What is heavy?

dbomb76 wrote: »

PrizePopple wrote: »

Uhm, negative. My belly is walking (and jiggling) proof that being in a deficit is not going to do diddly to help you "tone". That is actually how people end up as what is referred to as "skinny fat". Caloric deficit helps you lose weight, but you can also lose muscle in the process. As ndj said above people lift to help retain muscle mass, and that is what will help make you look toned - not losing muscle along with fat while in deficit.

You can't see definition in your abs because your BF% is not low enough. The only way to reduce your BF% is through caloric restriction. You don't need to "lift heavy" to retain muscle mass. You just need to use your muscles. Either way, on a caloric deficit you will loose both, but you will loose less muscle if you give your body a reason to keep them. Full body exercises will help to retain them. If you want bigger muscles then you need to eat more and progressively lift heavier things. That is why people go through periods of cutting and bulking. You cut weight to reduce BF% and keep up the exercise to retain as much muscle as possible. Then you eat more on a bulk and add more weight to your lifts to gain muscle. You will also put on a little fat as well during the bulk cycle.

We're not even talking about bulking here, and I understand how that whole process works just from reading posts around here from reputable lifters.

I seriously doubt that doing something like 30 Day Shred is going to have the same impact on muscle retention as lifting would. Sure it helps, but it's not going to be nearly as effective. I'm by no means an expert on this, so I'm sure the others already on this thread could explain it much better and give personal experiences.

This is the way I learned it: Lifting heavy means lifting about 80% of your 1-rep max for reps (typically 5 reps). So if you can reliably squat 200 lbs, for instance, for a single rep, then when you're doing a routine, like 5x5, you should be lifting about 160 lbs for five reps.

In order to know what your 5-rep weight is, you need to have some idea of what you can realistically lift for a single rep.

There are also other "heavy" lifting routines out there, like 5/3/1, etc. I mean, if you're doing 6 sets with really heavy weight, so heavy that you can only do 2-reps per set, you're lifting heavy. 80% for reps seems to be some kind of baseline floor in the literature I've encountered.

Now, all of that said, this doesn't mean you can't be effective with what you're doing. My wife runs a class 3x per week where all they have access to is dumbbells. They do all sorts of lifts that you would do with a barbell - squats, deadlifts, overhead press, etc. - plus a bunch of other stuff (it's an hour long class). Since they don't have access to barbells and can't do heavy lifting like 80% of 1RM, they make up for it with volume. Lots of sets, lots of reps. My wife is absolutely ripped... so I'd say it works.

I think the overall key is just to be consistent. Do the work, work hard, put forth maximum effort, and be consistent with your workouts. Don't skip. Consistency with diet and exercise is the key to results.

I'll make it simple (and mostly-accurate):

"Lifting Heavy" is being unable to do the same motion with a weight more than 20 times in a row.

So kettlebells, spinning, yoga, pilates, zumba, jazercize, whatever is not lifting heavy.

Some of those might be "lifting heavy" for a period of time, but won't be eventually.

For me, pushups and pullups are lifting heavy. In a couple of months they won't be. Well, pushups at least.

kozykondition1 wrote: »

I'll make it simple (and mostly-accurate):

"Lifting Heavy" is being unable to do the same motion with a weight more than 20 times in a row.

Not at all, that's along the lines of stability or endurance training.

JoRocka wrote: »
Think of heavy as a rep range rather than a set number. Because to every person "heavy" is relative

0 reps = TO heavy
1 rep = one rep max- this is VERY heavy- borederline impossibly heavy
2-5 reps= heavy
5-10 moderately heavy
10-15 = not really heavy
15-20 = not heavy at all.

Jo's is really the best representation so far. To take it a step further it's like

(NASM guidelines)

85% - 100% is maximal strength training (heavy)
55% - 85% is considered sub-maximal and can be further broken down into...
- 75% - 85% could be considered a hypertrophy range
- 70% - 80% could be strength endurance
- 50% - 70% could be more stability type work

Of course intensity is only one of the variables needed when it comes to training. One has to be aware of their total volume and frequency as well.

JoRocka wrote: »

Think of heavy as a rep range rather than a set number. Because to every person "heavy" is relative

0 reps = TO heavy
1 rep = one rep max- this is VERY heavy- borederline impossibly heavy
2-5 reps= heavy
5-10 moderately heavy
10-15 = not really heavy
15-20 = not heavy at all.

kozykondition1 wrote: »

@Sam_I_Am77:

People progress just fine lifting 2x15. I would rather do that than a single one rep max.

I believe you misunderstood the question. OP is basically asking what strength training is.

And I can do probably 50 reps of half of my one rep max in most exercises. I don't call that "lifting heavy".

The question to this thread is "What is heavy?" and I provided an answer to that specific question or really just supported Jo's. I did not say lifting 20 reps is ineffective, Part of your response was,

"Lifting Heavy" is being unable to do the same motion with a weight more than 20 times in a row.

That is not heavy lifting, that is more along the lines of what would be prescribed for stability or endurance training. I did not criticize the use of such a training variable because it has it's place in training, I just countered that it is not heavy lifting. If somebody thinks it is, then they have never truly lifted heavy.

And I can do probably 50 reps of half of my one rep max in most exercises. I don't call that "lifting heavy".

I did not say 50% of 1RM was heavy, I said it was sub-maximal and provided further detail indicating that it is more of an intensity that would be used for stability type of work which often will use a rep range of 12-20 reps for bilateral movements and 6-10 for unilateral movements.

Re-read the comments, nothing was negative towards you or indicating what you do is ineffective. thanks...

JoRocka wrote: »

Think of heavy as a rep range rather than a set number. Because to every person "heavy" is relative

0 reps = TO heavy
1 rep = one rep max- this is VERY heavy- borederline impossibly heavy
2-5 reps= heavy
5-10 moderately heavy
10-15 = not really heavy
15-20 = not heavy at all.

I've been lifting "not really heavy" and pretty successfully for the past few months.
I've recently progressed to "moderately heavy" and am flirting with "heavy"

Due to the fact that I work out at home, I think I'll flirt with "heavy".
I made my own gym and got most of my weights dirt cheap off kijiji.

The thing I've found is that as you approach "heavy" and "very heavy" FORM becomes painfully critical. You can get away with halfassed form when you're lifting "not really heavy", but you need to have that form down well if you are going to go full out "heavy".

Now that I'm flirting with Heavy... I'm seeing way better gains. I saw progress before, but I see more progress now.

You'll see progress with what you're doing... but the heavier you go, the more you'll see. IMHO.

JoRocka wrote: »

indeed. indeed.

There is nothing WRONG with doing the other things- you will still see results- but it'll be different. And again- not everyone's goals are the same. A marathoner probably won't care so much for that 1-3 range of reps. At all- but also probably doesn't need 15-20- he doesn't need so much muscular endurance- gets that enough while running.

But none of it's wrong or a judgement passing- just the reality- if you cant' pick it up- it's to heavy- and then all the way up to- if you can do 20 reps- it's not heavy at all.

for the record... I love your description of heavy. LOVE it.