First of all, Arnold’s article also mentions that he recommends doing higher reps with a lighter weight (8-12 reps) for some exercises, so the “go heavy” recommendation is not absolute.
Second, the VERDICT in the Flex article is an example of misinterpreted conclusions. The study included doing four sets of 4 on the leg extension, compared to 4 sets of around 25. 4×4 on the leg extensions is useless to test the effect of heavyweights; no one does it in real life. What we can glean from this article is an indicator of the effectiveness of high rep sets in isolation movements (particularly the legs) in building muscle, but we probably can’t take away information on the effectiveness of heavy reps. Regardless, the SENTENCING part at the end is solid, and as you can see, it promotes a variety of rep ranges.
Frankly, the solution is to do a variety of rep ranges.
Sarcoplasmic versus myofibrillar hypertrophy is confusing in the current literature; I wouldn’t worry about that. We know for sure that volume (how much work you do, more sets or more reps with more weight is more volume) is the primary driver of hypertrophy.
What do I have to do?
Do most of your muscle-building work in the 8-12 rep range, as it has been repeatedly shown to safely allow most work in an efficient period.
Do some of your lower main compound lifts (3-8 reps) and push for strength on them.
Do some of your highest isolation work (12+ reps to your desired maximum) to reap the size-building benefits this rep range also offers.
Always keep in mind regardless of this: none of your lifts should be “easy.” Whether it’s heavy or light, you’ll want to push yourself through each set to give your body a reason to grow. If you’re working out in the gym, you won’t get anywhere. You don’t need to kill yourself in the gym either but find that balance.
Gunge
Good analysis of the articles. I challenge that volume drives hypertrophy. Aerobic exercise (low weight, high repetitions) is a technique used by endurance runners to store fat and carbohydrates in their muscles (van Loon LJ, Goodpaster BH (2005) “. Increased intramuscular lipid storage in endurance state insulin and resistance training. “) Can you provide links to your literature suggesting that volume is most important?
@JJosaur Study on Comparison of Individual Versus Multiple Resistance Protocols (Krieger, JW. “Individual versus Multiple Resistance Exercise Package for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-analysis.” J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150–1159, 2010). In addition, the effects of increased volume on acute testosterone levels: (Kraemer et al. “Endogenous anabolic hormonal responses and growth factors to heavy resistance exercise in men and women.” Int J Sports Med 12: 228–235, 1991 ). Also relevant (Smilies et al. “Hormonal responses after various resistance exercise protocols.” Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 644–654, 2003.).
Perhaps I make too strong a claim with “the most important,” but as a reliable tool to drive volume-focused hypertrophy, it is supported by such literature, as well as anecdotally from the relevant sports (bodybuilding, weightlifting). Weights, etc.). Seeing that in the field of muscle building, there is still a lot to understand, I try to conclude from the literature and at the same time apply myself to personal experiences as a strength learner and that of others in related sports. I would be wary of using information pertinent to endurance athletes if the goal is not endurance.
Without criticizing yourself too much, muscle growth is still a dark art, and there is a lot of conflicting information in the world. I hope it’s safe to say that we can agree, lifting weights and having a varied and challenging program will build muscle.
Yes, indeed, and I agree.
You want to increase the size of your muscles; this process is called muscle hypertrophy and involves an increase in the size of skeletal muscle through a growth in the size of its component cells.
Two factors contribute to hypertrophy: sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which focuses more on increased muscle glycogen storage, and myofibrillar hypertrophy, which focuses more on increasing the size of myofibrillar.
In general terms, the effects of the exercise are as follows:
1-6 repetitions (> 85% 1RM) of work are generally accepted/recognized towards building myofibril hypertrophy (actual muscle fibre hypertrophy). It also increases overall strength (influencing # 2 and # 3) [1]
6-12 repetitions (70-85% 1RM) is a generally accepted/recognized work to build sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (tissues surrounding muscle fibres).
More than 12 repetitions (<70% 1RM) develop mitochondria and fatigue resistance of a muscle, particularly Type I, predominantly aerobic fibres. It also allows you to tolerate total work capacity. Note: the aerobic exercise of low intensity and longer duration generally does not result in very effective tissue hypertrophy; instead, endurance athletes improve fat and carbohydrate storage within the muscles heavy vs light weight
Lifting light or heavy objects is neither better nor worse; they only lead to slightly different results.
Based on the information above, my recommendation is to lift a wide variety of rep ranges from high intensity (meaning low reps, high weight) to medium intensity (traditional 8-12 bodybuilding approach) to light intensity (workout training). fibre endurance / fatigue endurance in reps of 15-50 in some cases) at various times in your program.
Ever since I started looking at fitness information 20 years ago, there has been a myth that it doesn’t seem like it’s going to die. The myth says that lifting light loads at high reps will tone your muscles while lifting heavy loads at low reps will bulk up your muscles. Consequently, any person, man or woman interested in having a fitness model style body should focus on light loads, while heavy loads should be limited to those who wish to have the appearance of a bodybuilder. Furthermore, this would imply that a woman seeking a lean and slim physique should avoid lifting heavy loads as it would counter her goals.
In many circles, this myth is deeply ingrained and is regarded as absolute truth. Those who observe the methods used by bodybuilders, powerlifters, and Olympic lifters may be confused, as bodybuilders generally possess a more incredible amount of muscle mass than Olympic powerlifters and lifters despite using lighter weights at higher reps. So what happens? Are high reps useless for building muscle and low, heavy reps will automatically build muscle mass? tell us your idea.
Add Comment