Here are some really dumb strength training questions

Seriously, I am not going to be offended at all if you snark away at me. I've lurked enough on this and other fitness forums to recognize how silly these questions are (and that this is waaay too long of a post). But I've always been confused about some of the lingo/advice around "lifting heavy" and building muscle.

1) The stupidest question: Can you get stronger without "gaining muscle?" (Don't worry, I do want to start gaining muscle--I am just curious). I ask because I'm currently eating at a slight deficit/close to maintenance level, so I know don't have enough of a surplus to increase the amount of muscle I have. But by weight training am I still increasing the amount of STRENGTH I have? I've noticed that I can complete more reps, do more pushups, lift heavier weights, and am feeling stronger. But, again, I thought that you needed a caloric surplus to actually build muscle--am I just strengthening the muscle mass I currently have, or is that not a thing?

Others have answered this well. Absolutely--you initially increase strength without increasing muscle size. In fact, one can make substantial increases in muscle strength -- like 100% increases--without seeing much increase in muscle size. As has been said, it comes from an improvement in efficiency in how the brain recruits muscle fibers. At a certain point, that process sort of "maxes out", and then further signficant increases in stregnth require an increased in muscle fiber size itself.

2) Tell me exactly what "lifting heavy," which apparently is what we are all supposed to do, means to you. I typically chose weights that allow me to to do no more than 8-12 reps at a time, for 2-3 sets. However, I have zero interest in things like serious Olympic-style lifting or Crossfit or whatever--which I what I picture when I hear the term. What about bodyweight exercises like push-ups (which are still challenging for me)--are those part of a "lifting heavy" routine?

Interesting to see the varied responses to this question. "Lifting heavy" is NOT just "lifting to failure". It is lifting to "failure" (or close to it) within a certain range of repetitions. There are some different opinions on what range of reps consitutes "lifting heavy", but, for general lifting purposes, I would agree with those proposing the 1-8 RM range.

So, it is not the exercise, nor is it the absolute weight that defines "lifting heavy"--it is the relative intensity. Hypothetically, a pushup can be "lifting heavy", if you can adjust the load so that you can only do 4-8 repetitions. Otherwise, it isn't. Same goes for bench, press, squat, etc, etc.

Once you define "lifting heavy", then the next question is "should I do it?". You mention Olympic lifting, crossfit as examples of your image of "heavy lifting" and mention that doesn't appeal to you. As I have just described, heavy lifing is all about the "how" and not about the "what". So it is not restricted to those types of exercises. The primary benefit of "heavy lifting" for the average exerciser is that the increased challenge of the heavier loads will lead to greater increases in strength and fitness, and will help to reshape your body in what most people will think is a positive way. I see a lot of people spending a lot of time lifting weights and after a while they start to see diminishing returns. They are investing the time, but not seeing the results. This is especially true of my seniors and, unfortunately, many women. The fact is that there is no substitute for the physical stimulus that you get from lifting the heavier weights.

The benefits of increased strength are the most important for the average exerciser--the claims of "fat burning because of increased muscle mass" are often wildly overstated--mainly because the average person is not going to achieve that much increase in muscle mass.

3) I recently read The New Rules of Lifting for Women and it was very eye-opening to me. One thing the author wasn't especially keen on was Pilates as a form of strength training (he sees it as more of a recovery activity, it seems). While it isn't heavy lifting, the fusion Pilates class I attend is super intense, adding plyometrics and body-weight exercises on top of traditional Pilates stuff. By the end of the class all of my muscles are shaking and totally exhausted, and overall it does wonders for the occasional back pain I sometimes get from scoliosis. Maybe I am just not very strong to begin with, but it really feels like a form of strength training to me, not just a recovery activity?

OK, ramble over. I've had a lot of coffee. Sorry.

Lifting weights is "strength training", but not all types of "strength training" involve lifting weights. Whle heavy lifting has benefits, it is not the only beneficial form of exercise or resistance training. A guy who writes a book like NROLW will tend to see the world throught the prism of his preferred form of exercise (and his book). I spent the past paragraph extolling the virtues of heavy lifting, and now I have to backtrack a little to fill out the picture. Every form of training will bring about results that are specific to the types of movements and resistance loads involved. It is up to the individual to decide which level of training and which results are most desireable for them. If one defines "sucess" as the ability to bench press 200 pounds, then it would be natural to say that Pilates is not an effective form of training. However, if one defines success as, say, the ability to lift 140 pounds, but also have better body control when moving in 3 dimensions, and better core control, and better flexibility, then other activities might be a better choice.

Too often, the recommendations by fitness people are too narrow. Certain cliches take hold -- like "you need to build more lean muscle to burn more fat at rest". The result is that either everybody feels obligated to fit into a small exercise box--e.g. "heavy lifting"--or people start making outlandish and untrue claims about their exercises in order to fit the cliche--e.g. Jillian Michaels telling people who are waving around 3 lb hand weights that they are "building muscle to burn more fat".

I wanted to say that I have been impressed with the thoughtful and considered responses so far in this thread. Someone reading this will not only get good information, but some different points of emphasis that present a good balance of views.

In reading them, I thought of something I often tell my clients as we talk about the progression of their programs. I like to refer to lifting weights as building the "raw strength" and then to things like the circuits we do, or crossfit, or TRX, as "applied strength". Usually I start with people by going through a "traditional" weight lifting program for the first few weeks. This is mainly because lifting weights is relatively simple and straightforward, and growth occurs in a relatively predictable pattern. It also helps new clients learn basic body mechanics and muscle awareness. I then start to include some more simple combination moves, or lifts that require more core control. When they are ready, we do up the lifting intensities into the 6-8 range. I do it both to achieve the significant new strength gains, but also to show them they can do a lot more than they thought they could. I always get the wide eyes of protest after the first repetition (I CAN'T do THIS!!), followed by the glow of achievement afterwards (wow, I couldn't believe I could do that!). Then they understand that the increased strength allows them to do even MORE fun and challenging stuff in the "applied" circuit training that we do, and see even better results.

I find that that combination of "basic" and "applied" training helps my clients make consistent progress and translates very well into them seeing the practical benefits of improving the quality of their daily activities.