all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Max Weight vs Max Reps

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5559
  • Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Deleted member 5559

Guest
One method would be to focus on increasing the weight. Not necessarily 1RM weight, it could be max triple, five reps, whatever, just focusing on increasing the weight at that number of reps.

The other method would be to focus on increasing the reps at a given weight. Not necessarily for high reps either, perhaps simply moving from a single to a double, triple, etc.

Which do you focus on and why? Do you find one more useful than the other? Are they both considered increased strength to you? Etc? Etc?
 
As someone who spends most of his time with a kettlebell, I spend a lot of time going from a very small number of reps to a slightly less small number of reps. Also focus on better reps. More tension for the grinds, more explosiveness for the ballistics, and more precision for everything. Once I'm doing awesome, crisp reps in numbers that are starting to give me diminishing returns, then it's time to bump up 4 kilos. Fewer reps. Mushier reps. But still within standards. Slow and steady.
 
Papa Georgio said:
Depends

What tool are you using? Something with big steps (kettlebell). Or something you can microload (barbell)

What quality are you training for? Strength, hypertrophy, endurance?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are no constraints to the question and everything is fair game.
 
I focus on both. You hit given number of reps, bump up weight and then repeat, i.e. double progression.

And yes, I consider increase in both as a strength gain. For weight it is obvious. For reps: who is stronger, one who can bench 100 kg for five reps, or the one who can bench the same weight for ten reps? I think the latter.
 
Last edited:
I'm firmly in the 1RM camp.

I started training with kettlebells and by their nature did a lot of training with the second option. A lot of it was forced, since I only had access to a select few kettlebells. The training did work, but something was always off for me.

For the last couple of years I've been training with the barbell. It has been a revelation. Incremental loading makes training much better for me.

When it comes to the 1RM, it's obviously not something I try to achieve often. So far I've tried one on some lifts every two or three months. Most of the training is done on relatively light weights. But the main point I find is that there's nothing better to make the moderate weights feel light like a new 1RM. In a sense the 1RM is not only a goal in itself, but getting one improves the training with the lighter weights. I'm not sure how much one could achieve the same with just heavy holds or isometrics or such.

Another clear advantage in the 1RM vs rep maxes is clarity. The 1RM either happens or not. Doing a rep max or training sets close to failure makes things harder to evaluate. Could I have done another rep? Could I have done another rep with perfect form? With good form? With form good enough? How good am I estimating my form in the heat of the moment, with all the fatigue, with me concentrating on the exercise? Etc. The 1RM either comes up or not. It's extremely simple to see if I progress or not, and if the training is successful or not.
 
I agree with @Antti. The pursuit of max weight rules. A max weight PR is lot sweeter than a max reps PR. Max reps is useful information, and a good measure to see how you're doing at something, but pursuing max weight will bring max reps along, because any given effort is more sub-maximal. Max reps can be trained as a peaking strategy -- for example, peaking for max reps in the snatch in the TSC or max push-ups in a PT test. But that is occasional peaking training. Base training should be for strength -- max weight.
 
In general I am firmly in the "both" camp. Increase reps with a given load and then increase the load. Or periodize the work by increasing reps one day, and increase load another.

More specifically I am in the "increase reps" camp but with caveat that the reps are not the same as the starting reps at a given load.

There is a big difference between reps using a 2 up/2 down or a 1 up/3 down, 1 up/ 4 down. I would rather be able to hit multiple reps at a challenging cadence than increase loading for a single rep - which to me has never really been a reliable indication of work capacity.

Some lifts also seem to favor one over the other. Eg bench press lends itself to incremental increases in loading, where a Tbar row lends itself to increases in reps. Some increases in load will compromise a full ROM or good control of the cadence while still giving the appearance of a full repetition, while other movements are either completed 100% or they are not.
 
Question:
Where does Steve Justa's singles strategy fall in this equation? Using 70% max for many singles.. as the singles rep count rises to a point of diminishing returns the weight is then increased and the process starts all over again.
With this method (and other similar methods) you are increasing 1RM by using singles at a lower load percentage, versus increasing training weight using micro weight progressions and relying on a much higher load percentage.

Is this a chicken or the egg question?

The Justa strategy works best for me at my age, maybe a younger me would respond to a heavier percentage progression of training weight lifting strategy.
 
The weight increase comes last in the triple progression but I don't know if that makes it less important by priority or the most important by outcome.

I have recently been migrating to rep maxes being more meaningful for myself. I really find the psychological benefit powerful. Getting 3 reps at 225 is not daunting if you can do 205 for 11. Slightly different, getting sets of 3 for a few weeks is much more confident going to sets of 4. Conversely, I've been able to do a weight consistently, up the weight, and not perform the lifts as well or with the same confidence because sometimes the weight just feels significantly heavier than it just did a few pounds lighter.

Bret S. said:
Where does Steve Justa's singles strategy fall in this equation?
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Justa singles double progression removes the middle reps progression. I feel the Justa's singles put the focus on the 1RM but I'm not confident in that. However, the increase in volume offers the same psychological benefit as max reps. It's a lot easier to tell yourself that you can do 3 sets at 315 if you just did 15 sets at 305. In a triple progression, the sets are the first progression but again I don't know if that makes them more important by priority or less important by outcome.

As I type this out and think about it, is the weight the goal and the other two (reps/sets) the process? If so, we start to get into the goal vs the process discussion which I almost feel are at odds a little. The process is the only thing we can control and the outcome is a byproduct outside our control.

My stoic response now becomes, the rep and set PRs are more meaningful as they are more directly correlated to my own inputs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bro Mo said:
My stoic response now becomes, the rep and set PRs are more meaningful as they are more directly correlated to my own inputs.
Click to expand...
Agreed,
The base building aspect of Justa singles can't be discounted either I believe, when you can do a rep pretty much any time (even hungover) at 70% RM without a warmup you become more resilient and confident, tendon strength and elasticity are increased as well.
This confidence building and new muscle/tendon resiliency translates into good gains when attempting a new RM, also the chance of injury is lower I believe.
Then again, maybe this system works for me simply because I believe in it, who knows..

I do know that transitioning from 28k to 32k snatches feels kinda the same, only inverse (and not inverse)..
I think doing singles closer to max weight with ballistics is another story. I know more reps and time with the 28 will build strength while simultaneously throwing in singles and double reps with the 32 will make the transition easier.

It could be also a simple function of body adaptation/strategy working for some and not for others. In my case I've worn both hats in 42 years of resistance training.
 
I deliver furniture all day (except for some reporting); outside of my first couple years on the job, I haven't run into many situations where I wished I was stronger [you can check my workout log, I'm not a strong person by Strongfirst standards], but I have run into situations where I've let my movement quality diminish, and that has had a noticeable impact on my ability to safely do my job.

So for me, I'm not really too concerned (most of the time) with whether I put up more reps or more weight, usually I just want to spend some quality time working on movement.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the goals of the individual of course, but generally both: max weight followed by a consolidation phase where the focus is on reps and rep quality and "owning the weight" as Pavel puts it seems best. I am surprised this is not programmed more. Almost all programs seem to program down but adding weight like 5/3/1.

However, this is affected by the tool and movement being trained. Deadlift is more suitable to max weight goals or doubles or triples while KB press to more volume. Squats seem to respond to more rep work. I feel that farly heavy but more volume 80-85% rather than RM goals is better for shoulders.

Another way mentioned by Charles Staley is choosing a very challenging weight 3-5 and then keep at it by measuring the increase in reps to 6-8 before increasing weight, rather than keeping the reps the same but adding weight. I do this now for accessory lifts if I am not doing HIRT or KB ladders.

I agree with Anna though. My brain tell me max reps 3-5 is more useful for functional fitness but RM is just way more motivating, which is why I like deadlift. KB ladders and swings just don't offer the same "joy" but I know I need the work.

There is also a school of thought especially in powerlifting that more mass will help your strength just as more strength will help you build mass. I think this is part of the idea behind Reload which I was surprised to find was a 5*5 program. I was expecting more of an easy strength type 3*5 program.

There could also be genetic differences that dictate what works best for an individual, not just at elite levels. Zonin makes this point in the book Reload about how many reps people can do at 80 percent should dictate how much weight the add in their progressions as individuals show different responses to volume.
 
I think both inherently done at the same time, it's just we choose to focus on one. If my 3RM went from 225 to 235, it's likely my 5RM or 8RM would have improved as well even if I only care and measure the 3RM
 
Snowman said:
As someone who spends most of his time with a kettlebell, I spend a lot of time going from a very small number of reps to a slightly less small number of reps. Also focus on better reps. More tension for the grinds, more explosiveness for the ballistics, and more precision for everything. Once I'm doing awesome, crisp reps in numbers that are starting to give me diminishing returns, then it's time to bump up 4 kilos. Fewer reps. Mushier reps. But still within standards. Slow and steady.
Click to expand...

I find moving from 3-5 up to a max of 7-8 to be the best compromise between weight and rep quality. Nine to 12 starts to get into hypertrophy focus training. The planstrong manual recommends keeping a 70 percent IRM range at least for volume. However, I also do all rep ranges when I am not doing a KB or Barbell program with its own protocol. For example, heavy 3-5, then 7, then 10 then 15 for arm work, cable row etc. I have read a number of times that there are diminishing returns with the number of sets, especially past two, and there are benefits to different rep ranges. In other words you could start with two sets of five for strength and then seven and then ten with a lighter weight. I don't really understand the science behind doing 5*5 really. Why not start heavy and then get some volume in at a lighter weight. By definition 5*5 means that the first two sets are not really challenging yourself if you can keep the same weight for five sets. Plenty of people have gotten results with it and it features in the SF Reload book so there must be a reason.

In terms of strength which do you think is more useful? Pulling 400 pounds if you weigh 180 or being able to do 360 for reps? I am beginning to think the latter after experiencing the positive effects of strength-endurance ladders and HIRT KB approaches. It is not as much fun though, which is why more people don't take this approach.
 
Goal-specific is the key word here. My goals are fairly equaly balanced between strength and hypertrophy. To that end, I use both methods. I accumulate volume with high repetitions of submaximal load, which I then transfer into strength learning sessions where I perform heavy singles and back off sets that are smaller than 5 reps.
 
I don't think these are goal dependent or exclsively oriented to strength, hypertrophy, endurance, etc. Focusing on maximizing the weight of a 3 rep set for strength is just as applicable as maximizing the reps at double bodyweight.
 
IonRod said:
I accumulate volume with high repetitions of submaximal load, which I then transfer into strength learning sessions where I perform heavy singles and back off sets that are smaller than 5 reps.
Click to expand...
Doing this in the same session? If it works it's opposite of my usual, though I'm not opposed to trying it.
I'm going for some hypertrophy this spring, nothing crazy but I'd like to put an inch on guns with a little pec/lat growth thrown into the mix. Gonna have to feed more..
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom