High Volume vs High Reps

I know there's studies saying that higher volume (lower reps) sees better performance increase than lower volume (higher reps) but Ive been experimenting and think I could progress better on lower volume and higher reps because I dont get so tired and am able to overall lift more during a working.

For example, if I do 3x5 (~90% max) bench press, it takes me about 12-15 min total. I could do 5x8 with (~80%) in the same 12-15 min but dont feel so tired afterwards. When I try to do reps with 90% max, I feel very taxed and my workout tends to be 45-60 min long. Since Ive started doing lower weight, higher reps, I have the energy to workout for 30 more mins and since I have more energy, I am able to add in additional sets for each muscle group and thats making me progress more both in strength and size.

Any thoughts on this? I think lifting higher volume taxes my body more and it makes me have to recover longer. Maybe its something to do with my CNS?

ANSWER ME

Doesn't high volume mean a high amount of reps?

hmmm user you lost me at lower volume higher reps

volume is distance^3 where as reps is just an integer, so no.

Work(J) = F * D, where Force = ma, with m = mass and a = 9.81m/s^2

Let's say you're benching a 3x3 at a 100kg and we estimate that you move the bar vertically ~30cm.

W = 295J of energy to move the bar once, multiplied by 9 you would get 2655J required to do this workout.

Now let's say that you're lifting a 3x8 at only 65kg;

W = 191J of energy to move the bar once, multiplied by 24 you would get 4584J required to complete this workout.

As you can see, lifting lighter for more reps will require more energy, but it's obvious that nobody really has any concrete evidence to prove which one is better except that you should stop being a faggot and just lift heavy cockstain. You want a fuckin' pussy pad for that bar you fucking DYEL?

does volume go up if i increase reps, and down if i decrease reps, but stay the same if i increase weight but maintain reps?

hmm seems like reps is volume user

just because there is a relation between volume and reps, doesn't mean they're equivalent. tard. you must be a physicist

Volume is reps*weight you fags.

Let me exlpain.

Higher weight and lower reps vs lower weight and higher reps.

Take this picture and I'm sure you can guess who does what.

This is dumb as fuck and really only applies to Olympic level athletes. Compare a high school sprinter to a highschool 5000 meter runner and there is no difference. The sprinter guy in that pic is just on roids and grows like a motherfucker without having to weight train.

No, because physicists would at least get the units correct.

Those medial delts wtf. Does this guy do lateral raises all day?

>built medial delts
>only uses back and forth motion for sprints

not natty brah

volume is distance cubed gayboy.
>at most
FTFY

You are hilarious. More time under tension!!

>volume is distance cubed
Not when it comes to lifting it isn't you fuck. Did you get beat up a lot in school?

Not to sound like a bbc loving fag but i noticed black guys have well built medial delts without ever lifting

i dont know anything but if you are less tired im gonna guess that means your workout was EASIER which prolly means less gainz

so what is it then?

sets * reps * weight

so to increase volume, best way is to increase reps or sets. increasing weight can only be done if you are capable of lifting the higher weight for the same amount of reps and sets, which is a slow progression, you can tax the body way more with sets and reps

i didnt. made a truce with the blacks so they had my back

it's called steroids

you spread your butt and they don't donkey punch you, isn't a truce.

user you are a niggerlover sorry. You CANT get big muscles without lifting. Period.

>Higher weight and lower reps vs lower weight and higher reps.

Thank you for clearing that up, as the OP was not well done.

>if I do 3x5 (~90% max) bench press, it takes me about 12-15 min total. I could do 5x8 with (~80%) in the same 12-15 min but dont feel so tired afterwards

You've discovered by accident what it took a scientific study to rediscover LOL and what people already knew 50+ years ago.

The study examined 3x10 vs 10x3 and found that when volume was matched, hypertrophy was the same. The problem was that the guys doing 10 heavy sets of 3 were miserable, took forever to workout, got injuries, dropped out, etc. Meanwhile the 3x10 guys finished quickly and were raring for more volume and work.

See, it's not that sets of medium-high reps (say, 6-15) are inherently better for building muscle than sets of low reps (1-5) are, it's that they're more tolerable and ergo it's easier to take a higher volume of total reps over the same time frame, and the volume leads to better growth.

Now, there are reasons that sets of low reps are better for strength, such as the mental component of lifting (aka rate coding) and the immediate recruitment of the explosive muscle fibers, but once you're past the beginner stage, it's hard to handle doing that constantly (unless you vary the weight used for the 5s aka "light days". It totally is related to your CNS.

If your 3 Rep max is 100kg, your 8 Rep max would be about 85-90 kg, not 65 kg.

>Compare a high school sprinter to a highschool 5000 meter runner and there is no difference

yes there fucking is? Did you not run track in high school? Anybody who ran the 1500+ was a skeleton. Junior and senior sprinters had clear muscle development, especially if they were state-worthy

That makes no sense, 30 reps of 65% is way easier than 30 reps of 90%, how would hypertrophy be the same? Why not just do 30 reps of 10% and hammer out reps for hours if there's no difference?

Higher reps w/ low weight = higher volume = more muscle growth

Lower reps w/ large weight = higher intensity = more strength gain

Read Practical Programming

Doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not, it IS. They did another study which showed that 30% weights in sets carried out to FAILURE resulted in muscle growth, which also (at least on the surface, more on that later) contradicts the thought that light weights with huge reps build only endurance and not size.

Bottom line, it appears that working volume is a primary (not "the only" but apparently "a primary") driver of growth. The caveat appears to be that low intensities which are NOT taken to failure, or at least NEAR failure, don't have as much affect. You can see this to some extent in distance runners who are skelly but with (relative to the rest of their bodies) large legs (especially calves). There are people who have built quite large musculature primarily on a large volume of calisthenics, some of them quite famous (Hershel Walker, Mike Tyson) and some of them not (most gymnasts, most old-school HW boxers).

The problem is that this takes a lot of volume taken to or near failure, which means a lot of time spent. Logistically it is far easier to find a sweet spot using weights in the 6-20RM or 10-15RM range, for 3-5 sets, with little rest, in a workout that spends a lot less time than endless bodyweight movements, or the same number of reps in the 1-5RM range.

Size is a by-product of strength training but pure strength training isn't optimal for size, not because of some magical quality of the rep range but because of the logistics involved.

Interestingly it seems to work the same way with endurance and strength, they are by-product of size training but it's not optimal, just as increased endurance (higher pushup max count) is a byproduct of building a big bench, but it's not as good as training max pushups. There is even a cardio benefit to weight training, it's not as effective as traditional cardio but it is all you need for health.

(continued)

It's all connected although aspects can be optimized, which is something people USED TO KNOW. The more you optimize one (strength, endurance, size) the proportionately less of the others you get, but you still get some of them. Good all-round programs either have blocks for each aspect, or train them in a parallel/concurrent manner, but these programs aren't great for any ONE aspect, they're more for sports which need mixed qualities, like rugby or gridiron.

I like to recommend Starting Strength because it gets you familiar with weight training and form and builds a base of strength, but after a few months of it, when it runs out, usually I recommend picking a path: looks, strength, general athletics, and then picking a program built for that path.

Just look at this picture, do you want to look like this? Do low reps