[HN Gopher] Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
___________________________________________________________________
Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy
Author : Luc
Score : 220 points
Date : 2025-12-31 22:25 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| hazard wrote:
| tldr appears to be that if you work to fatigue it doesn't matter
| if you fatigue out with high weights vs low weights
| chrishare wrote:
| When training for muscle size atleast, but not strength.
| Presumably there are increased injury risks overall when
| lifting heavy (based on a brief search).
| vlod wrote:
| I agree with this, but for those newbies be careful at what you
| define as "failure".
|
| I've f.up my MCL by not listening to my body and I have the
| stability of a typical 85 year old while I try and 'heal'. It
| takes longer as you get older (you're probably not 20 year old)
| and stupid stuff can really take you out.
| teecha wrote:
| fairly new to lifting myself (2+ years taking it seriously) but
| this thing seems to jive with what I've read across different
| areas
|
| bodybuilders can build muscle size with high reps and lower
| weight or lower reps and high weight as long as they do it
| close to failure with only a few reps in reserve (rir)
|
| powerlifters, or those focusing on strength, usually go for
| high weight and lower reps because they might be training for a
| competition that focuses on 1 rep max and/or the body can
| really only handle so many reps when pushing it at 80-90% of 1
| rep max
|
| neither is inherently better but a matter of what goals you
| have in mind, plus, hypertrophy contributes to overall
| strength, too
| andoando wrote:
| There is certainly a difference in a slow twitch vs fast twitch
| muscle adaptation though
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8139349/
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I know it's practically de rigeur to jump into the comments and
| immediately complain about methodology for any study that makes
| it to the front page, and I want to emphasize I don't distrust
| their findings, but I would like to see an equivalent study go
| out longer than 10 weeks. When I've been taking weightlifting
| seriously I feel like I don't even start to notice hypertrophy
| until 8-10 weeks. I feel like 6 months is the actual period where
| results would matter, to me, but I assume "subject compliance" is
| pretty difficult to get for such a timeframe, if you're really
| watching dietary intake and ensuring subjects go to failure
| (which, to its credit, this study did).
| mf_tomb wrote:
| This is par for the course with exercise science. It's mostly
| fake. No blinding, small sample sizes, researchers with agenda,
| low duration, low funding etc. The good news is that doing
| almost anything works.
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| Doing almost anything works better than doing nothing.
| f33d5173 wrote:
| How would you blind it? This isn't pharmacy where you can
| hand out sugar pills.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Doing almost anything works ...
|
| ... over doing nothing ...
|
| ... initially.
|
| Progress, over time, tends to involve both variation in
| routine and specific methods, progression, programming,
| modalities, techniques, form, movements, etc.
|
| One somewhat dubious 10 week study of newbies, as many others
| have commented, doesn't communicate much.
|
| A further complication is that much of the hypertrophic
| adaptation is _systemic_ , that is, _relates to overall body
| stimulus and other factors (nutrition, rest, genetics, etc.).
| Among those effects is the net hormonal response
| (testosterone, HGH, ILG
|
| Heck, there's a well-known phenomenon called _cross
| education* where an _untrained limb_ will see strength /
| hypertrophy gains when its opposite is trained:
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_education>
|
| (Other / similar terms: Cross-Transfer Effect, Inter-Limb
| Transfer, Motor Cortex, Activation, Contralateral Training
| Effect).
|
| Body adaptation to resistance training is _weird_.
| armcat wrote:
| I thought it was already well understood/researched that it's not
| the weights that matter, but effectively taking your sets to
| muscular failure. While one might think "I can do 50 reps with
| low weights" there is practical aspects to this - you don't wand
| to spend hours at the gym, and doing heavy weights at 5-7 reps is
| sufficient as long as you are close or at muscular failure.
| xnx wrote:
| Well understood, but not widely known. The myths and
| superstitions around anything health related are frustratingly
| durable.
| elevaet wrote:
| What about the old gym adage "training to failure is failing to
| train" - is there any physiological basis for this, or is it
| mental, or just a myth?
| kace91 wrote:
| I've never heard that, it's usually the opposite- people do
| strip sets and the like to reach failure
| wswope wrote:
| That's a Pl/Oly mindset rather than a BB/hypertrophy mindset.
| Totally valid advice in the right context.
|
| Long story short, failed reps get much more risky and
| problematic as the weight you're lifting approaches your 1RM.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Exactly this. When I was in my best shape my deadlift and
| squat were in/on the way to 2.5-3x my body weight _. You
| don't want to fail that without a lot of help and safeties.
|
| _ Note for the uninitiated: That figure is not even
| impressive or competitive with competition lifters. This is
| just "guy who put in the time and work" numbers.
| matwood wrote:
| Don't sell yourself short though. Those are very
| respectable numbers ahead of the vast majority of the
| population.
| sethammons wrote:
| Look up lifts and weight multiples and a 3x weight
| deadlift is advanced to elite.
|
| https://strengthlevel.com/strength-standards/deadlift/lb
| bschwarz wrote:
| Be sure to not take strengthlevel.com too seriously.
| teecha wrote:
| not an expert, 2 years of serious lifting, but this is
| probably a good adage for the average person from my current
| understanding
|
| training to failure puts you at higher risk of injury and
| there are diminishing returns as you approach your 1 rep max
| and/or failure
|
| hypertrophy can happen with more reps or more weight
|
| strength gains are usually just focused on progressive
| overload
|
| though, of course, hypertrophy will happen either way and
| contributes to increased strength, but this seems to be
| further confirmation that you can gain muscle size either way
| nzeid wrote:
| It's definitely way more nuanced than that. You have to
| approach exhaustion to get the body to eventually build
| strength. But you need to carefully time your rests/deloads
| and handle plateaus with more volume.
| thatcat wrote:
| Where could I find more information on proper set timing?
| Moto7451 wrote:
| Honestly from a personal training/lifting coach. When I
| could spend serious time in the gym there's a lot to just
| having someone with expertise for 30 minutes to give
| perspective. You can do a lot of it over video today as
| well.
|
| In general YouTube is a good resource. There are a lot of
| respected coaches that also produce content.
| matwood wrote:
| It ends up being personal, but you want enough time to
| catch your breath and be "ready" to go again, but no
| more.
| aeonik wrote:
| This guy has a PhD in exercise science and is a very
| evidence based dude and breaks things down very nicely.
|
| https://youtu.be/DupQfkoI-Sc?si=QK_w2d99TcvNcQsD
| teecha wrote:
| I like Mehdi's description over here as a good starting
| point:
|
| https://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5/intermediate/#res
| t-p...
|
| Has a paper from 1976 but this seems in line with what
| I've read elsewhere
|
| basically, 2-3 minutes is probably good for most of your
| lifting, you could go to 5 minutes if you are doing your
| heaviest lift of the day
|
| this is also a reasonable way to make sure your workouts
| aren't going to take 3 hours at a time
|
| some people really mix max this though if they're
| focusing on super heavy lifts. i remember being at the
| gym and watching people take 8-10 minutes between sets
| when they were putting up 400-500lbs on a squat. they
| also arrived before me and weren't done when i was
| leaving and, i'm assuming, they were interested in
| powerlifting competitions
|
| i've actually started looking at reactive training system
| with mike tuchscherer who has a lot of interesting things
| to say about training, rest times, etc. been startin to
| build his stuff on RPE and fatigue percentages in to my
| training and it has already been super insightful and
| helpful
|
| https://store.reactivetrainingsystems.com/blogs/default-
| blog...
| teecha wrote:
| i definitely agree it is more nuanced! might not have
| communicated it well that in the context of untrained
| people and beginners that these guidelines will work for
| quite a while and most of the nuance applies much more once
| you get past the easy beginner gains
|
| for example, if someone new starts with low weight to work
| on proper technique and form, and adds weight each week
| they will continue to both get stronger and to gain muscle
|
| i'd imagine the average person who is casually lifting
| might not even get to this point and could easily spend a
| couple of years before really hitting a spot where the
| nuance is more important
| NoLinkToMe wrote:
| It holds true, but with some caveats.
|
| Generally training to failure is completely fine for say a
| set of tricep extensions. Generally safe.
|
| However, training to failure on compound lifts like a
| deadlift or benchpress, or involving sensitive muscles like a
| shoulder press, isn't.
|
| Technique generally suffers at the point of failure. Making a
| habit of doing thousands of repetitions in the next decade at
| the point where technique fails, on an exercise that can mess
| up your back permanently, or your shoulders, is bad advice.
|
| For these exercises it's better to stop 2 reps short of
| failure. This is more safe. Also it requires moderate
| recovery getting you back in the gym quicker, meaning you can
| compound more incremental improvements in a given training
| period (say 5 years).
|
| Even then, some still cautiously go to failure to keep an
| understanding of what their failure point really is. You
| could go for a PR once or twice a month for example and go to
| failure, with a proper warmup, spotter etc. But purely for
| hypertrophy there's not really a point, this is more for
| strength training.
|
| Generally people that say they train to failure mean 2 reps
| in reserve. Training to absolute failure on all muscles is
| very rare and generally advised against.
| calmbonsai wrote:
| True. Generally, the more isolated the exercise and the
| smaller the muscle the "safer" it is to train-to-failure at
| a higher duty-cycle.
|
| Put another way, you can do crunches to failure every
| single day, but you'll want to keep some reps in the tank
| for squats and you'll want to plan on at least 12-24 hours
| of recovery between squat sessions.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Failure also taxes your nervous system and joints which don't
| take as kindly to stimulus as muscles do and take longer to
| recover (or accumulate damage in case of joints)
| kace91 wrote:
| >While one might think "I can do 50 reps with low weights"
|
| The caveat is that you need anaerobic training. Low enough
| weight and it's cardio, you don't get giant legs by walking to
| failure for example.
| nnutter wrote:
| Has anyone really ever walked to failure on a regular basis?
| I typically have to stop because of blisters not muscle
| failure. (The furthest I've done is 12 miles with +10%
| weight.)
| worthless-trash wrote:
| I used to persistent hunt to failure, ended up with bulky
| calves and tibialis.
| bglazer wrote:
| Where were you doing this? Were you ever successful? How
| did you do it, like what were your tactics? So many
| questions!
|
| I've never heard about modern people doing serious
| persistence hunting, except for a stunt that I read about
| years ago. I think it was organized by like Outside or
| some running publication that got pro marathoners to try
| and they failed because they didn't know anything about
| hunting
| conception wrote:
| Right? Where's the well written blog post on this I want?
| NoImmatureAdHom wrote:
| Third. Tell the story!!
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| Check anybody that has done the AT.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| You think they hike to failure??
|
| (And you should be looking at the CDT, anyway.)
| exq wrote:
| I backpack often (usually 8-13% bodyweight in my pack) and
| during long summer days I can comfortably push well into
| the 30 mile per day range if there isn't too much vert to
| slow my pace down. My feet get sore, brain gets tired, and
| I run out of daylight well before any sort of muscle
| failure in my legs. If you aren't used to walking from
| sunrise to sunset doing so would build muscle, but your
| time would be better spent on a progressive overload leg
| routine in a gym.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yup, I have never gone that far (but my summer hiking is
| entirely at high elevation with lots of climb) but I have
| never found anything like a failure point--I wear out
| because of time (not even daylight--I've made navigation
| errors that left me out there well past sunset), not
| muscle failure.
| solumunus wrote:
| Well you're not applying much mechanical tension to the
| quadriceps when "walking to failure". This is nowhere near
| analogous.
| vjk800 wrote:
| I don't know. All cyclists I know seem to have massive
| thighs. And these are amateurs who don't do any kind of
| strength training, just hours and hours of cycling every
| week.
| kace91 wrote:
| >All cyclists I know seem to have massive thighs.
|
| Yeah uphill cycling or sprints probably go anaerobic at
| times, you can tell because you need to stop from the
| muscle burning/refusing to move, rather than going out of
| breath or general tiredness.
| samiv wrote:
| There's a difference between the guys who cycle Tour de
| France vs the ones who go around in the velodrome.
|
| The former group is endurance athletes with skinny legs and
| the latter group is more focused on maximum power. Similar
| to marathon runners vs sprinters.
|
| The pro velodrome cyclists do tremendous leg training
| programs specifically to develop the muscles. It's not the
| cycling that builds that muscle.
| machomaster wrote:
| Squat training is a must for cyclists. Heck, there are
| youtube videos of a German competition (squat as many times
| as you can with your weight on the bar) with high-level
| competition (powerlifters, strength athletes, OLY lifters).
| It was overwhelmingly won by the cyclist.
| amelius wrote:
| How about making muscles fail by stretching them under load?
| jimbo808 wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to injure yourself, also would only
| work for eccentric motion
| amelius wrote:
| To me it doesn't sound much different than "taking your
| sets to muscular failure".
| jimbo808 wrote:
| Not all muscles resist extension, some do the opposite
| and contract.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| i don't understand what this means. the stretch feeling
| is an involuntary muscle contraction that is happening to
| resist extension on the opposite side.
| mrob wrote:
| Depending on what you mean by "fail" and "stretching", that
| sounds a lot like eccentric training [0] (a.k.a.
| "negatives"). It's effective but notorious for causing
| delayed onset muscle soreness.
|
| I trained myself to do pull-ups using this method, repeatedly
| lowering myself in a controlled motion from the top position
| while I was too weak to actually pull myself up.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccentric_training
| machomaster wrote:
| There has been a lot of "long length training/partials"
| information/research in the past couple of years. A very
| useful information, you should research more (or ask more
| specific questions).
| oarfish wrote:
| thats a different thing tho. the term "stretch mediated
| hypertrophy" is used loosely in many places and i think
| originally refers to really just hypertrophy caused by the
| stretch. iirc the lengthened partial gains are not thought
| to be caused by this mechanism.
| oarfish wrote:
| akshually theres quite some interesting data on this. it has
| been shown that stretching alone can indeed produce
| hypertrophy (in birds and humans), but the required protocols
| are so intense that you wont want to do them (i think its
| hours in incredibly uncomfortable positions), so dynamic
| exercise still wins.
|
| One would also expect it not to do as much for strenght,
| since adaptations are somewhat specific to the training.
| vasco wrote:
| > Loads for each set were adjusted to ensure that volitional
| fatigue was reached within 8-12 and 20-25 repetitions for the
| HL and LL limbs, respectively
|
| I would argue both categories of the study are about low reps.
| I don't see how the body would tell the difference between 12
| and 25 reps. If you said between 5 and 500, like it has to
| meaningfully take much longer, otherwise why would doing
| something so similar have any meaningful difference?
|
| The way I think about it is that nature mostly reacts to order
| of magnitude changes. 12 to 25 is the same thing.
|
| Like why not make a study to see if its more nutritious to eat
| dinner in 15 or 20 minutes?
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is spoken like you've never done any reps at all?
| vasco wrote:
| There's not much difference in hitting max at 12 and at 25,
| from anecdotal experience. The study corroborated that as
| well, even though with small n.
| solumunus wrote:
| What do you mean by there's no difference? The difference
| is in the relative load needed in each example.
| vasco wrote:
| Well of course you change the load, but the stimulus is
| interpreted the same way by the body. I didn't think the
| question was at that level.
| solumunus wrote:
| > but the stimulus is interpreted the same way by the
| body
|
| That may be your intuition, but it's certainly not
| everyone's, hence the studies... Many people will intuit
| heavier weight = more effective.
| machomaster wrote:
| Except that this is something that was well established
| before, making this study pointless.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12 to 25
| reps on any exercise I do. Although typically I max out at 8
| before adding more weight.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12
| to 25 reps on any exercise I do.
|
| To be clear, the implication is that 12 and 25 have
| different weights so they tire you the same amount. Do you
| think it would be a very strongly felt difference in that
| situation? What would the difference feel like?
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Yes, this is why classic body builders like high reps
| because they get the pump but you can get the same growth
| (and there's lots of research saying more) with training
| to failure with low reps and high weight but it doesn't
| give you the pump.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Well the idea in the earlier comment is that a 2x rep
| difference isn't very much to be the difference between
| "low" and "high". It's not disputing that you _can_ get a
| difference, but saying the study didn 't try very hard to
| probe it.
| vasco wrote:
| You consciously notice of course, like what kind of
| argument is that. The point is the stimulus is the same for
| the body unless you change it by orders of magnitude, the
| study agrees that this is the same also.
| machomaster wrote:
| Of course you would personally notice. But the parent was
| talking about the effect on muscles. And it has been long
| estsblished that 5-30 reps (perhaps even highter) will
| cause the same hypertrophy.
|
| Obviously, for practical reasons the optimal range for each
| exercise will vary. For squat 5-10 is definitely better
| than 10-20 let alone 20-30. For DB side raises highter reps
| would feel better than the lower rep range.
| fudged71 wrote:
| Brad Schoenfeld Has been on this body of work for a long time,
| and he is "Mr. Hypertrophy" in the field. So yes
| landl0rd wrote:
| Fifty is excessive but you're better-served doing 12-20 reps
| more than fewer, heavier reps if you're pushing hypertrophy and
| already well-trained.
| taneq wrote:
| That matches what I've been told by various personal
| trainers. 6-8 reps if focusing on strength, ~12 for all
| round, and 16-18 for size/endurance. Do three sets, weight
| should be enough that the last couple of reps on the first
| set are a bit of a struggle. Subsequent sets just push
| through as far as you can.
| hatefulheart wrote:
| Your trainers clearly never read Starting Strength.
| taneq wrote:
| No idea, I certainly haven't. This was decades ago,
| though, so it's entirely possible that established best
| practice has changed.
| oarfish wrote:
| these days your better of not reading that, probably.
| bunch of outdated and bad advice coming from that corner.
| machomaster wrote:
| This is a common myth that came out of nowhere and has been
| debunked.
|
| 1-5 reps for strength. 5-30 reps for hypertrophy.
| cornel_io wrote:
| This article claims that's false, that 8-12 at higher weight
| leads to the same result as 20+ at lower weights.
| landl0rd wrote:
| The research is studying young untrained men. Everyone puts
| on muscle at mach chicken when untrained.
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| The weight does matter. You will never get bigger if you don't
| add weight to the bar, and you will never get bigger if you
| only train at 1% of your 1 rep max, no matter the number of
| reps. Producing a training stimulus requires placing the muscle
| under sufficient tension (enough weight) enough times to be at
| or near failure.
| safety1st wrote:
| There are a few issues with taking every set to failure, the
| most important being that it will substantially increase your
| risk of injury. It sounds great until you consider compounds
| like the deadlift that can ruin your back if your form is bad,
| and by definition, going to failure means your form will be
| imperfect at some point. There are lots of macho powerlifters
| out there with permanently ruined spines who will probably die
| earlier than they would have otherwise, due to mobility
| degradation.
|
| Particularly as you get older you become more injury prone and
| your recovery time slows down. This necessitates being cautious
| about how quickly you increase weight and how often you go to
| failure.
|
| The better goal to target is increasing volume, where volume is
| defined as Sets x Reps x Weight. The literature doesn't
| conclusively establish that any one of these is "more
| important" than the others for hypertrophy. The only real
| caveat when you follow this rule is that at a certain extreme
| of low weight / high reps (like 50 reps) you wouldn't actually
| be doing resistance training anymore, it'd be cardio.
| Retric wrote:
| 2 reps in reserve is fine and far less painful, but you need
| to go to actual failure often enough to know where failure is
| on each set. I'm nerdy enough to suggest rolling a 20 sided
| die for each set, and on a 1 take it to failure it's not that
| complicated and keeps your predictions honest.
|
| As I understand it taking a set near failure works reasonably
| anywhere between 5 to 30 reps, but 30 well controlled reps
| with good form * 3+ sets for each muscle group gets really
| boring.
| nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote:
| Boring is subjective though. For some like me the ideal
| weight gives endorphins where as too much feels like
| cortisol. Too light is sort of nothing. So I aim for that
| "yeah I pushed something" feeling. Which isn't failure.
| Retric wrote:
| Let's be realistic, everyone goes through periods when
| they just don't want to work out.
|
| So optimal in terms of personal preference is defiantly
| worth considering alongside optimal in terms of results,
| but optimal in terms of returns on effort defiantly has a
| place at some point in our lives.
| matwood wrote:
| This is key to recognize. Even when you don't "feel" it
| you still go and do your program. But, when you do feel
| good, you go and push.
| nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote:
| Yes guess it depends on your goals. Whether you are doing
| it for health, vanity, work or competitions will adjust
| the calculus.
| siddboots wrote:
| I think the total volume idea is more flawed than you
| realise. Pretty much everyone would be able to achieve
| greater volume, on any exercise, just by decreasing the
| weight, so your high rep caveat is covering up for quite a
| lot. This is true mathematically for an Epley style model for
| example.
| matwood wrote:
| > Pretty much everyone would be able to achieve greater
| volume, on any exercise
|
| I'm not sure this is true and it might be the opposite.
| Lactic acid will build up with light weight while trying to
| hit a volume number that will make it hard for people to
| finish.
| Leherenn wrote:
| Anecdotally, my gym had a "challenge" some times back
| where the goal was to achieve the max total volume in one
| set without pause.
|
| I tried various combos of weight* reps, and in the end
| the optimum was somewhere in the middle because no matter
| how light the weight there was a limit for me at about
| ~150 reps.
|
| In my case, the curve would be: total volume increases
| quickly initially at you go from max weight/1 rep to
| something like 20/30 reps, then something of a plateau as
| things equalise, then it goes down again as you reach the
| max reps threshold.
| matwood wrote:
| Great point. Personally I find lactic acid build up way
| more limiting for me than muscle fatigue. It's why I
| gravitated towards power lifting.
| acoard wrote:
| What about longer rest periods? For example if I wait 1hr
| between sets I can do full weight again without dropping down
| weights with a 2-5min break. In fact I can get multiple more
| sets in and significantly increase my total volume if I
| spread a workout over a day (which is easier with WFH). Any
| thoughts on this? Is there not enough muscle fatigue with
| this approach?
| travisjungroth wrote:
| Hard to stay warmed up that way. What you're describing is
| how people tend to get big without the gym (lifting heavy
| things through the day) but they also tend be pretty active
| in between (think farm work).
|
| But as long as you're not going so hard you risk injury, it
| might be great overall. Could be really good for your
| mental state.
| machomaster wrote:
| You might also be interested in reading about Pavel
| Tsatsouline's "grease the groove".
| samiv wrote:
| Your point about the injury risk going up is valid. That
| being said going to failure and beyond is extremely effective
| way to train.
|
| As I mentioned in another comment a possibile way to mitigate
| the risks is to reduce the load and make the exercise harder
| and increase the time under load by slowing down the
| exercise.
|
| Also it's a good idea to swap from a higher risk exercise to
| a safer one to crank out the last reps. For example from
| squat to leg press.
| oarfish wrote:
| Perfect form isnt a thing, its all a matter of what joint
| positions you are adapted to produce or reduce force in. So
| the problem with form breakdown isnt that the position you
| end up in is dangerous (no, rounding your back some is not
| bad), but that you are not prepared for the stress in that
| position.
|
| Its unfortunate that people say deadlifting "wrong" causes
| injury, while the evidence does not support it. People should
| not be turned off from lifting heavy by such statements.
| sedivy94 wrote:
| Novelty of stimulus is a huge factor, especially as training
| continues over years. Failure from a set of 20 is very
| different than failure from a set of 5, and bodybuilders will
| periodize their training to cycle through the different flavors
| of stimulus. I think a big contributor might be neuromuscular
| adaptation. Cycling through those different intensities over
| training periods measured in months will make this apparent
| anecdotally.
| solumunus wrote:
| > bodybuilders will periodize their training to cycle through
| the different flavors of stimulus
|
| Some will, many won't. It's clearly not necessary.
| machomaster wrote:
| They mostly cycle for health (injury prevention) and sanity
| (not to do the same damn thing).
| calmbonsai wrote:
| There's also the risk of injury.
|
| At very low reps and high weight, particularly for highly
| coordinated motions (squats, dips, pull-ups, Pulver press back-
| extensions), there's a much higher chance for injury due to
| insufficient support at one or more positions within the entire
| range of concentric and eccentric efforts by all activated
| muscles. We all have, at the very least, minor intrinsic
| asymmetries that need explicit addressing.
|
| There's also intra-set recovery. Roughly (very roughly)
| speaking, your endo-neuro-muscular system "adapts best" where
| there is a refractory period for a reset-to-quiescence between
| exertions.
|
| There is real truth to "muscle memory" and the exclusive way to
| achieve that (and avoid injury) is through a sufficient amount
| of well-formed repetitions. The only way to achieve those
| repetitions is by using a resistance that's sufficiently low.
| vjerancrnjak wrote:
| Asymmetry is normal and you cannot address it (outside of
| repeatability of movement, aiming for no form degradation
| during high load).
|
| As long as your movement does not degrade horribly, asymmetry
| is fine.
|
| Even before strength training, your one arm is dominant, more
| precise. But this has an effect on your leg as well.
|
| Doing unilateral work will never change that asymmetry. As
| you get stronger, due to drastically different activations of
| the nervous system between the sides, you will get slightly
| different adaptations.
|
| Looking at powerlifters, most of them have visibly different
| sizes of hip, leg musculature between sides. They even have
| drastic flexibility differences where one hip goes deeper, or
| the musculature makes the barbell sit skewed on the back.
| machomaster wrote:
| Even Smolov has clear discrepancies in the way his feet are
| positioned.
| calmbonsai wrote:
| To be clear, by "addressing" I did mean altering form and
| training to lessen the risk of injury due to asymmetry.
| FWIW, I wear a heal-cup in my right shoe and do additional
| rotator cuff warm-ups to due minor leg asymmetry and an old
| injury.
| kombine wrote:
| Training to failure for me personally only brought injury and
| set back my progress by weeks.
| samiv wrote:
| If you were a newbie just getting started.. the ligaments and
| tendons take much longer to strengthen than the muscle. So
| the muscles getting stronger will outpace the connective
| tissue.
|
| Second potential issue is too much training vrt recovery.
|
| A good way to add safety margin when training to failure is
| to reduce the weights and slow down the exercise and increase
| the time under load.
|
| For example bench press, do 5s down (eccentric), 5s pause
| (isometric) and then (optionally) 5s press (concentric). Your
| weights will go way down because this exercise will be so
| hard. But the stress on the joints and ligaments will be
| reduced.
| marknutter wrote:
| Not being able to do a rep with proper form is the definition
| of failure.
| weinzierl wrote:
| If I read this correctly the gist is that it does not matter if
| you use heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom)
| or lighter weights with more reps. As long as you always exercise
| to complete muscle fatigue you'll get the maximum for your
| genetics (which itself varies a lot).
| kace91 wrote:
| It is actually common bodybuilder wisdom to go for the lighter
| version.
|
| Stereotyping, weightlifters who go for max numbers do 1 set of
| a million pounds and rest three hours between exercises, while
| bodybuilders do thirty exercises a day for 8 series of 15 reps
| each.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| It's worth noting that muscle is not all the same. If you're
| just into bodybuilding then sure, proximity to failure is what
| matters. For athletics though, there still seems to be a big
| impact in the rep range you work in.
| d-us-vb wrote:
| This. Muscles can be optimized for volume/endurance or power,
| or some balance between them. Taking legs as an example:
| Powerlifters obviously go for pure power, whereas runners
| need a bit of power but mostly endurance, whereas cyclists
| need more power than runners but more endurance than
| powerlifters.
|
| All of these benefit from weight training, but depending on
| the sport, the programming will be very different.
| allan_s wrote:
| I think I know where they're coming from as I used to have
| a similar wrong model. I thought strength = more muscle
| cells and endurance = just better heart/lungs to deliver
| oxygen and clear waste like CO2 and lactic acid.
|
| Turns out muscle fibers mostly grow bigger rather than more
| numerous, and there are different fiber types (slow-twitch
| vs fast-twitch) that adapt based on how you train. So for
| the same muscle, an Ironman runner and a guy doing heavy
| low-rep squats will develop different fiber
| characteristics: you can't fully max out both.
|
| I'm simplifying, but learning this changed a lot about how
| I understand exercise at the biological level.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Since I'm nitpicking let me point out that powerlifters
| train for strength. Power is an altogether different
| (though related to a degree) muscular/neurological
| characteristic. Power would be more closely related to
| olympic weightlifters or sprinters/shot-putters etc.
| Endurance could also be broken into alactic/lactic/aerobic
| capacity which makes a huge difference at the margins where
| athletic excellence is made. Nits aside your description is
| 90% there.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Can we replicate the process of reaching muscle fatigue/failure
| to spur muscle growth without the strength training or anabolic
| steroids? Think GLP-1RAs but for this specific biological
| pathway.
|
| https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/lilly-terminate-obesity-t...
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/...
| allan_s wrote:
| My understanding is that anabolic steroid are somehow close
| to what you're thinking about? It's just that as anything
| taking a simple shortcut , it comes with unwanted effects
| stuffn wrote:
| The reason no one has found a better way is because
| hypertrophy is because it's well understood and there's no
| "better" solution. mTOR is the primary hormone pathway.thy
| increase the adaptation ceiling by increasing RBC, reducing
| protein breakdown, etc. Thereby reducing rest needed, so mTOR
| is heavily unregulated.
|
| This is one of the view places where "if we could we would"
| is the correct answer. There is so much money in the space of
| anabolic cheating, the clandestine scientists would've
| already developed it.
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| Steroid use has been shown to increase muscle in untrained
| males by around 25-30% I believe, without adding any
| exercise. That doesn't accomplish too much. If you want any
| worthwhile results, you will still have to train, although
| the steroids produce significantly more results for the same
| investment.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Andre the Giant said he never worked out, he just wrestled.
| He had some kind of growth hormone disorder, if I recall.
|
| Think about gorillas, who are pretty similar to us - they
| don't lift weights in the gym, do they?
| tormeh wrote:
| Yeah, muscles are mostly about genetics, just like
| anything else. A mouse won't become a rhino by lifting.
| Humans are so incredibly genetically homogeneous that it
| can sometimes be tempting to ignore this, but even
| between humans the variability is quite large.
| samiv wrote:
| Andre the Giant was also not particularly athletic or
| healthy. He was just a huge guy caused by disruption in
| the growth hormone at some point in his life and he died
| of alcoholism.
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| I don't know much about Andre's strength feats. Was he
| exceptionally strong? Wrestling definitely involves
| lifting heavy opponents, especially in Andre's weight
| class. So, if he was extremely strong, I can see why
| despite no explicit resistance training, given his
| wrestling and increased HGH.
|
| Yeah, this whole discussion is based on assuming human
| genetics. Every animal, without any resistance training,
| will develop an amount of muscle within some range. This
| can be massive, like for gorillas. Perhaps someday we
| will have gene editing that allows us to have the muscle
| building genes of gorillas, so we can all bench 1,000lbs
| with no training.
|
| I wonder, do gorillas possess the mechanism for
| stimulating muscle growth via resistance training? How
| strong could one be with a dedicated training plan and
| coach?
| solumunus wrote:
| It's infuriating that this gets parroted so often. The
| study you're referring to measures "fat free mass".
| Anabolic steroids acutely increase water and glycogen
| retention. All that study is showing is that taking
| steroids increases your body weight due to increased muscle
| fullness.
|
| You won't gain any significant amount of muscle tissue from
| taking steroids without training.
| rorytbyrne wrote:
| > heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom)
|
| It is strength training (not body builder) wisdom to use heavy
| weights with few reps. Hypertrophy (i.e. body builder)
| programmes usually call for 8-12 reps, which implies relatively
| low weights.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| is "8-12" not "few" for you?
| rorytbyrne wrote:
| Relatively speaking, no. Strength training (as opposed to
| hypertrophy) calls for fewer reps, around 5 per set.
|
| Many people advise spending about a year doing more sets of
| fewer (~5) reps to build strength, and then switch to fewer
| sets of more reps (8-12) when you want to build muscle
| mass.
|
| Point being, the idea of doing lighter weights until
| failure is already kind of there in body building wisdom.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| 1-3 is few
| SoftTalker wrote:
| 3-5 reps per set for powerlifting training. Competition
| lifts are a single rep.
| solumunus wrote:
| No that's definitely considered to be a moderate rep range.
| Roughly speaking low is 1-5, mid is 6-12, high is 12+.
| Above 20 is practically irrelevant.
| MattRix wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something, this has already been known,
| though the hypertrophic benefits start to reduce beyond 30
| reps.
| bob1029 wrote:
| There's no way this works in practice. A lot of heavy lifting
| (maximums) is about neurology and mind-body training. You
| cannot develop the ability to deadlift 405lbs by spending 2
| hours using a cable crossover machine every day. Picking up
| something that weighs 2x more than you do requires your brain
| to send an extremely strong, synchronized signal. This is
| something that takes a lot of practice to develop. You have to
| consistently push your maximum voluntary effort in order to
| expand this capacity.
| jjj123 wrote:
| Right, but this post is about hypertrophy (big muscles). Not
| about heavy lifts.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Well one thing can lead into the other over time. If you
| can lift 405 once, 315 for reps becomes pedestrian and 225
| becomes boring. Lifting that much weight will turn you into
| a monster faster than if you had not pushed for that
| capacity. I've seen people who can treat a 225lb barbell as
| if it's unloaded and 100% of them look like dragon ball Z
| characters.
| paulmooreparks wrote:
| Body mechanics, leverage, and neuro-muscular connection
| definitely come into play. I could deadlift 430lbs for
| reps at my peak, and I while I was no string bean, I also
| didn't look all that muscular compared to the other
| lifters at my gym. I have ridiculously long arms relative
| to my height and relatively shorter legs, which gives me
| an advantage for deadlift. I had monstrous-looking guys
| watch me lift and then ask me what stack I was on. They
| didn't believe me when I said I was natural.
| solumunus wrote:
| Again, not relevant.
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| There is a minimum weight you must use to create a training
| stimulus, but yes, you can increase your 1RM with higher-rep
| sets (again, to a limit, they can't be sets of 100, the
| weight is too light).
|
| To increase your 1RM at the most optimal pace, yes you need
| to specifically train the movement so that you can benefit
| from improved technique and neurological adaptation. But if I
| do tricep, pec, and front delt isolation exercises at higher
| reps, to failure, and see significant hypertrophy in these
| muscles, my bench press will be stronger, other things
| constant.
| motoboi wrote:
| This is very interesting and explain why construction workers
| can lift 200kg but when they migrate to body building they
| lost that ability less that a year later.
| bethekidyouwant wrote:
| The group that did lower reps with higher weight, had the better
| one rep max at the end of the study, but they didn't measure if
| the higher rep group had greater endurance. Which seems a bit
| odd, considering their conclusion is both groups grew the same
| amount of muscle which fine but if the muscle is adapted for
| something different in each group, you would want to capture
| that.
| wiether wrote:
| > both groups grew the same amount of muscle which fine but
|
| The focus was on hypertrophy, so 1RM or endurance doesn't
| matter in their case
| Torkel wrote:
| I.e.
|
| No pain, no gain.
| cyberax wrote:
| This is really terrible advice that just discourages people.
|
| You absolutely can get significant improvements without (much)
| pain. DOMS during the initial stages is going to be the most
| uncomfortable part. Once you're past it, you don't need to push
| yourself to a breaking point, just to the point of mild
| exhaustion.
|
| This will provide you enough resistance to gain muscle mass and
| improve the bone density to healthy levels.
| strken wrote:
| Yeah, "no pain no gain" is probably the worst advice I've
| ever received. It encourages sedentary people to go hard for
| a week and then quit, which is the exact opposite of what
| works: starting with consistent easy sessions and adding
| progressive overload.
|
| Dynomight has a good blog post about this[0], but applied to
| running rather than resistance training.
|
| [0] https://dynomight.net/2021/01/25/how-to-run-without-all-
| the-...
| astura wrote:
| I think propensity for Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS)
| must be genetic or something because I've never been able to
| get "past it," even after many years.
| slashtmpslashme wrote:
| If it's _painful_ you are doing it wrong
|
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bx3gkHJehRCYZAF3r/pain-is-no...
| mahdi7d1 wrote:
| If it's not painfull you are not exerting enough effort at
| least that's the case in the gym. People who are refreshed
| and more energetic after going to the gym are the same people
| who won't improve beyond intermediate levels. The ones who
| let go of the any set at the first feelings of unease and
| never take a set close to failure.
|
| It's actually fascinating how an ancient proverb could line
| up with modern science so perfectly.
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| It certainly does not need to be painful. I think most
| people will make a distinction between the burn of
| acidosis, or what you call unease, and actual pain
| indicating damage is occurring.
|
| But yes, if you never train close to failure you will not
| grow, not past beginner gains, unless you take steroids.
| astura wrote:
| > think most people will make a distinction between the
| burn of acidosis, or what you call unease, and actual
| pain indicating damage is occurring.
|
| There's not a discernible distinction for me. Which is
| why I always hate hearing shit like "It should feel
| uncomfortable but not painful." Like, no, it's FUCKING
| PAINFUL! It HURTS!
| toshinoriyagi wrote:
| I understand you, I just think there is value in using a
| separate adjective, to avoid beginners thinking pain
| caused by damage to tissue is normal and you need to push
| through it to get gains.
| cubefox wrote:
| > Twenty healthy young male participants completed thrice-weekly
| resistance exercise sessions for 10 weeks.
|
| Not sure how much can be concluded from this.
| cubefox wrote:
| I think the downvoters need to read up on underpowered
| statistics.
| amelius wrote:
| Wait, why are we figuring this out only now?
| overhead4075 wrote:
| A paper doesn't necessarily mean the information is new, but
| that there is now some/more evidence to support it.
| amelius wrote:
| True, but this kind of information is so basic it almost fits
| in the "world is round" category.
| machomaster wrote:
| Figuring what out? This low-quality study didn't find anything
| useful nor novel.
| mmmilanooo wrote:
| It does matter. It's the only objective way to measure progress.
| A study doesn't negate that.
| justatdotin wrote:
| isnt the 1RM the measure of progress?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| If that's what you're training for, sure. If you just want to
| be strong, you can achieve that and avoid the highest injury
| risk by sticking with 5 reps or so.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I don't think so? If last week I could do 50 reps @ 5 lbs, and
| this week I can do 50 at 6 lbs (or 60 at 5lbs), then that's
| measurable objective progress
| AstroBen wrote:
| > Healthy, recreationally active but untrained young males
|
| Yeah this is why. Anything you do as an untrained person is going
| to get you newbie gains. It's just really easy to improve
| initially. Doesn't mean it'll work after the first 6 months
| foldingmoney wrote:
| exactly. when you're new, virtually any type of lifting you do
| is going to create sufficient stimulus to trigger maximum
| muscle growth, because you're going from 0 to 1. unfortunately,
| since the only people that researchers can usually convince to
| participate in their studies are untrained, this has led to an
| enormous amount of junk studies where they try to extrapolate
| the results to people who are not untrained.
| ed wrote:
| this wasn't a study of absolute growth (sure - newbie gains),
| but rather the difference between high and low load programming
| within individuals.
| Nevermark wrote:
| > the difference between high and low load programming within
| [newbies]
|
| Fixed that.
|
| As the comment you replied to noted, newbie gains are
| remarkably sensitive to any stimulation, and insensitive to
| the type of stimulation. Because going from zero to any
| resistance training is a massive stimulus increase, on a
| long-term under stimulated system.
|
| The study does confirm that. The data it produces is useful.
|
| What this study doesn't do, is help newbies (or anyone)
| choose the most effective practices to adopt. Because 10
| weeks is way too short to identify best practices for any
| sustained program.
| timr wrote:
| Perhaps there's some unmeasured influence, but this study was
| looking only at the difference between growth _within subjects_
| vs _between subjects_. If the subjects were all "newbies",
| then that doesn't explain the results.
|
| They're essentially saying that individual genetics explain the
| majority of the variation seen as a response to muscle stimulus
| in their test subjects, not the mass used, because the
| variation within the test cohorts was greater than the
| variation between them. You can argue that, if they didn't test
| experienced lifters the results might be _different_ in that
| population, but you can 't dismiss the results on those
| grounds.
| sedivy94 wrote:
| The activation energy or stimulus required for hypertrophy in
| untrained individuals is so low that it's hard to
| differentiate the results. Studies like this absolutely need
| to be done in trained individuals if you want reliable data.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most people are untrained so this is useful reliable data
| for most people. However for those who actually care about
| results: they are trained, or soon will be andthis data
| doesn't apply.
| raducu wrote:
| > not the mass used.
|
| Completely anecdotal, but when I was 18, in highschool, I
| trained in the gym in my hometown, supervised with a trainer,
| 12 reps per muscle group, very modest gains.
|
| I move to university, start reading a fitness forum where
| people were saying do max 6 reps if you want big gains.
|
| I also started supplementing with whey protein, and within 3
| months the gains were spectacular, everybody noticed, I felt
| on fire, best time of my life, I miss so much how great I
| felt in my own body.
|
| I've seen other colleagues and how they trained -- I can say
| there was 100% correlation that those people who were not
| training hard also did not have big gains. People who had
| enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply did not
| gain as much as people I saw as training hard.
|
| Also for me, the 6 reps to exhaustion felt completely
| different then 12 reps (again, to complete exhaustion) --
| immediately after the training it felt amazing to be alive,
| the world became a comfortable place, my anxiety completely
| vanished, and in the night and morning after an intense
| training (especially the legs and back) the erections and
| libido boost were out of this world, something I never felt
| with the 12 reps regimen.
| bendtb wrote:
| Anecdotally as someone who strength trained on a
| recreational basis the last 20 years (and run a marathon
| just to see if I could), nothing beats heavy lifting.
|
| A Strong lifts 5x5 program build around squat, deadlifts,
| bench and shoulder press can always make me feel pumped for
| the day!
| matwood wrote:
| Same. Finding heavy lifting changed my life if I'm
| honest. The strength gains, body comp, and how I felt was
| amazing.
| machomaster wrote:
| To maintain my health I supplement with iron. In a form
| of barbells and dumbbells.
|
| Shoutout to Barbell medicine. It is a good youtube
| channel by 2 lifting MDs (formerly associated with
| Starting Strength).
| oarfish wrote:
| The podcast is where the real meat is, not all of it is
| on youtube. Best way to innoculate you against bullshit.
| vidarh wrote:
| What do you consider gains? Consider that this paper looked
| specifically at _hypertrophy_ (size), not strength. While
| they correlate, training for one or the other can be very
| different..
|
| "Traditionally" the rep ranges recommended for hypertrophy
| has typically been significantly higher than the ranges
| recommended for strength, but the _number of sets_
| recommended is often also significantly higher, often
| translating to significantly higher total volume.
|
| > I've seen other colleagues and how they trained -- I can
| say there was 100% correlation that those people who were
| not training hard also did not have big gains. People who
| had enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply
| did not gain as much as people I saw as training hard.
|
| Well, yes, but training with lower weights and higher rep
| ranges does not automatically translate to "not training
| hard".
|
| Having gone through a period of really high rep training,
| including for a short period doing 1000 squats per day as
| an experiment, mostly bodyweight, that was far harder
| exercise than when I 1RM'd 200kg. But the effects are
| different.
|
| I much prefer Stronglifts and Madcow but because I favour
| strength over size, and it's far more _time efficient_ ,
| not because you can't also get results with more, lower-
| weight reps.
| matwood wrote:
| > Consider that this paper looked specifically at
| hypertrophy (size), not strength.
|
| I'm not sure where this idea came from that people do one
| or the other. Except for the advanced lifter, both will
| happen from either program. Show me a person who is
| really big and they are likely pretty strong as well (see
| Ronnie Coleman). Same with the other direction.
| imcritic wrote:
| Search for 'anatoly gym prank' on YouTube.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| I'm not a fitness nerd by any means, but it's worth
| mentioning that your bodys ability to get oxygen to you
| muscle can reportedly easily become your bottleneck if
| you're training too once-sidedly or use performance
| enhancing drugs/steroids.
|
| So the bulkier person could theoretically perform better,
| but doesn't in practice because their body isn't able to
| actually utilize the muscle effectively.
|
| That's why farmers often outperform lifters outside of
| the exact niche the lifter trained
| vidarh wrote:
| I did not at all suggest anything else. Both will happen,
| but not too the same extent. It doesn't take very much
| lifting before differences in training regime can be
| apparent.
| machomaster wrote:
| It is unreasonable to talk about newbies. They grow from
| anything. I mean, you put newbies on the stationary bike
| and their pullups increase (real study!).
|
| So we should talk about at least intermed. trainees.
|
| And in those, the correlation does not go both ways.
| Getting more muscles does increase the strength, but
| getting stronger does not necessarily increase muscle
| (technique, neurological adaptations, etc).
|
| Simply speaking, guys with big pecs and triceps are going
| to be strong in bench (even if they don't train it), but
| strong benchers (especially if they mostly train in 1-3
| reps range, outside of hypertrophy 5-30) don't
| necessarily have big pecs/triceps.
|
| So yeah, the parent was correct in asking what the
| previous parent mean by having great gains. Because
| getting stronger does not necessarily mean that your
| muscles also grew substantionally. Also, if you gained
| weight also doesn't mean the muscle gain. Due to
| leverages, the bench and squat results increase even if
| all you gained was pure fat.
| phil21 wrote:
| It's definitely different, but somewhat at the margins.
| There is a reason people call it "farmer strength" where
| a moderately in shape looking guy can outlift a body
| builder looking bro.
|
| I know I've definitely seen the difference training with
| a personal trainer telling her I want to train for
| aesthetics vs strength and vice versa.
|
| There is a strong correlation but it's definitely not 1.
| matwood wrote:
| > People who had enough breath left in them to chat in the
| gym simply did not gain as much as people I saw as training
| hard.
|
| IDK. When I powerlifted the goal was to move the weight.
| I've almost passed out from heavy deadlifts, but was rarely
| out of breath. I also almost never chat in the gym because
| it's my meditative place, not because I couldn't chat :)
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| I think what OP is specifically refering to is the
| intensity level that varies among individuals. I suspect
| that oft times when people train with a low weight/high
| rep scheme, they accidenrly let their intensity levels
| slip. I suspect that for most people, especially newer
| lifters, doing a high weight/low rep scheme makes keeping
| the workout for intense because it is easier to focus on
| being intense for a short time. Just a thought....
| eastbound wrote:
| Why did you stop? It seems you did, but since it made you
| feel excellent, it seems strange to "choose to stop".
|
| It's not an innocent question: Gains and feeling extremely
| well and confident and serotonin-boosted are only useful if
| it can be sustained in life. The two alternatives are: 1.
| It pumps you but tires you very fast and you get fat down
| the line, and your overall life is ~obese (seems to happen
| to way more people than one could assume), 2. Only the
| change produces this feeling, and change cannot be
| sustained forever.
| raducu wrote:
| Not just one reason, but I stopped because I more or less
| maintained my physique for 7-8 years afterwards (probably
| being in your 20s helps) and my life circumstances were
| in a goldilocks zone; my dad (a doctor) was adamant I'd
| destroy my heart with all the muscle mass I added.
|
| The thing that motivated me to start was the fact I was
| not very successful with girls and gaining 30 pounds of
| muscles in early 2000's Romania was intoxicating, if
| anybody told me before that girls would send kisses in
| the subway, grab my arms in the bus and start
| conversations with me or ask for my number in clubs,
| colleagues ask me to dump my girlfriend I would have said
| it's impossible.
|
| I'm ashamed to say, but all that validation was even
| better than the way lifting made me feel and the primary
| drive to weight lifting.
|
| It's only now that I remember how good weight lifting in
| itself made me feel, I never did give it much thought
| back then.
|
| But now it's very hard to find the time or motivation to
| start it again.
|
| I'm not really scared of getting fat down the line, I'm
| in my early 40s now and I've never been fat.
|
| You could be right, that it's only the change that makes
| you feel amazing, and I only ever went to the gym for
| some 6 months total, but I have my doubt that it would
| ever go away, I've been on many, many drugs, NOT ONE ever
| made me feel good for 6 months straight, they all
| downregulate very fast.
|
| Now thinking about it, I get a renewed motivation to re-
| start weight lifting
| marknutter wrote:
| There really isn't much of a difference between doing 6
| reps vs 12 reps, what matters is going to failure which I
| think may end up being harder when doing 12 reps because
| people maybe don't realize how much they have left in the
| tank.
| bonesss wrote:
| Going to failure can also be a question of which 'link in
| the chain' is hitting failure at any given rep range.
|
| Bent over rows being and easy example: at a 5RM upper
| back is giving out as desired, but past 10RM my lower
| back is the issue. If my goals are bent over endurance in
| my core then higher reps will force adaptations where I'm
| weak, if I'm trying to get my shoulder blades sexy and
| humpy I gotta keep the stimulus where I want results. In
| addition to manipulating reps something like a snatch
| grip can provide a leverage based answer to the same
| targeting needs.
|
| Proximity to failure is key, targeting and maximizing
| that proximity is individual and highly goal dependant.
|
| [ _As a bit of a physio case I've found General Gainz (
| /r/gzcl on Reddit), to be a highly productive RPE based
| system with very happy adaptive approach to hitting
| personal limitations mid workout; no "failures" or broken
| spreadsheets = motivation = consistency = progress;
| strong recommend to check out_]
| nezi wrote:
| This paper isn't saying that it doesn't matter what program you
| do, it's saying that other variables, not directly related to
| the method of weight training, matter more. It also assumes
| that you can extrapolate data from one individual training each
| limb with a different program to if that individual performs
| either program on both limbs. Maybe there are carryover affects
| to the lower load limb that you get from training heavier with
| the higher load limb that you wouldn't from training both at a
| lower intensity.
| machomaster wrote:
| Except that the paper did not compare different training
| methods. The used the same method since it has been long
| established that training to failure anywhere in the 5-30
| reps (perhaps even more, the upper limit has not been
| established yet) gets the same results from the hypertrophy
| point of view.
|
| So basically the study's results are "there are individual
| differences in how people respond to training". Wow, such
| news, so research, much insight. /s
|
| Therefore study itself is dumb and the misleading title makes
| it even worse.
| zahlman wrote:
| From my recollection, this is a quite common issue with studies
| in this topic area.
| RickyLahey wrote:
| this is peak gym bro science
| olalonde wrote:
| Also, it's more difficult to reach true failure with lower
| load, people tend to stop too early.
| samiv wrote:
| False,
|
| failing to lift is not the same as lifting until failure.
|
| Consider, if I load up the bench press to 200kg I won't get a
| single rep. If I try to rep it I'll fail but I'm not lifting
| until failure.
|
| If I load it up to smaller weight lets say 100kg and crank
| out rep after rep I'll get much closer to "lifting until
| failure."
|
| When I reach the end, the last rep is a rep I won't make. But
| I'm still not at a point where I can't do no more, just the
| weight is too big, so I must reduce the weight and go again.
| When I do this I get even closer to "lifting until failure".
|
| It's like integration, the smaller the infinitesimal the
| closer to the true value you get when you sum up (integrate)
| all the parts.
| unaindz wrote:
| While technically true getting very close to failure is
| only useful if you don't need optimal results and lack the
| time to do more volume. The damage by going to failure will
| make high volumes maintained over time impossible.
|
| Ideally you would leave 1-2 possible reps. I think it's
| important to train to failure to know your body and learn
| to gauge your reps to failure but other than that and very
| little time per week to train it's eventually
| counterproductive.
|
| And if training with lower weights you tend to end very far
| from failure if just following a program without knowing
| what you are doing.
| samiv wrote:
| Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters
| is the intensity of the workout. In fact you want the
| maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear
| and tear and more recovery while maximizing the growth
| stimulus.
|
| First intensity. Then recovery. These two dictate the
| volume. If volume exceeds recovery injury and burnout
| will follow.
| machomaster wrote:
| Doing dumbbell raises to failure with 5repmax will bring
| more pain, discomfort and wear/tear than doing the same
| exercise with 20repmax.
| samiv wrote:
| Not sure what you want to say with 5repmax and 20repmax
| oarfish wrote:
| Why?
|
| Most people don't build up to such a stimulus, so its not
| surprising if its uncomfortable, if all youve ever done
| is 20 rep sets.
| machomaster wrote:
| It's not about the stimulus. It's about the fact that
| some exercises are naturally better done within the lower
| rep range (5-10), while others work and feel better with
| the higher rep range (20-30). Some are better in the
| middle.
|
| With DB side raises, take too high of a weight, and you
| will feel like you can't do anything productive done
| (can't even raise to an appropriate height). With lower
| weights you can get a proper range of motion and can
| really feel the burn and get the target (sic!) muscle
| exhausted.
|
| Additionally, too high of a weight doesn't feel good on
| joints.
|
| Similarly with squats (or deadlifts). Squating with
| 5-10RM is fine. But 30RM?.. Theoretically it gives the
| same stimulus as doing 5-10RM, but practically everyone
| who suggests putting such sets to a program should be
| medicated and put on a suicide watch. The taxationvon all
| systems of your body is just so huge (especially the more
| advanced you are).
|
| Heck, mere squating true (!) 20RM (just one set!) is
| considered a crazy challenge that most will never do. I
| have done crazy stuff in my life, but I am not
| embarrassed to admit that this challenge is beyond me.
| Simply doing 20RM leg extensions is hard enough for me.
|
| These require the practical experience. Take
| barbell/dumbbells, try yourself and no more explanations
| will be needed.
| oarfish wrote:
| > Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that
| matters is the intensity of the workout
|
| Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the
| biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an
| intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically
| to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob.
| But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i
| misunderstand.
|
| > you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to
| have less wear and tear
|
| Not a helpful way of thinking about exercise induced
| adaptations. unless you are doing pro athlete amounts of
| training, would ignore this completely.
| samiv wrote:
| Yeah theres the "progressive overload" + volume camp.
|
| It can work.. the problem is that if you do too little
| you get no result, if you do too much you burn out. So
| you have to manage both volume _and_ intensity so that
| you have a progressive overload. This is difficult.
|
| Easier way is to just ignore the volume in the first
| place, train as hard as you can (so go to failure, or
| very close), for maximal effort, i.e. increase the
| intensity then RECOVER then go back to the gym when
| you're no longer sore.
|
| This is much easier routine to follow and it will produce
| development assuming other factors (quality of sleep and
| nutrition) are in check.
|
| So therefore a shortcut summary is to forget about the
| volume, focus on the intensity and then make volume
| follow your capacity to recover. Avoid injuries and
| burnout while precipitating growth.
|
| Using the bench press example again, in a volume program
| I might do
|
| 6 sets of 6 reps for a total of 36 reps. Since I'm doing
| so much volume it's clear that my first 5 sets will not
| be challenging because with this amount of sets I HAVE to
| save my energy for 6 sets. MAYBE the last rep or two in
| the last set will be what will start challenging me. So
| I'd say that with this volume workout you get 2 reps out
| of 36 that are "progressive". That's 5% and 95% of my
| work is just junk that produces only wear and tear.
|
| In high intensity method I continue with drop sets after
| I fail. So.. let's say I do my initial set, 8 reps until
| I fail, I drop weights and do 3 more reps until I fail, I
| drop the weights and do 2 more reps. And then I'm done
| and that's the workout. My total reps are 13 but there
| are at least 5 reps that are in the zone that challenges
| me. That's 5/13 for 38%.
| com2kid wrote:
| For a couple years I did a super low weight time under
| tension routine.
|
| Almost no hypertrophy, but I was able to step into a BJJ
| gym and roll for _hours_ , I was still ready to go long
| after everyone else had gassed out.
|
| The adage that you get good at what you train at is true.
|
| Train to lift a ton of weight 3 times and you aren't
| going to be able to compete with the calisthenics peeps
| who can rep out 100 pullups and literally dance mid air.
| matwood wrote:
| Yeah. When was powerlifting seriously I spent months with my
| deadlift stuck on 525 pounds. I would measure progress by how
| many times I could just get the weight off the floor, then how
| far off the floor, etc... The newbie gains were long gone.
| goodpoint wrote:
| "HN dismisses study without understanding it"
| andreareina wrote:
| Brad Schoenfeld felt the same way, so he did the study on
| trained participants, and made the same finding:
| https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2015/10000/Effec...
| malfist wrote:
| That is a very underpowered study, only 18 participants
| evanjrowley wrote:
| Is there another study with more than 18 participants and
| results that conflict with this study here?
| AstroBen wrote:
| Oh that's interesting
|
| > it is possible that the type I fibers of subjects were
| underdeveloped in comparison with the type II fibers as a
| result of training methodologies. The type I fibers therefore
| may have had a greater potential for growth compared with the
| type II fibers
|
| Maybe a mix of both types of training would be best then?
| Sporktacular wrote:
| So resistance is futile?
| claytongulick wrote:
| When < 1 ohm
| Imanari wrote:
| For beginner lifters that might be true initially, but eventually
| weight will matter.
| landl0rd wrote:
| You can do the goofiest workout you can possibly imagine as a
| young untrained male and put on muscle. You will do so at roughly
| max rate regardless of what you do as long as it's vaguely
| productive. This isn't useful research ngl.
| henning wrote:
| Yep, lots of different ways to get jacked. That means if you
| couldn't care less about strength, you can do pretty much any
| decent exercise that targets the muscle(s) you want to grow in a
| very wide rep range. Most people want a combination of both size
| and strength, so you can just do some sets of 5-10 if you aren't
| already. If you want to have a strong deadlift or squat or
| whatever, you should train that movement. Not as complicated as
| fitness social media people want to make it seem: train for what
| you want.
| esperent wrote:
| I don't think this is true. I've been following a fairly
| standard progression on several of the standard exercises over
| the last year and half. I've seen steady progression on leg
| press, which is a strongly stabilized and isolated exercise. I
| saw the same rate of initial progression on squats but then it
| dropped off and I haven't really seen any progression for six
| months.
|
| The issue is stability. I have to provide the stability for
| squats. The machine gives me stability for leg press. I won't
| get the stability I need for further progression, at least not
| at an optimal rate, just from squatting. I need to do
| complementary exercises.
| henning wrote:
| Stability is not that important or else research would show
| machines give better results than free weights, and they
| don't.
| westurner wrote:
| What about Time Under Tension?
|
| "Equalization of Training Protocols by Time Under Tension
| Determines the Magnitude of Changes in Strength and Muscular
| Hypertrophy" (2022) https://journals.lww.com/nsca-
| jscr/fulltext/2022/07000/equal... :
|
| > Abstract: [...] _In conclusion, training protocols with the
| same TUT promote similar strength gains and muscle hypertrophy.
| Moreover, considering that the protocols used different numbers
| of repetitions, the results indicate that training volumes cannot
| be considered separately from TUT when evaluating neuromuscular
| adaptations._
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| So could I just do one super slow (some minutes) squat per week
| at like 60% and get all the benefits still?
| user_7832 wrote:
| I'm not at all a biology expert, but if the squat is actually
| pushing you somewhat close to your limit (it's not super
| easy), you'll definitely get stronger. Case in point:
| isometric exercises. Also: folks who do planks for a few
| weeks/months.
| chistev wrote:
| Firas Zahabi on focusing on consistency over intensity in
| training.
|
| https://youtu.be/_fbCcWyYthQ?si=gf39MLiqid9e6Szu
| leonflexo wrote:
| I thought hypertrophic focused routines were their own subset.
| Starting with a high rep, like 20, decreasing something like
| 2/week while increasing the weight. You technically can increase
| load, but in my experience it isn't strictly necessary. 10-12
| weeks down to 1-2 reps then 3-4 off to reset. This isn't a
| strength routine, simply for size relative to lift.
| padjo wrote:
| The quality of evidence in exercise training is generally pretty
| terrible. 10 week study with untrained college students tells you
| very little about what happens over a lifetime of lifting.
| Personally I've found that switching rep range on an exercise is
| a great way to break through plateaus.
|
| Ultimately you're engaged in an n=1 study and general advice is
| of limited use. You need to learn what tools are available, how
| your body reacts to different stimuli, what keeps you consistent
| etc. Everything is context dependent, trying to find some
| universally "best" way is a wild goose chase.
| DiskoHexyl wrote:
| Age: 22+-3 AND with that weight to ffbm ratio not only untrained,
| but at least slightly (I'm being generous here) overweight.
|
| With these pre-requisites it almost doesn't matter what kind of
| physical activity one does- the muscles will grow anyway. It's
| when you are older and/or accustomed to some kind of physical
| training, that you really noticeably benefit from resistance
| training.
|
| And still, that 'almost' part does a lot of the heavy lifting
| here. I don't believe it's really possible for a couch potato
| without any experience to correctly assess their 1RM. People with
| no experience with pain and effort typically can't push
| themselves hard enough, so the entire exercise turns to a half-
| cardio anyway.
|
| And gauging 1 rep max in a bicep curl is especially difficult
| (saying nothing of a risk of injury).
|
| I understand the complexity and difficulty of researching the
| subject, but this entire article is no good and is hardly
| applicable to most of the population IMO
| vjerancrnjak wrote:
| They have to start video recording the workouts. Even veterans
| in this academic field sometimes design workouts that just
| can't be done to failure if you're actually going to failure
| over 6-12 weeks.
|
| Even 1 workout sometimes has so many sets prescribed where I
| cant imagine all of them were actual failure
| vidarh wrote:
| > I understand the complexity and difficulty of researching the
| subject, but this entire article is no good and is hardly
| applicable to most of the population IMO
|
| Most of the population is untrained, and in many countries a
| majority is overweight.
|
| I don't think your concern about "correctly assessing their
| 1RM" matters either - if anything that means the loads are even
| lower relative to actual 1RM, and their subjects were still
| getting results.
|
| It may not tell us much about outcomes at the top end, but more
| knowledge of what advice to give "most people" is important,
| and if they can get good results at low percentages of 1RM, it
| seems a lot more likely you'll get people to try.
| DiskoHexyl wrote:
| That is exactly the issue with incorrectly gauging 1rm- if
| it's too low, than the supposed 'resistance' training with
| 70-80% of 1rm isn't actually that.
|
| Is it fair to compare A to B, when the A in question isn't
| exactly an A, but rather something closer to B?
| vidarh wrote:
| It is fairly irrelevant when you're dealing with a group of
| people who are all using the same means of determining
| their 1RM.
|
| The point isn't the precise effect on a given percentage of
| 1RM, but the relative difference between groups.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >It's when you are older and/or accustomed to some kind of
| physical training, that you really noticeably benefit from
| resistance training.
|
| Do you have any sources for that? I'm asking because that is a
| bold statement given the (almost non-) existing literature on
| pro athlete hypertophy. Especially since athletes in almost
| every sport don't even care about hypertrophy - unless you talk
| about pro bodybuilding. And there you have tons of
| pharmacological interventions, so it's not really easy to paint
| a picture either. I don't know a single good study performed on
| a significant set of tested natural bodybuilders regarding
| hypertrophy.
|
| Studies like this are also aimed at couch potatoes, because
| that is the normal population, so the results will be
| applicable to most people, which in turn is important when you
| want to get funding for your research. In that sense it also
| doesn't matter that these people will not have reached their
| full neuromuscular connection compared to actual weightlifters,
| because most people haven't either. So the results are still
| relevant. Usually when scientists sell this kind of research to
| grant departments, they try to provide a benefit to geriatric
| or otherwise medically impaired people, so that existing
| treatments may be improved. Studying muscle building itself
| just for the sake of it in gymbros is not a good strategy
| unless you want to spend your own money. And this stuff quickly
| gets _very_ expensive if you want to do it right.
| rocqua wrote:
| Are you perhaps reading a personal advice in a paper, disliking
| the advice, and then finding that due to the experimental
| design, it doesn't work on you. And then, rather than
| concluding the paper didn't intend to inform your personal
| routine, instead conclude that the paper was badly designed? Or
| to put it differently. Have you considered how many people live
| in a way you would never consider close to acceptable?
|
| Because your points make sense but it feels like you are
| arguing against a bit of a strawman, or arguing for a mostly
| ideal situation rather than current reality?
|
| For overweight and understrength people, is it not very
| valuable to know that they don't need the extra steps of
| resistance training to see real improvement in strength and
| fitness?
| DiskoHexyl wrote:
| This doesn't look like a particularly charitable
| interpretation of my comment, although my interpretation of
| the article isn't either, so it's only fair.
|
| And no, I am not looking for a personal fitness advice in
| scientific research anymore (too late for that), but am
| rather trying to see its applicability to others, as per my
| understanding of those others around me.
|
| Most people in the developed world aren't 22-year old males.
| A significant part of the population is comprised of the
| elderly or middle-aged, a lot of those people have pre-
| existing injuries due to under- (too sedentary) and over-use
| (blue collar work, youth sports). Approaching physical
| fitness in those groups has its its own set of requirements
| and limitations, and I believe that in many cases resistance
| training is a more safe and efficient choice.
|
| Not saying that the youth and children are unimportant, but
| typically they are already well covered by the organized
| sports and pt classes in schools and universities, unlike the
| adults.
|
| My opinion is that the study is both badly designed (likely
| in a way to make it easier to implement) and is not
| applicable to the majority of the population.
| n2y wrote:
| The study assigned different training regimes to different limbs
| of the same person. If you think their measured effects do not
| reflect your own experience, I'd be interested in your fitness
| status and your result when you do the same. Otherwise it sounds
| a little like you are disputing the study because it showed
| something different to your belief.
| metalman wrote:
| I am afraid of trying to lift to failure. never once been in a
| gym, or trained for anything except marksmanship, but have
| alwayse been physical, with a lot of what I call "dirty lifts" in
| the course of getting things done,pushing 60 now. I do notice
| that after a stretch of realy hard work, and taking a day or two
| to rest and EAT, I will bulk, but nothing is by the numbers,
| except the day I took over the old blacksmith shop and we took
| the gentlmans anvil down, and lifted mine up, each of us grabing
| one end with one hand, my anvil weighs 460lbs, he was in his 80's
| and I was in my late 20's. I muscle everything around, steel,
| wood, round bales,but follow the philosophy of "just because you
| can, dosn't mean you should" which I believe is especialy true
| for realy big guys, because while you can build huge muscle, your
| cartlige and coligen is no better than an size small office guy
| with that florecent tan, where I have seen in the same frame, a
| big guy pushing 40, not moving good anymore, and foccused dweeb
| gettin his lunch zipps right through, doesn't even see the hulk.
| my point, if I have one, is that nothing counts, unless you can
| style it
| samiv wrote:
| As a natty bodybuilder for over 30 years for anyone aspiring
| towards fitness and starting at the gym my most important advice
| is
|
| "Put the phone away and bust some ass"
|
| I see way too many people (the great majority) completely
| sabotage their training by putting the weights down when it
| starts to get hard and get on their phone.
|
| When the weights get hard is when the real set begins. If you
| don't do the hard reps you deny yourself the stimulus required
| for adapting to overcome the stress, I.e the growth.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| This is why having a buddy/spotter is so important. On every
| lift my friend spotted me an extra 3-4 reps that I would not be
| able to do if I went just myself and kept going until the last
| rep was 95% him and 5% me. First guy to automate spotting is an
| instant billionaire.
| samiv wrote:
| Depending on the exercise you can also do this without a
| spotter.
|
| Either do cheat reps and focus on the negative (works with
| small exercise such as bicep curls) or drop set or super set.
|
| My personal fav is the cheat and negative and I do it a lot
| for example in cable pulldown. Use a bit of bodyweight to
| pull it down and then 5s negative.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| If you're looking at safety, a power cage with the bars set
| will do the trick. Or swap out BB for DB for presses.
|
| If you're looking at forced reps, you can do drop sets or add
| bands (assist rather than resist) to continue lifting for
| extra reps. For quicker drop sets, use some light plates
| (2.5# or 5#) which you can rapidly strip from the bar and
| continue a few reps.
|
| For DB moves you can self-assist in some lifts using your
| other arm, or have lighter DBs to hand for additional reps.
|
| <https://dr-muscle.com/use-drop-sets-build-muscle/>
| ismailmaj wrote:
| Even if true, high rep is impractical, otherwise we'd see people
| doing body weight exercises only reach high levels of
| bodybuilding.
|
| Even around 1900, it didn't matter if you were a genetic freak,
| you needed a barbell to win competitions.
| wallaBBB wrote:
| You cannot be strong without being big and you cannot be big
| without being strong.
|
| Of course there are levels to this, variations within "weight
| classes"... but in general this holds true.
|
| Also consistency trumps any program.
| samiv wrote:
| False.
|
| Strength as measured by mostly powerlifting is impacted by a
| huge factor by the body mechanics, i.e the length of the
| various body parts, secondarily by tendon attachments and then
| finally by variations in tissues
| wallaBBB wrote:
| Thats the variation within the classes. And there will always
| be outliers, but even if you look at bodybuilders in 100+ kg,
| they are not what you'd call weak even if they don't optimize
| for strength.
| samiv wrote:
| Relative to their size a lot of them are weak.
|
| Again despite size it's the body mechanics that determine
| most the physical lifting capability of any individual in
| any particular lift.
| tejohnso wrote:
| You start off by confidently stating wallaBBB's statement is
| false.
|
| But nothing you said invalidates what they said.
| machomaster wrote:
| Wrong.
|
| Getting more muscles leads to more strength (because the
| strength of the muscle is determined by the cross-sectional
| area).
|
| But you can definitely be natually strong without having a lot
| of muscle.
|
| And you can definitely get much stronger without getting much
| muscle.
|
| In other words, any person with big pecs and triceps will be
| strong in bench (even without training). But strong bencher
| will not necessarily have big pecs/triceps to show.
|
| That's the whole premise behind the popularity of the Anatoly
| gym pranks.
| formichunter wrote:
| Why is this article showing up on New Year's Day like the flock
| of newbie gym customers attracted to the gym only to quit 30 days
| from now? Every year without fail.
|
| Let's ignore this article for a moment.
|
| Overall factors that REALLY matter building muscle: 1.
| Consistency - Working out each muscle group at least once a
| week....every week. 2. Diet - Making sure you are consuming
| enough protein in your diet, approximately 1gram/pound of body
| weight...or near it or even best you can. Total calories consumed
| a day should match any online calculator for your age and
| activity level. 3. Sleep! 4. Sleep! 5. Vary your workout - some
| weeks high reps low weight and some weeks low reps high weight.
| Why? Never let your body know what you're doing and shock it as
| best you can. Always try to exert yourself enough to be sore
| within 48 hours of a workout.
|
| Now multiply this over a few years.
|
| Stop reading these studies thinking there is some optimal way!
| It's just hard work over time.
|
| BTW: In winter I bench press 350 pounds or 159KG. I run 10KM or
| 6.1 miles twice a week and increase it a little bit in summer. I
| pull my body in two different directions because I love both.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >Every year without fail.
|
| >First published: 31 December 2025
| bdbdbdb wrote:
| I think the poster means that around this time of year these
| types of articles appear
| swalsh wrote:
| "approximately 1gram/pound of body weight"
|
| I believe this should be lean mass, not total mass. I think
| people tried to calibrate this metric since most people don't
| have scales that can measure composition... but if you're
| obese, you're going to be consuming more than you need to,
| which is counter productive if you're obese.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| It's actually not, because nothing provides as much satiety
| as protein.
|
| Every calorie you get from protein reduces your cravings for
| food significantly more then the equivalent carb and fats.
|
| You still need to get over the initial insulin normalization
| though from reducing sugars. Nothing reduces that pain, no
| matter what you try.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Protein is more satiating "if and only if you are not
| getting enough protein for optimum body recomposition"
| which Menno in another video puts at 0.8g per lb of body
| mass.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHLXank1PPk
|
| Menno's videos are exceptional: science based and backed up
| by common sense.
| astura wrote:
| I truly believe that satiety is dependent entirely on 1)
| what you're used to eating and 2) what you expect/culture.
| Years ago I was watching a video that interviewed a guy who
| owned an international fast food franchise somewhere in
| Asia, a burger place, like a McDonald's. He was saying a
| big difference between America and wherever they were was
| that they absolutely, positively MUST serve rice because in
| their culture most people don't find that burgers produce
| satiety, you need the rice otherwise you're still hungry.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Fiber is better for satiety than excessive protein (and has
| other benefits).
| oarfish wrote:
| I think there was a study last year or so that investigated
| whether protein rich meals actually made people consume
| less calories, and i think it didnt really, despite the
| fact that it feels more satiating and the TEF is also
| higher than for carbs.
|
| So i think for long term weight changes it doesnt really
| help, at least not via its satiety response. Probably more
| through displacing other stuff from the diet and improved
| body composition.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| If that were true, then protein powder would be satiating
| (it's not) and potatoes wouldn't be the most satiating
| food.
|
| This is just more bro-science chained onto bro-science.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Agree 100%. But lemme tell ya, "protein fluff" make from
| 150g skim milk, 10g protein powder, and 3g Xanthan gum
| whipped into a still meringue by a stand mixer is the
| most satiating thing I've ever eaten and it isn't even
| close. It is like the meringue doesn't collapse back down
| right away in your stomach so it is like eating (tasty)
| closed cell foam. I used to make it from a full cup of
| milk but had trouble finishing it. It's crazy filling and
| a godsend when cutting.
|
| I found it needs to be skim milk. Otherwise the fat in
| regular milk seemed to prevent the meringue from setting
| up.
| machomaster wrote:
| Practically speaking it doesn't matter. Just use your healthy
| (men 15-20% fat; women +8%) weight and calculate based on
| that.
|
| If you are healthy fat percentage, just use your own weight.
| If you are a bit highter, and can financially and practically
| afford it, just use your weight as well. Won't hurt and might
| actually help a bit.
|
| So it is only a concern for severely obese people. If you are
| 50+kg overweight, you can scale it down a bit.
|
| Similarly, these obese people shouldn't use the "my current
| diet - 500kcal a day reduction" which is sensible for already
| lean bodybuilders. They should just use the "my maintenance
| diet if I were of healthy weight".
| Mistletoe wrote:
| https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-
| protein...
|
| Yep it's the most broscience myth that simply won't go away.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Yes! The "lean mass" caveat is oft ignored by bro scientists,
| and even LLMs have incorporated the error due to training on
| bro science forums.
|
| I use this as a bit of a canary. If you see somebody making
| this basic mistake (like the post you're replying to did),
| you should be highly skeptical of their other claims too.
| senko wrote:
| This is a physiology research article published in a physiology
| journal, not a Tiktoken influencer peddling "get ripped fast"
| schemes.
|
| In an ironic twist, you then proceed to peddle your own. In a
| single paragraph you added more contentious "advice" than in
| the entire article you're dismissing.
|
| > Stop reading these studies thinking there is some optimal
| way! It's just hard work over time.
|
| "Hard work" and "learning new things" are not mutually
| exclusive. Stop presuming you know what I think while I'm
| reading these studies.
| Insanity wrote:
| To be charitable to both the article and the OP - his advice
| of "hard work over time" is still good advice.
|
| I think many people tend to get stuck in premature
| optimization, which can take the fun away and thus you end up
| quitting. I did that a few times, so it might be a me-thing.
|
| Nowadays I exercise 4x/week without really worrying about a
| strategy or about optimal protein intake etc.
|
| But then again, nowadays my goal is just to live healthy
| rather than gain strength.
| danenania wrote:
| Going further, you don't even need to count your reps or
| track how much weight you're lifting. Literally just do any
| exercise with any weight per muscle group to near failure
| for 2-5 sets. Rest the muscle groups you targeted the next
| 1-3 days, and be consistent every week. Bodyweight, free
| weights, machines, bands, kettlebells, etc. are all fine.
| That gets you 80-90% of the benefit with no stress.
| gf000 wrote:
| Still, a "given all else, this optimal thing giving +1%
| growth" is negligible percentage, when all the other
| mentioned factors are several orders of magnitude more
| important.
|
| My point is, simply doing it consistently, even if slightly
| less optimally, will trivially surpass anything else in the
| long run and there are no "silver bullets" in training.
|
| The only importance is safety, avoiding injuring oneself.
|
| Also, the article also states this: "RET-induced hypertrophy
| is mediated to a far greater degree by inherent endogenous
| biological factors"
| bargainbin wrote:
| >1. Consistency >5. Vary your workout
|
| The muscle "shock" broscience has been disproven many times:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35438660/
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349502442_Does_Vary...
| jraines wrote:
| It doesn't really affect hypertrophy but it matters because
| imbalances will get you weird injuries and/or mobility
| restrictions in the long term.
| oarfish wrote:
| Not true, no one is symmetrical or fully balanced in
| strength. outside of extreme cases, so called imbalances
| arent a problem on a population level, at least as far as
| we know today.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Indeed. It is really just tension x time under tension within
| a sensible rep range (probably around 5 - 30 reps or so).
| Menno on Youtube has a bunch of videos on this, the link
| below being the latest one.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmOBmTZARq8
|
| Basically work the muscle harder and get more jacked. It
| isn't that hard. Full body workouts are also great for this
| reason: you can hit a muscle more times per week and be
| fresher when you hit that muscle, so both the tension and
| time under tension can be higher vs a body part split.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Time under tension is an imperfect measure, it's just less
| bad than other measures we could use. Sort of like lines of
| code in software engineering. Given that, saying it's "just
| TUT" is misleading.
|
| It could turn out to be that the brain is coordinating
| hypertrophic biochemical cascades in muscles, and TUT is
| just a fairly reliable method for inducing this.
|
| I was a competitive powerlifter and trained around pro
| bodybuilders for years, and in my experience, the only
| commonality between them was the intense all consuming
| drive to be absolutely monstrous (and they ate a lot). Some
| would train for 2 hours a day, some would train for 45
| minutes 3x a week, some would use high volume in the 50-70%
| range and others would focus on 70-85%, some were explosive
| some were slow and steady, really it was all over the map.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Well... I didn't say "time under tension". I said tension
| x time under tension. It's the integral. So high volume
| 50-70% can equate out to medium volume 70-85% for
| hypertrophy, all other factors being equal.
|
| I'd guess that drugs come into the equation if you were
| training around pro bodybuilders and that unlevels the
| playing field between each person because of how much
| they might have been on. And amongst the pro's, you're
| going to hit those genetic Mentzer-like freaks that can
| somehow grow on 45min 3x a week.
|
| 100% agree that drive and intensity is key, and there is
| more than one way to get big from a program POV.
| jeltz wrote:
| The reason for varying your workout I have heard is to avoid
| injury, not to be stronger. Of course it may turn out that is
| false too.
| gazpacho wrote:
| This is what I've found after 15 years of working out and
| athletics. Think of it this way: doing the same thing over
| and over again is what is proven to lead to workplace
| injuries. Doing the same thing over and over again in the
| gym is no different.
|
| I like to do a weight training as the consistent
| foundation, with a mix of heavy lifts, calisthenics, volume
| (bodybuilding) training and mobility training. Add in some
| yoga, rock climbing, biking, soccer. I feel this sort of
| mix balances movements out which helps with injury
| prevention and also makes sure you always have something
| active to do that you enjoy, which is definitely #1.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Is there any evidence this is at all bad in the weight
| room? It isn't repeated at enough volume and if you have
| a diverse enough full body routine making everything
| stronger including connective tissue it would not matter.
| Changes in load are a better predictor for injuries in
| studies I have read.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > The muscle "shock" broscience has been disproven many
| times:
|
| Variety isn't to shock or confuse the body, it's just to make
| sure you actually hit all the muscles in as many ways
| possible. Take your average push/pull gym rat to a yoga class
| or a climbing wall and they'll be more sore the next day than
| they've ever been before, because they'll activate muscles
| they didn't even know they had.
| oarfish wrote:
| Yes, because the stimulus is novel if youve never done yoga
| before (e.g. a bunch of isometrics). That is not an
| indication of it being useful exercise for the outcomes of
| interest.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Yes of course, but I assume people on hn are more health
| focused than big muscles focused
| spectralista wrote:
| I just got back from the gym and it was surprisingly empty.
| Actually, more empty than normal.
|
| My experience from lifting now for 30+ years and seeing
| thousands of people lift is it is: 1. Genetics.
|
| Everything else is a distant second or third. This was actually
| something that was widely understood in 90s bodybuilding
| magazines. Lifting is mostly a display of genetics. That worked
| when you could sell magazines of genetic freaks working out.
| Without the magazines you have to sell all this nonsense like 1
| gram per lb of protein. Even though I know the early research
| was 1 gram per kilo and then Americans just changed that to 1
| gram per lb. I mean it is just such obvious nonsense that the
| optimal amount would happen to be the exact integer amount vs
| body weight that is easiest to remember, how convenient for
| people who sell protein lol. duh.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| Can sort of confirm. I wouldn't say so much "genetics" as
| "constitution". That is, you're born with a set of
| attributes, and those can also be affected by circumstances
| outside of your control. Those come together to determine how
| you respond to exercise and whether you can exercise
| consistently at all. Someone with active and athletic parents
| who was affected by undiagnosed childhood diseases and poorly
| managed injuries (*cough*) is going to have health and
| performance problems that keep them out of the gym. Someone
| who builds muscle very slowly but who can just keep at it for
| 10, 15 years is going to be jacked.
|
| We also don't account for the role of money in these things.
| Do you make enough to buy good food, afford a decent gym that
| you can visit regularly, afford a good doctor who can help
| you manage issues (such as, ahem, low testosterone)?, afford
| a low-uncontrolled-stress lifestyle? You're good. It's a lot
| harder when you get hit by roadblocks and don't have the
| money to resolve them before you've detrained.
| d357r0y3r wrote:
| It really is just mostly this, and social media has tricked
| people into thinking otherwise.
|
| I was looking at some photos of myself about 10 years ago. At
| the time, I had been hitting the gym hard, consistently, and
| intelligently. I had a huge bench press, squad, and deadlift,
| and was lifting 4-5 days a week, and managed every facet of
| my diet.
|
| Now, I'm older, have kids, don't sleep as much, and
| definitely don't make it to the gym as much. I might lift
| twice a week - and don't try very hard or do progressive
| overload at all - and try to get in 3-4 days of cardio.
|
| And I honestly don't look very different. Muscles are roughly
| the same size. In clothes, most people wouldn't be able to
| tell the difference.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| Counter argument, muscle maintenance is a lot easier than
| muscle growth. Of course you don't look that different now,
| you have done enough work to significantly change your
| physique, but done plenty to maintain.
| machomaster wrote:
| Muscle memory is a real thing.
|
| Gaining it is hard and slow, but once you do it, you can
| easily maintain it with very low volume (1 time a week with
| very reduced volume/weights). And even if you don't train
| for years/decades, you still rapidly get it back once you
| start again.
|
| That's why one of the best investments in people health
| should be weight training during the teenage years/20s.
| Getting muscles and strength is the easiest at that point
| of life, and you will reap the benefits for the rest of
| one's life.
| astura wrote:
| >social media has tricked people into thinking otherwise
|
| I assume most fitness influencers on social media are on
| steroids.
| swat535 wrote:
| Genetics play a factor, but you can still look pretty good,
| feel great if you consistently go to the gym, lift heavy
| weights and eat your calories.
|
| You won't look like Arnold as there are genetic factors at
| play but people shouldn't be discouraged in thinking they
| won't be able to achieve a good body.
|
| Another factor, that I think many men forget (I can't speak
| for women), is their testosterone levels. If you are
| following everything and have no results I recommend that
| you have your levels tested. Many men are suffering from
| Hypogonadism without realizing it. I had this issue for
| years and when I did my tests, I was at 7.6 nmol/L !
|
| My doctor put me on HCG and it was like night and day.
| Mawr wrote:
| You've lost your sense of perspective. You _might lift
| twice a week and try to get in 3-4 days of cardio_? You 're
| in the top <1% people on this planet by fitness.
| trallnag wrote:
| hormones can be tweaked despite genetics
| Blackthorn wrote:
| > My experience from lifting now for 30+ years and seeing
| thousands of people lift is it is: 1. Genetics.
|
| Also in first place: steroids.
|
| The bodybuilding magazines loved to talk about genetics
| because they didn't want to say the quiet part out loud.
| Nowadays people are more willing to talk about it.
| machomaster wrote:
| Steroids, the main excuse of lazy people who are searching
| for excuses, without realizing that the main problem is
| their own attitude based on the mistaken pattern of
| comparing yourself to unreachable elite instead of to
| ordinary folks and to your former self.
|
| 1. Compare only to former yourself (you can't even know
| your genetic potential until you start training). Did you
| improve? Yes? Great, continue. No? Change something.
|
| 2. Go 2-3 times a week consistently for years, hitting
| major muscle groups 2-4 times a week.
|
| 3. Work as hard as you can (with safe technique).
| Consistency and effort is the biggest problem why people
| don't see results. Most people in the commercial gyms are
| not training hard enough.
|
| 4. Progressive overload. Once you get stronger, your
| weights/reps/sets should also increase.
|
| 5. Eat enough protein. Eat calories according to your goal
| (gaining muscle or losing fat).
|
| 6. Reduce stress. Recover. Sleep, sleep, sleep.
|
| It's really quite simple. Tedious, but simple.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| What are you even responding to? I go to the gym and lift
| and cardio for my own health, but this is this and that
| is that. If you want to look like the guys featured in
| the magazines you need steroids. If you want to make a
| body transformation like actors do you _definitely_ need
| steroids.
| machomaster wrote:
| Looking at the genetically elite people in a magazine,
| imagining that self can become just as good if only by
| using steroids, is beyond dumb.
|
| Imagine thinking that the only thing stopping self of
| become a new Michael Jordan is lack of access to dynamite
| attached to feet (in order to jump higher).
|
| The dynamite aspect is not the biggest stupidity, even
| deciding to compare self to elite athletes is moronic.
| Use celebrities as inspiration, not as a manual.
|
| Ordinary people thinking that they need steroids to look
| like celebrities is wild for many reasons. For one, no
| amount of steroids in the world is going to help an
| average ordinary person to be like people in magazines,
| let alone compete against elite (with or without
| steroids).
| RealityVoid wrote:
| What? I mean.. seriously, what? There are people with great
| genetic potential that lives like couch potatoes. What good
| is having the potential of you don't use it. Genetics is
| important, but there are many elements and just dropping this
| here is, IMO, irresponsible, because some people will read
| this and go... Ah, I'm out of shape because of genetics,
| nothing I can do, oh well.
| oarfish wrote:
| No one claims you can do nothing, exercise has numerous
| benefits that extend beyond hypertrophy or even strength. i
| think the point is that you have way less control over the
| outcome than youd like, because individual responses vary
| so wildly. You can improve your odds by ticking the usual
| boxes and finding and following a custom program that works
| for you, but none of that is going to make as big of a
| difference than your genetic base.
| Mawr wrote:
| Total nonsense. You've taken a very specialized observation
| and presented it as general truth. Can't do that.
|
| Yes, once you get to the level of being able to compete with
| others, genetic factors will determine who will do better.
| This is true in any sport.
|
| But that has no bearing on your average person deciding to go
| to the gym or not. Just about everyone will experience
| massive benefits from going to the gym regularly. Most don't
| have the capacity to compete, but that's not what 99% of
| people care about.
|
| So the #1 factor is not, in fact, genetics, but _doing the
| thing consistently_.
|
| As such, this is irresponsible nonsense to be spreading
| around.
| giardini wrote:
| spectralista says _> ",,it is: 1. Genetics."<_
|
| I learned this young. Our smallish high school had several
| exceptional athletes who achieved all-state level in their
| freshman years. They were great but they had to work for it.
| In basketball we had the usual mix. But one day Dan showed
| up:
|
| Dan was short but extremely muscular. He was "recruited" by
| our all-state level fullback who lived in the same
| neighborhood (circa 1960's). Dan worked at his dad's gas
| station and didn't want him playing basketball b/c that was
| one less worker. but Dan _loved_ basketball and played every
| chance he got, even though his dad would beat the crap out of
| him regularly for being away from "work". Coach didn't have
| to be asked again once he saw Dan play - he was a fricking
| Bob Cousy on the court. _Nobody_ could lay a hand on him - a
| truly phenomenal player. Coach talked to Dan 's dad, worked
| out a deal and got permission to try a few games.
|
| Our first game with Dan was incredible: like being a soldier
| alongside Achilles as he slaughtered Trojans! "Pass the ball
| to Dansy" and the magic happened!
|
| Dan showed up for two games (Dan won them both) but his dad
| wouldn't allow more.
|
| So Dan was inherently muscular and strong and very
| coordinated, far more so than any person I'd ever met, with
| astonishing reflexes, and also a hell of a basketball player.
| I asked him if he lifted weights and he said he never did.
|
| I concluded that people are different, sometimes _very_
| different. Other than that, maybe regular hellacious beatings
| can make you an incredible athlete.
| 7bit wrote:
| The fact that you state that muscle soreness is necessary for
| hypertrophy shows that ignoring studies is bad advice.
| machomaster wrote:
| Muscle soreness is not necessary for hypertrophy, but often
| enough (but not always) it is a good measure of the
| effort/volume/weight/technique (so a proxy for the mechanical
| tension, the thing that we want, but it hard to measure
| directly).
| oarfish wrote:
| Depends, its also an indicator of novelty, and that by
| itself isnt useful. Once you are used to a movement and
| training volume, getting sore is difficult unless you ramp
| up the volume continuosly.
|
| id say, never being sore at all is maybe a sign you dont do
| enough for optimum results, but frequently being sore means
| the load is too high. And for health outcomes it probably
| matters less.
| machomaster wrote:
| Agree.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Why you'd actively argue to ignore a study with interesting
| outcomes and peddle platitudes that i see on a daily basis
| about everywhere is one thing. But for it also to be the top
| comment in this thread is a real pity
| eudamoniac wrote:
| All this advice is mostly harmless and not contraindicated,
| though some of it is incorrect, but point 5 in regards to
| soreness is harmful advice. Soreness is not a goal and does not
| indicate anything other than that you did a lot of eccentric
| lifting to which you were not recently adapted. Soreness means
| you waited longer than what was necessary to exercise that
| muscle group again. If you are getting sore beyond the first
| few workouts, it is a sign that your programming is suboptimal.
|
| Progress is the weight on the bar increasing. Progress is not
| you being sore. Excess soreness is counterproductive during
| training, and should only be sought after if you are exercising
| as a penance for sins instead of training for some goal.
|
| For more information read "Practical Programming for Strength
| Training".
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| +1. Point number 5 is probably the worst part of their post.
|
| Beginners should focus on form, consistency, and linear
| progression of weight. If you can stand the boredom do the
| exact same program for a year. Probably 2-3 full body
| workouts that hit each body part twice.
|
| For intermediate+, hitting a body part once a week is
| suboptimal for most. People who care about results and
| progression/growth should be progressing from 5 up to 20 hard
| sets per muscle per week across the span of a few years.
| (Compounds hit multiple, so it's not necessarily 20 hard
| times the number of muscles!) What's "hard"? in the 0-2 RIR
| range, ideally some to failure. Most people do not know what
| 0RIR is until they actually go to failure on a weight,
| compute their 1RM and start to use the computed reps/weight
| load. For many people "0 RIR" is actually 3+ RIR because they
| stop themselves short. This is why I mostly only trust
| studies that take people to true failure (either an inability
| to move the weight any more, or a coach saying the person
| significantly broke form and must stop)
|
| For advanced, as i understand it, they need to focus on
| weekly periodization like hitting 3RIR, 2RIR, 1RIR, 0RIR
| (test new 1RM), Recovery week kind of cycles. Plus more that
| advanced coaches can teach.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| RIR: Reps in reserve.
|
| <https://blog.nasm.org/reps-in-reserve>
|
| 0RM: One rep max. This is the (actual or theoretical)
| maximum weight / resistance which can be moved on a given
| lift. ExRx has a good calculator as well as several tables
| for calculating resistance at specified reps:
|
| <https://exrx.net/Calculators/OneRepMax>
| randysalami wrote:
| I just do light weight nowadays with my strength training. It's
| easier mentally. Rather than push myself to go higher on bench,
| squat, and deadlift, I stick to 1 plate for bench and squat and 2
| plates for deadlift. Every single time. Instead of increasing
| load, I increase rep amount and focus on my form. Honestly, I
| still find myself sore after most workouts and the simplicity is
| nice. I'm 25 for reference.
| cjonas wrote:
| I do minimal weight training but in climbing the current
| consensus is that too many reps increases likely hood of
| developing an overuse injuries in the tendons. Probably depends
| on the exercises (climbing is hard on the elbows), but maybe
| keep an eye for tendonitis
| randysalami wrote:
| Good call out. I'm pretty lazy so I keep the rep ranges low.
| And not too many sets. Generally I start with a compound lift
| to hit everything in the muscle group I'm working then move
| onto accessory lifts to target more granularly. I think I'm
| lazy enough my risk of injury is low.
| worldsavior wrote:
| You won't see any progress if you won't push yourself. It
| shapes your mentality, and running away from work is what will
| keep you at the same place. Soreness is not a sign of
| progression most of the time. Bump up the weights, don't run
| away.
| Deegy wrote:
| They're increasing reps and therefore total load. That's
| still a form of progression ('pushing yourself'). This style
| will slightly favor hypertrophy gains over strength gains.
|
| At 40 I recently made this switch in style as well. The
| weight was getting so high that my anxiety was causing a
| mental aversion to working out altogether. Consistency is
| really 95% of exercise so I think this is a reasonable trade-
| off.
|
| That said, I understand where you are coming from. There's
| something to be said about facing the fear of the weight head
| on. I've already done that in my younger years though. I'd
| much rather avoid injury and get 80% of the benefits.
| worldsavior wrote:
| You shouldn't be stressed of what's in front of you.
| Training also trains you for that other than muscle/power
| building. If you don't compete, you have no reason to be
| anxious. You should maybe dig into what's causing you that
| anxiety, if it's "I worry I won't make this weight", remind
| yourself that nothing will happen if you do, and if you do,
| it's part of the progression. I get this anxiousness also,
| but I always remind myself that.
|
| I think that what you do in the gym will reflect on
| yourself.
| randysalami wrote:
| I got to 425 max on deadlift. My ego isn't tied to being
| stronger, just strong enough to be healthy and fit. I think
| it's unhealthy to view this as "running away" and honestly I
| look good and by putting less focus on it, I have more focus
| for other things in life I can optimize.
| worldsavior wrote:
| You do what's good for you, but in my opinion, what you
| suggested isn't the best progression scheme.
| machomaster wrote:
| But you are putting focus on it, just doing it less
| efficiently (imo and what other people say as well). Why
| not use the same time and use it more efficiently.
|
| "I will go to the gym, but will not even break sweat, will
| be fakingly training, just jumping from one machine to
| another, without plan, execution or dedication" - is the MO
| of a lot of people in a commercial gym. They are there, but
| they are definitely running away from hardness. Don't know
| how well this applies to you.
|
| In life, you need to run to keep the same place. In order
| to advance, one has to sprint, to put effort. Purposefully
| slacking and easing often means that practically you are
| regressing, being left behind.
|
| I understand if you were strong enough, put effort, got the
| results, and want to scale training down in order to
| maintain and to concentrate on other more important things.
| But:
|
| 1. You are not that strong. You can definitely build a
| better strength/muscle foundation that will last the rest
| of your life. The health retirement fund. It is the easiest
| to do now, while you are still young. You can do much
| better.
|
| 2. But even if you think that the current level is enough
| and are only interested in maintaining, the way you do it
| is clearly suboptimal. Both gaining and maintaining would
| be easier, faster and more efficient with highter weights
| and fewer reps. You can also save time because you can do
| fewer sets in order to get the same maintenance effect.
| Alternatively, you can keep the same sets/time, but
| actually progress (or do it faster) instead of staying at
| the same place. Same cost, bigger psyout. This is the
| result of doing the right things the right way, instead of
| giving up and doing something that feels nicer.
|
| Cheers!
| jmulho wrote:
| I find the goal of perpetual progress in resistance training
| strange. Yet it seems to be almost universal. If you are not
| lifting more today than you lifted yesterday, you are a
| failure. Gains, gains, gains. It is rather obvious that there
| are genetic limits on strength and size. Everyone is
| somewhere on their own spectrum of potential. Someone who
| doesn't resistance train at all is likely near the bottom of
| their potential. Someone who works out 5 days a week, never
| misses leg day, eats enough protein (1g per kg in Europe, 1g
| per lb in the US) is likely near the top of their potential.
| Living in higher and higher ranges of your potential requires
| exponentially more ongoing effort,
| dedication/discipline/sacrifice, blood/sweat/tears/pain. Say
| my absolute maximum genetic potential in exercise X is to
| lift 100kg. Say I never do exercise X, so my current maximum
| is 40k. With some effort, like training 3 days a week for 4
| months, I might get this to 60kg. Perhaps I could maintain
| that gain for decades by continuing to train 2 days a week.
| Or, I could keep pushing and maybe I could get it to 80kg in
| a few years. With an absolute all out effort, applying all
| the knowledge of the latest studies and perfect discipline, I
| could temporarily push it into the high 90s. Everybody can do
| what they want to do, but it seems to me that seeking the
| minimum effective dose of resistance training to look and
| feel good, and be strong enough to do what you like or need
| to do, is a reasonable approach. No need to push for more
| gains after that.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| I don't intend to convince you, but for onlookers:
|
| 1. As a young male, 1 plate bench/squat and 2 plate deadlift is
| extremely weak. Please strive higher than this. Anyone can
| achieve this in 6 months of intelligent training max. Many men
| start this strong untrained. The majority of young men can
| squat 1 plate untrained.
|
| 1. Soreness is not an indication of anything other than that
| you did a lot of eccentric loading. It doesn't correlate to
| progress. It is also a sign that your programming is not
| intelligent; you generally should not be sore after the first
| few workouts ever again.
|
| 1. Yes it is easier mentally, in the sense that doing easy
| things is easy. This is not a benefit, because doing hard
| things results in mental strength as much as physical.
| randysalami wrote:
| My max used to be 425 on deadlift back when I was taking it
| more seriously. Doing 5x8 of 225 on deadlift is enough to be
| strong to be healthy and active. You can only push yourself
| on a limited number of things in life so some things are just
| good enough.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| Sure, and 400 deadlift is decent intermediate for the
| average man, but let me suggest a counterpoint. Strength is
| the greatest indication of health among the elderly. A
| strong old man doesn't break his hip when he falls, he
| doesn't fall at all actually because strength is balance,
| and he doesn't have trouble getting off the toilet, and he
| doesn't need a cane. These are serious QOL issues.
|
| It's a mindset issue. If you're 25 and have already
| declined from 425 to 225 deadlift, that doesn't bode well
| for your decline into old age. Strength slowly tapers off
| once you stop lifting, as most eventually do. You want to
| be as strong as possible while entering middle age so that
| you can be a strong old man. Strength is like a retirement
| account in this sense, and in this sense you are advocating
| for working minimum wage throughout life because it's
| easier. For a young man, whose training is most efficacious
| of all age groups, I recommend getting as strong as
| possible, at least 400 deadlift and symmetrical equivalent
| in other lifts (but most can achieve 500), and then
| maintaining that strength as long as possible, not cutting
| it in half immediately. If you can lift 350 at age 55
| you're pretty much guaranteed to never break your hip or
| have a bad fall; that entire class of osteo related issues
| vanishes.
| capyba wrote:
| I've been a longtime competitive athlete and my best
| deadlift was 545 lb. I've been in many gyms in my life
| and I've only met maybe a dozen men lifting more than say
| 350 or so.
|
| Expecting the "average" man to get to a 400 or even 300
| lb deadlift is absurd. Sure, most people could be in
| better shape but a 4 plate deadlift is much more strength
| than most people need... and more than most people's
| bodies can safely handle regularly. The risk of serious
| injury rises exponentially when you put on weight like
| that.
|
| Building and maintaining strength, especially into the
| older ages, is certainly important but not to the levels
| you describe here. I suspect your comments here are based
| on neither personal experience nor proper education and
| training.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| The average male 20-29 in USA is 85KG. A deadlift of
| barely over 2x bodyweight is not remarkable at all! The
| average young man does not train and when they do they
| train stupidly; this has no bearing on the fact that they
| could achieve a 400 deadlift within a few years of
| intelligent training.
|
| Most gyms are not serious. You'll find no one lifting
| heavy at Planet Fitness, and you'll find that a 350
| deadlift is one of the weakest in a dirty powerlifting
| gym. Among people who actually do the activity, it's not
| impressive. The thing is you just have to actually do the
| activity. My metrics are only "absurd" if you think I'm
| saying that the average man has the willpower and
| interest to achieve this; of course they don't; the
| average man is obese and lazy. My claim is that the
| average man has the physical capacity to achieve this.
|
| Please don't misconstrue my claim of what is possible for
| what is likely. The average man can easily learn to cook
| well, read a few books per year, get their chess elo into
| the top 30%, run a 5k, learn to draw basic portraits,
| deadlift 400 pounds, and many other things that the
| average man will never do because they don't want to
| train for it.
|
| If I said the average man could practice drawing for a
| few years and end up drawing basic portraits, or study
| chess or cooking for a few years and end up better than
| almost anyone they know, this is mostly uncontroversial.
| When I say the same for strength training, it seems to
| anger a lot of people for some reason. My experiences
| tell me that these are comparable levels of goals.
|
| To the original point, seriously, my 102lb wife squats
| more than 1 plate and she's been training for 4 months.
| btwnplaces wrote:
| What feels counter-intuitive here is that the variable most
| people obsess over, load, turns out to matter far less than who
| you are. Intuitively we expect optimization to work like
| engineering. Change the input, change the output. Lift heavier,
| grow more muscle.
| malfist wrote:
| I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a
| single study on untrained adult males.
|
| They use a control of the other half of a person, but that is
| known to have flaws. Even if you train only your left side,
| your right will get stronger too.
|
| Wait for other studies to find similar effects, especially in
| trained individuals
| maieuticagent wrote:
| Lift heavy things, lightly. Lift light things, heavily.
| gazpacho wrote:
| Having only read the abstract... the conclusion makes sense to
| me. I've operated under the assumption that volume is the most
| important factor for muscle growth as long as you're lifting
| something like 1/3 or more of your 1RM. So 12 reps with higher
| load or 25 reps with lower load are going to be similar volumes
| (or at least similar enough given the other factors that the two
| protocols give the same outcome).
| eudamoniac wrote:
| I know this is not in the spirit of HN, but I feel it's my
| ethical duty to say something about this topic because of the
| impact the topic has on the psychology of young men. This study
| is misleading or more likely just false. I do not know what the
| flaw in their methodology is, but I know it is false, regardless
| of how many peers may have reviewed it. Please do not start
| lifting 20-25RM to gain hypertrophy, because it will not work
| well, and you will not achieve your goals.
|
| No one in the history of lifting has ever achieved an impressive
| physique via light weights. It simply does not work. The
| literature, to the extent it exists, is wrong on this and on many
| other related topics. The traditional view, taken in general, is
| correct: lift big to get big. Strongmen and powerlifters are very
| hypertrophied below their fat. They do 3-5RMs. Bodybuilders may
| do up to 12RMs. No one successful, even moderately, does or ever
| has done 25RMs because that weight is too low to drive adaptation
| in the stress-recovery-adaptation cycle.
| beezle wrote:
| I only scanned to article but did not see mention of the pre-
| trial condition of the subjects. Were they very new to resistance
| training? Or had they been doing it on a regular basis for a
| number of years? Because when you start out, doing just about
| anything is going to increase muscle mass
| machomaster wrote:
| Untrained individuals. Typically University students.
| sulam wrote:
| Summary: train to failure. Duh.
| krick wrote:
| Not sure why it gets attention here. The "finding" is the long
| standing _assumption_ as it is, absolutely nothing new discovered
| here. It could be notable if it was of some particularly high
| quality, but here it is 20 untrained individuals doing some
| dubious exercise regime for 10 weeks and finding out that on
| average one dubious exercise pattern wasn 't particularly better
| than the other, and overall exercising seemed to be good for all
| of them, although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up
| to 28.3%... Like, really? That was the study that impressed 211
| upvoters?
|
| These journals keep publishing such studies, because there is
| nothing better to publish in this branch of, uhm, "science", and
| I would even argue it's not a bad thing, because something is
| better than nothing, and it's basically impossible today to do
| more impressive research in this field (because testing humans is
| far costlier and logistically more complicated than writing
| equations and running simulations on your PC). But it's funny
| that it gets someone's attention.
| ernst_klim wrote:
| Indeed. "Science-based" lifting become quite popular in the
| recent years, but the actual science behind it is quite loose
| with a lot of methodologically weak studies, small samples etc.
| nodamage wrote:
| This seems like an overly cynical take. Is there no value in
| empirically confirming an assumption? Especially in the
| exercise world where other long held assumptions ended up being
| bro-science nonsense?
|
| > although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up to
| 28.3%
|
| Why does that matter? Isn't the entire point of this study's
| design to eliminate the impact of the inherent variability
| between test subjects?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-01 23:01 UTC)