In a recent research study(1) a group of researchers set out to explore the impact of lighter weight / higher rep training on muscle mass and function. They designed the study "to compare the adaptive changes in muscle size, contractile strength, and MHC (fiber type) composition evoked by resistance training performed at either low or high contraction intensity (i.e. low or high reps) while equalized for total loading volume"
Specifically, this study compared 10 sets x 36 reps using 15.5% 1RM to 10 sets x 8 reps using 70% 1RM.
The study ran 12 weeks, with 3 workouts each week. The results of the study are quite interesting.
How did the 10x8 program do? It produced a 7.6% increase in muscle size (hypertrophy) and a 35% increase in 1RM (one rep maximum).
Not bad. Not bad at all. And, not in the least bit surprising. Heavy weights and low reps has long been the accepted way to maximize strength and size.
How about the 10x36 reps program? Many would predict that such a "high" rep range would build endurance and, if it didn't cause an outright decline in strength and size, would surely not increase strength and/or size.
Anyone who would predict that would be wrong.
The 10x36 program produced a 19% increase in 1RM and a 2.6% increase in muscle size.
Pretty impressive for a program many would likely call "endurance training".
There are a couple of things to be learned from this study.
First, this study obviously shows that a program consisting exclusively of heavy weight/low reps produces greater increases in strength and size than a program consisting exclusively of lighter weights/higher reps. This isn't any sort of surprise - research over the past 80 years has very consistently shown this same thing.
But, there is more to the story than just heavy weights/low reps wins.
The most glaring point to consider is that "high" reps clearly did increase strength levels significantly (19%) along with size. Remember, standard physiological and training wisdom is that more than 20 reps is endurance training and endurance training will not increase strength and size. A poster stated this belief in another thread and it is a fair representation of the conventional thinking on this matter - "anything beyond 20 reps is high, and not good for strength gains"
Is this the only study that has shown "high" reps increases strength/size? Not by a long shot. There are multiple studies that have shown the same thing. "High" reps do increase strength, just not as much as as lower rep schemes.
There is no getting around the fact that a program of only heavy weights/low reps builds significantly more strength/size than a program of only lighter weight/higher reps. So, if you are trying to decide what reps you should exclusively be doing, pick reps less than 20.
But, this study also clearly shows that that conventional strength/physiology wisdom is inaccurate to some degree. Higher reps do increase strength/size.
There might be some useful training reason in figuring out what that inaccuracy is.
What logical explanation can we come up with to explain these results? By what mechanism could high reps build strength?
Well, the most logical answer is that what conventional strength physiological/training wisdom calls "high" and "endurance" really isn't particularly "high", nor is it "endurance". It appears that "high" and "endurance" start somewhere far beyond 20 reps. Other studies have shown increases in strength with reps up to 150.
What the study didn't reveal is why higher reps built strength/size. Is the physiological mechanism by which strength/size increases with lower reps different than the physiological mechanism by which higher reps do the same thing?
If there are different physiological reasons for how low reps build strength and how higher reps build strength, then it raises a fascinating question.
What if you combined low reps with higher reps? What would the results be? If there are different physiological mechanisms responsible for the increases in strength/size at different reps, would combining different reps result in better results than single rep programs?
Clearly, higher reps do increase strength/size, and if they build strength due to a different mechanism than lower reps, might there be some advantage in combining some lower rep training with higher rep training?
This study doesn't answer the question but another one does.
Reference: Holm L, et al, Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity, Journal of Applied Physiology, Nov 2008, 105:1454-1461
|
Thread: Low reps vs High reps
-
01-17-2009, 06:37 AM #1
Low reps vs High reps
Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 06:39 AM #2
-
01-17-2009, 06:46 AM #3
-
01-17-2009, 07:20 AM #4
-
-
01-17-2009, 07:22 AM #5
If it was shut yesterday then it will be shut today as well.
the point was proven yesterday. There is no reason for a body Builder to do as hi a reps as you are saying.
i'm still curious though. you say this system is so great, yet you do not have a pic of yourself to back it up. hmmmm.
thread/FAIL!!Going to the gym and lifting heavy weights is the easy part. Nutrition. now thats where the hard work starts.
-
01-17-2009, 07:26 AM #6
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10375
Before this thread gets locked,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uufl8l50ctpe5971/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0Last edited by all pro; 01-17-2009 at 07:30 AM.
-
01-17-2009, 08:08 AM #7
Thanks for posting those. I got an error when I clicked on the 2nd link, but the first one worked.
From the first study you linked:
"The mean fibre areas of types I, IIa and IIb increased after the training both in S (p<0.05 and 0.01) and SE (p<0.05 and p<0.01)....
Translation - hypertrophy occurred in both groups, i.e. both the strength and the strength/endurance groups muscles got bigger
"The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training..."
Translation - the results of this study show that endurance training did not interfere with strength and size gains. Those that trained strength and endurance got both bigger and stronger.Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 08:17 AM #8
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10375
The resistance training program addressed both maximal and explosive strength components
AND
However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles.
-
-
01-17-2009, 08:38 AM #9
-
01-17-2009, 09:43 AM #10Originally Posted by richard
The practical application of the results of this study are:
It is not universally true that endurance training interferes with strength/size increases. It is possible to train for strength and endurance without the endurance training slowing/stopping gains in strength and size.
If you are an athlete whose sport requires explosive strength, then endurance training may cause gains in explosive strength to be less.Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 09:54 AM #11
-
01-17-2009, 11:27 AM #12
-
-
01-17-2009, 11:42 AM #13
- Join Date: Mar 2008
- Location: Connecticut, United States
- Age: 45
- Posts: 3,264
- Rep Power: 2312
LOL!
Well sir if you have been following the ongoing debate between Richard99 and various others including AllPro, you would know that AllPro (as well as myself and many others) have already told Richard99 which mistakes he has made but he refuses to listen and avoids the facts. I recommend you go back through the threads that Richard99 has posted in and read the various debates - then come back and start telling ANY of us who have been unsuccessfully trying to get through to him that we need to "show him and not yell at him".
-
01-17-2009, 12:20 PM #14Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.
Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon
NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
POSEIDON
clay@nimbusnutrition.com
-
01-17-2009, 12:22 PM #15However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles.Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.
Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon
NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
POSEIDON
clay@nimbusnutrition.com
-
01-17-2009, 12:42 PM #16
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10375
From this link http://www.springerlink.com/content/uufl8l50ctpe5971/
This is a small part of Richards history.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=108261521
and
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=112773431
Self explanatory.Last edited by all pro; 01-17-2009 at 01:01 PM.
-
-
01-17-2009, 01:02 PM #17
Leonidas300,
Here is pulling it from the abstract of the study he cited.
Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength
The full quote is, "The present data do not support the concept of the universal nature of the interference effect in strength development and muscle hypertrophy when strength training is performed concurrently with endurance training, and the training volume is diluted by a longer period of time with a low frequency of training. However, the present results suggest that even the low-frequency concurrent strength and endurance training leads to interference in explosive strength development mediated in part by the limitations of rapid voluntary neural activation of the trained muscles."
The best I can tell, the link was posted in order to contradict the points I made in this thread. It seems the poster did not understand when he posted it that instead of contradicting my points the study reinforced my points. The quote from the abstract clearly indicates that the addition of endurance training to the strength training program did not cause negatively affect strength/size gains. Only explosive strength was negatively affected by the endurance training.Last edited by Richard99; 01-17-2009 at 01:08 PM.
Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 01:09 PM #18
Yes but the exercise protocols are completely different from the ones posted in the study you presented. Of course if one substantially changes the study variables the results are going to be different. His study is a concurrent strength + endurance program vs solely a strength based program. Your study is just examining a difference in rep ranges. One is not able to accurately compare the studies as the variables are too different to make any relevant comparisons.
Certitude is the enemy of wisdom.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." Johnathan Swift.
Remember this principle: if you have to chew something, it ain't anabolic. Alan Aragon
NIMBUS NUTRITION "When Performance is Everything!"
POSEIDON
clay@nimbusnutrition.com
-
01-17-2009, 01:19 PM #19
Agreed. That's why I didn't cite or reference this study in support of my original points.
Conventional physiological and training wisdom holds that endurance training a) does not build strength/size and b) that it negatively affects increases in size and strength. It is this generally held belief that both studies address.
The study I cited contradicts the belief that reps that are generally believed by the strength training community to be high reps and, therefore, endurance training, and therefore produce no strength/size benefit. In fact, the study showed strength and size increases from so-called "high reps" aka "endurance training". i.e. it contradicts the first part of the above premise.
The other study cites contradicts the belief that endurance training universally negatively affects strength/size development. i.e. it contradicts the second part of the above premise.Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 01:44 PM #20
-
-
01-17-2009, 01:50 PM #21
-
01-17-2009, 02:01 PM #22
All Pro,
Thanks for citing these studies. I particularly liked the summary discusion in for the last one you cited.
"...in some situations when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously, a potential interference in strength development takes place, making such a combination seemingly incompatible. The phenomenon of concurrent training, or simultaneously training for strength and endurance, was first described in the scientific literature in 1980 by Robert C. Hickson, and although work that followed provided evidence for and against it, the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations."
Of significance to our discussion is this - "...work that followed provided evidence for and against it.." As noted, there is both evidence for and against the interference effect of endurance training on changes in strength/size. In other words, one cannot state categorically that any endurance training will cause a decrease in the rate of strength/size gains.
Also of significant is "...the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations." In other words, in some cases endurance training will decrease the rate of strength/size gain but not in others.
Thanks again for posting these as they put to rest the belief that any endurance training will always slow the rate of growth in strength and size.Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 02:41 PM #23
- Join Date: Oct 2003
- Location: New York, United States
- Age: 68
- Posts: 19,925
- Rep Power: 10375
I disagree. I think this statement says it all,
"the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations"
I train for and train others for sports Richard and I've been doing it for over a quarter of a century. I know what I can get away with in an effort to build a better athlete. I know the effects of concurrent training because I've experienced it.
Anaerobic endurance + strength = no problem
Aerobic endurance + strength = PROBLEM
The studies I've found are short term and on small groups. My own have been long term with a lot of athletes.
-
01-17-2009, 03:50 PM #24
Read the links provided; very interesting.
Richard, before you're negged into eternity again, it might be wise to think about what you're writing. Referring to the Japanese study, the time frame mentioned is relatively short--12 weeks and it was done on sedentary men, NOT athletes who'd been trained in various anaerobic sports. While the maximal strength outputs may not be adversely affected in those time periods, that is, IMHO, too short to see the FULL effects of ultra-high rep training you advocate.
My best bet is that if the studies were carried on a lot longer, you'd see drops in maximal strength and power exertion. Remember SAID; the body wants stasis and will instinctively change over to the path of least resistance--in this case, lower weight, higher reps, and more endurance leading to developing more endurance fibres at the expense of the fast-twitch ones."Don't call me Miss Kitty. Just...don't."--Catnip. Check out the Catnip Trilogy on Amazon.com
"Chivalry isn't dead. It just wears a skirt."--Twisted, the YA gender bender deal of the century!
Check out my links to Mr. Taxi, Star Maps, and other fine YA Action/Romance novels at http://www.amazon.com/J.S.-Frankel/e/B004XUUTB8/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
-
-
01-17-2009, 05:10 PM #25
-
01-17-2009, 08:15 PM #26
A very recent study using well-conditioned college athletes (elite level athletes) sheds some additional light on the so-called interference effect of endurance training.
Quotes from the study:
"The compatability of different exercise modes, particularly strength and endurance exercise, has been investigated for nearly 3 decades. Several investigators report that combined or concurrent exercise (CE), in which strength and aerobic endurance training are included in the same training sessions or progam, interferes with the development of muscle strength or power."
"In contrast to interference, several investigators report compatability of strength and endurance training, i.e. no reduction in strength adaptations from concurrent strength and aerobic endurance training. On the contrary, some have found a positive rather than a neutral or negative effect of CE on muscle strength, muscle endurance, and maximal aerobic capacity."
"Clarifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for interference would have implications for medicine, science, sports, and recreational exercise."
"Interference is also significant...because the possibility has created ambiguity in exercise prescription. Some experts have de-emphasized aerobics in resistance training programs, for example, or recommended performing aerobics last..."
"Bodybuilders have potrayed aerobics as counterproductive to resistance training adaptations."
"conversely, however, several United States national certifying, training, and medical organizations recommend CE to maximize the benefits of exercise at all levels, including the American College of Sports Medicine...and the National Strength and Conditioning Association."
"We therefore tested aspects of the interference hypothesis..."
Here are the results:
"...the strength gains produced here by serial CE exceed the mean published strength gains from strength training alone in athletes by 42% (upper body) to 109% (lower body).
This means that the strength gains from serial strength + endurance training exceed the published strength gains from strength only programs.
"The strength gains produced here by integrated CE exceed mean published gains from strength training alone in athletes by 33.8% (upper body) to 184.1% (lower body). This finding suggests that integrated CE amplifies muscle strength gains in comparison with strength training alone, i.e. that integrated CE has synergistic effects on muscle strength adaptations."
This means that the strength gains from integrated strength + endurance training were even higher than those from serial CE.
In short, this study suggests that strength+endurance training can actually produce greater increases in strength than a strength only program due to a synergist effect on muscle strength changes.
I would also point out that the results of this study are perfectly in line with the predictions of the muscle factor model.
It appears that I need to let the researchers know about the muscle factor model. They wrote, "Although this study suggests synergy between strength and aerobic endurance training under the integrated CE training protocol, the physiological mechanism(s) underlying this synergy are unknown"
Reference: Davis et al, Concurrent Training Enhances Athletes' Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Other Measures, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2008, 22(5), 1487-1502Last edited by Richard99; 01-17-2009 at 09:46 PM.
Rich
www.trainingscience.net
-
01-17-2009, 09:10 PM #27
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 4,824
- Rep Power: 4689
Richard.
You seem to keep "missing" this question.
I have given you 3 examples of others who have already designed combination training programs to target specific fiber types, it's OLD NEWS. Here they are again. READ THEM:
It's nothing new or revolutionary yet you refuse to respond.
Holistic training:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glen4.htm
S.A.I.S training:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/jeff1.htm
John Caslers' Rogue HIT system
http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=476691
Claiming something as new and revolutionary when it's already been done is dishonest and outright plain wrong
Are you going to do the decent thing and remove any claims of your program being revolutionary now that you're aware that combination programs have already been done by several people and is already within the realms of "normal training"?
Please respond.Last edited by Natural2; 01-17-2009 at 09:23 PM.
-
01-17-2009, 09:45 PM #28
Richard,
This study proves...what? (The study by Davis et.al.).
For one thing, we don't know what kind of weight-training these women--not men--were doing. We don't know what kind of set and rep protocol they used, and we don't know what rep range they used. It also says nothing about dietary alterations which could have induced greater weight loss. ALL we know is that they used endurance activities during their weight-training.
If these women athletes were involved in power sports, then that might be of some significance; for all I know, they might have been long-distance track athletes or swimmers. Again, you've used figures out of context just to underline your "success" of your Muscle Factor concept. I also notice that there was no mention of "ultra-high" reps which you kept shilling in your old, now-locked-tight-as-a-drum thread. I wonder why.
I'm sorry, but this is old news. And, as Natural2 pointed out, there are more than a few "combination-type" programmes out there, many of which have been in use for a number of years.
Nothing new here, Richard. Better luck finding another study to fit your paradigm..."Don't call me Miss Kitty. Just...don't."--Catnip. Check out the Catnip Trilogy on Amazon.com
"Chivalry isn't dead. It just wears a skirt."--Twisted, the YA gender bender deal of the century!
Check out my links to Mr. Taxi, Star Maps, and other fine YA Action/Romance novels at http://www.amazon.com/J.S.-Frankel/e/B004XUUTB8/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
-
-
01-17-2009, 09:50 PM #29
-
01-17-2009, 11:44 PM #30
God these study's are stupid.
These people are totally untrained and so training them with vary high reps for 12 weeks will of course build some muscle and strength.
Good luck trying to do that for 6 months much less a year.my body is an army and my minds a general. I keep the body in shape and it does what I tell it to do. An army needs discipline, just like a man does. Herschel Walker
Bookmarks