File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
question about lifting to the /fit/izens
When lifting, how does reps:sets correlate to results?(I guess, I suck at wording things)
Like how will low:high build me as opposed to high:low? I know I read somewhere that 5x5 builds you like a fridge, which is something I'd like to stay away from. However,>>441473is like a triangle, which is what I want.

I know this has been posted on here a few times, but I can't recall ever seeing a straight answer
>> Anonymous
low reps means higher weights for more intensity for strength building
>> Anonymous
wat
>> Anonymous
5 reps strength, 10 reps hypertrophy.

/thread
>> Anonymous
I never did 5x5, but I know it does a good job training both your upper and lower body equally. You probably won't end up looking like a "fridge" unless you squat 3x a week, and bench 1x a week or something, and that's now how the 5x5 works.

as far as reps:sets, read what wiki says. I don't worry about it too much I always stick to around 8 reps or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_hypertrophy

according to that low reps with a huge weight will make you get stronger, but maybe not quickly as big as high reps and a lower weight, which will get you bigger but not as strong. Lower weight does not mean 5lb curlz though.
>> Anonymous
>>441659
Not op but I have been wondering about the sets part. I've heard the number 3 or 5 being thrown around for best number of reps to build pure strength, while 8 being best for building muscle mass. Is there another magical number for sets that is "best" for building strength or muscle?
>> Anonymous
You want higher reps and less sets; 3x10-15 range.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This chart explains everything
>> Anonymous
>>441691

except how and why
>> Anonymous
>>441659
5x5 builds you like an X.

V-shaped upper body + legs = X

Of course, it all depends on your body type. If you were fat to begin with, enjoy being a fridge for the rest of your life.
>> Anonymous
>>441696

Well shit, now you're asking for more than your original question engendered. Crack open an exercise physiology book and take some anatomy courses for a few years like I did. And guess what, posting that chart is all the help you're going to get from me.
>> S.T.A.L.K.E.R. !3GqYIJ3Obs
inventing the new 4x6

both the goodness of 5x5 strength and 3x8 size
I'm a genious
>> Anonymous
>>441659
8-12 for size, 5 for strength
>> Anonymous
>>4417005x5 builds you like an X.

No, working out your upper and lower body builds you like an X, dumb ass.
>> Anonymous
>>441713both the goodness of 5x5 strength and 3x8 size

3x8 is what I used to do. 4x8 is the way to go.

And to answer the OPs question more:
Everyone seems to have covered the difference in reps pretty well. The difference in number of sets is just how hard you're working. 5x5 is what everyone on /fit/ beats off to (SQUATZ, OATZ, if you're not doing 5x5 you're burning muscle gaining fat etc.). If you were to do 5x3, you wouldn't be doing enough sets to adequately work your muscles and you wouldn't see very good results. If you were to do 5x7, you wouldn't see good results because your weights are either too low or your form is weird.
>> Anonymous
I am still seeing _some_ visible gains with 3x5
>> Anonymous
>>441727
its:
sets x reps

>>441700
see>>441726
>> Anonymous
>>441678
but can you get ripped with low strong reps?