Do number of reps/sets really matter?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whats the difference say between doing
1)3 sets of 10 reps of preacher curls-maxing out on the 10th rep.

2)5 sets of 10 reps maxing out on the last set

3)3 sets of 5 reps maxing again on the last rep?

If the burn is pretty close does it matter how many sets, how much
weight you use? Are either of these going to make the muscle grow
faster, slower, bigger, etc?

Yes it matters. Look at the difference in total reps:
#1 = 30 reps
#2 = 50 reps
#3 = 15 reps

Obviously, if you're doing 15 reps you can use a heavier weight than when
you're doing 50 reps.

When you say "maxing out" you're not going to failure are you?

I also assume that you were being sarcastic when you said "preacher curls"
because we all know not to do those. Right?

Spammers_Should_Be_Shot said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whats the difference say between doing
1)3 sets of 10 reps of preacher curls-maxing out on the 10th rep.

2)5 sets of 10 reps maxing out on the last set

3)3 sets of 5 reps maxing again on the last rep?

If the burn is pretty close does it matter how many sets, how much
weight you use? Are either of these going to make the muscle grow
faster, slower, bigger, etc?

Yes it matters. Look at the difference in total reps:
#1 = 30 reps
#2 = 50 reps
#3 = 15 reps

Obviously, if you're doing 15 reps you can use a heavier weight than

when

Quoted message said:

you're doing 50 reps.

When you say "maxing out" you're not going to failure are you?

I also assume that you were being sarcastic when you said "preacher

curls"

Quoted message said:

because we all know not to do those. Right?

I should have written my question better, sorry.

Is there a diference in muscle growth between lower reps with more
weight or more reps with less wieght?

And I meant to failure on the first post.

Basically you've gotten a nice assortment of next to useless answers
either framed within the idosyncrasies of the writer ("only do chins,
isolation moves are useless". Preacher benches are equally useless."
Uh, sure) or just plain dumb.

There's no clear answer, depends on who you ask. Many feel that
moderate reps in the 8-12 range are best for growth rather than doing
lower. This is my own experience; you'll have to decide for yourself.

On number of sets, also controversial. Some will say that 3 is enough,
some believe in 5, others believe in doing only 1 set. IMO 3-4 is
sufficient if you're going to failure.

Quoted message said:

Whats the difference say between doing
1)3 sets of 10 reps of preacher curls-maxing out on the 10th rep.

[censored]

Quoted message said:

2)5 sets of 10 reps maxing out on the last set

Not bad.

Quoted message said:

3)3 sets of 5 reps maxing again on the last rep?

Mega [censored].

Remember: MORE IS BETTER

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there a diference in muscle growth between lower reps with more
weight or more reps with less wieght?

And I meant to failure on the first post.

Yes there is. Less reps with more weights is for pussies and lazy HITards.
Volume is what builds long and lean muscles.

And training to failure is also for lazy HITards.

Why is training to failure lazy? Isn't that harder than not going to
failure?

John Black

Quoted message said:

Is there a diference in muscle growth between lower reps with more
weight or more reps with less wieght?

And I meant to failure on the first post.

Yes there is. Less reps with more weights is for pussies and lazy HITards.
Volume is what builds long and lean muscles.

And training to failure is also for lazy HITards.

Tavington said:

Remember: MORE IS BETTER

And the volume trainer versus heavy duty trainer debate LIVES!

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James said:

Tavington said:

Remember: MORE IS BETTER

And the volume trainer versus heavy duty trainer debate LIVES!

Not really. Tavington is a troll. Everyone knows that.

Except, perhaps, you.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

Quoted message said:

One of my work out partners does massive number of sets/reps. He will
do 15 sets focusing on biceps, 12 sets on tri's etc. didn't know if
that was a waste or not. I want to be efficient.

It's not a total waste of time. That type of regimen has been shown
to increase muscular endurance. It won't do much of anything for
strength or muscular hypertrophy, though.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

JMW said:

Tavington is a troll. Everyone knows that.

Except, perhaps, you.

Well, in that case, your rusty self will love my response to another of
his posts elsewhere in this ng.

Are *you* awake? <g>

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James said:

JMW said:

Tavington is a troll. Everyone knows that.

Except, perhaps, you.

Well, in that case, your rusty self will love my response to another of
his posts elsewhere in this ng.

I saw it. Was I supposed to be impressed.

Quoted message said:

Are *you* awake? <g>

<yawn> Perhaps you should go back to trolling Her Majesty.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net

Quoted message said:

I also assume that you were being sarcastic when you said "preacher

curls"

Quoted message said:

because we all know not to do those. Right?

Why not....ohhhhhh...right...a couple of squats and deadlifts will take
good care of dem deeer biceps right some good.....

Quoted message said:

Point is - curls is not a very good primary biceps exercise.

Really ?? Do you have some research to back up that statement ?? Do you
know of ONE serious bodybuilder that does NOT do curls ??

Try to

Quoted message said:

develop legs mass or especially strength by doing leg curls and
extensions - it will not happen. Curls is a similar kind of deal. I'd
even argue that chins is a safer exercise than "preacher curls".

What ARE you babbling about ?? Do you know what a preacher curl is ??

JMW wrote:

re
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/90b099ad950689ee?hl=en

Quoted message said:

I saw it. Was I supposed to be impressed.

Not especially, as I suspect you'd agree with every word I wrote.
Rather, that if you were going to comment on my scant text to Tavington
then you'd find yourself commenting on (or complaining about) a
lengthier one as well. Some people are just like that.

The fact remains that the volume training versus heavy duty training
debate continues regardless of Tavington's status.

I say, physician, heal thyself:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/c6920bfaeb4b3b42?hl=en

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Quoted message said:

The burn is a pretty useless indicator. You'd also be much better off
doing chinups, 3-5 sets with 6-8 reps (assisted or weighted -
whataever's necessary to get in that range), without "maxing out".

Really ? Again...you have some research to support this statement ??
You don't even know this guys goals yet you are full of advice.

Quoted message said:

In any gym there are plenty of people who have been (for many years)
doing curls and some variation of triceps isolation exercise (like
pushdowns), as two primary weightlifting exercises.

A typical person of this type has no strength, and looks like a

potato

Quoted message said:

with two slightly swollen carrots in place of the arms.

Really ?? Again...name me ONE bodybuilder that DOES NOT do curls...

[email hidden] wrote in news:1114618971.256117.136500
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Whats the difference say between doing
1)3 sets of 10 reps of preacher curls-maxing out on the 10th rep.

2)5 sets of 10 reps maxing out on the last set

3)3 sets of 5 reps maxing again on the last rep?

If the burn is pretty close does it matter how many sets, how much
weight you use? Are either of these going to make the muscle grow
faster, slower, bigger, etc?

You're doing more total work with #1, as someone else pointed out.

Also, to do 10 reps in a set the weight has to be lighter. And the set will
last long enough that you'll be drawing on a different energy system than a
short set.

Strength has many different aspects including muscle size, number of
contractile elements, how many motor units are actually firing, how
coordinated your CNS is. Lifting as much as you can twice trains different
aspects of strength than lifting much less 15 times.

Sets of 8-12 reps cause your body to build up the energy systems of your
muscle, which are bulky, so it gets big. If you're getting a burn you're in
this range. Sets of 3-5 build up the contractile elements and CNS, so you
get strong. (Except that there's a lot of crossover.)

Studies have been done on training with multiple sets over training with
fewer sets, and have failed to show that sets beyond two or three get you
stronger faster. That's why HST has you only do two work sets.

Hugh "factoids 'r' us"

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

Quoted message said:

Studies have been done on training with multiple sets over training with
fewer sets, and have failed to show that sets beyond two or three get you
stronger faster.

How about "bigger faster"? Are you aware of any studies indicating the
optimal number of sets for increasing size?

Thanks.

"Hugh Beyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1114618971.256117.136500
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Whats the difference say between doing
1)3 sets of 10 reps of preacher curls-maxing out on the 10th rep.

2)5 sets of 10 reps maxing out on the last set

3)3 sets of 5 reps maxing again on the last rep?

If the burn is pretty close does it matter how many sets, how much
weight you use? Are either of these going to make the muscle grow
faster, slower, bigger, etc?

You're doing more total work with #1, as someone else pointed out.

Also, to do 10 reps in a set the weight has to be lighter. And the set

will

Quoted message said:

last long enough that you'll be drawing on a different energy system than

a

Quoted message said:

short set.

Strength has many different aspects including muscle size, number of
contractile elements, how many motor units are actually firing, how
coordinated your CNS is. Lifting as much as you can twice trains different
aspects of strength than lifting much less 15 times.

Sets of 8-12 reps cause your body to build up the energy systems of your
muscle, which are bulky, so it gets big. If you're getting a burn you're

in

Quoted message said:

this range. Sets of 3-5 build up the contractile elements and CNS, so you
get strong. (Except that there's a lot of crossover.)

Studies have been done on training with multiple sets over training with
fewer sets, and have failed to show that sets beyond two or three get you
stronger faster. That's why HST has you only do two work sets.

Hugh "factoids 'r' us"

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.

JMW said:

Curt James said:

Tavington said:

Remember: MORE IS BETTER

And the volume trainer versus heavy duty trainer debate LIVES!

Not really. Tavington is a troll. Everyone knows that.

Except, perhaps, you.

Everyone of whom you John Williams don't approve, is a "troll", and
you then have to busy your prissy old self in attempting to line up
everyone else to "killfile" them or "ignore" them, or to join you in
your little bunch of "hyenas" to run them out of town.

Watch my lips John Williams - you are the oldest surviving and only
*real* "troll" in this Group!!

HTH!! ;o)

JMW said:

Curt James said:

JMW said:

Tavington is a troll. Everyone knows that.

Except, perhaps, you.

Well, in that case, your rusty self will love my response to another of
his posts elsewhere in this ng.

I saw it. Was I supposed to be impressed.

Quoted message said:

Are *you* awake? <g>

<yawn> Perhaps you should go back to trolling Her Majesty.

Here we go, the master "troll" has found yet another "troll"!!

Williams, there is no doubt that you are stark raving bonkers old
lad!! ;o)