Topic: Sets and Reps, how do I separate the Bro-science from the science-science

[341gerbig]

So ive been revamping my workout program, and I've decided that I have lost enough weight that I now want to start focusing on building muscles

But all the articles i come across are written by weightlifters on forums that have no credentials. And they all claim the amount/pattern of reps/sets they do is what gave them their body, but i cant tell if it is truly that routine or just genetics/other variable's.

Some say:

5 reps per set =strength
6-10 reps per set = size
11-15 reps per set= endurance

Others say

3 X 10 for eveything

Others say

High reps of 50+




This all stinks of half-baked bro-science to me, where can I find truth?

[lonely moa]

Have a look at Ben Greenfield or Robb Wolf (his off sider Gregg Everett coaches olynpic lifters).  They get results, but they don't stand for sniveling.

[Beη]

The SGU covered this briefly I think, perhaps in the context of interval training.  I'll see if I can find the episode.

Edit:  Looks like episode 211.  I can't guarantee that they discuss reps, but it's probably worth a listen anyway.

[Citizen Skeptic]

My wrestling coach had a workout that I liked because it took care of both strength and endurance. You need a weight machine and 4-7 stations though.

Start at the lowest weight do two reps, move to the next higher weight, do two reps, until you can't lift anymore weight. Now start dropping the weight one notch at a time and do two reps, all the way down the the lowest weight.

We repeated this process at every station in rotation three times.

Don't do it every day. You need to let a day or two go by to recover.

[Jay_One]

Not sure really what you're asking, but I'll throw something out there.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012033

This study showed that low-load high-volume weight training is better at building muscle than doing few reps with a high-load. Just for muscle gain though, not endurace or whatever.

Part of Science or Fiction for episode #265. Steve elaborated on the science of weightlifting, and surprisingly how training to muscle failure is not necessary to build muscle.

Also just found this topic covered previously in another thread, nice and long and full of sources.

[Citizen Skeptic]

There are machines that measure power which is another dimension to strength. I think Nike or apple were working on it.

[Johnny Slick]

I'd imagine that even if you trained hard but not to failure 3 times a week for a year, you'd still gain a lot more muscle mass than someone who trained to failure every now and then. If you don't like training to failure, don't do it. Personally, it's something I try to do most of the time, although nowadays it means that I only work those muscles a couple times a week and then work on something else during my 3rd weekly workout with weights. The big thing you *don't* want to do from what I gather is overtrain, that is, work out when you're still sore or work out past the point of failure and to the point where you actually get injured.