Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: Light Weights Are Just as Good for Building Muscle, Getting Stronger, Resea page 6

  1. #51
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Anthony View Post
    Nearly every workout I get a comment from someone at the gym who's bigger than me but doesn't lift as heavy weight.

    Sent via F-22 Raptor
    I'm the same. I think some of us have a higher acclimation (possibly genetic) for neuroadaptive response and ability to contract the muscle we do have to a greater degree than others. If you have that then it is not advantageous to pack on more and more bulk from a evolutionary and survival perspective. Why waste resources? This could be the classic hard gainers or anyone who doesn't build muscle up easily. On the other hand consider those with a low neuroadaptive response to exercise. They would have to build more and more muscle to keep up with the demands of their enviroment (lifting heavy shit).

    Thats my theory anyhow. Shoot it down or expand on it if you like.

  2. #52
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,671
    It would take a marathon of unweighted squatting for me to reach failure. So squatting to failure without a barbell is pretty ridiculous. Who's got that kind of time? I also know that if I add heavy (for me) weight I'm VERY reluctant to squat to failure. What any of that means, I don't know.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  3. #53
    tapper47's Avatar
    tapper47 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    272
    Well I'm sure glad that light weights are okay since that's all I have.

  4. #54
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,728
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    It would take a marathon of unweighted squatting for me to reach failure. So squatting to failure without a barbell is pretty ridiculous. Who's got that kind of time? I also know that if I add heavy (for me) weight I'm VERY reluctant to squat to failure. What any of that means, I don't know.
    Squat is a bit of a different animal. In terms of more complicated lifts (or at least technique based), for safety reasons I (and most who lift this way) consider any break in form to mean you have reached "failure". If you are using a leg press then break in form is of no concern. You can keep working until you reach complete muscular failure rather than technique failure.

  5. #55
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I'm the same. I think some of us have a higher acclimation (possibly genetic) for neuroadaptive response and ability to contract the muscle we do have to a greater degree than others. If you have that then it is not advantageous to pack on more and more bulk from a evolutionary and survival perspective. Why waste resources? This could be the classic hard gainers or anyone who doesn't build muscle up easily. On the other hand consider those with a low neuroadaptive response to exercise. They would have to build more and more muscle to keep up with the demands of their enviroment (lifting heavy shit).

    Thats my theory anyhow. Shoot it down or expand on it if you like.
    That's what I believe, too. I started think about build types/size in relation to hunter/gatherers by in the 80s. In doing so, it wasn't hard to realize that a big bodybuilder would be less adaptable to a tribal environment than a more spelt muscular build. Ask a man or woman which build is more attractive in the opposite sex. Women will more often choose this https://www.google.com/search?q=mens...ih=651&dpr=1.5 over this https://www.google.com/search?q=mens...icial&tbm=isch

    Yates' build would be a handicap if he suddenly had to survive in a paleo tribal environment. He would lack the stamina needed to travel long distance and his build requires a lot of calories just to fuel its muscle mass.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  6. #56
    Iron Fireling's Avatar
    Iron Fireling is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    It would take a marathon of unweighted squatting for me to reach failure. So squatting to failure without a barbell is pretty ridiculous. Who's got that kind of time? I also know that if I add heavy (for me) weight I'm VERY reluctant to squat to failure. What any of that means, I don't know.
    Go somewhere inbetween unweighted and heavy! At least, that's my current theory . I find it hard to push myself to squat to failure on what is very heavy for me... BUT I can squat to failure using 40kg, for example. I figure I'll just keep myself at this kind of medium weight until I can do too many reps at it (haven't worked out what "too many" is, yet) and then increase the weight, rather than trying to lift just about as much as I can (which kinda freaks me out a bit when squatting... maybe I'm worried I'll look like an idiot if I get stuck on the floor??!)

  7. #57
    SupermanRedSun's Avatar
    SupermanRedSun is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    16
    Hey folks I just picked up the book FRAMEWORK that discusses the whole idea and concept of long term thinking for health. I def recommend it!

  8. #58
    As1459's Avatar
    As1459 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    I'm the same. I think some of us have a higher acclimation (possibly genetic) for neuroadaptive response and ability to contract the muscle we do have to a greater degree than others. If you have that then it is not advantageous to pack on more and more bulk from a evolutionary and survival perspective. Why waste resources? This could be the classic hard gainers or anyone who doesn't build muscle up easily. On the other hand consider those with a low neuroadaptive response to exercise. They would have to build more and more muscle to keep up with the demands of their enviroment (lifting heavy shit).

    Thats my theory anyhow. Shoot it down or expand on it if you like.
    Neckhammer,

    I think you are correct in your assumption. To add to your theory I think a lot has to do with the age a person started any sort of resistance training. If you started earlier in life lifting or doing gymnastics, or played any sort of sports, etc... Then you have enhanced neuromuscular recruitment over someone who started later in life. Now I don't think this is true of everyone as always outliers will exist but overall I believe that this is true.

  9. #59
    Vick's Avatar
    Vick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    It would take a marathon of unweighted squatting for me to reach failure. So squatting to failure without a barbell is pretty ridiculous. Who's got that kind of time? I also know that if I add heavy (for me) weight I'm VERY reluctant to squat to failure. What any of that means, I don't know.
    You are missing the whole point. It doesn't matter what weight you use so long as your last rep is to failure. It doesn't matter if you do a million reps with body weight or 1 rep moving a car.... so long as the last rep is to failure. Find your own comfort zone... how hard is that?

    Please note that for now science defines failure as your last rep is with poor form. That is it. Science has not confirmed what the body defines as failure to stimulate muscle growth.

  10. #60
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Vick View Post
    You are missing the whole point. It doesn't matter what weight you use so long as your last rep is to failure. It doesn't matter if you do a million reps with body weight or 1 rep moving a car.... so long as the last rep is to failure. Find your own comfort zone... how hard is that?

    Please note that for now science defines failure as your last rep is with poor form. That is it. Science has not confirmed what the body defines as failure to stimulate muscle growth.
    No, those extremes don't work. You need a higher percentage of maximum effort than you get from even a hundred reps and you need more total work than you get from one(unless it's a 20-20 rep or something unusual)

    This study actually showed significantly less 1RM strength gain for the higher reps.
    The article headline is simply incorrect.

    Interestingly for HIT folks it also showed equal strength gain for 1 set and 3(for about the 888th time) but this study showed only about 1/2 the hypertrophy gain for 1 set vs 3 at the 'heavy' (really medium by weight training standards) weight

    The amazing thing to me is that the study authors seem to be advocating higher reps as an 'easy' approach. I can't think of many things more miserable than 30 reps to failure!

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •