Lifting heavy not better

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.

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.

This makes more sense, yes. But lets put it into a different perspective.

How much more quickly do you think you'd have gained your results, had you gone about it the other way? Do you honestly believe that you will burn the same amount of fat from your body in one workout/rest session, than lifting heavy weights for lesser reps?

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.

This makes more sense, yes. But lets put it into a different perspective.

How much more quickly do you think you'd have gained your results, had you gone about it the other way? Do you honestly believe that you will burn the same amount of fat from your body in one workout/rest session, than lifting heavy weights for lesser reps?

Would I have gained the results more quickly with heavier weights and less reps? I don't really know. I wouldn't expect it to be much more quickly. Would i have burned more fat with heavy weights? I doubt it.

Spanaval

The flaws with this study have been pretty well picked over here.

In the general context of MFP population though, I'd say that this is encouraging news. I'd venture a guess that most people here are not seriously dedicated atheletes and lifters, and as such, it's a GOOD thing that working out with weights in any context (high reps/lower weights or low reps/higher weights) leads to progress.

ArroganceInStep

The flaws with this study have been pretty well picked over here.

In the general context of MFP population though, I'd say that this is encouraging news. I'd venture a guess that most people here are not seriously dedicated atheletes and lifters, and as such, it's a GOOD thing that working out with weights in any context (high reps/lower weights or low reps/higher weights) at high intensity leads to progress.

Added my own commentary, and I now agree with you

Spanaval

The flaws with this study have been pretty well picked over here.

In the general context of MFP population though, I'd say that this is encouraging news. I'd venture a guess that most people here are not seriously dedicated atheletes and lifters, and as such, it's a GOOD thing that working out with weights in any context (high reps/lower weights or low reps/higher weights) at high intensity leads to progress.

Added my own commentary, and I now agree with you

LOL! I meant to say something about how it should be challenging, but, brain fart!

hastingshouse

I always thought that, besides heavy weights increase risk of injury.

Hezzietiger1

I like it.. also when using lighter weight you can lift/cardio burn at the same time. Lighter weights more reps and I can get my heart rate up to a burn zone and burn more calories than heavy lifting then resting would burn alone. I tend to do exercises that incorporate 10-30 lb dumb bells, kettle bells or medicine balls... burpees on a medicine ball and chest passing it when I stand up, kettle bell swings, pushups on dumbbells with a lift, lunges with weights, squats to push press.. etc.

DavPul

The issue with 90% of the studies done on lifting is that they involve broke college students that have never lifted before and are subsisting only on ramen noodles and nickel beer nights.

Those newbs will develop the same relative amount of "strength" no matter what method they try. I put strength in quotes because if you read all the details, you'll see they went from from squatting 25 pounds to squatting 40 pounds, and their bench went from just the bar to the bar and a couple of 2.5 lb cookies on each side. Some of the stronger lab rats were even able to lift the bar with 2.5 pounds plates AND safety clips! *

These are the same studies that "proved" in the 80's and 90's that steroids didn't work. That any gains were a combo of placebo effect and water retention. No respected scientist produced a study that steroids worked until Barry Bonds was about the break the home run record. Meanwhile, roidheads in the gym were having trouble finding shirts that fit their massive backs and skinny waists, 37 year old batters were having career years, and Olympic sprinters were reaching Kentucky Derby speeds.

You can choose to believe this if you want, but I'm sorry, it's just not true. Anyone with any practical experience in the gym will tell you the same thing. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to lift heavy. It's your body, do what you want. LIft light weights for 40 rep sets if you like. Just don't believe it's doing for you what you think it's doing for you. If your body worked like that, everybody that bought one of those 5 inch Samsung Note phones would have a big Popeye arm on one side of their body by now.

*I could not find the particular methodology for this study. But I bet if you find it, it's exactly this. Because they all are. I promise you.

harlanJEN

And let's don't forget ..lifting HEAVY is different for everyone. My heavy isn't necessarily your heavy. Point of fatigue. Absolute key point. Get results .....point of fatigue. To get there ...that means lifting as heavy as you can to get yourself there.

I think folks get caught up on that word ..HEAVY. It's subjective. Varies person to person .

Mom0fTwo

I have been reading this really great book, it's research comes from Standard.

It talks about the "tension + fatigue" principal. That muscles grow when they go over a certain "tension + fatigue" level. It goes along what you said, using lighter weights. I am not saying "using lighter weight" but i am saying "lifting close to your max isn't necessary."

The normal 6-8 reps still apply. The difference is rest period. 30 second rest between sets. This increases that tension+fatigue level. The more you rest, the less tension + fatigue. For growth you have to go above your Fatigue/tension level.

Here is an example, lets say you max out in 4 reps. Compare that to doing 8 reps, 5 sets, with 30 second rests. Lets say you max out on set 5 with 5 reps. A few months go by, and you max out at 5 sets 8 reps. you're "stronger" just as well in both cases.

Here is a graph for better understanding

heavy weights normal rest


light weights normal rest


moderate weights, with shorter rest

this made it so much better on my brain...cant help that i am a visual learner, the rest people were saying made no sense to me , thanks for this

crisanderson27

The issue with 90% of the studies done on lifting is that they involve broke college students that have never lifted before and are subsisting only on ramen noodles and nickel beer nights.

Those newbs will develop the same relative amount of "strength" no matter what method they try. I put strength in quotes because if you read all the details, you'll see they went from from squatting 25 pounds to squatting 40 pounds, and their bench went from just the bar to the bar and a couple of 2.5 lb cookies on each side. Some of the stronger lab rats were even able to lift the bar with 2.5 pounds plates AND safety clips! *

These are the same studies that "proved" in the 80's and 90's that steroids didn't work. That any gains were a combo of placebo effect and water retention. No respected scientist produced a study that steroids worked until Barry Bonds was about the break the home run record. Meanwhile, roidheads in the gym were having trouble finding shirts that fit their massive backs and skinny waists, 37 year old batters were having career years, and Olympic sprinters were reaching Kentucky Derby speeds.

You can choose to believe this if you want, but I'm sorry, it's just not true. Anyone with any practical experience in the gym will tell you the same thing. I'm not telling you that you HAVE to lift heavy. It's your body, do what you want. LIft light weights for 40 rep sets if you like. Just don't believe it's doing for you what you think it's doing for you. If your body worked like that, everybody that bought one of those 5 inch Samsung Note phones would have a big Popeye arm on one side of their body by now.

*I could not find the particular methodology for this study. But I bet if you find it, it's exactly this. Because they all are. I promise you.

^^^^ My hero for the day here.

albinogorilla

Studies like this are useless. Go in the gym, try something for a while..........see the results. You can't from any scientific perspective judge what 80% is for someone else. Anyone who has ever moved any weight knows, that depending on the time of day, whats in your belly, and how po'd you are your 1rm can go up and down drastically. Stop searching for answers............and lift.

I personally do both heavy weights with low reps and lighter weights with higher reps..........why not?

hastingshouse

Light weights, short rest with more reps and sets for a better pump and less injury as well as higher caloric expenditure.

jppd47

I always thought that, besides heavy weights increase risk of injury.
Light weights, short rest with more reps and sets for a better pump and less injury as well as higher caloric expenditure.

Your somewhat incorrect. If you just jump right into a heavy weight right of the bat with bad form, yes the risk for injury is high and likely.
But if you continually work up heavier, then you are continuing to strengthen your muscles and bones. Both Wolff's Law and the SAID principle show that a change in greater outside mechanical force will ultimately strengthen your bones and muscles to that force.

With that as you get older (60+) and your bones and muscles naturally become more clastic, you are less likely to experience problems associated with bone and muscles degradation earlier.

songbyrdsweet

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."

LOL 30 reps?? How long do you plan to spend in the gym, lady?

12by311

LOL 30 reps?? How long do you plan to spend in the gym, lady?

No kidding. That's one of my favorite parts about lifting. Not spending a huge amount of time (that I don't have) getting the "same" results!

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

5X5's with pink barbells just seems wrong.

I think when this study say lighter weights, it doesn't mean those 3lb. tiny pink dumbbells. It means a weight that you can handle up to 20 reps which most of the time are moderate weights. However I don't see any reason why able bodied people should settle for lighter weight stuff when we can do more with the heavy ones. Just save that for people with joint or other problems that prevents them from lifting heavy.

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

I always thought that, besides heavy weights increase risk of injury.
Light weights, short rest with more reps and sets for a better pump and less injury as well as higher caloric expenditure.

Your somewhat incorrect. If you just jump right into a heavy weight right of the bat with bad form, yes the risk for injury is high and likely.
But if you continually work up heavier, then you are continuing to strengthen your muscles and bones. Both Wolff's Law and the SAID principle show that a change in greater outside mechanical force will ultimately strengthen your bones and muscles to that force.

With that as you get older (60+) and your bones and muscles naturally become more clastic, you are less likely to experience problems associated with bone and muscles degradation earlier.

Agree. That is why when you're new to weight lifting, it is important to focus first on the form with very lightweights. Ignore heavier weights until you perfect the form then once you're getting stronger, that's the time you switch to heavier weights but again the one that your body can safely handle up to 8-10 reps. That's what you call progressive overload.

dianacannon89

5X5's with pink barbells just seems wrong.

If you are using the pink barbells or barbie weights then by this study you would need to lift more then 5*5 you would life until muscle fatigue or failure. Which is the same as lifting heavy 5*5 bc if you are lifting heavy on your 5th rep of your 5th set you will be at fatigue or failure... so not really much difference there ... mind not blown :laugh:

songbyrdsweet

LOL 30 reps?? How long do you plan to spend in the gym, lady?

No kidding. That's one of my favorite parts about lifting. Not spending a huge amount of time (that I don't have) getting the "same" results!

Seriously!!

Not to mention you're using totally different energy systems and muscle fiber types in 5-rep sets versus 30-rep sets. Misrepresentation of a SINGLE study's results makes me...RRRAAAAAGGGGGEEEE