Weight vs # of Reps

So, I have heard two different things... and my MO is to tone and build muscle.

I have been told that you should do as many reps as possible with the highest weight possible. In other words, if it's too easy to do 15 reps at 30 pounds, you should probably progress to 40 pounds. If you can keep going, you need to be working with a higher weight.

Then, I have heard to do more reps, like 25 or so.. at a lower weight to really tone.

I have tried doing a bit of each, depending on muscle group. Was wondering what others have heard/do.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

I have a personal trainer and my goal is to tone up (not build huge muscles). He usually has me do 2 sets of 20-25 reps. Once he sees that it's getting easy, he ups the weight.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

both are right.
There are many types of training - strength, toning, endurance.
So depending on your goal for that session will determine how many reps and the weight. In the end the session should be challenging.

I train my clients different everytime. I vary them between strength, endurance, supersetting, etc. I beleive it keeps the muscles constantly challenged.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

Thanks-- so, I should switch it up, and do like 15 reps of the highest weight I can do... then next time do like 25 of a lower weight??

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

if you are looking for even more strength you can go even less with rep to around 10 and see if you can up the weight.

I always think outside the box when strength training. Both in reps and type of exercises. I believe in more functional training, since that is what muscles were created for (back when man used to be active natually, not seditary)

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

Lifting heavy weights will NOT make you big.
Lifting light weights and doing high reps will not give you muscle "tone". It creates muscle endurance. Read below:


MYTH NUMBER ONE

"I just want to tone; I don't want to get big."
"Toning" is a ridiculous notion. Anyone who is mildly active has muscular tone; it is nothing more than the healthy and normal condition of a muscle which can remain contracted under resistance. If you can carry a small sack of groceries to your car, you have adequate muscular tone. A lack of muscular tone is what occurs when people are bedridden and their muscles begin to atrophy from disuse. It has nothing to do with the size of the muscle or muscular definition.

Just to have a "muscular" body requires dedicated and consistent weight training and a controlled diet. Getting "big" requires many years of near-obsessive weight training, a daily calorie intake well beyond what most people consume, and a strong genetic predisposition toward easy muscle growth. It often involves anabolic steroids, too. Even those who would like to get "big" will rarely be able to do so. The chances of it occurring unintentionally are nil.

In my experience, the true meaning of this statement is: "I really don't want to work very hard or control my diet, but I want a great body." Sorry. It doesn't work like that.

MYTH NUMBER TWO

"Lifting lighter weights for many repetitions creates muscular definition."
There is no support for this proposition. Low-weight, high-volume training may create a brief illusion of muscular definition because it will create some "pump," i.e., the engorgement of skeletal muscles with blood, but that is a temporary condition that will fade within hours. Muscular definition is created by [a] increasing the size of the muscles, and [b] reducing the amount of body fat covering the muscles. Increasing the size of the muscles requires heavy weight training. Reducing body fat requires a controlled diet. There is no special lifting routine for improving muscular definition.

Low-weight, high-volume training does not substantially improve strength, either. It may improve muscular endurance, and that may be beneficial in certain sport-specific training, but strength is largely the product of heavy weight training. For a more detailed discussion of this subject, see Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield's Powerlifting and Speed-Strength Training.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

Here's more proof (sorry to go nuts about this, but too often I hear women say that they don't want to get "bulky" by lifting heavy):

Muscular hypertrophy is generally a response to a high volume work output; therefore, by keeping the sets and reps low with heavy training, you wont have to fear getting overly big (this really isn't even an issue due to the physiological reasons mentioned earlier). Why then is it commonly recommended that women train with lighter loads? Well, there are a couple reasons. First, there is the typical stereotype that women are weak, fragile creatures who can't handle anything more than pushups on their knees and bicep curls with pink dumbbells. Try telling that to 123 lb Mary Jeffrey who bench presses a world record 275 lbs and you'll likely get smacked upside the head with a 45 lb plate. Give me a break. Secondly, the belief that high-rep training increases muscle tone is 100% myth. Strength training guru and Muscle Media contributor Pavel Tsatsouline explains this quite nicely, "Your muscle fibers are like mouse traps—they go off by themselves, but need energy to be reset to contract again. A dead body is out of ATP, the energy compound that relaxes the muscles…A high rep workout exhausts ATP in your muscle and leads to temporary hardness…The only way to make such 'tone' last is by killing yourself." Hmmm, sounds like fun to me.


The whole article can be found here.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

thanks- I know it's basically physically impossible for a woman to get big... but wondered which school of thought is best.

I guess I will just continue with what I am doing... the most weight that I can do, and keep progressing as I get stronger.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

You also don't have to always lift heavy. As NewlyMrs said, you can always do lighter weights and higher reps every once in a while if you want, and also techniques like supersetting, giant sets, drop sets, etc. all to shake things up a bit. And don't forget those jumping jacks to tone your arms!

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

tonight I actually tried the lighter weights at 3 sets of 25... and I definitely felt a different kind of burn.

What I was thinking of doing was, alternating lighter weights/more reps with heavier weights/less reps.. so, as I rotate muscle groups, my muscles are kept are their toes, so to speak.

And of course, incorporating those jumping jacks wherever I can!

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

I thought the same thing when I first started working out with my trainer. She has me doing higher weight with 2 sets of 20 or 25. I am seeing definition and losing weight.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

My trainer had me do 3 sets of 15 reps at a weight that was challenging for me yet not too heavy. I found fantastic results from doing that and I have maintained the same workout since. I alternate a circuit workout with classes such as spin, pilates, and yoga.

I'm not in a position where I'm looking to lose weight though either. This is just what works for me.

Re: Weight vs # of Reps

I do both in every workout.

lets say for back, I will do one heavy set of pull-ups 5 sets of 5 reps, then I will do the next exercise, like clos grip lat pulldowns 3 sets of 10. both are vertical pull exercises.

I do this with every body part.