Lifting heavy not better

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.

Jersey_Devil

i don't see the science behind this & I've seen many studies showing the exact opposite to be true. it all depends on what your goals are. for me, i want to get bigger so i am lifting heavier and eating more. if i just wanted to tone up i'd lift less weight with more reps.

Beastette

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."

"Words, words, wordy words". Bleh. I'll arm wrestle you, that'll settle it once and for all.

MILICA1986

I think we should wait to see what another study will say next month.:bigsmile:
Every month, there is a new, and better, and a revolutional study about....EVERYTHING!
If I believed in everything I read, I'd probably go crazy!
I do, what I think, works for me and take advices from people who have good rusults, and whose advices sound reasonable to me.
And I lift heavy too!:happy:

TrophyWifeSass

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."

"Words, words, wordy words". Bleh. I'll arm wrestle you, that'll settle it once and for all.

I love you. Truth.

bcattoes

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.

Well, that's just not true. I've seen posts saying that light weights do NOTHING. And others that you can only build muscle by lifting heavy.

susannamarie

i usually go by this
grr, too big. right click, view in new window.

Rofl. Silliness, madness, and death

Glucocorticoid

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

This is overly-simplistic and wrong.

Lord007

It doesn't surprise me. Yes, both achieved the same results. The thing to keep in mind is the goal:
1) Heavier weights with fewer reps conditions the muscles to quick burst of energy with alot of force, i.e. "brute strength"
2) Lighter weights but more reps conditions the muscles for better endurence.

Both will build muscle, just depends on the target.

joejccva71

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.

Well, that's just not true. I've seen posts saying that light weights do NOTHING. And others that you can only build muscle by lifting heavy.

From who Bcatts? Not me. I have never said that light weights do nothing. I also have never said that you can ONLY build muscle lifting heavy. Those are pretty ridiculous.

Di3012

5X5's with pink barbells just seems wrong.

This is because you would do as many reps until you are knackered and then bung another few on top.

You wouldn't do just 5 reps, but pink barbells sound good.