# Lifting Weights? No Need to Go Heavy



## SG83 (Mar 16, 2016)

*
Lifting Weights? No Need to Go Heavy
*

You don't need to feel wimpy for lifting little weight at the gym: A new study finds that lifting light weights is just as effective as lifting heavy ones for building muscle.

http://www.livescience.com/55381-light-heavy-weights-muscle-strengthening.html

What are your thoughts about it?


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

Said the skinny bloke suspected of swallowing a coat hanger


----------



## SILV3RBACK (Jun 23, 2012)

Your muscles don't know how much is on the bar. It's how intensely you work the muscles.

Unless you're a strongman or powerlifter, the weight don't mean shite!!


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

I find it much more enjoyable, faster and see more gains from training in a 7-10 rep failure range. Even if I'd see the same gains from doing 30 reps per set I wouldn't


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

SILV3RBACK said:


> Your muscles don't know how much is on the bar.


 That's the most ridiculous statement Iv ever read


----------



## SILV3RBACK (Jun 23, 2012)

tommolad said:


> That's the most ridiculous statement Iv ever read


 It's true though isn't it?


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

Not really. Doesn't even make sense mate


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

SILV3RBACK said:


> It's true though isn't it?


 How strong will you get just using an empty barbell.


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

Putting the muscle under more strain with progressive overload breaks down more fibre and therefore stimulates growth is the way I understand it

form is key though


----------



## Ken Hutchinson (May 29, 2009)

SILV3RBACK said:


> Your muscles don't know how much is on the bar. It's how intensely you work the muscles.
> 
> Unless you're a strongman or powerlifter, the weight don't mean shite!!


 Muscles aren't stupid, they know alright lol


----------



## Gavinmcl (Jul 1, 2010)

I think he means you're muscle doesn't know if there 80kg or 100kg on the bar


----------



## SILV3RBACK (Jun 23, 2012)

But your muscles don't know if there's 100kg or 200 or whatever on the bar. It's how you move that weight.


----------



## TrailerParkBoy (Sep 20, 2011)

monkeybiker said:


> How strong will you get just using an empty barbell.


 It's not about strength though, it's about building muscle


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

tommolad said:


> That's the most ridiculous statement Iv ever read


 if you just put 20k each side and try and press it and I add additional resistance by pushing down on it and making it very difficult.....

1. does your muscle know how much weight is on the bar?

2. will your muscle respond?


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

I think 'light weight' needs qualifying.....as in essence as long as progressive overload is applied, 'light and heavy' are relative terms....as longer as you're getting stronger (all things being equal) you will be at certain times lifting heavier weights...

After all if can bench 60kg for 6 reps today and 2 years later im still benching 60kg for 6 reps where is the progression? How can i possibly get bigger? Even if i lift it slowly, squeeze the muscle and have perfect mind muscle connection.....at some point, you MUST try and get stronger....otherwise whats the point?


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

SILV3RBACK said:


> But your muscles don't know if there's 100kg or 200 or whatever on the bar. It's how you move that weight.


 Not really, i understand what your saying....but its not strictly true...your muscles dont 'need to know' how much is on the bar....as long as either...

1) you do more reps with the same weight

2) you do more weight for the same reps or

3) a combination of both

So yeah it doesnt matter if it 60,90, 200 or whatever as long as progressive overload is present...regardless of how its moved. Take a guy who can bench 60kg for 10 with a beautiful, slow controlled movement and a paused contraction at the bottom do you think he will have as much muscle as a guy who can bench 160kg for the same reps but with a more explosive drive off the chest and no pause at the bottom...


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

banzi said:


> if you just put 20k each side and try and press it and I add additional resistance by pushing down on it and making it very difficult.....
> 
> 1. does your muscle know how much weight is on the bar?
> 
> 2. will your muscle respond?


 I get where your coming from banzi but you have to concede, at least initially for more muscle you have to get stronger.....as you advance and your goals refine ie bodybuilding, physique over more strength oriented pursuits.....but at some point without training of a progressive nature how do you improve?

As to your points

1. You are correct, the muscle doesn't 'know' how much resistance is on the bar- nor does it need to...

2. It will respond....initially....as what your providing is increased resistance....now all you need to do is guarantee the same resistance (or more) is provided next time....or more reps are achieved with the same resistance!

.....i reckon this is the first training related discussion ive had with you mr banzi


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

only read the first line but it basically says the key is to lift the lighter weight more times. Nothing new or revolutionary there, its progressive overload using more reps instead of more weight but as we all know at some point its going to get to a point where adding more reps isn't going to be practical and you will need to add more weight so kind of makes the whole light v heavy argument pointless Imo.


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

just move your arms up and down its just the same

said no mr olympia ever


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ausmaz said:


> I get where your coming from banzi but you have to concede, at least initially for more muscle you have to get stronger.....as you advance and your goals refine ie bodybuilding, physique over more strength oriented pursuits.....but at some point without training of a progressive nature how do you improve?
> 
> As to your points
> 
> ...


 its not just about increasing weight, its about increasing stress, you can stress the muscle with drop sets and supersets, partial reps and many other ways.

I'm lifting much less weight on most exercises now than I did back in the 90s and am around the same level of physique.


----------



## MidsGuy21 (Mar 25, 2013)

You need to lift heavy to get strong, but if your interest is BBing just do 10-15 reps with a couple spare at the end of each set.

3x5 heavy and this is what happens


----------



## monkeybiker (Jul 21, 2010)

ILLBehaviour said:


> only read the first line but it basically says the key is to lift the lighter weight more times. Nothing new or revolutionary there, its progressive overload using more reps instead of more weight but as we all know at some point its going to get to a point where adding more reps isn't going to be practical and you will need to add more weight so kind of makes the whole light v heavy argument pointless Imo.


 It's not pointless if what the article says is true. What it means is you can make similar progress doing 20-30 reps as you can doing 5-10 reps. You will make progress but be putting less stress on your joints. The heavy and light you just need to think in terms of % of your maximum.


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

But is it less wear and tear? yeah your lifting lighter but carrying out more reps is more wear and tear surely?

im not opposed to the light weight high rep method, Iv done it in the past but I definitely feel personally I make more gains with a higher weight lower rep workout, maybe throw in the final set on each exercise with lighter weights to pump the muscle full of blood to help aid recovery times


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

tommolad said:


> *But is it less wear and tear? yeah your lifting lighter but carrying out more reps is more wear and tear surely?*
> 
> im not opposed to the light weight high rep method, Iv done it in the past but I definitely feel personally I make more gains with a higher weight lower rep workout, maybe throw in the final set on each exercise with lighter weights to pump the muscle full of blood to help aid recovery times


 Have you seen Ronnie Coleman lately?


----------



## Devil (May 31, 2016)

Progressive overload is all that matters really.

Progress in a 4-6 rep range

Progress in a 12-20 rep range

You'll see results regardless


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

@banzi no mate I haven't


----------



## big vin (Apr 18, 2010)

When you progress and lift heavier weight your body responds it thinks hey this guy is lifting heavier weights so your muscles think hey we need to get bigger your body always tries to adapt

Big muscles move big weight


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

tommolad said:


> @banzi no mate I haven't


 Google is your friend.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

He's f**ked up. His body is failing him. 20 years of Light weight .....Buddddyyyy !


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

this whole argument has been raging for years. you will have fractions saying power work and low rep heavy work is essential ala dorian Yates blood and guts style, and then you will have those preferring higher rep stuff off the top of my head Kris Gethins DTP style workouts. My honest opinion is you have to find that works best for your body, Just like taking AAS we are not all the same, even if we have the same structure to start with. I have been a big fan of Y3T which periodically changes rep range and time under tension over a 3 week cycle with week 3 being high rep sets with plenty of rest pause etc. I have found my body reacts very well to this type of training plus it stops my brain going numb doing the same old workout and rep ranges week in week out plus my joints at over 40 thank me for it. However I did 6 weeks 5x5 style training for strength last year and whilst my lifts all went up which was the point, of the training but I did not see any development in my body shape and my joints were screwed by the end of it. I guess what I am saying is time under tension is key but variation keeps both the mind and body stimulated. doing endless reps soon gets boring, and if you mind isn't connected the workout is going to suck and the results will too.


----------



## naturalguy (Jan 21, 2016)

Mayzini said:


> this whole argument has been raging for years. you will have fractions saying power work and low rep heavy work is essential ala dorian Yates blood and guts style, and then you will have those preferring higher rep stuff off the top of my head Kris Gethins DTP style workouts. My honest opinion is you have to find that works best for your body, Just like taking AAS we are not all the same, even if we have the same structure to start with. I have been a big fan of Y3T which periodically changes rep range and time under tension over a 3 week cycle with week 3 being high rep sets with plenty of rest pause etc. I have found my body reacts very well to this type of training plus it stops my brain going numb doing the same old workout and rep ranges week in week out plus my joints at over 40 thank me for it. However I did 6 weeks 5x5 style training for strength last year and whilst my lifts all went up which was the point, of the training but I did not see any development in my body shape and my joints were screwed by the end of it. I guess what I am saying is time under tension is key but variation keeps both the mind and body stimulated. doing endless reps soon gets boring, and if you mind isn't connected the workout is going to suck and the results will too.


 Well its a good idea to do the opposite of what Kris Gethin says, hes a *********.


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

naturalguy said:


> Well its a good idea to do the opposite of what Kris Gethin says, hes a *********.


 true, I just couldn't think of another famous proponent of high rep work. lol he is another fake natty in my opinion.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm actually impressed how much retard can take place in one thread


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Not read the article, so don't know if it's apiece of sh1t or not.

However most people use techniques to help them lift the heaviest weight possible. Bench for example; arched back, leg drive, moderate temp of reps etc. Nothing wrong with that, but say a geezer is banging out reps of 120 kg using the above techniques... it's be quite possible to get him repping with 80 kg for the same reps and work the pecks and tris just as well (maybe better):



flat back


slow cadence of reps


pause at the bottom


using intention to imagine pushing the bar together


flaring elbows out more


Basically just lifting with less speed, more control and more emphasis on the target muscles. Lifting like this will be much easier on the old joints.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

tommolad said:


> That's the most ridiculous statement Iv ever read


 What is the right thing then according to you?


----------



## tommolad (Oct 20, 2007)

I think mayzini just summed it up pretty well


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

You need progressive overload ,thats fact.. Once you are at the required size then you can maintain it without keep going heavy but to get there you need to put more weight on the bar. All this more rep bollocks does my head in..

How do you thing long distance runners do it. they don't get bigger with extra miles do they ? In fact half the time they decrease mass. But you go on believing what you want and stay a little weed all your life.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

This refers to an excellent bit of research conducted in a lab run by one of the most respected researchers in the field (Stu Philips). The full paper is here for anyone interested:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/121/1/129.full.pdf

I'd missed this when it came out but it's very interesting.

Four quick things I'll add to the discussion are:

1) A crucial factor with the high rep sets is that they were all taken to failure (with the weight decreased between sets if required to keep the next one in the target rep range).

2) High rep training to failure is far from easy!

3) One possible qualifier to the study is the novelty effect. The participants were experienced lifters but I'll bet none of them were previously training routinely in the 20-25 rep range. This may make no difference but we can't be sure from the current study.

4) As well as rep ranges the study also looked at any correlation between post exercise increases in testosterone, GH etc and found no correlation (in line with other work).


----------



## LRB (Jan 26, 2015)

technique, diet all other factors aside, I get same aesthetic results doing either. If I practice in the 4-6 rep range to failure I will be stronger and be able to lift more weight, I conditioned the muscle fibers to handle more weight. If I train in 12-15 reps to failure, same or similar overall volume in terms of mass x reps, muscle development is the same accept I would have conditioned muscle fibers to be more efficient at higher rep ranges. In terms of appearance, no difference, perhaps slightly leaner for the doing 12-15 reps but could be imagination. Most guys i train with who do both agree.

As already mentioned training in 12-15 reps does have its benefits, mainly its easier on your joints. Having done both methods on and off for many years im starting to lean towards higher reps is better overall. Its seems to easier on the nervous system and body in general, better pump and you dont look like a meat head grunting away doing 3 reps of a weight way to heavy for practical use


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

LRB said:


> technique, diet all other factors aside, I get same aesthetic results doing either. If I practice in the 4-6 rep range to failure I will be stronger and be able to lift more weight, I conditioned the muscle fibers to handle more weight. If I train in 12-15 reps to failure, same or similar overall volume in terms of mass x reps, muscle development is the same accept I would have conditioned muscle fibers to be more efficient at higher rep ranges. In terms of appearance, no difference, perhaps slightly leaner for the doing 12-15 reps but could be imagination. Most guys i train with who do both agree.
> 
> As already mentioned training in 12-15 reps does have its benefits, mainly its easier on your joints. Having done both methods on and off for many years im starting to lean towards higher reps is better overall. Its seems to easier on the nervous system and body in general, better pump and you dont look like a meat head grunting away doing 3 reps of a weight way to heavy for practical use


 The point of the study was to compare training in the 20-25 and 8-12 rep ranges.


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

banzi said:


> its not just about increasing weight, its about increasing stress, you can stress the muscle with drop sets and supersets, partial reps and many other ways.
> 
> I'm lifting much less weight on most exercises now than I did back in the 90s and am around the same level of physique.


 I dont doubt it mate.....but to create that level of muscularity initially, you would have had to get stronger?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

ausmaz said:


> I dont doubt it mate.....but to create that level of muscularity initially, you would have had to get stronger?


 FWIW part of the point of the study was that the higher rep training also increased strength, although in the discussion in the full paper they do talk about switching between stength focused training and high rep training if this is the main goal (see the discussion section if you're interested).


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Part of the point of the study was that the higher rep training also increased strength, although in the discussion in the full paper they do talk about switching between stength focused training and high rep training if this is the main goal (see the discussion section if you're interested).


 Sure, tbf i only skimmed through the actual article....but i think we're all on the same page with this anyways aren't we.....progressive overload being the constant with intensity/volume being the variables...?


----------



## ausmaz (Jul 14, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Part of the point of the study was that the higher rep training also increased strength, although in the discussion in the full paper they do talk about switching between stength focused training and high rep training if this is the main goal (see the discussion section if you're interested).


 Btw mate, are you up early....or stayed up late, im trying to work out the time difference....

Edit: neither! It's what 9pm ish?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

ausmaz said:


> Btw mate, are you up early....or stayed up late, im trying to work out the time difference....
> 
> Edit: neither! It's what 9pm ish?


 It's 22:24 in the UK right now  .


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

ausmaz said:


> Sure, tbf i only skimmed through the actual article....but i think we're all on the same page with this anyways aren't we.....progressive overload being the constant with intensity/volume being the variables...?


 The study contains new information, for me at least. If you'd asked me yesterday if I'd thought 20-25 rep sets produced the same strength gains at 8-12 rep sets I'd have said no. They also took biopsies which showed similar growth of both type 1 and type 2 fibres.

I may also rethink my views of going to failure, which I've normally only done on final sets as doing so on earlier sets tends to limit total volume. Food for thought for me anyway!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Actaully I should also be honest and say that if yesterday someone had asked me if they should train 8-12 reps or 20-25 for size I'd have said 8-12, as I suspect would most here. So yes, I do think that paper adds good new information. I need to read it again but it's probably the single most useful and throrough piece of research of it's type I'm aware of.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

banzi said:


> its not just about increasing weight, its about increasing stress, you can stress the muscle with drop sets and supersets, partial reps and many other ways.
> 
> I'm lifting much less weight on most exercises now than I did back in the 90s and am around the same level of physique.


 so you built muscle in the 90`s and maintained it since with a lighter weight and used methods other than increasing weight ... not really a good example as you would without doubt be bigger if you did increase the weight lifted and used differing methods to further stimulate growth .


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

The way to get big muscles is "periodisation" , in bodybuilding this includes light - heavy - high/low rep - super sets - partials - giant sets - drop sets and many other ways , we all do it and some without even noticing they do it , done within an outlined program this yields the best results for everyone .


----------



## theBEAST2002 (Oct 16, 2011)

SG83 said:


> *
> Lifting Weights? No Need to Go Heavy
> *
> 
> ...


 You need to get stronger. There is no 2 ways about it.

Every big, muscular guy (or girl) on the planet got that way by getting stronger.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

theBEAST2002 said:


> You need to get stronger. There is no 2 ways about it.
> 
> Every big, muscular guy (or girl) on the planet got that way by getting stronger.


 The study showed similar strength gains in the two groups actually.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

banzi said:


> if you just put 20k each side and try and press it and I add additional resistance by pushing down on it and making it very difficult.....
> 
> 1. does your muscle know how much weight is on the bar?
> 
> 2. will your muscle respond?


 1. No

2. Yes

What do I win?


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> The study showed similar strength gains in the two groups actually.


 How much did they weigh?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quackerz said:


> How much did they weigh?


 See Table 1 of the paper, although try to find time to read it all at some point:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/121/1/129.full.pdf


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> See Table 1 of the paper, although try to find time to read it all at some point:
> 
> http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/121/1/129.full.pdf


 The question was rhetorical....... the majority of people on this board use AAS.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quackerz said:


> The question was rhetorical....... the majority of people on this board use AAS.


 Ah  . Although I've always got the impression that higher rep training might be more suited to people using AAS anyway?


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah  . Although I've always got the impression that higher rep training might be more suited to people using AAS anyway?


 That is just from sarcoplasmic growth, not actual myfibrillar hypertrophy as far as I am aware......... you would still gain lean tissue, but not as much, this is my understanding of it anyway.

I will try and dig out where I read that for you if I can tomorrow. I could be wrong though, I will take that into account until I find it.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Quackerz said:


> That is just from sarcoplasmic growth, not actual myfibrillar hypertrophy as far as I am aware......... you would still gain lean tissue, but not as much, this is my understanding of it anyway.
> 
> I will try and dig out where I read that for you if I can tomorrow. I could be wrong though, I will take that into account until I find it.


 I was meaning from a BB perspective BTW - i.e. size.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> I was meaning from a BB perspective BTW - i.e. size.


 So was I. I was just being pedantic.


----------



## LRB (Jan 26, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> The point of the study was to compare training in the 20-25 and 8-12 rep ranges.


 oh yea, not sure what your point is but cheers for the observation. I was talking about 4-6 vs 12-15. Same theory - high vs low


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

LRB said:


> oh yea, not sure what your point is but cheers for the observation. I was talking about 4-6 vs 12-15. Same theory - high vs low


 I think it's a very different comparison to be honest. What you described is also much more conventional.

I at least think the study results were rather more unexpected (although I am aware of the small amount of earlier work in this area). Most notably in terms of the strength gain comparison. It's worth highlighting though that it doesn't obviously follow that the strength gains for the high rep scheme would be the same for your 4-6 rep range because that is getting into the region where rate coding comes into play.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

At the end of the day high reps with low weight takes longer and is mind-numbingly boring.

It's ok if you like monotony and have plenty of time on your hands.

Just my opinion.


----------

