Lifting heavy not better

bcattoes

Repost as posted in wrong forum initially.

This doesn't surprise me, but it's still nice to know research agrees when faced with the constant barrage of "you must lift heavy" and "light weights do nothing" posts on these forums.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_125127.html

With Weights, You Can Lighten Your Load

Just do more repetitions, researchers say

By Robert Preidt

SUNDAY, May 13 (HealthDay News) -- Doing more repetitions with less weight builds muscle and increases strength just as effectively as training with heavy weights, a new Canadian study indicates.

The critical factor in muscle gain is pushing yourself to the point of fatigue, according to the researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

They examined how different combinations of weight loads and repetitions affected the leg muscles of young men. The participants trained three times a week for 10 weeks doing one of three resistance training regimens: one set at 80 percent of maximum load; three sets at 80 percent of maximum load; or three sets at 30 percent of maximum load.

A set consisted of doing as many repetitions as possible with the assigned loads -- typically eight to 12 times a set at the heaviest weights and 25 to 30 times a set at the lowest weights.

"We found that loads that were quite heavy and comparatively light were equally effective at inducing muscle growth and promoting strength," Cam Mitchell, a lead study author and a Ph.D. candidate in McMaster's kinesiology department, said in a university news release.

The findings, recently published online in the Journal of Applied Physiology, challenge the widely held belief that using heavy weights is the best way to promote muscle growth and boost strength.

"Many older adults can have joint problems which would prevent them training with heavy loads," Mitchell noted. "This study shows that they have the option of training with lighter and less-intimidating loads and can still receive the benefits."

neanderthin

5X5's with pink barbells just seems wrong.

bcattoes

5X5's with pink barbells just seems wrong.

I like pink. It's my favorite color.

sapalee

This is really interesting thank you for the share.

I personally would rather do fewer at a heavier weight because
A. I get a kick out the weight on the bar
B. I don't want to spend a ton of time
C. I don't have any injuries that would limit me

I'm starting NROL4W with my mom next week and she has a weight limit of what she is allowed to move with her back surgeries, I had wondered if she could get the same benefits with more reps and less (her allowed max) weight as we progress. Again, thanks for share.

Broscience commnece:

ishtar13

The first thing I notice is the study was done on "young men".

Young men with lots of testosterone will build muscle with almost anything.

sapalee

I wish they had included something with 3-5 Rep max sets, that would really be "heavy"

UponThisRock

The problem with this study is that it was performed on untrained individuals. This study shows that, in that population, the progressive nature of the load is more important than the intensity of the load (defined as % of 1rm), which is something that we already know.

You cannot necessarily apply this to the "trained" population, those with 6-12 months of lifiting under their belts. For those folks, working primarily in the range of 80-85% of 1rm has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to achieve mass & strength gains, both in research and in practical experience.

LabRat529

The critical factor in muscle gain is pushing yourself to the point of fatigue, according to the researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

But do people really push to the point of fatigue with light weights? I'd wager, not most of them. Perhaps I am yeilding to stereotypes, but I'm invisioning the lady pumping that 3lbs dumbbell 30 times... and I seriously doubt she gets to the point where she's trembling and can litterally not do another repetition.

I can get the that point... where it's physically impossible for me to do another repetition. I get there by lifting heavy.

Does everyone have to lift heavy to be healthy? No. Its still a good strategy for most people and I think a lot of people, women and men, would benefit from heavy lifting.

Rum77

Variety is good too.

I do 8-10 weeks of heavy weights then I cycle into 8 weeks of hi rep workouts. I do 6-8 exercise with 100 rep sets and light weight. I call them one set but generally I have to pause at about 35 reps but I do not stop to completely rest.

ArroganceInStep

Does anyone have the actual study that was done? I don't see a link for it and the mcmaster.ca links seem to be down.

UponThisRock

Does anyone have the actual study that was done? I don't see a link for it and the mcmaster.ca links seem to be down.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518835

ArroganceInStep

Does anyone have the actual study that was done? I don't see a link for it and the mcmaster.ca links seem to be down.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22518835

Got it thanks, much easier to digest now.

NU2U

Seriously...who has the time or patience to lift a 5lb dumbbell a thousand times?

Just go heavy..for me, it's the 25lb dumbbell..lift those 5×5...till u graduate to the 30lb.

You'll feel the burn quickly!!!

HeidiMightyRawr

The problem with this study is that it was performed on untrained individuals. This study shows that, in that population, the progressive nature of the load is more important than the intensity of the load (defined as % of 1rm), which is something that we already know.

You cannot necessarily apply this to the "trained" population, those with 6-12 months of lifiting under their belts. For those folks, working primarily in the range of 80-85% of 1rm has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to achieve mass & strength gains, both in research and in practical experience.

I was going to say the same thing. With people who've never trained before, increasing strength and muscle is pretty easy (unless you're starving yourself!) I would be interested in seeing a similar study on people who have been training for a few years and are still trying to improve strength / muscle.

I'm not saying that higher reps does nothing, and is useless, because as long as you're pushing yourself it will benefit you, right? But I can't see the gains in strength/muscle being the same for both rep ranges, in more advanced lifters.

UponThisRock

The problem with this study is that it was performed on untrained individuals. This study shows that, in that population, the progressive nature of the load is more important than the intensity of the load (defined as % of 1rm), which is something that we already know.

You cannot necessarily apply this to the "trained" population, those with 6-12 months of lifiting under their belts. For those folks, working primarily in the range of 80-85% of 1rm has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to achieve mass & strength gains, both in research and in practical experience.

I was going to say the same thing. With people who've never trained before, increasing strength and muscle is pretty easy (unless you're starving yourself!) I would be interested in seeing a similar study on people who have been training for a few years and are still trying to improve strength / muscle.

I'm not saying that higher reps does nothing, and is useless, because as long as you're pushing yourself it will benefit you, right? But I can't see the gains in strength/muscle being the same for both rep ranges, in more advanced lifters.

Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group

VMarkV

Training to failure is very counterproductive because it limits volume
Increasing weight volume or "Progressive overload" and time under tension are what give results

crisanderson27

The problem with this study is that it was performed on untrained individuals. This study shows that, in that population, the progressive nature of the load is more important than the intensity of the load (defined as % of 1rm), which is something that we already know.

You cannot necessarily apply this to the "trained" population, those with 6-12 months of lifiting under their belts. For those folks, working primarily in the range of 80-85% of 1rm has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to achieve mass & strength gains, both in research and in practical experience.

Thank you.

Not to mention the 'young men' aspect as well.

Nor, the multiple studies that prove the information this supposedly disputes, which were performed with a different, more general cross section of the population.

*shrug*

I'll stick to, and continue to recommend, what I know through science and experience works.

Sarauk2sf

The problem with this study is that it was performed on untrained individuals. This study shows that, in that population, the progressive nature of the load is more important than the intensity of the load (defined as % of 1rm), which is something that we already know.

You cannot necessarily apply this to the "trained" population, those with 6-12 months of lifiting under their belts. For those folks, working primarily in the range of 80-85% of 1rm has been shown time and again to be the most effective way to achieve mass & strength gains, both in research and in practical experience.

Thank you.

Not to mention the 'young men' aspect as well.

Nor, the multiple studies that prove the information this supposedly disputes, which were performed with a different, more general cross section of the population.

*shrug*

I'll stick to, and continue to recommend, what I know through science and experience works.

As an non-newbie old women...I think I will stick to low reps also.

meshashesha2012

sounds a bit misleading. lighter and heavy should be based on a percentage of your 1 rep max.

i'd think any amount of weight that 60% and above of your 1 rep max will help build strength, especially if you're continually increasing the amounts.

i seriously doubt this mean that if i worked at 25% of my max weight i'd make gains, but i bet there's going to be more than a few people who will use this as an excuse to lift those 3 pound weights and expect gains even though they are capable of lifting 25

ArroganceInStep

I'll stick to, and continue to recommend, what I know through science and experience works.

As an non-newbie old women...I think I will stick to low reps also.

I think what this study proves is that when it comes to hypertrophy and strength gain, at best, high rep training at a high intensity yields results as good as low rep training at high intensity. At worst, high rep training at a high intensity still yields results, but they cannot compete with those gained from low rep training at high intensity.

High rep training is good for you and will produce results as long as you push yourself hard, although it might not be as efficient as going the heavy lifting route.

I don't know about other folks but that's basically what I've been saying from the beginning.




Oh, and __________ training at low intensity yields a great big bag of ****s.

UrbanRunner81

I personally would rather do fewer at a heavier weight because
A. I get a kick out the weight on the bar
B. I don't want to spend a ton of time
C. I don't have any injuries that would limit me

^^ yeah that.

Personally I have seem better results than I ever did lifting light weights and doing a ton of reps. For me I have gotten so much stronger lifting heavy.

saragato

When I first started lifting I was doing it at home and I started with an 8lb dumbbell since 5 seemed like a toy to me when I tested it. I started a regimen of every morning doing 30 reps (or 3 sets of 10, I rested briefly between) and doing 3 different kinds of movements with them that would take 10 minutes. Within a month I was seeing more definition to my arms and shoulders. Even now with a gym membership I don't lift super heavy but it goes to show you can get results from the dinky little colored dumbbells too.

bcattoes

But do people really push to the point of fatigue with light weights? I'd wager, not most of them. Perhaps I am yeilding to stereotypes, but I'm invisioning the lady pumping that 3lbs dumbbell 30 times... and I seriously doubt she gets to the point where she's trembling and can litterally not do another repetition.

I can't speak for anyone else but I do light weight to the point of fatigue. Not 3 lbs, I use those only for Zumba, but I use 10 lb weigthts to fatigue. That, plus pushups, have given my arms more definition than I'd like. I wish I could have skinny firm arms like I did when I was young, but that ain't gonna happen so I lift the d*** weights.

ArroganceInStep

I can't speak for anyone else but I do light weight to the point of fatigue. Not 3 lbs, I use those only for Zumba, but I use 10 lb weigthts to fatigue. That, plus pushups, have given my arms more definition than I'd like. I wish I could have skinny firm arms like I did when I was young, but that ain't gonna happen so I lift the d*** weights.

Intensity matters more than the particular paradigm you prescribe to.

Sarauk2sf

I'll stick to, and continue to recommend, what I know through science and experience works.

As an non-newbie old women...I think I will stick to low reps also.

I think what this study proves is that when it comes to hypertrophy and strength gain, at best, high rep training at a high intensity yields results as good as low rep training at high intensity. At worst, high rep training at a high intensity still yields results, but they cannot compete with those gained from low rep training at high intensity.

High rep training is good for you and will produce results as long as you push yourself hard, although it might not be as efficient as going the heavy lifting route.

I don't know about other folks but that's basically what I've been saying from the beginning.




Oh, and __________ training at low intensity yields a great big bag of ****s.

It seems to me that it cannot 'prove' anything without a true sample.

I got results before from lower weights/higher reps (15 reps - to failure) - but I want better results more efficiently.


So I would err on the side of caution and do low reps heavy weights that are more likely to produce better results more efficiently.

mandylooo

sounds a bit misleading. lighter and heavy should be based on a percentage of your 1 rep max.

i'd think any amount of weight that 60% and above of your 1 rep max will help build strength, especially if you're continually increasing the amounts.

i seriously doubt this mean that if i worked at 25% of my max weight i'd make gains, but i bet there's going to be more than a few people who will use this as an excuse to lift those 3 pound weights and expect gains even though they are capable of lifting 25

I think there is always going to be such a thing as too light, and lifting heavy may be the most efficient way to build muscle, but this study does show that lifting not quite so heavy will have an effect which is probably enough for a lot of people.

crisanderson27

It seems to me that it cannot 'prove' anything without a true sample.

Just one reason I'm glad we're friends

JennieAL

bump

taso42

i usually go by this


grr, too big. right click, view in new window.

jallen1955

The first thing I notice is the study was done on "young men".

Young men with lots of testosterone will build muscle with almost anything.

When I see the research test subjects competing in the IBBF, I will believe the data.

joejccva71

Actually READ the study. REEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD IT. Here let me help you.

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men.
Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DD, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
Source
1McMaster University.
Abstract
We have reported that the acute post-exercise increases in muscle protein synthesis rates, with differing nutritional support, are predictive of longer-term training-induced muscle hypertrophy. Here, we aimed to test whether the same was true with acute exercise-mediated changes in muscle protein synthesis. Eighteen men (21±1 yr, 22.6±2.1 kg•m(-2) means±SE) had their legs randomly assigned to two of three training conditions that differed in contraction intensity (% of maximal strength [1RM]) or contraction volume (1 or 3 sets of repetitions): 30%-3, 80%-1 and, 80%-3. Subjects trained each leg with their assigned regime for a period of 10wk, 3 times/wk. We made pre- and post-training measures of strength, muscle volume by magnetic resonance (MR) scans, as well as pre- and post-training biopsies of the vastus lateralis, and a single post-exercise (1h) biopsy following the first bout of exercise, to measure signalling proteins. [/b]Training-induced increases in MR-measured muscle volume were significant (P<0.01), with no difference between groups: 30%-3 = 6.8±1.8%, 80%-1 = 3.2±0.8%, and 80%-3= 7.2±1.9%, P=0.18. Isotonic maximal strength gains were not different between 80%-1 and 80%-3, but were greater than 30% -3 (P=0.04), whereas training-induced isometric strength gains were significant but not different between conditions (P =0.92).[/b] Biopsies taken 1h following the initial resistance exercise bout showed increased phosphorylation (P<0.05) of p70S6K only in the 80%-1 and 80%-3 conditions. There was no correlation between phosphorylation of any signalling protein and hypertrophy. In accordance with our previous acute measurements of muscle protein synthetic rates a lower load lifted to failure resulted in similar hypertrophy as a heavy load lifted to failure.

No one claimed that muscle mass gains were better doing HEAVY loads vs LIGHT loads, but STRENGTH GAINS are significantly greater doing HEAVY load vs LIGHT load.