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

[RandallEW]

I haven't examined the study itself, but it sounds like the real problem with it is the interpretation of the results. The study shows what Rip has stated many times - untrained people get a little stronger from doing almost anything. The mistake is in extrapolating that result to people at higher training levels.

[shaymus]

Apparently I pissed on your diploma, you'll be OK by tomorrow. I agree that the criteria used to judge should be application of logical data collection and analysis. However, I feel that the explanation for the numerous poor studies that are published every year is most likely pressure to prove the thesis correct, whether the pressure is real or only percieved. If you believe that it is a more likely explanation that the PhD candidates, researches, scientists and publishers of all of these studies are simply incompetent, I will not argue with you further.

Which numerous poor studies are you referring to? If all of these studies that you feel are a result of "pressure to prove the thesis correct" are in the field of exercise science then I can't argue with you. I have long since given up on even bothering to look through this literature.

[SumDumGoi]

There are thousands of PhDs handed out each year and I doubt many are worth the paper they are written on. The problem is that a candidate comes up with a thesis and in order to get a good grade figures they must prove the thesis correct. They will do this regardless of what the research results actually indicate. The candidate has to come up with a "new" idea and then prove it right in order to pass. So they set up testing and research with the intent of a desired result. If a result contradicts the thesis, it can easily be dismissed. And the conclusions that are drawn can be whatever the researcher/candidate wants them to be. There is little chance of honesty in the process. This is a problem with academia in general.
The study showed that using 80% for 3 sets increased muscle volume by 7.2% compared to 6.8% when using 30% for 3 sets.
The study showed that using 80% for either 1 or 3 sets increased isotonic strength, but using 30% did not.
The conclusion drawn is that using 30% 1RM provides that same training bennefit as using 80% 1RM.

The only way to reach that conclusion is to have drawn the conclusion prior to conducting the study and fear disproving your thesis.

This is an amazing post given that your counter-argument is based solely on the idea that this study does not fit within the context of your preconceived notion.

Also, although there is a lot of overlap between muscle strength and size these terms are not completely synonymous.

[D_51]

Shaymus, yes I am referring to papers in exercise science. We are on the same page.

DumGoi, what counter argument? What preconcieved notion? That many of the studies that are published are of little value because they seem to ignore their own data if it does not support their thesis?
I restated the data presented in the abstract and the conclusion reached by the researchers. The data does not support the conclusion. My "thesis" explains why this happens repeatedly in published research papers and this is another data point supporting it. If you have a better thesis or data to disprove mine, go ahead and post it.
I did not make any statement regarding the value of any particular training rep range or training weight. Did your preconcieved notions lead you to think I did? Is that really what you want to discuss here?

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

"This is an amazing post given that your counter-argument is based solely on the idea that this study does not fit within the context of your preconceived notion."

I'm not sure about his counter argument, but my counter argument is that the study is wrong and has been proven so in every gym and training hall in the world.

[Mark Rippetoe]

This is an amazing post given that your counter-argument is based solely on the idea that this study does not fit within the context of your preconceived notion.

Also, although there is a lot of overlap between muscle strength and size these terms are not completely synonymous.

You are truly a stupid person, proven every time you post. The study does not fit with REALITY, upon which my preconceived notions are based.

[SumDumGoi]

You are truly a stupid person, proven every time you post. The study does not fit with REALITY, upon which my preconceived notions are based.

Mark, you may be a great "coach" but you are a god damned idiot! First, I am not 100% in support of the study, nor am I 100% refuting the results. I haven't read the thing yet in its entirety and therefore I need to reserve judgement until I do.

You on the other hand seem to disregard every study that is ever published if it doesn't fit into your preconceived narrative. This was the point I was making in my post. Any time something disagrees with anything you currently believe you automatically dismiss it as bullshit. You are an idiot not because you lack the capacity to understand something. You are an idiot because you choose to remain blissfully ignorant regarding any facts.

If you want to offer a critique of the study and dismiss it due to improper or imprecise methodology, go ahead. If you want to dismiss it because the data was misinterpreted, feel free. I am all for tearing apart studies and offering critiques, but to do so you have to actually READ THE FUCKING THINGS! Not only that but you have to place the study within its proper context. Not every study in exercise science/physiology is going to revolve around training athletes, let alone elite athletes.

From what I saw this study was done on untrained individuals. I don't necessarily find it all that unlikely that even untrained individuals have similar increases in muscle mass regardless of the number of reps as long as they produced an overload. This isn't to say that similar increases in muscle size would continue to occur between the two groups as their experience level increased. This also isn't to say that recommendations should be built around a single study.

You must take this study for what it is; a brief snapshot in time regarding the intensity of exercise performed for individuals who are untrained..........nothing more and nothing less.

[SumDumGoi]

The study in question appears to be ahead of print and I don't have access to it. But here is a review written by the same author in which they discuss their resuts:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...1139/h2012-022

In the review they mentioned that there are several variables which can ultimately produce overload on the muscle, of which the intensity (as defined as a percentage of 1 RM) is one. They also mentioned if there are several other variables that can also induce overload on a muscle such as training volume, rep cadence, time under tension, rest between set, etc, etc.

Do you find it implausible that these other factors may also be able to create an increase in muscle mass, or that the intensity of the lift (% 1RM) is the only factor capable of producing hypertrophy?

Here is a highlighted portion taken from the end of the review:

However, the perspective provided within this review highlights that other
resistance exercise protocols, beyond the often discussed high-intensity training (American College of Sports Medicine 2009), can be effective in stimulating an acute anabolic response (Burd et al. 2010b) that may translate into trainingmediated
increases in hypertrophy (Léger et al. 2006). A larger metabolically active muscle mass, and discussing other avenues beyond high-intensity contractions to achieve this, will have important implications from a public health standpoint.
For example, skeletal muscle mass is a large contributor to daily energy expenditure and will assist in weight management. Additionally, skeletal muscle, because of its
overall size, is the primary site of blood glucose disposal and thus will likely play a role in reducing the risk for the development of type II diabetes (Wolfe 2006). However, if
the goal is to achieve maximal strength development, since neural factors are a significant contributor to this outcome (Sale 1988), then high-intensity training regimes are superior in this regard. Training with high-intensity contractions allows
the trainee to get “practice” in activating muscle mass during a single maximal lift. However, greater strength would not require continual training at higher intensity resistance exercise, merely the periodic practice of higher intensity lifts during a low-intensity training program.

I bolded an important section from above. The authors are not disagreeing with the notion that high training loads are required to maximize muscular strength. What they are saying is that in order to increase "muscle mass" there may be any number of factors that may be important and that the exact training load is not exclusive to maximizing size.

What they are saying is that essentially muscle mass is the intermediary in this process and that strength is developed by increasing muscle size as well as maximizing the neurological efficiency at these training loads.

However, if your goal is to maximally increase strength the authors went out of their way to say that high training loads are important. Because the neurological component IS important for strength athletes you are not going to see many strength athletes completing these high rep sets with low weight. Or at least if they want to be successful they won't do this.

However, if your goal is to simply increase muscle mass, then you are left with a multitude of different options, assuming that you are creating some overload on thie muscle. This, I would argue that you DO see in practice. Some bodybuilders will use the traditional high load sets (5-8 reps); others you will see using low weight and increased volume 8-15 reps, sometimes as high as twenty); others you will see slowing down the cadence, while others yet will decrease the rest period between sets.

If your overall goal is to increase muscle mass which of these techniques is best? Every one of these techniques has its own proponents and many examples can be found showing that all of them can be and have been successful in practice. You might just have to accept that ALL of them have some utility.

If your goal is to maximize "strength" development, as seems to be your goal given the name of this forum, the authors would contend that high load lifts are required. However, if increasing hypertrophy is the desired outcome, than any number of factors can be changed/altered in the program could have some benefit, including training with low loads and high reps.

However, one thing I would like to point out is that the modality of exercise used in the study may not be applicable to more compound exercises like squats or dare I say "leg presses" (*gasp). The authors did mention that the leg extensions result in a greater occlusion of blood flow, which would make the muscles become more ischemic quickly. There have been other studies showing that an increase of ischemia (lack of blood flow) to a muscle does increase the hypertrophic response as the higher threshold motor units (anerobic) must be recruited sooner as the lower threshold (aerobic) will fatigue sooner. In other words, maybe this does or it does not apply to other exercises when using such a low intensity. You can't say for certain, but it would make for an interesting follow-up study.

Regardless though, I still feel it would be impractical to train at such a low intensity if you have to do upwards of 30 reps of an exercise. So I would still recommend training at higher loads for most people, but still understand that there is more than one way of achieving a desired outcome. This is evidence in the real world of the multitude of different training programs that have been successfully implemented. Or in your case quit being so fucking myopic as you look at the world through a very narrowed lens smeared in your own bullshit!

[StrongLiftMyBalls]

To summarise what I think everyone here is thinking is:

Until a test comes out where there:
Is a large selection group,
The exercises are more all inclusive of muscle groups (such as the big three/four lifts)
Half do the same light weights for a whole year
The other half do an LP type of program involving low-heavy reps for a year both taught the exact same form and technique
One half of the light weighters and one half of the LP-ers have the usual 'nutritionally recommended diet'
The other half follow an SS-type recommended diet.
Recovery between groups is the same so everyone follows a M,W,F program.

And until this is done and the results were statistically significant showing that the light weighters gained as much muscle and nearly as much strength over the whole year as the LP-ers, I wont believe any half arsed paper with ridiculous criteria.

Oh, and i think youll find that said paper will never be published as its obviously a shitty thesis that will never work.

[Drewcar]

Just another example of the disconnect between academics and practitioners, an all too common problem in many of the applied sciences.