Lifting Light Weights Is Just as Good at Building Muscle as Heavy Weights

[skipbeat]

Respect for Rip +1. SDG seems to be trying to add to his own resume by attempting to make Rip look like an idiot. What the fuck is this, a revolution to strength training? Let's all follow SomeDumbGuy and his excellent programming backed up by personal experience as well as training thousands of others. Oh, wait...

Also, it's really funny when anyone who follows Rip's programming or read his books and agreed with the clear, detailed, logical information portrayed within is a "SS zealot" or "Nutswinger" (personal fave), because we generally, as a cult, think of people like SDG as fucking morons.

Lastly.. SDG..

Do you even lift?

[WayneRooney]

Sounds like Lyle McD to me.

Doubt it. He used his own name on here and that deserves respect. No way he would take the argument to BB.com. That would be really, really weird.

[Mark Rippetoe]

There is no way this anonymous dipshit is Lyle. Didn't even enter my mind. Lyle would never hide.

[Will Morris]

Can you increase "strength" without an increase in muscle size?

For a very short amount of time and for a relatively small quantity, you can.

[Carlos Daniel]

There is no way this anonymous dipshit is Lyle. Didn't even enter my mind. Lyle would never hide.

In all honesty, he seems busy enough to not spend his time doing this kind of stuff. And also, someone who post a thread called "Fuck you Mark Rippetoe" doesn't seem to be the kind of guy that hides, indeed.

[Skander]

I tried to read through the whole thread, but SDG's treatises are a bit much, so I'm not totally sure I'm not repeating an earlier point. However, when I first saw the results, my interpretation wasn't that they contradict the wisdom in SS - it just seems like they are a combination of a) the novice effect, and b) high reps leads to hypertrophy, but heavier weights leads to a greater increase in strength.

The protocol was basically: Group Low Volume, High Intensity(LVHI): 80%x8-12 (1), Group Higher Volume, High Intensity(HVHI): 80%8-12 (3), Group Pink Dumbells(PD): 30%x25-30 (3)(seriously? 30%?!)

LVHI gained lower mass and strength that both HVHI and PD (not enough volume), while PD and HVHI had statistically identical gains in mass, but HVHI had a greater increase in strength.

The really surprising thing is how MUCH mass the pink dumbbells group gained - maybe just novice effect, though in my own experience, people who do things like swim tend to have more hypertrophy than you'd expect, given the low level of resistance, so perhaps low resistance/insanely high reps DOES increase hypertrophy more than we think, but it still leaves you weak (and jesus, who really wants to do 25-30 reps of anything)?

It also seems to confirm that you need sufficient volume (not just sufficient intensity), or no adaptation occurs, and that if you lift heavy things you get stronger than if you lift light things. It seems like a kind of silly study, but the "brand new finding" angle seems more like news spin than actually reflecting what was gained by the study (slight confirmation of what we already thought).

[vanburen]

I began the program 4 months ago. i am a 52 year old male 6' 220. I kept my caloric intake the same. Taking in the Novice effect, I am the same weight, have added to all my lifts and my muscles are are not much bigger. My squat has gone from 185x5x3 to 305x5x3.... My legs are smaller. This is just what i experienced. The only thing that works for me is direct experience with these matters.

[ChgoSportsFan]

This is fucking retarded.

I think even if you have absolutely no scientific background or experience in weight training, it's pretty obvious that more muscle means one is stronger and if one is getting stronger than one must be building muscle.

More muscle = more strength
More strength = more muscle

Is it always a perfect linear relationship? No, not in the very short term, but over time I think it's pretty darn close to averaging out that way. The body is a complex machine but it's not retarded. It won't lift heavier weights without adapting to the stress and it won't grow muscles without those muscles being useful (strong).

All these bullshit hypertrophy programs out there are stupid. Yeah, let me get on a muscle building program without getting stronger. First off, why? Second...well, there is no second. WHY?

The other way is equally stupid. Try to get stronger without gaining muscle (again, why the fuck you would want to do that is beside the point). Sure thing, and good luck with your fucktard goals of 2012. If I'm a beginner who can't bench press 200 pounds and then I work out for a while and I get my bench up to 200, something fucking changed. What could that be? Oh, I don't know. Maybe now I have enough muscle to bench press 200 pounds and that's why I could fucking do it now. Couldn't do it before = not enough muscle to do it before.

I may be totally wrong but this is just what I think is my common sense talking. But regardless, this is just fucking stupid.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I began the program 4 months ago. i am a 52 year old male 6' 220. I kept my caloric intake the same. Taking in the Novice effect, I am the same weight, have added to all my lifts and my muscles are are not much bigger. My squat has gone from 185x5x3 to 305x5x3.... My legs are smaller.

Your bodyfat % went down. You lost waist inches too.

[SMC]

This is fucking retarded.

I think even if you have absolutely no scientific background or experience in weight training, it's pretty obvious that more muscle means one is stronger and if one is getting stronger than one must be building muscle.

More muscle = more strength
More strength = more muscle

Is it always a perfect linear relationship? No, not in the very short term, but over time I think it's pretty darn close to averaging out that way. The body is a complex machine but it's not retarded. It won't lift heavier weights without adapting to the stress and it won't grow muscles without those muscles being useful (strong).

All these bullshit hypertrophy programs out there are stupid. Yeah, let me get on a muscle building program without getting stronger. First off, why? Second...well, there is no second. WHY?

The other way is equally stupid. Try to get stronger without gaining muscle (again, why the fuck you would want to do that is beside the point). Sure thing, and good luck with your fucktard goals of 2012. If I'm a beginner who can't bench press 200 pounds and then I work out for a while and I get my bench up to 200, something fucking changed. What could that be? Oh, I don't know. Maybe now I have enough muscle to bench press 200 pounds and that's why I could fucking do it now. Couldn't do it before = not enough muscle to do it before.

I may be totally wrong but this is just what I think is my common sense talking. But regardless, this is just fucking stupid.

Why build bigger muscles without getting stronger?

Ask a bodybuilder, since they what is valued when they "compete" is muscle size, not strength

Why get stronger without gaining muscle?

Ask any weight class athlete