10 reps is a meme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKDYfRtfqng

>>40734967

It isn't a meme.

There's an important part of that 8x3 vs 3x8 study that people forget: the 8x3 guys felt wrecked, the 3x8 guys were begging to be allowed to do more work. Since volume is a major driver of gains and higher reps usually allow you to get away with more volume, they become really fucking useful in the longer term.

What if I don't want hypertrophy?

>>40735004
What are you, gay?

>>40734980
>Intensity over time is also a meme
>"hypertrophic outcomes are similar when training with repetition durations ranging from 0.5 to 8 s"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25601394

>>40734998
Did you even read the study?

Both groups did 4 sets.

"participants were randomly assigned to either a high-volume (VOL; n = 14, 4 × 10–12 repetitions with ∼70% of one repetition maximum [1RM], 1-min rest intervals) or a high-intensity (INT; n = 15, 4 × 3–5 repetitions with ∼90% of 1RM, 3-min rest intervals) training group for 8 weeks"

>>40734998
>"volume is a major driver of gains"

Complete bullshit. If this were the case people would be doing sets of 30+ reps for higher volume.

>>40735023
I mean
a little?

>>40734998
3x8 and 3x8 is meant to be done with the same weight. so 8x3 should be less exhausting

>>40735004
Do 3-5 reps and don't enter a caloric surplus

>>40735061

There's an upper limit on how much you can drop the load before most of the set stops being useful reps and you end up having to take everything to failure to get anything effective done. That usually works out to about 60% of 1RM, give or take a bit.

There's a fucking reason that the strongest people train with a huge amount of overall volume and the effective strength training programs are high on overall workload.

nothing about 8 reps in there. 8 reps is better than both

>>40734967
You should just do a mix, low reps and heavy on compounds and go for higher reps for volume on accessories

>>40735004
>/fit/
>I don't want to build muscle

>>40735087
>"There's a reason the strongest people train with a huge volume"

Yes, there is. But it's not because "volume is a major driver of gains". This is just moronic.

It's because of the training principle of progressive overload. If you're a beginner you have no reason to workout at such huge volumes. The reason they workout at such high volumes is because they need to constantly be increasing their workload to continue making gains. Even so, they don't reduce weights and increase the number of reps to increase the volume they shift. They stick to heavy weights and low reps and just increase the number of sets/exercises.

>>40735064
That's fine, I'm gay too

>>40734998
It's all about time under tension.

>>40735108
Why? It's easy to say this but can you scientifically back it up?

>>40735137

Very few strength competitors train with low reps constantly. Most of those that do have it only making up a relatively small portion of their total volume.

>>40735149
Can you? One study is not """scientific backing""" when there are plenty of other studies which have differing conclusions.

>>40735147
>It's all about time under tension.
Unfortunately it isn't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25601394

>>40735061

The biggest guy ive seen on youtube has videos where hes doing literally 8 hours of arms, so maybe there is something to it. i forget his name though

>>40735162
Find studies with differing conclusions then?
I've given my sources, can you give one of yours??

>>40735149
I AM THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

I AM THE LAW.

>>40735165
yes and im sure steroids play no part in your theory at all

>>40735171
>source

ftfy

File: image.png (463KB, 1280x1261px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1280x1261px

>>40735061

A more correct assessment is that volume is a major driver of gains IF the workload is in excess of normal loads for that individual.

So, lifting a remote control one thousand times a day every day probably won't do anything, but lifting a 100 lb box 5 times a day will contribute to gains for a while until that becomes the new normal.

The body addapts to what it sees as recurring events. Volume sends the single that something is recurring.

File: _20170309_140517.jpg (43KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x497px

>>40735147
>2017
>still believing this meme

>>40735171
The problem revolves around no one wanting to list sources to dispute you because this is common knowledge in the bodybuilding world. The fact that you're playing ignorant to the facts that some anons are trying to disclose to you makes ya seem like a dyel

I mean, i love lifting heavy, but ya gotta go for those low reps too.

In sports """science""" you can find a study to say whatever you want.
http://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/bodybuilding-study-rep-ranges-dont-matter

File: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png (147KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x960px

>>40735189
>I can't back up what I'm saying so I'll correct his post.
>What is Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Here's two more.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12436270
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714538

>>40735195
Finally someone who knows his shit. Thank you

>>40735195
Exactly, progressive overload as mentioned in >>40735137

Increasing intensity to submaximal weightloads via increasing bar speed and reducing momentum from the eccentric is better for progress than trying to set pr's for 5rm all the time. You'll be still doing progressive overload but staying below your maxes. Also do overloaded eccentrics with push presses and dumbbell floor press-to-flies, snatch grip high pulls and such.

>>40735235
>nothing about 3-5 reps

>>40735165
Bitch "Better Have My Money" Rihanna

>>40735244
>What is Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
A load of bullshit. Inb4 Roko's Basilisk is philosophically legit and an actual worry.

>>40735265
Increasing bar speed and reducing momentum from the eccentric is more a matter of form than anything. You can do 5rm with this in mind.

>>40735284
>Still ducking the argument

Going to refute the central point or just avoid it for a while longer? Still waiting on those sources..

>>40735213
>common knowledge in the bodybuilding world
aka absolutely meme tier shit popularized by roided up faggots that need to sell their 'revolutionary' techniques and methods to naive teenagers like you

>>40735213
>I mean, i love lifting heavy, but ya gotta go for those low reps too.

I don't actually know what you're supporting here.. "gotta go for those low reps too" makes it sound like you support the 3-5 rep argument, but the rest of your reply makes it look like you are for 10-12 reps.

Anyway, >>40735322 is correct. Just because a bunch of people who took roids and made gains says something is true, doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is all the scientific research points toward 3-5 reps being superior.

Prove me wrong. Please don't say "it's common knowledge" or "because famous youtuber xyz said so". Send some legitimate sources.

>>40735322
yes please go into a gym and start pressing 5 reps. that's a great idea. the surgeon repairing your pec will use that insurance cash to cop more white girl anyway....

>>40735365
>I'm too dumb to properly pick something up therefore science is wrong

>>40735365
You have literally never been in a gym if you believe this.
2/10 bait though, made me reply

>>40735376
I love the sound of grown men crying when they tear their quad. I hope all the newbies listen so my ears can be satisfied daily.

>>40735386
You've never been to the newbie gyms where they herniated multiple discs in the gym pretty much biweekly and threaten to sue.

My right shoulder was injured and im getting back to benching and i feel like i only get activation in the injured area by doing high volume (12-15 reps) otherwise i start cheating with form to use the stronger side. What should i keep doing ? Right front delt severely athtropied and pec trying to take over.

>>40735392
I love the sound of grown men crying when they get no gains . I hope all the menshealth readers listen so my ears can be satisfied daily.

File: le russian man of many many sets.jpg (183KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x853px

>American scientists just now finding out what European coaches have known for decades
>implying it's rep range and not number of sets that matters most
You guys even have Bob Takano who knew this, yet somehow you disregard a great weightlifting coach and listen to roiding memester bodybuilders when designing your programs... why?!?

>>40735403
>noobs train with too high weight and terrible form therefore science is wrong

>>40735435
haha no gains
who do you think came up with the phrase eat clen tren hard

men's health faggits can eat shit with their shitty insertions and babi doses

>>40735420
Pretty good bait, you lost on "pec trying to take over"

>>40734967
more i read about sets and reps the more i think it comes down to genetics and food

>>40735474
Lifting itself is about 10% of making gains. For some reason people are fixated on the lifting part and almost ignore the eating/sleeping/roids/genes part.

Even with food, people overestimate the value of protein and underestimate the value of calories.

>Those guys that lift every day and the only change they make to their diet is a protein shake.
>extra 120 cals

>>40735488
yeah man agreed.
fwiw I think 5 reps is a pretty good number for compounds. I wouldn't want to do bicep curls with that intensity

>>40735235
>Incline leg press
>Machine guided knee extension
>Machine guided shoulder press

The only exercise they used in this study that's valid for measuring strength is bench press. Funnily enough, when looking at the bench press, the low-rep group had significantly better strength gains than the high-rep group...

>>40735488
>120 cals
yea maybe like a blend or concentrate, if that. More like a flat 100.

File: 1483584545340.png (194KB, 448x468px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 448x468px

>do low reps for an entire year
>almost no visible progress
>start doing it the bro way, high reps
>start to look better and better
Just don't listen to /fit/, I could care less about studies tbqh, there's literally nothing you can do to meme me again into doing low reps, such a fucking waste of time

>>40735580
>muh personal experience takes credibility away from peer reviewed journal articles

You're like the smoker that says research is bullshit because he doesn't have cancer yet.

If you did low reps for a year with no visible progress then i guarantee you were doing something wrong, whether it be your caloric intake, sleep or workouts.

Go to the doctor bro, maybe you have low test?

File: STRENGTH BASE.png (194KB, 449x449px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 449x449px

>>40735596
You do realize that -one- study doesn't mean anything unless it's has been replicated several times, right ?
>If you did low reps for a year with no visible progress then i guarantee you were doing something wrong
I wasn't doing anything wrong.

But whatever, you already sound mad and started projecting. Maybe you look like pic related (10+ years of strength training with elite numbers) wooooow woooow this guys looks so good LMAO

>>40735580
>do low reps for an entire year
>almost no visible progress
t. low test cuck

File: how-to-get-swimmers-body-workout.jpg (69KB, 534x800px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 534x800px

>>40735622
WOOOOW and this is how a random swimmer looks like WOOOW it's like... it's... like... strength training is a stupid meme that WILL make you deformed, WOOOOOOOOOOOW
>>40735629
Nope

>>40735622
>one study
>he didn't read the whole thread for the other studies

I posted several studies. Please find even one study that disagrees with me?

>>40735622
Sure bro, you changed absolutely nothing but the number of reps per set and out of nowhere you suddenly got gains. Do high reps also make a caloric surplus unneccessary because of that? Since you obviously were not eating more.

>this fat guy with bad lighting and a stupid pose looks bad
Woah.
Also do you unironically claim that this guy would get better insertions and muscle shape if he did higher reps? If not, his looks are in no way result of the fucking rep range he uses.

>it's just one study therefore my anecdotal evidence is more scientific and true
Convinced!

>>40735639
>swimmers don't roid or do weight training
Your arguments are flawless.

File: 1309825827800.png (137KB, 267x303px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 267x303px

>>40735663
Neither of which have been replicated.
>>40735670
It's not a fat guy, it's candito
>>it's just one study therefore my anecdotal evidence is more scientific and true
Nice strawman
>>40735678
Please prove to me that swimmer does low rep weight training I'll wait

File: d8a749d11bcf9dfc83e17ac8c8f00a2c.jpg (42KB, 435x750px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 435x750px

Yeah FUCKING HIGH REPS MEME, this guy probably squats and deadlift a lot right KEK

>>40735639
Only professional swimmers look like this, I often go to the pool bc my brother likes to swim so I just Hang round, there are people swimming 2 hours straight and look nothing like what you posted, many of the have small guts and almost no visible muscle mass

File: 1489715207825.jpg (69KB, 872x872px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 872x872px

*does strength training*

>>40735694
>using a swimmer as an example of hypertrophy and strength gains
>neither of which

you do realise in the replies i posted three sources that all carry out very similar methods and all come to the conclusion that low rep is superior?

People that use singular examples and personal experiences to ague with scientific research are the most moronic people.

File: 1489605438034.jpg (94KB, 977x436px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 977x436px

At least we can all agree that 6-7 reps will achieve nothing, right?

>>40735722
but he looks good

>>40735702
fug do I have to do 6 hours of cardio a day too to look like this?

File: main-qimg-61ea734aae0ba1633e02ff1dda68e975.jpg (78KB, 484x750px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 484x750px

>>40735726
If you knew anything about 'scientific research' you would know that one non-replicated study with such as small sample size is pretty much irrelevant.

>People that use singular examples and personal experiences to ague with scientific research are the most moronic people.
Except there's not scientific research in what you are posting.
Also I'll just keep posting some swimmers

>>40735639
>I found a pic of a good looking swimmer - that proves 10reps are better than 5

>>40735694
>It's not a fat guy, it's candito
It's not a fat guy, it's Jason Blaha.

>Please prove to me that swimmer does low rep weight training I'll wait
You claimed that swimmers look is somehow proof of (and therefore related to) the superiority of high rep ranges - you prove that first, then someone will maybe care disproving you. As it stands you simply made a baseless claim that contradicts science. You post some proof.

>>40735702
>look guise this guy has a nice chest therefore low rep training for squats and deadlifts is a meme and science is wrong!!!

>>40735702

You know professional athletes do training regimes outwith their sport, right?

Are you this naive, or possibly new?

>>40735137
what did he meant by this

http://www.strongerbyscience.com/more-is-more/

training volume about a certain threshold is the most important important factor in making gains, and if beginners train with high volumes (that they can still recover from, which means some type of periodization and not LP) they will make greater gains than they would have on low volume routines

>Even so, they don't reduce weights and increase the number of reps to increase the volume

plenty of powerlifters do this exact thing, look up phase potentiation

you run a higher volume lower intensity hypertrophy block, into a heavier peaking peaking block with higher specificity

>>40735780
>one non-replicated study
three studies that carry out the same methods and come to the same conclusions*

The best part is you won't even find studies that disagree with me.

Your posts are slowly turning into bait.

For anyone reading this, TLDR - 3-5 reps is ideal for strength/hypertrophy (backed up with multiple sources), and not one person has managed to prove this wrong with a peer reviewed journal article.

File: epic.png (130KB, 396x381px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 396x381px

>>40735792
>>I found a pic of a good looking swimmer - that proves 10reps are better than 5
Can you find ONE natty guy who does strength training and looks good ? I can't

>You claimed that swimmers look is somehow proof of (and therefore related to) the superiority of high rep ranges - you prove that first
He swimmers, he swims, that's why he looks like that.
>>40735795
Prove to me he's a professional athlete who does low rep strength training, oh wait you can't

>>40735800
>>40735805

also, there's this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24714538/

7x3 and 3x10 yielded the same size gains, but 7x3 yielded better strength gains

this is where the rippetards come in and make the conclusion that low reps are superior for all purposes

the difference is, the 7x3 group was burned out and the protocol was absolutely brutal, they could not possibly have done more

the 3x10 group had a piss easy time and wanted to train more, and the differences in strength gained could be explained by lack of specificity to 1rm effort for the sets of 10 group

so no, sets of 3-5 are not ideal for hypertrophy in practical application, which is why there are marked differences between hypertrophy and strength programs

File: maxresdefault.jpg (392KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1920x1080px

>>40735805
You can destroy a strength enthusiast with 3 words. Look..


Post your physique.

>>40735800
I don't disagree with the theory of progressive overload. I never did.

You sent me a blog post where groups basically increase the number of sets they do while sticking to the same weight.
>One group did 1 set of squats to failure with 80%.
>One group did 4 sets of squats to failure with 80%.
>One group did 8 sets of squats to failure with 80%.
Is this supposed to mean anything? It's obvious that increasing sets = better gains... All of these people would have been doing 3-5 reps per set. This does not support the GENERAL idea that higher volume = better gains. Intensity is a key factor (another principle of training). If this were the case, why would 3 sets of 100 reps of 10kg (3000kg workload) not be superior to 3 sets of 10 for 40kg (1200kg workload)?

I'm familiar with phase potentiation; this is not an example of it.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (121KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1920x1080px

Why do they all look so round and ugly ?
Is strength training linked with severe autism ?

>>40735871
I already said intensity is a key factor - "training volume above a certain threshold"

>it's obvious that increasing sets = better gains

...because more sets = more volume

that's a large part of what increasing training volume is, doing more sets

>If this were the case, why would 3 sets of 100 reps of 10kg (3000kg workload) not be superior to 3 sets of 10 for 40kg (1200kg workload)?

i already explained this, volume needs to be done above a certain threshold or it causes fatigue without causing significant training effect

i have no idea why you are so fixated on high volume necessarily being high reps, this is not the case at all

you can achieve high volume with low reps or higher reps, but saying volume is not the biggest factor in making gains is wrong

>>40735828
So let me get this straight..
I post a few studies that support my argument, and you post a different study and explain to me why the study you posted is bullshit?

Check the original source.
>4 sets of 3-5 reps had better gains than 4 sets of 10-12.

Also, where are you getting this information from?
> the 7x3 group was burned out and the protocol was absolutely brutal, they could not possibly have done more
>the 3x10 group had a piss easy time and wanted to train more

Is this completely opinion?

>>40735871
also you are not familiar with phase potentiation, or you would understand that running a higher rep hypertrophy block into a peaking block is the most common application of it

build the muscular base, then teach it how to fire most efficiently

>>40735913
More volume is better so long as you take into account the other principles of training. Suggesting that more volume = more gains is just silly though when we can both agree trading volume for intensity yields better results.

You are suggesting that volume is the biggest factor yet saying that if you do massive amounts of volume and ignore the other principles of training, you won't make gains.

>>40735919
>running a higher rep hypertrophy block into a peaking block is the most common application of it
...In (modern) American strength training methodology*

>>40735919
I am most certainly familiar with it. I'm also familiar with the fact that it is yet to become an official principle of training due to lack of research and proof that it's real.

>>40734967
Uh yeah, that's why rest pause and myoreps are superior. I thought this was known since forever? Oh right, this is neo-/fit/, nevermind.

>>40735916
http://www.lift-run-bang.com/2014/05/q-with-dr-israetel-of-renaissance.html

"A perfect example of this is Brad Schoenfeld's recent study on this very topic. You could draw any number of conclusions from his study, all of which are correct:
A.) You can grow the same from low or high reps, so long as volume is equated.
B.) Low rep, high weight, moderate volume training beats the crap out of you.
C.) High rep, moderate weight training is just as effective in growing muscle but is FAR MORE time efficient and less fatiguing too.
If you leave out part of the story, you can generate the wrong conclusion and say that low rep high weight, moderate volume training should be done by bodybuilders, but you'll really just leave a ton of hurt or overreached people in your wake."
>>40735942
no, I am not suggesting any of this

I am telling you, that based on every study ever conducted on lifting, volume is the most important factor provided it is above a certain intensity threshold

we can go to the autistic extreme and say that repping the bar for 20x20 will not produce gains, but that's not a real argument and assuming that hypertrophy routines entail repping 95lbs forever on the bench is why /fit/ is volume phobic and stays small

>>40735946
yes

the russians do a fair amount of higher rep stuff, but it's usually in accessories in conjunction with doing all the main lifts

>>40735958
you believe that making your muscles bigger won't help you lift more weight? pissening

>>40735813
>Can you find ONE natty guy who does strength training and looks good ? I can't
What you can or can not find doesn't matter in the slightest and surely isn't disproving science.

>He swimmers, he swims, that's why he looks like that.
And that's why he isn't an argument in this debate about rep ranges in weight training. But thanks for highlighting how stupid and irrelevant that point was>>40735813
>Prove to me he's a professional athlete who does low rep strength training, oh wait you can't
Prove to me he's a non-professional athlete who does high rep 'hypertrophy training', oh wait you can't. And while you're at it you can also prove that the look of his muscles or his insertions would change if he did high rep 'hypertrophy training' and replaced it (no changes in volume or diet) with low rep strength training.

>>40734967
>3-5 minutes rest between sets results in better gains than 1-2 minutes rest
>people actually fell for the 10-12 reps meme
im gonna go ahead and take a guess that OP is dyel as fuck

>>40736001
You see it also for example in Norwegian programming. I believe it's because many Americans have let themselves be influenced by bodybuilding rather than weightlifting.

>>40735890
>>40735836
>they have shit genetics for aesthetics
>it's the strength training, r-right

>>40735813
>Prove to me he's a professional athlete who does low rep strength training
You're the one who claimed he doesn't, the burden of proof is on you. Prove he doesn't.

>>40736021
Dietmar was an olympic coach for West Germany in the 80s, wasn't he?

both systems work, both produce champions, the difference between them is probably irrelevant at the highest level

biggest genetic freak wins, everyone else eats shit

>>40736001
No, I believe that 10-12 reps don't necessarily make your muscles any bigger than 3-5 reps.

Your first link is nothing but a Q and A. I don't care who says what, look at the research.

>A perfect example of this is Brad Schoenfeld's recent study on this very topic
Send link to study?

>A.) You can grow the same from low or high reps, so long as volume is equated.

This is completely bullshit, read the source from OP to see why.. 4 sets of 3-5 (lower volume) produced better gains than 4 sets of 10-12.

>>40736012
Still waiting on some sort of scientific evidence to prove me wrong? A lot of people here talking the talk.

>>40734967
>he doesnt do 30+ myo reps
TOP KEK, dyel mode forever

File: IMG_0382.jpg (37KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x450px

>>40734967
It's all about real effort and pain.

If your are doing sets of 20, things are probably only gonna get real from the 14th rep on;

If you are doing sets of 3~5, things already start hard - but you always risk doing with the wrong form on the last reps.

I personally prefer sets of 8~12 reps, I can endure the strain of the last ones and the first reps always give me momentum.

TL;DR - Whatever floats your boat.

>>40736055
Yes, I believe he was. Also competed himself in both weightlifting and powerlifting.

Remarkably similar to Sheiko Tbh

And yes, both systems produce champions, but I do believe the European approach is superior for naturals and with regards to longevity.

A mix of the rep schemes is the best way to go you faggots, it's not that hard.
My gains went through the roof when I incorporated 8-12 reps exercises to my workout.

>>40736069
Post your physique

>>40736094
Post yours.
>implying that would somehow influence scientific evidence

>>40736094
Post yours

>>40736083
So it's fine to do 3-5x for the big lifts to start the workout with and 8-12x for all of the accessory work?

>>40736110
>>40736121
So you look like shit, gotcha

>>40736001
Yes, making your muscles bigger helps you lift more weight. That's why strength training allows you to lift the most weight... because it makes your muscles the biggest..

File: alien.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>40735702

He looks like an alien.

>>40736132
No thanks, I'm secure enough to not need a bunch of uninformed DYELs criticizing my physique

>>40736060
That was the study with the 7x3 and 3x10 I posted before (Schoenfeld)

we have one study that suggests 4x3-5 works better than 4x10-12, and one that suggests 3x10 and 7x3 produce the same amount of hypertrophy

>>40736076
as opposed to something like westside, probably

i don't know if sheiko is that ideal for longevity, i think you'd probably get overuse injuries after a while

i ran three cycles and got a bit of creaky knees and hips

Are there people on this board that unironically believe my chest would somehow look more aesthetic from benching 3x10 @ 70% instead of doing 6x5 @ 70% because the latter is not in the 'aesthetics rep range'? You people can't possibly be this brainwashed by those roiding memesters bullshit?

>>40736168
6x5 @ 70%

nice warmup bro you using that bench?

>>40736132
Right, so now it should be ez for you showing of that amazing body of yours.

>>40736157
So you look like shit. gotcha
>talks shit, doesn't post physique

File: 1485954911492.jpg (35KB, 479x540px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 479x540px

>>40736071

PLEASE DON'T BE 3D RENDER.

PLEASE BE REAL.

PLEASE POST SOURCE.

>>40736159
We have other studies >>40735244 that suggest low reps is superior.

Regardless, there are no studies that suggest 10-12 is better for strength or hypertrophy.

>>40736179
You need it for your 10lb flys to 'shock the muscle'?

>>40736159
Well I mean, Sheiko is based on russian weightlifting programming, and they had guys competing almost into their 40s, specifically because it manages fatigue so well.

Norway also has guys that have been competing since like the 70s still going today, which is pretty remarkable.

Is it just me or is the only evidence given by those that support 10-12 reps nothing but
>no no 10-12 reps is better because _____ said so and he's big!!!
>10-12 reps is better because we all know it!! don't ask me to prove it it's obvious!!
>random blog from bodybuilding.com alternative

3-5 reps of high intensity has always been the way to build mass and strength.

>>40736206
20lb pec deck it piss

>>40736221
Only reasons to do higher reps are convenience and injury prevention. Doing 8x3 curls is a complete waste of time - atleast that's what I think. Doing few sets with high reps just gets you through a ton of workload within no time. But unironically benching 3x10 is just moronic.

>>40736192
Model's name is Corinna.

>>40735004
>i just want to get a bit toned

>>40734998
just like you're mom after last night, she felt wrecked but was begging me to do more work.

>>40735757
Yep, I do 3x8 usually but if I get to 5 reps and don't feel I can push out 3 more I stop there. No point wasting the whole set

>>40735454
so I should do 10 sets of 5 reps at my max weight?

File: 1486443539504.jpg (181KB, 638x793px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 638x793px

>>40734980
Jesse has the look of a serial rapist

File: aca.jpg (55KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 777x656px

>>40735244

Reading the results from the study, then reading this thread has me more confused than before. What do?

>3X10
or
>5X3

Someone pls halp

>>40737443
one set of 100 or thirty heavy singles

File: 1489674374101.jpg (75KB, 440x660px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 440x660px

>>40737443

>more confused than before

Feel you. Sucks being a newbie but but ocd about doing things the ideal way. In weightlifting it seems like everything is called into question so easily. Feels like you never get a fully solid grounding of knowledge to stand on

>>40736029
>Prove he doesn't
That's not how it works, retard

>>40737443
I do 4x10 or 3x15 mostly and it works just fine.

>>40734980
fpbp

>>40734967

You realize that there are thousands and thousands contradicting studies to all of this?

I'm fine with my anecdotal experience (that is also backed up by different studies) that 3-5 reps = I get great strength gains but size doesn't increase much and when I do hypertrophy training 8-12 reps my lifts don't go up nearly as much but I grow in size.

>>40735149

Because accessories almost certainly involve using less weight than the core compound lifts, therefore more reps are useful in accumulating the volume one needs to drive adaptation.

Though there are some accessories that can be done fairly heavy or otherwise shouldn't be done for lots of reps, like goodmornings.

Do 3 x 5

Strip some weight
Do 2 x 10 as back off sets.

Best of both worlds.

>>40735758
He's got too much bodyfat.

>>40734967
>hypertrophy is a meme

I hate this board.

File: 1489713030528.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>he doesn't bench, squat, and deadlift in strength range and everything else in hypertrophy range

>>40735244
u r very smaht

>when volume is controlled for

I agree with OP but you can get more volume @ lower intensities with higher volume.

>>40735064
>>40735145
now kiss :3

>>40734967
They use 70% of their max. Which is very sub optimal for strength and mass gains.

That and the guys they used were actually untrained noobs.

As for 3-5 minutes rest?
Okay, that means that they were able to add more volume and not train to absolute failure on each set. And this is only in the short term.

Okay

>>40737698
cheer up pupper