Reps for MASS. How low should you go?

[Exodus]

I've always used the heaviest weight I can lift with good form and either shoot for 8 reps per set or I do pyramids starting with 8 reps 8-6-4-2-1-2-4-6-8.

If you're main goal is lifing for mass, what's the "lowest" useful number of reps you should use?

Conversely, what's the highest number you should ever be doing for a given set?

depends on your body.... myself , i grow like a weed using WSB (there is a link to it at the top of the training page under methods) its all about getting you more stronger, but it has a lot of hypertrophy work that keeps me growing. i love it.

X

 

[houseofpain]

I've always used the heaviest weight I can lift with good form and either shoot for 8 reps per set or I do pyramids starting with 8 reps 8-6-4-2-1-2-4-6-8.

If you're main goal is lifing for mass, what's the "lowest" useful number of reps you should use?

Conversely, what's the highest number you should ever be doing for a given set?

 

[MeatHead57]

1-4

 

[louden_swain]

5-8

 

[pwr_machine]

8-12 j/k although that is a good rep range to incorporate in your training. As you can see, there are a wide variety of opinions. Most importantly, don't let your workouts become stale. If you start to plateau, change something. Consider changing it up every few weeks with different rep schemes or even a different caloric intake if something's not working.

 

[SofaGeorge]

If you want mass you are going to do a combo of low rep and higher rep exercises.

I get results from 2-4 rep training... but if I ignore a couple 10-12 rep sets... I'm missing something.

Hence, I like 5x5. It gives me 5 sets at 5 reps (with usually a couple 3-4s in there) and 4 sets at 10-12 reps.

 

[jerkbox]

in general 5-8

 

[JollyRogers]

I like 2-4 reps mostly


sometimes 6-8

 

[JJFigure]

Supposedly, the amount of time under tension (TUT) for a set is more key than number of reps per se. TUT for strength work is 20-40 seconds; TUT for hypertrophy is 40-70 seconds. If you use a very slow cadence, you can do 4 reps in 40+ seconds. However, it's more likely you'll use a cadence that allows for 1-4 reps for strength and 8-12 reps for hypertrophy. And of course, you'll have a little crossover when training in the 4-8 rep range.

I personally like the format of the Dual Factor Hypertrophy Training routine - it's a nice combination of both strength and hypertrophy rep ranges.

 

[pwr_machine]

a nice combination of both strength and hypertrophy rep ranges.

That's what I think is ideal!

 

[slobberknocker]

3-5

 

[guldukat]

I've always used the heaviest weight I can lift with good form and either shoot for 8 reps per set or I do pyramids starting with 8 reps 8-6-4-2-1-2-4-6-8.

If you're main goal is lifing for mass, what's the "lowest" useful number of reps you should use?

Conversely, what's the highest number you should ever be doing for a given set?

Hmm...that's kinda tough. I think leg pressing upwards of 50 reps CAN be enormously productive here and there. And there's nothing like sets of 20 rep squats or deadlifts.

In general, I like lifting in the 5-6 range, and in some exercises I gain best when hovering around that mark (any shoulder press, very strict skullcrushers), but I don't go below 8 reps on anything these days. I'm oftentimes at 10-12. DC training's rest-pauses require that, on most exercises, you keep the reps fairly moderate.

But that's in the context of doing one HARD work set. With 5x5 or other methods, I think it can be better to go lower than 8 reps. And I certainly know some real powerhouses who don't do a lot of work sets AND keep their reps low (e.g., Slobberknocker).

 

[coolcolj]

it doesn't matter

 

[Mike_Rojas]

If you progressively add weight to the bar your muscles will get bigger

 

[IronLion]

1-25

 

[b fold the truth]

1-25

What? I've been doing sets of 32 with the baby blues and I am getting HUGE growth!!!!

B True

 

[IronLion]

oh yeah, don't make me break out the studies on ya

 

[ffknight84]

3-5 for me

 

[p0ink]

it's weird reading these responses and then comparing them with some of the threads on the EF archive. it appears the opinions on reps for growth has greatly changed over the past 3 years on this site.

in the archives, a lot of people swore up and down that low reps weren't good for size, and that higher reps were the way to go.

 

[pwr_machine]

it's weird reading these responses and then comparing them with some of the threads on the EF archive. it appears the opinions on reps for growth has greatly changed over the past 3 years on this site.

in the archives, a lot of people swore up and down that low reps weren't good for size, and that higher reps were the way to go.

Back to my original idea; you need variety!

 

[louden_swain]

Back to my original idea; you need variety!

I totally agree with this!