best rep range for....mass/strength/both

[Fatpanda]

i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.

i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that

if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.

what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?

and why?

for example i came across this interesting study :

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

•   Campos GE,
•   Luecke TJ,
•   Wendeln HK,
•   Toma K,
•   Hagerman FC,
•   Murray TF,
•   Ragg KE,
•   Ratamess NA,
•   Kraemer WJ,
•   Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

muscle mass increase:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.

what do you all think?

[JohnnyVegas]

i agree 

[ozman]

not reading all that

[disco_stu]

its about time GB started sourcing legit scientific works for it's knowledge transfer.

the work done by laura, et al also looked at maximising the number of times a weight traversed the point of maximum moment in the rep range- meaning more work per unit energy.

that work also was based alot on the neurology of lifting and making the most of rep patterns before changing to stimulate growth. for the drug free of us, this kind of evidence is invaluable. For the drug users, just take more or different drugs to blast that plateau.

from my research of work done on the application of weight training, 2 things stand out. 1. making the most of your energy, and 2. giving the brain enough time to adapt and learn a rep pattern before subtly changing it to another.

for 1. when we talk "energy" we are referring to the work able to be done. So the moment generated by the weight on the lever is key. and 2. staying with the same rep pattern, or changing it too much, too often, is counterproductive. this has been proven in not just weight training, but other skill tasks.

[Fatpanda]

its about time GB started sourcing legit scientific works for it's knowledge transfer.

the work done by laura, et al also looked at maximising the number of times a weight traversed the point of maximum moment in the rep range- meaning more work per unit energy.

that work also was based alot on the neurology of lifting and making the most of rep patterns before changing to stimulate growth. for the drug free of us, this kind of evidence is invaluable. For the drug users, just take more or different drugs to blast that plateau.

from my research of work done on the application of weight training, 2 things stand out. 1. making the most of your energy, and 2. giving the brain enough time to adapt and learn a rep pattern before subtly changing it to another.

for 1. when we talk "energy" we are referring to the work able to be done. So the moment generated by the weight on the lever is key. and 2. staying with the same rep pattern, or changing it too much, too often, is counterproductive. this has been proven in not just weight training, but other skill tasks.

can you post a link to the study?

stu are you talking about a type of xrep/partial rep at the most mechanically advantageous point of a rep or the point a muscle strructually strongest ?

[Eric2]

i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.

i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that

if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.

what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?

and why?

for example i came across this interesting study :

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

•   Campos GE,
•   Luecke TJ,
•   Wendeln HK,
•   Toma K,
•   Hagerman FC,
•   Murray TF,
•   Ragg KE,
•   Ratamess NA,
•   Kraemer WJ,
•   Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

muscle mass increase:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.

what do you all think?

Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.

[tbombz]

i think all the rep ranges are useful and for best results you must cycle your training to go in phases of rep ranges..

[Palpatine Q]

No universal answer to this question, everybody is different.

[Obvious Gimmick]

words words words.............

5 - 8, problem solved

[gordiano]

Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.

Shit, I was just watching "A Fistful Of Dollars".

[Noel Fuller]

start at 10 finish at 6

[disco_stu]

can you post a link to the study?

stu are you talking about a type of xrep/partial rep at the most mechanically advantageous point of a rep or the point a muscle strructually strongest ?

basically yes- which is why alot of the old timers arrived at partials- cause they worked. But again , like evetything else, they work for a while.

the concept is that the maximum moment is when the lever is at its longest from the pivot. this is the midpoint in bicep curls for instance, about 1/3 way up for bench presses etc. If you work those points when you have the most energy, then you stimulate the most growth in the shortest time.

i.e. you might rep between full lock and full down in bench press. The key is to subtly change the rep pattern, not drastically, and not too regularly. About 6 weeks seems long enough. the working range goes between 6-8 up to 20+.

i dont have a link im sorry- i read a bunch of books on it whilst at uni back in the day. There are many parallels to mentzer's work infact. Which in turn parallels what strength coaches and other athletic professionals are doing.

one thing for sure is that 6-8 reps...period...doesnt work.
12-15, period..doesnt work either..

8-12, nope.

take drugs and do anything and youll grow...yep.

the latter makes it easy for people to draw conclusions that arent there, which is why arnold arrived at some good stuff- he wasnt able to get his hands on everything and anything in his early years.

[Tapeworm]

I have recently abandoned ego completely and begun using giant sets with 10-12 RM weights.  I'm happy with how it's going and haven't had this level of DOMS in awhile.  Most noticable area of improvement is chest which has always been a weakness for me.  Least improved is back which grew well with heavy[ish] 5-8 RM training in the past, but hasn't improved much at all for the last several months.

Every third week, I'm going heavy with 5x5 to note the effect on strength since I seemed to stall quick with standard 5x5 training.  I've only done one 5x5 week so far though, so it's too early to report the effects.

I'm eating a moderate calorie surplus with some junk.  Most extra cals are from increased fats.

[Fatpanda]

Wow! talk about over information. How about this? Just get under the bar and push it till it burns. Nothing else needs to go into the thought process here, really.

wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago 

talk about owning yourself.

here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.

it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.

[Pollux]

not reading all that

You're not alone.

[Fatpanda]

pollux - where the fvck is that ronnie cycle you promised to post about a year ago   

[Pollux]

pollux - where the fvck is that ronnie cycle you promised to post about a year ago   

Oh shit! The question arises again!

I thought you pimps forgot about that! LOL! 

[El_Pajero]

the best rep range is what works best for you.

[Fatpanda]

perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.

can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.

to all that feel using all rep ranges is best  - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.

both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.

[Tapeworm]

perhaps i was mistaken in getbigs ability to debate the scientific merit in choosing a specific rep range.

can someone agree or disagree with my statement, and provide a study or personal reasons why you feel a specific rep range is best.

to all that feel using all rep ranges is best  - you are wrong if we are talking strickly for bodybuilding purposes ( based on that study i posted) - if you disagree please post studies to back up your beliefs.

both points of view can add to our colective knowledge, and hence improve us as bodybuilders and reasoned thinkers.

IME there's a lot of truth to the saying that the best routine is the one you're not doing.  Looking back, I wish I'd moved away from a particular routine or rep range after even as little as 4-6 weeks when progress stalled instead of sticking with it because I'd read something that said it was best and trying to break plateaus with calories.

That's one of the problems with a lot of studies.  It seems a lot of them use "untrained males" whereas I'd guess most of us have either grown stale or are even overtrained.  Good thread tho.  Hope it develops.

[Eric2]

wow, what an insightful answer. i wish i had spoken to you years ago 

talk about owning yourself.

here's a hint why you shouldn't do that - read that study.

it shows that reps around 5, stimulate more muscle growth and greater stength than just going for the burn.

I know all about reps. Anything around five will promote strength before it promotes size. Higher reps (volume) is what will build more size. Use a combination of both and there you go. I just summed it up for you with 19 words vrs your short novel with %'s and bullshit.

[QuakerOats]

i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.

i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that

if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.

what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?

and why?

for example i came across this interesting study :

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

•   Campos GE,
•   Luecke TJ,
•   Wendeln HK,
•   Toma K,
•   Hagerman FC,
•   Murray TF,
•   Ragg KE,
•   Ratamess NA,
•   Kraemer WJ,
•   Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

muscle mass increase:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.

what do you all think?

epic cut and paste.

[Krankenstein]

epic cut and paste.

You're busting on someone for cutting and pasting a relevant when Adam does it with greater frequency?  Both are doing it when appropriate.....and both do not plagiarize (to my knowledge).

[Meso_z]

i would like to try something different on getbig, have a proper bodybuilding discussion about rep ranges, and number of sets.

i have read a few studies etc that compare rep rangs etc and have come to the conclusion that

if i had to pick 1 rep range to stick to for the rest of my life it would be 6-8, as i believe it gives you the best of both worlds i.e. strength and mass gains.

what do you feel is the best rep range for maximum mass or mass and stength gains?

and why?

for example i came across this interesting study :

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones.

•   Campos GE,
•   Luecke TJ,
•   Wendeln HK,
•   Toma K,
•   Hagerman FC,
•   Murray TF,
•   Ragg KE,
•   Ratamess NA,
•   Kraemer WJ,
•   Staron RS.

Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Irvine Hall, rm 430, Athens, OH 45701, USA.

Thirty-two untrained men [mean (SD) age 22.5 (5. years, height 178.3 (7.2) cm, body mass 77.8 (11.9) kg] participated in an 8-week progressive resistance-training program to investigate the "strength-endurance continuum". Subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n = 5). Three exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) were performed 2 days/week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days/week for the final 4 weeks. Maximal strength [one repetition maximum, 1RM), local muscular endurance (maximal number of repetitions performed with 60% of 1RM), and various cardiorespiratory parameters (e.g., maximum oxygen consumption, pulmonary ventilation, maximal aerobic power, time to exhaustion) were assessed at the beginning and end of the study. In addition, pre- and post-training muscle biopsy samples were analyzed for fiber-type composition, cross-sectional area, myosin heavy chain (MHC) content, and capillarization. Maximal strength improved significantly more for the Low Rep group compared to the other training groups, and the maximal number of repetitions at 60% 1RM improved the most for the High Rep group. In addition, maximal aerobic power and time to exhaustion significantly increased at the end of the study for only the High Rep group. All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep and Int Rep groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep or Con groups. However, the percentage of type IIB fibers decreased, with a concomitant increase in IIAB fibers for all three resistance-trained groups. These fiber-type conversions were supported by a significant decrease in MHCIIb accompanied by a significant increase in MHCIIa. No significant changes in fiber-type composition were found in the control samples. Although all three training regimens resulted in similar fiber-type transformations (IIB to IIA), the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition regimen. The High Rep group, however, appeared better adapted for submaximal, prolonged contractions, with significant increases after training in aerobic power and time to exhaustion. Thus, low and intermediate RM training appears to induce similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects. Overall, however, these data demonstrate that both physical performance and the associated physiological adaptations are linked to the intensity and number of repetitions performed, and thus lend support to the "strength-endurance continuum".

[Remember, each group trained to failure regardless of RM used so muscular fatigue was equal between groups.]

muscle mass increase:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

PMID: 12436270 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

now the low and intermediate reps are similar in gains with the low reps having the slight edge - however bare in mind the low reps also gained more strenth than the intermediate reps.

what do you all think?

8,3294723462 reps with a spotter on the last 2,32942.

[Fatpanda]

I know all about reps. Anything around five will promote strength before it promotes size. Higher reps (volume) is what will build more size. Use a combination of both and there you go. I just summed it up for you with 19 words vrs your short novel with %'s and bullshit.

can you read you fvcking clown - thats is NOT what that study says. fvck off   

meltdown