# Is there scientific evidence for "fewer reps = bigger muscles" ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 22, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039 "2011-07-22T22:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tarwater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@Tarwater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarwater)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/1 "2011-07-22T22:10:25Z")
It’s a commonly held axiom in strength-training that the greater the weight you lift, and the less reps you do (insofar that you’re still exercising and not just doing fewer reps for the hell of it), the more growth you’ll experience. Additionally, it’s said that if you do more reps with less weight, you contribute to definition of your already existing muscles, as opposed to size. Is there any truth to this? ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/2 "2011-07-22T22:17:03Z")
Go ride a bicycle a thousand miles; you’re not going to build much in the way of muscle mass. Go to the gym and start doing squats and other leg exercises involving weights that limit you do about a dozen reps, and you will build mass. Many years ago I did something similar, though not quite as extreme. I spent the summer riding a bicycle. Fast, on the edge of my aerobic limit. Ten miles a day, maybe four times a week. About once a week my buddy and I went out for a 30-mile ride. Near the end of the summer I went with my family to Switzerland, where we began a 10-day backpacking trip around Mont Blanc. Our packs were heavily loaded with most of the food we would need (we did buy some bread and cheese along the way). Despite being at a peak level of aerobic fitness, my legs were unprepared to carry me and a 40-pound backpack up and down steep slopes like that; it was a totally different workout for my legs. At the end of the first day my legs were wobbly. The next morning they were _extremely_ sore and stiff, and I could barely walk. After a few more days the soreness subsided as my leg muscles recovered and got used to the high forces involved. This was about 20 years ago, so I can’t tell you for certain that I built muscle mass in my legs by the end of the backpacking trip. My main point is that low-force/high-rep activity is very, very different to your muscles from high-force low-rep activity. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/3 "2011-07-22T22:21:01Z")
[Yes](http://www.mhhe.com/hper/nutrition/williams/student/appendix_i.pdf), at least for the first part. The second part is more true for endurance than for definition. I think either can lead to definition id coupled with relatively low body fat. See page 509 of that linked pdf for the American College of Sports medicine’s official guidance and feel free to read their citations provided. > [@](#): > > Muscular strength is best developed by using heavier > weights (that require maximum or near maximum tension development) with few repetitions, and muscular > endurance is best developed by using lighter weights > with a greater number of repetitions (18,69,75,215). To > some extent, both muscular strength and endurance are > deve loped unde r e a ch condi t ion, but e a ch loading > scheme favors a more specific type of neuromuscular development (75,215). Thus, to elicit improvements in > both muscular strength and endurance, most experts > recommend 8–12 repetitions per set; however, a lower > repetition range, with a heavier weight, e.g., 6–8, repetitions may better optimize strength and power (75). Because orthopaedic injury may occur in older and/or > more frail participants (approximately 50–60 yr of age > and above) when performing efforts to volitional fatigue > using a high-intensity, low-to-moderate repetition maximum (RM), the completion of 10–15 repetitions or > RM is recommended. The term RM refers to the maximal number of times a load can be lifted before fatigue > using good form and technique. > Any magnitude of overload will result in strength > development, but heavier resistance loads to maximal, or > near maximal, effort will elicit a significantly greater > training effect (75,109,156,158,215). The intensity and > volume of exercise of the resistance training program can > be manipulated by varying the weight load, repetitions, > rest interval between exercises and sets, and number of > sets completed (75). Caution is advised for training that > emphasizes lengthening (eccentric) contractions, compared with shortening (concentric) or isometric contractions, as the potential for skeletal muscle soreness and > injury is increased particularly in untrained individuals > (8,125). ---
**Author:** ![Zenja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/47e85d/32.png) [@Zenja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenja)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/4 "2011-07-22T22:34:11Z")
If you do lots of reps, you’ll tire your muscles out and they’ll start to adapt in ways to prevent them from getting tired as easily. You can’t do a weight that’s really heavy for you very many times. By doing a weight than you can only do 5 times, you’re stressing your muscles to near their limits of strength production and they start to adapt to get stronger. At first, a lot of this happens in the nervous system, but to continue getting stronger, the muscle needs to grow. If you’re doing something like 10-15 reps (ie still a decent load, not like biking/long distance running), your muscles will still grow, they’ll just adapt in a different way. Bodybuilders, whose goal is to achieve maximum muscle size, will typically do more reps than someone training for strength, so this kind of repetition range works fine for that purpose as well, and according to some, even better. I don’t know much about bodybuilding, but I think successful bodybuilders do a fair amount of lower-rep training too, so maybe high rep isn’t enough to get past a certain point. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/5 "2011-07-22T23:40:03Z")
> [@Tarwater](#): > > It’s a commonly held axiom in strength-training that the greater the weight you lift, and the less reps you do (insofar that you’re still exercising and not just doing fewer reps for the hell of it), the more growth you’ll experience. Additionally, it’s said that if you do more reps with less weight, you contribute to definition of your already existing muscles, as opposed to size. > > Is there any truth to this? To the first part, yes. The muscle fibers that have the most growth potential are only used in very heavy movements, so you need to go heavy to train them. The second part is not so true. See [ExRx’s myths page](http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html) for more detail. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/6 "2011-07-23T00:02:57Z")
For pure strength, low-reps (anywhere from 3-6) are the ideal rep range. For muscle mass, you need to increase your rep range in order to recruit as much muscle-fiber activity as possible. This is best done in the 8-12 rep range. The idea of doing high reps (over 15) in order to “tone” the muscles is misunderstanding how muscle is formed and maintained. You aren’t going to build much (if any) muscle using weights that you can perform that many reps with, actually what you are doing is simply getting a sort of aerobic workout (and thus burning calories) from the high-level of activity that high-reps sets entail. So when you see a bit of “toning” as a result of this kind of workout, one might think it had something to do with the muscle-sculpting secrets of high-rep sets. You really are just removing the fat surrounding the muscles. \*What is key, regardless of however many reps you are doing, is intensity. Make sure that if you are doing 6 reps or 15 that the last rep in the set takes every little bit of effort that you have. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/7 "2011-07-23T00:12:57Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > For muscle mass, you need to increase your rep range in order to recruit as much muscle-fiber activity as possible. This is best done in the 8-12 rep range. This is very widely believed, but I’ve never seen any research support for it, and given that this rep range doesn’t recruit the muscle fibers that have the highest hypertrophy potential, I sincerely doubt that I ever will. Anecdotally, if you give a beginner a program like Starting Strength, that’ll put on a hell of a lot more muscle than anything following this recommendation. ---
**Author:** ![isaiahrobinson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85e7bf/32.png) [@isaiahrobinson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/isaiahrobinson)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/8 "2011-07-23T00:21:39Z")
There is scientific evidence for the ideal number of reps to do for muscle growth, although it’s not just “lower reps, more growth”. An extensive [study on the issue is here](http://weighttraining.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=weighttraining&cdn=health&tm=762&f=21&su=p284.9.336.ip_p674.7.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&st=23&zu=http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Progression_Models_in_Resistance_Training_for.26.aspx). It goes through all the elements of a workout, and says the optimal level of weight, number of reps, number of sets, rest time, rep speed, training frequency, etc, depending on whether you’re trying to maximise strength, power, endurance or muscle size (known as ‘hypertrophy’). The best way to maximise muscle hypertrophy is not to do very low reps. Rather it’s to focus on the 6-12 rep range, rotating a different number of reps in that range each time. The study also outlines a whole bunch of other information for the best way to train for muscle hypertrophy: the weight should be above 70% of your one-rep maximum, the rest periods between sets should be between 1 to 3 minutes, number of sets should be between 3 to 6, you should train between 4 to 6 days per week, and so on. It’s all there in the study at the link and it’s quite easy to read. I’ll quote the introduction and the relevant part about reps. > [@](#): > > **Muscular Hypertrophy** > > It is well known that RT [resistance training] induces muscular hypertrophy through mechanical, metabolic, and hormonal processes. The process of hypertrophy involves a proportionate increase in the net accretion of the contractile proteins actin and myosin as well as other structural proteins. Mechanical loading leads to a series of intracellular events that ultimately regulates gene expression and protein synthesis. RT may alter the activity of nearly 70 genes, up-regulate factors involved with myogenesis (e.g., myogenin, MyoD), and down-regulate inhibitory growth factors (e.g., myostatin). Protein synthesis in human skeletal muscle increases after only one bout of vigorous RT and peaks approximately 24 h postexercise. This anabolic environment remains elevated from 2 to 3 h postexercise up through 36-48 h postexercise. Other factors such as fiber type, muscle action, metabolite formation, amino acid intake, and endocrine responses (testosterone, growth hormone [GH], cortisol, insulin, and insulin-like growth factor I) contribute to the magnitude of hypertrophy. Optimal hypertrophy may comprise maximizing the combination of mechanical (use of heavy weights, ECC actions, and low to moderate volume) and metabolic (accumulation of metabolic waste products) stimuli. > > The time course of hypertrophy has been examined in previously untrained individuals. Neural adaptations predominate during the early stages of training. Muscle hypertrophy becomes evident within the first 6 wk, although changes in the quality of proteins and protein synthesis rates take place much earlier. From this point onward, there appears to be interplay between neural adaptations and hypertrophy in the expression of strength. Less muscle mass is recruited during training with a given workload once adaptation has taken place. These findings indicate that progressive overloading is necessary for maximal muscle fiber recruitment and, consequently, muscle fiber hypertrophy. This also indicates that alterations in program design targeting both neural and hypertrophic factors may be most beneficial for maximizing strength and hypertrophy. > > **PROGRAM DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY** > > **Muscle Action** > Evidence statement and recommendation: > > Evidence category A. Similar to strength training, it is recommended that CON, ECC, and ISOM muscle actions be included for novice, intermediate, and advanced RT. > > **Loading and Volume** > A variety of styles of training have been shown to increase hypertrophy in men and women. In untrained individuals, similar increases in lean body mass have been shown between single- and multiple-set training, although there is evidence supporting greater hypertrophy enhancement with multiple-set training. Many of these studies in previously untrained individuals have demonstrated that general, nonspecific program design is effective for increasing hypertrophy in novice to intermediate individuals. Manipulation of acute program variables to optimize both the mechanical and the metabolic factors (using several loading/volume schemes) appears to be the most effective way to optimize hypertrophy during advanced stages of training. RT programs targeting muscle hypertrophy have used moderate to very high loading, relatively high volume, and short rest intervals. These programs have been shown to induce a greater acute elevation in testosterone and GH than high-load, low-volume programs with long (3 min) rest periods. Total work, in combination with mechanical loading, has been implicated for both gains in strength and hypertrophy. This finding has been supported, in part, by greater hypertrophy associated with high-volume, multiple-set programs compared with low-volume, single-set programs in resistance-trained individuals. Traditional RT (high load, low repetition, and long rest periods) has produced significant hypertrophy; however, it has been suggested that the total work involved with traditional RT alone may not maximize hypertrophy. Goto et al. showed that the addition of one set per exercise (to a conventional RT workout) consisting of light loading for 25-35 repetitions led to increased muscle CSA whereas conventional strength training alone (e.g., multiple sets of 3-5 RM) did not increase muscle CSA. The addition of the high-volume sets led to greater acute elevations in GH. However, light loading alone may not be sufficient as Campos et al. have reported that 8 wk of training with two sets of 25-28 RM did not result in Type I or Type II muscle fiber hypertrophy. Thus, it appears that the combination of strength training (emphasizing mechanical loading) and hypertrophy training, that is, moderate loading, high repetitions, short rest intervals, which emphasizes total work (and reliance upon glycolysis and metabolic factors), is most effective for advanced hypertrophy training. > > **Evidence statement and recommendation.** > > \*\*Evidence category A. \*\*For novice and intermediate individuals, it is recommended that moderate loading be used (70-85% of 1 RM) for 8-12 repetitions per set for one to three sets per exercise. > > \*\*Evidence category C. \*\*For advanced training, it is recommended that a loading range of 70-100% of 1 RM be used for 1-12 repetitions per set for three to six sets per exercise in periodized manner such that the majority of training is devoted to 6-12 RM and less training devoted to 1-6 RM loading. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/9 "2011-07-23T00:34:07Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > This is very widely believed, but I’ve never seen any research support for it, and given that this rep range doesn’t recruit the muscle fibers that have the highest hypertrophy potential, I sincerely doubt that I ever will. Anecdotally, if you give a beginner a program like Starting Strength, that’ll put on a hell of a lot more muscle than anything following this recommendation. Well I know everyone here loves a scientific study to back up what they say but when it comes to lifting weights and getting results, the proof speaks for itself. I have been living in a gym for more than a decade and have been a competitive bodybuilder for more than 4 years. Why do you think there is not a bodybuilder alive who trains with extremely low-reps? Or at least predominantly trains that way. An argument can be made for incorporating very low-rep training into a mass-building plan as a foundation for strength but not for building muscle. Conversely, why do you think there is not a competitive powerlifter alive who trains for hypertrophy and uses mid-range reps? They train exclusively for strength and they train in extremely low-rep ranges (predominantly). ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/10 "2011-07-23T00:41:44Z")
And, with all that being said, you really can’t say “so and so number of reps works best for everyone” because many things (aside from genetics) influence the effectiveness of a given number of reps in a set. Like the speed of those reps, the quality of those reps, the intensity of those reps and the range of motion of them. So while general terms can be laid out, it really does depend on the individual, their execution of the exercise and their specific genetics (which can influence a person to respond better to lower reps, although not typical). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/11 "2011-07-23T02:04:22Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > I have been living in a gym for more than a decade … Well I hope you can afford an apartment soon. Anyway. **isiah** ’s post and link is more complete than mine. The fundamental principle is that that high reps lower weight builds endurance but not mass. Strength and power, which are a function of both muscle mass and the manner in which that mass is utilized (referred to as “neuromuscular adaptation”) cannot be optimized by high rep work alone. If you want strength, power, and/or mass then relatively lower rep higher weight gets thrown in. For those purposes your 8-12 reps is low enough. Now getting more detailed it gets more complicated. You are right that it depends on the individual and how already trained they are. Hence the different guidelines for the advanced like you and the novice to intermediate lifter. More sets with shorter intervals helps more with mass (hypertrophy). But the theme throughout the sports medicine literature is both the obvious that progression is required to keep making gains, and fairly conclusive evidence that variety is best. Traditionally that gets called “periodization” and the usual sort, “linear periodization” - starting with higher volume lower intensity sets and over weeks adding more weight and decreasing volume, has been shown to be inferior to mixing it up lots more - “undulating periodization” as it is called. [Here is one of the studies](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910831). > [@](#): > > The aim of this study was to compare the effects of linear (LP) and daily undulating periodized (DUP) resistance training on body composition and maximal strength levels. … undulating periodized strength training induced higher increases in maximal strength than the linear model in strength-trained men. For maximizing strength increases, daily intensity and volume variations were more effective than weekly variations. How that gets played out in the ACSM guidelines varies according to the goal. Again, if the goal is mass then multiple sets with short rests is key, but while the focus should be on the 6-12 rep sets, adding in high weight lower rep and lower weight very high rep sets helps. For power you’ve got to throw in some explosive movements. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/12 "2011-07-23T02:38:49Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > Well I know everyone here loves a scientific study to back up what they say but when it comes to lifting weights and getting results, the proof speaks for itself. That isn’t proof. Things that athletes always used to do that are now recommended against: (1) Stretching before activity. This is now shown to cause more injury. (2) Not drinking any water during activity. (3) Drinking a metric shit ton of water. This and above have been discarded in favor of (4) Adding fat/dieting in a build up/slim down cycle. Body builders used to do this, but a balanced consistent diet has been shown to be the most effective. Everyone here loves a scientific study because they like their facts to be proven. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/13 "2011-07-23T04:07:45Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > Why do you think there is not a bodybuilder alive who trains with extremely low-reps? Depends on what you mean by “extremely low”. [Dorian Yates](http://muscleandbrawn.com/dorian-yates-workout-routine/) won the Olympia half a dozen times, and he repopularized High Intensity Training of the sort that Nautilus and Mike Mentzer used. This kind of training does very few sets, but lots of negatives and forced reps. If it were simply a matter of “low reps build size”, there wouldn’t be any flyweight powerlifters. Conversely, [Tom Platz](http://www.muscle-build.com/tom-platz.html) was known to squat 225 for ten minutes straight, and squatted [500 for 23 reps](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjtVvYk1HWw). Or [Ronnie Coleman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRU9ud73jS8&feature=related), for that matter. People vary in their response to exercise, and at the super-elite level, a lot of the champions grow no matter what they do, and sometimes even in spite of what they do. Of course, much of this has to do with anabolics, but that is another thread. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/14 "2011-07-23T06:52:21Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That isn’t proof. Things that athletes always used to do that are now recommended against: > > (1) Stretching before activity. This is now shown to cause more injury. > > (2) Not drinking any water during activity. > > (3) Drinking a metric shit ton of water. This and above have been discarded in favor of > > (4) Adding fat/dieting in a build up/slim down cycle. Body builders used to do this, but a balanced consistent diet has been shown to be the most effective. > > Everyone here loves a scientific study because they like their facts to be proven. > **[Redirect Notice](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bodybuilding.com%2Ffun%2Flayne45.htm&ei=5W0qToLMDqjL0QGsrunVCg&usg=AFQjCNEVrR1L-mZzs-DtK6X5xhv2L5VA9A)** Here they refer to peer-reviewed studies which confirm the claim that sets in the 6-12 rep range generally produce the most hypertrophy. My point wasn’t that I couldn’t find scientific evidence to back up my claim, what I was saying was look at the end result: a bodybuilder. Their physiques are the evidence for the effectiveness of the 8-12 rep range, THAT was what I was saying. Not that the fact that most bodybuilders trained in that fashion was in fact that evidence. And futhermore, these are just general principles, like with Mike Mentzer’s training technique, many things can influence what impacts “a rep”. Not all reps are created equal. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/15 "2011-07-23T07:08:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That isn’t proof. Things that athletes always used to do that are now recommended against: > > (1) Stretching before activity. This is now shown to cause more injury. > > (2) Not drinking any water during activity. > > (3) Drinking a metric shit ton of water. This and above have been discarded in favor of > > (4) Adding fat/dieting in a build up/slim down cycle. Body builders used to do this, but a balanced consistent diet has been shown to be the most effective. > > Everyone here loves a scientific study because they like their facts to be proven. “(4) Adding fat/dieting in a build up/slim down cycle. Body builders used to do this, but a balanced consistent diet has been shown to be the most effective.” I just glossed over these the first time I read this after the first couple and I didnt see number four clearly. You are absolutely entirely mis-informed here. I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “adding fat in a build-up cycle” but a bodybuilder who is undergoing a mass-gaining (muscle-building) cycle will indeed add fat as well as protein and carbohydrates; in other words calories. Not indiscriminately of course, far from it. A dedicated bodybuilder will only eat the foods that he/she knows will give them the best results and the best results come from good, healthy things. And conversely, a bodbuilder who is preparing to compete in a contest diets OUT OF THEIR MIND for months just for 90 seconds on stage. This diet, while not one that should or could be maintained indefinitely, isn’t necessarily unhealthy, if done right. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/16 "2011-07-23T07:12:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Depends on what you mean by “extremely low”. [Dorian Yates](http://muscleandbrawn.com/dorian-yates-workout-routine/) won the Olympia half a dozen times, and he repopularized High Intensity Training of the sort that Nautilus and Mike Mentzer used. This kind of training does very few sets, but lots of negatives and forced reps. > > If it were simply a matter of “low reps build size”, there wouldn’t be any flyweight powerlifters. Conversely, [Tom Platz](http://www.muscle-build.com/tom-platz.html) was known to squat 225 for ten minutes straight, and squatted [500 for 23 reps](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjtVvYk1HWw). Or [Ronnie Coleman](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRU9ud73jS8&feature=related), for that matter. > > People vary in their response to exercise, and at the super-elite level, a lot of the champions grow no matter what they do, and sometimes even in spite of what they do. > > Of course, much of this has to do with anabolics, but that is another thread. > > Regards, > Shodan Well no, it’s not another thread, not really. Because those anabolics have a very big impact on the effectiveness of those training techniques. And each and every one of those athletes (except maybe one I’m not sure about) were heavy anabolic-steroid (and other illicit anabolic drug) users. ---
**Author:** ![isaiahrobinson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85e7bf/32.png) [@isaiahrobinson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/isaiahrobinson)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/17 "2011-07-23T11:19:26Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > This is very widely believed, but I’ve never seen any research support for it, and given that this rep range doesn’t recruit the muscle fibers that have the highest hypertrophy potential, I sincerely doubt that I ever will. Anecdotally, if you give a beginner a program like Starting Strength, that’ll put on a hell of a lot more muscle than anything following this recommendation. As per the report I cited above, evidence shows the optimal way to train for muscle hypertrophy is to rotate between 1 to 12 reps, focusing more on the 6-12 rep range. Focusing on the 1-6 rep range - which is the optimal range for increasing strength rather than muscle hypertrophy - will still produce hypertrophy, just not as effectively. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/18 "2011-07-24T15:40:16Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > My point wasn’t that I couldn’t find scientific evidence to back up my claim, what I was saying was look at the end result: a bodybuilder. And my point is that this isn’t sound logic. I could have used the same argument to support those false premises I posted before. “Elite athlete X doesn’t drink water while training, but just look at the results. It must be true!”. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/19 "2011-07-24T15:48:27Z")
> [@jamiemcgarry](#): > > “(4) Adding fat/dieting in a build up/slim down cycle. Body builders used to do this, but a balanced consistent diet has been shown to be the most effective.” > > I just glossed over these the first time I read this after the first couple and I didnt see number four clearly. You are absolutely entirely mis-informed here. I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “adding fat in a build-up cycle” but a bodybuilder who is undergoing a mass-gaining (muscle-building) cycle will indeed add fat as well as protein and carbohydrates; in other words calories. Not indiscriminately of course, far from it. A dedicated bodybuilder will only eat the foods that he/she knows will give them the best results and the best results come from good, healthy things. And conversely, a bodbuilder who is preparing to compete in a contest diets OUT OF THEIR MIND for months just for 90 seconds on stage. This diet, while not one that should or could be maintained indefinitely, isn’t necessarily unhealthy, if done right. I mean they get fat while bulking up. Putting on 10-15 pounds of fat in addition to building muscle. They then go on a diet and lose the extra fat in a cutting/slimming mode. Supposedly it allows you to build muscle faster than simply eating a balanced diet and adding solely muscle. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-fewer-reps-bigger-muscles/590039/20 "2011-07-25T03:04:08Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > This was about 20 years ago, so I can’t tell you for certain that I built muscle mass in my legs by the end of the backpacking trip. My main point is that low-force/high-rep activity is very, very different to your muscles from high-force low-rep activity. I think what you discovered was that the muscles you use to ride a bike are not the same ones you use to walk/run. You’re walking muscles were out of condition. Bike riding is not necessarily lots of reps, low force, it depends on what sort of gearing you use and what the terrain is like. Someone doing a lot of hill-climbing on a bike is essentially doing relatively high force low rep activity, but they’re still going to run into the same problem you did with your backpacking trip if they don’t do walking/running as well as bike riding.