3 ms·

What seems to be ignored is the difference in the muscle itself from more weight fewer reps contra less weight more reps; bigger muscles faster, contra notable

What seems to be ignored is the difference in the muscle itself from more weight fewer reps contra less weight more reps; bigger muscles faster, contra notable endurance gain. You will always gain size by increasing weight to push the muscle and force it to rebuild as the fibers break down when their potential's limit is approached, but the only way to build enduring muscle fiber is by more reps; by tiring the muscle out entirely to the point it can't do more repetitions. A muscle can be big, bulky, and deliver explosive power, and it can be lean, "tendony", hardy and durable. It is no different to normal stamina build from typical "cardio training" like jogging - every 100 meter extra you add to your trip slowly becomes easier for your entire body - heart, lungs, muscles. Endurace is also a strength on its own.

ahoyhere 16y ago
Is there evidence for this? I know a lot of people believe that lower weight x many reps is "toning" and higher weight x few reps is "bulking" but I have found credible arguments AGAINST this idea that there is any difference. It also seems to me like people won't get very large muscles without either incredible amounts of dedications, or juicing.
einaros 16y ago
While true, I think there's more to the mix than that. For the last 9-10 years I've stuck with a high-weight-few-reps approach, and I've found that while my strength has increased a lot, I by no means look bulky. I'd think most people would just place me in the "possibly working out" category if they saw me in a t-shirt. Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy.
- dkarl 16y ago
  Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy. Same experience here. I think people get confused because of how professional athletes are built. The best long-distance cyclists are very light and lean, while the best sprinters have huge lower bodies. Same thing with runners: sprinters are very muscular, and marathoners look like coat hangers covered with a thin layer of beef jerky. That is because of selection effects and professional levels of training, though, and is a misleading way of judging the effect of casual training on normal people with day jobs.

ahoyhere 16y ago

Is there evidence for this? I know a lot of people believe that lower weight x many reps is "toning" and higher weight x few reps is "bulking" but I have found credible arguments AGAINST this idea that there is any difference. It also seems to me like people won't get very large muscles without either incredible amounts of dedications, or juicing.

einaros 16y ago

While true, I think there's more to the mix than that. For the last 9-10 years I've stuck with a high-weight-few-reps approach, and I've found that while my strength has increased a lot, I by no means look bulky. I'd think most people would just place me in the "possibly working out" category if they saw me in a t-shirt. Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy.

dkarl 16y ago
Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy. Same experience here. I think people get confused because of how professional athletes are built. The best long-distance cyclists are very light and lean, while the best sprinters have huge lower bodies. Same thing with runners: sprinters are very muscular, and marathoners look like coat hangers covered with a thin layer of beef jerky. That is because of selection effects and professional levels of training, though, and is a misleading way of judging the effect of casual training on normal people with day jobs.