Hello
I generally read on fitness websites that using a low weight for many repetitions is good for muscle definition and using a higher weight for less reps is good for building muscle.
I (sort of) know that, logically, this cannot be true because you cannot shape a muscle as such - all a muscle can do is get bigger.
Science aside, I am interested in what people have actually achieved rather than what is supposed to happen.
Has anyone got any practical experience of trying out the two different approaches? Do you see different results? Is low weight high reps really better for 'definition'?
I love lifting heavy weights but what I actually want to achieve in my body is small, tight, well defined muscles rather than big bulky ones. I don't actually have big muscles, but the ones I do have have definitely given me more 'bulk' rather than shape.
Looking forward to hearing your replies
andrea
I generally read on fitness websites that using a low weight for many repetitions is good for muscle definition and using a higher weight for less reps is good for building muscle.
I (sort of) know that, logically, this cannot be true because you cannot shape a muscle as such - all a muscle can do is get bigger.
Science aside, I am interested in what people have actually achieved rather than what is supposed to happen.
Has anyone got any practical experience of trying out the two different approaches? Do you see different results? Is low weight high reps really better for 'definition'?
I love lifting heavy weights but what I actually want to achieve in my body is small, tight, well defined muscles rather than big bulky ones. I don't actually have big muscles, but the ones I do have have definitely given me more 'bulk' rather than shape.
Looking forward to hearing your replies
andrea