Good reference Re: Lifting Heavy vs Bulk

Great article. Thanks.

Azdak wrote: »

JoRocka wrote: »

I see no discussion or reference to diet.

I'm skeptical.

You mean this part:

Of greater importance than the loads that are used in training is nutrition. No matter how hard or heavy one trains, muscle will atrophy if caloric and protein intake is too low. A proper diet is mandatory for building muscle, leaning out, and optimizing body composition, so don’t take your eyes off of the big picture!

Kinda hard to see how you missed that.

That "discussion" doesn't say anything about how to eat to lose/maintain/gain weight or muscle mass so yea, she was right. Kind hard to see how you missed that.

Of greater importance than the loads that are used in training is nutrition. No matter how hard or heavy one trains, muscle will atrophy if caloric and protein intake is too low. A proper diet is mandatory for building muscle, leaning out, and optimizing body composition, so don’t take your eyes off of the big picture!

That was at the end of the article and that is first and foremost going to dictate the results you get from any training. I'm not knocking him because he is a successful fitness professional, here are my thoughts on what's being said. Also, keep in-mind that the full-studies he referenced are not available and I only saw the abstracts. It almost seems like one of his references was a meta-analysis of other studies and not primary research.

The studies represent muscle protein synthesis and hypertrophy, not strength, power, or athletic performance; or even functional improvement. This study is only relevant to those looking to improve size. There are more than enough studies if you search that discuss strength and power relevant to 1RM, and 30% is not as effective in improving absolute strength versus higher intensities. Even a basic core stability method for basic improvement in strength and neuro-muscular control utilizes an intensity of 50% - 70% 1RM. The intensity(s) selected should be dictated by one's goals.

Brett discusses a good topic, but remember to keep the information in-context to what your goals are and who is being studied. What Brett presents will work for some goals but not others.

Edit: To quick to post... It's also hard to understand the full depth of those studies because we are unaware of the nutrition used, if any, for the test subjects. You really need the full studies to gauge what is being presented here. Sorry, one of my professors is ridiculously anal about research so I really take a hard look at what's presented typically.

JoRocka wrote: »

Edit: To quick to post... It's also hard to understand the full depth of those studies because we are unaware of the nutrition used, if any, for the test subjects. You really need the full studies to gauge what is being presented here. Sorry, one of my professors is ridiculously ***** about research so I really take a hard look at what's presented typically.

pretty much the basis of my comment.

To keep things unbiased, I will say that I recognize a couple of the researchers referenced and they are very reputable individuals so I would put some trust in their results; it's just we can't see the full depth of what they're doing. It's always important to keep the research in-context.

This reminds me of an older body-builder's method where he used an incredibly low intensity for like 8-sets of 8-reps and almost no rest, like 10-sec's, between sets and a slow tempo. There is merit to this, just context, context, context.

JoRocka wrote: »

Agreed.

I mean Brett is- as you pointed out- well respected for knowing his stuff- so I'm not unwilling to hear him out- I just... wish there was more detail. as I said- I have questions.

Exactly.

Azdak wrote: »

JoRocka wrote: »

Agreed.

I mean Brett is- as you pointed out- well respected for knowing his stuff- so I'm not unwilling to hear him out- I just... wish there was more detail. as I said- I have questions.

I can appreciate that point. In this case I wasn't trying to present this article as something definitive or in depth. From what I could see,this was written for a general fitness website and the level of it was something that--and I mean this as a compliment--I would not have expected you to take that much notice of since it seemed pretty basic.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised at the reaction from some folks. I didn't see the information in this article as being particularly new or controversial. I just like Brett's stuff because it is research-grounded and he always provides good links. I just saw it as another "don't be afraid of lifting heavy" article.

There's definitely nothing controversial to this article by any means and the additional viewpoint is good. It's just that on MFP you typically get responses like "ZOMG, that's the only way to do things now!!" and then spawns 100 threads about why light-weight is better than heavy lifting. It's similar to all threads about squatting and deadlifting and how everybody must do them, which isn't 100% or at least not for everybody. Or even with programs like StrongLifts and Starting Strength, as if there's no other way to strength train. I just like to clarify things by making sure that certain details are pointed out and articles and references are kept within the context in-which they were written for.

TiberiusClaudis wrote: »

totally agree there are many ways to Dublin. Thing is in today's culture of instant gratification, they want them NOW...or atleast the most efficient way to get what they want. Problem is that what works for me may not work best for you.

Well put Tiberius Claudis!