Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights: study

McMaster University ^ | August 11, 2010 | Unknown

[decimon]

Reps ping.

[Tijeras_Slim]

True.

I developed my abs, 12 ounces at a time.

[Pessimist]

I always heard heavy weight + low reps builds bulk, while light weight + high reps builds definition.

[beebuster2000]

nothing new there. all weight training and body building routines have low weight high rep segments.

[pogo101]

The secret is to pump iron until you reach muscle fatigue

Wow. What a breakthrough. /sarc

[equalitybeforethelaw]

This is considered new? We were always taught that you build mass through heavy weight and stamina and definition with high reps of lighter weight. Why do they consider this news?

[nikos1121]

God, this has been well known for many many years. How much did it cost to do the study.

WE now are taking about muscle confusion also being effective, but exercise to muscle fatigue has been long known behind muscle building. Using heavier wts gets you to fatigue faster.

Probably a study that was paid for by the tax payers.

[Frantzie]

Anyone know how I can get the Steve Reeves look? Everyine said lift or pullups wide. i.e. on lat machine or pull up put hands as far apart as possible.

[driftdiver]

how much did we pay for that study?

[pogo101]

Those will all help. I’m no super-expert, but if you want a broad back, and to get it in a healthy way, you’ll have to do a lot of things, not just a set of back exercises. FReepmail me if you want more blathering from me.

[bill1952]

The principle that guides all exercise physiology is SAID.

Specific
Adaptation to
Imposed
Demand

Higher reps & lighter weights is a different (neuromuscular) adaptation than the demand imposed by heavier weight.

Exercise Phy. 101

[Jewbacca]

There are different types of muscle fibre that do different things.

You need a combination of low reps and high reps to build both.

Any gym rat could tell them this.

[Huebolt]

Fast twitch muscle fibers are best if you want to have speed and power. High reps, lighter weight.

Big, bulky, slow-twitch muscles if you want to lift pianos. High weight, low reps.

[Mr. K]

The best book i ever had on weightlifting said to lift doing as many reptitions as it took to FAIL.

If it was 50 pounds for 100 reps, or 150 pounds for 3 reps- the important part was to REACH the point where you fail.

I bulked up so fast I couldnt believe it. And I lost weight- even though I was usually starving to death after a workout like that.

Finally made it to be able to bench over 250 in less than 6 months

[Paradox]

This has been known for many, many years. It is why there are BODYBUILDERS and POWERLIFTERS, not necessarily the same thing. The muscle grows in response to how much you tax it. Maximal weight without significant taxing of the energy system (reps) will get you strong, but the muscle will not grow as much as if you taxed it with reps. Adding the "reps" component of the set will cause the muscle to increase its glycogen stores for energy, and with this energy comes alot of water, which swells up the muscle cell, yadda yadda, the mechanisms have been known for a while, I guess this study is one of the ones that simply confirms what alot of people have suspected for a while.

Here's something to think about, while I was no where as built as The Rock (Duane Johnson), I could out bench him back in... well it must have been about 8 years ago. He told me he trains solely for muscular endurance and size, and didn't lift very heavy weights any more. His physique still made me look small however..

[Quick Shot]

Let me guess, you used the high rep method.

[Retired Greyhound]

Arthur Jones proved this in the 70s. This is nothing new.

That being said, strength gains will be minimal on this kind of routine due to the lack of tension.

Muscle size will increase, but it will be hollow muscle, rather than the more dense muscle that results from higher weights.

[VA_Gentleman]

Let me guess, in a related study it was confirmed that burning more calories than you consume leads to weight loss.

[Texan Tory]

“This is considered new? We were always taught that you build mass through heavy weight and stamina and definition with high reps of lighter weight. Why do they consider this news?”

This is sort of news (to me anyway), because the study indicates that you can build size (i.e. mass) through light weights and high reps, whereas I always remember being told that you only build definition but not mass from such. This is a very important concept (if true), because it means that the elderly and infirm can safely build lean body mass without endangering fragile joints, tendons and ligaments from the stresses of really heavy weights.