https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160712094259.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it
>New research is challenging traditional workout wisdom, suggesting that lifting lighter weights many times is as efficient as lifting heavy weights for fewer repetitions. It is the latest in a series of studies that started in 2010, contradicting the decades-old message that the best way to build muscle is to lift heavy weights.
>"Lift to the point of exhaustion and it doesn't matter whether the weights are heavy or light."
Thoughts on this /fit/ ?
That's why god gave us burnout sets
>>37898659
Yeah, sure. Do sets of 15 reps with 135 and you'll be squatting 5plate in no time.
>>37898659
>team of dyel fags find that weights just as effective as heavier weights to gain muscle, build strength.
Great, so instead of curling 55lb Dumbbells until failure I can curl 5lb Dumbbells until failure and get the same results! Thanks I'm going to try this!
>>37898659
>"Lift to the point of exhaustion and it doesn't matter whether the weights are heavy or light."
Good to know. Makes sense, like "lose weight by eating less calories" as opposed to some hyper-specific fad diet.
>>37898700
>didn't read the article
>>37898673
It didn't say get stronger dipshit
> The other group lifted heavier weights (up to 90 per cent of maximum strength) for eight to 12 repetitions.
>up to 90 per cent of maximum strength
>eight to 12 repetitions
lel wtf is this shit
The paper for you /sci/ fags
http://jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129.full.pdf
>>37898856
Then why does the title say this:
>Lighter weights just as effective as heavier weights to gain muscle, build strength, research shows
>>37898867
they define 8-12 as "lower-repetition" and 20-25 as "higher-repetition"
what they're saying is there's no advantage in doing 20-25 reps over 8-12 reps, so why would you waste your time doing a fuckton of reps and feeling like you're burning inside?
>>37898864
>he can't do 12 reps with his 1RM
>>37898889
Common pop-sci tactic to bait readers. The real science is in the paper, the article is a brief description.
>>37898864
>He's never heard of the 20 squat set
>Summerfag detected
Everyone already knew this. If youre a fag who only cares about aesthetics then lighter weights with more reps are the way to go.
>>37898864
90% for those reps you dildo
If you do extremely light lifting after exerting yourself heavily beforehand, your muscles can still get really tested.
A 5-pound weight feels a fuckton heavier if you've already exhausted your muscles.
The real reason I do heavy sets with low reps is because I don't want to spend two fucking hours in the gym.
Claims they followed a 'full body routine.'
What was in this routine, you ask?
>leg press
>bench press
>knee extension
>shoulder press
So the routine was mem-tier bullshit. No wonder they gained HARDLY ANY strength in either group.
"Our data show that in
resistance-trained individuals, load, when exercises are performed to
volitional failure, does not dictate hypertrophy or, for the most part,
strength gains"
so....you can just do whatever the fuck you want to failure and get the same results as somebody else doing something else to failure
>>37899016
The fact that they were already 'resistance trained' is worth noting, because people who're already trained past the novice stage respond to training in a markedly different way, and make muscle and strength gains more slowly.
The workout they're describing probably isn't enough to stimulate much of anything in an individual who's been seriously lifting for 2 years.
>>37898896
>why would you waste your time doing a fuckton of reps
While I think 25 reps is absurd, many of you are doing 3x5 routines at a weight that's close to your 1rm and I constantly see posts complaining about pain and form. So if you lowered the weight and did a few more reps instead, it could be easier for you to maintain form. Instead of chasing a bigger number.
>>37898896
>they define 8-12 as "lower-repetition" and 20-25 as "higher-repetition"
20-25 reps WITH HALF THE WEIGHT you illiterate moron. read the fucking article.
>>37899014
Holy fuck that's the most autistic "full body split" I've ever seen
>>37898960
>The real reason I do heavy sets with low reps is because I don't want to spend two fucking hours in the gym.
welp, there is this.
but maybe the point is to do reps until "failure" and not focus on weight too much.
>>37899426
>The workout they're describing probably isn't enough to stimulate much of anything in an individual who's been seriously lifting for 2 years.
Or maybe you're missing the point on the function of muscles and how they respond to stress- which is what this study is about.
>Implying I'm gonna trust a bunch of nerds
Interesting. I literally don't believe anything I hear unless someone has a relevant degree so this is the first bit on info posted on /fit/ I might actually take seriously.
