# high reps for leg mass?



## neanderthal (Oct 31, 2003)

i heard from alot of people that high reps, 20-50, are great for leg mass.  but ive also heard that hard and heavy is the only way to go.  what are your guys' experience with this?


----------



## Mudge (Oct 31, 2003)

Supposedly, the larger muscle groups work better with higher reps due to thier "ability to re-oxygenate quickly."

20 rep squats wear you down though, I pretty much keep it 8-12 or so for most leg stuff, for calves I stick around 15.  I have heard of some people who do one week normal rep range, and the next higher rep range.


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 31, 2003)

Experiement.  Everyone is different, and responds differently.


----------



## neanderthal (Oct 31, 2003)

i just got finished with a high rep leg workout, nothing went below 20 reps. and your right mudge, they definitely do wear yoiu down.  it definitely gave my legs a much greater pump than what ive ever gotten with heavy lifts.  i think im gonna keep doin high rep stuff for a little while to see what kind of mass gains i get.  i'll experiment like you said twin peak.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 31, 2003)

I use both high reps and low reps for legs and everything in between, and I do the same for all bodyparts.


----------



## vanity (Oct 31, 2003)

It's good to mix things up, change things around.
Still though I wouldn't normally do more than 20 reps.

I personally, like to do around 15- 20 reps (lighter weight of Giant sets) and then the week after I might do 8-10 reps heavy with 2 min rest between sets and then the week after that i might pump out as many reps as I possibly can with a 3- 4 min rest.

You know, keep those quads, hams and calves guessing.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Nov 1, 2003)

About every fourth WO I do giant sets consisting of squats/leg press/leg extension/leg curl - no rest between sets. About 10  weeks after adding this to my leg routine, my quads were noticeably bigger and harder.


----------

