Should You Train With Higher or Lower Reps?

What the science says and how to apply it to your training
~7 min read
By: Dylan Dacosta

“Should I train with higher reps or lower reps to build muscle?”

“I’ve heard higher reps will help you tone your muscles more.”

“Isn’t it true that lower reps with heavier weight will make me bulky?”

These are all common things I’ve heard or been asked as a coach and even believed as a younger lifter.

If you hang around any local gym for long enough, you’re bound to hear these ideas said as if they were hard facts. It’s no wonder folks are confused about the topic of high vs. low reps. 

It can be especially confusing because you’ll likely get a wide range of rep schemes from different programs and coaches. And if any coach or system is rigidly attached to one protocol being “the best,” it can add even more confusion. 

So, the question remains: 

Which is better? High reps or low reps?

As with any question, specifics matter. Mainly, which is better for what? 

Most people tend to ask this question in regard to body composition and strength. The oversimplified answers are as follows. 

For building muscle, neither is inherently superior within a large range of about 5–30 reps. 

For building strength, lower reps are generally better than higher reps, especially at the extreme ends. For example, heavy singles will be much better for developing max strength than sets of 30 will ever be. 

These are, as I mentioned, oversimplified answers. Let's dig deeper into this topic and see how you can best apply it to your training. 

What Does The Science Say?

There have been plenty of studies on this topic. Enough for multiple meta-analyses to be done (that’s just a review of relevant studies on a topic.) This one by Schoenfeld et al. (1) in 2017 gave us a good insight into how to understand these comparisons in a broad sense. 

For building muscle, there was no real difference between high reps and low reps. There wasn’t even a real skew towards favouring one over the other.

For this study, “low-load training” was anything equal to or less than 60% of your one rep max. “High-load training” was anything above 60% of your one rep max. In practical terms, most low-load protocols were doing between 15–30 reps per set and most high-load protocols were doing between 6–12 reps per set. 

Another keynote was that these studies standardized all sets to momentary muscular failure. This isn’t how most people train in the gym for every set, which is key to highlight. 

In terms of building strength, the high-load groups did achieve better strength gains than the low-load groups. This effect was a “medium effect” of 0.58, which is a meaningful difference.

This makes intuitive sense as well when considering specificity. High-load training is just more specific to max strength than low-load training. This shouldn’t be surprising, and if you were trying to get as strong as possible, you were likely using heavier loads anyway. 

A few more meta-analyses have come out since this one in 2017, and they all more or less echo the same findings. Lopez et al. (2) in 2021 showed no real difference between low, moderate and high load training for building muscle. At the same time, strength gains were better for high and moderate groups than for low-load groups. 

Similarly, Carvalho et al. (3) found no muscle growth differences between very low, low, moderate and high-load groups. Once again, this paper found the high-load groups do better than everyone else for one rep max strength gains and the moderate-load groups to do better than low-load groups. 

The table below will summarize what the general rep ranges were for these studies in each group and how they rank for developing strength & muscle.

Some nuance that is left behind here is how I mentioned these studies all have subjects taking sets to failure. If you train regularly, you know that is not how most sets in the gym are done. 

In fact, training this way can be quite gruelling and unsustainable. This brings some interesting caveats into play. Mainly, some research has shown that you don’t need to train to failure with heavier loads in order to maximize hypertrophy. But with low loads, you likely will, or you’ll have to train closer to failure than you would need to with heavier loads. 
One study by Lasevicius et al. in 2022 (4) showed this. In 25 untrained men, training the leg extension with high load (80% of 1RM) to failure and not to failure yielded similar amounts of muscle growth. While the low-load (30% of 1RM) only saw significant gains when training to failure.

Volume was equated in this study. This meant that the “not to failure” groups had to do more sets. 

One rep max strength increased in all groups. But the high-load groups (both to and no to failure) saw about twice the strength gains than the low-load groups did.

Additionally, the protocols to failure (high and low-load) were perceived as harder than the non-failure groups. This means that the best bang for your buck in this example was the high-load, not-to-failure protocol. It yielded similar or better strength and muscle gains as high-load to failure and low-load to failure and didn’t seem to suck as much. 

This doesn’t mean you should only train with around 80% of your one rep max (usually what you could do for around 8–12) reps. It just shows that with those loads, you don’t need to go to failure to maximize gains, which doesn’t seem to be the case with lighter loads. 

Practical Considerations

Some things to account for that aren’t so sciencey are how practical each rep scheme is for certain movements.

For example, if you can get similar quad and glute growth from doing sets of 6–12 squats than you would from 15–30 squats, then 6–12 makes more sense. Doing 30 squats is borderline conditioning, sounds like hell and requires a lot of strength endurance for not only your lower body but also your back for holding the bar up. 

Alternatively, for shorter-range single-joint work, the lighter loads for higher reps protocol might be better to implement. Doing 6 heavy calf raises can just be harder to actually do without compensating than doing sets of 15 or more. Same with arms and shoulder work. Dumbbell lateral raises just tend not to be great to do with heavier weights and lower reps. 

You truly should play around with the large rep scheme that seems to help support muscle growth. Perhaps if you’re feeling masochistic one day, try a set of 30 squats. Who knows? You might like it. 

Takeaways

When it comes to the question of high vs. low reps, as with anything, the answer depends on the details. 

For maximizing strength, lower reps (1–5) with heavier loads will generally be better as they are more specific to developing maximal strength. You can still obviously build strength with a large range of loads, but heavier is better for this goal. 

For building muscle, a range between 5–30 reps, all seem to help grow similar rates of muscle as long as sets are taken to failure. With the high/moderate loads (around 6–12), you won’t need to train to failure in order to maximize strength and muscle growth. Additionally, that rep range (6–12) is likely to be the most efficient and practical way to train for muscle growth in particular. 

There is still room for higher rep work, but it is likely best suited in a practical sense for isolation and single-joint work. Such as calf raises, bicep curls, triceps extensions, delt raises and even leg curls or extensions. 
Lastly, never forget the value of trial and error. Feel free to play around and see what works best for you and also what you enjoy the most. Preference is crucial for long-term adherence. 

Cheers,
Coach Dylan🍻

References:

1.Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28834797/

2. Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433148/

3. Muscle hypertrophy and strength gains after resistance training with different volume-matched loads: a systematic review and meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35015560/

4. Muscle Failure Promotes Greater Muscle Hypertrophy in Low-Load but Not in High-Load Resistance Training
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31895290/