Lifting Lighter Weights Can Be Just as Effective as Heavy Ones [NYT]

[nevets88]

If you're lifting 30-50% of max, from my POV, fewer weights to buy and take up space but takes more time. That's the tradeoff I see off the bat. If you're multitasking, easier to lose count too. I'm sure this will get a lot of feedback from those who lift 90-100% max.

  Quote

The results were unequivocal. There were no significant differences between the two groups. All of the men had gained muscle strength and size, and these gains were almost identical, whether they had lifted heavy or light weights.

Interestingly, the scientists found no connection between changes in the men’s hormone levels and their gains in strength and muscle size. All of the men had more testosterone and human growth hormone flowing through their bodies after the workouts. But the degree of those changes in hormone levels did not correlate with their gains in strength.

Expand  

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/lifting-lighter-weights-can-be-just-as-effective-as-heavy-ones/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

[saevel25]

  On 7/20/2016 at 1:47 PM, nevets88 said:

If you're lifting 30-50% of max, from my POV, fewer weights to buy and take up space but takes more time. That's the tradeoff I see off the bat. If you're multitasking, easier to lose count too. I'm sure this will get a lot of feedback from those who lift 90-100% max.

Expand  

I found this article says the it similarly, but not as straight forward as the article you found. 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/reps-per-set-for-optimal-growth.html/

  Quote

Anyhow, now we have the next part of the picture, the body will recruit more fibers up to about 80-85% of maximum; above that point, there is no further recruitment and force output is improved via rate coding.

I should note that even at lower intensities, as the individual goes to fatigue, eventually all muscle fibers will end up being recruited.  But they won’t have been recruited until fairly late in the set (e.g. the last few repetitions).

Expand  

Maybe the correct wording is, take your muscles to fatigue and it doesn't matter if you are lifting 30% versus 85%. 

 

[Gator Hazard]

  On 7/20/2016 at 2:16 PM, saevel25 said:

I found this article says the it similarly, but not as straight forward as the article you found. 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/reps-per-set-for-optimal-growth.html/

Maybe the correct wording is, take your muscles to fatigue and it doesn't matter if you are lifting 30% versus 85%. 

 

Expand  

I would agree with this, it's all about the burn. Whether it's lighter weights or heavier, it's pushing the muscles farther and when they rest they grow. Case in point: Herschel Walker only exercises using his own body weight and has since basically high school. 

[GolfLug]

I would think it is because 30%-50% of max is still 'heavy' weight as far as body response (muscle recruitment) is concerned. Same number of aerobic fibers vs. anaerobic fibers respond compared to 80-90% of max or at least very little difference. Just takes more reps to get to fatigue.  

To have body respond differently, light needs to be much lighter - may be 5-15% of max (usually with high reps). Significantly more anaerobic fibers compared to 30-50% or 80-90%  of max respond then.  

[Piz]

More reps = more work.  If I've got to move 2000 pounds; I'll get more exercise and suffer less stress if I make 100 trips/reps with 20 pounds rather than 20 trips/reps with 100 pounds.  

[freshmanUTA]

  On 7/20/2016 at 4:50 PM, Piz said:

More reps = more work. If I've got to move 2000 pounds; I'll get more exercise and suffer less stress if I make 100 trips/reps with 20 pounds rather than 20 trips/reps with 100 pounds.  

Expand  

Don't count on that equation. More often then not less reps with higher intensity is better.

I understand the study that was done, but what about the years of studies done thatIve proven less reps higher weight = strength, and more reps lower weight = endurance? And why was it that when bodybuilding.com did the study of two average Americans over 2 years the person who did low reps high weight got in shape faster and gained strength faster. This whole "you can get the same results" thing is true but only because the way your body works. "lighter weight" meant 30-50% your max, as in maximum weight that can be lifted once, you'd be supersede at how "light" that weight is. for me that would be 60-100 pounds(roughly, didn't feel like doing the math) but a lot more reps. People think it takes less work, or you're somehow getting more excersises but in the end once your muscles reach their fully fatigued state, your muscles will rebuild in the same amount of time. It still remains true that the fastest way to build mass and strength is low weights high reps.

Not to mention they used people who were strength training for over a year, so their body already developed patterns for muscle recovery.

edit: I can't find the bodybuilder study or I'd link it.

Edited July 20, 2016 by freshmanUTA

[rehmwa]

Lifting to fatigue (or some other repeatable checkpoint such as prior to loss of form or any particular biofeedback indicator) and then benchmarking progress against that 'feel' and always working towards a personal best (keep improving) is a great method.

If the goal is to always do another rep, or more weight, than the previous workout - then gains will come.

[No Mulligans]

That's nice news for use older folks who want to avoid injury.

[Piz]

Fewer reps at greater intensity is fine...if your body can handle the stress.  After 40 years of carpentry work, three knee operations, two dozen gran mal seizures (falling sucks), a balky shoulder, arthritic feet, and carpal tunnel (left wrist)...mine cannot.  Greater endurance is all I am after.  To that end I move small weights many, many, many times.  I'd love to be able to work out the way I used to; but it just isn't an option anymore.  Groucho said it best: if I'd known I was going to live this long...I'd have taken better care of myself.

[natureboy]

  On 7/20/2016 at 1:47 PM, nevets88 said:

If you're lifting 30-50% of max, from my POV, fewer weights to buy and take up space but takes more time. That's the tradeoff I see off the bat. If you're multitasking, easier to lose count too. I'm sure this will get a lot of feedback from those who lift 90-100% max.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/lifting-lighter-weights-can-be-just-as-effective-as-heavy-ones/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Expand  

Doesn't it also talk about how the neuro-muscular side of the training makes a difference in how many of those new muscle fibers you are able to recruit at once (as in power)? It was cited as a reason why power lifters focus almost totally on single 'max lifts'.

I may have seen the idea in a topic search, but that is a factor beyond just adding more fibers worth considering and possibly underscoring value of mixing both light and heavier weights.

Edited July 20, 2016 by natureboy

[No Mulligans]

I lift for two reasons, 1) to maintain (or improve a little) strength and flexibility, 2) to help my golf game, in particular distance.

Is there a correlation between increasing ones strength and increased swing speed?

[nevets88]

Wait, more reps - doesn't that bring RSI into play?

[natureboy]

Some interesting tangential studies / resources:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJkpOSn4POAhUFVyYKHSItDyMQFghEMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weber.edu%2Fwsuimages%2Fmollysmith%2F3510Presentations%2FNMAdapt.pptx&usg=AFQjCNFJD3irIEbUlwmCAlhLyCEk_pHTZg&bvm=bv.127521224,d.eWE

https://www.uml.edu/campusrecreation/staff/EP II Materials/Neuromuscular Adaptations to Training.pdf

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/strength-training-results-in-measurable-changes-in-motor-unit-recruitment

http://breakingmuscle.com/strength-conditioning/doms-the-good-the-bad-and-what-it-really-means-to-your-training

[newtogolf]

There is still fast twitch and slow twitch muscle and most of the articles I've read say they still need to be trained differently.  What may not be accounted for is that we are all born with a fixed number of muscle fibers in our muscles, some are fast, some are slow and some are hybrids of the two.  

If someone has more slow twitch muscle fiber (which responds to low weight high reps) then it's reasonably possible for them to gain more size and strength because they are training the muscle fibers that are predominant in their body.  

There's a reason sprinters train differently than marathoners but not everyone can be an elite sprinter or marathon runner, that's determined mostly by genetics. 

[natureboy]

  On 7/21/2016 at 2:19 AM, newtogolf said:

There is still fast twitch and slow twitch muscle and most of the articles I've read say they still need to be trained differently.  What may not be accounted for is that we are all born with a fixed number of muscle fibers in our muscles, some are fast, some are slow and some are hybrids of the two.  

If someone has more slow twitch muscle fiber (which responds to low weight high reps) then it's reasonably possible for them to gain more size and strength because they are training the muscle fibers that are predominant in their body.  

There's a reason sprinters train differently than marathoners but not everyone can be an elite sprinter or marathon runner, that's determined mostly by genetics. 

Expand  

Take a look at some of the links in my post just above yours.

Slow vs Fast twitch (Type I vs II) is dependent on the neural connections. These respond to training. You can convert slow to fast and vice versa, though the body probably retains some sort of minimum mix to be ready for different conditions / needs. I would argue that golf is more of a power (Type II) than endurance (Type I) sport.

[newtogolf]

  On 7/21/2016 at 12:53 PM, natureboy said:

Take a look at some of the links in my post just above yours.

Slow vs Fast twitch (Type I vs II) is dependent on the neural connections. These respond to training. You can convert slow to fast and vice versa, though the body probably retains some sort of minimum mix to be ready for different conditions / needs. I would argue that golf is more of a power (Type II) than endurance (Type I) sport.

Expand  

I don't believe you can convert slow twitch to fast and type 1 fast twitch to slow, it's still being researched.  Type 2 fast is the hybrid fiber that can be morph based on demands placed on body as some are oxidative and others are glycolytic fibers and can be trained.  

[natureboy]

  On 7/21/2016 at 1:08 PM, newtogolf said:

I don't believe you can convert slow twitch to fast and type 1 fast twitch to slow, it's still being researched.  Type 2 fast is the hybrid fiber that can be morph based on demands placed on body as some are oxidative and others are glycolytic fibers and can be trained.  

Expand  

Studies are limited in volume and also tend to be small samples for fairly limited duration. But yes, still not fully conclusive. One of the early studies that went a full 5 months with an endurance type activity (1 hour of 90% max effort 4x per week on previously untrained subjects) found an ~30% increase in Type I fibers, IIRC.

The fact that the current perspective that there is not a strict classification of fibers, but a continuum would suggest that long term shifts are possible / likely. But how much from the body's 'norm' (10% max?) may be the question.

The general trend seems to be that greater volume / duration of exercise over time seems to create a push for more efficient / slower twitch muscle along the continuum. The 'fastest twitch' muscle seems to be most prevalent in couch potatoes. But that's not likely ideal for athletic activities that require repetitive actions and at least some endurance vs. an emergency burst of anaerobic 'survival' activity. It would seem to me that a lot of high-endurance type training would not be optimal for power-oriented sports that don't require aerobic endurance. If the total reps in a set is 30 vs. 10 to fatigue, that's not likely a big difference. If it's 100 reps vs. 10 to fatigue, that's might be too endurance oriented.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/97/5/1591.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912291

http://www.outsideonline.com/1783586/it-possible-change-my-muscle-type

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC521732/

[Slice of Life]

It depends what your end goal is. 

If you want to look like Arnold in the 70's, I don't care how many reps of 135 lbs you're benching...it ain't gonna happen.