View Full Version : Low-Load High Volume Resistance the best choice??
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012033
Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men
------
Tempus speak translation (and the reason I posted it.)
15 guys (age 20-22) - no notes on if they are experienced weight trainers, couch potatoes or whatever
unilateral leg extensions -
3 different versions - 90%1RM to failure, 30%1RM to same reps as 90%1RM, 30%1RM to failure.
Result - 30%1RM to failure resulted in myofibrillar protein synthesis remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h. The rest didn't.
Why we care - myofibrillar is the "get stronger" version of muscle growth (as opposed to sarcoplasmic aka. fluid growth.)
Do we really care?
I don't know. If these are untrained guys then this study probably doesn't translate. Its all about newbie gains and their CNS giving out with the higher intensity.
If they are experienced resistant trained lifters -- then it might be worth looking at.
Yea it may be something to consider, but I think its just another way to overthink basic training , eating.
Overthink? If training at 30% yields significantly more strength gains then thats something I'd like to know so I can incorporate it. I rarely do higher than 10.
SpankyC
08-12-10, 10:31 pm
Overthink? If training at 30% yields significantly more strength gains then thats something I'd like to know so I can incorporate it. I rarely do higher than 10.
yes bro that is really overthinking it lol, becareful of all the things you read, especially when they talk about percentages, thats how they really draw your attention, im not saying it wont work, but just be careful and keep it basic, train intense with free weight presses, squats, rows ,deadlifts, dips ,chins, skulls, curls, eat heavy and clean, get deep sleep every night and youl be beasting in no time!
jrh0341
08-13-10, 12:15 am
This is valid actually The info has been around for years. Basically, 8-12 reps will give you the most growth. 5-8 is good for strength training, and super low 1-3 is when you're working on straight up power. Look up periodization training, competitive athletes have trained like this for years. Hypertrophy (growth) phase, followed by strength phase, followed by power phase, scheduled usually so that you finish the power phase, get a week or so to rest and are pretty much peaked right as your competition date hits.
You can wikipedia it, or check some of the hardcore magazines websites.
Remember the strength and power phases are about training your CNS, so youdon't need (OR WANT) to hit failure on every set. Inthe growht phase, failure failure failure is the word! The growth phase is all about causing musclar tissue stress and about releasing those anabolic hormones. The keys are VOLUME, higher rep ranges, and limiting your rest time.
Yes, its going to hurt. :)
yes bro that is really overthinking it lol, becareful of all the things you read, especially when they talk about percentages, thats how they really draw your attention, im not saying it wont work, but just be careful and keep it basic, train intense with free weight presses, squats, rows ,deadlifts, dips ,chins, skulls, curls, eat heavy and clean, get deep sleep every night and youl be beasting in no time!
I'm cutting from my beastly 285 right now. If you check my logs you might notice that I'm a high intensity guy. Forced negs, multiple drop sets, strip sets. And curls aren't included in my general list of intense freeweights. And you forgot shrugs. And cleans.
I read tons of pub med and research data. I have a number of statistical problems with this research and I don't consider it to be a great study. But I do think its good food for thought. I had previously never considered massively high rep failure sets to be myofibrillar hypertrophic. If its correct thats a very interesting things, especially if you do deload weeks.
This is valid actually The info has been around for years. Basically, 8-12 reps will give you the most growth. 5-8 is good for strength training, and super low 1-3 is when you're working on straight up power. Look up periodization training, competitive athletes have trained like this for years. Hypertrophy (growth) phase, followed by strength phase, followed by power phase, scheduled usually so that you finish the power phase, get a week or so to rest and are pretty much peaked right as your competition date hits.
You can wikipedia it, or check some of the hardcore magazines websites.
Remember the strength and power phases are about training your CNS, so youdon't need (OR WANT) to hit failure on every set. Inthe growht phase, failure failure failure is the word! The growth phase is all about causing musclar tissue stress and about releasing those anabolic hormones. The keys are VOLUME, higher rep ranges, and limiting your rest time.
Yes, its going to hurt. :)
You are reading the research I posted incorrectly.
I'm with you, the typical 1-5 is strength gains (myofibrillar) and 6-12 is "optimal growth ( a bit of each) and 12+ is all sarcoplasmic with little/no strength gains.
This research says that if you lift 30% of your one rep max to failure (60ish reps. 100 ? I have no idea. I'm assuming I can bench 135 for quite a while assuming I've got some carbs in me.) then you'll actually get MORE _strength_ gains than you will if you were doing 90% of you one rep max (basically the 4 rep range assuming you are resistance trained and your CNS isn't fried.)
Do you see why this is crazy research?
rev8ball
08-13-10, 2:18 am
I have a number of statistical problems with this research and I don't consider it to be a great study. But I do think its good food for thought. I had previously never considered massively high rep failure sets to be myofibrillar hypertrophic. If its correct thats a very interesting things, especially if you do deload weeks.
I agree with your comments on the statistics, but you're right, it is something to think about. That's one of the reasons why I like to generally focus my athletes' cycles on intensity (taking into account load, volume, timing, etc., inclusively), rather than just one or another.
Good stuff......
BryanSmash!
08-13-10, 3:44 am
Overthink? If training at 30% yields significantly more strength gains then thats something I'd like to know so I can incorporate it. I rarely do higher than 10.
You are reading the research I posted incorrectly.
I'm with you, the typical 1-5 is strength gains (myofibrillar) and 6-12 is "optimal growth ( a bit of each) and 12+ is all sarcoplasmic with little/no strength gains.
This research says that if you lift 30% of your one rep max to failure (60ish reps. 100 ? I have no idea. I'm assuming I can bench 135 for quite a while assuming I've got some carbs in me.) then you'll actually get MORE _strength_ gains than you will if you were doing 90% of you one rep max (basically the 4 rep range assuming you are resistance trained and your CNS isn't fried.)
Do you see why this is crazy research?
Depends on your definition of 'strength'. Benching 135 a hundred times isnt going to improve your 1RM, its going to improve your 100RM.
Also, in reading the study it states that the subjects' results "suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes."
Stimulating muscle anabolism isn't producing more strength or power, its just stimulating more hypertrophy in the subjects, two different things. It could be because of the factors you already mentioned, or just because they were working in a rep range far outside their normal routines.
Its an interesting study, but I dont think its applicable to anyone whos been lifting consistently.