavier weight is more "dense" but then, that could be my imagination...running away from me. A lot of the cross-fit community will say strength-training is superior due it being "functional fitness" but hey, if you're a natural doing a bodybuilding split you won't suddenly be "un-functional". I'd just be happy you were lifting weights.
Take-home point: if it's strength you want, going with a low-rep, heavy-weight style of lifting is the right protocol for you. It's been around a long, long time and proven its worth as many an Olympic lifter will testify too. Just keep in mind that "heavy" is subjective and comparison is not your friend; go with what is heavy for you. Just remember to rest between sets, include day's off and perhaps work out after you've eaten so that your body has a ready energy-source to burn through. Up to you, kemosabe, up to you.
:: CONCLUSION
Here's the thing: some body-builders both natural and on the juice do exceptionally well using a low-rep, heavy weight program. Some power-lifters do exceptionally well in bodybuilding, probably because they're power-lifting developed the muscularity needed -- bodybuilding protocols simply accentuated and delineated their physiques. It must also be said that a lot of lifters from both worlds create an effective middle-line between the two (think Mike O'Hearn).
Now at the beginning of this article I said you needed to know your goal and if you haven't clicked by now, the options are either A) being size-slash-hypertrophy focused or B) being strength-focused. As you can probably tell, whilst there are clear differences between the protocols used by each, there are also many instances where those lines blur, and often instances where they probably need to blur. I don't think it's necessary to say either is mutually exclusive of the other.
A power-lifter working on isolation movements that bring their triceps up -- for an increased bench -- is an example of line blurring. A body-builder developing explosiveness so as to develop greater strength is another example. What I didn't cover is there's actually a third field of weight-training, one which is endurance focused and incorporates lighter weights (you may be aware how light weight-training can also play a role in physical rehabilitation and is recommended by chiropractors and sport physicians).
Now, I do seem to be reading more and more from netspurts recommending a high-rep, lighter weight protocol for lifters in the 50+ age bracket. This is usually explained as being due to slower recovery times, injuries, strength reductions, protecting tendons and ligaments etcetera which is all good. It certainly sounds sensible and is most likely necessary for quite a few of my fellow lifters. But. You also need to do what you most enjoy and guess what? Some people may not actually enjoy this protocol.
I most enjoy low-reps, heavy weight. My work-out's are short, sharp and simple. This is working very well for me. I am getting stronger. I can still do this. Thus it seems to escape the attention of my peers us "oldies" can use this protocol well into our twilight years simply by reducing the weight we use over time I mean, when I was squatting 140kg, I didn't expect to be doing the same weight when I was 70. Hell, if I can squat my own body-weight when I'm 70 I'll be the happiest lifter alive!
Even chewbacca knows that. Kia kaha, whanau.
△
© ironkiwi.nz