Lifting heavy not better

VelociMama

I eat little pink weights for breakfast:

Lots of iron and fiber in there!

damorzacon

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.

When I need to lift up and move heavy stuff, it doesn't matter if I can lift 10 lbs 5000 times if I can't move 200+ lbs. Functional strength is more important to me. Either/or has no superior effect on my longevity or health.

This. Being able to lift 50 pounds 30 times won't help me if I need to lift something 300 pounds.

Which is exactly why I will continue to lift heavy!

IronPlayground

I find it interesting that the study was done on younger males, but they talk of the benefits to older adults with joint problems.

Why didn't they just do the study on older adults with joint problems?

Poorly done study in my opinion. Proves nothing.

DavPul

I lift what I can because I would rather do that and avoid injury. I'll increase it accordingly when I feel that I can handle more weight. I do what is best for me lol. Not what other people think is best for me

I don't think anyone here is trying to encourage you to injure yourself. And heavy is a relative term, so by all means, I want you to decide what heavy is. We're just sure that people will get more benefits from working with a weight that brings failure in 12 or less reps than in 20-30 reps. 20 rep failure has more to do with oxygen/glycosis than actual muscular failure and does not have the same benefit.

My question is why are people believing that more reps is a way to *avoid* injury? If I drive more miles on my car, my insurance goes up because they know that more reps behind the wheel equals more chances for bad outcomes.

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?

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?

songbyrdsweet

I lift what I can because I would rather do that and avoid injury. I'll increase it accordingly when I feel that I can handle more weight. I do what is best for me lol. Not what other people think is best for me

I don't think anyone here is trying to encourage you to injure yourself. And heavy is a relative term, so by all means, I want you to decide what heavy is. We're just sure that people will get more benefits from working with a weight that brings failure in 12 or less reps than in 20-30 reps. 20 rep failure has more to do with oxygen/glycosis than actual muscular failure and does not have the same benefit.

My question is why are people believing that more reps is a way to *avoid* injury? If I drive more miles on my car, my insurance goes up because they know that more reps behind the wheel equals more chances for bad outcomes.

EXACTLY. Thank you. Also, you're a hotty.

songbyrdsweet

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

Bad form increases the risk of injury, not necessarily amount of weight. If your form sucks you can injure yourself with light weights, especially if you're fatigued from doing a large number of reps.

With the wrong form, you can injure yourself with NO weights.

I've never injured myself lifting. I have thrown out my back cleaning up cat puke. :blushing:

Yup. In 6 years, I have injured myself ONCE while lifting, and it was when I first started and I wasn't actually lifting anything, just getting into position. I've gotten worse injuries from sleeping wrong. I stay in the 6-10 range for 90% of my lifts and look damn good doing it, with no injuries to speak of.

Meggles63

I eat little pink weights for breakfast:

I you!!! Awesome

wolfi622

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.

When I need to lift up and move heavy stuff, it doesn't matter if I can lift 10 lbs 5000 times if I can't move 200+ lbs. Functional strength is more important to me. Either/or has no superior effect on my longevity or health.

This. Being able to lift 50 pounds 30 times won't help me if I need to lift something 300 pounds.

True enough, but I can think of no case where I will need to lift something that is 300 pounds.

songbyrdsweet

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.

When I need to lift up and move heavy stuff, it doesn't matter if I can lift 10 lbs 5000 times if I can't move 200+ lbs. Functional strength is more important to me. Either/or has no superior effect on my longevity or health.

This. Being able to lift 50 pounds 30 times won't help me if I need to lift something 300 pounds.

True enough, but I can think of no case where I will need to lift something that is 300 pounds.

But being able to lift 300 pounds makes 100 pounds feel a LOT lighter. When will you have to lift 100 pounds 30 times? Neither one is about functional strength. Functional strength requires certain movements.

sapalee

i usually go by this


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

This is why I love CF

cloud2011

I've done both and both have worked for me. Doing SOMETHING is better than nothing. Stick with what works and you'll be fine.

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."

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.

wolfi622

All this being said, I am in the "lift (relatively) heavy" crowd. (Because of the role it plays in finding a good, reasonable body composition and maintaining metabolism). But it seems that many times the goals of significant numbers of folks don't mesh with the goals of others and the recommendations they make are dead on if everyone's goals are the same but otherwise not. Not sure entirely how to read the chart above, but increasing bone density would seem to be one of those things that genuinely does contribute to longevity and long term health. Maintaining a sufficient (sufficiency is actually relatively modest) amount of lean muscle mass is necessary for longevity. The primary predictors for longevity and quality of life after 60 are cardio in nature. The only lifting that is vitally important to me is to be able to lift my grandchildren ten years from now. A lot of the rest of this seems entirely cosmetic and superficial. I've been married for 30 years, so the only person I'm interested in impressing with my looks is not going to turn away because I'm not "smokin' hot".

19kat55

All this being said, I am in the "lift (relatively) heavy" crowd. (Because of the role it plays in finding a good, reasonable body composition and maintaining metabolism). But it seems that many times the goals of significant numbers of folks don't mesh with the goals of others and the recommendations they make are dead on if everyone's goals are the same but otherwise not. Not sure entirely how to read the chart above, but increasing bone density would seem to be one of those things that genuinely does contribute to longevity and long term health. Maintaining a sufficient (sufficiency is actually relatively modest) amount of lean muscle mass is necessary for longevity. The primary predictors for longevity and quality of life after 60 are cardio in nature. The only lifting that is vitally important to me is to be able to lift my grandchildren ten years from now. A lot of the rest of this seems entirely cosmetic and superficial. I've been married for 30 years, so the only person I'm interested in impressing with my looks is not going to turn away because I'm not "smokin' hot".

BAM, Winner!!!

Phrak

I just get bored doing reps. Ill stick to lifting huge weight.

Dmacho78

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.

Jules2Be

I just get bored doing reps. Ill stick to lifting huge weight.

Me too, its efficient and i feel like a rock star!

Jynus

All this being said, I am in the "lift (relatively) heavy" crowd. (Because of the role it plays in finding a good, reasonable body composition and maintaining metabolism). But it seems that many times the goals of significant numbers of folks don't mesh with the goals of others and the recommendations they make are dead on if everyone's goals are the same but otherwise not. Not sure entirely how to read the chart above, but increasing bone density would seem to be one of those things that genuinely does contribute to longevity and long term health. Maintaining a sufficient (sufficiency is actually relatively modest) amount of lean muscle mass is necessary for longevity. The primary predictors for longevity and quality of life after 60 are cardio in nature. The only lifting that is vitally important to me is to be able to lift my grandchildren ten years from now. A lot of the rest of this seems entirely cosmetic and superficial. I've been married for 30 years, so the only person I'm interested in impressing with my looks is not going to turn away because I'm not "smokin' hot".

To each their own. I wanna be this guy in 30 years.. (he's 61). Why you ask? Why not..

http://youtu.be/-RIC8-gxBKk

ArroganceInStep

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.