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

[boogielicious]

49 minutes ago, Slice of Life said:

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. 

Agree. Or if you want to be a power lifter. 

For Track in college, we did lighter weights with many reps, 20 to 40. This helped endurance according to the training research at the time. It also prevented injury and was more geared to running.

[Dave2512]

Ten years ago I hired a personal trainer than had previously worked for the CO Rockies. He showed for our first session with nothing more than an aerobic step and two 10 lb dumbbells. I worked with him for about 6 months and honestly that was the most fit I've been since high school and I was late 30's. We did some heavier lifts but the meat of his program was the dumbbells and it wasn't mega reps. But he was a big technique guy it's amazing how simple things like lunges can shred you when done correctly.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Slice of Life said:

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. 

But maybe that's more about time efficiency - especially if you're working on individual muscles? If his daily circuit took 2-4 hours with sets of ten reps how much time would it add to go to 50 reps with lighter weight to get the same fatigue?

Edited July 21, 2016 by natureboy

[Slice of Life]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

But maybe that's more about time efficiency - especially if you're working on individual muscles? If his daily circuit took 2-4 hours with sets of ten reps how much time would it add to go to 50 reps with lighter weight to get the same fatigue?

 

That's the whole thing. You couldn't physically endure that much volume with the intensity needed. Which by itself makes the lighter reps not as effective. 

[mcanadiens]

Not that my fitness level is worth spit any more, but I always heard you should lift as much weight as needed to exhaust the muscles between 8-12 reps. Obviously the idea is that the amount of weight that does that ought to go up over time.

[natureboy]

38 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Not that my fitness level is worth spit any more, but I always heard you should lift as much weight as needed to exhaust the muscles between 8-12 reps. Obviously the idea is that the amount of weight that does that ought to go up over time.

The studies are saying the key thing is training to exhaustion to build muscle / strength. But there is a neurological side to power / endurance sports that may call for sport-specific type movements to get the best gain from the time invested. Running stairs e.g. might be a better use of your time than long-distance runs for golf.

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, Slice of Life said:

 

That's the whole thing. You couldn't physically endure that much volume with the intensity needed. Which by itself makes the lighter reps not as effective. 

Except if you are doing it for endurance training. For bike racing, we did winter routines with little rest and many light weight reps. But the program design was for something completely different than just building muscle and strength. 

[saevel25]

16 hours ago, Slice of Life said:

 

That's the whole thing. You couldn't physically endure that much volume with the intensity needed. Which by itself makes the lighter reps not as effective. 

I'm not entirely sure about that. 

Muscle gain decreases the more often you work out. A person will gain more muscle in their first 1-2 years then they will in maybe the next 3-10 years if they regularly work out. 

Over a long period of time the muscle gains will be the same. Maybe working out at 80%-90% is quicker because it is less reps. In the end going to fatigue is what matters. 

 

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I'm not entirely sure about that. 

Muscle gain decreases the more often you work out. A person will gain more muscle in their first 1-2 years then they will in maybe the next 3-10 years if they regularly work out. 

Over a long period of time the muscle gains will be the same. Maybe working out at 80%-90% is quicker because it is less reps. In the end going to fatigue is what matters. 

 

That's only true if you don't vary your workouts.  Part of muscle building is varying the exercises, sets, reps and intensity to keep your muscles in a state of shock so they continue to get stronger and bigger.  

If you only do standing bicep curls, your biceps and forearms will eventually become optimized for the movement and it will be difficult for you to see results because other supporting muscles will likely fail before your biceps and forearm muscles do.  If you vary your workout and hit the muscles from different angles and engage other supporting muscles you will continue to see very good results.  

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

That's only true if you don't vary your workouts.  Part of muscle building is varying the exercises, sets, reps and intensity to keep your muscles in a state of shock so they continue to get stronger and bigger.  

That's partially a myth. All you are doing is inventing new neural pathways to help make that new movement more efficient. You are not actually gaining more muscle mass. 

The math doesn't add up. 

A person new to working out can gain upwards of 18-23 lbs in a year. If they could do that over 5 years just by changing up the workout and progressing then they would gain over 100 lbs of muscle. You just do not see that happen. 

What happens is the most gains occur in that first year. Then every subsequent year you get less bang for your buck. After 4 years of training you will only see maybe 2 lbs of muscle gain a year. 

 

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That's partially a myth. All you are doing is inventing new neural pathways to help make that new movement more efficient. You are not actually gaining more muscle mass. 

The math doesn't add up. 

A person new to working out can gain upwards of 18-23 lbs in a year. If they could do that over 5 years just by changing up the workout and progressing then they would gain over 100 lbs of muscle. You just do not see that happen. 

What happens is the most gains occur in that first year. Then every subsequent year you get less bang for your buck. After 4 years of training you will only see maybe 2 lbs of muscle gain a year. 

 

Those are numbers that Lyle McDonald claims, but most professional trainers believe it's possible for the average person to continue to add up to 6 lbs of muscle per year after the first five years.  In the first five years one could add up to 50 lbs of muscle, short of those who wish to compete in body building competitions that's a lot of muscle to add to a normal frame.  

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Those are numbers that Lyle McDonald claims, but most professional trainers believe it's possible for the average person to continue to add up to 6 lbs of muscle per year after the first five years.  In the first five years one could add up to 50 lbs of muscle, short of those who wish to compete in body building competitions that's a lot of muscle to add to a normal frame.  

That is true, and most people will not see that. Most people are not professional athletes or body builders. 

Still, I think his numbers are good for a person who works out with a trainer or by themselves if they take lifting seriously. 

Of course it is totally dependent on genetics as well.