Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Board (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Can you lift light and still make muscle gains? (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4006)

Jerry Brainum 08-13-2010 09:31 PM

Can you lift light and still make muscle gains?
 
A long-standing tenet in bodybuilding is that if you want to promote muscular hypertrophy, or muscle size gains, you need to train heavy, using lower reps. Conversely, training with lighter weights will “tone” muscles, but isn’t effective for promoting gains in muscular size and strength. Much of this is based on a physiological principle called [...]

More...

strkout35 08-13-2010 11:33 PM

is this the same study you referenced in your thread BTB? one-legged leg extensions....................... :thefinger:

BendtheBar 08-14-2010 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strkout35 (Post 75516)
is this the same study you referenced in your thread BTB? one-legged leg extensions....................... :thefinger:

I believe so. Checking out his article now.

BendtheBar 08-14-2010 07:34 AM

Here it is..

Quote:

A long-standing tenet in bodybuilding is that if you want to promote muscular hypertrophy, or muscle size gains, you need to train heavy, using lower reps. Conversely, training with lighter weights will ďtoneĒ muscles, but isnít effective for promoting gains in muscular size and strength. Much of this is based on a physiological principle called the Muscle fiber recruitment hierarchy. This principle states that the body activates only as many muscle fibers as possible to produce movement, beginning with the slow-twitch, or type-1 muscle fibers. As these fibers fatigue (and fatigue is the key word here, as we shall see), other muscle fibers, namely types 2-a and 2-b, also known as fast-twitch muscle fibers, are brought into play. What activates these fast-twitch fibers are neuromuscular connections. Simply put, when enough resistance is placed on the muscle, a signal is sent to the cerebellum section of the brain requesting more neural input to the muscle fibers in order to recruit the type-2 fibers. For years, it was thought that to recruit the type 2B muscle fibers required a greater neural input, and the best way to do this was to increase the intensity level of the imposed stress on the fibers. The best way to do this was to lift heavy. Indeed, most exercise physiology textbooks say that the fast-twitch type-2 muscle fibers are the fibers most amenable to gains in muscle size and strength. Type-1 slow-twitch fibers are more related to endurance, and would be activated with lower intensity exercise, such as when doing endurance activity, or when using lighter weights for higher reps. Again, it was thought that the body wonít recruit the type-2 fibers unless it was necessary. But note that the type-2 fibers can also be brought into play when the type-1 fibers become fatigued, for whatever reason.

Bodybuilders had larger muscles because of a selective hypertrophy of type 2B fast-twitch muscle fibers, and they achieved this through lifting heavy weights. But in recent years, this notion has come into question. As I reported in an Ironman magazine article a while ago, muscle biopsies of champion bodybuilders showed that they had a preponderance of type 2A fast-twitch muscle fibers, rather than the expected type 2B fibers. Type 2A fibers are considered an intermediate fiber, having characteristics of both type 1 and type 2 fibers. What this pointed to was that the typical bodybuilding workout of doing higher reps, averaging 8-12 per set, would likely produce better muscle gains compared to doing lower reps with heavier weight.While many powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters undeniably are strong, many donít show the level of muscle hypertrophy that you would expect considering their chronic heavy lifting training routines, which usually involve heavy weights and low reps.

Occlusion training, which involves training with an impediment to blood flow, such as wearing an inflatable cuff while training, has been shown in several studies to produce significant gains in muscle size despite using light weights. Various reasons are offered to explain this effect, but the main mechanism seems to be an increase in localized fatigue products produced in the muscle as a result of the impeded blood flow. This increased fatigue, in turn, is interpreted by the brain as a call to recruit the type-2 muscle fibers, which result in the muscle gains apparent following this type of exercise. I also reported on another study, in which subjects lifted light weights, but under high tension, meaning that they did the exercises slower than normal, and forcefully contracted the trained muscles during every rep. Again, despite using weights only equivalent to 20% of one rep-maximum, which is very light, the subjects made gains in muscle size comparable to that achieved through lifting far heavier weights. The deciding factor here was again the level of local muscle fatigue produced in the trained muscle, which not only fully activated the type-2 fibers, but also promoted a greater release of anabolic hormones, such as growth hormone and IGF-1, which are stimulated by locallly produced muscle fatigue factors, such as increased lactic acid in the muscle.

In the latest study, 15 men, average age, 21, all of whom had at least 6 months of training experience, and had trained at least three times a week 6 months prior to the start of the study, did 4 sets of one-legged extensions using differing training protocols. These protocols were as follows:

1) 90% of one-rep maximum weight to failure (heavy weight)

2) 30% of one-rep maximum matched in reps and load to #1


3) 30% of one-rep maximum done to failure (light)


The scientists conducting the study calculated various rates of protein synthesis in the trained muscle, measuring both contractile protein synthesis and connective tissue or structural muscle protein synthesis. Increased muscle protein synthesis is directly related to increased gains in muscle size and strength, particularly the contractile proteins. The study results showed that the light weight to failure style (#3) was more effective at increasing muscle protein synthesis compared to #1, or high load, heavy weight. The light training to failure produced a level of muscle protein synthesis that was similar to that of the heavy load 4 hours after exercise, but it was sustained for 24 hours after training only in the light weight to failure training. The study authors suggest that the increased volume of training produced by the lighter weight to failure study resulted in more muscle fatigue, and more positively affected the amplitude of the muscle synthesis process. Only the #3 style of training produced sustained increases in the muscle protein synthesis rate of all proteins found in muscle: contractile, connective tissue, and mitochondrial. This means in simple terms that this style of training may be capable of increasing muscle size, strength, and even endurance simultaneously. The total number of completed reps was 94 in group #3; 19 in #1; and 62 in #2. The greater number of reps in #3 appeared to promote a greater activity of several muscle protein synthesis signaling factors. Group#3 also showed higher indicators of signaling factors for stimulation of muscle satellite cell activity, which is important for promoting muscle size and strength gains.

The authors suggest this information could be useful for prescribing exercise for those who are injured or too old to lift heavy weights.They point out that people over age 70 show an anabolic resistance to weight-training, meaning that they donít show any significant increases in muscle protein synthesis following weight-training. This resistance,however, can be overcome by increasing the volume of exercise in the aged. This jives with the findings of this new study, which suggests that lifting lighter, but doing reps to muscle failure, is capable of fully turning on the muscle protein synthesis machinery of the body. The key is to induce enough fatigue in the muscle to kick-start the muscle protein synthesis reactions. And according to this study, it can be done by using lighter weights that feature higher reps to failure (reps in the study averaged 34 reps per set in the light weight to failure sessions). I believe that a key element of these findings is that even in the light weight group, each set was done to muscular failure, no matter how many reps that took. Just lifting light weights and not training to failure wonít do diddly squat in promoting muscle gains, since it wonít activate the muscle protein synthesis signaling factors that play a central role in producing muscle gains.

Burd, M, et al. Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men..

BendtheBar 08-14-2010 07:35 AM

Brainum's article doesn't really say much. It recaps occlusion and talks about the study.

Light weight to failure is great, if your body never adapts....

There is a quote on the link that says "this is great, especially for those of us who can't lift heavy weight."

As we can imagine, people will start taking this conclusion as gospel and out of context, since the study doesn't reference adaptation.

MMA Max 08-15-2010 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 75538)
Brainum's article doesn't really say much. It recaps occlusion and talks about the study.

Light weight to failure is great, if your body never adapts....

There is a quote on the link that says "this is great, especially for those of us who can't lift heavy weight."

As we can imagine, people will start taking this conclusion as gospel and out of context, since the study doesn't reference adaptation.



Not saying this article is worht anything but a dr. Who works out in the same place i work out had this convo last night, i asked him what he thought. He is older and shreded with muscle..he does shows and is at 4 percent body fat or something like that..he said He never lifts heavy.. His reps are between 10/15/20 he said lifting heavy was for the birds...now im not saying he is right or wrong but it makes you think...for me i mix the two..

BendtheBar 08-15-2010 07:58 AM

I've met several bodybuilders that say they don't lift heavy now, like Victor Costa. When you dig deeper you found he gained his muscle by lifting (relatively) heavy, and then backed off the weight slightly with age.

There are also many older naturals (50+) that compete without a substantial amount of muscle. I understand and respect why they choose to train lighter, but I'm guessing they are still challenging themselves in the gym to some degree.

MMA Max 08-15-2010 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 75622)
I've met several bodybuilders that say they don't lift heavy now, like Victor Costa. When you dig deeper you found he gained his muscle by lifting (relatively) heavy, and then backed off the weight slightly with age.

There are also many older naturals (50+) that compete without a substantial amount of muscle. I understand and respect why they choose to train lighter, but I'm guessing they are still challenging themselves in the gym to some degree.


how would you test the body with light weight and get as big as this doctor? I thought 15+ reps was not a good thing? And i have heard people scream you cant get big with out squats and dead lifts? These guys in my gym who he works out with never squat and never dead..i asked him why and he said its not good for your body and or back to pull up that kind of weight..he said wait till your my age and see where your back is at lifting all that weight
...i also mention squats and he said its nonesence..you can get wheels with out them

hugerobb 08-15-2010 09:40 AM

I always lift heavy always have been lifting fo 25 yrs. and I have no complaints Im now in my late 50's and still gaining so I say too your dr. friend with no disrespect to him I think lifting light is for bodybuilders lifting heavy is for real men.I say go Huge or go away.

BendtheBar 08-15-2010 10:00 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by MMA Max (Post 75625)
how would you test the body with light weight and get as big as this doctor? I thought 15+ reps was not a good thing? And i have heard people scream you cant get big with out squats and dead lifts? These guys in my gym who he works out with never squat and never dead..i asked him why and he said its not good for your body and or back to pull up that kind of weight..he said wait till your my age and see where your back is at lifting all that weight
...i also mention squats and he said its nonesence..you can get wheels with out them

For the doc...either he was born a genetic freak, or at some point he employed progressive resistance. He might say he trains "light", but that might mean a 185 to 225 bench for 18 reps. That's "relatively" light, but still heavy ass weight and more reps at 225 than I can do. We have to be careful with statements like the one he made. I would highly wager that he's not benching 95 pounds for reps, or doing 10 pound dumbbell curls.

Also keep in mind that the more ripped you get, the bigger you look. See Shaun Clarida's pictures below. Shaun weighs 130-ish. If the doc looks 250 and beefy ripped he's on the love sauce.

Big wheels...You can get wheels with leg presses. There are several bodybuilders I know that don't use them.

As far as reps, one of the men that beat Arnold, Chet Yorton, loved to train with 22 rep sets. Reps don't matter much if the weight is challenging. High rep sets (15 rep range) are often associated with isolation exercises, but used with a moderate weight, and with compound-style lifts can be very beneficial for muscle gains.

I don't believe anyone is saying you can't get big without squats and deadlifts. They are simply the two best bodybuilding exercises.

I've seen 3 natural contests this year and the 2 worst bodyparts on stage for a good number of competitors are back and legs. I am betting many of these guys don't squat and deadlift. You can certainly train without them, but for most genetically average individuals they are by far and away worth it.

As far as you doctor...you said he was shredded. How much do you think he weighed? Shaun Clarida is shredded and looks like a monster, and only weighs 132:

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/att...1&d=1281884136

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/att...1&d=1281884136


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.