Building Muscle Doesn't Require Lifting Heavy Weights, Study Shows

**MJ.23** · 08-11-2010 03:58 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Tauren

There's a lot of binary thinking goes on in the fitness world,

People think things ether work or they don't. But also, if something works well for someone, they start thinking its the "only" way to go. Its much better to realise many things will work, but only some will be optimal.

The way I see it, you absolutely could get big doing high reps and low weights. Would you need to maybe put more effort into structuring the programme - yes. Would it work - yes. Would it be optimal - no.

I dont see it completely like this. I think you will see muscle gain however only up to a point.

Still as we all know a program with a mix of heavy compounds and dynamic lifting is still the most optimal.

I find studies like this odd as they seem to enjoy taking the extremes of everything.

**ATZ** · 08-11-2010 04:03 PM

MJ, light weights could be used to build muscle indefinately. You'd just up the reps and therefore total work done. For instance:

30kg x 30 = 900kg total work
100kg x 9 = 900kg total work

Do more reps = more work. However, maximum muscle recruitment occurs at a higher level than somebody's 30RM for most individuals.

**Waterfield** · 08-11-2010 05:34 PM

Who wants to look like an ox but be as strong as a non alcoholic beer.

**Martin Brown** · 12-11-2010 03:52 PM

The way I see it is I'm yet to see a professor in anything that has achieved anything other than letters after their names.....

**ryandj2** · 12-11-2010 08:59 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Martin Brown

The way I see it is I'm yet to see a professor in anything that has achieved anything other than letters after their names.....

Really?

**Asauka** · 12-11-2010 09:09 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Martin Brown

The way I see it is I'm yet to see a professor in anything that has achieved anything other than letters after their names.....

hahaha... I love you Martin, how did I miss this post first time around?!

**Tauren** · 12-11-2010 09:20 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Martin Brown

The way I see it is I'm yet to see a professor in anything that has achieved anything other than letters after their names.....

I could just as easily say that I've yet to see a powerlifter who looks like they know much about hypertrophy. (Which would be a stupid thing to say... but thats my point, ya' know).

Kind of expected better than the old "if you can't attack the science, attack the guy who wrote it". Even if you want to limit yourself and only listen to science from big guys, then your statement is obviously false, as there are plenty of big, strong people with PhDs out there.

**Martin Brown** · 13-11-2010 03:49 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Asauka

hahaha... I love you Martin, how did I miss this post first time around?!

Lol

Well I get to the point where I've heard enough from people who think about things and attempt to give reason why things won't/can't/shouldn't work - when clearly everyone who knows how is already out there doing it and not even thinking twice about it.

Take sports science for example - even at post-grad level it's years behind real life training of the top athletes. It's a case of sport does and then science thinks about it afterwards!

It is blatently obvious to anyone with any real life experience of training that doing sets of 30+ is not going to be optimal for continued long term growth.

I value the benefits of sceince of course, but sometimes you have to wonder if there is something better these people could be doing their studies on. Really - is this reasearch going to completely re-write the rule book on training? We all of a sudden going to stop lifting more than 30% of a 1RM?

**Martin Brown** · 13-11-2010 03:56 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Tauren

I could just as easily say that I've yet to see a powerlifter who looks like they know much about hypertrophy. (Which would be a stupid thing to say... but thats my point, ya' know).

Kind of expected better than the old "if you can't attack the science, attack the guy who wrote it". Even if you want to limit yourself and only listen to science from big guys, then your statement is obviously false, as there are plenty of big, strong people with PhDs out there.

Tauren if you are just trying to be annoying, disrespectful and trying to get on my nerves then you win - however please refrain in future or else I will see to it that you take no further part in this forum

**Tauren** · 14-11-2010 03:05 PM

Quote

Originally Posted by Martin Brown

Tauren if you are just trying to be annoying, disrespectful and trying to get on my nerves then you win - however please refrain in future or else I will see to it that you take no further part in this forum

If you want to talk about being disrespectful I would take a look at your own post. You are actually insulting a lot of people with what you said. If you wanted to make the point about the role of science in training, then there are much more respectful ways to do it.

I actually have a lot of respect for what you and what you've achieved in your training Martin. That doesn't mean I won't reply if you make what in my opinion was a pretty ignorant comment.

If you want to ban me for that I actually think its a pretty sad state of affairs.