Low Weight High Rep = High Weight Low Rep?

[ducatisteve]

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

[161803398874989]

Bicycle. Bench press.

[bigm141414]

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.

[rtalencar]

"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

[bigm141414]

"a bit more strength" is a vague qualifier.

[rtalencar]

"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.

[aj_rock]

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.

[ducatisteve]

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....

[fiftiesdean]

"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

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.

[Oklibrarian]

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.

[notanartmajor]

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.

[joeyb]

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.

[Zorch]

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.

[fiftiesdean]

I think I may actually check out the research article (thanks for the idea, Oklibrarian)

[Oklibrarian]

No problem, I'm here to help.

[161803398874989]

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).

[aj_rock]

Well sarcoplasmic hypertrophy has its place. You really shouldn't concentrate on just one to the total exclusion of the other.

[joeyb]

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.