starting strength gym
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 146

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cedar Point, NC
    Posts
    4,769

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    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.
    Have you fully read Rip's books? Have you been to his seminar? This post and others lead me to believe you have not. Diminishing Rip's ideas, thoughts, years of study as "preconceived narrative" is myopic and well, ignorant. Ignorant of Rip's understanding, history, ideas, and ways.

    You have stated a number of things that are true, however you seem to imply that Rip is oblivious to these ideas, doesn't understand them, or possibly too pig headed to grasp. More importantly, you seem to ignore what Rip's training is all about.

    If you have spent any time on the site, read his material, studied his ideas, attended a seminar, then you might understand that Rip does in fact fully understand every single word of this study, your statements, and all the other studies that are introduced to this forum. But more importantly, if you have done these things, you will understand WHY Rip dismisses these studies, and WHY Rip's methods are distinctly better for efficiently building general strength. Should you have done your homework by doing these things, you will then better be able to argue a counter point, or perhaps have a discussion. I know this because I have done these things, and when I ask a question, Rip usually responds with another question. This drives the conversation until I finally make up my own mind and draw my own conclusion. Sometimes he just tells me, and I'm left to consider his information.

    But here is the thing I find most interesting. To my knowledge, Rip does not run around the internet posting his reasoning as to why someone else's thoughts or papers or studies are wrong on their sites. Rip runs his board, promotes his ideas, and helps those that want help and are willing to do their homework, and put forth a modicum of effort. But for some reason, folks roll in here from time to time and reference some study as if it were the golden chalice of strength and conditioning, or body building, or sports preparation, or whatever, and then want to convince Rip and those that understand his ways WHY this NEW study with a very old idea is better than something else or SS methods. Or even better, they want Rip to ONCE AGAIN state what has ALREADY BEEN STATED because some new study on the same old thing came out in some exercise science thesis by some college kid somewhere in the world. But, these folks generally haven't spent their time giving the owner of this site the courtesy of reading even 10% of the work already published by Rip.

    I know nothing of you, your background, or your understanding of any of this. I do find it somewhat hysterical that you are on a forum that is provided for free, attacking the thoughts and processes of a man that has published numerous books, papers, articles, and the like while accusing him of having not read a particular study - when it is apparent you have not read all that he has published. I do know that Rip has studied many of these other methods (he was one of the first people to hold the coveted CSCS certification from the NSCA - that he later relinquished of his own accord). Rip does in fact offer free advice daily, and is willing to discuss a point, his reasoning, or his ideas.

    Roughly every month, Rip holds a seminar. For three days attendees are taught, in detail, Rip's ideas and methods. Rip demands that attendees ask questions, participate in discussions, and in fact concludes with a Q&A where he goes around the room and asks every single attendee to ask two questions. He invites outside ideas, and asks for the science to support the ideas. He refutes ideas he disagrees with using science and experience (mostly science). However, he listens, and often asks, "Is there a better way?" His ideas are typically backed up with anatomy, physical examples, and basic mathematics and physics concepts. I see none of this in your counter point or this article.

    Rip is no saint, but he is displaying the patience of one by allowing your posts...or perhaps the joke is on me, and you - like many others - amuse him and thus he allows these posts to watch the rest of us respond.

    Probably the latter...good one, Rip. (I smile as I type this last sentence.)

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mac Ward View Post
    Have you fully read Rip's books? Have you been to his seminar? This post and others lead me to believe you have not. Diminishing Rip's ideas, thoughts, years of study as "preconceived narrative" is myopic and well, ignorant. Ignorant of Rip's understanding, history, ideas, and ways.

    You have stated a number of things that are true, however you seem to imply that Rip is oblivious to these ideas, doesn't understand them, or possibly too pig headed to grasp. More importantly, you seem to ignore what Rip's training is all about.

    If you have spent any time on the site, read his material, studied his ideas, attended a seminar, then you might understand that Rip does in fact fully understand every single word of this study, your statements, and all the other studies that are introduced to this forum. But more importantly, if you have done these things, you will understand WHY Rip dismisses these studies, and WHY Rip's methods are distinctly better for efficiently building general strength. Should you have done your homework by doing these things, you will then better be able to argue a counter point, or perhaps have a discussion. I know this because I have done these things, and when I ask a question, Rip usually responds with another question. This drives the conversation until I finally make up my own mind and draw my own conclusion. Sometimes he just tells me, and I'm left to consider his information.

    But here is the thing I find most interesting. To my knowledge, Rip does not run around the internet posting his reasoning as to why someone else's thoughts or papers or studies are wrong on their sites. Rip runs his board, promotes his ideas, and helps those that want help and are willing to do their homework, and put forth a modicum of effort. But for some reason, folks roll in here from time to time and reference some study as if it were the golden chalice of strength and conditioning, or body building, or sports preparation, or whatever, and then want to convince Rip and those that understand his ways WHY this NEW study with a very old idea is better than something else or SS methods. Or even better, they want Rip to ONCE AGAIN state what has ALREADY BEEN STATED because some new study on the same old thing came out in some exercise science thesis by some college kid somewhere in the world. But, these folks generally haven't spent their time giving the owner of this site the courtesy of reading even 10% of the work already published by Rip.

    I know nothing of you, your background, or your understanding of any of this. I do find it somewhat hysterical that you are on a forum that is provided for free, attacking the thoughts and processes of a man that has published numerous books, papers, articles, and the like while accusing him of having not read a particular study - when it is apparent you have not read all that he has published. I do know that Rip has studied many of these other methods (he was one of the first people to hold the coveted CSCS certification from the NSCA - that he later relinquished of his own accord). Rip does in fact offer free advice daily, and is willing to discuss a point, his reasoning, or his ideas.

    Roughly every month, Rip holds a seminar. For three days attendees are taught, in detail, Rip's ideas and methods. Rip demands that attendees ask questions, participate in discussions, and in fact concludes with a Q&A where he goes around the room and asks every single attendee to ask two questions. He invites outside ideas, and asks for the science to support the ideas. He refutes ideas he disagrees with using science and experience (mostly science). However, he listens, and often asks, "Is there a better way?" His ideas are typically backed up with anatomy, physical examples, and basic mathematics and physics concepts. I see none of this in your counter point or this article.

    Rip is no saint, but he is displaying the patience of one by allowing your posts...or perhaps the joke is on me, and you - like many others - amuse him and thus he allows these posts to watch the rest of us respond.

    Probably the latter...good one, Rip. (I smile as I type this last sentence.)

    Perhaps you should note that I have not said that lifting heavy weights is not effective. Also, you should note that Mark is dealing with primarily increasing strength in novice lifters. Here is where you need to pay attention. Strength and muscle mass are not the same thing.

    The authors of the study went out of their way to point this out in the review article I posted. What is apparent is that you have not read the article, including the authors conclusions which I copy and pasted as well as bolded this key point. If you had bothered to read what the authors had said you would have realized that if the goal is to maximize "muscular strength" then using a heavy load is required! Please go back and read the study.

    Personally I don't care what Ripp has done in the past or how many coaching seminars he has performed or what books he has published. As I even started out the previous post, I indicated that he is a very good coach, especially when it comes to teaching proper form. However, his coaching viewpoint is very myopic in that it focuses almost exclusively on powerlifting techniques.

    I am not saying that is a bad thing as the man has obviously found his niche. However, the world of exercise science/physiology does not revolve solely around powerlifting and not every published article should be applied to this niche population.

    If you bothered to notice the article in question was published in the "Journal of Applied Physiology". This is not a journal article that is going to cater to training athletes. This is a Journal that has more of a clinical focus, not a focus on the world of strength and conditioning. So let's examine the article in question with this in mind.

    First, would you disagree that other variables outside of the load on the bar are capable of increasing muscular size? in other words could you use things such as slowing of the rep cadence, decreased tie between sets, increasing total exercise volume, increasing the time the muscle is under tension, etc, etc to increase muscle mass, even if you hold the load constant? If you say "yes" then we can continue to have a discussion. If you say "no" then please go read up on the subject matter because you are starting from a flawed premise.

    Now, let's say we are a clinician working with a patient who has just had a stroke and has a decrease in coordination. Our focus of our plan is to 1) increase our patients coordination and 2) increase his muscular strength. Should we throw this patient under a high load and have him perform the exercise to improve his strength? Hopefully you say no because higher loads are going to require more coordination during the lift and being that our patient just had a stroke this is probably not a good idea.

    However, if there was perhaps some type of training program which was able to increase muscular size without having the patient use a high load. The utilization of such a training program certainly would be beneficial to help this man recover since it would take less coordination and he would still be able to improve his muscle mass. As an increased muscle mass is an intermediary for increasing muscular strength (the terms have similar characteristics but are not synonymous), the ability to increase muscle mass would be an important step in the rehabilitation process.

    Perhaps having an understanding of the mechanisms which result in the increase of muscle mass is a useful endeavor as opposed to just blindly taking the word of a strength coach working primarily in the niche area of novice lifters.

    Keep in mind, the authors have never once said that one form of training is superior to the other. They have, however, explicitly stated that what type of training you are performing depends on your goals and even went as far to state that to maximize muscular strength heavy loads need to be used. The goals of the study were to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of muscular hypertrophy, NOT the prescription of a training program.

    It is up to the clinicians to then determine how to best utilize this information and I (as well as the authors of the study) would agree that if you are looking to maximize muscular strength in athletes, low load, high rep sets are probably not the best way to go about achieving this goal.

    In the end, actually read the fucking study before you make another stupid post outlining your stupidity.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    Strength and muscle mass are not the same thing.

    Personally I don't care what Ripp has done in the past or how many coaching seminars he has performed or what books he has published. As I even started out the previous post, I indicated that he is a very good coach, especially when it comes to teaching proper form. However, his coaching viewpoint is very myopic in that it focuses almost exclusively on powerlifting techniques.
    Okay, at this point he's just typing uninformed gibberish. Coming to a halt very soon.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    6,635

    Default

    " Should we throw this patient under a high load and have him perform the exercise to improve his strength? Hopefully you say no because higher loads are going to require more coordination during the lift and being that our patient just had a stroke this is probably not a good idea."

    So you are saying it takes more coordination to perform a set of 5 than a set of 12? Interesting, because whenever I learn a new movement (which a stroke victim is doing) I stay with low reps (5 or less) so that fatigue (both mental and physical) don't interfere with the learning process.

    And not just me, Pavel, Rip, Starr, Dan John, Mike Mahler, Tommy Kono and Greg Everett all say the same thing; few reps work best to learn the motion since you can concentrate on the movement and fatigue does not become an issue. The 20 rep squat program is considered an advanced program for just this reason.

    And as you said, size != strength. So why should a stroke patient initially care about size?

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Okay, at this point he's just typing uninformed gibberish. Coming to a halt very soon.
    Can you increase "strength" without an increase in muscle size?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cedar Point, NC
    Posts
    4,769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    Perhaps you should note that I have not said that lifting heavy weights is not effective. Also, you should note that Mark is dealing with primarily increasing strength in novice lifters. Here is where you need to pay attention. Strength and muscle mass are not the same thing.
    Never said they were. My post was in response to your attack on Rip, on his board, when you have not done your homework on Rip's methods. What you wrongly accuse me of doing.

    The authors of the study went out of their way to point this out in the review article I posted. What is apparent is that you have not read the article, including the authors conclusions which I copy and pasted as well as bolded this key point. If you had bothered to read what the authors had said you would have realized that if the goal is to maximize "muscular strength" then using a heavy load is required! Please go back and read the study.
    Yes sir, I did.


    Personally I don't care what Ripp has done in the past or how many coaching seminars he has performed or what books he has published. As I even started out the previous post, I indicated that he is a very good coach, especially when it comes to teaching proper form. However, his coaching viewpoint is very myopic in that it focuses almost exclusively on powerlifting techniques.

    I am not saying that is a bad thing as the man has obviously found his niche. However, the world of exercise science/physiology does not revolve solely around powerlifting and not every published article should be applied to this niche population.
    You make my point.


    First, would you disagree that other variables outside of the load on the bar are capable of increasing muscular size? in other words could you use things such as slowing of the rep cadence, decreased tie between sets, increasing total exercise volume, increasing the time the muscle is under tension, etc, etc to increase muscle mass, even if you hold the load constant? If you say "yes" then we can continue to have a discussion. If you say "no" then please go read up on the subject matter because you are starting from a flawed premise.
    Uh...sure. Again, read Rip's stuff, and you'll possibly find a better, more efficient way. Perhaps you will not. Regardless, my point was this: You haven't studied Rip's way, methodology, or understanding. Why attack what you haven't studied? The very thing you wrongly accuse me of as well. I'm reminded of the horse and water and leading the horse story.

    Now, let's say we are a clinician working with a patient who has just had a stroke and has a decrease in coordination. Our focus of our plan is to 1) increase our patients coordination and 2) increase his muscular strength. Should we throw this patient under a high load and have him perform the exercise to improve his strength? Hopefully you say no because higher loads are going to require more coordination during the lift and being that our patient just had a stroke this is probably not a good idea.
    Once again your ignorance of Rip's methods is astounding, and you continue to make my point, you haven't studied Rip's ways or have a understanding of LP.

    However, if there was perhaps some type of training program which was able to increase muscular size without having the patient use a high load. The utilization of such a training program certainly would be beneficial to help this man recover since it would take less coordination and he would still be able to improve his muscle mass. As an increased muscle mass is an intermediary for increasing muscular strength (the terms have similar characteristics but are not synonymous), the ability to increase muscle mass would be an important step in the rehabilitation process.
    Read my statement above.
    Perhaps having an understanding of the mechanisms which result in the increase of muscle mass is a useful endeavor as opposed to just blindly taking the word of a strength coach working primarily in the niche area of novice lifters.
    Again you have made a terrible assumption about my training, research, and understanding.

    Keep in mind, the authors have never once said that one form of training is superior to the other. They have, however, explicitly stated that what type of training you are performing depends on your goals and even went as far to state that to maximize muscular strength heavy loads need to be used. The goals of the study were to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of muscular hypertrophy, NOT the prescription of a training program.
    Again, not the point, and I will tell you that I agree, I won't speak for Rip, but I'm pretty sure he does to. The point being, that ain't what he's talking about on the SS methodology or LP.

    It is up to the clinicians to then determine how to best utilize this information and I (as well as the authors of the study) would agree that if you are looking to maximize muscular strength in athletes, low load, high rep sets are probably not the best way to go about achieving this goal.
    We finally found a good use for clinicians. Thanks for solving that mystery.

    In the end, actually read the fucking study before you make another stupid post outlining your stupidity.
    Same answer as before, I read it and I understood it. Attacking Rip and those that agree there is a better way doesn't make the study more valid.

    My point is no different than my first post.

    Rip, I saw your post, I won't post another....assuming you allow this one.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    Can you increase "strength" without an increase in muscle size?
    No. Because the stress that causes neuromuscular efficiency improvement also causes hypertrophy. They cannot be separated. You seldom know what you're talking about, but here you'd be better off sitting down and shutting up.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    Now, let's say we are a clinician working with a patient who has just had a stroke and has a decrease in coordination. Our focus of our plan is to 1) increase our patients coordination and 2) increase his muscular strength. Should we throw this patient under a high load and have him perform the exercise to improve his strength? Hopefully you say no because higher loads are going to require more coordination during the lift and being that our patient just had a stroke this is probably not a good idea.
    You are just embarrassing yourself here. I can't tell if you are purposefully injecting a straw man argument in the hope of being more persuasive, or if you just don't know anything about linear progression. Either way, it's kind of sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    As an increased muscle mass is an intermediary for increasing muscular strength....
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    It is up to the clinicians to then determine how to best utilize this information...
    This has already been addressed, I just quoted it because I couldn't resist.

    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    In the end, actually read the fucking study before you make another stupid post outlining your stupidity.
    Just one example of the overuse of invective throughout your posts to cover for the lack of something to say. It's been fun, but I think the party's over.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    No. Because the stress that causes neuromuscular efficiency improvement also causes hypertrophy. They cannot be separated. You seldom know what you're talking about, but here you'd be better off sitting down and shutting up.
    I guess here is where all that "experience" has you talking out of your ass. Yes, there is considerable overlap between the muscle mass and muscular strength. This is not in dispute so don't try to spin the conversation towards this end. However, it is a common phenomenon that beginners achieve a disproportionate increase in strength compared to size. Therefore, the two terms cannot be considered to be synonymous.

    This is basic textbook physiology Mark. I would quote numerous studies have have show this, but it will fall on deaf ears as you have an extreme adversity to facts.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,559

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by SumDumGoi View Post
    However, it is a common phenomenon that beginners achieve a disproportionate increase in strength compared to size.
    How has this common phenomenon been demonstrated? Cite your sources. Now.

    And while we're at it, who exactly the fuck are you? A guy with a bachelor's degree in ex fizz?

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •