Why do bodybuilders train at high reps? I understand that it causes hypertrophy, but why...

Why do bodybuilders train at high reps? I understand that it causes hypertrophy, but why? If muscle mass is needed to be strong, wouldn't lower reps, which train strength, also be best for hypertrophy?

The only reason I could imagine, is that higher reps are better for making slow twitch muscles stronger, and thus bigger. But then, wouldn't you want to also have low rep days to also make the fast twitch muscles bigger?

Time under tension

Body builders don't give a fuck about strength. Just looks.

I have no idea why but it works. 8x8 gives me more gains than 4x12 which gives me more gains 3x5. Just because it's broscience doesn't make it not true. In my experience the best thing is going for maximum weight on your big three for your ego and maximum reps on everything else for gains.

>big three
not going to make it

Time under tension and more total tonnage

There is more to strength than pure muscle volume. Just look at oly lifters, they are relatively small compared to their strength

> not training the savage six

OHP
Bench
Deadlift
Squat
Push Press
Power Clean

get stronk fgt

Weighlifters are not small. They just aren't bodybuilder huge because they take different drugs.

the vast majority of bodybuilders don't have a fucking clue what they're doing but the massive amount of drugs makes up for shitty training

>OHP
>Push Press

R E D U N D A N T
E
D
U
N
D
A
N
T

Because doing five types of chest press on your gay ass chest day isnt?

I said relatively small. If muscle mass was the only factor for strength like OP thinks they'd be way bigger

S T R A W M A N
T
R
A
W
M
A
N

they aren't body builder huge because they don't aim to be as big and muscular as possible

OHP
Bench
Squat
Dead
Row

No particular order

I've found that I don't particularly need horizontal rows since I do power cleans, deads and hang cleans but if you're not doing cleans you gotta have your rows

Squat (push from floor)
Diddly (pull from floor)
Bench (horizontal push)
Row (horizontal pull)
The Press (vertical push)
Chin Ups (vertical pull)

Fixed

>diddly
this sounds like a meme exercise

Power cleans, hang cleans and deads substitute rowing just fine for me, but I do my vertical pulls and throw in some curls to make up for the lack of bicep work i get from excluding horizontal rows

Right now I'm doing sl 5x5 and throwing in upper body accessories of 3x8-12 so I don't t-rex mode, thoughts?

Ohp day 2 sets of pull ups superset with 2 sets lateral raises

bench day 2 sets chin ups superset with two sets of dips or any other chest press

one set of curls, barbell 1x8-12 on OHP day and hammer curls 1x10-15 on bench day

i do SS tho, either way it works gr8 for me

>not knowing what a deadlift is

>I don't know why, but doubling/quadrupling my volume somehow gives gains!!!

would doing the big sic at 8x8 give me both strength and hypertrophy?

I'm still an "untrainted" lifter but all of the bodybuilding docs I've watched while working out say that lower reps are for mass and higher reps are for definition. Is there any truth to that?

Zero in most cases. It's kind of true for competing bodybuilders but only really because of the way they have to diet and train for stage condition.

definition is just a meme. definition=mass+low bodyfat, nothing more nothing less

What the docs probably said was low reps are for strength, while high reps are for hypertrophy/the bodybuilder look

how to combine both?
is 8x8 a meme?
is 5x5 or 3x5 just for strength?

because when u are cuttin u dont have power to lift as heavy and cause you are lowering your starches, body will loose the water weight which will give more pressure to joints. so you dont go for high weight but u do high reps cuz it protects muscle and burns the fat around it to make it seem more defined
> burns the fat around it
yes, thats a thing

so, high reps for cutting, low for bulking
if you are our average gym rat, just do isolation lifts 12 rep and big ones not more than 8 rep

muscle size doesn't have an exact correlation with muscle strength.

sure, your muscles will get stronger as they get bigger. but lifting for strength may not get them exactly as big as lifting for size, even though they can lift more. just look at the difference between olympic lifters and bodybuilders. the olympic lifters would never be at the top of bodybuilding, even if they cut the fat. and you'll rarely see the big bodybuilders compete at the top of lifting competitions.

but why is that
why is training for strength not giving you size too

It is. Just not as much as training specifically for size (and, depending on your chosen lifts, possibly not in the same places).

Size is mostly dependent on volume. If you're training for strength much of your stuff is, set for set, more stressful and that stops you doing as much in each workout.

nice double trips
then why should i change my routine, from compounds only, to isolations if i want to look good though
why not do compound lifts, get stronger and look like im actually getting stronger too

Not training the Furious Fourteen

Concentration curls
EZ bar curls
Hammer Curls
Reverse curls
Preacher Curls
Cable curls
Standing barbell curls (in the squat rack)
Seated curls
Supinating curls
Cross body curls
Reverse Plate curls
Zoitman Curl
Alternating curls
Cheat curls

But the type of drug they take is a confounding variable. Oly lifters are more likely to be on winny than tren. That makes a big difference.

First, stop confusing strength vs size with compounds vs isolations. Strength-focused guys usually do both and so do bodybuilders.

The second is that, eventually, you tend to hit a point where you just can't do everything you want with compounds and still recover. That's where its useful to add isolations - if your triceps (to pick one example) are lagging you can usually fit some more skullcrushers or rope pulldowns in to your workouts much more easily than trying to recover from adding in another half-dozen sets of board presses.

massā‰ strength

Why are we so sure that size is dependent on volume? How do we know? Is there any scientific evidence for it?

Lower reps mainly increase number of muscle fibres, while medium/high reps are more for increasing the cytoplasmic volume of the muscle cells. Don't ask me too much about it, it's been a while since I read an exercise physiology book.

but in the old ages, people were just doing compounds, sorta, only and had no access to machines and what not

sadly that is true
yet if you are strong, most of the time you look like a dyel

Most of those guys used isolations as well to one extent or another. You don't need machines to do isolations.

Also most of the guys who've had their routines passed down were professional lifters in a way that no longer exists in the west. When you're a genetic freak whose entire job is just eating and lifting you can get away with stuff that isn't so easy for the rest of us.

>Lower reps mainly increase number of muscle fibres

No they fucking don't. The number of muscle fibers you have is completely genetic and set for life. Hypertrophy merely means that these fibers get thicker.

at low levels, compound lifts are most important even for bodybuilding. basically, you get your work done much quicker, build much more muscle, and it's even safer for your joints then isolation if performed correctly. it can even be used in a hypertrophy focus by doing stuff like german volume training (10x10 compound lifts with 1.5 minutes of rest inbetween). isolation has it's place too, but it's often most important for symmetry

I think that theory was proven to be bullshit

It's the opposite. Why would you lift less weight to make yourself purposely lose mass while cutting? The whole point is to cut reps when cutting and keep strength. You can always add 3-5 reps back within a few sessions. Adding 10 lbs back is another story

but why not do compounds for like 8x8 or something, just like you'd do isolations for hyper?

More or less.

Hypertrophy is more volume-dependant than rep range dependant and Hyperplasia still hasn't been proven to happen in adults. Finding a reliable method of inducing that is pretty much the holy grail of training (and PED) methods. Lots of people have claimed a way of doing it but nothing has ever held up under study.

because you can't train enough volume strength wise for best gains retard

Many people do.

It just tends to be harder to sustain than doing a bit less compound work and a bit more isolation.

anyone have the pic of the japanese study comparing reps to ideal muscle hypertrophy?

Fuck, I meant it increases the number of muscle filaments, which would correspond to thicker fibres. There are so many similar names for all the parts of muscle, and I keep getting them mixed up

This also happens with higher reps, mind you.

that also works, it'd be like the german volume training, just lightly less hypertrophy specced

Why is it so hard to understand??
Powerlifters train the movement while bodybuilders train the muscle, fuck.

End of thread

so, 8x8 compounds would actually be the way to go strong and looks, if you're into compounds?

Yeah, it still happens, but more so with heavier weights and lower reps.

Oh I see. So when powerlifters bench press, they aren't actually using their muscles to do it. Now it all makes sense!

It would be a way to go. You wouldn't be as strong as someone who did more low-rep work on compounds and might not be as proportioned as someone doing more isolation work but you'd be fairly big and strong.

At the end of the day, consistency + effort trumps most of these arguments over training methods.

I'd say so. You might want to also mix some 5x5's in there too, especially because in the beginning you want a solid basis of strength for your lifts

There are two types of muscle hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic (the bb type) and myofibrillar (the strength type). Both will happen to some extent when you train, but you can focus mostly on one.

Because soviet science.

yaawnn

dont tire me buddy

man this whole discussion on how to look good, how to get strong and how to get both is just confusing as hell

>You wouldn't be as strong as someone who did more low-rep work on compounds
why though? you are lifting more than someone doing 5x5

>power
>strength
!?!?!?

You're doing more reps than someone doing 5x5 or 8x3 or similar (and that will help somewhat with strength - mass moves mass after all) but there's other factors involved in putting up big numbers. The two main ones are technique and neuromuscular coordination, both of which are better trained under heavier loads. There's also some other differences

this is just me spitballing broscience, but I'm guessing more reps would cause more tears in muscle fibers? More tears, more gaps to fill and thus, end up with a bigger muscle?

but 5x5 = 25 reps
and 8x8 = 64 reps
why is that not showing your muscles
>hey buddy, we might need to get bigger to support the weight

Because no one knows why muscle grows

so 5x5 PushPullLondon is the way to go, thanks ruskies

You only get stronger by working with loads near the limit of your strength. This is what disrupts your body's homeostasis (hormonal, neurological, and muscular) and forces it to adapt.

High volume at low intensity isn't enough to disrupt homeostasis for anyone who isn't a rank beginner. What it will do, however, if you do it enough, is cause your muscle cells to increase their sarcoplasmic size to allow more glycogen storage, which provides an immediate energy source for that high work volume.

That won't make you stronger, though. To use an analogy, all the fuel in the world won't make a 500cc engine as powerful as an 800cc engine.

idk i do a PPLPPLx and first 3 days are heavy, next 3 are hypertrophy

U stupid fuck they use the muscle to train the movement

That's not quite true. You can get a lot stronger working with loads well below your max (and most more advanced strength programs rely on this in some way). Its just not as efficient in the short term as going at very high percentages and sometimes requires a brief adjustment period to re-groove yourself on heavy attempts.. Much more sustainable though.

>tfw literally look like handsome squidward

I used to look like normal squidward before puberty lmfao. Gotta love dat jewish nose+high test.

Because you get good at what you train for, and doing low reps allows you to lift heavier, which means your strenght adapt faster.

but that should also translate to getting bigger muscles to sustain the weight shouldnt it

cool post dude

sarcoplasmic storage increases the size of the muscle the most, you can bench "2pl8 for 5" and look more dyel than people benching "1pl8 for 20" who cant list 2pl8 once

man
so i either go the strength route and look like shit
or i go the looks route and be weak

Volume becomes a valid training variable somewhere in the late intermediate stage, I won't dispute that. But for most of the people here high volume training is going to be fairly worthless because their low intensity weights are simply too light to provoke the response an int/adv trainee will have
using a similar percent of their max.

They take same drugs but they don't try to be as muscular as possible.

then why do people start with doing machine exercises for like 10 reps

bigger doesn't necessarily mean stronger, as this user said, high volume is more about having a big gas tank than a potent engine

Its a relative thing. A 'weak' bodybuilder is still generally strong as fuck, just not on the level of a strength competitor. Likewise a 'small' powerlifter or strongman or whatever is still yoked as all hell, just not as big as a full on bodybuilder.

does he look like rich piana to u

so strength will give me somewhat of a physique albeit not a sixpack arms and fully muscular back n legs type ?

do strength focuses 5x5's, or 3x5's for a few months to be able to lift enough weight to cause the muscles to respond to hypertrophy training. You will see changes in your appearance no matter what. After that, try a month of higher reps, if you prefer the results and feeling of that, do that, otherwise stick with strength training, and you will still find aesthetics results that way, albeit just not as much

The vast majority of "bodybuilders" are incredibly stupid and the ones that aren't on gear look like absolute shit.

pic related is 8 hour bicep workout, this is 3x5

because they don't know shit about programming, also most people starting out are not even at the begginer stage but rather untrained aka the "i can become bigger / stronger no matter how stupid my workout is because anything is better than doing nothing at all" stage

Sixpack is mostly about diet. The difference in size between drug-free strength lifters and bodybuilders is mostly one of proportions, not overall size.

he does look pretty good though desu

>thinks diddlylift is a pull.

Enjoy destroying your back. Push with your legs off of the ground.

higher reps while doing compounds i guess?

Also a lot of absolute beginners have the proprioception of a decaying walrus. They're just not worth putting under a heavy barbell until they have some semblance of an ability to feel what the hell their body is doing.

For hypertrophy, yes. Also, if you are looking for good assistance exercises, I'd recommend calisthenics (bodyweight exersises) over isolation exercises

alright ill look into it
thanks man