New Study on Low Intensity, High Volume?

[michail71]

This is an interesting study but I'm not sure I'm going to go and change anything yet.

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headl...l#.T5mvotXY_To

*Edit*

Better link thanks to ChocoChick

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...1139/h2012-022

[bigtallox]

It's meaningless until they define terms. What are they calling "heavy weight", "high reps", "low intensity", "failure"... How did they measure "effective(ness) in stimulating muscle proteins"? Who were these " resistance-trained young men" and what is their background?.... Way too many unanswered questions to be meaningful.

[IronCharles]

The study doesn't address the difference between type 1, type 2a, and type 2b fibers. Or the capability of type 2b conversion to 2a with high rep, light load type training. Certainly, most exercise is capable of building muscle. But what type of muscle you choose to emphasize has a significant impact on how your development will be.

[x-trainer ben]

This is an interesting study but I'm not sure I'm going to go and change anything yet.

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headl...l#.T5mvotXY_To

Thanks for the link :P

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headl...ve_G-spot.html

[Fookme]

Things seem to change daily, I have started and stopped eating chocolate and drinking coffee so many times because one day its good and one day its killing me. Now I just do whatever the fook I want.

[ArchAngel'73]

This is an interesting study but I'm not sure I'm going to go and change anything yet.

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headl...l#.T5mvotXY_To

The source of this article sucks.
There are no research citations and no direct mention of the exact study alluded to so it is difficult to find that study in a peer reviewed online journal.

But

I have seen the abstract of this study through another medium and there is nothing to refute. Facts are facts, this particular method of weight training built more muscle than the comparison group.
I have also read the abstract of another study but for older men (over 40) that proves the same thing.

Now if your goal is to build muscle regardless of strength increases then this is the way to go.

For those that question the reliability and validity of this study you need to question no further as the peer reviewing group who are experts at conducting experiments did that way before you laid eyes on it.

[-=FLEX=-]

Now I just do whatever the fook I want.

Strong username to post content ratio.

[bigtallox]

I have seen the abstract of this study through another medium and there is nothing to refute. Facts are facts, this particular method of weight training built more muscle than the comparison group.
I have also read the abstract of another study but for older men (over 40) that proves the same thing.

Yes facts are facts but everthing exists in a context. There are also so many other variables, how the isolate what they're interested in is important, IMHO.

For those that question the reliability and validity of this study you need to question no further as the peer reviewing group who are experts at conducting experiments did that way before you laid eyes on it.

LOL, that's basically giving your brain to somebody else to think for you. No thank you. Not all "experts" are actually experts and even if they really are knowledgable they can still have their own agenda.

[ArchAngel'73]

Yes facts are facts but everthing exists in a context. There are also so many other variables, how the isolate what they're interested in is important, IMHO.

Yes, their interest affects how their bodies respond to weight training.

LOL, that's basically giving your brain to somebody else to think for you. No thank you. Not all "experts" are actually experts and even if they really are knowledgable they can still have their own agenda.

In a peer reviewed journal the only "agenda" is to present facts and information for scutiny and later hopefully acceptance into the academic community.

Peer reviewed journals are not out for profit.

Being published in 2 journals I've had a bit of experience in this and assure you the screening panel an article goes through before being published is strict and seems to be good enough for organizations such as the American Pyschological Association or the American Medical Association.
Those associations have very high standards but I guess they are not good enough for bto.

Perhaps they need to pass through the BigTallOx Association of Strongman Trumps Everything in Life Society to meet your approval and trust?

[2nd_chance]

^^^^ Lol

[litljay]

Am I the only one that caught this,

says a new opinion piece in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism

[polishedball]

Strong username to post content ratio.

Flex, he has 19" arms also. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...7541611&page=7

[hamletcat1]

Interesting

[Fookme]

Flex, he has 19" arms also.

Sweet!!!! I posted a picture of my arm in my progress picture.

[Fookme]

Thats funny, Flex guy negged me saying that his arms are bigger then mine. Get a life friend.

[Corbi]

Thats funny, Flex guy negged me saying that his arms are bigger then mine. Get a life friend.

And my cock is bigger than both of yours, it's because I say the word "strongman" over and over while working out. It's that whole Monty mind over matter deal.

[Fookme]

monty mind over matterl.

i c

[drudixon]

i c

^^^^ unaware....

[stingray72]

I was using 10 6 4 1 style of training for months and hit a wall. I then incorporated 20 rep sets down to 8 and had the best explosion of strength 10-15 pounds on my bench press in one month. Bottom line though is both styles work but you have to keep the body guessing and always give it proper rest in all ways (heavy and light training methods).

[sy2502]

Not everybody has time to do lots of reps.

[latebloomingmom]

oooooooh great...read one thread it says less is more
read this one and it says more is more better....
hmmm....gonna have to do some of both.

[bigtallox]

Yes, their interest affects how their bodies respond to weight training.

Data/procedures can be skewed to "prove" anything. Anybody with any experience doing research, like yourself, *should* realize that. The details that weren't stated in the link matter ( big time ).

Peer reviewed journals are not out for profit.

Not directly, but that's not the point.

Those associations have very high standards but I guess they are not good enough for bto.

Perhaps they need to pass through the BigTallOx Association of Strongman Trumps Everything in Life Society to meet your approval and trust?

You have issues. But yes, however it's not my association of strongman for that reason, it's my experience doing research and graduate degrees (in physics and computer science).

[bigtallox]

Am I the only one that caught this,

Oh, but it *has* to be true, they say it is. LOL.

[ArchAngel'73]

Data/procedures can be skewed to "prove" anything. Anybody with any experience doing research, like yourself, *should* realize that.

Why you're so right on that one!
Statistics can be used to falsely "prove" lots.
But that's the kinda sh*t you see from advertising companies not academic research.
That panel of educated peers that reviews the material before it is printed and henceforth considered scientific fact is well aware of this and are trained to see through it.
If they were not or did not, they would become the laughing stock of the scientific community.

Not directly, but that's not the point.

If not, why did you bring up the fallacy?

You have issues.

You are correct.
I have issues with misinformation, ignorance, naivte, and people talking out their azzes when they apparantly don't know jack squat about the subject, whether that is research methodolgy or weight training for various goals other than to just get strong.

Good luck with your fitness goals in 2012.

[Rocky3540]

I want to say something mean but i am not a mean person, so ill just say i have a big bench and a set of abs. Haha. Wait is that relavent to the topic?

[bigtallox]

oooooooh great...read one thread it says less is more
read this one and it says more is more better....
hmmm....gonna have to do some of both.

Exactly. The thing is neither "more" or "less" has been defined in the context of that "opinion piece", so yes you may actually be doing both according to the unknown definitions.

[bigtallox]

If not, why did you bring up the fallacy?

You did, I didn't

I have issues with misinformation, ignorance, naivte, and people talking out their azzes when they apparantly don't know jack squat about the subject, whether that is research methodolgy or weight training for various goals other than to just get strong.

You're making lots of assumptions



But back to the point, the article says this..

An additional benefit of the low-intensity workout is that the higher repetitions required to achieve fatigue will also be beneficial for sustaining the muscle building response for days.

They don't say anything like "the research showed, an additional benefit...". They state it like it's fact but it's not fact without supporting it some way and they don't even allude to any data supporting it, thus it's their OPINION. And yes you're right, I don't think their opinion is any better than mine.

Cheers.

[ironwill2008]

Good luck with your fitness goals in 2012.

I sea what you did there.

[nice1guv]

This is a better summary of the research:

www emaxhealth com/8782/muscle-building-and-muscle-recovery-scientific-secrets-you-need-know (put . where spaces are, as I can't post links yet)

Heavy weights is 90% 1rm, 5-10 reps.
Light weights is 30% 1rm, 24+ reps.

They say that working to failure is the key, but 30% weight and higher reps to failure is enough for muscle growth.

Don't agree, but interesting if that is what the research showed.

Would be interesting to find out who the research was done on, beginners, advanced etc.

I doubt it would work with advanced people.

[GuyJin]

All e-fighting aside, the study was just that: a study. Not any definitive proof, as it didn't go very long-term and really, no study will. Nothing against using lighter loads as they save wear and tear on your joints but using 30% to failure will eventually cause your fast-twitch fibers to convert to slower-twitch ones, as IC duly noted. In practical terms, to have any sort of effect, you'd have to a lot more sets just to make up for the lack of load. If you like doing lots of sets and a ton of reps, this kind of training is for you...but most guys who've been working out and who look it (Induced Drag, 2nd Chance, BH, OOS, and too many others to name) I would guess use between 8-15 reps with higher loads and have built very impressive physiques. Would they still look as good as they do with only 30% of what they can do? Doubtful. This kind of study is interesting but hardly conclusive.