high reps vs. low reps in arms?

jwbond

New Member
i notice that my arms look fuller when i have lighter weights at higher reps with little rest in between sets. i am assuming this heps to increase glycogen stores within the muscle.


i want to have my arms looking as big as possible at all times. am i better off going for maximum glycogen storage or should i use heavier weights to try to increase lbm in the arms?


(I am gaining weight great this cycle with heaey use of compounds, my routine looks as follows:

4-5 times a week switching off

A
DB Incline Bench
Inner Grip Pulldowns
Leg Presses
BB Shoulder Press
DB Lateral Raises (SS)
Seated Rows
Dips
Calf Raises

B
Wide Grip Pulldowns
BB Incline Bench
Stiff Legged Deads
DB Shoulder Press
BB Shrugs
Incline DB Curls
Skull Crushers

I have gone from 190lbs at about 12%bf to 202lbs at 14-15% bf. i am currently ending the first week of the 5s and am seeing growth all over, but like many am looking for more on the old arms.)
 
I've been thinking along similar lines lately.

I don't enjoy heavy weight / lows reps for DB curls, skull crushers, or just about any isolation exercise. I seem to feel them more in my joints and my body doesn't seem to respond. Now, I've been fortunate since the last 1970s to meet many of the top pros, and I can't think of any of them that go really heavy (and do low reps) on their isolation exercises. Ronnie Coleman does heavy DB curls, but usually for 8 reps or more. The Mentzer brothers used to do 6-8 reps, which is about as low as anyone I know of. DB laterals, leg extensions, most arm work ... They all seem to do more reps.

This isn't really providing you with any answers, JW, but it sure seems to me like most pros uses higher reps for their arms. Of course they are chemically enhanced, but I'm not sure that matters in this instance. Good luck!
 
The pros can get away with doing higher reps simply because they are using AAS and other stuff we don't even know of. I remember reading somewhere in the FAQ that these guys eventually get so strong that they choose lower weights/higher reps just for safety, because either way will work for them. For the rest of us, though, load is the way to go.

That pumped look on the arms lasts only for a while after the workout and it is bound to be temporary, because it is mainly due to increased blood flow. Look again the next day and there is nothing left. For something more permanent, look for LBM gains.

I don't believe that arm muscles or calf muscles are different from chest or back muscles in the way they respond to training. Of course they are smaller muscle groups, but the mechanics of their growth remains the same.

Maybe other guys can explain it better than I do
tounge.gif
, but I think this is the general idea.

Regards,
Dimitris
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (9to5lifter @ Dec. 09 2005,3:03)]That pumped look on the arms lasts only for a while after the workout and it is bound to be temporary, because it is mainly due to increased blood flow. Look again the next day and there is nothing left.
actually, my effects were not simply a temperary pump. they appeared fuller all around the clock. my guess is the increase in glycogen storage, not blood flow.


any vets have any answers?
 
I am also considering not doing 5 reps for arms. The extra heavy weights are lighting my joints up. I think I'll probably stick to 8's from here on out.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I am also considering not doing 5 reps for arms. The extra heavy weights are lighting my joints up.
Ah, joint problems are a different issue. I too have opted to drop arm isolations after the end of the 5's.

Regards,
Dimitris
 
Hi JW,
You say you went from 190 to 202 with a small increase in bf.
Have you been lifting long or are you just beginning. I am thinking of trying HST & am looking at the gains of veteran lifters vs new lifters which normally have good growth. I have been lifting on & off for about 20yrs & now seriously back into it for the past 7 months, but muscle memory is used up & have reached a plateau once again.
Looking for similar results, I'm about 191 looking for 205+
Thx,
Omega
 
i personally dont enjoy lifting weights below the 8-10 rep range for iso's,not much of a pump or stretch plus i stay more vascular in the higher rep range through out the whole cycle which is what jwbond was talking about.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Omega_man @ Dec. 09 2005,10:30)]Hi JW,
You say you went from 190 to 202 with a small increase in bf.
Have you been lifting long or are you just beginning. I am thinking of trying HST & am looking at the gains of veteran lifters vs new lifters which normally have good growth. I have been lifting on & off for about 20yrs & now seriously back into it for the past 7 months, but muscle memory is used up & have reached a plateau once again.
Looking for similar results, I'm about 191 looking for 205+
Thx,
Omega
i came on this site a while ago looking for something new as i was getting disillusioned with my normal training routine,i started the hst program some what incorrectly at first, im now on my second official cycle and i can say with out a doubt it works,i train with a freind who was training in the conventional way for two years,some good results but now in his second cycle also hes made far more impessive gains.i like to play about with my routines testing new things but stick to the basic principals. good luck.
 
Guys dont take this the wrong way!

Jwbond that sounds like good bulking results but I want to make sure everyone understand body fat...I know I times I have trouble understanding.

Roughly speaking statistically we know that you have to gain or loss 3 pounds of fat to increase/decrease your BF%

So if Jw was weighing 190 and now he ways 202 that is a lean body mass gain of 3 pounds. 9 pounds of fat the other is muscle.

I know I get caught up in thinking that when I gain weight it is all muscle but in reality its not.


However that being said 3 pound of muscle in that short of time is very impressive!!!
 
Omega_man, i have been lifting for about 4-6 years now (depending on when you start counting, as like many i have gotten more serious about it every year). i use to do the conventional each body part once a week broken up into 3-4 days of training. hst has produced better results than ANYTHING ive ever tired (also experimented with HIT and other routines). i highly recommend reading the faq several times and asking questions as needed, as it seems many start off doing it wrong.

joe.muslce, i know my weight gain seems impossible without aas. however, keep in mind i have lifted for years and have just recently started lifting legs. i did not do accurate measurements for bf% so they might be off. however i could barely see my top two rows of abs when i started this cycle and i can still barely see them now, so i cant imagine too big of a diference.
 
What's best? Both high rep/light weight work AND low rep/high weight. Preferrably do the heavy work first.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Joe.Muscle @ Dec. 09 2005,11:02)]Guys dont take this the wrong way!
Jwbond that sounds like good bulking results but I want to make sure everyone understand body fat...I know I times I have trouble understanding.
Roughly speaking statistically we know that you have to gain or loss 3 pounds of fat to increase/decrease your BF%
So if Jw was weighing 190 and now he ways 202 that is a lean body mass gain of 3 pounds. 9 pounds of fat the other is muscle.
For explaining how BF percentages work, it seems you would know a little better. Doing the simple math is a lot more accurate than "speaking roughly." Note that if a 1% increase is 3 lbs, a total weight of 300 lbs is implied.

190 @ 12% = 190*0.12 = 22.8 lbs BF before
202 @ 14.5% = 202*0.145 = 29.3 lbs BF after
29.3 lbs - 22.8 lbs = +6.5 lbs BF change
12 lbs total - 6.5 lbs BF = +5.5 lbs LBM change

So the ratio of muscle to fat gain was 5.5:6.5, or 1:1.18, a good 1 to 1. This is a lot different from your 3:9 (or 1:3) ratio. Use the 1% = 3 lbs on a smaller guy and you're going to be even further off the mark.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Joe.Muscle @ Dec. 09 2005,10:02)]Roughly speaking statistically we know that you have to gain or loss 3 pounds of fat to increase/decrease your BF%
Not trying to pick on you there Joe and I know you said roughly speaking, but....

You can also change your BF% by adding lean tissue without any change to your existing fat mass.

Looking at creatine it's been seen that changes of 3-7lbs can occur simpy because of water uptake into the cell with creatine supplementation, your body has to do this in order to keep ionic stability with increases of Cr in the cell. With that in mind a 200 Lb man, at 15% BF (30 lbs fat mass) just went to 14.7 - 14.4% BF.
 
I'm currently doing reverse pyramids, starting with my 8RM, on DB curls.

i.e. 8x 27.5kg, then immediately to as many as I can on 20kg, then down to 15kg.

Normally get around 35 reps. Proper form, no body swinging.
 
i should have mentioned i go off of creatine during sd and start again for the begining of the hst cycle. that should acccount for roughly 5lbs
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (jwbond @ Dec. 08 2005,4:36)]i notice that my arms look fuller when i have lighter weights at higher reps with little rest in between sets. i am assuming this heps to increase glycogen stores within the muscle.
Yes, the high rep sets are responsible for better glycogen synthesis. No magic there, simply metabollic work needed for mitochondrial activity to transport nutrients to the muscle.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]i want to have my arms looking as big as possible at all times. am i better off going for maximum glycogen storage or should i use heavier weights to try to increase lbm in the arms?
1.) It doesn't have to be (and in fact shouldn't be) a tradeoff. You can increase lean body mass in the arms without sarcrificing glycogen storage. Add enough metabollic work to your arms and eat enough (no use getting metabollic work if there won't be enough nutrients to "feed" the muscles, you still won't grow).
2.) Going heavy on your arms (I assume you mean isolations like curls) during the end of the cycle is not a necessity. By that time, you'd be going so heavy on your compounds that the strain they cause on the arms will be much more than what a curl can do (unless you can curl about 50-60% of your main compound moves, but that's crazy). IMO, you are better off just adding in metabollic work during that phase - i.e., use the isolations for high reps to get a burn.
3.) As obvious from #2, increasing lbm in the arms doesn't depend on going heavy on the arm isolations. Getting titanic triceps and biceps are due more to eventually being able to bench 300 pounds and deadlift 400+ and chin with another person hanging from you than from curling heavy... what I'm saying is, your compounds will contribute more to your arm growth. As you increase your bench, your chins, your rows, your deadlifts, etc., your arms will grow in size.

Just my 0.02, take it for what it's worth.

Regards,
-JV
 
I stand corrected I guess. I am just using what the nurse at my Corporation told us about speaking generally on bodyfat. She said plus or minus 3 pounds will give you increase or decrease in fat...that is prob true in a average world.....not bodybuilding???

Yeah just starting to train legs will have a big difference and so will they creatine!

Well since I am wrong that is good news b/c maybe I dont gain as much fat as I think when I bulK???

Its hard to say b/c when I bulk just like everyone esle I am sure my muscle really pop and look healthy and larger but there goes the midsection right away.

Its seems its a tough balance of looking really thick...or looking lean and having abs?:confused:

What do ya do? its really hard to bulk up to say 200 and lean down to 6% and stay anywere near your bulk mark?
 
Back
Top