6 to 8 reps or 8 to 12 reps or 10 to 15 reps does it matter

Ok, I've read a number of posts from this forum and I have seen some things that make me question what I am doing.

I currently do Cardio (60 minutes) and Weight Lifting (30 minutes) every day except weekends.  I focus on 1 or 2 muscle groups per weight lifting day so that I can rest for 1 to 2 days inbetween.

My goal is to tone my muscles not look like Mr. Universe.  I want definition not bulk (i actually like being able to bend my arms and legs).

I have been taught that to get bulk you use max weight 6 to 8 reps for 2 sets.  For tone I have been taught 10 to 15 reps for 3 sets.

I am doing 8 to 12 reps for 3 sets because I want a little of both right now until I reach where I want to be shape wise.

Is what I am doing correct?  Should I be doing 6-8 reps and 2 sets even if I just want to get definition?  Please explain your opinion with as much facts as possible.

Yup, sounds like a good plan - though I'd also think that keeping a workout journal and note down how your body responds to each different rep scheme will help you figure out how useful any particular set/rep scheme is for your goals.

  (Yeah, this is why I distrust the level of knowledge displayed by a lot of personal trainers. Rules of thumb without explaining why or what goals each set/rep scheme is appropriate for isn't real useful and makes me think that perhaps they don't know the underlying reasons for the advice they're giving and what situations the various rep schemes are approriate for.)

thanks, melkor.  gives me some more ingredients for the "workout hopper" in my brain.

This was a good discussion.  Thanks all!

Hi all,

I'm a set person when it come to doing my toning workout.

Some people don't do sets, they just pick a number and go at it.
I don't want to hurt myself, so a low number and few sets always work for me.
I do 100 sit ups.. 5 sets 20 reps With a 1 min rest. In between every set.
I do much more, but I don't think I need to go on and on.
I'm just a set person.

Good Luck,
Lynn

that's just it though, melkor -- my body doesn't seem to respond to anything but food! Remember when I was on RFFL? And since then too. I make progress in terms of weight/reps (been going down in amount of assist on pullups, doing pushups on stands with feet on a step now, etc) but I don't see any change in my body until I change my eating habits.

I've found for myself, that depending on what I am working toward, whether it's strength gains, or muscle growth, it depends on the part of my body I am training.  I don't pigeon hole my entire body with a rep scheme.  Different parts of my body react more favorably to different numbers of reps.  My best strength gains, on Bench press have come doing workouts almost exclusively working to failure in the 7-8 rep range, but for squats, it's higher.  Find what works for, don't be afraid to pull away from cookie cutter thinking, and experiment.

 

 

Oh, and to flowerbud, diet  supercedes workout scheme, IMO, in most cases. The best workout in the world, paired with the wrong diet, will never be effective.  A great diet, with less than perfect workout, will still yield results, for many.

Agreed, but my diet isn't bad, it's just not strict. Based on other people's experiences on here, I'd think I would have seen some effect... but so far, nothing.

Original Post by flowerbud:

Agreed, but my diet isn't bad, it's just not strict. Based on other people's experiences on here, I'd think I would have seen some effect... but so far, nothing.

 So what do you change, when you see improvement?  What do you get strict about? 

Counting calories. 1200-1400/day is the only way I've seen any reduction in body fat.

Original Post by flowerbud:

Counting calories. 1200-1400/day is the only way I've seen any reduction in body fat.

 Definitely. Your diet is far and away the #1 factor in weight loss. There is absolutely NO getting around that

OK but if everything is pointless unless I eat less than 1400 cals/day... well then screw it! I'd rather eat!

Edited to add that of course I realize it's not "pointless" unless I eat less than 1400. What I'm trying to say is that 1400 seems and feels like a bit too little and I don't know why my body does nothing but gain weight when I eat more than that.

Well, the usual rule of thumb is that diet is about 70% of your results so it's close to impossible to out-train your dietary choices.

 And yep, figuring out what your body responds best to is a matter of trying different things on for size and keeping detailed notes about how each variable affected you. Or at least jot down some impressions of your workout each time you do it ;)

 And yup, 1400 calories seem very, very low for you; perhaps your body functions best at the BF% you are at right now? It's one of the secrets of the fitness models that they don't tell you in the advertisements - most of them are mutants who can comfortably stay at around 9% body fat and function well in their daily life, while a normal female metabolism does a lot better at a minimum of 12-15%, and a median of 15-18%. So it might not be really advisable for you to try to get shed more than a few pounds anyway, and your body's putting you on notice of that by ferociously holding on to what it's got.

But I'm close to 25% by all calculators and my bf scale as well. Isn't that a bit high for a percentage my body naturally wants to be at?

I guess what scares me is 1400 isn't that far off based on the calculators. 1600 sedentary, and say about 300 cals every time I work out, say 5x/week, brings me to 1800... which makes 1400 only a 400-cal deficit.

Well, I guess all I want to shed is a few lbs. I'd be very happy with 10. But all I've seen have been gains. Maybe (or at least, I'm hoping) things will stabilize as I continue to eat normally (without strict restriction).

 Not even remotely high - just check out the WHO guidelines for body fat percentages. 'course, their figures aren't based off aesthetics, and even the median athletic range is lower than what the WHO thinks is good for you, but as you can see you're at the lower end of healthy, and aside from aesthetic considerations there's no reason for you to drop any weight.

 About that, by the way- there's also what Berardi calls G-Flux in his seminars, basically that the higher the rate of energy turnover in your body, the leaner you will get even at maintenance - granted it's a slower process than dieting, but you should see some kind of results over time.

 Well, if your body was the kind to do as was expected of it, that is ;)

g-flux, i love it!  i picture me, like bugs bunny, running after a floating carrot.  that is, actually, sort of what it's like, isn't it?  the only thing i don't like about that article (and all of t-nation nutrition) is the carb timing.  who wants to restrict carbs to during and post exercise.  yuck.  it's just beyond my capability.

Yeah, I'm generally sceptical of the T-nation carb phobia as well  - I mean, granted we didn't evolve to eat Krispy Kreme, but that's no reason to also cut out steel-cut oats and carrots from your diet, neh?

Original Post by melkor:

Yeah, I'm generally sceptical of the T-nation carb phobia as well  - I mean, granted we didn't evolve to eat Krispy Kreme, but that's no reason to also cut out steel-cut oats and carrots from your diet, neh?

 I use to work for Krispy Kreme, and after seeing the things they did with them Made me sick to my tummy.. I can't have them, and I haven't had them in over 13 years... I hated that job, and the cook was nasty.... I think if I would have saw how most of the junk was made back then, I would have not ate anything that came hot or in a package... If I can't see how it's made I'm okay with it.. I guess.... When that Hot light come on, you can see every fat person come out.. They would call and ask if that light was on....

Melkor - Thanks a bunch for that G-flux article.  It was interesting.  I'm going to try and follow more closely to that, although I do a lot of similar things already.  Yet I can't say that I will limit my carbs as much as he suggests.  I attribute my current high weight situation probably 40% to rebounding from weight lost on the south beach diet, and anything that suggests limiting my carbs too much makes me itchy and nervous. Not that I eat donuts, I try to get most of my carbs from whole grains, and I can't believe that sprouted grain toast in the morning or whole grain hot cereal will make me any fatter.  But I digress, i actually had a question about something you posted earlier.  You said:

 Bringing your maximal strength up to the same level of developement as your energy systems is a good idea - and which rep range you wind up using depends mostly on whether it's your strength or endurance that's lagging ;)

 In a calorie deficit you're mostly concerned with keeping exisiting muscle fibre, and that's best accomplished through - well, using those muscles. So lifting in a rep range that's energy-system dominant (>12) is kinda not very useful ;)

 

I suppose I just don't exactly understand what you mean by bringing your maximal strength up to the same level of development as your energy systems.  Would you mind explaining what that means?  Because I'm not sure how to know whether strength or endurance is lagging.  And if  you do a strength routine that involves higher reps, does that mean that you're really not strengthening at all or just that strengthening is not maximized?

 Basically, that you look a lot stronger than you are - your muscles are more show than go.

 Olympic coach Charles Poliquin wrote an article a while back about the lack of maximal strength developement in most bodybuilders who only lift weights in the 8-12 rep range; when he trains with people who're 70-80lbs heavier than him he frequently lifts more weight than they do, because he trains in the 1-5 rep range some of the time. Which explains people like Maryse Turcotte - she lifted 253lbs overhead at a bodyweight of 125lbs and looks rather petite, wouldn't you say? She's far stronger than she looks because she trains almost exclusively in the strength range; every time she picks up a weight it's up near the maximum of what she can handle.

 Eric Cressey wrote the book on telling whether it's your strength or size that's lacking in his It Looked Good on Paper article - keep in mind that Cressey is a powerlifter when you read it though; and what he thinks is "average" is about twice what I can do, but he explains how to bring your strength in line with your size by lifting heavy. Or your size in line with your strength - all things being equal, larger muscles can lift more so unless you're Maryse Turcotte competing in a specific weight class, more muscle is generally beneficial when you want to lift more.

 And though gaining muscle is close to impossible in a calorie deficit unless you're Duke or Jasontarin, maximal strength (how much you can lift 1-2 times) is a function of neurological adaption and your ability to make all your muscle fibres fire at once. So even in a calorie deficit you can grow significantly stronger without adding muscle mass, because you teach your muscles and nervous system to use what you have more efficiently.

Huh, that's interesting. I never really thought of it that way.  My other question if you don't mind one more :) is whether it is increasing strength during calorie deficit that keeps you from losing muscle mass?  And how do you increase strength without gaining muscle.  Maybe this is my ignorance showing, but I always thought they were the same thing.  I was actually kind of amused to think about trying to bring my strength in line with how strong I look, since I imagine I look pretty weak, i don't imagine that would be very hard :)

It seems to me that the upshot of this thread has been that those of us trying to lose weight are still best off doing the heaviest weight we can for 8-12 reps?  Is that correct?