Jump to content

Number Of Reps To Gain Stegth On Coc Grippers


Jeremy Sipple

Recommended Posts

so it takes no extra strength to go from 50 to 100 reps? .......good one. lol

sarcasim, not much more strength. just improving your endurance. like running long distance doesnt build power, but if you run short distance what do you build. legs, and power. on my bench i was doing high reps. i started at fifty and ended up at eighty. my max never went up, but my endurance did. and as i can recall there are a couple people who can rep out 40 reps on their grippers and still can't move up to the next one. they gained endurance not power. aand i can only do ten reps on number one, but can do three reps on number two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • nagual

    39

  • John Wood

    18

  • Wannagrip

    12

  • speedy

    12

so it takes no extra strength to go from 50 to 100 reps? .......good one. lol

That's not what I said.

But I hope this is not a semantical argument on your part.

Read my post again - I gave my definition (and what I consider to be the default definition where strength trainees are concerned.) of strength.

Obviously there are different types of strength: Maxiumum strength (1RM) , Relative Strength(relative to your bodyweight), Muscular endurance (high-rep strength), strength endurance (repeated max effort, "volume endurance"), etc

It can get confusing :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
king crusher

well it is still a form of strength.

if you took guy A and guy B and one can do twice as much workload...there is a stronger man.

but everyone will come to there own conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

To say your not going to be stronger on #2 when you got from 50 to 100 reps on the #1 is one of the most foolish things I have heard around here. You got stronger going from 50 to 100 plane and simple. Your hands didn't just get more endurance for the specific test of doing many reps. They have to get stronger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To say your not going to be stronger on #2 when you got from 50 to 100 reps on the #1 is one of the most foolish things I have heard around here. You got stronger going from 50 to 100 plane and simple. Your hands didn't just get more endurance for the specific test of doing many reps. They have to get stronger.

No.

It might be foolish to you, but I urge you to prove me wrong.

As far as my knowledge of exercise physiology goes, and common sense, you would not become stronger with the #2.

Why? Because there is a different process for gaining muscular endurance than for gaining muscular strength.

For one, when training for muscular endurance you train/build slow-twitch muscle fibre.

It's a matter of adaptation. Your hands get better at what they do, in this case grinding out more reps. You wouldn't tell a powerlifter to do 100 rep squats to increase his strength, now would you? ;)

I know the hands are a specific case, and can be trained with higher volume, have different tendon insertions (no muscle in the actual fingers) etc than other musclegroups, which is why I'm interested if there are exceptions. So go ahead, try it yourself, and share the results.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless human anatomy and physiology and has changed since I originally posted this three months ago, I'd say this pretty much still sums it up. Enjoy.

As I stated in a previous thread: "Some people will die with the firm belief that strength is one thing and that endurance is something else. In fact, they are one and the same thing, exactly the same thing, and if one is measured accurately, then the other is obvious, or should be.

Keep it clearly in mind that I mean muscular endurance and not cardiovascular ability or cardiopulmonary ability. I am not talking about the ability of the heart or lungs but the ability of the muscles to perform several consecutive repetitions repeatedly that could be lifted for one maximum attempt repetition.

As long as all other factors remain equal and that a trainee reaches a point of muscular failure, then he is testing strength as well as endurance. A great deal of confusion on this point probably attempts to compare one man's strength to another mans endurance (which is what is happening here). This simply cannot be done with anything approaching accuracy. If we restrict our attempts to measure strength or endurance between two or more different performances by the same man, we will avoid most of the problems leading to misunderstanding.

What frequently happens is something like this: on a particlular day and suring the same workout, a man benchpresses 300 pounds for one maximum repetition and later on performs 10 repetitions with 250 pounds failing when he lattempts the 11th rep. Then he stops training for a period of several weeks and his strength declines.

Upon starting to train again, he knows he cannot attempt the 300 pound lift so he does not attempt it. He guesses that perhaps his strength has declined by 10%. Then he makes the mistake that leads to a false conclusion. He takes 250 pounds to test his endurance and is able to perform only 4 repetitions instead of the 10 he did previosly. Sound familiar?

He wrongly assumes from this result that his endurance has declined by 60% while his strength went down only 10%. Thus he thinks his endurance dropped much more than his strength but he thinks wrong.. The test was invalid.

T be valid , he would have to test his endurance with 225 pounds. He would have to reduce the endurance test weight by exactly the same percentage that he reduced the max weight test weight, not reduce it by the same amount, but by the same percentage. If he did so, he would have been able to perform 10 repetitions , exactly the same number that he did previosuly with the heavier weight.

It would then be obvious that his strength and endurance declined in the exact proportion to each other. They would go up and down together, thus maintaining a definite relationship."

Since we have said that being able to perform more reps than in a previous workout has indicated an increase in at least one sense of the word strength, the only factors we then need to concern ourselves with would then be consistancy and progression. Assuming that these are applied properly, progress can continue indefinitley.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

So what is the difference between mucular stength and muscular endurance? As far as trying it myself I'm currently using a few sets one of a lower number of reps and one of a higher number although it is not quite to 100 yet. I'm also curious what the difference would be in training for muscular strength and training for endurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless human anatomy and physiology and has changed since I originally posted this three months ago, I'd say this pretty much still sums it up.  Enjoy.
As I stated in a previous thread: "Some people will die with the firm belief that strength is one thing and that endurance is something else. In fact, they are one and the same thing, exactly the same thing, and if one is measured accurately, then the other is obvious, or should be.

Keep it clearly in mind that I mean muscular endurance and not cardiovascular ability or cardiopulmonary ability. I am not talking about the ability of the heart or lungs but the ability of the muscles to perform several consecutive repetitions repeatedly that could be lifted for one maximum attempt repetition.

As long as all other factors remain equal and that a trainee reaches a point of muscular failure, then he is testing strength as well as endurance. A great deal of confusion on this point probably attempts to compare one man's strength to another mans endurance (which is what is happening here). This simply cannot be done with anything approaching accuracy. If we restrict our attempts to measure strength or endurance between two or more different performances by the same man, we will avoid most of the problems leading to misunderstanding.

What frequently happens is something like this: on a particlular day and suring the same workout, a man benchpresses 300 pounds for one maximum repetition and later on performs 10 repetitions with 250 pounds failing when he lattempts the 11th rep. Then he stops training for a period of several weeks and his strength declines.

Upon starting to train again, he knows he cannot attempt the 300 pound lift so he does not attempt it. He guesses that perhaps his strength has declined by 10%. Then he makes the mistake that leads to a false conclusion. He takes 250 pounds to test his endurance and is able to perform only 4 repetitions instead of the 10 he did previosly. Sound familiar?

He wrongly assumes from this result that his endurance has declined by 60% while his strength went down only 10%. Thus he thinks his endurance dropped much more than his strength but he thinks wrong.. The test was invalid.

T be valid , he would have to test his endurance with 225 pounds. He would have to reduce the endurance test weight by exactly the same percentage that he reduced the max weight test weight, not reduce it by the same amount, but by the same percentage. If he did so, he would have been able to perform 10 repetitions , exactly the same number that he did previosuly with the heavier weight.

It would then be obvious that his strength and endurance declined in the exact proportion to each other. They would go up and down together, thus maintaining a definite relationship."

Since we have said that being able to perform more reps than in a previous workout has indicated an increase in at least one sense of the word strength, the only factors we then need to concern ourselves with would then be consistancy and progression. Assuming that these are applied properly, progress can continue indefinitley.

Although an interesting point (to which I did reply a couple of months ago aswell), it is in my opinion flawed. It depends on what you train for. Specific muscle fibers are meant for specific tasks. If you only train in the 10 rep range for instance, that is what you will be used to, with some strength gain and some endurance gain. In this scenario the muscular endurance and strength you gain will be proportional to each other when you gain or lose strength.

However, if you would train solely for muscular endurance, grinding out rep after rep, your strength would NOT go up. (I do have a theory it might be the other way around, to an extent, but as I can't prove it, I won't go there.)

It's quite simple.

The problem is that usually you lump muscular endurance and cardiovascular endurance together, but they are not the same thing (although the heart is the perfect example of an "endurance muscle").

Try doing squats with only the bar, train up to sets of 500 squats, and see what that'll do for you strength. If anything it'll make you WEAKER since there can be a conversion of fast-twitch muscle fibre to slow-twitch muscle fibre. Now, if you would be training low-rep at the same time, it's a whole different story, and the effects of this would be hard to measure. But only in that scenario.

In any case, the high rep work will most likely not be very beneficial for strength.

That is, if human physiology hasn't changed in the last couple of months... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is the difference between mucular stength and muscular endurance? As far as trying it myself I'm currently using a few sets one of a lower number of reps and one of a higher number although it is not quite to 100 yet. I'm also curious what the difference would be in training for muscular strength and training for endurance.

Muscular endurance is the capacity of skeletal muscle to sustain repeated contractions.

Muscular strength is the capacity of skeletal muscle to perform a maximum voluntary contraction (MVC).

Training for either is relatively simple. For muscular endurance you train 20+ reps, and for strength you do 1-20 reps. This is a sliding scale as everyone is different. In general you would try to keep reps to 1-6 for optimum strength development. There obviously are different ways of training for either aswell, such as isometric contractions, negatives etc

I do, however, believe the hands are probably the most suited for a mix between endurance and strength, from an evolutionary standpoint. So in contrast to other muscle groups, I think they can benefit from training both.

My point was that if you would like to test if your strength goes up proportionally to your muscular endurance, by ONLY training for muscular endurance, you would have to skip the low-rep stuff and only grind out as many reps as you can with your weaker gripper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

So it is impossible to gain "strength" using over 20 rep sets. Or at least you wouldn't make much progress if any. It strange becuase I have heard of quite a few cases that prove this rule very wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if someone can squat 300x1. Then they drop all 1RM and low set work and just do 20 rep squats. Over the months they build up their 20 rep sqt to 205x20, 225x20, 250x20, 275x20 and then one day max at 300x20. Didn't they just add strength and increase their 1RM and do it using high reps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that I have done nothing but reps till I got to this site and learned about negatives. While negatives probably give back the best results, does not mean reps do not do squat. IM even says if you have been using a sports store gripper that you probably want to start with a #1 which I found to be true. Before and after that #1 it was all reps for me.

So do reps help improve your strength? Yes. Are they as effective as negatives? Probably not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, guys, you are not listening. :D

Without going into stuff like neural adaptation and myofibrillar/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, it goes something like this:

(the 1RM percentage approximations might be a bit off though)

1-3 reps ~ 90-100% of 1RM

- Strength, and some mass. No muscular endurance.

4-7 reps ~ 80-90% of 1RM

- Strength and mass. Hardly any muscular endurance.

8-12 reps ~ 70-80% of 1RM

- Mass and strength. Some muscular endurance.

13-20 reps ~ 50-70% of 1RM

- Mass and some strength. Some more muscular endurance.

21+ reps

- More and more muscular endurance. Not much strength at this point and the more reps, the less strength you gain. Mass gains taper of aswell, but a bit after strength.

Note that mass is quite dependant on other factors, such as a proper diet, genetics etc.

(You can train in any rep-range and you won't gain a lot of mass if you don't feed them muscles, for instance.)

So, you can infact gain 1RM strength with around 20 rep sets (I never said you couldn't, I said it was a sliding scale), but it will be a lot less effective than lower rep training. Of course these are only generalizations and there can (and is) a lot of variance between different poople (like muscle fibre composition etc).

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites
1-3 reps ~ 90-100% of 1RM

- Strength, and some mass. No muscular endurance.

4-7 reps ~ 80-90% of 1RM

- Strength and mass. Hardly any muscular endurance.

8-12 reps ~ 70-80% of 1RM

- Mass and strength. Some muscular endurance.

13-20 reps ~ 50-70% of 1RM

- Mass and some strength. Some more muscular endurance.

21+ reps

- More and more muscular endurance. Not much strength at this point and the more reps, the less strength you gain. Mass gains taper of aswell, but a bit after strength.

Where did you learn this and how do you know its true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that is true but I know that is true is that not everything we say will be true for all. Not everyone is the same; one workout might work well for one person and not for the other. Some people are naturally strong, some people are not, some develop in one way while others in another. Science can only go so far, in the end to me it's more about trial and error than facts and science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1-3 reps ~ 90-100% of 1RM

- Strength, and some mass. No muscular endurance.

4-7 reps ~ 80-90% of 1RM

- Strength and mass. Hardly any muscular endurance.

8-12 reps ~ 70-80% of 1RM

- Mass and strength. Some muscular endurance.

13-20 reps ~ 50-70% of 1RM

- Mass and some strength. Some more muscular endurance.

21+ reps

- More and more muscular endurance. Not much strength at this point and the more reps, the less strength you gain. Mass gains taper of aswell, but a bit after strength.

Where did you learn this and how do you know its true?

As I said, these are generalizations.

Well, you asked for it :D

Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~butt/articles.html

http://www.coachr.org/fiber.htm

http://www.rec.ucf.edu/fit1.htm

http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/shane6.htm

http://www.strengthcats.com/JDallmusclesnotequal.htm

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/hayc...training-01.htm

http://coachr.org/specific_adaptation_to_r...ce_training.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic...%2Fenduranc.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic...%2Fmusfacts.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercis...ology/index.htm

As for how I know it's "true" - well, by having read credible sources and from practical experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if that is true but I know that is true is that not everything we say will be true for all.  Not everyone is the same; one workout might work well for one person and not for the other.  Some people are naturally strong, some people are not, some develop in one way while others in another.  Science can only go so far, in the end to me it's more about trial and error than facts and science.

I agree. However it is better to know the general scientific facts regarding excersize physiology, to better be able to evaluate your training. Don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
agree. However it is better to know the general scientific facts regarding excersize physiology, to better be able to evaluate your training. Don't you think?
Absolutely Mr. Naqual, but exercise physiology would state that "strength", in any sense of the word, can be gained regardless of rep scheme if said reps were hard enough to create the conditions for muscle growth and the proper rest occurs to allow for that growth to occur.
Not everyone is the same; one workout might work well for one person and not for the other. Some people are naturally strong, some people are not, some develop in one way while others in another. Science can only go so far, in the end to me it's more about trial and error than facts and science.

Reciprocity failure is a real thing but as I have stated previously several times, the processes where muscle growth occurs are the same for EVERY HUMAN BEING. So trial and error is only useful, within certain parameters where those proccesses are addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
agree. However it is better to know the general scientific facts regarding excersize physiology, to better be able to evaluate your training. Don't you think?

Absolutely Mr. Naqual, but exercise physiology would state that "strength", in any sense of the word, can be gained regardless of rep scheme if said reps were hard enough to create the conditions for muscle growth and the proper rest occurs to allow for that growth to occur.

And that is contrary to what I've been saying how (seeing as you added a "but" in the reply)?

"Strength, in any sense of the word", is a pretty broad definition, and for the purposes of the original intent of this thread, not very useful.

The problem with these "hard reps" is that if the rep scheme is in the neighborhood of 30 or more reps, most of these reps won't be very hard. Which is not a problem when you are training for muscular endurance, but won't do you much good in the muscular strength department.

Even if the last few reps are really hard, it will at that point (when the reps are that high) be a matter of lactic acid tolerance, more than anything else, I believe.

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites

So by that rationale, someone who goes from closing the trainer for 30 reps to closing the #1 for 30 reps hasn't actually gotten stronger, only increased his endurance?

I don't think so.

Two days ago I did 8 reps with a weight that used to be my 1 rep max. Did I get stronger or just increase my endurance?

Hmmm.

Ok, Ill say it one more time. See if you follow me.

The processes where muscle growth occurs are the same for EVERY HUMAN BEING. You , me, everybody, everybody..."Getting stronger" (i.e. a gain in the the ability to generate more muscular force today than at any point in time in the past), can occur regardless of rep scheme if said reps were hard enough to create the conditions for muscle growth and the proper rest occurs to allow for that growth to occur.

Whether you believe that or not doesnt make it any less true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Van Weele

John stop wasting your time. You can't tell anybody anything. It's like talkin to a wiffle ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I agree with some of your points but in your last post it sounds as if your saying there's a correlation between muscle growth and strength which isn't necessarily true. For me, strength must be measured by something in order to guage any sort of results. Strength and strength endurance are intertwined If I go from 20 reps to 30 reps on the #1 gripper then of course I've gotten stronger so I agree with you there but strength has a lot to do with skil and the CNS rather than just muscle growth!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
So by that rationale, someone who goes from closing the trainer for 30 reps to closing the #1 for 30 reps hasn't actually gotten stronger, only increased his endurance?

I don't think so.

Two days ago I did 8 reps with a weight that used to be my 1 rep max.   Did I get stronger or just increase my endurance?

Hmmm.

Ok, Ill say it one more time.  See if you follow me. 

The processes where muscle growth occurs are the same for EVERY HUMAN BEING.  You , me,  everybody, everybody..."Getting stronger" (i.e.  a gain in the the ability to generate more muscular force today than at any point in time in the past), can occur regardless of rep scheme if said reps were hard enough to create the conditions for muscle growth and the proper rest occurs to allow for that growth to occur.

Whether you believe that or not doesnt make it any less true.

Ok. One last try. I'm obviously not being explicit enough. You could perhaps clarify exactly what you don't agree with, since from my point of view, you seem to be misunderstanding.

Yes, you did get stronger.

Because you are working in the rep-range of strength gains.

I never claimed anything else.

I have been consistently talking about that the strength gains (as far as your 1RM strength is concerned) stop, after you are able to perform a certain amount of reps, IF you continue to train by increasing your reps.

And no, that is NOT the same rationale.

Let's see if you follow this (sounds kinda condescending, doesn't it?).

You start training with the #1.

You can do one rep.

In time, you progress up to, for instance, 30 reps.

Now, your strength has increased to the point of being able to close the #2 for one rep (or atleast getting a lot closer).

Now, you don't start training with the #2, but continue training with the #1.

After some more time, you can now do 50 reps with the #1.

But your strength with the #2 hasn't gone up.

Why?

Because the rep range you are training in with the #1 does not yield any more in terms of muscular strength gains, i.e. the reps are not "hard enough to create the conditions for muscle growth". You are instead working on your muscular endurance with the #1.

You can get up to doing 200 reps with the #1. It still won't give any more strength gains worth mentioning. In fact, you might get WEAKER, since the fast-twitch muscle fibres can start to atrophy from lack of stimulation.

Your definition of "getting stronger" i.e. "a gain in the the ability to generate more muscular force today than at any point in time in the past", I agreee upon, but it does not take into consideration the time it takes to generate that muscular force.

Muscular endurance = Ability to make repeated contractions against a moderate or light load. Facilitated by slow-twitch muscle fibres, which have a high density of mitochondria and high lactic acid tolerance. A slow firing rate, so not a lot of force can be generated per contraction.

Muscular strength = Maximum amount of force that a muscle can generate in a single effort.

Facilitated by fast-twitch muscle fibres, which have a high firing rate (and conversly fatigue quickly) and therefore can produce a lot of force in a short timeperiod.

Edited by nagual
Link to post
Share on other sites
John, I agree with some of your points but in your last post it sounds as if your saying there's a correlation between muscle growth and strength which isn't necessarily true. For me, strength must be measured by something in order to guage any sort of results. Strength and strength endurance are intertwined If I go from 20 reps to 30 reps on the #1 gripper then of course I've gotten stronger so I agree with you there but strength has a lot to do with skil and the CNS rather than just muscle growth!!!

I have to agree with him there for all those bodybuilders that can't close a #3 grip. But then take a powerlifter where it's about strenth they tend to be able to close the #3. This is taking the hardcore bodybuilder and powerlifter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.