QuantumPositron
New Member
Like most of the regulars at this forum, and perhaps even a few lurkers, I regularly read articles and books pertaining to weightlifting in general. Lately I have been reading Charles Poliquin's articles on T-nation. One theme that continuously comes up in his writing is the use of low rep ranges for fast-twitch dominant athletes or muscles. Like a lot of people I have dismissed the idea of rep ranges having any effect on the amount of hypertrophy one can hope to gain. It never fails that once in a while someone posts the old rep-range question on this board and like other people I usually offer a reason for why it doesn't work. The following is taken from my personal notes on why Poliquin may be right and why we don't always understand this stuff as well as we think we do. I look forward to all replies. Here we go:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
According to
Poliquin fast twitch people do best with low reps, intraset rests of 1 - 3 seconds,
for multiple sets.
Example[taken from Poliquin]:
Mixed-fiber (average) person: Does 7 reps at 80% 1 RM.
Fast-twitch person: Does 3 reps at 80% 1 RM.
At first glance this seems like the kind of claim that cannot be easily backed up without testing done on dozens, maybe hundreds of athletes. But using what we already know about muscle fiber types and MU recruitment, it is possible to see how Poliquin could be right:
Henneman's Size Principle says that as the relative load increases higher and more powerful motor units will be progressively recruited. For an FT dominant individual,
more FT fibers will be recruited at 60% 1 RM than for an average person. This is because the average person has more ST units to draw on, whereas the FT person does
not. Because the FT person is using more FT fibers to lift his 60% 1 RM, and because FT fibers fatigue more quickly than ST and intermediate fiber types, his total rep count at 60% 1 RM is lower than the average, mixed fiber individual. This would also be true for 70% 1 RM, 80% 1 RM, etc. This may validate Poliquin's claims that reps differ between FT and average individuals at a given RM, as well as FT and mixed fiber or slow fiber muscles.
Now, why would an FT person do better with less reps than a mixed-type or ST
person? Why would a predominantly FT muscle respond better to lower reps than higher
reps? The answer again has to do with the differences in the rate of fatigue between
ST and FT motor units. As has just been deduced, an FT individual can do less reps at
a given % RM than an average or ST individual because he uses more FT's at a given %
RM and because FT MUs fatigue the fastest. If we tell our FT athelete to do 8 - 12
reps per set he therefore must use less of his % RM than his mixed-type or ST
counterparts. Because he is at a lower % RM, he is recruiting less of his MU count.
The rebuttal to the arguement of varying reps based on fiber type may be due
to a sort of confusion. Low reps done to failure or near failure usually means using
heavier loads. And most people in recreational (non pro sports) circles claim that a
heavier load means more FT recruitment. This, again, is what is claimed. The
rebuttal to this is to say that because of Henneman's Size Principle, which is near
universal in its scientific support, one does not get any more MU recruitment at 90% 1
RM then one does at 80% 1 RM. Therefore, the rebuttal goes, moderate weight is just
as good as heavy weight. What one has to realize is that Poliquin is not saying FT
people should use 90% 1 RM. He's saying they should use low reps. FT people
naturally perform low reps at 80% 1RM. As a result they also have to do more sets to
get the same volume as mixed-types. The same is true for FT dominant muscles.
Poliquin states that he is an FT individual and that in his experience he grows best
using around 3 reps for multiple sets. He also says he uses intraset rest periods of
a few seconds. In other words, rest-pause technique.</div>
Sorry for the formatting, Its late and I gotta sleep.
-QP out.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
According to
Poliquin fast twitch people do best with low reps, intraset rests of 1 - 3 seconds,
for multiple sets.
Example[taken from Poliquin]:
Mixed-fiber (average) person: Does 7 reps at 80% 1 RM.
Fast-twitch person: Does 3 reps at 80% 1 RM.
At first glance this seems like the kind of claim that cannot be easily backed up without testing done on dozens, maybe hundreds of athletes. But using what we already know about muscle fiber types and MU recruitment, it is possible to see how Poliquin could be right:
Henneman's Size Principle says that as the relative load increases higher and more powerful motor units will be progressively recruited. For an FT dominant individual,
more FT fibers will be recruited at 60% 1 RM than for an average person. This is because the average person has more ST units to draw on, whereas the FT person does
not. Because the FT person is using more FT fibers to lift his 60% 1 RM, and because FT fibers fatigue more quickly than ST and intermediate fiber types, his total rep count at 60% 1 RM is lower than the average, mixed fiber individual. This would also be true for 70% 1 RM, 80% 1 RM, etc. This may validate Poliquin's claims that reps differ between FT and average individuals at a given RM, as well as FT and mixed fiber or slow fiber muscles.
Now, why would an FT person do better with less reps than a mixed-type or ST
person? Why would a predominantly FT muscle respond better to lower reps than higher
reps? The answer again has to do with the differences in the rate of fatigue between
ST and FT motor units. As has just been deduced, an FT individual can do less reps at
a given % RM than an average or ST individual because he uses more FT's at a given %
RM and because FT MUs fatigue the fastest. If we tell our FT athelete to do 8 - 12
reps per set he therefore must use less of his % RM than his mixed-type or ST
counterparts. Because he is at a lower % RM, he is recruiting less of his MU count.
The rebuttal to the arguement of varying reps based on fiber type may be due
to a sort of confusion. Low reps done to failure or near failure usually means using
heavier loads. And most people in recreational (non pro sports) circles claim that a
heavier load means more FT recruitment. This, again, is what is claimed. The
rebuttal to this is to say that because of Henneman's Size Principle, which is near
universal in its scientific support, one does not get any more MU recruitment at 90% 1
RM then one does at 80% 1 RM. Therefore, the rebuttal goes, moderate weight is just
as good as heavy weight. What one has to realize is that Poliquin is not saying FT
people should use 90% 1 RM. He's saying they should use low reps. FT people
naturally perform low reps at 80% 1RM. As a result they also have to do more sets to
get the same volume as mixed-types. The same is true for FT dominant muscles.
Poliquin states that he is an FT individual and that in his experience he grows best
using around 3 reps for multiple sets. He also says he uses intraset rest periods of
a few seconds. In other words, rest-pause technique.</div>
Sorry for the formatting, Its late and I gotta sleep.
-QP out.
