Cutting- 3x5?
- Thread starter FakeWings
- Start date
Sounds a bit too set in stone for me. I understand why you're saying that, but higher reps, shorter rest periods offer increased metabolism benefits that heavy, low rep work won't. That said, I do both (and am doing both) on a cut.
Everyone trying to lose fat.
Because you've never needed to do something, does that mean it won't help? You have to think in the broader sense of what will help the majority when giving help.
The point is not to burn more calories with the exercise itself, as I never stated that. The point is to raise metabolism or the new in term "EPOC", or "Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption". Numberous studies have shown this can be a tremendous factor in losing fat. Two of the recent studies I've read that
1) Metabolism can be raised for up to 36 hours after high intensity, short-rest exercise (think crossfit). Call me crazy, but I'd like my body to be churning through as many calories as possible as often as possible when I'm cutting.
2) Although in a comparison between 2 groups that did steady state cardio and HIIT the first group burned twice as many calories during exercise, the HIIT group lost NINE TIMES as much fat over the course of the study.
Do I believe this because of these studies? No, I trained this way because of these studies. I've worked with others because of these studies. I believe it now because I've seen it work.
In short, don't discount something because you don't do it.
Last edited:
and doing 3x5 doesnt increase EPOC? It does.
and were not talking about HIIT, were talking about low rep / high rep. Why on earth are you trying to make this a HIIT vs SS debate?
when you cut, lift to preserve muscle mass, and you do that with lifting heavy or moderatly heavy (should do both)
and i say screw fancy **** trying to raise your metabolism when just lifting heavy stuff increases it ALOT. Enough of this 15-20 reps to "tone" bull****.
Why do you even bring in EPOC? I was saying to lift heavy, not go for a walk.
And now again, who said you burn so much more with high reps than low reps? and by burn i mean both what you burn during and what you burn in EPOC.
And ive never needed to do something? You dont think i ever had to cut? I ate less and lifted heavy. Are you now gonna say that i can do that only because im natrually lean and loose weight easy, and that other people has to work more to get rid of the extra fat? I just say its because i have willpower to eat less and stay off the cookies
and were not talking about HIIT, were talking about low rep / high rep. Why on earth are you trying to make this a HIIT vs SS debate?
when you cut, lift to preserve muscle mass, and you do that with lifting heavy or moderatly heavy (should do both)
and i say screw fancy **** trying to raise your metabolism when just lifting heavy stuff increases it ALOT. Enough of this 15-20 reps to "tone" bull****.
Why do you even bring in EPOC? I was saying to lift heavy, not go for a walk.
And now again, who said you burn so much more with high reps than low reps? and by burn i mean both what you burn during and what you burn in EPOC.
And ive never needed to do something? You dont think i ever had to cut? I ate less and lifted heavy. Are you now gonna say that i can do that only because im natrually lean and loose weight easy, and that other people has to work more to get rid of the extra fat? I just say its because i have willpower to eat less and stay off the cookies
3x5 does not increase EPOC nearly as much high rep, short rest, intense weigh training, pure and simple. I never stated it does nothing, just that its not optimal for fat loss.
I mentioned the HIIT and SS cardio study as a way to emphasize that point that an increased metabolism IS CRUCIAL and everyone should care about it.
I totally agree that heavy lifting is the best way to preserve muscle on a cut.
I never mentioned toning, I never said high reps = cutting. They work in conjunction with short rests and intense output. You can raise EPOC with a low rep scheme as you mentioend, including short rests and intense output, but it will be less of an increase than with higher reps as the output will be maintained for a longer period of time.
I never said you didnt need to cut, I said you claimed you never needed to do the training that I'm talking about, nothing more.
Are you discounting that others can have a harder time losing fat? Please tell me that I'm misunderstaning your second to last sentence.
BTW, I'm not trying to create animosity here. I like being challenged. Keeps me (us) sharp and able to learn more.
I mentioned the HIIT and SS cardio study as a way to emphasize that point that an increased metabolism IS CRUCIAL and everyone should care about it.
I totally agree that heavy lifting is the best way to preserve muscle on a cut.
I never mentioned toning, I never said high reps = cutting. They work in conjunction with short rests and intense output. You can raise EPOC with a low rep scheme as you mentioend, including short rests and intense output, but it will be less of an increase than with higher reps as the output will be maintained for a longer period of time.
I never said you didnt need to cut, I said you claimed you never needed to do the training that I'm talking about, nothing more.
Are you discounting that others can have a harder time losing fat? Please tell me that I'm misunderstaning your second to last sentence.
BTW, I'm not trying to create animosity here. I like being challenged. Keeps me (us) sharp and able to learn more.
Last edited:
All you need is to eat enough protein while minimizing the fat and calories, and lift enough to show your body that you still need that muscle. Whether that be high rep or low rep, just prove to your body you need that muscle.
Then do some kind of exercises that raise your metabolism.
Plain and simple.
Then do some kind of exercises that raise your metabolism.
Plain and simple.
Agreed. I tend to go much higher in fat on a cut actually, and reduce carbs to only morning and around workouts. I could go into a whole bunch of crap about carb tolerance and insulin sensitivity, but let's just say it works very well without impacting my performance and muscle gains.
Your argument that 3-5 can't increase EPOC to optimum levels is flawed. In That your neglecting what may be someones VO2 Max. So long as your exercising to near peak % of your VO2m then your increasing EPOC output.
I could set up a routine for one individual to work at 3-10 RSS however have it only work upwards of 50%VO2m. However, a person working at an intensity of 70+VO2m while on a 3-5 RSS would undoubtedly have a a greater affect on EPOC.
The intensity done in any given exercise is far more important then the duration of the exercise. Simply because you are working a higher RSS does not mean you are achieving a greater intensity.
Though, Above all you must remember that a single increase in EPOC is not very valuable. Its the prolonged and accumulative affect of EPOC on the body that is.
I could set up a routine for one individual to work at 3-10 RSS however have it only work upwards of 50%VO2m. However, a person working at an intensity of 70+VO2m while on a 3-5 RSS would undoubtedly have a a greater affect on EPOC.
The intensity done in any given exercise is far more important then the duration of the exercise. Simply because you are working a higher RSS does not mean you are achieving a greater intensity.
Though, Above all you must remember that a single increase in EPOC is not very valuable. Its the prolonged and accumulative affect of EPOC on the body that is.
All things being equal, including the trainee, relative intensity, rest periods, and duration of each rep, which do you think would elicit a greater increase in EPOC, 3x5 or 3x10 or 3x20 for that matter?
I agree intensity is the key, (once again) higher reps does not equal cutting or intensity, and that the bigger picture of consistency is paramount.
I agree intensity is the key, (once again) higher reps does not equal cutting or intensity, and that the bigger picture of consistency is paramount.
You can not compare the intensity of 3x<10 to 3x20.
Please elaborate.
An RM is an RM. If the load used in all 3 examples is the same relative percentage of the rep target, I fail to see how intensity and metabolic effect cannot be compared. Bear in mind this conversation has been in the context of fat loss.
Do you understand why and how EPOC occurs?
Basically EPOE is the restoring of the body equilibrium. A 20RM is simply not , usually, demanding enough to create the circumstances needed for high oxygen debt. I don't know how to explain it better then that without going into a long ass tangent, which I do not want to do. Maybe someone else will do it instead.
A comparison between 3x5 to 3x10 is completely valid though. As for which would lead to a greater oxygen debt. I have seen studies with both low and high rep ranges. And contradictions from either side so I can not say for certain which would always lead to greater oxygen dept for everyone. That's to broad of a generalization.
Lifting heavy, and especially trying to increase your strength is the absolute best way to force your body to maintain or even increase its muscle mass while dieting. Face it, when calories are on the low side your body really doesn't want to add any more of that energy-hogging tissue called muscle. It must have a darn good reason to keep or increase its muscle mass.
That "good reason" is having to produce a lot of force on a regular basis. If you don't keep at least some heavy lifting while dieting, muscle preservation will be very hard to accomplish and you can forget about adding muscle size!
That "good reason" is having to produce a lot of force on a regular basis. If you don't keep at least some heavy lifting while dieting, muscle preservation will be very hard to accomplish and you can forget about adding muscle size!
I think a 3x20 lunge would be far more taxing in terms of oxygen debt than would its lower rep counterparts, don't you?
I'm not discounting muscle preservation at all. One of my recent "cut" workouts looked like this:
Deadlifts 2x5
Pullups 2x5
Complex: BORx6 + Hang Cleanx6 + Front squat & push pressx6 + jump squatx6 + good morningx6 for 3 sets, short rest
DB Swings - 100 reps as fast as I can get them
I understand the importance of heavy weights in terms of muscle saving, but I cannot discount the metabolic benefits of high rep, high intensity sustained output methods. They just work. This was not meant to be a high rep vs. low rep debate. Simply stating that there are a lot of different ways to skin a cat and that each has its place in a appropriately designed routine.
Deadlifts 2x5
Pullups 2x5
Complex: BORx6 + Hang Cleanx6 + Front squat & push pressx6 + jump squatx6 + good morningx6 for 3 sets, short rest
DB Swings - 100 reps as fast as I can get them
I understand the importance of heavy weights in terms of muscle saving, but I cannot discount the metabolic benefits of high rep, high intensity sustained output methods. They just work. This was not meant to be a high rep vs. low rep debate. Simply stating that there are a lot of different ways to skin a cat and that each has its place in a appropriately designed routine.
No, Lets take a look at only ONE aspect of possible EPOC related events. Repair of damaged muscle fibers. The amount of fibers you recruit from a 10rm in contrast to those you recruit to a 20 rm is higher, generally speaking. Meaning the amount needed to repair is higher. So in speaking simply about that ONE aspect of it. The lower rep is more intensive afterwards and durring.
Just think of it this way. 200pound squat @3x5 compared to a 75pound squat at 3x20. Numbers come from brief estimation of what a 20rm would be if a 5rm is equal to 200.
IYO, which would lead to greater skeletal muscular damage, Greater cellular repair, Higher hormonal elevation, greater fluid loss and so on?
Last edited:
From the research I've done, EPOC levels are determined by the need of your body to replenish ATP, glycogen, and to convert lactic acid. In all my knowledge and experience, high reps have historically caused more glycogen/ATP depletion and lactic acid buildup than low reps (with intensities being equal). I don't know too many people would dispute that. Lactic acid buildup is one of the few bodybuilding effects you can truely feel and we all know that it gets worse as the reps carry on. As far as glycogen/ATP depletion, we know that bodybuilders use high rep, short rest routines in competition prep time to drain their muscles of these so that they can supercompensate and "get swole" as they dial in for competition time.
I think the root of our disagreement is that we are seeing 2 different things as the deciding factors in EPOC levels.
BTW, this is way more technical than I generally care to get with these conversations. I'm more of a KISS guy where appropriate.
I think the root of our disagreement is that we are seeing 2 different things as the deciding factors in EPOC levels.
BTW, this is way more technical than I generally care to get with these conversations. I'm more of a KISS guy where appropriate.
Last edited: