why weight progression instead of rep progression?

[tkav1980]

what i do not understand is lets say you start out benching 225 for 10 reps. a few years go by and you worked you bench up to 405 for 6. im sure that everyone would agree there would be substantial growth during that time. but now lets say you take your 405 from 6 to 15 reps then to 20 reps without increasing the load. would it be right to assume the same progression in mass over this second phase? when is it enough weight and time to up the reps? basically im wondering if there is a point when its more benificial to growth to to do something like this. it would seem to me that the guy hitting 405 for 20 would be much stronger that the guy hitting 500 for 5.

p.s. if my thinking is right or wrong please explain why. this isnt something im thinking of doing its just something i dont understand.

 

[7_Deadly_Sins]

Muscle fibers, one is for strength, one is for endurence.
I remember reading that Tom platz and someone else were squatting together, one guy could get say 600 12 times, and Tom could only get it 10 or 8. But when it came time to max out, Tom got 50 pounds heaiver than the first guy did.

just wanted to add this in.

 

[loganb_football]

wow, I really do need to get off the board for today, as I have spent 3 hours here already... Will the muscle growth be the same? Im not sure. Would the quality be the same? I don't think so. Once one goes past a certain rep range, I see people with more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than true hypertrophy. Even at 405 the stimulus has obviously gotten to the point where it is no longer a struggle. Sure muscle mass will come but it will not be the same as grinding out lower reps with heavier weight. This is assuming that muscle fibers are predominantly fast twitch or even an equal ratio perhaps. If they are predominantly slow twitch, well thats a whole different animal... This would take a while to explain, but I think you are better off raising the weight, unless you are dealing with injuries...

 

[tkav1980]

wow, I really do need to get off the board for today, as I have spent 3 hours here already... Will the muscle growth be the same? Im not sure. Would the quality be the same? I don't think so. Once one goes past a certain rep range, I see people with more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than true hypertrophy. Even at 405 the stimulus has obviously gotten to the point where it is no longer a struggle. Sure muscle mass will come but it will not be the same as grinding out lower reps with heavier weight. This is assuming that muscle fibers are predominantly fast twitch or even an equal ratio perhaps. If they are predominantly slow twitch, well thats a whole different animal... This would take a while to explain, but I think you are better off raising the weight, unless you are dealing with injuries...

thanks for the explination. that makes alot of sence. like i said this isnt something im trying to do for myself, my results have been too good doing what im doing to change anything.

 

[Pekkerwood]

My reply is so ill informed I'm tempted to post it as an alias (WoodPecker) or something but here goes unscientifice personal anecdotal at best opinion::

I think when I increase reps my existing muscle fibers, existing mind/muscle connections get better an more efficient at what they do and do not necessarily add new fibers. When I increased the weight instead and they are no longer sufficient to lift the load, the brain realizes it, gets off the coach and coaxes the body to react differently.They must call their neighbors to help or create new neighbors to help. My opinion only.

 

[notsobig32]

wow, I really do need to get off the board for today, as I have spent 3 hours here already... Will the muscle growth be the same? Im not sure. Would the quality be the same? I don't think so. Once one goes past a certain rep range, I see people with more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than true hypertrophy. Even at 405 the stimulus has obviously gotten to the point where it is no longer a struggle. Sure muscle mass will come but it will not be the same as grinding out lower reps with heavier weight. This is assuming that muscle fibers are predominantly fast twitch or even an equal ratio perhaps. If they are predominantly slow twitch, well thats a whole different animal... This would take a while to explain, but I think you are better off raising the weight, unless you are dealing with injuries...

Great explanation logan. Personally i am a bit confused because if you look up thye definition of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, it states that there is no accompanying increase in strength. And this is just to me, but it seems that increasing reps on a given exercise at a given weight is an increase in stregnth. If we are measuring strength by 1RM, wouldn't all anaerobic exercises induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because we are lifting a weight under what we could do for a 1 rep max?

This is just what occurs to me and has me wondering why increasing a given weight's reps from 6 to 12 or even 15 would not be considered progressive overload. I am sure i am missing some piece of the equation.

 

[gordo14]

It would work to a point.............

If you increase your reps of 405 from 6 to 15 over a period of time there will be muscle growth. I think any thing over 15 and you are wasting your time as far as groth is concerned, now if your looking for endurance it would be the way to go.

 

[massnup]

If you come in and add 1 pound to each side of a barbell on the big basic exercises and add .5 to each side of the smaller exercises like bar curls, tri extensions then thats 104 pounds added to the big mass builders and 52 pounds to the small muslce group exercises in 1 year, how much muscle growth would that amount too?... doesn't sound hard to do does it?

 

[loganb_football]

Great explanation logan. Personally i am a bit confused because if you look up thye definition of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, it states that there is no accompanying increase in strength. And this is just to me, but it seems that increasing reps on a given exercise at a given weight is an increase in stregnth. If we are measuring strength by 1RM, wouldn't all anaerobic exercises induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy because we are lifting a weight under what we could do for a 1 rep max?

This is just what occurs to me and has me wondering why increasing a given weight's reps from 6 to 12 or even 15 would not be considered progressive overload. I am sure i am missing some piece of the equation.

To clear up the confusion there is more than one type of strength the ones you should be concerned with are absolute strength and endurance strength. There may be no gains in absolute strength, but strength endurance is different (this is more of what you will find in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy). SH is more of a side effect from endurance type strength. There is no strength increase in the muscle per se, however, there are leverage advantages from the extra fluid that may increase leverage on lifts. Of course this is a hypothetical situation, and really I do not see how someone could go from 405*6 to 405*15 with increases in both strength areas.

There are several ways to induce progressive overload. You are speaking singularly of weight, instead you can do it through more reps at a given weight, or more work in a given time frame. Let's say you did 200 reps for 4 multiply 200*4 and you have 800 lbs lifted during that set. Now say if you do 200*10 later thats 2000 lbs... This has created a greater workload hence progressive.

 

[Adrenaline Rush]

I think the time under tension principle is getting missed...Strength density cannot be understated as it relates to hypertrophy..Im a big Scott Abel believer...he says that all rep ranges have their benefits as you "surf the strength curve"...but he cites volume (TUT) as the biggest factor for muscle growth

 

[leegee38]

If you get up to doing 405 for 15 you will probably be one big MOFO, but that is very difficult to do from a progression standpoint. Increasing weight is easier. The move from 405 for 6 to 405 for 7 is huge! (405*6=2430, 405*7=2835) It is very difficult to add that additional rep compared to just adding 5 lbs. (405*6=2430, 410*6=2460) Adding weight is a smaller increase, so it makes it easier to continually overload the muscles and make progress.

I'm not sure I explained that very well ...

 

[Blade_HST]

A muscle is the most sensitive to the strain it experiences, aka mechanotransduction from the tension of a load applied to it - and more importantly a progressive increase in this over time. Number of total reps and sets simply dictate how long this load is able to act on the tissue. Compare it to pulling on a piece of meat and imagine it is a living tissue capable of protecting itself against what you subject it to. Now, pulling harder and harder on it would require it to grow stronger to withstand the strain. Pulling on it with the same effort but just holding it for a longer time would make it adapt moreso for endurance, it doesn't really stretch or overload the tissue - so adding sets and/or reps can only get you so far before you stagnate.

We know that it requires a minimal time under loading to get a growth effect, but we also know that too much time (too many sets) will actually inhibit growth because it gives a more endurance-specific adaption, and can also induce inflammation. Not to mention the CNS stress of forcing neural pulses to fire again and again.

From various meta-reviews and studies it looks like this range is about 40-60 reps per muscle group 2x/weekly (see Wernbom et al), 25-35 reps when using various intensifying techniques to get maximum fiber recruitment (rest-pause, dropsets etc...see DC as well as my Myo-reps concept).

We know that a given load doesn't just simply stop working either, you can use the same load for several weeks and still get (a gradually diminishing) growth effect from it. How many weeks depends on the individual and how heavy the loading is, but I think it is a valid strategy to use a double-progression where you simply pick a rep range (5-12, or even split it up into 5-8 and 8-12) and use the same load for at least a couple of weeks until you can do more reps, then add load so that rep drops again etc etc. Many ways to go about it, the point being that you absolutely HAVE to lift a heavier load now than you did 4-6 months ago if you want to get any muscle growth. Adding sets or reps simply won't do it, you may prolong the time it takes to stagnate, but eventually growth will stop and you will only add endurance-specific adaptions (the pump growth via increased glycogen and fluid storage and so on that people confuse with REAL muscle growth).

 

[IRON37]

interesting thread. Im no expert but from my experience heres what ive come to figure. For some reason the bodyparts i could always get to grow best were my chest and quads. Everything else was decent, with arms and calves slightly behind the rest. I figured out just recently how much harder I actually would push the chest and quads compared to everything else. Reps and weight both. For say arms, I would knock out probly 3 exercises with 3 sets each and call it good (with good intensity). Yet say on quad day i would do squats, front squats, lunges, then cable extensions. So what Im trying to say is, if your body responds like mine..then. Well you probably just need moderate to heavy weight and plenty volume. Not to the point of exhaustion but near it. When I got to the point where I would just try to go heavy and low reps my form suffered eventually just trying to do heavier weight and most of my gains stopped also. This whole thread will come down to "everyone is different, listen to your own body etc" lol. Because its true

 

[FK86]

I think when I increase reps my existing muscle fibers, existing mind/muscle connections get better an more efficient at what they do and do not necessarily add new fibers. When I increased the weight instead and they are no longer sufficient to lift the load, the brain realizes it, gets off the coach and coaxes the body to react differently.They must call their neighbors to help or create new neighbors to help. My opinion only.

I think this is valid and in relation to what leegee38 discusses below about training volume. We don't think it's much to get 1 or 2 more reps than last time, but in the scheme of things it is. Trying to turn 8 reps into 9 or 10 reps increases the training volume substantially and calls muscular endurance into play. In addition, unracking the same weight you did last time and going for more reps your body will recognize it. If it's a heavier weight from the get-go the whole set is new, different. Obviously you can't add weight forever, but the small jumps might stave off a plateau longer. I, myself, experienced just last week a set where I added 5 lbs and still got the same number of reps. Typically I always did double progression where I picked a rep range and when I reached the top end I would increase the load. The drawback here is that the weight increase might be too much at one time. Another thing is that when the loads get really high, like leegee's example with 405, the weight is so damn heavy you'd barely notice a 5 lb increase.

If you get up to doing 405 for 15 you will probably be one big MOFO, but that is very difficult to do from a progression standpoint. Increasing weight is easier. The move from 405 for 6 to 405 for 7 is huge! (405*6=2430, 405*7=2835) It is very difficult to add that additional rep compared to just adding 5 lbs. (405*6=2430, 410*6=2460) Adding weight is a smaller increase, so it makes it easier to continually overload the muscles and make progress.

I'm not sure I explained that very well ...

Muscle fibers, one is for strength, one is for endurence.
I remember reading that Tom platz and someone else were squatting together, one guy could get say 600 12 times, and Tom could only get it 10 or 8. But when it came time to max out, Tom got 50 pounds heaiver than the first guy did.

just wanted to add this in.

I'm pretty sure this was Platz and Fred Hatfield, but the facts are reversed. Hatfield had a higher ORM because he was a powerlifter, but Platz could rep until sunset.

 

[1234trew]

You look at lot cooler to the other bros in the gym with the heavier weights.

 

[MouthBreather1982]

Muscle fibers, one is for strength, one is for endurence.
I remember reading that Tom platz and someone else were squatting together, one guy could get say 600 12 times, and Tom could only get it 10 or 8. But when it came time to max out, Tom got 50 pounds heaiver than the first guy did.

just wanted to add this in.

It was him and DR squat. Platz also looked much more developed and It think was squatting high bar as apposed to DR squat going low bar. Sorry didn't realize someone already named who it was.

 

[maldorf]

I think in order to increase the size of a muscle fiber it is much easier to do that with a heavier load than to just increase the number of reps with a given weight. The added force of resistance would cause the body to adapt be increasing the diameter of the fibers. Increasing the number of reps will probably be more a factor of increasing the efficiency of the motor units. As someone else mentioned, each motor unit will incorporate more adjacent fibers that beforehand might have been dormant. The other fibers join in once a certain level of fatigue sets in, at least I think that might be the case.

 

[jstrong20]

Can’t say if it will exact same but if you go from 405 for 6 to 405 for 20 you will be way bigg r and stronger then you were. That’s a huge diffrence.

 

[suppdude]

Progressive overload /thread.

More than one way to skin the fish


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FK86]

Progressive overload /thread.

https://www.k5learning.com/reading-comprehension-worksheets