Here are some really dumb strength training questions

TR0berts

1) am I just strengthening the muscle mass I currently have, or is that not a thing?

That's almost exactly what you're doing. You may - as a newb - build an ever so slight amount of muscle, but really not much and it's not guaranteed.

2) Tell me exactly what "lifting heavy," which apparently is what we are all supposed to do, means to you. I typically chose weights that allow me to to do no more than 8-12 reps at a time, for 2-3 sets. However, I have zero interest in things like serious Olympic-style lifting or Crossfit or whatever--which I what I picture when I hear the term. What about bodyweight exercises like push-ups (which are still challenging for me)--are those part of a "lifting heavy" routine?

Sure. That said - if you really want to avoid actually building muscle - you'd be better off getting away from the 8-12 (hypertrophy, which means muscle-building) rep range and lower that to the 3-5 (strength) rep range.

3) Pilates...Maybe I am just not very strong to begin with, but it really feels like a form of strength training to me, not just a recovery activity?

This has been debated. I feel that Pilates or Yoga is a great addition to "typical" strength training. But I wouldn't just do Pilates or Yoga - at least not at first. Once you get "strong" - whatever that means to you - Pilates and/or Yoga would likely be a fine way to maintain your strength, depending upon the exact type and movements you'd be doing.

sabified

Sorry, I'm not much help but bump for info!

But I will say, if that Pilates class helps you with your scoliosis pain, then keep doing it.
Living pain free is a great thing

bacitracin

Seriously, I am not going to be offended at all if you snark away at me. I've lurked enough on this and other fitness forums to recognize how silly these questions are (and that this is waaay too long of a post). But I've always been confused about some of the lingo/advice around "lifting heavy" and building muscle.

1) The stupidest question: Can you get stronger without "gaining muscle?" (Don't worry, I do want to start gaining muscle--I am just curious). I ask because I'm currently eating at a slight deficit/close to maintenance level, so I know don't have enough of a surplus to increase the amount of muscle I have. But by weight training am I still increasing the amount of STRENGTH I have? I've noticed that I can complete more reps, do more pushups, lift heavier weights, and am feeling stronger. But, again, I thought that you needed a caloric surplus to actually build muscle--am I just strengthening the muscle mass I currently have, or is that not a thing?

2) Tell me exactly what "lifting heavy," which apparently is what we are all supposed to do, means to you. I typically chose weights that allow me to to do no more than 8-12 reps at a time, for 2-3 sets. However, I have zero interest in things like serious Olympic-style lifting or Crossfit or whatever--which I what I picture when I hear the term. What about bodyweight exercises like push-ups (which are still challenging for me)--are those part of a "lifting heavy" routine?

3) I recently read The New Rules of Lifting for Women and it was very eye-opening to me. One thing the author wasn't especially keen on was Pilates as a form of strength training (he sees it as more of a recovery activity, it seems). While it isn't heavy lifting, the fusion Pilates class I attend is super intense, adding plyometrics and body-weight exercises on top of traditional Pilates stuff. By the end of the class all of my muscles are shaking and totally exhausted, and overall it does wonders for the occasional back pain I sometimes get from scoliosis. Maybe I am just not very strong to begin with, but it really feels like a form of strength training to me, not just a recovery activity?

OK, ramble over. I've had a lot of coffee. Sorry.

1: Yes, you can. Basically, you train your existing muscle to realize what it can do. It's like if your car had something that stopped it from going faster than 55MPH, and then you drive it and drive it and drive it and it goes to 65 then 75MPH. Same engine, same wheels. Your brain doesn't like to let you do things you haven't done before, so you gradually increase your brain's comfort with your abilities. It's how we hear stories of incredible feats done by average people under an adrenaline rush. The adrenaline doesn't make you stronger, it just bypasses your limiting circuit.

2: "Lifting Heavy", as far as I'm aware, is lifting about 80% of your maximum. So if you can lift 100lbs ONCE, then lifting heavy is lifting 80lbs as much as you can in about 90 seconds. There's diminishing returns for muscle training after depleting your glycogen. The sweet spot that I've heard by people I trust is 90 seconds.

GypsySoul_74

Regarding question 1, you can and will get stronger without gaining muscle.

Regarding question 2, lifting heavy is relative. Your rep range will depend on your goals, but "lifting heavy" means that it is difficult to complete that rep range with the weight that you are using. I think for maintaining lean mass, which is what most people who are losing weight are trying to do, lifting for 3-8 reps is probably appropriate with a weight that is appropriate for that range.

As for question 3, I don't know anything about NROLFW, but I can't see how Pilates would be bad but I wouldn't consider it weight training. Maybe more of a conditioning thing. But I know about as much about Pilates as I do NROLFW.

seconding everything this guy said--he's spot on for #1 and #2.

as for pilates--it can absolutely be a killer workout and certainly requires muscle work. (I've sweated through many a challenging pilates class; i know!) here's the thing: like running, or cycling, or dance, or other specific sports/activities, pilates will increase the relative strength, coordination and response of the muscles you're using--primarily the core, glutes, quads, hamstrings, adductors and abductors. it may benefit you as a cross-training or conditioning activity in that the strength and control you gain from practicing pilates will spill over into other sports/activities. it may also provide some aesthetic benefit if you are already lean--my abs look the best when i practice pilates regularly--and can improve most people's appearances simply by strengthening the muscles that allow us to stand with erect posture. i would consider it a form of bodyweight strength training. but having experienced what pilates does for my body versus what olympic-style heavy lifting does for my body, i'd venture to say the effects/benefits are not the same. i think the two can complement each other. i think either one can stand alone depending on a person's goals. pilates leans more toward the cardio and muscular endurance end of things, with strength as a side benefit. three major differences of note: pilates doesn't trigger the CNS adaptations that lifting heavy does; it doesn't strengthen the skeletal system (including joints and connective tissues) the way heavy weight-bearing exercise does; it doesn't facilitate the same improved body composition.

BUT that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with pilates--just means it serves a different purpose.

ETA: if it helps your scoliosis pain, then YES, by all means, keep doing it! i have fibromyalgia, and anything that mediates the pain without negative affects becomes part of my routine. many people with back pain seem to have good results with pilates as long as they practice with good form; j.h. pilates actually used his system (which he called "contrology") to help rehabilitate injured soldiers after WWI, and later, as therapy for injured dancers.

tempehforever

Thank you everyone for your quick and very useful responses! Glad to know I am not the only one with these questions.

So, is gaining muscle mass mostly a goal for aesthetic purposes? I ask because I'm pretty happy overall with my appearance (just temporarily decreasing calories just a bit to make up for the consequences of a 6-month laziness rut) and according to a recent physical have a heathy body fat percentage. My current goals mostly have to do with improving how my body performs and feels, not as much on how it looks. If that makes sense. If I'm getting stronger and feeling better and am healthy overall, is there a medical need to increase muscle mass? Or is the benefit mostly to look hot?

I think I've mostly been thrown off by the whole emphasis on adding muscle that I've encountered when starting to research fitness more. Most of my athletic background since my early teen years has been in distance running, obviously a sport where most people, female or male, aren't terribly concerned about "bulking up." It is a whole new world for me!

bepeejaye

Loving this thread!!

Sorry, I'm not much help but bump for info!

But I will say, if that Pilates class helps you with your scoliosis pain, then keep doing it.
Living pain free is a great thing

TR0berts

So, is gaining muscle mass mostly a goal for aesthetic purposes?...If I'm getting stronger and feeling better and am healthy overall, is there a medical need to increase muscle mass? Or is the benefit mostly to look hot?

The more muscle you have, the stronger you can be. With your current amount of muscle, you'll be able to lift a maximum of x lbs, if you strength train to the maximum of your abilities. If you want to lift y lbs, you'll have to gain some muscle. More muscle doesn't exactly mean stronger - but it will increase your capacity for strength. In addition, the added muscle should make lifting that x lbs easier.

So... No, it's not just for aesthetics. There actually is a functional purpose for putting on more muscle.

tempehforever

The more muscle you have, the stronger you can be. With your current amount of muscle, you'll be able to lift a maximum of x lbs, if you strength train to the maximum of your abilities. If you want to lift y lbs, you'll have to gain some muscle. More muscle doesn't exactly mean stronger - but it will increase your capacity for strength. In addition, the added muscle should make lifting that x lbs easier.

So... No, it's not just for aesthetics. There actually is a functional purpose for putting on more muscle.

Cool, that totally answers my question. I would like to be stronger. So probably in the near future I may adjust my goals to add a bit more muscle.

I am really glad I drank all that coffee and started this thread, hehe.

acpgee

1. You can find yourself increasing weights without gaining muscle. Some strength gains will be due to improved neurological response.
2. I do 8-10 reps for upper body and 12-15 for lower body. I do 3 sets but should probably up to 5. Choose a weight where it is difficult to complete last rep of the exercise. Train to failure some of the time--ie pick a weight where you are unable to complete the last rep (safest with a spotter who assists with last rep).
3. I should be doing Pilates.

JoRocka

Thank you everyone for your quick and very useful responses! Glad to know I am not the only one with these questions.

So, is gaining muscle mass mostly a goal for aesthetic purposes? I ask because I'm pretty happy overall with my appearance (just temporarily decreasing calories just a bit to make up for the consequences of a 6-month laziness rut) and according to a recent physical have a heathy body fat percentage. My current goals mostly have to do with improving how my body performs and feels, not as much on how it looks. If that makes sense. If I'm getting stronger and feeling better and am healthy overall, is there a medical need to increase muscle mass? Or is the benefit mostly to look hot?

I think I've mostly been thrown off by the whole emphasis on adding muscle that I've encountered when starting to research fitness more. Most of my athletic background since my early teen years has been in distance running, obviously a sport where most people, female or male, aren't terribly concerned about "bulking up." It is a whole new world for me!

You have to under stand as well... when you say bulking- the general populous goes to Mr Olympia style size.

It takes YEARS and 99% of the time good drugs to get you there. Most of those guys/girls aren't natural (you'll see this written often as "natty" for short)


For me- my bulk- I'll be happy if I put on maybe 5 lbs of real actual muscle. Seriously- 6 months- 5 lbs of muscle. It's a LONG arduous task to build muscle- it takes time and dedication. And it's an up down cycle of slowly working through bulk and cut cycles to achieve what you want.

Going through one 6 month bulk is just going to fill you out- it's not going to make you balloon up- ti takes way more dedication than your average gym rat is willing to donate out of their life.

astronomicals

3) . While it isn't heavy lifting, the fusion Pilates class I attend is super intense, adding plyometrics and body-weight exercises on top of traditional Pilates stuff. By the end of the class all of my muscles are shaking and totally exhausted, and overall it does wonders for the occasional back pain I sometimes get from scoliosis. Maybe I am just not very strong to begin with, but it really feels like a form of strength training to me, not just a recovery activity?

Its strength training, but, it will have different results than typical bodybuilding or powerlifting style training. I prefer a mix of everything with a focus on heavy lifting. Its all goal dependent.

AllanMisner

Thank you everyone for your quick and very useful responses! Glad to know I am not the only one with these questions.

So, is gaining muscle mass mostly a goal for aesthetic purposes? I ask because I'm pretty happy overall with my appearance (just temporarily decreasing calories just a bit to make up for the consequences of a 6-month laziness rut) and according to a recent physical have a heathy body fat percentage. My current goals mostly have to do with improving how my body performs and feels, not as much on how it looks. If that makes sense. If I'm getting stronger and feeling better and am healthy overall, is there a medical need to increase muscle mass? Or is the benefit mostly to look hot?

I think I've mostly been thrown off by the whole emphasis on adding muscle that I've encountered when starting to research fitness more. Most of my athletic background since my early teen years has been in distance running, obviously a sport where most people, female or male, aren't terribly concerned about "bulking up." It is a whole new world for me!

After age 35, most people lose about 2% of their muscle mass per year. Do the math and you can see what that means if you were to live into your 80s. Muscle gives us the functional use of our bodies. Beyond strength, muscle is needed for balance, speed, and posture. As you know, we also lose bone density and a fall in elder age is often the death nail. Lifting weights improves both muscle mass and bone density. Next time you see an older person, watch them move. Ask yourself if you want to be on that path or would you rather improve your health and fitness now.

Azdak

Seriously, I am not going to be offended at all if you snark away at me. I've lurked enough on this and other fitness forums to recognize how silly these questions are (and that this is waaay too long of a post). But I've always been confused about some of the lingo/advice around "lifting heavy" and building muscle.

1) The stupidest question: Can you get stronger without "gaining muscle?" (Don't worry, I do want to start gaining muscle--I am just curious). I ask because I'm currently eating at a slight deficit/close to maintenance level, so I know don't have enough of a surplus to increase the amount of muscle I have. But by weight training am I still increasing the amount of STRENGTH I have? I've noticed that I can complete more reps, do more pushups, lift heavier weights, and am feeling stronger. But, again, I thought that you needed a caloric surplus to actually build muscle--am I just strengthening the muscle mass I currently have, or is that not a thing?

Others have answered this well. Absolutely--you initially increase strength without increasing muscle size. In fact, one can make substantial increases in muscle strength -- like 100% increases--without seeing much increase in muscle size. As has been said, it comes from an improvement in efficiency in how the brain recruits muscle fibers. At a certain point, that process sort of "maxes out", and then further signficant increases in stregnth require an increased in muscle fiber size itself.

2) Tell me exactly what "lifting heavy," which apparently is what we are all supposed to do, means to you. I typically chose weights that allow me to to do no more than 8-12 reps at a time, for 2-3 sets. However, I have zero interest in things like serious Olympic-style lifting or Crossfit or whatever--which I what I picture when I hear the term. What about bodyweight exercises like push-ups (which are still challenging for me)--are those part of a "lifting heavy" routine?

Interesting to see the varied responses to this question. "Lifting heavy" is NOT just "lifting to failure". It is lifting to "failure" (or close to it) within a certain range of repetitions. There are some different opinions on what range of reps consitutes "lifting heavy", but, for general lifting purposes, I would agree with those proposing the 1-8 RM range.

So, it is not the exercise, nor is it the absolute weight that defines "lifting heavy"--it is the relative intensity. Hypothetically, a pushup can be "lifting heavy", if you can adjust the load so that you can only do 4-8 repetitions. Otherwise, it isn't. Same goes for bench, press, squat, etc, etc.

Once you define "lifting heavy", then the next question is "should I do it?". You mention Olympic lifting, crossfit as examples of your image of "heavy lifting" and mention that doesn't appeal to you. As I have just described, heavy lifing is all about the "how" and not about the "what". So it is not restricted to those types of exercises. The primary benefit of "heavy lifting" for the average exerciser is that the increased challenge of the heavier loads will lead to greater increases in strength and fitness, and will help to reshape your body in what most people will think is a positive way. I see a lot of people spending a lot of time lifting weights and after a while they start to see diminishing returns. They are investing the time, but not seeing the results. This is especially true of my seniors and, unfortunately, many women. The fact is that there is no substitute for the physical stimulus that you get from lifting the heavier weights.

The benefits of increased strength are the most important for the average exerciser--the claims of "fat burning because of increased muscle mass" are often wildly overstated--mainly because the average person is not going to achieve that much increase in muscle mass.

3) I recently read The New Rules of Lifting for Women and it was very eye-opening to me. One thing the author wasn't especially keen on was Pilates as a form of strength training (he sees it as more of a recovery activity, it seems). While it isn't heavy lifting, the fusion Pilates class I attend is super intense, adding plyometrics and body-weight exercises on top of traditional Pilates stuff. By the end of the class all of my muscles are shaking and totally exhausted, and overall it does wonders for the occasional back pain I sometimes get from scoliosis. Maybe I am just not very strong to begin with, but it really feels like a form of strength training to me, not just a recovery activity?

OK, ramble over. I've had a lot of coffee. Sorry.

Lifting weights is "strength training", but not all types of "strength training" involve lifting weights. Whle heavy lifting has benefits, it is not the only beneficial form of exercise or resistance training. A guy who writes a book like NROLW will tend to see the world throught the prism of his preferred form of exercise (and his book). I spent the past paragraph extolling the virtues of heavy lifting, and now I have to backtrack a little to fill out the picture. Every form of training will bring about results that are specific to the types of movements and resistance loads involved. It is up to the individual to decide which level of training and which results are most desireable for them. If one defines "sucess" as the ability to bench press 200 pounds, then it would be natural to say that Pilates is not an effective form of training. However, if one defines success as, say, the ability to lift 140 pounds, but also have better body control when moving in 3 dimensions, and better core control, and better flexibility, then other activities might be a better choice.

Too often, the recommendations by fitness people are too narrow. Certain cliches take hold -- like "you need to build more lean muscle to burn more fat at rest". The result is that either everybody feels obligated to fit into a small exercise box--e.g. "heavy lifting"--or people start making outlandish and untrue claims about their exercises in order to fit the cliche--e.g. Jillian Michaels telling people who are waving around 3 lb hand weights that they are "building muscle to burn more fat".

ElizabethWillNotFail

Bump

Azdak

I wanted to say that I have been impressed with the thoughtful and considered responses so far in this thread. Someone reading this will not only get good information, but some different points of emphasis that present a good balance of views.

In reading them, I thought of something I often tell my clients as we talk about the progression of their programs. I like to refer to lifting weights as building the "raw strength" and then to things like the circuits we do, or crossfit, or TRX, as "applied strength". Usually I start with people by going through a "traditional" weight lifting program for the first few weeks. This is mainly because lifting weights is relatively simple and straightforward, and growth occurs in a relatively predictable pattern. It also helps new clients learn basic body mechanics and muscle awareness. I then start to include some more simple combination moves, or lifts that require more core control. When they are ready, we do up the lifting intensities into the 6-8 range. I do it both to achieve the significant new strength gains, but also to show them they can do a lot more than they thought they could. I always get the wide eyes of protest after the first repetition (I CAN'T do THIS!!), followed by the glow of achievement afterwards (wow, I couldn't believe I could do that!). Then they understand that the increased strength allows them to do even MORE fun and challenging stuff in the "applied" circuit training that we do, and see even better results.

I find that that combination of "basic" and "applied" training helps my clients make consistent progress and translates very well into them seeing the practical benefits of improving the quality of their daily activities.