Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   Muscle Building and Bodybuilding (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4003)

BendtheBar 08-13-2010 04:23 PM

Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows
 
Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows

Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights, study shows

This crap is the number one reason why I ignore studies.

"Rather than grunting and straining to lift heavy weights, you can grab something much lighter but you have to lift it until you can't lift it anymore,"

"We're excited to see where this new paradigm will lead," says Phillips"

andys_trim 08-13-2010 04:25 PM

That's a load of crap. Has anyone heard of McMaster University?

big_swede 08-13-2010 04:34 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2...5943-large.jpg

:thefinger:

BendtheBar 08-13-2010 04:35 PM

The turds did leg extensions, and scientists conclude that light weights were the winner.

The men behind this study should be fired. How can they can this academic?

andys_trim 08-13-2010 05:13 PM

Try squats or deadlifts, then come back and tell me that light weight wins.

BendtheBar 08-13-2010 05:23 PM

Someone just told me it's peer reviewed, so it's "valid". I'm feeling ill.

If anything it reveals that an extended TUT is superior for a newb. Weight + greater time = much greater stress for a newb.

But as the body rapidly adapts to this light weight, progression is required. Light weight becomes heavy weight, and the study's conclusion collapses in upon itself.

Let them do leg extensions for light weight. That's working real well for the armies of gym rats who aren't making progress.

kitarpyar 08-13-2010 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andys_trim (Post 75467)
That's a load of crap. Has anyone heard of McMaster University?

Yeah, it's a Canadian university, and a pretty decent one for engineering. I dont have much idea about their physiology departments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 75476)
Someone just told me it's peer reviewed, so it's "valid". I'm feeling ill.

By and large, the peer-review system works well in engineering and natural sciences. This is not to say that this is a fool-proof system. There has been multiple instances where folks have bluffed through the system. I wouldn't hold anything sacrosanct just because it has passed peer-review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 75476)
If anything it reveals that an extended TUT is superior for a newb. Weight + greater time = much greater stress for a newb.

But as the body rapidly adapts to this light weight, progression is required. Light weight becomes heavy weight, and the study's conclusion collapses in upon itself.

Let them do leg extensions for light weight. That's working real well for the armies of gym rats who aren't making progress.

My main issue with the way science is done today is that research results are sensationalized way too much. If only they had not felt the need to sensationalize their work by making tall claims of "new paradigms" and bothered to look at the results without their retard filters, they would have seen that all the results say is this: total workout volume (weight x reps x sets) is important.

This isn't a "new" paradigm as they claim. This is something that has been known for ages by bodybuilders, the only difference being that those meatheads applied this idea much more sensibly than the pencil necks - i.e. by going relatively high volume with HEAVY weights instead of pussy weights (and exercises).

IronManlet 08-15-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitarpyar (Post 75483)
high volume with HEAVY weights instead of pussy weights (and exercises).

a.k.a: Chaos and Pain!!! :D

What a stupid study...

BendtheBar 08-15-2010 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kitarpyar (Post 75483)

My main issue with the way science is done today is that research results are sensationalized way too much.

I agree.

gaspers04 08-15-2010 10:44 AM

I have no further comment but,

Attachment 1777


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.

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