Building muscle without heavy weights

Quieau

Assume you all have seen this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426110252.htm

I need to be strength training and cannot lift heavy for health reasons (hernias waiting to be repaired). This was heartening!

Starting with kettlebell training. Some sites say start with 5 lb and some up to 18 lb to start. Suggestions? Great workouts you love?

Thanks!

Lofteren

Unfortunately, there is no way to build a significant amount of muscle without moving something heavy. You can; however, use your body as that heavy something in some situations (chins, dips, push ups, single leg squats). This won't get you very far though. Especially if you're not very heavy to begin with. Just get your hernias repaired, focus on making a full recovery and then hit the weights.

Ainar

If you can't lift heavy it will be harder to build muscle and you won't be able to build as much of it. You should do a lot of reps and a lot of sets. All sets to failure, that's the most optimal way how to build muscle with light weights - going to failure in every set. Also you will need more sets. For example if by doing heavy bench press you can do two to three sets with very light weight you will need four to five sets till failure. This is the way how I work out, it's just my preference. You can still build great fitness model looking body if you do a lot of sets till failure only it will require more time to build muscle and you will still be very small according to bodybuilding standards.

richardheath

Here is the actual paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/h2012-022

Thing is, right now this is an opinion piece. They have done some experiments in the past that suggest that exercising at 30% of your 1 rep max for about 24 reps (to failure) stimulates the muscle protein synthesis (MPS) pathway as much as lower reps at higher weights. So they suggest that muscle hypertrophy (myofibril growth) would be as much with these lower weight/higher rep exercises as with the high weight/low rep. However, they have *not* done experiments to prove this.

In fact, although I'm certainly not well versed in the literature, I did thing that it had been shown that high weight/low reps were superior for actually adding muscle mass where these two types of routines are compared?

If your Doc has okayed you to exercise with low weights, then go ahead and do that. But don't expect muscle to magically appear!

spicegeek

I`ll answer the kettle bell training - seriously they make 5lb bells ?? the lightest I would start with is 8KG / 17.6 lbs but unless you are very weak or are using it for continuous drill over a person of 30 mins or more you`ll out grow that pretty fast - note I am assuming here you plan to use a kettle bell for traditional bell workouts like swings, high pulls, true snatches, snatches , cleans etc not as a dead weight substitute for dumbbell weight

JoRocka

Unfortunately, there is no way to build a significant amount of muscle without moving something heavy. You can; however, use your body as that heavy something in some situations (chins, dips, push ups, single leg squats). This won't get you very far though. Especially if you're not very heavy to begin with. Just get your hernias repaired, focus on making a full recovery and then hit the weights.

Yes!!!!-

to a point.
it's only not going to get her far because of hernia's.

there are loads of body weight progressions that will continue to challenge- they aren't as easy- or as readily assecilbe as putting weight on a barbell- but they work fine for progressive loading.

but building muscle requires progressive loading. You don't get that without pushing heavy things. regardless of what the heavy things are.

Quieau

Thanks for responses, especially SpiceGeek ... that was exactly the feedback I was seeking!

To be clear:

I never asserted that lower weights would be as good as or better than lifting heavy. My hope is just that it will help build muscle. I am not speculating on how much or how fast or the rate compared to heavy lifting. I can't lift heavy. I can't get repaired until ALL my weight is gone, and yet I need muscles in order to accomplish that goal. So I have to settle for whatever muscles I can build with my limitations now. I'm not asking how to be the best bodybuilder ever. Just how to slowly start building muscle within my particular set of inescapable circumstances.

And I never once gave the impression that any muscle would "magically appear" ... !

Thanks again!

Quieau

Thanks, Alnar, this was especially helpful. I am not trying to be a bodybuilder, just trying to build muscle to support my weight loss. My only priority is functionality, not aesthetics. Thanks again!

JoRocka

Thanks, Alnar, this was especially helpful. I am not trying to be a bodybuilder, just trying to build muscle to support my weight loss. My only priority is functionality, not aesthetics. Thanks again!

you won't be a body builder unless you put in years of effort and diet. It's significantly harder than you appear to think it is.

just go lift. stop over thinking it.

Azdak

Here is the actual paper: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/h2012-022

Thing is, right now this is an opinion piece. They have done some experiments in the past that suggest that exercising at 30% of your 1 rep max for about 24 reps (to failure) stimulates the muscle protein synthesis (MPS) pathway as much as lower reps at higher weights. So they suggest that muscle hypertrophy (myofibril growth) would be as much with these lower weight/higher rep exercises as with the high weight/low rep. However, they have *not* done experiments to prove this.

In fact, although I'm certainly not well versed in the literature, I did thing that it had been shown that high weight/low reps were superior for actually adding muscle mass where these two types of routines are compared?

If your Doc has okayed you to exercise with low weights, then go ahead and do that. But don't expect muscle to magically appear!

Yes, this is one of those reviews that looks at the "micro" processes and suggests (doesn't claim, which is appropriate), that another type of lifting that causes those same types of "micro" changes translates into "equal amounts of muscle mass increase". That is a leap of faith that is always fraught with peril. For someone who cannot lift heavy, it would definitely be worth a try. However, it's an area that really needs a comparison study where subjects actually perform the protocol. As we have seen with the concept of "fat burning exercise", if you look at all of the "micro" data, it is a foregone conclusion that training in the "fat burning zone" should work--you see all the changes in muscular structure and the increases in enzymes, etc, you would want. It's perfect, except for one thing--when you do it in reality, it doesn't work.

In this case, as I said, given the lack of alternative, there is no reason not to try it. There's no research that says it won't work, either.

grammysboy

there are dozens of "bodyweight" exercises that will build the kind of metabolism increasing muscle you are talking about. Try doing 10 sets of 30 deep squats throughout the day and you'll have a major burn the next morning! Lunges and push-ups are great too. I get the impression you are trying to lose weight to be able to have the hernia(s) fixed. Cardio may be something you have to incorporate to promote weight loss. But whatever you do it will all help improve your health!

Quieau

Thanks, yes, I am doing this to qualify for the reconstruction surgery. I have to lose ALL my weight FIRST to get the surgery so the muscles need to be appearing sooner rather than later.

I am doing a ton of cardio and have been for the past six months. Lost a massive amount of weight but have now stalled and am being advised I'm overdoing the cardio (was 90+ minutes a day with 1500+ calorie burns daily, way too much I"m told) and so I'm trying to get some strength training in to help with cardio limited to 30-60 minutes a day.

I am building muscle (we can feel it, see it and the body composition scale picks it up) but I've had no weight loss in 7 weeks and am getting antsy about getting things moving again. I really need strength training but I'm still building up and need to take it lighter. I'm great at endurance, though ... and consistency. I plan to do kettlebells, resistance and other non-heavy strength training 3 times a week (M, W, F) with light cardio on those days of 30 minutes and 60 minutes cardio on non-strength training days.

I'm just hoping for the best. I am working super hard at this new body and can't really put my finger on why things stopped moving for me, but I'm not giving up. THANKS!

Quieau

Thanks, Alnar, this was especially helpful. I am not trying to be a bodybuilder, just trying to build muscle to support my weight loss. My only priority is functionality, not aesthetics. Thanks again!

you won't be a body builder unless you put in years of effort and diet. It's significantly harder than you appear to think it is.

just go lift. stop over thinking it.

I don't want to be a body builder. I don't NOT want to be a bodybuilder. That's what I've been saying throughout. I don't CARE if I bulk or don't bulk. Again, aesthetics are not my issue.

If I get big muscles, fine. If I don't, fine. I GET that lifting heavy is BEST. But it's not the ONLY way to build muscle. I'm already proof of that!

I'm not comparing to heavy lifting. I know that's better. BUT I CAN'T DO IT.

I just want to make any increases possible so that I continue to become more and more fit and my body does an increasingly better job of metabolizing my food. I can't just "go lift" ... I have life-threatening hernias that will not allow it. Has nothing to do with overthinking. I. cannot. lift. heavy. PERIOD.

I appreciate the advice given herein! It has given me an angle! My 15-lb kettlebell is on the way. I have resistance bands, steppers, dumbbells, etc. and I will be back in a year or two with some amazing news.