Newbie Gains? Baloney?

Options
Fithealthyforlife
Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I've heard about "newbie gains" but I'm skeptical. I think it's likely just because the person's body is fresh and the weights are challenging to them. We have a tendency (some people) over time to slack and not increase weights enough. Also, cycling (periodizing) workouts and taking occasional week or breaks can help reset the body.

I was a fairly serious lifter in high school (9 years ago). Then I sorta stopped. But I kept doing a little light to moderate lifting every once in a while, like once a week. I lost a lot of muscle over time of course, because the intensity wasn't enough and my diet wasn't what it should have been to keep muscle mass. Recently I started lifting more regularly. I've been doing light weights for a few months, and I am switching to moderate/heavy lifting for a while now to build some serious mass and definition.

Apparently I'm not a newbie and am not elligible for newbie gains now??? Sounds stupid to me. So here's the question: Would I have been better off to not have done any weight lifting at all over that period of years so I could be a newbie again and get newbie gains this time around? Did I defeat my future gains by doing low intensity lifting sporadically over a period of years?

Can't believe I'm asking this question!! My gut feeling says no! Newbie gains are just baloney, right?
«13

Replies

  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Hello...Does anyone know the truth?
  • mryak750
    mryak750 Posts: 198 Member
    Options
    are you afraid of gaining weight...why are your conerned about newbie gains...if you want gains eat at 200 calorie surplus and lift hard or go home...
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    are you afraid of gaining weight...why are your conerned about newbie gains...if you want gains eat at 200 calorie surplus and lift hard or go home...

    I don't think we're speaking the same language. Please reread my original question. lol.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    "Newbie Gains" are due to muscle fiber activation and have little to do with actually building new muscle tissue. It's an absolute real thing. It takes, on average, a muscle fiber bundle about 6 weeks to reach 95 to 100% recruitment percentage before the body will start trying to build new fiber (muscular hypertrophy) assuming you are starting from a relatively low base level (I.E. never trained before, or in a very long period). The time period can vary based on the type of activity you are performing, the more energetic and stressful the activity, the faster the body will adapt to the changes.

    It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't see the same results as someone who's never lifted, or completely stopped lifting for an extended period then returned.

    Inactive muscle fibers become dormant and eventually atrophy, losing most of the water, glucose(glycolytic fibers), and supporting compounds (like actin and myocin) that surrounds it and energize it. This dessicated tissue will quickly become fully formed upon re-use. This re-activation shows up as bpdy weight increase, strength increases or endurance increases (depending on the muscle and activity), and better "definition" in many cases.

    But as you said, you were working about once a week, not enough to increase or even keep large amounts of muscle mass, but enough to keep your muscles from extensive atrophy, which means gains made will be smaller. Essentially if you look at it like a tiered program, instead of starting at tier 1, you'd be starting at tier 2 or 3. Hypertrophic effects are much slower than the initial re-activation of muscle mass. Where I would expect a brand new "rookie" client of mine to gain 20 to 30% in strength over the first 6 or 8 weeks, but I would then temper their expectations down to about 5% per month after that.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    "Newbie Gains" are due to muscle fiber activation and have little to do with actually building new muscle tissue. It's an absolute real thing. It takes, on average, a muscle fiber bundle about 6 weeks to reach 95 to 100% recruitment percentage before the body will start trying to build new fiber (muscular hypertrophy) assuming you are starting from a relatively low base level (I.E. never trained before, or in a very long period). The time period can vary based on the type of activity you are performing, the more energetic and stressful the activity, the faster the body will adapt to the changes.

    It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't see the same results as someone who's never lifted, or completely stopped lifting for an extended period then returned.

    Inactive muscle fibers become dormant and eventually atrophy, losing most of the water, glucose(glycolytic fibers), and supporting compounds (like actin and myocin) that surrounds it and energize it. This dessicated tissue will quickly become fully formed upon re-use. This re-activation shows up as bpdy weight increase, strength increases or endurance increases (depending on the muscle and activity), and better "definition" in many cases.

    But as you said, you were working about once a week, not enough to increase or even keep large amounts of muscle mass, but enough to keep your muscles from extensive atrophy, which means gains made will be smaller. Essentially if you look at it like a tiered program, instead of starting at tier 1, you'd be starting at tier 2 or 3. Hypertrophic effects are much slower than the initial re-activation of muscle mass. Where I would expect a brand new "rookie" client of mine to gain 20 to 30% in strength over the first 6 or 8 weeks, but I would then temper their expectations down to about 5% per month after that.

    Thank you for answering.

    That's how I was looking at it, too. I'm a step above where a newbie would be. But here's the thing...if you compared the newbie version of me to the current version of me, which one would outpace the other after 8 weeks of heavy training?

    I'm actually thinking they would be equal. I started higher, and the newbie would be starting lower, but moving faster for a few weeks. If you graphed progress vs. time, the two progress curves should end up at the same point and have the same slope after 8 weeks or so. Do you agree with this?

    Or would the newb outpace me and actually build a higher level of strength?

    I'm trying to figure out if I'm in one of those catch 22 situations.

    Therefore, newbie gains are actually just bringing the person up to your "tier 2", right?

    Now, let's look at it using your numbers from your experience with clients...using arm curls as an example, and see how the numbers plug in...

    I remember being a newb once, and I started out using 5 lbs for several dumbbell curl sets with very strict form. I was up to 25 lbs after six to eight or so months with nearly as good form.

    Now, during the minimal training years, I continued to be able to curl 10 lbs for several sets with moderate reps. That's exactly 2x the baseline.

    I continued using 10, and sometimes 13 lbs over the past few months during my light training phase.

    Then I realized it wasn't building muscle. So last night, I grabbed a 40-lb barbell and used that (e.g. 20 lb euqivalent in dumbbells). Now, I noticed it was a lot more challenging than 10 lbs; my heartrate increased, and I got winded and had to take some time between the last 3 or so reps. It was also tougher to keep as strict form, but I feel I had adequate form nonetheless.

    So, let's say I'm starting at 20 lbs and 8 reps now, and the newb is starting at 10 lbs and 8 reps and we're using similar levels of "effort" (a great layman's term, btw). 5% per month would mean that after one month, I'd be up to 21 lbs. My newb self would be up to 13 lbs after one month if he gained 30% in strength...still lower than my current self.

    So, it does NOT seem that I put myself at a disadvantage by continuing to work out "a little" during that period. The newb version of me would just be getting up to pace with my own unique progress vs. time curve, which is a function of my own physiology, training history, and workout/nutrition plan (2 of which variables are held constant in this thought experiment).

    That's what I mean by "Baloney"...that I'm probably not going to be at a disadvantage now as compared my "newb" self starting from scratch. In other words, newbie gains likely wouldn't take me beyond where I'd go as-is. It's just a different starting point at a different time along the same road leading to the same destination.

    What do you think about my analysis? Is it sound logic and can it be backed up by your experience?
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    Options
    Newb gains has nothing to do with strength... That's why you're not understanding. It has to do with hypertrophy.

    The person above seems to be confusing terms. He is talking about strength gains. Which is true. Strength and newb gains however are not the same thing, tho are related.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Newb gains has nothing to do with strength... That's why you're not understanding. It has to do with hypertrophy.

    Really...?
  • minijuggernaut
    minijuggernaut Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.
  • prattiger65
    prattiger65 Posts: 1,657 Member
    Options
    Newb gains has nothing to do with strength... That's why you're not understanding. It has to do with hypertrophy.

    Really...?

    Yes, really
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.

    This makes sense. I'm thinking that whatever newbie hypertrophy is left in my system is what I'll get, then. There should be about half left, because I've been lifting *light* in the meantime, and am cycling into a heavier phase now...

    Or have I totally missed the boat and am only destined to get slow muscle growth because I kept doing light intensity infrequent stuff for a few years (and then did the same light stuff regularly for several months after that)? In other words have I slowed my future gains by continuing to do something all along?
  • minijuggernaut
    minijuggernaut Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.

    This makes sense. I'm thinking that whatever newbie hypertrophy is left in my system is what I'll get, then. There should be about half left, because I've been lifting *light* in the meantime, and am cycling into a heavier phase now...

    Or have I totally missed the boat and am only destined to get slow muscle growth because I kept doing light intensity infrequent stuff for a few years (and then did the same light stuff regularly for several months after that)? In other words have I slowed my future gains by continuing to do something all along?

    I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking why it is not possible for you to go through a second period of noob gains? Because life ain't fair :P I wish I could do it all over again too!

    You haven't slowed your future gains... they will be slow and steady, just like all the other 1+ lifters... keep your nutrition dialed in and follow a good hypertrophy program (I like PHAT myself) and the gains will come as sure as the sun will rise :)
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.

    This makes sense. I'm thinking that whatever newbie hypertrophy is left in my system is what I'll get, then. There should be about half left, because I've been lifting *light* in the meantime, and am cycling into a heavier phase now...

    Or have I totally missed the boat and am only destined to get slow muscle growth because I kept doing light intensity infrequent stuff for a few years (and then did the same light stuff regularly for several months after that)? In other words have I slowed my future gains by continuing to do something all along?

    I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking why it is not possible for you to go through a second period of noob gains? Because life ain't fair :P I wish I could do it all over again too!

    You haven't slowed your future gains... they will be slow and steady, just like all the other 1+ lifters... keep your nutrition dialed in and follow a good hypertrophy program (I like PHAT myself) and the gains will come as sure as the sun will rise :)

    So, the newb gains really would get me up to speed to about where I am now, then, right? Or would I have likely totally shot past where I am now if I had been a newb instead of an intermediate?
  • minijuggernaut
    minijuggernaut Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.

    This makes sense. I'm thinking that whatever newbie hypertrophy is left in my system is what I'll get, then. There should be about half left, because I've been lifting *light* in the meantime, and am cycling into a heavier phase now...

    Or have I totally missed the boat and am only destined to get slow muscle growth because I kept doing light intensity infrequent stuff for a few years (and then did the same light stuff regularly for several months after that)? In other words have I slowed my future gains by continuing to do something all along?

    I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking why it is not possible for you to go through a second period of noob gains? Because life ain't fair :P I wish I could do it all over again too!

    You haven't slowed your future gains... they will be slow and steady, just like all the other 1+ lifters... keep your nutrition dialed in and follow a good hypertrophy program (I like PHAT myself) and the gains will come as sure as the sun will rise :)

    So, the newb gains really would get me up to speed to about where I am now, then, right? Or would I have likely totally shot past where I am now if I had been a newb instead of an intermediate?

    It's impossible to say, and not really worth dwelling on, IMO. If I had to venture a guess, they'd put you about where you are now.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Noob gains are legit. You can put on more size in your first year than in the following 5.

    But you're not new - you likely have a decent base of muscle already built from your prior training.

    This makes sense. I'm thinking that whatever newbie hypertrophy is left in my system is what I'll get, then. There should be about half left, because I've been lifting *light* in the meantime, and am cycling into a heavier phase now...

    Or have I totally missed the boat and am only destined to get slow muscle growth because I kept doing light intensity infrequent stuff for a few years (and then did the same light stuff regularly for several months after that)? In other words have I slowed my future gains by continuing to do something all along?

    I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking why it is not possible for you to go through a second period of noob gains? Because life ain't fair :P I wish I could do it all over again too!

    You haven't slowed your future gains... they will be slow and steady, just like all the other 1+ lifters... keep your nutrition dialed in and follow a good hypertrophy program (I like PHAT myself) and the gains will come as sure as the sun will rise :)

    So, the newb gains really would get me up to speed to about where I am now, then, right? Or would I have likely totally shot past where I am now if I had been a newb instead of an intermediate?

    It's impossible to say, and not really worth dwelling on, IMO. If I had to venture a guess, they'd put you about where you are now.

    Fair enough.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Options
    Yes there are newbie gains but there are also people that return to lifting after a long lay off or a long cut and regain what they lost pretty fast. Some refer to it as muscle memory. Either way it works out about the same.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    Newb gains has nothing to do with strength... That's why you're not understanding. It has to do with hypertrophy.

    The person above seems to be confusing terms. He is talking about strength gains. Which is true. Strength and newb gains however are not the same thing, tho are related.

    ahh, how so, please explain your logic here. In all my research and in all the Kinesiology and Physical training I've taken gains made by a beginner exersizer or someone who has lapsed and reverted includes little to no hypertrophic effects. The first few weeks of training a new routine activate long dormant muscle fibers, there is very little, if any, new muscle mass added during the first 6 to 8 weeks (loosely speaking) of a brand new training routine for someone who hasn't trained those muscles before.

    Skeletal muscle hypertrophy, by definition, is the addition of new cells to existing muscle fibers and bundles which can either lengthen or bulk existing muscle causing strength, performance, endurance, or size gains depending on the training methods, calorie balance, and genetics. Your body doen't go from no work to hypertrophic immediately, it first has to "learn" how to use 100% of the muscle available.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options


    Thank you for answering.

    That's how I was looking at it, too. I'm a step above where a newbie would be. But here's the thing...if you compared the newbie version of me to the current version of me, which one would outpace the other after 8 weeks of heavy training?

    I'm actually thinking they would be equal. I started higher, and the newbie would be starting lower, but moving faster for a few weeks. If you graphed progress vs. time, the two progress curves should end up at the same point and have the same slope after 8 weeks or so. Do you agree with this?

    Or would the newb outpace me and actually build a higher level of strength?

    I'm trying to figure out if I'm in one of those catch 22 situations.

    Therefore, newbie gains are actually just bringing the person up to your "tier 2", right?

    Now, let's look at it using your numbers from your experience with clients...using arm curls as an example, and see how the numbers plug in...

    I remember being a newb once, and I started out using 5 lbs for several dumbbell curl sets with very strict form. I was up to 25 lbs after six to eight or so months with nearly as good form.

    Now, during the minimal training years, I continued to be able to curl 10 lbs for several sets with moderate reps. That's exactly 2x the baseline.

    I continued using 10, and sometimes 13 lbs over the past few months during my light training phase.

    Then I realized it wasn't building muscle. So last night, I grabbed a 40-lb barbell and used that (e.g. 20 lb euqivalent in dumbbells). Now, I noticed it was a lot more challenging than 10 lbs; my heartrate increased, and I got winded and had to take some time between the last 3 or so reps. It was also tougher to keep as strict form, but I feel I had adequate form nonetheless.

    So, let's say I'm starting at 20 lbs and 8 reps now, and the newb is starting at 10 lbs and 8 reps and we're using similar levels of "effort" (a great layman's term, btw). 5% per month would mean that after one month, I'd be up to 21 lbs. My newb self would be up to 13 lbs after one month if he gained 30% in strength...still lower than my current self.

    So, it does NOT seem that I put myself at a disadvantage by continuing to work out "a little" during that period. The newb version of me would just be getting up to pace with my own unique progress vs. time curve, which is a function of my own physiology, training history, and workout/nutrition plan (2 of which variables are held constant in this thought experiment).

    That's what I mean by "Baloney"...that I'm probably not going to be at a disadvantage now as compared my "newb" self starting from scratch. In other words, newbie gains likely wouldn't take me beyond where I'd go as-is. It's just a different starting point at a different time along the same road leading to the same destination.

    What do you think about my analysis? Is it sound logic and can it be backed up by your experience?

    I can see how this would be a common misconception, but if we make a few basic assumptions we can see that you will be well ahead if you work out "moderately" and then begin a heavier schedule over not working out or beginning from "scratch" and working out.

    Yes, the accelleration of your gains is greater for a "newbie" but remember, you're starting from a lower point to begin with, and once you hit the point where there's no more gains to be made other than hypertrophic gains, then it slows down.

    So say (and I'm just making it more concrete for example purposes, it's really not this cut and dried) you are brand new, and you take 6 weeks to gain up to the point of hypertrophic levels. And in the other example say you have been working out 1 day a week moderately for a year or two, thus reducing your muscle fiber activation down to the equivalent of being 4 weeks into the new program.
    That means that for the first 2 weeks your gains will be similar in scope, thus no relative difference in performance levels of the muscle, I.E. if you gained 10% strength as a newbie, you'd probably gain somewhere close to that as a re-entry point. After that 2 weeks the changes a newbie would make would be done at a higher accelleration, but would still end up at a lower point than the experienced person because, unless the experienced person stops working out, while they aren't gaining as fast, they are still above the hypertrophic threshold. I'm going to link a quick graph to show you what I mean.


    http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm92/Banks1850/newbie_exp_zpsf953ebbd.jpg
  • 55in13
    55in13 Posts: 1,091 Member
    Options
    An interesting observation about "noob gains"...

    I lost a little over 50 lbs dieting with my primary exercise being running and started to get that "skinny fat" look. I have been going to the gym and doing core/upper body exercises at home more regularly the last couple of months to try to get more definition. One thing I have read over and over here is that you can only have "noob gains" if you work out while eating a deficit diet. That may be true, but it turn out that "noob gains" is really all I wanted. I understand that some people want a lot more and that's fine; this is just sort of a PSA for people in my shoes who want to tone up and are leery of gaining anything back after fighting hard to lose it. I am getting pretty close to the size/shape/weight I was after without gaining any back.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options
    Newb gains has nothing to do with strength... That's why you're not understanding. It has to do with hypertrophy.

    The person above seems to be confusing terms. He is talking about strength gains. Which is true. Strength and newb gains however are not the same thing, tho are related.

    ahh, how so, please explain your logic here. In all my research and in all the Kinesiology and Physical training I've taken gains made by a beginner exersizer or someone who has lapsed and reverted includes little to no hypertrophic effects. The first few weeks of training a new routine activate long dormant muscle fibers, there is very little, if any, new muscle mass added during the first 6 to 8 weeks (loosely speaking) of a brand new training routine for someone who hasn't trained those muscles before.

    Skeletal muscle hypertrophy, by definition, is the addition of new cells to existing muscle fibers and bundles which can either lengthen or bulk existing muscle causing strength, performance, endurance, or size gains depending on the training methods, calorie balance, and genetics. Your body doen't go from no work to hypertrophic immediately, it first has to "learn" how to use 100% of the muscle available.

    See, I was under the assumption it involves BOTH...strength and size gains.
  • Fithealthyforlife
    Fithealthyforlife Posts: 866 Member
    Options


    Thank you for answering.

    That's how I was looking at it, too. I'm a step above where a newbie would be. But here's the thing...if you compared the newbie version of me to the current version of me, which one would outpace the other after 8 weeks of heavy training?

    I'm actually thinking they would be equal. I started higher, and the newbie would be starting lower, but moving faster for a few weeks. If you graphed progress vs. time, the two progress curves should end up at the same point and have the same slope after 8 weeks or so. Do you agree with this?

    Or would the newb outpace me and actually build a higher level of strength?

    I'm trying to figure out if I'm in one of those catch 22 situations.

    Therefore, newbie gains are actually just bringing the person up to your "tier 2", right?

    Now, let's look at it using your numbers from your experience with clients...using arm curls as an example, and see how the numbers plug in...

    I remember being a newb once, and I started out using 5 lbs for several dumbbell curl sets with very strict form. I was up to 25 lbs after six to eight or so months with nearly as good form.

    Now, during the minimal training years, I continued to be able to curl 10 lbs for several sets with moderate reps. That's exactly 2x the baseline.

    I continued using 10, and sometimes 13 lbs over the past few months during my light training phase.

    Then I realized it wasn't building muscle. So last night, I grabbed a 40-lb barbell and used that (e.g. 20 lb euqivalent in dumbbells). Now, I noticed it was a lot more challenging than 10 lbs; my heartrate increased, and I got winded and had to take some time between the last 3 or so reps. It was also tougher to keep as strict form, but I feel I had adequate form nonetheless.

    So, let's say I'm starting at 20 lbs and 8 reps now, and the newb is starting at 10 lbs and 8 reps and we're using similar levels of "effort" (a great layman's term, btw). 5% per month would mean that after one month, I'd be up to 21 lbs. My newb self would be up to 13 lbs after one month if he gained 30% in strength...still lower than my current self.

    So, it does NOT seem that I put myself at a disadvantage by continuing to work out "a little" during that period. The newb version of me would just be getting up to pace with my own unique progress vs. time curve, which is a function of my own physiology, training history, and workout/nutrition plan (2 of which variables are held constant in this thought experiment).

    That's what I mean by "Baloney"...that I'm probably not going to be at a disadvantage now as compared my "newb" self starting from scratch. In other words, newbie gains likely wouldn't take me beyond where I'd go as-is. It's just a different starting point at a different time along the same road leading to the same destination.

    What do you think about my analysis? Is it sound logic and can it be backed up by your experience?

    I can see how this would be a common misconception, but if we make a few basic assumptions we can see that you will be well ahead if you work out "moderately" and then begin a heavier schedule over not working out or beginning from "scratch" and working out.

    Yes, the accelleration of your gains is greater for a "newbie" but remember, you're starting from a lower point to begin with, and once you hit the point where there's no more gains to be made other than hypertrophic gains, then it slows down.

    So say (and I'm just making it more concrete for example purposes, it's really not this cut and dried) you are brand new, and you take 6 weeks to gain up to the point of hypertrophic levels. And in the other example say you have been working out 1 day a week moderately for a year or two, thus reducing your muscle fiber activation down to the equivalent of being 4 weeks into the new program.
    That means that for the first 2 weeks your gains will be similar in scope, thus no relative difference in performance levels of the muscle, I.E. if you gained 10% strength as a newbie, you'd probably gain somewhere close to that as a re-entry point. After that 2 weeks the changes a newbie would make would be done at a higher accelleration, but would still end up at a lower point than the experienced person because, unless the experienced person stops working out, while they aren't gaining as fast, they are still above the hypertrophic threshold. I'm going to link a quick graph to show you what I mean.


    http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm92/Banks1850/newbie_exp_zpsf953ebbd.jpg

    Awesome explanation...just one small problem...

    I can only access a very small version of that graph from your link. It's a thumbnail, and is unreadable.

Categories