new study says Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights

[rotatoo]

stupid study is stupid. everyone responds differently.

this is a peer reviewed paper you fukkin moon-worshipping cretin




edit: holy fuk they did muscle biopsies and everything :I

[sups31]

science > opinion.,.

alpha > science

[CementPizza]

this is a peer reviewed paper you fukkin moon-worshipping cretin

That means little or nothing.
Cause we all know peer reviewed science is never wrong. (sarcasim)

See what I posted about work load.
The morons came to the wrong conclusion.
So, scientifically the peers were retards as well.

[rotatoo]

That means little or nothing.
Cause we all know peer reviewed science is never wrong. (sarcasim)

See what I posted about work load.
The morons came to the wrong conclusion.
So, scientifically the peers were retards as well.

you are not in an engineering/science field so you dont know wtf you are talking about. I've actually done peer-review on stiffness of cancer cells (srs)


I have to read papers like this all day for research.. Trust me no-body will toss faulty shyt up there and risk losing funding

[ho_124]

That is one of the dumbest studies I have ever seen, all that will accomplish is give you muscle endurance, no growth will take place. 30% of 1rm is laughable. You could prob rep that out 50+ times.

strong bro science, did you even read the study? alot of the fitness ideology is pure bro science and crap, its actually a benefit to have more scientists researching this.

[BobisMighty]

There was a study recently about how not training till failure is more beneficial than reaching failure.

http://ergo-log.com/halfsets.html

The group trained at 70% 1RM for 3 sets of 5-6.

[rotatoo]

OK i cant make heads or tails of that as i dont know any biology, but it seems to be sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (as in connective tissues) rather than striated muscle hypertrophy... And we all know sarcoplasmic h. happens when you do a bazillion reps but does not contribute much to swoleness



we need a biologist in here

[DoctorV]

I stopped at "Fifteen men..."

Strong statistical significance/powered study/sample size, I could keep going.

[rocksolidcrazy]

Its not saying anything I havent known before. This article is not saying dont train heavey. Just that you dont have to train as heavey so long as you are working muscle till failure/fatigue. In reality, this can be done by heavier weights, lower reps, and moderatly high sets.

[CementPizza]

you are not in an engineering/science field so you dont know wtf you are talking about. I've actually done peer-review on stiffness of cancer cells (srs)


I have to read papers like this all day for research.. Trust me no-body will toss faulty shyt up there and risk losing funding

I remain unconvinced.
One thing I know about academics is that they are cowards and wear blinders.
They constantly miss very obvious things.

I made it VERY clear why this study was flawed. I did the math.
Math doesn't lie.

You can strut and fret all you want.
They are wrong, I'm right.

[DoctorV]

this is a peer reviewed paper you fukkin moon-worshipping cretin




edit: holy fuk they did muscle biopsies and everything :I

HOLY F*CK THEY DID MUSCLE BIOPSIES, IT MUST BE LEGIT!

Any medical/pharmacy students or statisticians here? Honestly? PLEASE?!? The sample size used for this study is absolutely stupid. If anyone did a study on a drug for a certain disease state vs placebo or another treatment, and used only FIFTEEN people.... the FDA and medical community would laugh at them.

[CementPizza]

HOLY F*CK THEY DID MUSCLE BIOPSIES, IT MUST BE LEGIT!

Any medical/pharmacy students or statisticians here? Honestly? PLEASE?!? The sample size used for this study is absolutely stupid. If anyone did a study on a drug for a certain disease state vs placebo or another treatment, and used only FIFTEEN people.... the FDA and medical community would laugh at them.

I agree.

lol.

I also suspect Biopsy brah is full of shiyt.

[rotatoo]

I remain unconvinced.
One thing I know about academics is that they are cowards and wear blinders.
They constantly miss very obvious things.

I made it VERY clear why this study was flawed. I did the math.
Math doesn't lie.

You can strut and fret all you want.
They are wrong, I'm right.

i shouldnt strut, ive only done 1 research project.. But im saying, those guys know what theyre doing, and you guys sound like moon-worshippers shooting them down because it offends thy broscience

HOLY F*CK THEY DID MUSCLE BIOPSIES, IT MUST BE LEGIT!

Any medical/pharmacy students or statisticians here? Honestly? PLEASE?!? The sample size used for this study is absolutely stupid. If anyone did a study on a drug for a certain disease state vs placebo or another treatment, and used only FIFTEEN people.... the FDA and medical community would laugh at them.

Im not saying it legitimises or adds credence to the report, im just saying thats interesting because hardly any bodybuilding significant papers go into that much detail.. Just wish i could understand wtf they are talking about

[rocksolidcrazy]

I remain unconvinced.
One thing I know about academics is that they are cowards and wear blinders.
They constantly miss very obvious things.

I made it VERY clear why this study was flawed. I did the math.
Math doesn't lie.

You can strut and fret all you want.
They are wrong, I'm right.

Ive gained 60lbs in the past two years. Most of it muscle. When I first started working out, I did pyramid sets with low weight. I did a total of 5 sets. My reps looked like this, 12,10,8,6,4. every time I upped the weight by either 5lbs or 10lbs. It worked, I attribute a lot of my baseline strength to that. But I can definitely tell a difference since Ive changed it up to 5x5s. Im lifting heavier, and my strength gains have gone through the roof, as well as overall muscle size. I think both training styles are beneficial. In my experience, though, I would say that you need to take slow steps so that you can build a solid base to work with. Ultimately, its important to continue to confuse your muscles.

So, even after reading this article, I still plan on lifting heavy.

[NickM1985]

So what, do we just do one set of a weight that allows us to fail at about 24 reps?

BTW I am doing this right now for fun and its killer.

[Langonelives]

brb ignoring what countless successful bodybuilders have been doing for decades and 1RM every lift in the gym now.

go be fat somewhere else

[DoctorV]

I understand, it looks/sounds impressive, but all I'M saying is if they really wanted to be taken seriously they would have powered the study. This means that they calculate the amount of people needed to be used in the study to have the results be completely random. You have less chance of results being "by chance" and the conculsion being completely off when you have plenty of people enrolled in it.

[plznodemondrop]

this is all stupid.

everyone knows that celltech is what really gets you results.

[The Philosopher]

I don't care, there's no other feeling in the world like moving heavy ass weight.

[Razorfever]

if this was true, all wimenz should have enormous vags, since all they do is 1000 reps in the vag machine with little or no weight. Skeptical hippo on this one.
Brb, lifting 15 pound dumbells and being on the ****gy tiem.

[WestsideJJ]

"everybody wants to be a bodybuilder. but don't nobody wanna lift heavy ass weight"

or take test,anavar,hgh,insulin,hcg, clen, diuretics, and many more


viper gq u out there?

[Gman721]

always some new horsesh*t "study" coming out telling people they dont have to work hard. thats why our generation is full of pussies

mother phucking this

[CCAurora]

this is a peer reviewed paper you fukkin moon-worshipping cretin




edit: holy fuk they did muscle biopsies and everything :I

Vioxx was "peer-reviewed" too, you enabling vulture. Passing shoddy studies is what GETS companies funding.

[KillDowzer]

well..lifting light = getting toned

lifting heavy = getting mass

depends on what your goal is

it's stupid to lift 10 lbs 1000 times and it takes you half an hour

when you can lift 100 lbs 10 times in 10 minutes and be done with it and move to chesticles


hear?

feel?

swallow?

good

And again we have a wiiinnnerrr

[NickM1985]

Vioxx was "peer-reviewed" too, you enabling vulture. Passing shoddy studies is what GETS companies funding.

Sure but what do the scientists gain from faking results?

[ZidaneValor]

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:

Each subject was instructed to eat no later than 2200 h on the day preceding the trial. Subjects recorded their dietary intake for three days before the resting muscle protein synthesis measurement. This intake was replicated before the exercise muscle protein synthesis measurement. On the morning of the exercise trial (2 h prior to arrival to the laboratory), subjects consumed a liquid meal (Ensure plus, Abbott Laboratories, Saint-Laurent, Quebec; 61% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 24% fat) that provided ~15% of the estimated daily caloric need (<1890 kJ)

A study done on 15 probably untrained 21-year-olds with average stats of about 5'11" 170# (BMI: 24) doing 4 sets of one-legged extensions after not eating after 10:00 pm and drinking a 280-calorie Ensure (15% of 1890) with 10g of protein (15% of 280 divided by 4)? I'm convinced.

[Kraken]

For the younger folks. These studies that state that rep ranges in the 15-25 range for hypertrophy and strength have been around since the 80s and 90s. The results of this study aren't "new". Studies have been replicating something similar for many years.

As stated above though TUT also plays a role. Someone asked what TUT was, it stands for time under tension. 15 reps will have more TUT than a set of 5 and, not to mention, will have a total weight moved as being much higher. The way to increase TUT with a heavier weight is to use methods like rest pauses etc, but in these cases, total volume should also be decreased.

[MrGreenz]

Lmao, not even gonna read, bet it mentions not needing a mult aswell. Strong broscience article

[paranoidxe]

Certainly aren't going to increase strength with that pussy method, at least I wouldn't think so.

[lloyd718]

Well, it's actually not true, and you will never talk to anyone with real knowledge ever agreeing with you.

The idea of toning through high reps was started by the exercise industry, NOT by anyone else. Being toned is nothing more than losing the subcutaneous fat between the muscle and the skin. And how do we lose fat? Cardio and diet.

Oh, and I was born in the 70s. If you were deadlifting before I was born, then grats to making it to an old age.

HAHA I like your styke Kraken, just to throw in a little bit of my experience with this theory, there is a guy who works out in the gym I use to work out in, and he was a calesthenic king, he wasn't only ripped, but he was big and never touched a weight, all the excercises he did was with his bodyweight, wheather it be dips/pull ups, resistance bands ..etc .. Etc,he use to always say "everybody thinks I'm a bodybuilder but I'm really a basketball player",and he's not the only guy I know who put size on with calesthenics, if your protien intake is proper and your work rate is suffiecent, I think you can put size on with any form of training,