Bodybuilding Forum People That Dont Lift Think Getting Big is Easy

08-12-2010, 04:04 AM

ScienceDaily (Aug. 12, 2010) � Current gym dogma holds that to build muscle size you need to lift heavy weights. However, a new study conducted at McMaster University has shown that a similar degree of muscle building can be achieved by using lighter weights. The secret is to pump iron until you reach muscle fatigue.

The findings are published in PLoS ONE.

"Rather than grunting and straining to lift heavy weights, you can grab something much lighter but you have to lift it until you can't lift it anymore," says Stuart Phillips, associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster University. "We're convinced that growing muscle means stimulating your muscle to make new muscle proteins, a process in the body that over time accumulates into bigger muscles."

Phillips praised lead author and senior Ph.D. student Nicholas Burd for masterminding the project that showed it's really not the weight that you lift but the fact that you get muscular fatigue that's the critical point in building muscle. The study used light weights that represented a percentage of what the subjects could lift. The heavier weights were set to 90% of a person's best lift and the light weights at a mere 30% of what people could lift. "It's a very light weight," says Phillips noting that the 90-80% range is usually something people can lift from 5-10 times before fatigue sets in. At 30%, Burd reported that subjects could lift that weight at least 24 times before they felt fatigue.

"We're excited to see where this new paradigm will lead," says Phillips, adding that these new data have practical significance for gym enthusiasts but more importantly for people with compromised skeletal muscle mass, such as the elderly, patients with cancer, or those who are recovering from trauma, surgery or even stroke.

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0811125943.htm

The study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0012033

Thoughts?

08-12-2010, 04:14 AM

with muscle fatigue what do they mean? til failure? til u feel a burn?

08-12-2010, 04:17 AM

well i dont know but almost all my muscles i gained threw boxing

08-12-2010, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by sumchilldude View Post

with muscle fatigue what do they mean? til failure? til u feel a burn?

I assume they mean to failure. They are suggesting that lifting a light weight to failure is as effective as lifting heavy. Generally that's not what people do to gain bulk. Of course, it could also be seen to be inconvenient too (for example, why lift a weight 30 times, when you can get the same effect when lifting a heavier weight for, say 6 reps - unless there is an injury issue). I'm just wondering if people actually think that there may be some truth to the actual research or not.

08-12-2010, 04:37 AM

this cant be true, which is why people who do 100's of push ups and crunches and pull ups etc never become big. It is also the reason why marathon runners aren't big. Im sure in both cases the person feels one hell of a burn and they feel completely fatigued afterward, but they dont gain size out of it (or very little noob gains)

08-12-2010, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by jamie93 View Post

this cant be true, which is why people who do 100's of push ups and crunches and pull ups etc never become big. It is also the reason why marathon runners aren't big. Im sure in both cases the person feels one hell of a burn and they feel completely fatigued afterward, but they dont gain size out of it (or very little noob gains)

What do marathon runners have anything to do with that study? They don't train to gain size, they train for endurance. Compare them to a study on cardio. Apples to oranges.

08-12-2010, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by jamie93 View Post

this cant be true, which is why people who do 100's of push ups and crunches and pull ups etc never become big. It is also the reason why marathon runners aren't big. Im sure in both cases the person feels one hell of a burn and they feel completely fatigued afterward, but they dont gain size out of it (or very little noob gains)

Yes, that was a thought I had, that maybe the study was carried out using unfit individuals, in which case you'd expect to see decent gains no matter what type of routine they did. I haven't had a chance to read through the actual study yet, so maybe that will provide more information.

The marathon example was the first thing I considered too, though it benefits marathon runners to be slim, so their diet is ordered accordingly. So running long distances is basically similiar to not eating enough to grow, then lifting very light weights and not to exhaustion.

The push up example is a better one. If a person had a calorie surplus and did pressups to exhaustion every couple of days I wonder how their chest would develop. If they reached a point where it was inconvenient to do push ups to exhaustion (if they could do a few hundred in a row), they would have to up the weight somehow anyway (weighted vest etc).

Maybe instead of extremes we could think of an example where a person lifts a heavy weight 6 times (to exhaustion), or a lighter weight 15 times (to exhaustion). According to this study you'd expect them to have similiar results. This seems to go against much of what many people believe. Of course it could be that the study is flawed in some fundamental way.

08-12-2010, 05:19 AM

Both muscular fatigue AND heavy weights are important.

It would be nice if people stopped always trying to make things so black and white.

Relying on studies to dictate your training is a good way to get nowhere fast.

08-12-2010, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by thickasabrick View Post

both muscular fatigue and heavy weights are important.

It would be nice if people stopped always trying to make things so black and white.

Relying on studies to dictate your training is a good way to get nowhere fast.

this.

08-12-2010, 05:46 AM

Here's the result from the study:

Methodology/Principal Findings

Fifteen men (21�1 years; BMI = 24.1�0.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90%FAIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of [ring-13C6] phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. There was a significant increase in AktSer473 at 24h in all conditions (P = 0.023) and mTORSer2448 phosphorylation at 4 h post-exercise (P = 0.025). Phosporylation of Erk1/2Tyr202/204, p70S6KThr389, and 4E-BP1Thr37/46 increased significantly (P<0.05) only in the 30FAIL condition at 4 h post-exercise, whereas, 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%) conditions. Pax7 mRNA expression increased at 24 h post-exercise (P = 0.02) regardless of condition. The mRNA expression of MyoD and myogenin were consistently elevated in the 30FAIL condition.

Conclusions/Significance

These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.

First, they chose subjects that are all relatively the same age, height, weight and BMI. Hardly a diverse study population, so based in this, it's difficult to expand the results of this study to people of different age, weight, etc. It also make no indication of their prior training or fitness levels, either.

Second, they based the results on not only single-leg leg extensions, but also only after 4 sets. Most of us know damn well that 4 sets of single-leg isolation movements do not build muscle; compound movements like the squat, deadlift and bench do a substantially better job of building muscle.

Third, the measurements are not only based on protein synthesis, but also only 4 and 24 hours after exercise. What about actually measuring the subjects' legs to see an actual physical increase in muscle size?

Finally, nowhere in the study does it mention the nutritional intake, particularly protein consumption anywhere in the study. This is also baffling, since we all know that diet and nutrition will serve as the difference between success and failure when it comes to fitness, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss, increased muscle mass or increased strength.

08-12-2010, 05:49 AM

Yea good luck making any strength gains doing that. We lift heavy weights to gain strength as well. Lifting light weights till failure does absolutely nothing for strength.

08-12-2010, 06:09 AM

Thanks for your detailed contribution, Mayor West.

08-12-2010, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by stateless View Post

Several ways to skin a cat, this is not new information but you also might want to read the entire study. I highly doubt this was performed on people with the same or similar goals of most of the people who visit these forums. Heavy weight on machines vs lighter weights more volume on machines adding a few lbs is not generally what people who visit this website are after.

08-12-2010, 06:33 AM

numerous confounding variables and overall laughable to draw such a conclusion given the complex and adaptive process of hypertrophy. just more evidence of kinesiology being a field dominated by people who do not lift weights and see things only in terms of textbooks and small-scale studies with homologous sample sizes.

08-12-2010, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Retardo-pex View Post

Several ways to skin a cat, this is not new information

Pretty much this. All that study is showing is that you can stimulate muscle growth by lifting with lighter weights. That is pretty much obvious. There are 1000 ways to do that. It is just like all these threads about "my program" vs. a proven beginners program. Sure you can grow and put on size by making up your own program that doesn't have much rhyme or reason, but there are much more effective ways to go about it.

08-12-2010, 07:10 AM

I'm now pictureing a workuot based around four sets at 30% of max that would be what? 30-40 reps per set?

Next week the ten beginer program:

15 exercises x 4 sets x 40 reps = 2400 reps per workout

Can you say "carpal tunnel" and "joint damage"?

I knew you could!!!

08-12-2010, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by stateless View Post

Our largest threshold fibers can be recruited by heavy weight (over 85%) OR via use of the size principle, by using a lighter weight and lifting to fatigue/or close to.

Strength coaches don't understand this, bodybuilders do.

out.

08-12-2010, 07:13 AM

Wait.

High reps, low weight = size
Low reps, high weight = strength

The article says low weight, high reps, more size. Why is this news?

(Though I heartily disagree that doing 30% 1 RM until failure will result in any significant, long term size gains.)

As to the actual study:

All sets were to failure.
Did not mention the "fitness" of those studied; we have no idea at what stage of muscular development they were. They all had BMI of 24. First of all BMI is crap. How much of that BMI was muscle, how much was fat? How did they assign who did what reps? Did the chubby guys get the 90% reps and the leaner guys get the high reps? Vice versa?

08-12-2010, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Mayor_West View Post

Here's the result from the study:

First, they chose subjects that are all relatively the same age, height, weight and BMI. Hardly a diverse study population, so based in this, it's difficult to expand the results of this study to people of different age, weight, etc. It also make no indication of their prior training or fitness levels, either.

Second, they based the results on not only single-leg leg extensions, but also only after 4 sets. Most of us know damn well that 4 sets of single-leg isolation movements do not build muscle; compound movements like the squat, deadlift and bench do a substantially better job of building muscle.

Third, the measurements are not only based on protein synthesis, but also only 4 and 24 hours after exercise. What about actually measuring the subjects' legs to see an actual physical increase in muscle size?

Finally, nowhere in the study does it mention the nutritional intake, particularly protein consumption anywhere in the study. This is also baffling, since we all know that diet and nutrition will serve as the difference between success and failure when it comes to fitness, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss, increased muscle mass or increased strength.

Pretty much this. Great post. The study also left out, or failed to clarify, some important information:

Originally Posted by Study

To minimize neuromuscular-based gains in strength and to increase the reliability of the strength measurement we chose to study individuals who were familiar with lower body exercise.

This sentence is really important but is vague. I guess by "neuromuscular adaptation" they mean the rapid rate of innervation and thus rapidly increased muscular fiber recruitment that comes when an unadapted novice starts training. That's what allows them to add weight to their lifts very quickly. That's not a matter of "familiarity" or time, but absolute performance. Because they said "familiarity" I'm guessing that they mean improved lifts that result from technique improvement, which is strange because the leg extension machine is a very simple single-joint motion which doesn't have a lot of room for error, and improvement in lifts due to technique improvement is usually associated with mechanically complex exercises like the squat, C&J, snatch etc.

The bottom line is, I don't think a study which took 15 healthy young male volunteers and studied post-workout protein synthesis induced by differing rep ranges on a leg press machine in the 24 hour post-workout period is a very reliable or useful study as to the differening effects of rep ranges and % intensity on muscle growth over extended periods of time, since that's what really matters. This article has a much better explanation of why certain rep ranges are optimal for strength gains and/or hypertrophy gains:

http://www.wackyhq.com/madcow5x5/geo...ing_Primer.htm

08-12-2010, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Mayor_West View Post

Here's the result from the study:

First, they chose subjects that are all relatively the same age, height, weight and BMI. Hardly a diverse study population, so based in this, it's difficult to expand the results of this study to people of different age, weight, etc. It also make no indication of their prior training or fitness levels, either.

Second, they based the results on not only single-leg leg extensions, but also only after 4 sets. Most of us know damn well that 4 sets of single-leg isolation movements do not build muscle; compound movements like the squat, deadlift and bench do a substantially better job of building muscle.

Third, the measurements are not only based on protein synthesis, but also only 4 and 24 hours after exercise. What about actually measuring the subjects' legs to see an actual physical increase in muscle size?

Finally, nowhere in the study does it mention the nutritional intake, particularly protein consumption anywhere in the study. This is also baffling, since we all know that diet and nutrition will serve as the difference between success and failure when it comes to fitness, regardless of whether your goal is fat loss, increased muscle mass or increased strength.

Whatever... you have the science in front of you. I am switching my entire routine to unilateral leg extensions with 30% 1 RM and am going to get huge because of that study.

08-12-2010, 07:26 AM

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

Unless this study was based on people who already weight train, it really has no merit.

Anyone who doesn't weight train can pump their muscles with high reps and gain through sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

I want this guy training me in the gym.

08-12-2010, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by stateless View Post

My thoughts? That "study" is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Carry on.

08-12-2010, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by ko300zx View Post

What do marathon runners have anything to do with that study? They don't train to gain size, they train for endurance. Compare them to a study on cardio. Apples to oranges.

because that's exactly what lifting light weights is, training for muscular endurance.

08-12-2010, 08:30 AM

Somehow "SOME DUMB GUY" must be related to this thread.

Here's my feeling....

If you think lifting heavy weights isn't required to build muscle, then don't lift heavy weights and see how that works out for you ( for me, been there, done that, it's not true for me).

08-12-2010, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by BoutMine View Post

because that's exactly what lifting light weights is, training for muscular endurance.

The study says lifting light weight = size gains. It has nothing to do with endurance. If the study said, lifting light weight increases muscular endurance, the analogy might make more sense, but it doesn't. It says

"Current gym dogma holds that to build muscle size you need to lift heavy weights. However, a new study conducted at McMaster University has shown that a similar degree of muscle building can be achieved by using lighter weights."

Marathon runners, bikers, whatever, are not training to gain size. I would be surprised if you could find me a marathon runner who's goal is to get bigger for better performance in these marathons.

08-12-2010, 08:40 AM

To be blunt, this study is total B*llsh*t.
I saw it posted in another thread and started laughing after reading it.

I would love to see real results of someone who does sets of 24 reps and has created any significant & long lasting true muscle hypertrophy.

08-12-2010, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post

It would be nice if people stopped always trying to make things so black and white.

Amen.

"Low reps for bulk, high reps for toning..."
"If you do more than xxx sets for body part yyy, it's overtraining brah..."

The list goes on ad nauseum...

08-12-2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by r_graz View Post

Originally Posted by ThickAsABrick View Post

It would be nice if people stopped always trying to make things so black and white.

Amen.

"Low reps for bulk, high reps for toning..."
"If you do more than xxx sets for body part yyy, it's overtraining brah..."

The list goes on ad nauseum...

Not that it really matters, but personally that article is not an example of making something black and white, it's an example of muddying the waters ( like Some Dumb Guy does ), its crapy research and the author must have had some sort of personal/hidden agenda. Personally I think making it black and white, ie saying this... "Thou must lift heavy weight to build muscle" would benefit people on this forum much more than posting this stupid "research" that just confuses people ( and eventually causes some of them them to move away from what really works ).

08-12-2010, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by bigtallox View Post

Not that it really matters, but personally that article is not an example of making something black and white, it's an example of muddying the waters ( like Some Dumb Guy does ), its crapy research and the author must have had some sort of personal/hidden agenda. Personally I think making it black and white, ie saying this... "Thou must lift heavy weight to build muscle" would benefit people on this forum much more than posting this stupid "research" that just confuses people ( and eventually causes some of them them to move away from what really works ).

I posted this because it made it onto the front page of a number of popular science sites today. It's worth discussing if only for people to pick holes in the actual methods used, just to say it's crap because X,Y,Z. We're only where we are today in terms of understanding in any field due to a mass of research, some of which is more helpful than others. There's no censorship here, so no need to take exception to things being posted. If it offends you, that's really not my problem.

08-12-2010, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Engineer_Guy View Post

Yea good luck making any strength gains doing that. We lift heavy weights to gain strength as well. Lifting light weights till failure does absolutely nothing for strength.

It does absolutely nothing at all except burn more calories as lifting light weights like that for high reps 20+ acts as a form of cardio. You wont gain much muscle if any at all lifting light like that.

Bodybuilding Forum People That Dont Lift Think Getting Big is Easy

Thread: Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows

Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows

Similar Threads

Posting Permissions

0 Response to "Bodybuilding Forum People That Dont Lift Think Getting Big is Easy"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel