Lifting heavy not better

JNick77

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.

there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.

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.

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).

ArroganceInStep

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.

there's something to say a Poundstone style of lifting for arms beyond just sarcoplasmic fluid buildup or pain tolerance.

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.

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.

JNick77

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.

Nataliaho

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...

stupidloser

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.

ninerbuff

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 nutrition

christyjoyjr

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.

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.

Jynus

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.

stupidloser

I don't understand the need for this debate. The ultimate goal is to eat pizza and be happy.

stupidloser

The only thing I like to lift is that large slice of pizza to my taste buds.

Shock_Wave

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.

Thank you.

Not to mention the 'young men' aspect as well.

Nor, the multiple studies that prove the information this supposedly disputes, which were performed with a different, more general cross section of the population.

*shrug*

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.

LMAO you said it ^ this time haha... nono I don't want a piece of you today but maybe tomorrow lmao as you once told me... I am kidding :flowerforyou: