Hey. Sad lige og tænkte mens jeg pumpede igennem idag, om der endelig er en forkel på om jeg tager 8 rep eller 12 reps, altså mit mål er at blive større, tyndere og stærkere, men ja hvad er forskellen om jeg tager de 8 eller 12?

Tak.

Reps kontra vægt, kan have at sige om det er inden for hypertrofi eller inden for ren styrke (5x5 f.eks) ...


Hæng mig nu ikk' op på det! Kan muligvis tage fejl, men det er ihvertfald "tommelfinger-regel" som jeg har fået forstået det

Dresen skrev:Reps kontra vægt, kan have at sige om det er inden for hypertrofi eller inden for ren styrke (5x5 f.eks) ...


Hæng mig nu ikk' op på det! Kan muligvis tage fejl, men det er ihvertfald "tommelfinger-regel" som jeg har fået forstået det

Så 5 reps og 5 øvelser øger ens styrke ?

http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1679
det er på norsk, men det kan sagtens forståes.

chestpumper skrev:http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1679
det er på norsk, men det kan sagtens forståes.

takker

Rep Range


Using Science




Why Everyone Is Wrong About Reps!
There are some problems with this general thinking. First, muscles don't count reps, so these numbers could be completely different for someone who takes 10 seconds to complete one rep, compared to someone who takes 2 seconds for each rep...
[ Learn More ]

1-3 Reps

In this repetition scheme Neural Efficiency (as well as some Myofibril Hypertrophy) occurs. Neural Efficiency increases the percentage of motor units that can be activated at any given time (CNS efficiency).
This has very little impact on size gains but increases strength will be definitely be great. Little to no protein turnover occurs when using this particular rep range as load is too high and mechanical work is too low.

3-5 Reps

In this repetition range, mostly Myofibril and Sarcomere Hypertrophy and very little Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy occurs. Sarcomere hypertrophy increases contractile proteins in muscle thereby increasing strength directly and also size. Science says that growth here will be mostly myofibral/ sarcomere hypertrophy and will be accompanied with strength gains in other rep ranges and improvements in neural efficiency.
Therefore this is perhaps the best rep range for increasing strength, as there is a better balance of load/work done for hypertrophy. However with little Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy occurring working in this rep range, is not the most beneficial for size.

5-10 Reps

In this repertition range we have Myofibril, Sarcomere, and Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy occurring. Using this rep range you will receive lots of growth as well some strength gains.
Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy does not directly increase strength, but it increases size, what a bodybuilder trains for. This is the best range, according to science, to train in as a bodybuilder.

10-15 Reps

Some Sarcoplasmic with little Myofibral and Sarcomere Hypertrophy occur in rep ranges of 10-15. More fatigue and a greater extent of waste products are produced when training in this rep range.
More Than 15 Reps

Capillary density increases with little Sarcoplasmic growth with rep ranges above 15. Muscle endurace begins to become a factor, but this is not what you are looking for as a bodybuilder.
Using Personal Experience

As we have heard countless times before, "everybody's different," and "science isn't always right" so I'll give you my personal experience with working in different repetition ranges.

1-3 Reps

I rarely step into this rep range (only when performing olympic lifts), so I cannot give you a real prediction to whether this is the optimal rep range to work in.
3-5 Reps

I often use sets of 4 with my compound exercises, as I am more a powerbuilder then a bodybuilder. I've found that working in this rep range the strength gains outweighed the size gains, however I still did get size gains working in this range.
5-10 Reps

This is the range I work in most the time, primarily towards the lower end (sets of 5 and 6), as I found it gives a nice balance of size and strength gains. However, when I begun training well (this was when I trained more as a bodybuilder, rather than a powerbuilder), I used to perform sets of 8, 9 and 10.
When working with these reps I found my size gains going through the roof. So I would say this is definitely the best rep range to work in for size, so far from my experience.

10-15 Reps

I haven't worked in this rep range, since my newbie days. Even then with limited training this rep range did not produce optimal size gains. When discovering that I was getting little results to show for my hard work in the gym, I lowered my reps.
More Than 15 Reps

I have never ventured into high repetitions, and don't think I ever will after seeing such great gains with medium to lower reps.
Conclusion: 5-10 Reps -> The Winner!
From what I have written in terms of both science and my personal experience, the best rep range to work in is between 5-10 reps. In terms of science this is the best rep range to work in because maximal sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (increasing the volume of the tissue that supplies energy to the muscle or is involved with the neural drive) occurs.

This is also the case with my personal experience, as I have benifited using this rep range when training primarily for size. As we all know "different things work for different people", but I am quite sure in saying that working in the 5-10 rep range will work for the large majority in training for size above all.


Set Range


What Is The Optimal Set Range?

Compared to rep ranges, set ranges are much more based on the theory, "different things work for different people."

Some people respond fantastically to high volume splits where a 4 or more exercises are used per bodypart and set ranges are more often than not above 3 per exercise.

However, most people will find they overtrain with such high volume splits and consequently their gains are reduced. They may respond better to a more "abbreviated" style of training, where often 1 exercise per small muscle and 2 exercises per large muscle are used with sets per exercise never above 2, and often 1.

So in conclusion, with set ranges, it is really dependent on what your body responds well to, more than anything else.

Sakset fra http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/topicoftheweek8.htm

Støttrup> der står så meget pis i den copy/paste der

Mængden af sarcoplasmatisk hypertrofi er forsvindende lille uanset hvilken rep range man vælger.

chestpumper skrev:http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1679
det er på norsk, men det kan sagtens forståes.

synes godt nok det er en lang og indviklet måde at fortælle, at intensiteten er mere afgørende end antallet af repetitioner. derudover må det virkelig være skrevet til noobs, for man skal ikke have trænet i ret lang tid for at være klar over, at man kan løfte mere når man tager færre gentagelser.

Sixx skrev:

chestpumper skrev:http://www.iform.no/pub/art.php?id=1679
det er på norsk, men det kan sagtens forståes.

synes godt nok det er en lang og indviklet måde at fortælle, at intensiteten er mere afgørende end antallet af repetitioner. derudover må det virkelig være skrevet til noobs, for man skal ikke have trænet i ret lang tid for at være klar over, at man kan løfte mere når man tager færre gentagelser.

Sådan er de fleste artikler på iform.no

Hvis jeg lynhurtigt må smække et semirelateret spørgsmål ind til den forstandige hr. Jagt

Hvis man søgte maksimal læg-hypertrofi, hvordan kunne en uges træning så se ud i din optik? Der er mildest talt delte meninger, men mange holder stadig ved meget høje reps og 'burn'-træning til læg... det forestiller jeg mig, at du modsætter dig; netop fordi det retter sig ind mod den sarkoplasmiske !

Mine lægmuskler er bestemt ikke glade for at vokse, og det bliver jeg mere og mere træt af. Vil satme gerne forsøge at lægge lidt kvalitetsmasse på dem over det næste års tid

Har kigget på dette lidt ukonventionelle program, som jeg finder interessant: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle ... alves.html

Der er mildest talt delte meninger, men mange holder stadig ved meget høje reps og 'burn'-træning til læg... det forestiller jeg mig, at du modsætter dig; netop fordi det retter sig ind mod den sarkoplasmiske !

Høj-rep, "burn" træning vil stadigvæk primært give hypertrofi af de kontraktile elementer i musklen. Sarkoplasmatisk hypertrofi udgør en så lille del af den samlede hypertrofi man opnår ved styrketræning, uanset om man kører 5 reps eller 20 reps. Jeg har selv tidligere været hurtig til at skrive om disse 2 typer af hypertrofi, men blev sat på plads af Morten Zacho som har motiononline

Jeg er iøvrigt også fortaler for høj-rep træning til læg. Men ikke pga. en masse mystisk bro-science forklaringer med at læggen bruges mere i det daglige og hvad har vi, men mere fordi læg øvelser har så lille et bevægeudslag, at den samlede TUT ved et 6 rep sæt i calf raises er betragteligt mindre end et 6 rep sæt i squat. Jeg tror man kommer længst med høj sæt volumen og reps mellem 12-20, og så med relativt høj frekvens, 2-3 gange i ugen.

Er jeg den eneste der studsede over: "... blive større, tyndere ..." ?

How's that even possible?

doonkey skrev:Er jeg den eneste der studsede over: "... blive større, tyndere ..." ?

How's that even possible?

Må vel være mere muskelmasse + lavere BF %

Ville det være en god idé, selv at tilføje øvelser, til B2B programmet?

Jeg har nemlig lagt mærke til at der i programmet er glemt øvelser, til obliques, og så er jeg selv en ret stor fan af forskellige måder at holde på udstyret. For at isolerer enten ydre, eller inderside af musklen..

Ret mig gerne, hvis det er noget værre B***S***