Studies

[Philosopherking]

I was at the gym warming up the other day on the elliptical (at 24hr fitness).  On the 24 hr tv they like to post advice and such.  One screen claimed that a recent study showed that there was no difference in muscle mass gained by lifters who used light weights and high reps vs heavier low weight programs, provided that the lifters lifted until complete muscle fatigue.   Now I didn't read the study and the screen didn't elaborate on things like the experience of the traineeship any other factors.  I just thought it was interesting and figured I would see if anyone has heard this, experienced gains with low weight work? 

[FLEX]

How long did they do the study for?

Seems to me on newbs that might be right, but I think over time a person that lifts heavier will build more muscle overall.

Just my bro-science opinion...

[BLK00TJ]

Nobody give a shit about a 20 rep max.  That being said, I'd rather lift heavy stuff.  One day maybe I will.

[Get-n-fit]

That's pure crap made by some pussy justifying his inability to lift heavy

[induced_drag]

There are not set in stone rules, but generally speaking, higher rep/volume training leads to more adaptation of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.  (where the cell can hold more fluid / glycogen).

Myofibril hypertrophy, where actual new muscle cells are created, is generally associated with working 3-12 reps (failure not required).


Again, you wont experience just one type of muscle growth with a certain program, but lifting 'heavy'  (heavy defined as beginning at 80%+ you 1rm) is generally thought to be the best path towards hypertrophy in general.   

An untrained individual will see progress with 100rep sets of leg extensions for the first 6 months, but if he does it for 5 years, he will never have the quads of the same guy that works up to a 500lb squat over that same time.

[itsagoodday]

I seem to remember hearing something about this study before, but of course I can't find it 

I did find this article by Greg Nuckols, where he reviews the results of 20 studies done on the subject (and also links to the original studies).  Ton of info here, so I'm just scanning.  I'm gathering that the takeaway is that you'll get strength from higher rep ranges and hypertrophy from lower rep ranges, that the lines aren't as clearly defined as some would think and in the end, results can be pretty similar.  What really matters though is that you find a rep range that allows you do your best hard work, and that varies by person.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

[induced_drag]

I believe there is a flaw in those studies though.  NONE of them are looking at growth over a 3,4,5 or 10 year period.

Sure one can stimulate initial growth all kinds of ways, but I grantee you lifting 60% of 1rm is not going to get you anywhere (naturally) 3 years into training.   There is a real difference in tension and working out in a fatigued state and straining, is NOT the same as actually struggling against real weight nor is the stimulation the same.

I will take my lifetime of experience, and I have never seen a huge guy that was not VERY strong (unless they relied on super supplements).   There is a direct relationship in nature of strength and cross sectional area of muscle tissue.  It is undeniable.

Sometimes what can be proven by a 'study' has to be taken with some common sense.  I'll take my gut call on this one over studies any day.  I recommend people train 5-12 reps heavy.   KISS.   Save the drop sets and 100 rep curls for a novelty item if you are bored.   

[itsagoodday]

I'll take your word for it, I just skimmed and wasn't looking at things like timing of the studies.  What you're saying makes sense.  Are you aware of any studies that have been done over longer time frames though, just out of curiosity???

[Philosopherking]

I have no idea how long the study was for and I never saw the actual study, just a cherry pick of the results.   I will add though that when I switched to heavier lifting schemes, I grew faster than I did when I was younger and varied things more.  My thinking was they used newbs in the study, but I have no science behind that.  I can also attest that my spur in muscle growth came with a spur in body fat so there's that too.  But I enjoy low rep work and it keeps me entertained, so I keep the high rep stuff for when my joints get angry.

[Merkley]

To me that sounds rather familiar, the whole Bodybuilding vs Powerlifting and which is better.


 To me, use both.

 Volume and strength go hand in hand. But using only a single item is very limiting as far as growth is concerned.

 This is when building a proper mesocycle/macocycle come into play.

 Don't forget even if you utilize both, your training will be limited if your nutrition is fuckered.

 ...these studies tend to piss me off, too many agenda's and too little of being impartial.