ducatisteve Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Has the topic been beaten to death? Absolutely!But it seems there are still new studies being released. Check out this article posted today on LH:http://lifehacker.com/5906947/lifting-light-weights-is-just-as-good-at-building-muscle-as-heavy-weights 2/13/12 Starting Primal and free weights 10/02/12 Starting LeanGains. Still lifting all the things. Fitocracy Link to comment
161803398874989 Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Bicycle. Bench press. Quare? Quod vita mea non tua est. You can call me Phi, Numbers, Sixteen or just plain 161803398874989. Link to comment
bigm141414 Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Muscle hypertrophy != strength. This isn't the first time this article has popped up on the boards. The key take away was that yet, muscle tissue did develop but the strength was greater with those who did the 80% of 1RM set. Also there were several other considerations in the study to note, such as small sample size, duration of trial etc etc. "Pull the bar like you're ripping the head off a god-damned lion" - Donny Shankle Link to comment
rtalencar Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 "We found that loads that were quite heavy and comparatively light were equally effective at inducing muscle growth and promoting strength""After 10 weeks of training, three times per week, the heavy and light groups that lifted three sets saw significant gains in muscle volume -- as measured by MRI -- with no difference among the groups. Still, the group that used heavier weights for three sets developed a bit more strength."Lol IDDQD [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Current Challenge Race: MALIETOA Class: WARRIOR STR: 4 | DEX: 1 | STA: 1 | CON: 3 | WIS: 2 | CHA: 4 Link to comment
bigm141414 Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 "a bit more strength" is a vague qualifier. "Pull the bar like you're ripping the head off a god-damned lion" - Donny Shankle Link to comment
rtalencar Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 "a bit more strength" is a vague qualifier.It definitely increases their ethos and does NOT make me think they grudgingly added that in since it didn't jive with the results they wanted to post. IDDQD [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Current Challenge Race: MALIETOA Class: WARRIOR STR: 4 | DEX: 1 | STA: 1 | CON: 3 | WIS: 2 | CHA: 4 Link to comment
aj_rock Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 IIRC, that study proved that doing high volumes of quad isolation work builds more muscle mass than high intensity. Applies to quads only, as they only tested quads. This does not mean doing 1000 push-ups every day will give you a huge chest. Why must I put a name on the foods I choose to eat and how I choose to eat them? Rather than tell people that I eat according to someone else's arbitrary rules, I'd rather just tell them, I eat healthy. And no, my diet does not have a name.My daily battle log! Link to comment
ducatisteve Posted May 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 IIRC, that study proved that doing high volumes of quad isolation work builds more muscle mass than high intensity. Applies to quads only, as they only tested quads. This does not mean doing 1000 push-ups every day will give you a huge chest.Le sigh....I'll scale back to 900/day then.... 2/13/12 Starting Primal and free weights 10/02/12 Starting LeanGains. Still lifting all the things. Fitocracy Link to comment
fiftiesdean Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 "We found that loads that were quite heavy and comparatively light were equally effective at inducing muscle growth and promoting strength""After 10 weeks of training, three times per week, the heavy and light groups that lifted three sets saw significant gains in muscle volume -- as measured by MRI -- with no difference among the groups. Still, the group that used heavier weights for three sets developed a bit more strength."LolOther than the unscientific "a bit more strength", there's not much wrong with them making this statement if they have supporting evidence. I read these two statements as both heavy and light loads induced muscle growth and promoted strength; the group that lifted heavier loads developer more strength than the group that lifted lighter loads. Also, the article on Science Daily (which is summarized by Lifehacker) is a summary of the actual research article. I would like to read the entire article, but I don't want to pay for a subscription to Journal of Applied Physiology. The link for abstract can be found at the bottom of the Science Daily article. My FitocracyPrimal PittsburghI changed my way of doing things back in February. so far. so good. Link to comment
Oklibrarian Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Other than the unscientific "a bit more strength", there's not much wrong with them making this statement if they have supporting evidence. I read these two statements as both heavy and light loads induced muscle growth and promoted strength; the group that lifted heavier loads developer more strength than the group that lifted lighter loads. Also, the article on Science Daily (which is summarized by Lifehacker) is a summary of the actual research article. I would like to read the entire article, but I don't want to pay for a subscription to Journal of Applied Physiology. The link for abstract can be found at the bottom of the Science Daily article.Check your local library's website whenever those bloodsucking leeches, er, scholarly publishers want you to pay $49.95 for a 6 page journal article. Best case scenario they'll have it in a database you can access from home, worst case you can email the library and score a (probably pdf) copy via ILL. Hobbit RangerCurrent Challenge threadDúnedain Team ThreadCheck out my Musings on Fandom, Life, and the connections between the two at Fandom LensesLEVEL: 2 | STR 2 | DEX 2 | STA 2 | CON 4 | WIS 9 (+5 from Year of Our WTF) | CHA 5 (+3 from Year of Our WTF)Tu, was du willst (Do What You Wish)The Neverending Story, Michael EndeMy 2013 Challenge #1 is dedicated to Melissa Montag, 1975-2012. I Love you AnissaSis! :-) Link to comment
notanartmajor Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 The shame is that the experienced who wish to be stronger will know better and ignore this, but the inexperienced who wish to be stronger will be mislead and waste their time bodybuilding. Link to comment
joeyb Posted May 2, 2012 Report Share Posted May 2, 2012 Other than the unscientific "a bit more strength", there's not much wrong with them making this statement if they have supporting evidence. I read these two statements as both heavy and light loads induced muscle growth and promoted strength; the group that lifted heavier loads developer more strength than the group that lifted lighter loads. Also, the article on Science Daily (which is summarized by Lifehacker) is a summary of the actual research article. I would like to read the entire article, but I don't want to pay for a subscription to Journal of Applied Physiology. The link for abstract can be found at the bottom of the Science Daily article.The study was trying to prove that working at lighter weights is as effective as working with heavier weights in building strength. When they say both "promote strength", they mean that the muscle grew, so the muscle can theoretically support more weight. The second sentence means that using lighter weights is not as effective in building strength. Basically, they found something but it wasn't what they were hoping for, so they use vague wording to make it seem like a QED. Marsupial Assassin - LVL 3STR 10 || DEX 3 || STA 5 || CON 8 || WIS 11 || CHA 7Fitocracy || MyFitnessPal Link to comment
Zorch Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Muscle hypertrophy != strength.This. To quote a summary article linked from the first link,After 10 weeks of training, three times per week, the heavy and light groups that lifted three sets saw significant gains in muscle volume -- as measured by MRI -- with no difference among the groups. Still, the group that used heavier weights for three sets developed a bit more strength.So yes, high rep/low weight works well if mass gain and more modest strength gains are the primary goals. As far as developing raw strength and explosive power, lower-rep, higher-resistance work is still important. "Restlessness is discontent - and discontent is the first necessity of progress. Show me a thoroughly satisfied man-and I will show you a failure." -Thomas Edison Link to comment
fiftiesdean Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think I may actually check out the research article (thanks for the idea, Oklibrarian) My FitocracyPrimal PittsburghI changed my way of doing things back in February. so far. so good. Link to comment
Oklibrarian Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 No problem, I'm here to help. Hobbit RangerCurrent Challenge threadDúnedain Team ThreadCheck out my Musings on Fandom, Life, and the connections between the two at Fandom LensesLEVEL: 2 | STR 2 | DEX 2 | STA 2 | CON 4 | WIS 9 (+5 from Year of Our WTF) | CHA 5 (+3 from Year of Our WTF)Tu, was du willst (Do What You Wish)The Neverending Story, Michael EndeMy 2013 Challenge #1 is dedicated to Melissa Montag, 1975-2012. I Love you AnissaSis! :-) Link to comment
161803398874989 Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Oh, I just thought of this. Since the muscle volume assessment was done with an MRI, I think it highly likely they didn't differentiate between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic volume, so that would account for the difference. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is better (more strength-related). Quare? Quod vita mea non tua est. You can call me Phi, Numbers, Sixteen or just plain 161803398874989. Link to comment
aj_rock Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Well sarcoplasmic hypertrophy has its place. You really shouldn't concentrate on just one to the total exclusion of the other. Why must I put a name on the foods I choose to eat and how I choose to eat them? Rather than tell people that I eat according to someone else's arbitrary rules, I'd rather just tell them, I eat healthy. And no, my diet does not have a name.My daily battle log! Link to comment
joeyb Posted May 3, 2012 Report Share Posted May 3, 2012 Oh, I just thought of this. Since the muscle volume assessment was done with an MRI, I think it highly likely they didn't differentiate between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic volume, so that would account for the difference. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is better (more strength-related).They mention protein synthesis quite a few times, so they might be focusing on Myofibrillar. Marsupial Assassin - LVL 3STR 10 || DEX 3 || STA 5 || CON 8 || WIS 11 || CHA 7Fitocracy || MyFitnessPal Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.