# heavy weight is not necessary to build muscle



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

There have been some studies which outlined that High Reps are effective in building muscle.

It has been proven that even 20 reps can build muscle if the muscle is trained to failure. Look up Size Principle. Therefore heavy is a relative word. What matters is progression. Let's take pyramid training or ramping for that matter. Although many are saying that pyramid training sucks in comparison to straight sets, that is not entirely true. Anything above 60% RM will stimulate hypertrophy to the max if taken close to or failure. So heavy is subjective..


----------



## squatthis (May 3, 2010)

any links to research?


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

squatthis said:


> any links to research?


http://www.brinkzone.com/bodybuilding/muscle-growth-with-high-rep-training-has-time-come-to-challenge-our-egos/

the article has all studies


----------



## Zola (Mar 14, 2012)

Im of the opinion that your muscles only grow if you force them to. Via continuous overload and improvement


----------



## 38945 (Nov 23, 2013)

arthuroarti said:


> Anything above 60% RM will stimulate hypertrophy to the max if taken close to or failure. So heavy is subjective..


 German Volume Training works on this premise, you start with 60% of your max load for 10 sets of 10. As you progress.through the programme your net strength increases as well as hypertrophy from the volume of the workouts.


----------



## HAWKUS (Jan 11, 2012)

Food makes your muscles grow not how many reps you do.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

> The subjects in this study were healthy young men (21 years old, 5ft 7in tall, 162 lb), who were recreationally active with *no formal weight-lifting experience or regular weight-lifting activity over the last year*


Sort of makes the study irrelevant to anyone but newbies really. If you don't train Lorraine Kelly's workout dvd will probably add a bit of muscle too.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

MessyFunk said:


> High reps and volume suit sarcoplasmic hypertrophy yes, you should reference the research though.
> 
> edit: you beat me to it


it is a myth mate. Muscle growth is muscle growth. The accumulation of contractile, fluid etc in a muscle is just a by-product of training. Also look into Henneman's size principle. The body recruits muscle fibers in order. But there is a catch. It is not only about recruitment but also about fatiguing and working the fibers.

Let's say you do 20 reps. Your body will start by recruiting slow twitch muscle fibers. As you progress in your set, the body under fatigue will then recruit additional muscle fibers to keep going. But when you grab heavy weight such as doing 6-8 reps, your body will recruit your fast-twitch muscles as the load is high and challenging


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

2004mark said:


> Sort of makes the study irrelevant to anyone but newbies really. If you don't train Lorraine Kelly's workout dvd will probably add a bit of muscle too.


lol

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012033


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

arthuroarti said:


> lol
> 
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012033


Sorry, but what point are you making. Hardly going to sit here and read all that lol


----------



## sneeky_dave (Apr 2, 2013)

2004mark said:


> If you don't train Lorraine Kelly's workout dvd will probably add a bit of muscle too.


Can you see my growler?


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

2004mark said:


> Sorry, but what point are you making. Hardly going to sit here and read all that lol


That a study was done which proved some stuff when people did leg raises only. Unfortunately for as many studies that you'll find x reps at y intensity works best, you'll find another that states the opposite. Because people are different.

The defacto standard in this, IMO, is Dr. Jonathon Sullivan's work which looks at a huge number of studies. For 2012 he went through around 1200 articles and cited 150 or so references here:

http://www.startingstrength.com/articles/strength_science_2012_sullivan.pdf

It pretty much summarises everything sensible in an unbiased and well-written way. It's a LOT of reading, but well worth it IMO for people interested in studies.


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

so you're saying we have a choice....be strong and muscular or weak and muscular, i know which i would rather be...lol


----------



## smity220385 (Mar 15, 2012)

Well u could do what I do and cover all basis, at least a heavy, a mid and a light weighted exercise for each muscle group


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

i call those sort of muscles blood muscles, the body builds them bigger to provide more blood and oxygen such as a cyclists legs, i thought of trying a routine based on it once but couldn't be ****d...lol


----------



## DazUKM (Nov 22, 2012)

justin case said:


> so you're saying we have a choice....be strong and muscular or weak and muscular, i know which i would rather be...lol


This lol, plus strength training has other benefits to it,

What was the point in this thread


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

DazUKM said:


> What was the point in this thread


It's an exact copy of a post from bb.com... bit odd: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=153170881&page=2#51


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)

justin case said:


> so you're saying we have a choice....be strong and muscular or weak and muscular, i know which i would rather be...lol


Lol

Great thread hey


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

arthuroarti said:


> Let's say you do 20 reps. Your body will start by recruiting slow twitch muscle fibers. As you progress in your set, the body under fatigue will then recruit additional muscle fibers to keep going. But when you grab heavy weight such as doing 6-8 reps, your body will recruit your fast-twitch muscles as the load is high and challenging


In theory, the muscle should start to recruit fast twitch fibres when the slow twitch are exhausted.

In practice that doesn't really happen. The type IIa and type IIx fibres activated by higher reps produce large amounts of lactate as a byproduct of anaerobic glucose burning, and when the concentration of lactate reaches a certain level, the fibre shuts down. Unfortunately, it deactivates the neighbouring type I fibres as well, so they don't get that much of a look-in.

As Mark correctly points out, studies done on untrained people are irrelevant for advanced trainers, because beginners will gain on anything.

High reps have their place in a balanced training routine, and some people are better concentrating their rep range higher - but you still need to hit your Type IIb (fast) fibres, especially if you are Type IIb dominant


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

I agree last year I was doing 140kg for reps on bench this year no were near that but I'm in much better shape

But that does not mean u should not train heavy as possible also depends on ur volume and frequency of training


----------



## bigchickenlover (Jul 16, 2013)

reza85 said:


> I agree last year I was doing 140kg for reps on bench this year no were near that but I'm in much better shape
> 
> But that does not mean u should not train heavy as possible *also depends on ur volume and frequency *of training


And steriods


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

bigchickenlover said:


> And steriods


Yes I do take gear but again I don't believe people that don't take gear can't grow on higher volumes


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

reza85 said:


> I agree last year I was doing 140kg for reps on bench this year no were near that but I'm in much better shape
> 
> But that does not mean u should not train heavy as possible also depends on ur volume and frequency of training


Lads who have spent years concentrating on heavier, lower-rep training will often get a new spurt of growth when they switch to lighter, higher reps. They've activated part of the muscle that's been under-trained.

This is probably why GVT gets good results in the short-term.


----------



## IronJohnDoe (Oct 17, 2013)

I have a friend which he goes just light weight and many reps all the time. He has big muscle sure&#8230; Once we did a strength training together (I am half of him) and he could not even follow me at same weights, basically he been able to lift half of what I did in every exercise.

And I am not a guy who lift like a monster.

Just saying.

But I guess it may be good to do it the way Major just said


----------



## bigchickenlover (Jul 16, 2013)

arthuroarti said:


> There have been some studies which outlined that High Reps are effective in building muscle.
> 
> It has been proven that even 20 reps can build muscle if the muscle is trained to failure. Look up Size Principle. Therefore heavy is a relative word. What matters is progression. Let's take pyramid training or ramping for that matter. Although many are saying that pyramid training sucks in comparison to straight sets, that is not entirely true. Anything above 60% RM will stimulate hypertrophy to the max if taken close to or failure. So heavy is subjective..


Simple yes it is!


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Lads who have spent years concentrating on heavier, lower-rep training will often get a new spurt of growth when they switch to lighter, higher reps. They've activated part of the muscle that's been under-trained.
> 
> This is probably why GVT gets good results in the short-term.


GVT, Nubret's approach may be inferior in the long-term you mean?

I sort of agree. When I look at the strongmen, they look huge and big. Yet, they do not do your typical bb training


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

arthuroarti said:


> GVT, Nubret's approach may be inferior in the long-term you mean?
> 
> I sort of agree. When I look at the strongmen, they look huge and big. Yet, they do not do your typical bb training


I don't think GVT was ever designed to be a long-term training protocol. As I understand it's something that weightlifting coaches stuck their trainees on for a couple of months at a time.

As for the Nubret approach - I bet a tenner to a cat turd that when Nubret was in the 'building' phase of his career, he shifted some big heavy weights around.

Strongmen don't do the traditional BB style training - but then most strongmen are going to be quite fast-twitch dominant, so heavy low-rep training would probably be the best approach for them anyway.

Personally, I see the value of training heavy, but not all the time. I'm not fast-twitch dominant myself, and I've found that mixing up a variety of rep ranges works best for me.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/advanced-bodybuilding/200933-resistance-training-hypertrophy-what-studies-say.html

The above thread has two or three links to full studies on this mode of lifting - they do use untrained athletes, although one study looks at differences between high rep/low load and low rep/high load over 52 weeks and finds no difference in average hypertrophy response.



Major Eyeswater said:


> In theory, the muscle should start to recruit fast twitch fibres when the slow twitch are exhausted.
> 
> In practice that doesn't really happen. The type IIa and type IIx fibres activated by higher reps produce large amounts of lactate as a byproduct of anaerobic glucose burning, and when the concentration of lactate reaches a certain level, the fibre shuts down. Unfortunately, it deactivates the neighbouring type I fibres as well, so they don't get that much of a look-in.
> 
> ...


Lactate threshold can be greatly enhanced though with training focused to that goal and adaptations do occur in the intermediate fibers to the most typically available fuel substrate thus allowing training to be progressive and hypertrophic through a range of fibers... this is well evidenced in numerous studies.

An experienced lifter used to years of low rep heavy training only I agree would struggle to achieve much fiber recruitment on his first sessions of high rep training as the pump would prematurely curtail his sets, but after a period of lactate threshold training he would alter the mitochondrial properties of his intermediate fibers as an adaptive response that would allow for the desired training intensity and fiber recruitment patterns later on. Those wonderful intermediate muscle fibers and their abilities to convert have to be considered and you can't look at 'snapshot' properties of muscle at any one time to make predictions - those properties can be altered to varying but usually sufficient effect with the correct training IMO.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

dtlv said:


> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/advanced-bodybuilding/200933-resistance-training-hypertrophy-what-studies-say.html
> 
> The above thread has two or three links to full studies on this mode of lifting - they do use untrained athletes, although one study looks at differences between high rep/low load and low rep/high load over 52 weeks and finds no difference in average hypertrophy response.
> 
> ...


But some research has clearly shown that 6-10 reps may be the best rep range to overload the muscle + tension. It comes down to an argument of muscle tension vs muscle damage induced hypertrophy


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I don't think GVT was ever designed to be a long-term training protocol. As I understand it's something that weightlifting coaches stuck their trainees on for a couple of months at a time.
> 
> As for the Nubret approach - I bet a tenner to a cat turd that when Nubret was in the 'building' phase of his career, he shifted some big heavy weights around.
> 
> ...


You put it so right. But those who go with the theory of muscle damage/higher volume argue that Nubret's approach is effective.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

arthuroarti said:


> But some research has clearly shown that 6-10 reps may be the best rep range to overload the muscle + tension. It comes down to an argument of muscle tension vs muscle damage induced hypertrophy


Well metabolic stress vs damage IMO have both been demonstrated to work... at heavy loads it is mostly damage/repair, and as the mode of exercise switches (so long as we are staying within anaerobic parameters) it becomes more metabolic stress... at all intensities though there is a bit of both provided intensity is high enough.

In truth there is a lot of metabolic stress after about 5-6 reps per set anyway so its hard to factor the two apart from one another.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2012/04/12/japplphysiol.00307.2012.short

We have reported that the acute post-exercise increases in muscle protein synthesis rates, with differing nutritional support, are predictive of longer-term training-induced muscle hypertrophy. Here, we aimed to test whether the same was true with acute exercise-mediated changes in muscle protein synthesis. Eighteen men (21±1 yr, 22.6±2.1 kg?m-2 means±SE) had their legs randomly assigned to two of three training conditions that differed in contraction intensity (% of maximal strength [1RM]) or contraction volume (1 or 3 sets of repetitions): 30%-3, 80%-1 and, 80%-3. Subjects trained each leg with their assigned regime for a period of 10wk, 3 times/wk. We made pre- and post-training measures of strength, muscle volume by magnetic resonance (MR) scans, as well as pre- and post-training biopsies of the vastus lateralis, and a single post-exercise (1h) biopsy following the first bout of exercise, to measure signalling proteins. Training-induced increases in MR-measured muscle volume were significant (P<0.01), with no difference between groups: 30%-3 = 6.8±1.8%, 80%-1 = 3.2±0.8%, and 80%-3= 7.2±1.9%, P=0.18. Isotonic maximal strength gains were not different between 80%-1 and 80%-3, but were greater than 30% -3 (P=0.04), whereas training-induced isometric strength gains were significant but not different between conditions (P =0.92). Biopsies taken 1h following the initial resistance exercise bout showed increased phosphorylation (P<0.05) of p70S6K only in the 80%-1 and 80%-3 conditions. There was no correlation between phosphorylation of any signalling protein and hypertrophy. In accordance with our previous acute measurements of muscle protein synthetic rates a lower load lifted to failure resulted in similar hypertrophy as a heavy load lifted to failure.


----------



## HJC1972 (Aug 29, 2013)

Sorry to jump in on an already running thread with this one but I'm still just getting back into lifting again, after an extended lay off. Even then I wasn't much serious about things but this time around I figure I'm getting some of the basics right by concentrating on the heavy compounds and trying harder with diet etc.

I'm currently doing a PPL 5x5 routine and i'm nearing my twelfth week on this routine. So far I've made some decent gains, particularly on the lower body stuff: deadlifts, squats etc. and this is probably because I've never really done that much lower body training. Upper body progress has been slower but is, nevertheless, still developing nicely. Current routine is as follows:

Day one:

Deadlifts

BB row

BB curls

Day two:

BB bench press

BB seated shoulder press

BB skull crusher tricep extensions .

Day three:

BB Squats

BB Stiff leg Dead lifts

weighted leg raises

So, my question in relation to this thread then. I'm thinking of changing some of the BB exercises to dumbbell equivalent for change. I shan't bother doing this with the lower body exercises as dumbbells will be just too light but for the Bench press, row, shoulder press, bi's and tri's etc I'm thinking it will be worth doing the next three months on the DB's just to change it up a bit. Would it be better to change the set and rep range up to, say, a 4x8 or a 3x10 or as a new trainer just stick with the 5x5 and just allow the change in exercises to mix things up?

Appreciate your thoughts on this one.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Major Eyeswater said:


> As for the Nubret approach - I bet a tenner to a cat turd that when Nubret was in the 'building' phase of his career, he shifted some big heavy weights around.


He actually didn't. He posted regularly on many forums before he died and he repeatedly said he always followed the high rep, super high volume approach from the time he started training.

Not to say that this will work for everyone but that's what he done


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

36-26 said:


> He actually didn't. He posted regularly on many forums before he died and he repeatedly said he always followed the high rep, super high volume approach from the time he started training.


Oh brilliant - I win a cat turd. Thanks for that.


----------



## Smoog (Dec 29, 2012)

I'll stick with lifting heavy and eating **** loads.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Oh brilliant - I win a cat turd. Thanks for that.


Enjoy it...


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

2004mark said:


> Sort of makes the study irrelevant to anyone but newbies really.* If you don't train Lorraine Kelly's workout dvd will probably add a bit of muscle too.*


did it work for you mate ??


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

arthuroarti said:


> it is a myth mate. Muscle growth is muscle growth. The accumulation of contractile, fluid etc in a muscle is just a by-product of training. Also look into Henneman's size principle. The body recruits muscle fibers in order. But there is a catch. It is not only about recruitment but also about fatiguing and working the fibers.
> 
> Let's say you do 20 reps. Your body will start by recruiting slow twitch muscle fibers. As you progress in your set, the body under fatigue will then recruit additional muscle fibers to keep going. But when you grab heavy weight such as doing 6-8 reps, your body will recruit your fast-twitch muscles as the load is high and challenging


Erm... if you were only using slow twitch muscle fibres then you'd be training for a looong time before fatigue set it. Kinda obvious but needed to be said. Silly to think that any kind of exercise that results in fatigue-induced failure in less than a minute would ever only start just using oxidative muscle fibres.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

dtlv said:


> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/advanced-bodybuilding/200933-resistance-training-hypertrophy-what-studies-say.html
> 
> The above thread has two or three links to full studies on this mode of lifting - they do use untrained athletes, although one study looks at differences between high rep/low load and low rep/high load over 52 weeks and finds no difference in average hypertrophy response.
> 
> ...


Still very inconclusive how much conversion takes place though mate, hey.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Best bet peeps is to train both low and high rep and see which you gain best off. Or do what a lot of people do and train both low and high (which the pyramid technique does so well) to try and maximise hypertrophy of type I and type II.


----------



## Gym-pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I think you can get away with a lot for heavy lifting styles when you are younger .

Now Im in my 40's the absolute key is consistency and the key to this is being injury free .

Keeping the reps slightly higher removes a lot of the risk of injury and whatever the science I'm growing from being able to consistently train


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

HAWKUS said:


> Food makes your muscles grow not how many reps you do.


No it doesnt.Food may provide the nutrients to build and sustain.It does not provide the stimulus required, to develop a larger than normal(relatively) musculature.

The muscle has to be submitted to a stressor, that stimulates overcompensation.That stressor is contracting against a progressively harder load.Lifting weights.

The amount of reps that are required, is largely irelavant.The crucial factor, is time under load.The duration of the stress.120-190 seconds has been demonstrated as being the optimum time frame., as long as muscular failure is reached.

Please bear in mind, these requirements, may vary slightly amongst individuals, and the presence of drugs.


----------



## XXVII (Jul 29, 2013)

What about progressive over load? You're still going to have to lift heavy eventually to build, right?


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

flinty90 said:


> did it work for you mate ??


Clearly not :lol:


----------



## HAWKUS (Jan 11, 2012)

essexboy said:


> No it doesnt.Food may provide the nutrients to build and sustain.It does not provide the stimulus required, to develop a larger than normal(relatively) musculature.
> 
> The muscle has to be submitted to a stressor, that stimulates overcompensation.That stressor is contracting against a progressively harder load.Lifting weights.
> 
> ...


I understand the point your trying to make but it certainly is food that makes your muscles grow...go try lifting weights and dont eat...agree it doesnt provide the stimlus but the amount of sets and reps doesnt mean a thing...you could do 1 rep maxs or sets of 100 and if you eat enough food you will grow,do the same same thing without food and you wont grow.

This thread was about rep ranges and my point was is that its unimportant...lift weights and eat enough food and you will grow,it really is that simple...people like to complicate it when theres no reason to.


----------



## arthuroarti (Nov 26, 2011)

essexboy said:


> No it doesnt.Food may provide the nutrients to build and sustain.It does not provide the stimulus required, to develop a larger than normal(relatively) musculature.
> 
> The muscle has to be submitted to a stressor, that stimulates overcompensation.That stressor is contracting against a progressively harder load.Lifting weights.
> 
> ...


there are studies which prove that Time Under Tension is a myth


----------



## TAFFY (Jun 3, 2009)

havent read all posts but lifting as heavy as you can with correct form will build muscle but always good to mix it up a bit circuit higher reps thrown in know and again keeps body guessing


----------



## Fishheadsoup (Apr 15, 2013)

I'll stick to eating and training big thanks..Wouldn't really look good if I was built like an animal, then had to ask the wife to open a jar of Jam for me


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

studies are good to have as a knowledge base but time and time again real world application has shown that results will and do change to what studies dictate.

you may not have to lift heavy but then what is heavy? is it a weight you cannot do more than 1 rep or 10 reps??

i have been around a long time in this game and without exception everyone i know who has a decent muscle base lifts heavy there rep ranges are different but all lift heavy.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

You can build muscle and create hypertrophy jogging so there is a large flaw in what all the data is 'trying' to tell us. It is not disproving heavy weights can't build neither showing it can't. The same of light weights. If you're looking at complete developments heavy loads will recruitment more HTMUs and subsequently allow an athlete further muscle to attack with sarcoplasmic or size hypertrophy. Also all of these studies without using biopsies of the control groups to determine fiber types, dietary logs, hormonal status indicating PTOR etc RFC they will always be subjective and inherently flawed.

The fact is that the rules of activation, potentiation, recruitment etc wouldn't work if it was a matter of the 'weight' and 'reps' defining development IMO.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

defdaz said:


> Still very inconclusive how much conversion takes place though mate, hey.


Oh yes for sure... this whole thread conversation is chatting on an inconclusive topic as far as the science goes, is mostly theoretical and best educated guess type stuff... simply not enough understanding of all the mechanisms involved to say anything definitive.

Main thing is simply to train progressively using reps/volume/frequency that work for you.


----------

