Is there a point to lifting "heavy" if you are natural?

[Fatpanda]

another study that shows the wasted effects of too much volume.

i like to call it the goldilocks effect   - too little or too much = no good, but the middle path = just right

Moderate volume of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters.González-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M, Gorostiaga EM.
Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain. jjbadi@arrakis.es

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of 3 volumes of heavy resistance, average relative training intensity (expressed as a percentage of 1 repetition maximum that represented the absolute kilograms lifted divided by the number of repetitions performed) programs on maximal strength (1RM) in Snatch (Sn), Clean & Jerk (C&J), and Squat (Sq). Twenty-nine experienced (>3 years), trained junior weightlifters were randomly assigned into 1 of 3 groups: low-intensity group (LIG; n = 12), moderate-intensity group (MIG; n = 9), and high-intensity group (HIG; n = . All subjects trained for 10 weeks, 4-5 days a week, in a periodized routine using the same exercises and training volume (expressed as total number of repetitions performed at intensities equal to or greater than 60% of 1RM), but different programmed total repetitions at intensities of >90-100% of 1RM for the entire 10-week period: LIG (46 repetitions), MIG (93 repetitions), and HIG (184 repetitions). During the training period, MIG and LIG showed a significant increase (p < 0.01-0.05) for C&J (10.5% and 3% for MIG and LIG, respectively) and Sq (9.5% and 5.3% for MIG and LIG, respectively), whereas in HIG the increase took place only in Sq (6.9%, p < 0.05). A calculation of effect sizes revealed greater strength gains in the MIG than in HIG or LIG. There were no significant differences between LIG and HIG training volume-induced strength gains. All the subjects in HIG were unable to fully accomplish the repetitions programmed at relative intensities greater than 90% of 1RM. The present results indicate that short-term resistance training using moderate volumes of high relative intensity tended to produce higher enhancements in weightlifting performance compared with low and high volumes of high relative training intensities of equal total volume in experienced, trained young weightlifters. Therefore, for the present population of weightlifters, it may be beneficial to use the MIG training protocol to improve the weightlifting program at least in a short-term (10 weeks) cycle of training.

[Fatpanda]

Just be careful how much you demonize cortisol. Some cortisol post training provides the necessary inflammatory response that triggers cytokine and autocrine and paracrine growth factor release at the muscle tissue level to begin the digestion of damaged muscle fibers, which is then replaced by ribosomal anabolic reconstruction of damaged fibers. It's a natural process. Some evil is necessary for good to prevail, is a simplistic way of thinking about it.

There's also a lot of talk that the increased cortisol levels as a result of resistance training have little effect on muscle catabolism, and are in fact generally responsible for helping spark gluconeogenesis to fuel repeated muscle contractions (along with glucagon). And that makes a lot of sense, when we all stop and think about it.

Low reps = primarily using ATP, CP, and a sparingly small amount of glycogen as fuel.

High reps = uses all available ATP and CP, and lots of glycogen. So, you need some gluconeogenesis at the liver to supply glucose to muscles for passive diffusion via the Glut receptors (usually Glut 1).

This is my current line of thinking on the issue. It changes every few months when some crack researcher changes it for me with a crazy new study.

i agree it is needed - however only in small amounts.

the low rep group does produce small amounts of cortisol, just not as much as the others.

Talking of atp, i came across an interesting study that shows that its atp depletion that regulates the protein synthesis responce - regardless of rep/weight ranges. Just when you think you understand it.......

[kh300]

i did high volume for years. eventually i gave up on bodybuilding to focus on powerlifting. i started a program doing 80% squat,dead,bench at low reps with a few isolation exercises here and there. diet -didnt even pay attention just ate normal..

 i ended up getting more muscle mass then i did when i was doing a ''bodybuilding'' routine stuffing my face with 300+ grams of protein a day.

[Fatpanda]

Right -- AMP levels is responsible for a lot of enzymatic regulation in the muscle. It does also play a role in protein synthesis. But, if all you had to do was increase AMP levels in the muscles to trigger protein synthesis to the degree that you'd see hypertrophy, then wouldn't all distance runners be absolutely massive?

AMP plays a role, along with a whole bunch of other things in some cosmic soupy enzymatic mess that's so intricately inter-related, it boggles the mind. We may never grasp the whole nest. But, we try. That's the important part. Each little puzzle piece brings the picture into focus and triggers a search for the next piece.

actually disregard my coments on the atp study. i just noticed they gave each participant an equal constant infusion of leucine starting 160 mins before and continuing up to 150 mins after - and they wonder why protein synthesis was equal regardless of weight 

why bother do these studies 

i did high volume for years. eventually i gave up on bodybuilding to focus on powerlifting. i started a program doing 80% squat,dead,bench at low reps with a few isolation exercises here and there. diet -didnt even pay attention just ate normal..

 i ended up getting more muscle mass then i did when i was doing a ''bodybuilding'' routine stuffing my face with 300+ grams of protein a day.

that seems to be most peoples experience - it seems the more we learn, the more we go back to the basics 

[JasonBourne22]

1. you are 21, your test is through the roof right now, and anything you do will work.

2. At 21 i also believed that high volume sets produced hypertrophy and i did get bigger and stronger, however strength and mass gains quickly stopped.

3. i have at no point said high volume sets do not induce hypertrophy - the studies i am quoting show they do - however i am simply reporting what the studies have found and what i have found through personal experimentation over 13 years, that they are NOT optimal.

4. you are a personal trainer, at 21 how long have you been at this? surely you have come across someone who found the volume too taxing? or stalled in their gains? if not - you will, what will you do then 

Well actually I just recently turned 23  , but do see your point. I have been a Personal trainer for 4 years now and I love it. I guess I wasn't very clear last night. I do utilize lower rep ranges with my clients, as doing sets based off 100 reps would be quite taxing after a while. I change things up so much my clients never know what to expect, one week we'll do 4 x 25, and the next we will do 4 x 12 or 8 x 8 or whatever I feel like making themself, or myself do. As long as factors keep changing my clients keep progressing be it strength, mass, body fat loss, weight loss, and they always come back for more, lol

[JasonBourne22]

I can't understand the logic in light weights for hypertrophy and strength versus a heavy weight. I'm open minded though, so a well thought out explanation will make me scratch the noodle and if it's good, I'll admit I'm wrong and be shamed for evermore, GB style!

I agree that the light weights will not build as much strength, I am sure of that. Now, if one week I do 5 x 20, and the next I  4 x 25 with the same or sometimes more weight, is that getting stronger? I don't know you be the judge. I for one could give a shit how strong I am, I focus on the muscle and use as much weight as I can for my desired rep range but stay in good form and use mind muscle connection to really focus on the target muscle. Just doing that I can make 20 lb dumbbell feel like 40 and 50 lb curls used. I don't know it works for me and I will stick to it, like panda said I'm young and test levels are through the roof (of that I am sure of  ) and will grow just about anything. But then again my clients who are over 40 also see results so its whatever.

[boonstack]

You meatheads that all go off when you hear "anaerobic mixed with aerobic" need to open your mind, sheep.

All of you that are "HEAVY or GO HOME" are so delusional into thinking thats the only way to increase muscle. 

Do you honestly think everyone that works out and his significant size (relatively low bodyfat) trains like that?

Im not saying pink dumbbells and weakass light weight... its OK to switch between 300 for 5 reps on bench and 10-15 reps of 240-260.

Everybody undermines the "45-1 hour" workout time frame. If you bust your ass as hard as you can with weight training for 1 hour, little rest between sets, high volume training can result in a great workout, JUST AS GOOD/BETTER as heavy weights.

[JasonBourne22]

You meatheads that all go off when you hear "anaerobic mixed with aerobic" need to open your mind, sheep.

All of you that are "HEAVY or GO HOME" are so delusional into thinking thats the only way to increase muscle. 

Do you honestly think everyone that works out and his significant size (relatively low bodyfat) trains like that?

Im not saying pink dumbbells and weakass light weight... its OK to switch between 300 for 5 reps on bench and 10-15 reps of 240-260.

Everybody undermines the "45-1 hour" workout time frame. If you bust your ass as hard as you can with weight training for 1 hour, little rest between sets, high volume training can result in a great workout, JUST AS GOOD/BETTER as heavy weights.

Well said, also, have you noticed how much less your joints hurt when you do higher volume versus heavier strength training as the norm. This is one of the biggest factors for my choice in higher volume training, as my "standard" workout, but heavy weight low reps now and then doesn't hurt.

[gymguy]

Hell yes!  Heavy weights make you grow.  There are a lot of big guys out there who train naturally.  I throw around some heavy weights and my physique shows it.

[Fatpanda]

unbelievable 

you know, jason i think you and boomstack are right. i now realise that all these studies are wrong - every one of the 37 quoted in this meta-analysis that say heavier lower rep sets are better for stength and mass or the 140 studies the other meta analysis i posted.

i should have been busting my balls with heavy ass sets of 20 and 25 reps with the pink dumbells for optimum size

Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship.Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA.
Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona 85212, USA. mdpeterz@hotmail.com

The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.

PMID: 15142003 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

you 2 must be quite the physical speciments to bend the laws of physiology like this and disprove this amount of overwhelming evidence.

jason, do you have any pics of your clients? if you can post 1 pic of any one of them that shows the progress they made also can you tell me of the gains they have made since working with you - and their excercise history that would be great too.

[JasonBourne22]

unbelievable 

you know, jason i think you and boomstack are right. i now realise that all these studies are wrong - every one of the 37 quoted in this meta-analysis that say heavier lower rep sets are better for stength and mass or the 140 studies the other meta analysis i posted.

i should have been busting my balls with heavy ass sets of 20 and 25 reps with the pink dumbells for optimum size

you 2 must be quite the physical speciments to bend the laws of physiology like this and disprove this amount of overwhelming evidence.

jason, do you have any pics of your clients? if you can post 1 pic of any one of them that shows the progress they made also can you tell me of the gains they have made since working with you - and their excercise history that would be great too.

I don't think your reading my post, cause I have said numerous times that I agree with what your saying, but feel that you should utilize every type of training for maximum benefit. There are so many paths to hypertrophy, why use just one. No I don't take pictures of my clients so I cannot prove these results, I use referral letters and word of mouth and I do just fine.

[Earl1972]

Thank you! You lift for the way you want to look. I used to lift heavy all the time, however I found myself looking bulky and not cut. When I started lifting lighter, controlling the weight more, the striations and vascularity really started coming through. I lost "bulk" but size wise I look bigger @ 188 lbs now then I did @ 208 then.

you lost fat

E

[JasonBourne22]

By your example, then I would say yes, you got stronger. You did more weight for more reps. I don't think anyone would argue that you've become weaker doing that.

By I don't get your point.

I never meant to say lift heavy at the expense of form, or feeling a muscle work. So we agree there.

If you do 4 x 25 reps even, you'll get stronger than if you do nothing. But if you did 10 x 10, you'd get bigger and stronger than the guy who did 4 x 25. Same number of reps in the workout. But by only having to do 10 reps, you can lift more weight.

Surely, I think we can all agree that if you went from curling 100 pounds for 5 to curling 100 pounds for 16 reps, that your arms would get bigger. So, obviously, resistance is key to hypertrophy. So why not focus on that variable? How can lighter weights make you bigger? Even if you could give a shit about strength...heavier weights make bigger muscles.

I know you're trying to make a point, but I'm not getting it. 

To sum up my point "food builds muscle" period. As long as your tearing it up in the gym you will build muscle if you eat enough protein and calories. All the rep scheme bullshit just a way to hit the body through different pathways. I actually love 10 x 10 and use it quite often. But like I said before I change it up every week, and the weights I use are as heavy as I can go in strict form with good mind muscle connection. When I do that the weights I use others would think are pussy weights but whatever I'm growing and look great.

[QuakerOats]

To sum up my point "food builds muscle" period. As long as your tearing it up in the gym you will build muscle if you eat enough protein and calories. All the rep scheme bullshit just a way to hit the body through different pathways. I actually love 10 x 10 and use it quite often. But like I said before I change it up every week, and the weights I use are as heavy as I can go in strict form with good mind muscle connection. When I do that the weights I use others would think are pussy weights but whatever I'm growing and look great.

sounds like you look great, you should post a picture.

[JasonBourne22]

you lost fat

E

Yes I did lose fat of course, however, my lean body mass at 208 was around 160 lbs while at 188 now and 172lbs lbm. So did I build muscle? Also, my diet didn't change at all. That being said I'm also 23 and have a super fast metabolism.

[JasonBourne22]

sounds like you look great, you should post a picture.

I will post a picture soon, got some from my photo shoot last year that I need to get put on this computer. The ones from my show had horrible lighting and aren't worth posting. I wouldn't say I look great by pro bodybuilder terms but for a natty and former fat kid I look and feel great and thats all that matters to me

[JasonBourne22]

Food does build muscle. No arguments there.

And hard training in the gym is good. No arguments there either.

I think we agree to disagree on the benefits of specific rep schemes being critical to progress. Fair enough. Hope you make good progress, and stay healthy. All the best to you man.

Thank you and same to you as well. I don't necessarily disagree with yall, its just I refuse to believe that there is one way of lifting and working out that is best for muscle building. I think its a combination of all different factors thrown in and utilized together.

[JasonBourne22]

Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.

[QuakerOats]

Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.

you look good dude, props.

[Master Blaster]

Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.

Props for posting a pic but I think you chose the wrong one. 

[JasonBourne22]

you look good dude, props.

Thank you, hard to believe I graduated high school in 2004 at 235 lbs with a 40 inch waist. Its been a long road.

[JasonBourne22]

Props for posting a pic but I think you chose the wrong one. 

I'm sorry, did you want one with me oiled up in a thong  , jus kiddin man. I took that pic from my facebook, I have more but am so not ashamed of it. I said before I graduated high school at 235 lbs and that was just 4 years ago.

[JasonBourne22]

Good physique bourne. Props

Thanks man, "light weight", "yeah buddaayyy!!!!" lol. Yeah I went to rhino with toney freeman and ronnie coleman after the 2007 olympia finals in vegas and ronnie actually said yeah buddy in the strip club. I almost died laughing

[Fatpanda]

Here you go quaker. My pic from photo shoot in august of 2007. I was about 180 in this pic right after I competed in my first show. I have gained about 10 lbs since but just don't have any recent pics.

looking good , however just think how much more muscle you would have if you used low reps and heavy weight 

[QuakerOats]

looking good , however just think how much more muscle you would have if you used low reps and heavy weight 

i don't think the guy claimed to be a huge massive bodybuilder or even that he wanted to be one, dude looks like a fitness type guy or Men's Health type build which there's nothing wrong with at all, he said his whole goal was to lose weight and get fit, honestly he looks like the type of guy who picks up a lot of high quality pusssy.