Heavy vs. Light

[Most Muscular]

The arguement between training with light weights/high reps vs. heavy weights/low reps always brings out peoples opinions about the advantages of both.

I used to lift with the lightweight/high rep philosophy until a couple of years ago when I started using Max-OT training. It is hard to convince people that you don't have to do a **** load of sets and reps to gain a lot of muscle mass. Since lifting heavy I have made more gains then ever.

Now some people will say that it doesn't matter how you move the weight, that is if you end up doing the same amount of "work" you will end up growing. I believe what they're trying to say is that if you lift 100 lbs x 10 times you will have moved 1,000 lbs the same as if you would have lifted 200 lbs x 5 times.

If that logic hold true then take a look at this:

You have a SUV that can drive nearly straight up a steep mountain road to the top. To achieve such a task requires that it must be (or get to be) very powerful. It achieves this task in a short amount of time since it took the most direct route.

Another (smaller) car drives up the steep mountain on a long and winding route that is not very steep but takes longer to get to the top.

They both achieved the same objective (work) but got there via different means. Which one would you rather be? The SUV or the Yugo?

Let the debate begin...

[one idiot]

The SUV.

[TIGER _ EYED]

the SUV

[scott_donald]

lost me... hate questions like that...

[Most Muscular]

Originally posted by scott_donald
lost me... hate questions like that...

Exactly the right answer. It seems some people try and confuse the issue so much with garbage that they ROB people of their senses. It's called the "Robbing Of Brain" philosohpy.

[scott_donald]

Originally posted by Most Muscular
Exactly the right answer. It seems some people try and confuse the issue so much with garbage that they ROB people of their senses. It's called the "Robbing Of Brain" philosohpy.

i must be a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kane Fan]

that's a terrible example
depending on conditions the Hugo may have actually done more work
that's like a Mentzer level example

[Most Muscular]

Originally posted by Kane Fan
that's a terrible example
depending on conditions the Hugo may have actually done more work
that's like a Mentzer level example

Again... exactly my point. Because the Yugo may have to do more work to get the same job done means it is less efficient at its job. Power (strength) makes the doing the work more efficient and the best way to get more power is by using heavier loads. Because stronger strength usually means larger muscles does it not also then stand to reason that you would add size and strength by lifting heavier loads.

If you can get the same effect lifting 500 lbs x 2 or 100 lbs x 10... what the heck why not do 1 lbs x 1000? Do you actually think you'll get the same results? Will your muscles respond the same way to this work?

I think not.

[GhettoRollin]

The yugo will get much better gas mileage.

[Overload]

Originally posted by Most Muscular
Exactly the right answer. It seems some people try and confuse the issue so much with garbage that they ROB people of their senses. It's called the "Robbing Of Brain" philosohpy.

LOL. Ah yes, ROB. I prefer LOB (lift only briefly). My thighs have grown 2" in 2 1/2 months doing nothing more than 3 sets of squats (max-ot style of course) and some other little leg exercises. If you can grow from low, heavy volume, why would anyone want to do 10 sets of squats?

[Death of Rats]

Huh? Lift light lots of times: the muscle becomes more compact and tighter. Lift heavy low number of time: the muscle grows to cope (sp?) with the intensity of what's being lifted.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Death of Rats
Huh? Lift light lots of times: the muscle becomes more compact and tighter.

No it doesn't.
A muscle just grow, shrinks or maintains.