is it better to have weight you can do a lot of reps with or

it's better to have weight you can do a lot of 5 reps with

>>41815735
hardly matters but around 4-8 reps is the sweet spot

>>41815735
5 reps for strength. Many reps for mass.

>>41815771
this is broscience

>>41815780
Give this guy a graph.

File: 1497562279181.png (37KB, 807x662px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 807x662px

>>41815789
you know anon just because something is made into a graph doesn't make it more scientific

>>41815879
The original one. But a point is fair.

If 5 rep for strength is broscience why does SS consists of 5 or less rep excercises?

>>41815923
Because 5 reps is good for just about anything

>>41815780
But it's broscience that oversimplifies a true concept.

Powerlifting programs make you to work with high weight percentages with intentionally low reps (e.g. triples at 80% even though you could do 6 reps) to develop technique even when near your max. Bodybuilding and mass gain programs focus more on getting a lot of volume in general while maintaining intensity (i.e. sets closer to failure). Because doing low reps close to failure is more difficult to recover from than sets of 8-12 with 1-2 reps left in the tank, and the latter has more overall volume, it's more efficient to do higher rep sets in order to get a lot of volume in. Lower rep sets serve the purpose of building efficiency and technique to prepare you for a 1rm.

>>41815965
[citation needed]

comparing one rep max to a heavy triple is apples and oranges

>>41816067
Citation for what nigger you're asking me to tell you oranges are orange. Go read Sheiko's forums for 25 minutes and then compare his programming to periodisation models for the purpose of bodybuilding applied by someone like Mike Israetel.

Lifting information isn't cleanly written out in studies for you to read over and autistically critique the scientific method. Researchers don't write programs, coaches do. The exception is the soviet union olympic lifting periodisation model, but I don't read Russian so I can't tell you what results they published.

>>41816144
>soviet union olympic lifting periodisation model
Any certain names or titles? I've found something called Plintovych System, can post some outtakes, it's not like what we usually see on /fit/.

>>41816238
It's basically the Sheiko model as far as I know, but obviously the Sheiko programs are adapted for powerlifting. Lots of accessory work and exercise variations, lots of submaximal multiple rep sets, you have an accumulation/preperatory block and a competition block.

>>41816276
What I've found has 6 compounds with all sets having 6 reps which you do three times a week. What's uncommon is that you have to take your maximum 6rep weight and sessions are spread into "heavy", "light" and "moderate" so on monday you do 100% of your 6rep max, on wednesday just 50% and 75-80% on friday, you also use pyramid principle increasing weight with every set.

>>41816380
That's not it.

http://www1.macrosport.com/sportsci/january/pp73.html

If you're finding rep and set programs you're looking in the wrong place. It's a method of training not a single program.

File: ef388b8dec41d8dd822d671bb02d86c9.gif (340KB, 400x294px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 400x294px

>>41815735
>5s are already a lot of reps

>>41815735
I believe the general consensus is that, if you wish to build muscle mass and gain strength, it is more efficient and practical to do low reps/high weight. I believe it, personally. You're not going to put enough of a load on your muscles to force them to become stronger with low weights, although the repetitive motion might give you an injury or something.