High weight low reps vs low weight high reps for Hypertrophy?

>>41264441
With heavier weight, there is less time under tension.

>>41264501
So does that mean high weight is worse for hypertrophy?

File: 3b69b97f048157c3e757423b481662413f5bb501_hq.jpg (19KB, 387x380px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 387x380px

It really depends my dude.
My friendo that's this massive sikkunt (been using tren on and off for a couple of years as far as I understand it) has this rule of thumb:

Strong = heavy weight, explosive reps of 5x3-6
if you can do 6+ reps, more weight

Mass = Medium-Light weight, slow reps 4x8-12
If you can do 12+ reps, more weight

Very basic information but it should clear it out for ya

>>41264723
You can't work the muscles to the same point under a strength routine, you will get stronger, and can increase rep ranges later. If you want to look good and not risk injuries do the other one

File: 1467843128767.webm (141KB, 725x540px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 725x540px

Do both you stupid motherfucker, you don't have to do only one or the other.

>>41264766
Wait...you're telling me strength training won't build mass?

>>41264441
Yes. There have been studies on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/

In summation: You can achieve hypertrophy just as well with low loads and higher repetitions. The thing that's actually important is how fatigued your muscles get from the stimulus you're giving them.

>>41264955
And just to be clear, I will not be gaining strength when I do low weight high reps, right?

>>41264804
Strength training will buld contractile mass, hypertrophy training will build pussy mass
After you stop linearly progressing, mass gains will be minimal for strength programs
Up to that point strength training will also make you bigger, maybe at a bit of slower pace

File: 2UsbZdM.jpg (66KB, 581x579px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 581x579px

>>41264804
Strength training builds white muscle fibres (anaerob), while endurance/hypertrophy training builds red muscle fibres. The red ones are bigger in size which is why they're considered the more "attractive" muscles to build for hypertrophy.
While strength training and white muscle fibres also have certain mass, it is not as prevelent as the red ones.

>>41265041
how tf can you be this dense? Of course you're going to build strength just not as quickly as if you were doing high weight low reps.

>>41264766
I have literally seen the opposite advocated the other day. This board is full of shit.

>>41264782
Did you read the post

>>41265616
so you're supposed to lift lightweight to build strength?

Just have a quick think about how retarded that statement sounds.

Take all the time you need.

The thing with light weight is that the effective reps come later in the set. For example doing light weight and 25 reps, the first set might not even count in terms of hypertrophy. Maybe the last 5 reps of the second set, then maybe last 7 of the third etc.

Your logic is ok most of the time,the formula works for medium and higher, but the trouble with too light weight still stands.
This guy is a PHD who trains some pros, he can explain better than I can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRevyyFM82w

We don't know how strong you are, maybe 30 pounds in each hand can give a good enough workout at this point.With light weight you might have to do many more sets to make up for it.

Another problem is that we don't know your injury, if you end up doing 100 or 150 or whatever reps per exercise, is all those reps going to aggravate it or send you to snap city or tear town again?

File: 1481517168927.gif (1017KB, 480x240px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 480x240px

>>41265294
You're a retard
Strength is mainly neurological, hypertrophy is stimulated by lactic acid buildup... ever heard of tourniquet training? You're working at too high of an intensity to only or even mainly be using oxygen.
Pro tip: cardio kills hypertrophy
That's some dumbass shit that you just wrote

>>41266252
just look up fast and slow twitch muscle fibers my dude

>>41266164
Responding to my own just to make it clear what it means for OP.

In the last section when he talks about the Magnitude of Tension experiment, the light weight high rep group didn't grow as much even though all three groups did the same amount of total volume according to OP's formula (sets x reps x wieght).So the solution is that you have to do even more sets than that formula would suggest. I guess going by the feel in your muscles during the exercise is the only way to tell exactly how much more. But still the issue of hitting so many reps might aggravate the injury might still be there, I don't know.

File: marathon_sprinter1.jpg (18KB, 299x296px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 299x296px

>>41266294
Im an exercise physiologist, Im sure I know what I'm talking about
type 1 fibers (red/aerobic) have very little hypertrophic responses
Just look at sprinters (anaerobic) vs marathoners (aerobic)

>>41265092
hypertrophy training makes you a better fighter. KYS.

>>41266488
Who gives a fuck anyway, it's not like you're getting into fights everyday unless you enjoy going to jail. I gave that up a couple years ago.

>>41265616
Just because one guy was full of shit doesn't mean they all are
Ever heard somebody say SS+GOMAD for aesthetics?
Maybe you should consider reading the STICKY to get some base knowledge

>>41264782
Learn to read idiot

>>41264441
the rep-range difference (10 vs 20) is too big for it to work that way.

hypertrophy is only roughly the same if you compare the number of sets at similar rep ranges.
for example, 5 sets of 7 will give roughly the same size gains as 5 sets of 9, eventhough total volume will differ 28%.

more importantly, you should be trying to fix the underlying problem of your long term injury, instead of trying to work through it by using lower weights.
go see a physio or sportsdoctor.

>>41266362
My doctor just told me to do low weight and the injury will improve. It's just shoulder tendinitis/bursitis

>>41268867
you can speed up the healing of tenditinis by doing slow eccentrics (negatives, weight going down) on the exercises.

>>41268889
You mean going slow when you're bringing down weights during bench?

>>41269167
yes, slower than you'd want to.
normal speed up.

File: ronnie_coleman3.jpg (197KB, 400x591px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 400x591px

>>41264441
Ronnie Coleman recently gave an interview where he said that for bodybuilding (hypertrophy) he had to work in the 15-20 reps per set range, whereas in his younger power-lifting days he usually wouldn't do more than 5 reps.

>>41266294
You have elementary knowledge of human physiology. Why post?

So basically what I've learned from this thread is that as long as I work out to the point where I feel fatigued, I will see some sort of positive results

>>41269303
Basically, but there is such a thing as going too low though, where it becomes impossible to grow. But that is mostly theoretical because rarely do you see people using 5 and 10 pound barbells unless they are women "trying to tone".