Lifting heavy not better

Jules2Be

:yawn:

i only want to lift 5 so im going heavy.efficient.

laursey

I say lift heavy or go home. I feel like a beast when I'm done a lifting session. That's the way I want to feel, not like I juggled a couple dumbells, but that's just me!

almc170

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.

No thanks, 25-30 reps sounds incredibly tedious to me. I’ll stick to the heavier weights and lower reps, get done, and enjoy my kickass results.

dad106

My trainer last night had me do 25 reps for each exercise.. but it was not with light weights. It was with as heavy as I could handle.. and only got a bit lighter if I started to struggle during the end.

Now do I think it did much for me? Maybe.. who knows? Am i still feeling it today? Yes. Was it a pain in the *kitten* to do that many reps of an exercise? Hell yes.. I about killed my trainer around the time I reached our normal 15 reps because i just wanted to be done!

Glucocorticoid

To everyone in this thread who is talking about "lifting heavy" and "lifting light": your statements are meaningless without some actual definitions on what that means.

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:

The problems are usually not in the study themselves, it's in the people who misinterpret them (usually because they like to read only the abstracts, if that)

DavPul

I'm going to be a jerk and say that this study is flat out wrong. Not surprising, because most studies done on weight lifting are wrong. I'm reminding of published studies when I started lifting 20 years ago that "proved" that steroids did nothing to gain strength or size. The studies claimed that steroids just had a placebo effect and the size gains were just water weight. Any person in any gym or playing any sport could see that was BS, but somehow the medical community at large didn't come around till the baseball scandals of the late 90s.

The big flaw of most studies, including this one, are conducted on subjects that are completely new to lifting or haven't been lifting long or effectively enough for their bodies to start the adaptation process. Those subjects bodies will respond to *anything*. They can lift heavy or light, every other day or once per week, even make impressive strength gains while losing weight and lowering their bodyfat percentage. Add that this study was done on young males whose bodies are wired to respond to virtually any stimulus so all of the control groups would have a net positive.

Once past that initial stage, I think most people will find that they stop making gains while using weights they can lift more than 12 times per set. Once you start doing 20 reps, we're almost talking about aerobics. At the very least it's closer to HIIT training than strength/hypertrophy training. And for me personally I find it harder to pinpoint which poundage will cause failure at 15-20 or 30 reps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a person can't improve themselves with light weights. And after a certain age it's better to make a mistake by going too light than too heavy (35 seemed to be my "breaking point". But if a person wants to improve and do it quickly and not spend more than 40-45 min in the gym a few times a week, going heavy (er) is much much more effective.

DavPul

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:

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^
I always joke with my wife that we're going to be watching tv and here news teaser commercial say "Are vegetables killing you? Find out what the new studies say about the green, leafy, silent killers in your garden. Report at 11".

goldfinger88

I can't buy that study. It flies in the face of proven scientific studies on lifting. Those little girlie pink weights do nothing. They certainly do not build muscle. They "might" in some cases do some minor toning and certainly for older folks, they're better than nothing. I question this study and the results.

wackyfunster

It's well documented that untrained individuals:
1) Respond to pretty much anything
2) Respond better to lower weights (ideal is 60% 1RM, or 12RM for the first 6-12 months)

For intermediate and on individuals, 80% 1RM, or 8RM yields the best results, and reverse pyramid style training yields better results than 3 sets of 8RM.

Untrained young dudes could do 1000RM with 1 pound pink dumbells and make good progress... that doesn't exactly make for groundbreaking science.


Ref:
Braith RW, Graves JE, Pollock ML, Leggett SL, Carpenter DM, Colvin AB (1989). Comparison of 2 vs 3 days/week of variable resistance training during 10- and 18-week programs. Int J Sports Med. 10(6):450-4
Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 35(3):456-64.
Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN (2002). A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 16(2):250-5.

JNick77

Many older adults can have joint problems which would prevent them training with heavy loads

Re-read that quote please. If you're a healthy adult then you're not in that category. Lift with purpose.

It's well documented that untrained individuals:
1) Respond to pretty much anything
2) Respond better to lower weights (ideal is 60% 1RM, or 12RM for the first 6-12 months)

Pretty much that. I don't know that I'd have any untrained person start with maximal strength training right out of the gate. I wouldn't wait too long but just long enough to get their muscles use to the stimulus of weight lifting and strengthen to prevent injury. Maybe a month tops.

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.

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.

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

LorinaLynn

So I can lift 30% of my maximum at for 3 sets of about 30 reps to get the same impact as lifting 80% for 3 sets of about 10 reps? All the more reason to lift heavy, in my opinion! Who has that kind of time? I personally don't want to spend THAT long at the gym. I'd rather lift heavier and get out of there in 1/3 the time.

BrettPGH

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.

I generally ignore lifting advice from people who don't want muscle.

ArroganceInStep

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

bcattoes

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

I realize that. But if you could do 2 sets of 15 reps with a light weight 2 weeks ago, and now you can do 2 sets of 25 reps with the same weight then you have increased strength. My point was that both light weights and heavy weights increase strength, and for (most) women, neither will create much mass. So if one does nothing, neither does the other. I was trying to point out the silliness of the posts saying light weights do nothing.

crisanderson27

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

I realize that. But if you could do 2 sets of 15 reps with a light weight 2 weeks ago, and now you can do 2 sets of 25 reps with the same weight then you have increased strength. My point was that both light weights and heavy weights increase strength, and for (most) women, neither will create much mass. So if one does nothing, neither does the other. I was trying to point out the silliness of the posts saying light weights do nothing.

Lets fix it then.

Light weights do very little in comparison with heavy weights, and even when putting a pointless amount of time into it...will not provide the same strengthening results.

Note, I didn't say 'muscle building'...because that's not the goal of most people on this site who are lifting weights.

The problem is, you're still basing your arguments off of a flawed (in the context you're using it) study. I would love to see the 1rm of a moderate cross section of the population, after having half do light weight/high reps for say, 6mos, and half doing high weight and low reps.

Sarauk2sf

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

I realize that. But if you could do 2 sets of 15 reps with a light weight 2 weeks ago, and now you can do 2 sets of 25 reps with the same weight then you have increased strength. My point was that both light weights and heavy weights increase strength, and for (most) women, neither will create much mass. So if one does nothing, neither does the other. I was trying to point out the silliness of the posts saying light weights do nothing.

I do not see how you can have built the same strength - more endurance, yes, not strength. If I can lift 50lbs 25 times, that does not translate into me being able to lift as heavy for a one rep max than lifting say 75lb 5 times.

I am not saying that I will not increase strength - just not as much.

ArroganceInStep

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

I realize that. But if you could do 2 sets of 15 reps with a light weight 2 weeks ago, and now you can do 2 sets of 25 reps with the same weight then you have increased strength. My point was that both light weights and heavy weights increase strength, and for (most) women, neither will create much mass. So if one does nothing, neither does the other. I was trying to point out the silliness of the posts saying light weights do nothing.

Lets fix it then.

Light weights do very little in comparison with heavy weights, and even when putting a pointless amount of time into it...will not provide the same strengthening results.

Note, I didn't say 'muscle building'...because that's not the goal of most people on this site who are lifting weights.

The problem is, you're still basing your arguments off of a flawed (in the context you're using it) study. I would love to see the 1rm of a moderate cross section of the population, after having half do light weight/high reps for say, 6mos, and half doing high weight and low reps.

A lot of this stems from what you measure for strength gains.

I would be interested to see a study of max total weight lifted at different %RM training regimes (i.e someone doing deads at 500 for 5 reps - or 2500 lbs total being compared with someone doing deads at 100 for 25 reps - or 2500 lbs total and seeing who builds total weight lifted the fastest. My completely unscientific assessment would guess that the hypertrophy mid-rep lifting program would net the best progress, but I'm biased somewhat.

bcattoes

No, not from you. But there are a lot of posts on the forums saying light weights do nothing. I always find them amusing since the same posters will then say that women can't get big muscles, which would seem to indicate that heavy weights do nothing either.

Increasing strength isn't always the same thing as building muscle mass.

I realize that. But if you could do 2 sets of 15 reps with a light weight 2 weeks ago, and now you can do 2 sets of 25 reps with the same weight then you have increased strength. My point was that both light weights and heavy weights increase strength, and for (most) women, neither will create much mass. So if one does nothing, neither does the other. I was trying to point out the silliness of the posts saying light weights do nothing.

Lets fix it then.

Light weights do very little in comparison with heavy weights, and even when putting a pointless amount of time into it...will not provide the same strengthening results.

Note, I didn't say 'muscle building'...because that's not the goal of most people on this site who are lifting weights.

The problem is, you're still basing your arguments off of a flawed (in the context you're using it) study. I would love to see the 1rm of a moderate cross section of the population, after having half do light weight/high reps for say, 6mos, and half doing high weight and low reps.

Actually, I'm basing my argument off personal experience. I didn't need the study to tell me that I can improve strength and get muscle definition with light weights because I've already done it. As a woman, I doubt I'd have better definition or burn more fat with heavy weights, though I probably would increase strength more over time.

ArroganceInStep

As a woman, I doubt I'd have better definition or burn more fat with heavy weights, though I probably would increase strength more over time.

If you're happy with your current progress that's fantastic, but how can you know without trying?

Better definition comes from fat burn, which I think most of us can agree is tied to diet more than anything else. However, my understanding is that heavy lifting provides slightly better results in the way of fat burning than endurance lifting. It's not a huge difference, and honestly your diet covers that base better than lifting ever could.