Lifting heavy not better
Replies
-
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?
I've never belonged to a gym. When I do weights, I do them at home. 30 reps doesn't take that long.
Doesn't take that long compared to what, though? How varied are your workouts? What are your goals? What are your results?
Doesn't take longer than I'm willing to give.
I don't actually lift much. I mostly do body weight exercises for strength. When I lift I use 10 lb dumbells and a 20 lb weighted vest. I do a variety of arm exercises (chest flies, curls, bench press, standing shoulder press, tricep skull crusher, whatever it's called when you lift the weight straight out in front of you with your arm straight) and lunges, squats and steps for legs.
My goals are to not be flabby, but also not look "muscley".
My results are that I'm not flabby but I have more muscle bulge than I'd like in my arms.
What's muscley? I'm sure I'm too 'muscley'. :laugh:0 -
True enough, but I can think of no case where I will need to lift something that is 300 pounds.
Odd that you say that. A few months ago I had to lift a 400lb motorcycle off my 5yr old son. The results have been well documented on my wall...I ripped my right biceps tendon off my forearm (technically bad form, not the weight...I had to stand offset and lifted the entire bike by the seat with my right arm). But thank God I train heavy...because otherwise, that running bike could very well have caught the leaking fuel on fire with my son trapped under it before I'd been able to find someone to help me lift it up.
*shrug*
I'm still reading replies...but this caught my eye and I felt it deserved an immediate response.0 -
This is always such a boilerplate topic. I think after putting in my two cents here, I'll just avoid these light vs. heavy weight threads. It's just everyone talking in circles. There are plenty of fit people in the world who do not lift heavy, so it's obviously not the only way to go about fitness. And not everyone shares the same fitness goals.
I just don't have the desire to be able to bench my body weight or dead lift twice my body weight. There's no real world application for it in my life, so I don't see the point. I'm able to pick up, move, and carry anything that I need to. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would need to lift more than 100 pounds and I can't think of anything.
I'm not anti weights and I've toyed with the idea of heavy lifting in the past, but I've never thought of or seen a convincing enough reason to change what's working for me. I use moderate weights in my routine and I enjoy weights more than cardio. However, my purpose is to keep my muscles firm and to have nice muscle tone. I've always been able to achieve that with body weight exercises, not light/not heavy weight resistance routines, and sensible eating habits. I'm not looking to build muscle because I'm happy with what genetics has given me and I'm strong enough for my everyday life, so strength gains are not a priority. I'm just doing what it takes to maintain the muscle that I have.
If I ever have to lift super heavy to reach my personal goals, then I will. But for now I don't, so I'll stick to what I'm doing.0 -
I'm sorry; I just don't buy this at all. Muscle hypertrophy comes from progressive overload. Lifting light weights until failure will only increase muscular endurance. To maximize myofibrillar hypertrophy, the ideal rep is range between 8-12 repetitions. That means that you use a weight that you can lift, with proper form, eight to twelve times. If muscle growth is your goal, using weights that you can lift more than that serves no purpose what so ever. Lifting light weights with high repetitions will result in sacroplasmic hypertrophy with is merely a build up of sacroplasmic fluid which isn't a accompanied with an increase in strength. Now, if you want to improve and/or maintain your health, doesn't it seem better to stick with a weight and rep range that increases muscle mass and strength ? Wouldn't that help you age more gracefully ?
I think the answer is clear.
I disagree with the bolded portions. I agree that low to mid rep range lifting is more efficient than high rep range lifting at facilitating muscle growth and raw strength gains, but certainly don't think it means high rep lifting is worthless.
Take two people who have never lifted heavy weights before. Have one start with light lifting at very high rep ranges and have the other do nothing. After a year, whose 1RM will be higher? A real world example of this would be in younger children who have never been to a gym before. On the one side you have a child who has done sports and such, and in training performed pushups and other bodyweight exercises for reps. On the other side you have a sedentary child with little to no resistance type training. I'd be willing to bet the one doing high rep range "useless" weight lifting will have the higher bench press numbers right off the bat.
Again this isn't discussing efficiency, but rather contending that high rep range lifting is NOT futile when it comes to muscle growth and strength gains.
Lifting anything any amount of times will result in gains in an untrained individual, but the gains won't be that significant a year later. High reps with light weight is essentially worthless, for muscle growth and strength gains, to an experienced weight trainer.0 -
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would need to lift more than 100 pounds and I can't think of anything.
I don't have to try to imagine the scenario. I've done it. Recently. I got a new tv stand and had to move my giant 36" old tube-style tv from one stand to the other. A google search estimates that sucker weighed about 185-200 pounds. Granted, I didn't *have* to move it myself. I could have waited until I had help. But I could move it myself, so I did.0 -
I was taught that lifting heavy builds muscle...and lifting repetitiously builds muscle endurance.
these are two different things.
L0 -
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.
Lol true that!
The untrained individual can bounce like a oompaloompa 5 mins a day and get a pump from it.
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is great for looks till you lose the will to eat right.
Then you just deflate like an old mylar balloon.
Pick that heavy **** up and quit cryin!
Size follows strength and most ppl lifting high rep low weights tend to not be very strong.0 -
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.
Size follows strength and most ppl lifting high rep low weights tend to not be very strong.
That's actually not true regarding the size follows strength comment. Many bodybuilders lift with higher reps and they're not as strong as the same weight-class powerlifter but they display more muscle mass.
The whole piece of training maximally (heavy) is that it also engages the nervous system in a way that high-rep training won't. They are two very different things and the end result is not the same by any means. We can take two individuals of the same gender, same age, with relatively similar body types, height, weight, etc, they follow the same diet, have one do something like SL 5x5 or 5/3/1 and one do high reps (15+) on all exercises and their strength will not be equal after 12-weeks.
Somebody brought up a good point earlier in that no you won't be presented with a 300lb barbell to pickup while you're walking down the street but you may have to pick-up a 100lb TV who's weight isn't nicely distributed across a barbell, or an 80lb bag of fertilizer or water softener which again isn't nicely balanced either and which lifter do you think will be best able to move such things? Anybody flip a king-sized mattress recently? Not heavy but the awkwardness of the weight makes it challenging especially if the room is small and ceilings are low.
Obviously you have to do what's comfortable for you but you should think of exercise as an investment. If you were to invest money and were GUARANTEED some return would you invest in something with a 10%, 25%, 40%, 60%, or 90% rate of return?0 -
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.
Size follows strength and most ppl lifting high rep low weights tend to not be very strong.
That's actually not true regarding the size follows strength comment. Many bodybuilders lift with higher reps and they're not as strong as the same weight-class powerlifter but they display more muscle mass.
The whole piece of training maximally (heavy) is that it also engages the nervous system in a way that high-rep training won't. They are two very different things and the end result is not the same by any means. We can take two individuals of the same gender, same age, with relatively similar body types, height, weight, etc, they follow the same diet, have one do something like SL 5x5 or 5/3/1 and one do high reps (15+) on all exercises and their strength will not be equal after 12-weeks.
Somebody brought up a good point earlier in that no you won't be presented with a 300lb barbell to pickup while you're walking down the street but you may have to pick-up a 100lb TV who's weight isn't nicely distributed across a barbell, or an 80lb bag of fertilizer or water softener which again isn't nicely balanced either and which lifter do you think will be best able to move such things? Anybody flip a king-sized mattress recently? Not heavy but the awkwardness of the weight makes it challenging especially if the room is small and ceilings are low.
Obviously you have to do what's comfortable for you but you should think of exercise as an investment. If you were to invest money and were GUARANTEED some return would you invest in something with a 10%, 25%, 40%, 60%, or 90% rate of return?
Youll have to admit that setting a good base for the hypertrophy would be smart.
I could lift a bunch of light weights/high reps and get a good pump but if I want it to last i'll need to set a good base.
So for now I lift heavy as possible, 5x5 or even 5/3/1 then once I hit my limit I could turn to a hypertrophy based lifting program and still progress up to my limit.
Am I making sense?
For an aesthetic look you could go all hypertrophy but this is where fukarounditis comes in and most ppl end up spinning wheels for a longer time than if they started on a powerlifting program then moved on to hypertrophy later.0 -
Youll have to admit that setting a good base for the hypertrophy would be smart.
True, having some mass does help. My point was just size isn't indicative of strength.So for now I lift heavy as possible, 5x5 or even 5/3/1 then once I hit my limit I could turn to a hypertrophy based lifting program and still progress up to my limit.
I don't know, I think you'd have trouble. Let's say your goal is to Deadlift 405lbs for a single and you start 5x5 with a 205lb 1RM. Then you take 5x5 all the way up to 315lbs, for example, I don't know that you could get the rest of the way there doing sets of 8 to 10 reps. It's entirely different muscle recruitment to move maximal level weight. I'm sure it's not impossible but it would be damn hard at the very least if not impossible for certain individuals. Some people are just gifted freaks of nature and I say that with much respect because I'm damn jealous of those folks. But the typical person would have trouble getting there I think.0 -
The problem here for me is how they define strength-gains. For me strength gains are measured in one way, can I lift heavier *kitten* than I could previously lift. So unless they are really saying that I will get my 330lb deadlift by doing 30reps at 100lb, I'll stick to what I am doing.
But there is no intrinsic value in dead lifting 330 pounds that is greater than dead lifting 100 pounds or 200 pounds. The only strength gains that are really of value are those that increase my longevity and my health as I age. Anything else is just fleeting.
Perhaps not for you, but there is for me. I am competative, I want to get better and better, in turn that competative drive is what keeps me motivated and keeps me doing it and therefore is good for my health. Regardless my point was that I don't understand how they can claim that lifting light weights does the same for strength as the tried and true protocols for competative lifters. I'm not saying anything about, health, longevity, definition, aesthetics etc.
I kinda find it funny that so often on these threads people seem to take offence at any comments which suggests that non-strength specific training is not about strength. Like I have said previously, its not a judgement, just like acknowledging that swimming is not running... its not a judgment on running...0 -
I was taught that lifting heavy builds muscle...and lifting repetitiously builds muscle endurance.
these are two different things.
L
Both will increase muscle to a point. If you can only do 5 reps today with a 10 lb weight, working up to 25 reps is going to build some muscle. However, you are correct that if you never increase the weight you will at some point only be maintaining muscle. But that's what some are looking to do.0 -
Lifting anything any amount of times will result in gains in an untrained individual, but the gains won't be that significant a year later. High reps with light weight is essentially worthless, for muscle growth and strength gains, to an experienced weight trainer.
And I would argue that even with an experienced lifter, if you gave the same person a routine where the lifted say 60% of their RM for 20 as opposed to the exact same person lifting 60% of their RM for 5, the routine with greater volume would, barring injury, produce the greater strength and mass increases. There are a lot of folks who have great success with volume training. There are arguably more efficient routes out there, but I can't agree that it's worthless.0 -
This does not have to be complicated. Any strength training is a positive activity to stay healthy and fit. People do what works for them. And I certainly won't judge people for not choosing the same path as I. I've used both methods, lighter weights when I first started. And sometimes I train that way for a period of time just to mix it up or when my back injuries flare up. But not often.
Personally, I like to lift heavy. DAMN heavy. Because I CAN. I like the challenge and it motivates me to constantly improve. I like how powerful I feel. A rush of endorphins. THAT is why I lift heavy. I don't give a crap if lifting lighter with more reps will give the same physical results or not. Lighter lifting no matter how many reps just doesn't give me the same feeling of power and accomplishment.
THAT is why I lift heavy. :happy:0 -
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.
This seemed to be true with me. I read article after article saying lift heavy and burn fat. Trainers told me the same thing So, I was getting very intense with heavy compound exercises; deadlifts, squats, bench press, pullups, etc. and got stronger and stronger but reached a fat burning plateau that didn't budge. So, I flipped the 80/20 rule around and did 80% cardio and 20% weight training and then my fat started stripping off; everything else being equal. We are all different but this seemed to be the case for me.0 -
Youll have to admit that setting a good base for the hypertrophy would be smart.
True, having some mass does help. My point was just size isn't indicative of strength.So for now I lift heavy as possible, 5x5 or even 5/3/1 then once I hit my limit I could turn to a hypertrophy based lifting program and still progress up to my limit.
I don't know, I think you'd have trouble. Let's say your goal is to Deadlift 405lbs for a single and you start 5x5 with a 205lb 1RM. Then you take 5x5 all the way up to 315lbs, for example, I don't know that you could get the rest of the way there doing sets of 8 to 10 reps. It's entirely different muscle recruitment to move maximal level weight. I'm sure it's not impossible but it would be damn hard at the very least if not impossible for certain individuals. Some people are just gifted freaks of nature and I say that with much respect because I'm damn jealous of those folks. But the typical person would have trouble getting there I think.
I'm about as hardgaining as any scrawny guy.
But...
I do love popping out 5x5 280lb squats!0 -
Lifting anything any amount of times will result in gains in an untrained individual, but the gains won't be that significant a year later. High reps with light weight is essentially worthless, for muscle growth and strength gains, to an experienced weight trainer.
And I would argue that even with an experienced lifter, if you gave the same person a routine where the lifted say 60% of their RM for 20 as opposed to the exact same person lifting 60% of their RM for 5, the routine with greater volume would, barring injury, produce the greater strength and mass increases. There are a lot of folks who have great success with volume training. There are arguably more efficient routes out there, but I can't agree that it's worthless.
I don't know man, I just finished reading a 300 page book on Conjugate Training, it touches on the research that goes behind the method as well, discusses the short comings of progress overload, and I really find it hard to believe that an experienced lifter would experience any gains in absolute strength by doing high-volume lifting. The rookie lifter would have some gains but there is a point of diminishing returns. There's just no way that somebody is going to rock-out sets of bench presses at 20 - 30 pounds with 100lbs and then turn around and crank out a 315lb bench press. That person's muscle fibers and nervous system would not be trained to handle such a stimulus.This seemed to be true with me. I read article after article saying lift heavy and burn fat.
Unfortunately there's a lot of fallacy where that's concerned and why most trainers are near useless. If you read anything by Jim Wendler, Mark Rippletoe, Louie Simmons who are all very prominent strength coaches they are also strong advocates of conditioning.I do love popping out 5x5 280lb squats!
Hell yeahz!0 -
I have no interest in doing 25-30 reps when I could just do 5 and get good results.0
-
I don't know man, I just finished reading a 300 page book on Conjugate Training, it touches on the research that goes behind the method as well, discusses the short comings of progress overload, and I really find it hard to believe that an experienced lifter would experience any gains in absolute strength by doing high-volume lifting. The rookie lifter would have some gains but there is a point of diminishing returns. There's just no way that somebody is going to rock-out sets of bench presses at 20 - 30 pounds with 100lbs and then turn around and crank out a 315lb bench press. That person's muscle fibers and nervous system would not be trained to handle such a stimulus.
I think this will have to be an agree to disagree sort of thing, I do agree with you in that heavier lifting is more effective at promoting strength and mass gains. What book are you talking about? I'm always interested in reading more up on this stuff.
Your reference to the capabilities of muscle fibers and your CNS is a valid one, but I can't help but think that there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.
To be clear though, with 100 lbs for 20 or 30 I don't think a 315 bench is possible. 185 though? I think that's quite a bit more feasible. Someone doing 100 lbs for 5 reps and stopping is going to have a MUCH harder time putting up the plate and a quarter. I definitely would concede that there's diminishing returns with volume particularly when you consider risk of injury, but I don't think it's near as drastic as you're saying.0 -
What?
I have never known or seen anyone who ever built muscle lifting light.
On the other hand, my husband (a bodybuilder) and his friends, lift heavy and specifically. It's quite obvious they know what they're doing. As well as dozens of my MFP friends.
You can find a "study" to back up nearly any opinion. It's not scientific and certainly not proof. I believe hard science and my own 2 eyes.0 -
I don't know man, I just finished reading a 300 page book on Conjugate Training, it touches on the research that goes behind the method as well, discusses the short comings of progress overload, and I really find it hard to believe that an experienced lifter would experience any gains in absolute strength by doing high-volume lifting. The rookie lifter would have some gains but there is a point of diminishing returns. There's just no way that somebody is going to rock-out sets of bench presses at 20 - 30 pounds with 100lbs and then turn around and crank out a 315lb bench press. That person's muscle fibers and nervous system would not be trained to handle such a stimulus.
Your reference to the capabilities of muscle fibers and your CNS is a valid one, but I can't help but think that there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.
The current book I'm reading is "THE WESTSIDE BARBELL BOOK OF METHODS" by Louie Simmons. His methods are based on research done by Russian scientists such as, Laputin, Oleshko, and Zatsiorsky to name a couple. Not to mention, pure results. I know Zatsiorsky has published many of his own books too. Another good book that touches upon the strength/force curve is Modern Trends in Strength Training by Charles Poliquin. I know some people don't care for him but the man gets results.
I'm not 100% sure what you're referencing here but if I'm correct with my assumption of what you're saying I do agree with you. When we talk maximal strength / absolute strength lifting it's really important to separate out the lifts and what we're doing. Working up to a 1RM on bicep curls doesn't really make sense and that group tends to benefit from higher reps, so working to an 8RM probably does make sense and maybe even 12reps. Working Lats, rear deltoids, for example, typically benefit more from a moderate rep range. Triceps are something that can be trained with a 3 to 6RM or even a 10RM for anywhere from 40 to 60 total reps.there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.
But when we're talking about pure strength and something like the Back Squat, then your most strength benefit is really in the 1RM - 5RM range. Doing something like 20 to 30 consecutive reps on the Back Squat will do nothing for an experienced lifter's 1RM. Not only is it a case of building your body correctly to adapt to such lifting, lifting light weight for so many reps does not teach you how to lift with speed and speed is a component of power. Remember, power = force * velocity. Lifting very light weights for tons of reps does not teach you either one of those (force or velocity).0 -
I don't know man, I just finished reading a 300 page book on Conjugate Training, it touches on the research that goes behind the method as well, discusses the short comings of progress overload, and I really find it hard to believe that an experienced lifter would experience any gains in absolute strength by doing high-volume lifting. The rookie lifter would have some gains but there is a point of diminishing returns. There's just no way that somebody is going to rock-out sets of bench presses at 20 - 30 pounds with 100lbs and then turn around and crank out a 315lb bench press. That person's muscle fibers and nervous system would not be trained to handle such a stimulus.
Your reference to the capabilities of muscle fibers and your CNS is a valid one, but I can't help but think that there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.
The current book I'm reading is "THE WESTSIDE BARBELL BOOK OF METHODS" by Louie Simmons. His methods are based on research done by Russian scientists such as, Laputin, Oleshko, and Zatsiorsky to name a couple. Not to mention, pure results. I know Zatsiorsky has published many of his own books too. Another good book that touches upon the strength/force curve is Modern Trends in Strength Training by Charles Poliquin. I know some people don't care for him but the man gets results.
I'm not 100% sure what you're referencing here but if I'm correct with my assumption of what you're saying I do agree with you. When we talk maximal strength / absolute strength lifting it's really important to separate out the lifts and what we're doing. Working up to a 1RM on bicep curls doesn't really make sense and that group tends to benefit from higher reps, so working to an 8RM probably does make sense and maybe even 12reps. Working Lats, rear deltoids, for example, typically benefit more from a moderate rep range. Triceps are something that can be trained with a 3 to 6RM or even a 10RM for anywhere from 40 to 60 total reps.there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.
But when we're talking about pure strength and something like the Back Squat, then your most strength benefit is really in the 1RM - 5RM range. Doing something like 20 to 30 consecutive reps on the Back Squat will do nothing for an experienced lifter's 1RM. Not only is it a case of building your body correctly to adapt to such lifting, lifting light weight for so many reps does not teach you how to lift with speed and speed is a component of power. Remember, power = force * velocity. Lifting very light weights for tons of reps does not teach you either one of those (force or velocity).
I'll check out the book when I have time.
Poundstone used to do the olympic bar for 100+ reps. That's a fair point regarding the type of exercise, but I still don't think I'm sold (and admittedly at this point have no backing other than my own very minor experience and belief so will have to go dig some up).
I'm not sure why you contend that lifting light doesn't teach you to lift with speed. Speed pulls are specifically done with a lighter weight than your working weight on deads...seems to me lifting light would definitely help you work on explosiveness more than heavy. There could certainly be a limit at which point any lighter wouldn't provide the same benefit, but any speed work I do is much lighter than my 1-5RM.
Now time to go find some more studies so I can provide a better defense of my position or switch boats entirely.0 -
I'll check out the book when I have time.
Poundstone used to do the olympic bar for 100+ reps. That's a fair point regarding the type of exercise, but I still don't think I'm sold (and admittedly at this point have no backing other than my own very minor experience and belief so will have to go dig some up).
I'm not sure why you contend that lifting light doesn't teach you to lift with speed. Speed pulls are specifically done with a lighter weight than your working weight on deads...seems to me lifting light would definitely help you work on explosiveness more than heavy. There could certainly be a limit at which point any lighter wouldn't provide the same benefit, but any speed work I do is much lighter than my 1-5RM.
Now time to go find some more studies so I can provide a better defense of my position or switch boats entirely.
Dynamic Lifting and lifting light weight for 20-30 reps is not the same thing. Dynamic lifting uses a range of 50%-60% of your 1RM and each rep is done explosively and in the 1 to 3 rep-range. Lifting light weight for lots of reps should be a more controlled tempo with a focus on the contraction at the peak of the concentric and a pause at the base of the eccentric motion and should not be done explosively. Dynamic lifting is strength-speed and high rep lifting is more endurance-strength.Now time to go find some more studies so I can provide a better defense of my position or switch boats entirely.
Look-up Zatsiorsky. If I recall correctly he was basically the father of Dyanmic Effort lifting.0 -
I'll check out the book when I have time.
Poundstone used to do the olympic bar for 100+ reps. That's a fair point regarding the type of exercise, but I still don't think I'm sold (and admittedly at this point have no backing other than my own very minor experience and belief so will have to go dig some up).
I'm not sure why you contend that lifting light doesn't teach you to lift with speed. Speed pulls are specifically done with a lighter weight than your working weight on deads...seems to me lifting light would definitely help you work on explosiveness more than heavy. There could certainly be a limit at which point any lighter wouldn't provide the same benefit, but any speed work I do is much lighter than my 1-5RM.
Now time to go find some more studies so I can provide a better defense of my position or switch boats entirely.
Dynamic Lifting and lifting light weight for 20-30 reps is not the same thing. Dynamic lifting uses a range of 50%-60% of your 1RM and each rep is done explosively and in the 1 to 3 rep-range. Lifting light weight for lots of reps should be a more controlled tempo with a focus on the contraction at the peak of the concentric and a pause at the base of the eccentric motion and should not be done explosively. Dynamic lifting is strength-speed and high rep lifting is more endurance-strength.Now time to go find some more studies so I can provide a better defense of my position or switch boats entirely.
Look-up Zatsiorsky. If I recall correctly he was basically the father of Dyanmic Effort lifting.
I agree with all of this. My strength coach does a range of things with us with the overall goal of increasing our compound lifts. That includes higher rep, lower weight support work on smaller muscles, low rep heavy work on our actual lifts and plyometric work like box jumps and clap pushups to increase explosiveness and speed. We also do the kind of fast, low rep low weight work you describe. Well rounded strength training isn't a straight forward thing, you can take it as far as you want, working with different bars, chains, boxes, bands etc etc...0 -
I was on a hi rep/low weight program for 5 months and I got nowhere. Then I switch to a low rep(6-8)/heavy weight program and consistently had an increase of at least 20% gain in strength every 4 days.0
-
Okay, it was a Canadian study..............................................j/k. It's one study with "newbies". I would expect some muscle and strength gain if they were newbies.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Same here. Going from hi rep/low weight to low rep/high weight made all the difference. I am consistently increasing my weight. Going from isolation exercises to compound made a huge diference too. All the tricep extensions never did what the first week of bench pressing did to my tricepts. I will add that I do 4-6 sets minimun too.I was on a hi rep/low weight program for 5 months and I got nowhere. Then I switch to a low rep(6-8)/heavy weight program and consistently had an increase of at least 20% gain in strength every 4 days.0 -
I was taught that lifting heavy builds muscle...and lifting repetitiously builds muscle endurance.
these are two different things.
L
Both will increase muscle to a point. If you can only do 5 reps today with a 10 lb weight, working up to 25 reps is going to build some muscle. However, you are correct that if you never increase the weight you will at some point only be maintaining muscle. But that's what some are looking to do.
o.O no, it will not. It will improve CNS adaptation as that weight is nowhere NEAR enough to produce overload. You don't seem to understand how the body works. increasing strength is NOT equal to gaining muscle for a lot of beginners, and especially at low weights. CNS adaptation and technique will be the vast bulk of any strength gains for most anyone starting out.0 -
I don't understand the need for this debate. The ultimate goal is to eat pizza and be happy.0
-
The only thing I like to lift is that large slice of pizza to my taste buds.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions