It's a popular misconception that you train heavy for strength and light to get cut.
The thing is, if you really wanted to get cut, you'd go strictly aerobic - and burn the fat that's covering your muscles. This is what creates definition, or that 'ripped' look.
Now, that said, I pose the following question:
Which burns more calories: Running a mile, jogging a mile, or walking a mile?
The answer is: none. They all burn the same amount of calories. The caveat is that the person who ran the mile will continue to burn calories at a faster rate due to their increased metabolism.
The same holds true for doing high reps with low weight. Yes, some resistance training is better than none. The trick (whether doing high weight/low rep or vice versa) is to work the muscle to exhaustion. That is what triggers new muscle growth.
I will admit that it certainly seems to me that low weight high rep does seem to build 'endurance', while high weight low rep builds 'power' or 'explosiveness'.
Where I'm coming from is the point of view that I'd rather be golfing (or doing golf things) than working out, so I look for maximum results in a minimum time - hence I work with insane weights and have a very short (but intense) workout.
I'm sure there's merit to low weight high rep training, but time saving sure ain't one of them!
