High weight/low reps vs low weight/high reps

[maegs]

This is from a news article on my university's website. There seems to be some contradiction in the article, first it says both are equal for growth & strength, then later it says that they're equal for increasing muscle volume, but that high weight/low reps is a bit better at building strength. I did think the point made about people being less intimidated by low weights/high reps was a good one, since being told that they can do lighter weights and still benefit might make them more likely to exercise. Thoughts?

You can bulk up by lifting less weight, researchers say

Lifting less weight more times is just as effective at building muscle as training with heavy weights - a finding by McMaster researchers that turns conventional wisdom on its head.

The key to muscle gain, say the researchers, is working to the point of fatigue.

"We found that loads that were quite heavy and comparatively light were equally effective at inducing muscle growth and promoting strength," said Cam Mitchell, one of the lead authors of the study and a PhD candidate in the Department of Kinesiology.

The research, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, challenges the widely accepted dogma that training with heavy weights - which can be lifted only six to 12 times before fatigue - is the best avenue to muscle growth.

"Many older adults can have joint problems which would prevent them training with heavy loads," said Mitchell. "This study shows that they have the option of training with lighter and less intimidating loads and can still receive the benefits."

For the study, a series of experiments were conducted on healthy, young male volunteers to measure how their leg muscles reacted to different forms of resistance training over a period of 10 weeks.

The researchers first determined the maximum weight each subject could lift one time in a knee extension. Each subject was assigned to a different training program for each leg.

In all, three different programs were used in combinations that required the volunteers to complete sets of as many repetitions as possible with their assigned loads - typically 8 to 12 times per set at the heaviest weights and 25-30 times at the lowest weights.

The three programs used in the combinations were:

- one set at 80% of the maximum load

- three sets at 80% of the maximum

- three sets at 30% of the maximum

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.

The group that trained for a single set showed approximately half the increase in muscle size seen in both the heavy and light groups.

"The complexity of current resistance training guidelines may deter some people from resistance training and therefore from receiving the associated health benefits," said Stuart Phillips, a professor in the Department of Kinesiology and supervisor of the study. "Our study provides evidence for a simpler paradigm, where a much broader range of loads including quite light loads can induce muscle growth, provided it is lifted to the point where it is difficult to maintain good form."

[bigm141414]

Yeah this study has been posted before and the main takeaways should be:

1) Limited number of subjects.

2) Muscle size does not equal strength.

3) Low rep High weight scheme is best for strength gains (which we all know)

4) The qualifier "a bit more" is deceiving and was thrown in because the results were not what the author expected since they were looking for muscle growth.

5) The size of your muscle does not mean you are strong. (worth saying again)

[Waldo]

They proved the existence of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, something that at this point is pretty much common knowledge.

However the bodybuilding world is far ahead of this, figuring out the caveat as well, that these gains are limited if they are not also accompanied by strength gains. You need to do both. This study was not long term enough to find this out. A person that waivers back and forth between the two modes of training in a thought out periodized way will outgain people focusing on one of the two size-wise over time.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy = ability to do work. Big mucles from low reps will be strong, but not able to do much work (great for picking up a fridge, not so great for spending a day moving). Big muscles from high reps won't be as strong (strength is still needed to a degree for that whole big part), but will have a much higher work capacity (might not be able to lift the fridge, but can just keep going and going and going all day). In weight room terms, big muscles from sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will be able to do a hideous number of reps and sets, and would be extremely efficient at removing lactic acid buildup.

It is probably different for noobs with no work capacity, but training for this type of hypertrophy is a good bit harder than strength alone, the volume required is so much greater.

[Tola Seng]

Great points made by bigm and waldo,

Let me just add to that and simplify a bit more:

All types of training are beneficial. Your body responds to stimulus (whether high reps/low reps heavy/light). The more different types of "stimulus" you can expose your muscles to, the greater it forces it to response to and adapt and thus grow. Stimulus = muscle response = growth (whether strength or size).

In the bigger scheme of things - who cares what's more effective? As long as you incorporate different methods and variety, you'll be fine.

People love to debate details and miss the point. The point is to just do work - any work. The only non-beneficial training is the one that you don't do.

Let's not look at the trees and forget about the forest.

--Tola