The secret to building muscle
Options
Replies
-
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This thread is timely and helpful for me. I'm going to disagree a little bit with the OP, though. Progressive overload isn't the only thing you need. Enough calories, with lots and lots of protein, too. I've been lifting heavy for almost two months and making some strength gains but minimal size gains; I just realized I need so much more protein than I had realized. Coming from a background as a cyclist, it's kind of shocking. I ate 5K calories yesterday and got tired of eating before the day was over, but I got enough protein in me. Most of this time, I guess I've been doing the work but selling myself short in the kitchen.
Few questions. How many surplus calories do I need to build upper body mass? If I get enough protein but go on a two hour bike ride on top of a lunch walk and lifting today, where does that leave me? Finally, all that lifting I did at a protein deficiency, that didn't really benefit me at all, did it?
If you are struggling to get calories, reduce some of your activity. Cycle on non lifting days, remove your lunch walks. If you are making strength gains and steadily increase weight (over a period of time), you should be gaining muscle.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I just Googled that, and read the abstract of the paper that comes up.
I've seen a lot of different recommendations for protein intake, it's hard to know which one to follow. Depending which one I go with, I should get anywhere from 150g to 350g per day. I feel like the top end is exaggerated, but again as a cyclist for many years, I just have no idea. I've probably been getting 75g per day while I've been lifting for the past two months, and I feel like I've gained very little muscle during that time. Seems like the best explanation is that I'm not getting enough protein to build muscle with. Does that sound right? I'm getting plenty of carbs.
What are you stats if you don't mind me asking?
sex
weight
esitmated body fat
how long have you been lifting
what other exercise are you doing
whats your specific goal
all the good stuff & I'll be happy to help out with recommendations
I'm a 38 year old male, 6'1" tall and about 225 lbs. Estimated body fat is 20 % and lean body mass 42 %, according to my smart scale. I know that's not the best way to calculate, but it's the best I have available to me right now. I started lifting (moderate weight, high reps) on May 26 and started lifting heavy (low reps) July 1. I lift every other day for about an hour, always focusing on arm and chest. My goal is to build upper body muscle. I ride a road bike about 100 miles per week on average.0 -
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?
Completely agree and I did link one of the most refered to studies that has been replicated time and time again...
Im all for providing as much info/data as possible when theres intetest... but when data requests come under the conditional "you're wrong, prove it" mentality... history and experience tells me im only wasting time for the sake of engaging in a futile back and forth in which anything I say or present will not be considered as this person has already made up their mind and closed the door behind them... so I usually leave the "prove it" requests alone.
So, depending on the person asking and the reason I'll then decide if its worth my time digging deeper into things with that person so not to waste my time on a pointless argument..(this is all based on my personal historical experience)1 -
Know your audience.3
-
Personally I've learned more from people forwarding me links and studies. But that's me and I can't speak for anyone else. Hard to question conclusions if they are supported by enough peer reviewed clinical study.
If you make a claim, it's not unusual for people who question it to ask for a link. Correct response would be to provide it for them since it's you making the claim and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. And most open minded people will read it. For many, it helps educationally.Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
sounds like it would be pointless directing you to the 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's all in the public domain so anyone who's serious about learning and not just digging out info that fits their preferred bias can easily find the data. Historically I've found forwarding data on only to prove a point when already met with resistance is futile as the data still usually won't sway the minds of people who already have their minds made up... I've just found it to be an exercise in futility and a waste of time. But if people are open to concepts that are currently foreign to them, they will do the research... just my experience over a long time in this field.
But hold on 2 mins & I'll dig one of the most commonly referred to studies out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Personally I've learned more from people forwarding me links and studies. But that's me and I can't speak for anyone else. Hard to question conclusions if they are supported by enough peer reviewed clinical study.
If you make a claim, it's not unusual for people who question it to ask for a link. Correct response would be to provide it for them since it's you making the claim and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. And most open minded people will read it. For many, it helps educationally.Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
sounds like it would be pointless directing you to the 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's all in the public domain so anyone who's serious about learning and not just digging out info that fits their preferred bias can easily find the data. Historically I've found forwarding data on only to prove a point when already met with resistance is futile as the data still usually won't sway the minds of people who already have their minds made up... I've just found it to be an exercise in futility and a waste of time. But if people are open to concepts that are currently foreign to them, they will do the research... just my experience over a long time in this field.
But hold on 2 mins & I'll dig one of the most commonly referred to studies out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You would think as a trainer, you'd learn more from being in the field itself.0 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Welcome to the club. We require all noobs to bring muffins.
I would probably suggest it might be beneficial to incorporate diet as part of the equation. Because muscle gain is multi-faceted and all components are important. Without diet, you don't have the fuel. But i get the overall premise.4 -
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?
Completely agree and I did link one of the most refered to studies that has been replicated time and time again...
Im all for providing as much info/data as possible when theres intetest... but when data requests come under the conditional "you're wrong, prove it" mentality... history and experience tells me im only wasting time for the sake of engaging in a futile back and forth in which anything I say or present will not be considered as this person has already made up their mind and closed the door behind them... so I usually leave the "prove it" requests alone.
So, depending on the person asking and the reason I'll then decide if its worth my time digging deeper into things with that person so not to waste my time on a pointless argument..(this is all based on my personal historical experience)
Not necessarily. There are going to be (including my self) newbies or those that are post newbie and definitely beginner lifters, that really want to learn more and not here just for arguments sake and want to debate.
When you started this thread, it caught my attention and I WAS interested.. You clearly state that there's 100's of papers and studies, provide some links. No harm there..
I am definitely not one of those that is wanting you to forward data on only to prove a point, but since you went there, @psulemon and @ninerbuff has a point. Oh yeah, I am definitely not close minded and I can probably speak for a lot o MPF'ers that will skim the threads and read this one.
5 -
Personally I've learned more from people forwarding me links and studies. But that's me and I can't speak for anyone else. Hard to question conclusions if they are supported by enough peer reviewed clinical study.
If you make a claim, it's not unusual for people who question it to ask for a link. Correct response would be to provide it for them since it's you making the claim and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. And most open minded people will read it. For many, it helps educationally.Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
sounds like it would be pointless directing you to the 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's all in the public domain so anyone who's serious about learning and not just digging out info that fits their preferred bias can easily find the data. Historically I've found forwarding data on only to prove a point when already met with resistance is futile as the data still usually won't sway the minds of people who already have their minds made up... I've just found it to be an exercise in futility and a waste of time. But if people are open to concepts that are currently foreign to them, they will do the research... just my experience over a long time in this field.
But hold on 2 mins & I'll dig one of the most commonly referred to studies out.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You would think as a trainer, you'd learn more from being in the field itself.
To me its not mutually exclusive but rather a feedback loop. Studies should be a basis for application and test the applicability to real world conditions. But i learn from both working with people and research. This way you stay on top of the newest research and not making blanket statements that everyone should follow thr same plan.3 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links! I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.2 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links! I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.
Dont stress it too much. While its not too much of a surprise that you wont gain as much strength there could still be equal benefit. You might find the below interesting.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/
0 -
This isn't that controversial, folks.
To get bigger, you have to get stronger. It's inevitable. People are reading to much into this I think.3 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.0 -
While I've already seen this link, it's great for others who lurk on the boards to see it. Thanks.For example, one of the most commonly referred to studies published back in 2013 ago separated 33 physically active, resistance-trained men into two groups: (which has been replicated tons & tons of times)
(link to study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562558/)
A high-volume, moderate-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 10 to 12 rep range (70% of 1RM).
A moderate-volume, high-intensity group that did 4 workouts per week consisting of 4 sets per exercise in the 3 to 5 rep range (90% of 1RM).
Both groups did the same exercises (which included the bench press, back squat, deadlift, and seated shoulder press), and both were instructed to maintain their normal eating habits (which was monitored with food diaries).
The result:
After 8 weeks of training, scientists found that the high-intensity group gained significantly more muscle and strength than the high-volume group.
It’s no surprise that the high-intensity group gained more strength, but many people wouldn’t have expected them to gain more muscle as well.
Researchers cite two main reasons for why the heavier training beat out the lighter:
1. Higher amounts of mechanical stress imposed on the muscles.
2. Greater activation of muscle fibers.
And this, in turn, results in a greater adaptation across a larger percentage of the muscle tissue.
My point is, you have to get STRONGER in whatever rep range you'e using. Be it 3-5, 8-10, 12-15 etc etc in order to get bigger.
Lifting the same weight year in year out whilst only increasing your caloric intake will not yield the continuous building of new muscle tissue.. physical progression has to occur (Strength in various different terms, but strength none the less)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I lurk here and like links! I plan to start a bulk soon so I always hope there is an interesting conversation going on!
I really prefer volume over intensity. While I am adding weight to the bar it is really slow going. I am in my 40's and injury is a big fear of mine - I would rather have a slower rate of change in muscle mass and not get hurt vs pushing myself to hard and getting hurt.
Dont stress it too much. While its not too much of a surprise that you wont gain as much strength there could still be equal benefit. You might find the below interesting.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-low-versus-high-load-resistance-training-research-review.html/
That is interesting!
"But there are some other considerations: it’s interesting that the low-load group did nearly three times as many repetitions as the heavy-load group. They both did 3 sets so that’s 75-105 repetitions for the low-load group versus 24-36 for the heavy load group. You do a ton more work for the same results.
Adding to that is the fact that very high rep training is miserable and painful. It’s like doing UD2 depletion at every workout. At 3 seconds per repetitions, the set times are 24-36 seconds per set for the heavy load group and 75-105 seconds (1:15-1:45) per set.
75-105 seconds is smack in the middle of anaerobic glycolysis and the amount of acidosis generated makes these types of sets just painful as all hell (in private correspondence Brad told me that about half of the subjects in the low-load condition threw up and that’s common with this type of work)."
I probably fall somewhere in the middle. I am not lifting heavy or light - except my squat is pretty pathetic. I spend most of my working day on my feet and my knees will only take so much weight! For fun I might have to try a few sets of low-load in a surplus to see if it is that taxing!1 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Not exactly what you're after but a good read of itself.
http://classic.jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129
0 -
Adding:
I would bet a study that tested a varied program with strength and Hypertrophy incorporated would fair better than either Hypertrophy or strength in the singular form.
Hi mate,
I think the majority of people are misunderstanding my point... even a hypertrophy based routine is based on strength increase/progression via either volume (total tonnage) or direct tonnage (weight on the bar).. both of these are progression in strength.
I'm not saying you have to powerlift to get bigger, I'm saying you HAVE to get stronger regardless of whatever training routine you're using. Hope that makes sense? 0 -
Be me, a body composition expert (on paper & in practice with experience through myself & clients for over 13 years) give free advice MFP forum to be nice & get told how you're wrong. lolI did a strength program during my bulk and added no lean mass, just fat mass, during that period. In the hypertrophy periods before and after the strength program I added lean mass.
You can follow a traditional bodybuilding program and still add weight to the bar. You can also follow a powerlifting program and make little to no progress.
The secret to building muscle is adequate calories and progressive overload, which doesn't necessarily come from adding strength.
yep, progressive overload = getting sronger either through sheer amount of volume which add's to the tonnage and/or go direct to the actual tonnage.. whichever your prefer.
But when comparing the two, all the current data shows that directly adding tonnage via weight over tonnage via volume is vastly superior to adding new tissue, that's now factual on the training science world.
Not suggesting a power lifting routine, just saying that without getting stronger, you will not get bigger as a natural.
EG: if you've progressed from 100kg x 5reps on a squat to 100kg x 7 reps on a squat, that's still classed as getting stronger & adds to the overall tonnage
The other way is going directly via the weight such as from 100kg x5 to 130kg x5
Both are increases in strength, but the latter is now proven to be superior for gaining new lean tissue.
You have a link to this data?
There's litterally 100's of papers & studies on this conducted by the worlds leading exercise scientists. It's all free & in the open/public domain.
But you do realize, that if you consider yourself an expert, you should be able to address the specific questions of the end user. Telling them to research the likes of Alan Aragon, Eric Helms and Lyle, means you are just regurgitating information.
But to be clear, your advice is, if you get stronger you can increase size?
Completely agree and I did link one of the most refered to studies that has been replicated time and time again...
Im all for providing as much info/data as possible when theres intetest... but when data requests come under the conditional "you're wrong, prove it" mentality... history and experience tells me im only wasting time for the sake of engaging in a futile back and forth in which anything I say or present will not be considered as this person has already made up their mind and closed the door behind them... so I usually leave the "prove it" requests alone.
So, depending on the person asking and the reason I'll then decide if its worth my time digging deeper into things with that person so not to waste my time on a pointless argument..(this is all based on my personal historical experience)
Not necessarily. There are going to be (including my self) newbies or those that are post newbie and definitely beginner lifters, that really want to learn more and not here just for arguments sake and want to debate.
When you started this thread, it caught my attention and I WAS interested.. You clearly state that there's 100's of papers and studies, provide some links. No harm there..
I am definitely not one of those that is wanting you to forward data on only to prove a point, but since you went there, @psulemon and @ninerbuff has a point. Oh yeah, I am definitely not close minded and I can probably speak for a lot o MPF'ers that will skim the threads and read this one.
Yep, like I said... happy to help people who are wanting to know more 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions