Go heavy? Light? Does it matter?
Hello_its_Dan
Posts: 406 Member
From the desk of Stuart Phillips PHD:
Light weights promote hypertrophy (and strength) and here’s the evidence… We showed, a while ago now, that so long as weights are lifted to fatigue MPS is as robustly (or perhaps even more so) stimulated as lifting heavy (heavier) weights (2). Then we did a training study (yes unilateral, but a good proof of principle trial… or so I thought?) (3). We even wrote a review (1). Then Brad Schoenfeld helped us out with a nice proof-of-principle trial in well trained men (4) … well trained people are supposedly (so a number of social media folks tell me) less malleable than untrained men! Despite this evidence, sometimes you have to go to an evidence-based answer and Brad Schoenfeld performed a meta-analysis and here’s what he and his co-authors said (5)
“The purpose of this paper therefore was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of low-load (</=60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) versus high-load (>/=65% 1 RM) training in enhancing post-exercise muscular adaptations… There was a trend for strength outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 1.07 +/- 0.60; CI: -0.18, 2.32; p = 0.09). The mean ES for low loads was 1.23 +/- 0.43 (CI: 0.32, 2.13). The mean ES for high loads was 2.30 +/- 0.43 (CI: 1.41, 3.19). There was a trend for hypertrophy outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 0.43 +/- 0.24; CI: -0.05, 0.92; p = 0.076). The mean ES for low loads was 0.39 +/- 0.17 (CI: 0.05, 0.73). The mean ES for high loads was 0.82 +/- 0.17 (CI: 0.49, 1.16). In conclusion, training with loads </=50% 1 RM was found to promote substantial increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals, but a trend was noted for superiority of heavy loading with respect to these outcome measures with null findings likely attributed to a relatively small number of studies on the topic.”
So there you have it. Light loads work, perhaps heavy loads are superior, but the studies done are few and many (most?) are not appropriately powered to show differences (that means the effect isn’t that big). Also, many only test participants' strength pre- and post-training so why would I ever expect a person lifting light weights to get stronger than someone lifting heavy weights if I do that? Specificity dictates that neurological adaptations will always favour a heavy lifting group in terms of strength. That's a neurological outcome, not a muscular outcome!
Given that the rate of participation in RT is less than 10% in North America (that's self-report so it's likely closer to 5% in reality) it seems odd to me that people are often vehemently opposed to lifting lighter weights (I get a few emails asking me why I promote this approach saying that lifting heavy is the ONLY way to go). Clearly, both approaches are sufficient, but neither is necessary for the development of strength and hypertrophy. Unless one is absolutely bent on the development of maximal strength or hypertrophy the approach works. Even then I'd say that even very occasional heavy sessions or weeks and you'd be good. If RT is a lifelong pursuit then after regular RT for 30 years let's see folks get under the bar and lift heavy on a regular basis (sorry millenials it just ain't happening). Of course there always exceptions, from whom I am sure I'll hear! I still think there is work to be done here and given this evidence I think it’s time folks consider that programs of RT need to incorporate both heavy and light load training. And… there’s no ‘risk’ (at least from my perspective) with promoting lifting of lighter loads… for some it might be actually be a better way to lift weights (or keep them lifting weights). One email from an acquaintance contained the statement that "lifting light weights is for girls and people who are afraid to hypertrophy..." well chalk one up for the ladies! Paradigms change folks... tune up your knowledge, don't tune out just because it doesn't fit your belief system!
P.S. Then we published this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27174923... not a fluke, not a bad design, simply confirming lots of other evidence!
Reference List
1. Burd NA, Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA and Phillips SM. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 551-554, 2012.
2. Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Atherton PJ, Baker JM, Moore DR, Holwerda AM, Parise G, Rennie MJ, Baker SK and Phillips SM. Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men. PLoS ONE 5: e12033, 2010.
3. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DD, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK and Phillips SM. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol 113: 71-77, 2012.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B and Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2954-2963, 2015.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP and Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 1-10, 2014.
Light weights promote hypertrophy (and strength) and here’s the evidence… We showed, a while ago now, that so long as weights are lifted to fatigue MPS is as robustly (or perhaps even more so) stimulated as lifting heavy (heavier) weights (2). Then we did a training study (yes unilateral, but a good proof of principle trial… or so I thought?) (3). We even wrote a review (1). Then Brad Schoenfeld helped us out with a nice proof-of-principle trial in well trained men (4) … well trained people are supposedly (so a number of social media folks tell me) less malleable than untrained men! Despite this evidence, sometimes you have to go to an evidence-based answer and Brad Schoenfeld performed a meta-analysis and here’s what he and his co-authors said (5)
“The purpose of this paper therefore was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of low-load (</=60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) versus high-load (>/=65% 1 RM) training in enhancing post-exercise muscular adaptations… There was a trend for strength outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 1.07 +/- 0.60; CI: -0.18, 2.32; p = 0.09). The mean ES for low loads was 1.23 +/- 0.43 (CI: 0.32, 2.13). The mean ES for high loads was 2.30 +/- 0.43 (CI: 1.41, 3.19). There was a trend for hypertrophy outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 0.43 +/- 0.24; CI: -0.05, 0.92; p = 0.076). The mean ES for low loads was 0.39 +/- 0.17 (CI: 0.05, 0.73). The mean ES for high loads was 0.82 +/- 0.17 (CI: 0.49, 1.16). In conclusion, training with loads </=50% 1 RM was found to promote substantial increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals, but a trend was noted for superiority of heavy loading with respect to these outcome measures with null findings likely attributed to a relatively small number of studies on the topic.”
So there you have it. Light loads work, perhaps heavy loads are superior, but the studies done are few and many (most?) are not appropriately powered to show differences (that means the effect isn’t that big). Also, many only test participants' strength pre- and post-training so why would I ever expect a person lifting light weights to get stronger than someone lifting heavy weights if I do that? Specificity dictates that neurological adaptations will always favour a heavy lifting group in terms of strength. That's a neurological outcome, not a muscular outcome!
Given that the rate of participation in RT is less than 10% in North America (that's self-report so it's likely closer to 5% in reality) it seems odd to me that people are often vehemently opposed to lifting lighter weights (I get a few emails asking me why I promote this approach saying that lifting heavy is the ONLY way to go). Clearly, both approaches are sufficient, but neither is necessary for the development of strength and hypertrophy. Unless one is absolutely bent on the development of maximal strength or hypertrophy the approach works. Even then I'd say that even very occasional heavy sessions or weeks and you'd be good. If RT is a lifelong pursuit then after regular RT for 30 years let's see folks get under the bar and lift heavy on a regular basis (sorry millenials it just ain't happening). Of course there always exceptions, from whom I am sure I'll hear! I still think there is work to be done here and given this evidence I think it’s time folks consider that programs of RT need to incorporate both heavy and light load training. And… there’s no ‘risk’ (at least from my perspective) with promoting lifting of lighter loads… for some it might be actually be a better way to lift weights (or keep them lifting weights). One email from an acquaintance contained the statement that "lifting light weights is for girls and people who are afraid to hypertrophy..." well chalk one up for the ladies! Paradigms change folks... tune up your knowledge, don't tune out just because it doesn't fit your belief system!
P.S. Then we published this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27174923... not a fluke, not a bad design, simply confirming lots of other evidence!
Reference List
1. Burd NA, Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA and Phillips SM. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 551-554, 2012.
2. Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Atherton PJ, Baker JM, Moore DR, Holwerda AM, Parise G, Rennie MJ, Baker SK and Phillips SM. Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men. PLoS ONE 5: e12033, 2010.
3. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DD, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK and Phillips SM. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol 113: 71-77, 2012.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B and Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2954-2963, 2015.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP and Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 1-10, 2014.
2
Replies
-
My n=1 is that rowing seems to build some muscle, and that's lighter load but monster reps (on the order of 1000+ reps per hour, at a low rating (rating = strokes per minute (spm), in rower-speak). An hour of on-water recreational rowing is low normal, and low rating isn't baked in. Recreationally, we usually go mid-20s (1200 strokes per hour at 20, 1440 at 24 . . . 30+ spm isn't unheard of, even for drills. Race pace is 30 and up).
Most people don't appreciate that rowing is progressive, to a certain extent: Better technique = more power on the oar-blade face = more load. Better technique = ability to hold power at higher spm = more work per minute. Better technique and more strength = more speed, which represents more work . . . and so forth.
I did some regular weight training (heavy-for-me, progressive) about 10 years ago, regularly for a couple of years. My impression is that that was faster progress. But rowing is just more fun, so I do more of it, and see similar benefits, just on a slower time scale. Personally, weak character that I am
, I'm motivated mostly by fun, with a minor motivation to stay strong to delay my permanent move to assisted living as long as I can. (I'm 61 y/o.) Rowing works for me.
When I lost weight, I was utterly stunned by how much muscle turned out to be underneath the fat. (Some people have assumed - from my profile pic, I guess - that I lift. Not much, and only sporadically and in the rowing off season. One guy even asked if I was a bodybuilder, which I think is freakin' hilarious. Kinda suspect he was heading for scam-ville, though. ).
High reps, moderate (but progressive) load FTW (because rowing is fun), in my book - despite the "only lifting heavy builds muscle" presumption that permeates MFP.2 -
This is totally out the mouth of babes, aka my 22 year old son who lives and breathes weight lifting.
His observation of the women in his gym are that those who lift heavy with shorter reps have the more condensed, boxy type figures than the women who lift lighter but higher reps who have the more elongated hour glass type figure.
Could be total coincidence and happens to just be his opinion. Different asthetic preference, different routine??0 -
My n=1 is that rowing seems to build some muscle, and that's lighter load but monster reps (on the order of 1000+ reps per hour, at a low rating (rating = strokes per minute (spm), in rower-speak). An hour of on-water recreational rowing is low normal, and low rating isn't baked in. Recreationally, we usually go mid-20s (1200 strokes per hour at 20, 1440 at 24 . . . 30+ spm isn't unheard of, even for drills. Race pace is 30 and up).
Most people don't appreciate that rowing is progressive, to a certain extent: Better technique = more power on the oar-blade face = more load. Better technique = ability to hold power at higher spm = more work per minute. Better technique and more strength = more speed, which represents more work . . . and so forth.
I did some regular weight training (heavy-for-me, progressive) about 10 years ago, regularly for a couple of years. My impression is that that was faster progress. But rowing is just more fun, so I do more of it, and see similar benefits, just on a slower time scale. Personally, weak character that I am , I'm motivated mostly by fun, with a minor motivation to stay strong to delay my permanent move to assisted living as long as I can. (I'm 61 y/o.) Rowing works for me.
When I lost weight, I was utterly stunned by how much muscle turned out to be underneath the fat. (Some people have assumed - from my profile pic, I guess - that I lift. Not much, and only sporadically and in the rowing off season. One guy even asked if I was a bodybuilder, which I think is freakin' hilarious. Kinda suspect he was heading for scam-ville, though. ).
High reps, moderate (but progressive) load FTW (because rowing is fun), in my book - despite the "only lifting heavy builds muscle" presumption that permeates MFP.
No shock at all. I've read a bit on the physiques of slave rowers on Roman warships. These dudes were essentially fed starvation level diets of hardtack and water, chained in place, and still developed some of the most ridiculously strong bodies of the era.
It kind of puts me in mind of convicts who get subpar nutrition, have laughable access to training equipment, yet still come out of the pen looking harder than 98% of gymbros. It's almost like constant hard work in any form can overcome almost everything else or something. 3 -
These papers have been brought up before.
I don't think there are too many people who lift here that deny that you can build muscle lifting lighter weights. The bigger issue is 1) you need a progressive program of some sort, and 2) many people who lift lighter weights don't take it to failure or near failure. Plus, there's nothing quite like endurance-range lifting to failure for terrible DOMS as far as I'm concerned. Not that you don't eventually adapt, but until you do ... ow.
But if someone puts in the time and effort on a low(er) weight progressive program, they'll get results.
0 -
These papers have been brought up before.
I don't think there are too many people who lift here that deny that you can build muscle lifting lighter weights. The bigger issue is 1) you need a progressive program of some sort, and 2) many people who lift lighter weights don't take it to failure or near failure. Plus, there's nothing quite like endurance-range lifting to failure for terrible DOMS as far as I'm concerned. Not that you don't eventually adapt, but until you do ... ow.
But if someone puts in the time and effort on a low(er) weight progressive program, they'll get results.
Agreed! Too bad most trainers don't use RPE scales in their training.0 -
These papers have been brought up before.
I don't think there are too many people who lift here that deny that you can build muscle lifting lighter weights. The bigger issue is 1) you need a progressive program of some sort, and 2) many people who lift lighter weights don't take it to failure or near failure. Plus, there's nothing quite like endurance-range lifting to failure for terrible DOMS as far as I'm concerned. Not that you don't eventually adapt, but until you do ... ow.
But if someone puts in the time and effort on a low(er) weight progressive program, they'll get results.
I've read it (bolded) on here semi-often, but I think usually coming from starry-eyed new lifters who've recently gotten religion when they (unsurprisingly) see good results from their "lift heavy" efforts. I've never (that I recall) seen it from any of the long-term lifters or more fitness/physiology-savvy folks.
But, when I do see it, it's usually in some formulation like "cycling doesn't build muscle" (said to newbies to exercise who're cycling for fun/calories/fitness improvement) or "You have to lift heavy to preserve muscle in a calorie deficit". Sometimes I argue with them.
I'd never claim that progressive heavy lifting is anything but the fastest common route to getting stronger or adding muscle mass (other necessary pre-conditions also being met, of course). Still, some of its new converts may over-proselytize a bit, thinking "weight lifting" and "strength building" are exclusive synonyms, and that "heavy" is the only way.0 -
The key with these studies so far is that those seeing results from the lighter weights are lifting to failure, which, as someone wrote earlier, is not "easy" and it's not fun.
Like all studies, this research broadens our knowledge and throws in a few more puzzle pieces. It shouldn't be looked at as challenging the benefits of heavy lifting or saying that the two are equal. Essentially, it points out the possibly that those who cannot or would not ever lift heavy can still see some muscle-building benefits from working high reps and lower loads to failure. That might be a helpful alternative for the right person (although I think that many who have trouble lifting heavy will also lack the stamina to do enough reps at a lower weight to get the benefits described in this research).0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »This is totally out the mouth of babes, aka my 22 year old son who lives and breathes weight lifting.
His observation of the women in his gym are that those who lift heavy with shorter reps have the more condensed, boxy type figures than the women who lift lighter but higher reps who have the more elongated hour glass type figure.
Could be total coincidence and happens to just be his opinion. Different asthetic preference, different routine??
From what I have seen, almost all of that is self-selection. Meaning that those body types have a tendency to choose that type of exercise, not that the type of exercise shapes those bodies.
Not to mention that the physical attributes of different body types (length of bones, origin and insertion points for muscles, etc) significantly affect how the muscle will respond to weight training.
0 -
I have been guided by three different personal trainers who each have said they never put people on the fixed heavy machines at their gyms but prefer the principle of lighter free weights giving more instability and doing reps to exhaustion.....i find if i go on a fixed heavy machine i get all sorts of aches but sticking to free weights and bidyweight circuits does my core and stamina a lot of good!
0 -
Put this in a powerlifting perspective and it crushes the whole light weight thing completely. Haha
No way possible to get to the elite level with light weights. Never going to happen.
0 -
Layne Norton discusses this as well and links all the research in his info section. I don't think there is any denying that total volume is more important than specific load. And it can also be argued that achieving hypertrophy might be easier to occur more frequently when using lighter loads. Personally, I incorporate both into my training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_z0vLxQHmo 1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions