Post by carruthersjam on Mar 21, 2008 6:51:48 GMT -8
What about alternating rep ranges?
www.powerrunning.com/Training/High%20Rep%20Strength%20Training.htm
The studies cited above have compared one rep range to another, high reps vs. low reps for example. What about programs that include more than one rep range? In 2004 a group of researchers tackled this very question in a fascinating study of varying combinations of high and low rep training (8). This group speculated that a combination type program that included both low and high reps would be more effective than a periodized program consisting of single repetition scheme during each training period or phase.
To test their hypothesis they recruited 17 untrained subjects, divided them into two groups, and then trained each group twice per week for 10 weeks. Subjects were tested for maximum strength and muscular endurance pre- and post-training. The first 6 weeks of training was designated as phase 1 and both groups trained exactly the same during this phase. Workouts consisted of two exercises (leg extensions & leg presses) for 3 sets x 10-15 reps. At the end of this first phase of training there was no difference between the groups; both had significantly and equally improved strength and endurance. This is not surprising since both groups trained exactly the same during phase 1.
During the final 4 weeks of the study, both groups conducted 5 sets x 3-5 reps of each exercise. One group, the combi-type group, added a single set of 25-35 reps following their final low rep set. At the end of the training program the combi-type group had increased their strength significantly more than did the other training group (14.7% vs. 9.3% respectively). The results are displayed in table 2.
Table 2: Set and rep ranges for 2 training phases and percent change in strength following phase 2.
Training Group Phase 1 training Phase 2 training % Change in strength after phase 2
Strength type group 9 sets x 10-15 reps 5 sets x 3-5 reps 9.3 %
Combo type group 9 sets x 10-15 reps 5 sets x 3-5 reps,
1 set x 25-35 reps 14.7%
In their discussion of these findings, the researchers wrote,
“This suggests that the combi-type regimen caused a larger increase in dynamic muscular strength than did the strength-type regimen when combined with the hypertrophy-type regimen in a periodized fashion… This effect appears to be inconsistent with the classical principle operating in resistance-exercise training, in which low-repetition protocols are used for muscular strength and low-intensity, high-repetition protocols are used for muscular endurance. Sensible combinations of high- and low-intensity protocols may therefore be more important to optimize the strength adaptation to resistance training.”
There were also significant differences in endurance between the two groups. During phase 1 both groups increased endurance with no significant difference in the percent change. However, the combo type group’s endurance continued to increase during phase 2, while the strength type group’s endurance decreased 4.2%. The results are displayed in table 3.
Table 3: Percent change in endurance following each phase of training and total percent change in endurance.
Training Group Change in endurance, phase 1 Change in endurance, phase 2 Total Change in Endurance
Strength type group 28.5 % -4.7 % 24.3 %
Combo type group 20 % 18.8 % 38.2 %
In summary, this study found that a combination program consisting of heavy weights / low reps and light weight / high reps was more effective for improving both strength and endurance than a traditional periodized training program consisting of a single rep range during each training phase. This is truly a fascinating finding.
Summary
The old adage is that heavy weights / low reps build strength while light weights / high reps build endurance and a review of the research shows that the adage is basically true. However, while that adage is basically correct, it does not reveal the complete picture. All rep ranges, at least up to 150 repetitions, increase strength, but the lower rep ranges increase it more. Endurance, as measured by resistance exercise, is also generally increased via resistance training, with as few as 6 reps causing an increase in endurance during resistance exercise. It seems that 6 reps are minimally required to increase endurance with higher reps increase endurance significantly more than do the lower reps.
A combination of both high and low reps has been shown to increase both strength and endurance more than a traditional lower-rep, periodized type training program. For those who are most interested in maximizing muscular strength and size this finding is significant and should be seriously considered when designing a strength training program.
A review of the research indicates that high rep (20 reps or more) strength training has been shown to significantly improve endurance performance during traditional endurance exercises such as running, cycling, and cross country skiing. The effectiveness of low rep strength effects on traditional endurance exercise performance is in conflict – only slightly more than half of the groups studied show an improvement in performance, while the others do not. A careful examination of the low rep studies indicates that of those that resulted in an improvement in performance all but one either employed both low and high reps or used reps near the high end of the range. I suggest this data supports my belief that higher reps are more effective for improving endurance performance than are lower reps.
Is high rep strength training a significant but overlooked performance booster? A review of the data suggests it is.
www.powerrunning.com/Training/High%20Rep%20Strength%20Training.htm
The studies cited above have compared one rep range to another, high reps vs. low reps for example. What about programs that include more than one rep range? In 2004 a group of researchers tackled this very question in a fascinating study of varying combinations of high and low rep training (8). This group speculated that a combination type program that included both low and high reps would be more effective than a periodized program consisting of single repetition scheme during each training period or phase.
To test their hypothesis they recruited 17 untrained subjects, divided them into two groups, and then trained each group twice per week for 10 weeks. Subjects were tested for maximum strength and muscular endurance pre- and post-training. The first 6 weeks of training was designated as phase 1 and both groups trained exactly the same during this phase. Workouts consisted of two exercises (leg extensions & leg presses) for 3 sets x 10-15 reps. At the end of this first phase of training there was no difference between the groups; both had significantly and equally improved strength and endurance. This is not surprising since both groups trained exactly the same during phase 1.
During the final 4 weeks of the study, both groups conducted 5 sets x 3-5 reps of each exercise. One group, the combi-type group, added a single set of 25-35 reps following their final low rep set. At the end of the training program the combi-type group had increased their strength significantly more than did the other training group (14.7% vs. 9.3% respectively). The results are displayed in table 2.
Table 2: Set and rep ranges for 2 training phases and percent change in strength following phase 2.
Training Group Phase 1 training Phase 2 training % Change in strength after phase 2
Strength type group 9 sets x 10-15 reps 5 sets x 3-5 reps 9.3 %
Combo type group 9 sets x 10-15 reps 5 sets x 3-5 reps,
1 set x 25-35 reps 14.7%
In their discussion of these findings, the researchers wrote,
“This suggests that the combi-type regimen caused a larger increase in dynamic muscular strength than did the strength-type regimen when combined with the hypertrophy-type regimen in a periodized fashion… This effect appears to be inconsistent with the classical principle operating in resistance-exercise training, in which low-repetition protocols are used for muscular strength and low-intensity, high-repetition protocols are used for muscular endurance. Sensible combinations of high- and low-intensity protocols may therefore be more important to optimize the strength adaptation to resistance training.”
There were also significant differences in endurance between the two groups. During phase 1 both groups increased endurance with no significant difference in the percent change. However, the combo type group’s endurance continued to increase during phase 2, while the strength type group’s endurance decreased 4.2%. The results are displayed in table 3.
Table 3: Percent change in endurance following each phase of training and total percent change in endurance.
Training Group Change in endurance, phase 1 Change in endurance, phase 2 Total Change in Endurance
Strength type group 28.5 % -4.7 % 24.3 %
Combo type group 20 % 18.8 % 38.2 %
In summary, this study found that a combination program consisting of heavy weights / low reps and light weight / high reps was more effective for improving both strength and endurance than a traditional periodized training program consisting of a single rep range during each training phase. This is truly a fascinating finding.
Summary
The old adage is that heavy weights / low reps build strength while light weights / high reps build endurance and a review of the research shows that the adage is basically true. However, while that adage is basically correct, it does not reveal the complete picture. All rep ranges, at least up to 150 repetitions, increase strength, but the lower rep ranges increase it more. Endurance, as measured by resistance exercise, is also generally increased via resistance training, with as few as 6 reps causing an increase in endurance during resistance exercise. It seems that 6 reps are minimally required to increase endurance with higher reps increase endurance significantly more than do the lower reps.
A combination of both high and low reps has been shown to increase both strength and endurance more than a traditional lower-rep, periodized type training program. For those who are most interested in maximizing muscular strength and size this finding is significant and should be seriously considered when designing a strength training program.
A review of the research indicates that high rep (20 reps or more) strength training has been shown to significantly improve endurance performance during traditional endurance exercises such as running, cycling, and cross country skiing. The effectiveness of low rep strength effects on traditional endurance exercise performance is in conflict – only slightly more than half of the groups studied show an improvement in performance, while the others do not. A careful examination of the low rep studies indicates that of those that resulted in an improvement in performance all but one either employed both low and high reps or used reps near the high end of the range. I suggest this data supports my belief that higher reps are more effective for improving endurance performance than are lower reps.
Is high rep strength training a significant but overlooked performance booster? A review of the data suggests it is.
