Heavy or Light weights?

[Tino81404]

Just wanted all of your opinions... I read an article about Heavy lifting vs Light lifting. To summarise, what I got from it is that they both have the same effect for as long as you are lifting to extinction. Do you agree?

[Farley1324]

Just wanted all of your opinions... I read an article about Heavy lifting vs Light lifting. To summarise, what I got from it is that they both have the same effect for as long as you are lifting to extinction. Do you agree?

Where did you find this...article?

What is extinction?

And no, they don't. Not a matter of agreement, the answer is "no"

[Tino81404]

Where did you find this...article?

What is extinction?

And no, they don't. Not a matter of agreement, the answer is "no"

"The new findings: Lifting relatively light weights (about 50% of your one-rep max) for about 20–25 reps is just as efficient at building both strength and muscle size as lifting heavier weights (up to 90% of one-rep max) for eight to 12 reps, according to the study, the latest in a series done at McMaster University in Ontario."
from Men's Journal website... Article name "If you want to build muscle and gain strength, lift lighter weights for more reps"

Sorry, tried posting the link but I don't have 50 posts yet.

What I meant by extinction is 'failure' in form...

[Farley1324]

Regularly lifting to form failure is stupid. Intentionally lifting to form failure in most of the major compound exercises is stupid and begging for injuries.

Disregard any source that claims lifting at 50% of your 1RM is just as efficent at building strength as lifting at "up to 90%" of 1RM.

Pick a reputable novice routine (stickies list some) and follow it. Eat to grow while getting stronger in a reasonable rep range.

[backinthegymbro]

you need progressive overload otherwise your body just adapts. If you always bench with 50 lbs and do a chit ton of reps, don't expect big chest muscles.
But lighter weight has its place. For definition and more reps when you're cutting. Sometimes you can do drop sets. Sometimes i like to go lighter simply to perfect my form or to get that mind muscle connection so i can squeeze the muscles during my reps.

[Tino81404]

Regularly lifting to form failure is stupid. Intentionally lifting to form failure in most of the major compound exercises is stupid and begging for injuries.

Disregard any source that claims lifting at 50% of your 1RM is just as efficent at building strength as lifting at "up to 90%" of 1RM.

Pick a reputable novice routine (stickies list some) and follow it. Eat to grow while getting stronger in a reasonable rep range.

What do you mean by 'reasonable rep range'. I do want to grow over time, but not at an extreme rate. Over the past year, my waist has gone from a 37 to a 32 and my chest from 97cm to 108cm. I think I am comfortable with my current 'growth rate'.

Cheers (again..)!

[Tino81404]

you need progressive overload otherwise your body just adapts. If you always bench with 50 lbs and do a chit ton of reps, don't expect big chest muscles.
But lighter weight has its place. For definition and more reps when you're cutting. Sometimes you can do drop sets. Sometimes i like to go lighter simply to perfect my form or to get that mind muscle connection so i can squeeze the muscles during my reps.

but doesn't poor form and not squeezing those muscles cancel out the rep anyway no matter what weight you are lifting?

[backinthegymbro]

but doesn't poor form and not squeezing those muscles cancel out the rep anyway no matter what weight you are lifting?

You can lift heavy with good form and only struggle on the last 1-2 reps. You need to continuously go heavier so your body gets used to it and you get stronger.
Overloading the muscles, tearing the muscles which helps make them bigger when they repair themselves on rest days.
It's the last few reps that you push beyond your limit that really helps with the growth.

[Goingviking]

Main consideration is that different rep ranges target hypertrophy in different muscle fibers. Hypertrophy from an overall mass perspective was argued for a long time to be maximized in the 8 to 12 rep range, when compared to other set rep ranges when independent from each other. However different muscle fibers will be recruited in the lower rep range of 4 to 8 reps(fast switch muscle fibers) and a whole different bunch may be targeted between 12 and 16 reps(slow twitch muscle fibers).

Really to maximize overall muscle hypertrophy the real solution is to target a whole wide range of rep ranges with mixed intensity, so both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers in a particular muscle are trained enough to adapt. This workload would increase time in the gym by a significant amount and would not sit well with the average recreational weight lifter, so you see main stream programs being geared towards a certain goal(strength verse hypertrophy). In a similar fashion no studies have directly tested this theory due to its irrelevance to the recreational lifter, though basic understanding of muscle anatomy points to this theory being correct. Studies are showing that hypertrophy tends to go up with added volume in the gym.

This new study may be demonstrating that more muscle fibers are recruited do to the activation of both slow and fast twitch muscle fibers in high rep range sets. More likely than not this study probably just had the high rep trainees doing way more volume than the low rep trainees without compensating with extra sets for the low rep trainees. Therefore there was a mismatch between the subjects on the "intensity X volume" equation for muscle growth.

Working out to failure increases injury, but also is a good system to ensure that intensity and volume is being maximized enough to stimulate muscle growth. The alternative is to monitor reps, weight, and sets in a log and to strive for performance increases. Failure is often used when using straight sets( 5 sets with 100 lbs for example) and can be dangerous as a person becomes more and more fatigued and the weight remains to heavy to control with good form. To minimize injury while working to failure, and potentially recruit different muscle fibers reverse pyramid training(100 lbs set 1, 90 lbs set 2, etc) may have a benefit. Working to failure is just a tool to potentially help increase volume and/or intensity, but if training to failure on a particular set affects volume and intensity in later sets then it can hurt more than it helps. Therefore working to failure may benefit some people and hurt others..

[Tino81404]

Main consideration is that different rep ranges target hypertrophy in different muscle fibers. Hypertrophy from an overall mass perspective was argued for a long time to be maximized in the 8 to 12 rep range, when compared to other set rep ranges when independent from each other. However different muscle fibers will be recruited in the lower rep range of 4 to 8 reps(fast switch muscle fibers) and a whole different bunch may be targeted between 12 and 16 reps(slow twitch muscle fibers).

Really to maximize overall muscle hypertrophy the real solution is to target a whole wide range of rep ranges, so both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers in a particular muscle are trained enough to adapt. This workload would increase time in the gym by a significant amount and would not sit well with the average recreational weight lifter, so you see main stream programs being geared towards a certain goal(strength verse hypertrophy). In a similar fashion not many studies have tested this theory due to its irrelevance to the recreational lifter, though basic understanding of muscle anatomy points to this theory being correct.

Working out to failure increases injury, but also is a good system to ensure that intensity and volume is being maximized enough to stimulate muscle growth. The alternative is to monitor reps, weight, and sets in a log and to strive for performance increases. Failure is often used when using straight sets( 5 sets with 100 lbs for example) and can be dangerous as a person becomes more and more fatigued and the weight remains close to their 1RM. To minimize injury while working to failure, and potentially recruit different muscle fibers reverse pyramid training(100 lbs set 1, 90 lbs set 2, etc) may have a benefit. Working to failure is just a tool to potentially help increase volume and/or intensity, but if training to failure on a particular set affects volume and intensity in later sets then it can hurt more than it helps. Therefore working to failure may benefit some people and hurt others..

Thank you!

Should I vary my rep ranges on an alternate basis (Chest day - Heavy today, and Light on my next chest day), on a weekly basis, or on a monthly basis?

[Tino81404]

You can lift heavy with good form and only struggle on the last 1-2 reps. You need to continuously go heavier so your body gets used to it and you get stronger.
Overloading the muscles, tearing the muscles which helps make them bigger when they repair themselves on rest days.
It's the last few reps that you push beyond your limit that really helps with the growth.

Yes! Definitely been going heavier as time passes... Started out with just the bar doing squats (20kg), and now doing 70kg including the bar (3S@10-12R)... Never used to be able to do full wide chin ups, now doing 4 sets of 5
(well, maybe the last set just to 4)... sorry, just happy with my progress (I'm sure there are a lot more out there with better ones... hehehee)

Thanks for the advice!

[SuffolkPunch]

The load used is just one facet of a program - and affects all other parts of the program. Until you've gained lots of experience and knowledge about how such things work the best thing you can do it to run a well known expert designed routine like Fierce 5 or one of the others we have in the sticky threads of the Workout Programs forum.

I know you might want to learn how this stuff works and apply your knowledge now but in practice, you just are not going to produce something as good as one of the routines mentioned above. Knowledge has to be tempered with long experience too.

Reading just one artcle like this can skew your thinking and possibly lead to poor decision making. You need to have read not just one but lots of pieces of evidence to piece together your own mental model of how hypertrophy works. I suggest starting with the meta analyses produced by people like Brad Schoenfeld.

In reference to the study you mentioned, it's true that in those limited set of circumstance, low load training produced similar hypertrophy to higher load training BUT the real question is sustainability over a longer time period which is something a limited study can't usually address. The interplay between strength and muscle size is one major question mark. These data just give us indicators that volume is the main driver of hypertrophy but we must resist the temptation to take a single piece of information like this and run with it. Whatever we do must fit with prior experience of what has obviously worked for people in the past.

[Tino81404]

The load used is just one facet of a program - and affects all other parts of the program. Until you've gained lots of experience and knowledge about how such things work the best thing you can do it to run a well known expert designed routine like Fierce 5 or one of the others we have in the sticky threads of the Workout Programs forum.

I know you might want to learn how this stuff works and apply your knowledge now but in practice, you just are not going to produce something as good as one of the routines mentioned above. Knowledge has to be tempered with long experience too.

Reading just one artcle like this can skew your thinking and possibly lead to poor decision making. You need to have read not just one but lots of pieces of evidence to piece together your own mental model of how hypertrophy works. I suggest starting with the meta analyses produced by people like Brad Schoenfeld.

In reference to the study you mentioned, it's true that in those limited set of circumstance, low load training produced similar hypertrophy to higher load training BUT the real question is sustainability over a longer time period which is something a limited study can't usually address. The interplay between strength and muscle size is one major question mark. These data just give us indicators that volume is the main driver of hypertrophy but we must resist the temptation to take a single piece of information like this and run with it. Whatever we do must fit with prior experience of what has obviously worked for people in the past.

Thanks! I have been reading many articles. This is actually the first and only article that I came across that gave this kind of information which is why I wanted opinions.

I know that I am a novice to body building and weight lifting aside from also knowing that sometimes theory (such as just simply reading from articles) on its own doesn't always apply in practice. Your (collectively) experiences and advice I believe will help me in my journey to building a better body for myself and help in my education into this wonderful world of body building...

[jborch]

Both will yield the same results if equal intensity is applied to both high and low rep routines

[Farley1324]

you need progressive overload otherwise your body just adapts. If you always bench with 50 lbs and do a chit ton of reps, don't expect big chest muscles.
But lighter weight has its place. For definition and more reps when you're cutting. Sometimes you can do drop sets. Sometimes i like to go lighter simply to perfect my form or to get that mind muscle connection so i can squeeze the muscles during my reps.

False

What do you mean by 'reasonable rep range'. I do want to grow over time, but not at an extreme rate. Over the past year, my waist has gone from a 37 to a 32 and my chest from 97cm to 108cm. I think I am comfortable with my current 'growth rate'.

Cheers (again..)!

Reasonable rep range means weight heavier than 50% 1RM, and does not mean sets of 25.

If you are sure you are doing everything right, why are you in here asking any questions? If you know what to do and why, Nike.

but doesn't poor form and not squeezing those muscles cancel out the rep anyway no matter what weight you are lifting?

What are you talking about?

Both will yield the same results if equal intensity is applied to both high and low rep routines

False.

Both in what you think you said and in what you actually said (intensity is % of 1RM, not rating of perceived exertion)

[sooby]

heavier weights are always going to build more strength. strength is defined as maximal force applied to lift a weight in this context. And what is the best way to develop maximal strength? To lift weights at or near maximal strength output, i.e reps of 1-5. Olympic lifting is probably the greatest example of this where all they pretty much practice singles for their olympic lifts.

As far as hypertrophy goes, volume will always be the main driver over time. Sets of 20-25 may not be the best method in practicality although there is some rationale in theory. Just to give an arbitrary answer I would say anywhere from 60-85% is where you should do the bulk of your training for a combination of strength output and hypertrophy. Studies have shown that lifting with at least 80% of your 1RM will activate all muscle fibers if I can recall. Failure isn't necessary although it can be a tool. But lifting to failure on compounds isn't always the best strategy. Studies support using multiple rep ranges just to get the ball rolling once you stall as different rep ranges provides a different enough stimulus. For a beginner, just simply increasing the weights provides enough stimulus for growth.

[supramax]

"The new findings: Lifting relatively light weights (about 50% of your one-rep max) for about 20–25 reps is just as efficient at building both strength and muscle size as lifting heavier weights (up to 90% of one-rep max) for eight to 12 reps, according to the study, the latest in a series done at McMaster University in Ontario."
from Men's Journal website... Article name "If you want to build muscle and gain strength, lift lighter weights for more reps"

Sorry, tried posting the link but I don't have 50 posts yet.

What I meant by extinction is 'failure' in form...

I read the article. It's hardly new. The sarcoplasmic hypertrophy aspect of muscle fatique regardless of poundage has more or less been proven. The only strength that can be gained from high repetitions with 'light' weights is strength endurance, though. The article states "up to 90% of one-rep max for eight to 12 reps". If you can get 8 reps, you're not lifting 90% of one rep max. That's for ****ing sure.

[Farley1324]

I read the article. It's hardly new. The sarcoplasmic hypertrophy aspect of muscle fatique regardless of poundage has more or less been proven. The only strength that can be gained from high repetitions with 'light' weights is strength endurance, though. The article states "up to 90% of one-rep max for eight to 12 reps". If you can get 8 reps, you're not lifting 90% of one rep max. That's for ****ing sure.

lol I know, right?

[ironwill2008]

This thread makes my head hurt. The same myths that were touted 10 years ago on this site are still asked about.






*If you think lifting the pink dumbbells for 25 reps is going to build mass, then be my guest; go right ahead and try for the next 4-6 months. Report back at that time with your results.


*Lifting light weight for high reps for "cutting" is about the dumbest thing I can think of; it's exactly what is to be avoided during a cut.



*Putting all one's faith in the findings of only one article/study is a good way to waste a lot of time and effort.

[cdjeffery]

I'm not quite sure why people still believe that high rep-low weights is the key to putting on any type of mass.

Is it cause y'all are afraid of lifting heavier or just don't have the drive to continuously push yourself to higher weights?

Progressively increasing the weights at which you lift will always yield better results, end of story.

[fat2fit8787]

In all honesty , I see more gains from going lighter and going for higher reps . I'll put an arm blaster on and do 5 sets of 20 @ 65 lbs then once my arms feel like jelly , I'll slap 35 lbs on each side ( 25 lb ez curl bar ) and just go until I break form , cheat for a couple more and when I can only lift halfway up , I'll lower , catch my breath for a sec , and squeeze one more in as slow as I can . Lots will probably down my technique but it works for me .

[Farley1324]

In all honesty , I see more gains from going lighter and going for higher reps . I'll put an arm blaster on and do 5 sets of 20 @ 65 lbs then once my arms feel like jelly , I'll slap 35 lbs on each side ( 25 lb ez curl bar ) and just go until I break form , cheat for a couple more and when I can only lift halfway up , I'll lower , catch my breath for a sec , and squeeze one more in as slow as I can . Lots will probably down my technique but it works for me .

Nobody really cares what intensity or scheme you use for bicep curls.

[supramax]

lol I know, right?

A blunder like that usually discredits an article.

[pondman]

I make the most strength progress with 6 x 3 in the compound lifts. I don't go to failure. I try to push the weight up weekly. And then there are all those auxiliary exercises that can be done with higher reps. It's pointless to argue how many pull ups a person should do. Depending on your goals, you might want decent deltoids, and those might take a lot more reps at different angles. If you want popping biceps/ triceps you might want more reps. If you are a movie start you might want to do more reps, and do more definition work. Don't think it will makes you any stronger, but you might look better on film. It's also going to depend on how much time you want to spend doing all the reps. It takes a lot of time doing high rep stuff. From an efficiency stand point, I can do what I need to do within about 30-40 minutes in the morning.

[DCSpartan]

but doesn't poor form and not squeezing those muscles cancel out the rep anyway no matter what weight you are lifting?

You dont need to "squeeze" the muscle if the weight is heavy.

Here is what you should do.

Turn off the internet.

Quit reading academic papers on weight training that have no relevance to real life results, pick a beginners program from the stickies on this forum, and actually lift some weights for awhile.

[Tino81404]

False

If you are sure you are doing everything right, why are you in here asking any questions? If you know what to do and why, Nike.

I am improving, but doesn't necessarily mean it is right. I did say I was a novice. I am here asking questions because there might be a better way of doing things that I may not be doing. Most of you replying to this thread have been body building far longer than I have... I am DOING IT (hence the improvements)... just want to add more knowledge and get feedback from people who I know have more experience than me... Isn't that what this forum is for?

[Tino81404]

heavier weights are always going to build more strength. strength is defined as maximal force applied to lift a weight in this context. And what is the best way to develop maximal strength? To lift weights at or near maximal strength output, i.e reps of 1-5. Olympic lifting is probably the greatest example of this where all they pretty much practice singles for their olympic lifts.

As far as hypertrophy goes, volume will always be the main driver over time. Sets of 20-25 may not be the best method in practicality although there is some rationale in theory. Just to give an arbitrary answer I would say anywhere from 60-85% is where you should do the bulk of your training for a combination of strength output and hypertrophy. Studies have shown that lifting with at least 80% of your 1RM will activate all muscle fibers if I can recall. Failure isn't necessary although it can be a tool. But lifting to failure on compounds isn't always the best strategy. Studies support using multiple rep ranges just to get the ball rolling once you stall as different rep ranges provides a different enough stimulus. For a beginner, just simply increasing the weights provides enough stimulus for growth.

Thank you