I decided to post an email from a fellow BMGW reader.  He has a very valid question in regards to building muscle using higher repetitions versus heavy weight and low repetitions.  Read my response below... 

Dear Adam:

This is a rather lengthy message and I'll take no offence whatsoever should you
choose to ignore it. On the other hand, you might find it interesting or thought
provoking.

I am not now and never have been a bodybuilder but have recently taken an interest
in subject. This interest was prompted by two factors:
1. I am a puny old and weak ectomorph rapidly getting older and weaker.

2. A recent National Geographic program on the subject of steroids was something of
an eye-opener, particularly in that I'm an ex-pat Torontonian living in the
Philippines where steroids are legal and readily and cheaply available. (Worry not.
I have not yielded to the temptation.)

I have spent the last couple of weeks scouring the web. I am sure you know what I have found: endlessly conflicting suggestions regarding routines, reps, weights, supplements and on and on. The one area in which there is universal agreement, however, is one that I was already fully aware of and is repeated on your site- the underlying theory of bodybuilding through resistance training. Bear with me while I state it, so as to be sure I have it right:

Assuming adequate nutrition, muscle growth occurs because:

1. Stressing a muscle or muscles beyond their normal capacity creates micro-tears in the fibers.

2. In repairing those tears, the body, via hormones, over-repairs, creating more cells and fibers than existed pre-tear. This is, of course, precisely what happens with broken bones as well - a thickening of the bone at the break site.

3. The repair (hypertrophy) can be effective only if adequate time of relative inactivity passes between the original stress and the next incidence of stress. (And of course only in the presence of adequate nutrients.)

This theory leads to the conclusion that effective growth comes from intensive training with weights great enough to actually cause the micro-tears in the first place. That is, despite a wide variety of difference in details, I have yet to come across anyone suggesting that progress can be made doing 25 sets of 50 reps at 25% of one's one-rep-max.

This all seems perfectly reasonable.

Now, let me digress a moment. For years we have been told to avoid fatty red meat in favor of a diet high in polyunsaturated fats. It has been mantra-like among physicians, media "experts" and so on. And for all those years, the notion did not sit well with me for one simple reason: we evolved as omnivores on diets extremely high in saturated fats and red meats. In recent years my suspicions have been borne out and studies have shown that eliminating saturated fats from a (male) person's diet is the express route to catastrophe in the form of lower testosterone and HGH.

Well, I have that same feeling of uneasiness regarding the bodybuilding theory, despite the obvious fact that bodybuilders do get big acting according to the theory.

My problem, to illustrate, is this:

If the theory is entirely correct it would mean that if a 150 pound person started, say, a construction job as a laborer hauling about this and that heavy item for 7-8 hours every day, 5 days a week, they would not only never get bigger, they might actually get smaller. Likewise men working on farms or any other job involving heavy lifting and carrying. I, for one, have never seen such thing in the real world. This activity flies directly in the face of the theory; inadequate weight, overly long exercise (reps/sets), inadequate rest period. Yet, such people get bigger and stronger, not smaller and weaker.

Do you see my point/problem?

None of the above is intended in any way to be an attack on your site, which I find interesting and informative. I am writing to you with these thoughts only because they came together in my mind while on your site.

That's it. End of theory-bashing rant.

Cheers,

John