Has anyone seen good results doing rep ranges around 8 instead

>>42498095
For biceps and calves I tend to go high reps.
>25-30 for calves
>12 for bi's
My chest will explode at as low as 4 reps and grows disproportionately quick but my fucking biceps are utter cunts that only grow at high reps/many sets

>>42498095
I injured myself (not lifting related) and added 3-4 reps to every set I did and lowered the weights right down to pretty much the bar so I could keep lifting and not kill my already fucked shoulder.
E.g. squats went from 3×5 to 3×8 + 1 set as many reps as possible as a last set and only move up a weight if I hit 8 in that last set.
I am now stronger and bigger than pre injury and am still doing that sort of rep and set ranges. I'm not the biggest or strongest here and I'm sure your mileage will vary but I would say there is not much difference for natural more casual lifters like myself.
There is that rep and set study infograph thing gloating around and says something that agrees with that but I don't have it handy and can't say I looked at it in depth.

>>42498182
So you would say it's safer and better to lower the weight but add reps?

>>42498288
It's what I felt comfortable doing. I wouldn't say it's any more safe. I just didn't like loading my shoulder too much.
My physio said I should stop lifting at first so I stopped and then when I had the all clear to start again I started like a novice with just the bar on everything. I wanted to progress very slowly so I didn't injur myself more and low weight higher reps seemed to fit the bill. I picked 8 reps because that's what my physio exercises were all in and figured I'll just do the same with everything.