Light Weights Build Muscle As Effectively As Heavy Weights?

[KillerGriller]

Hey all, here's an interesting article I lifted from Alex Hutchinson's Sweat Science blog

http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/2012/04/light-weights-build-muscle-as-effectively-as-heavy-weights/ - article link

To build big muscles, you need to lift heavy weights -- right? Actually, research by Stuart Phillips and his group at McMaster University back in 2010 raised questions about that common assumption (

I wrote about it here

). The study compared subjects lifting weights at 90% of one-rep-max (1RM) with subjects lifting weights at just 30% of 1RM, and found that the rate of muscle-protein synthesis depended only on whether they lifted to near-failure, not on how heavy the weight was. As I wrote then:

“There are plenty of people who just don’t believe it,†admits kinesiology professor Stuart Phillips, the senior author of the paper, which appeared in the journal PLoS ONE. [...]

Higher protein synthesis is not the same as bigger biceps, however. Dr. Phillips hopes these initial conclusions will be confirmed by the results of a full-scale training study, in which volunteers lifted light or heavy weights and had their muscle and strength gains measured over time. The results of that study are currently being analyzed.

The new study has now

been published in the Journal of Applied Physiology

. Here's the key graph:

The three groups did:

three sets to fatigue at 30% of 1RM

1 set to failure at 80% of 1RM

three sets to fatigue at 80% of 1RM

As you can see, three sets produced essentially the same gains in muscle size (measured by MRI) with light weights or heavy weights. Traditionally, experts have argued that heavy weights force you to recruit more muscle fibers; but if you lift to fatigue/failure, the researchers argue here, you're eventually going to have to recruit all the fibers you can anyway. It's a different path to the same goal.

There are some important caveats to note. The gain in maximal strength was smaller in the low-weight group, presumably due to differences in neural adaptations: you can only learn to lift heavy weights effectively by lifting heavy weights. For high-performance athletes, certainly, these results aren't going to lead to a sudden shift to three-pound dumbbells. But for the rest of us, these results are worth bearing in mind. If you don't like going to the gym, or you don't have a complete set of high-tech resistance training equipment, or you're traveling, that doesn't mean you can't build muscle effectively. Just lift/push/pull until you can't anymore; rest; and repeat.

Discuss...

[msuroo]

Unfortunately, it's tough to glean much from just following 18 guys for 10 weeks - that's a pretty limited scope study. It's certainly easy to throw up a bar graph based on the results, and say "Hey look! 30% 1RM is as effective as 80% 1RM!" Check out the article that cacodaemonia linked a while ago to see how easily those get skewed though (especially with studies this small in scope).

I'm not saying the idea doesn't have merit - you just can't put too much stock in one small study.

Edit: just double checked, it wasn't even 18 per group - it was 18 total (6 per training group). That's really small - you can really skew the results with 1 or 2 individuals having non-standard results.

[KillerGriller]

absolutely, it's not a definitely study, but some interesting results anyway

[Guest Snake McClain]

i would say that i find some interesting results in my lifting from the same thing. i typically do 4 sets (reverse pyramid style) all to failure. big weight first reps to failure. rest. next set lower weight. reps to failure. and every time i leave the gym it is better and harder on me than when i was doing my 5x5 routine. 5 reps at 5 sets didn't really do it for me except at the very beggining when i started. sometimes i need to do 8 or 10 reps to break me down. if that makes sense. So...yeah. agreed 6 people per group is a totally screwed up study, but the resutls are there and it's quite possible this is an idea that is true.

curious what did they feed them? were they all eating the same? (note i did not read the study)

[joeyb]

Protein synthesis does not lead to big muscles. Those are two different types of hypertrophy. Also, heavier weights recruit more muscle fibers faster, which is where most of your strength gains come from. If you are working more muscle fibers to failure, then you have more muscle to build upon.

The article bounces around between big muscles, protein synthesis, and recruitment so much that I don't think he quite understood findings. That's what it seemed like anyway.

[spatzcat]

i would say that i find some interesting results in my lifting from the same thing. i typically do 4 sets (reverse pyramid style) all to failure. big weight first reps to failure. rest. next set lower weight. reps to failure. and every time i leave the gym it is better and harder on me than when i was doing my 5x5 routine. 5 reps at 5 sets didn't really do it for me except at the very beggining when i started. sometimes i need to do 8 or 10 reps to break me down. if that makes sense. So...yeah. agreed 6 people per group is a totally screwed up study, but the resutls are there and it's quite possible this is an idea that is true.

curious what did they feed them? were they all eating the same? (note i did not read the study)

I'm in the same boat, so to speak....i switched up my routine recently, doing a muscular endurance routine, 4 sets of 20 reps, and it KICKS MY ASS, 100X more than my 5x5 did....but that's just me though.

interesting study.

[aj_rock]

Muscle endurance routines are always gonna 'kick your ass' more because of increased oxygen debt and lactate build up. You want pain? Take your 15RM squat and perform it. You will hate life/me afterwards. Not enough pain? 100 rep drop-set squat. I've heard they use that as torture in Guantanamo.

Anyway, this isn't telling us anything new. Strength training builds strength, not size. This is why you see broz at the gymz doing countless reps on whatever cable machine to try and build muscle mass.

The study is also severely flawed. You will always get less volume of work performing 3 sets to fatigue at 80% than the same amount at 30%, that's what SS calls for 5X5. 5 sets are needed to get a decent amount of volume. Small study size, poor control over variables, yadda yadda yadda.

[Waldo]

I'm in the same boat, so to speak....i switched up my routine recently, doing a muscular endurance routine, 4 sets of 20 reps, and it KICKS MY ASS, 100X more than my 5x5 did....but that's just me though.

interesting study.

After switching to primarily an endurance workout, I don't even feel like I'm working out when I'm doing low rep strength stuff anymore.

Though the DOMS is still stronger from the low rep stuff.

[spatzcat]

Really? I get horrendous doms after the endurance workout. of course, i did just start, so maybe that will improve. I actually don't mind doms though, i know, I must be a freak or something. but the last day of doms, when you can feel the hurt trickling off, I love that feeling.

[Sloth the Enduring]

5X5 isn't the only useful way to lift? Heresy!

I haven't read Starting Strength or Stronglifts, what was wrong with the old standby of 3X10?

[spatzcat]

It is my personal opinion, that there is nothing wrong with anything. I have tried 5x5, 4x20, 3x8, i've switched it up more times that I can recall.

Some wise person on here told me that 90% is showing up.

I get bored, I switch it up. it all works IMO.

[Guest Tigger]

It is my personal opinion, that there is nothing wrong with anything. I have tried 5x5, 4x20, 3x8, i've switched it up more times that I can recall.

Some wise person on here told me that 90% is showing up.

I get bored, I switch it up. it all works IMO.

I'm actually looking to switch it up a lot starting in May I'm exhausted after my normal 5x5 squats, but I still get winded climbing the stairs to class because I haven't done any endurance stuff looking to change that!

[notanartmajor]

Your optimal rep scheme depends on your goals.

[Pat G]

Your optimal rep scheme depends on your goals.

well put.

In regards to that study, it will be interesting to see what the promised further analysis of the results tells this set of researchers. I can understand muscle volume increasing from doing the 30% to fatigue training in "untrained" specimens (there has to be a better term than that). But for someone who is already months or years into strength OR size training... dunno.