Training Study: Low Load, High Volume

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
And its stories like this (thanks to the other thread) that just piss me off, not cause of the story, but cause the researchers aren’t being responsible and getting the context of the results right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100811/sc_livescience/newsecrettobuildingmusclerevealedpumplessiron

Assuming those quotes to Prof. Phillips are accurate, that’s just terrible. What an overstatement of these findings and its going to lead to a whole new world of idiots who only ever take in 20g of protein, yes, that finding sucks too for issues with the study, and now are going to be repping it out to failure with light weight.

So caught up in the flash method without any decent training studies to back them up. This is the fucking ivory tower research that pisses people off, and I try to defend researchers cause I’ve worked with some good ones!!

So for guys out there like me trying to prescribe exercise, and get people to just fucking eat, and just fucking lift heavy weight, this is just going to give them another excuse to cop out. And we’re going to get another batch of young lifters frustrated they aren’t gaining appreciable size cause their heavy volume, light weight programme isn’t working.

Fuck em. I’m going to wreck myself in the gym tomorrow with the heaviest weight I can find, and I’m going to inhale hundreds of grams of protein, cause obviously neither of these things work.

Fuck it. Maybe I’ll just go do a real PhD and name the first article “You pussies can all get fucked”, followed by my method paper “Light weight is for bitches” followed by my main RCT named “If you don’t lift heavy and eat lots of protein fuck off”.

…

that feels better.

[/quote]

You know what, I wanted to say something along those lines but didn’t think I had the scientific education to back it up LOL.

To be honest, I can’t keep up with the scientific talk, but what I’ve discovered in the “real world” didn’t back up these latest “findings”. What do you have to say to sound smart but be right at the same time? :wink:

22

bodybuilders usually don’t lift at 90% of their max…that is what powerlifters lift at…

bodybuilders lift in the 75-85% range usually…

i guarantee if they had used 75% of their max that they would have exceeded both results substantially…

23

First and foremost, Stu is a first class scientist and the quotes are just that… QUOTES.

The 20g study most likely would be body weight dependent, i.e., 100+ kg individuals may need 25-30 g, whereas, 60 kg may need less. But this will be confirmed in time.

Keep the scientific studies in context (i.e., performed under highly controlled conditions and inherent subject variability, etc.). They simply serve as the platform on which we build our current understanding.

This study was performed on the leg extension machine, which is a unique exercise device (very ischemic = hastens the recruitment of type II fibre) and can be performed at lower training loads (20-30%1RM) and produce a good training effect.

Leg press would be a completely different story.

There is only so much $$$ and time, so scientist can not perform every condition possible.

Bottom line: let everyone switch their training style which means there are more 45 lb plates for your self!!!

But lets stay educated… and applaud attempts at shining a little more light on basic training prinicples.

24

No, I’m not going to applaud a light being shone in the wrong place.

Or that fact that none of the context or limitations you are putting forward (which are all very good) come across in the official info going public.

As the guys in the trenches, this shit is just against us. And this isn’t forgetting the piles of crosstraining style trainers who will be putting this into action immediately, setting back their clients results, and wanking on in public about ‘well research says…’ cause they do!

This is exactly what happens with the protein findings, cause no context was given about that study either. It just ends up being the lump sum findings,

“gee, look at us with our cool finding on one part of a complicated process, that may be associated with something down the track, but we don’t really know, and we’re not really going into the big picture cause the reviewers wouldn’t let us, and when we talk to media we’ll go for the big bang statements cause no-one will really understand”

You can’t have it both ways. If there are no specific clinical findings, or documented evidence regarding clinical practice, you can’t just guess it!!! That defeats the whole point of the scientific process!!!

But the reality is that most researchers seem to not really know, or give a shit about what’s happening in the trenches. You seem to Heavysci, which is commendable, and it would be nice if you hang around the site and contribute a bit more often, but really all we end up getting is an ‘older wiser brother’ telling us what to do, but it just so happens he’s a fucking midget wrapped in cotton wool.

25

This my friend, is why I come here to get a different perspective (and to be amused).

Part of the scientific process is to test a hypothesis, and you must have a starting point. In this case start at two extremes (i.e., 90% and 30% maximal strength) and then you can begin to test intensities closer together on the loading continuum (i.e., 80% vs 30%). Unfortunately, to run tracers studies the research cost is HUGE (a gram of heavy tracer, 13C6 PHE, can cost 500 - 1000 USD!).

However, I have good insight that a training study comparing 80% (10-12 reps) vs 30% (20-25 reps) has been performed.

I think we are forgetting one key part of this study in that it was performed in the post-absorptive state, what if the researchers would of fed them some high quality milk proteins? The story may be slightly different.

To accrete skeletal muscle proteins we need to be in a postive muscle net protein balance (NPB=MPS-MBP), so these gents were certainly in a negative NPB, and provided that we know the MPS and MPB are linked processes in the body… what if the 30FAIL simply was breaking down muscle proteins (ie., amino acids) to a greater extent and thus supplying more substrate for MPS and ultimately why they seen such a elevated response?

Unfortunately, to measure MPB in the laboratory is not an easy thing to do and too many assumptions associate with it!

But if we are wrapping up little people in cotton wool make sure to give the guy a protein shake, so at least the little guy can build some muscle, eh?

26

Its still probably soy protein ur giving them though :wink:

Well well, so a training study has been done. As I raised earlier, it will be interesting for the authors to put all these findings in the context of the research findings showing that training at the lower end of the RM range is superior to the higher end, such as the Campos study (2003) that I’m sure you’re aware of in EJAP.

All these caveats you’re adding to the article findings are good, but comes back to the OP about how useful the actual study is to the real world at the moment…not very, and yes I do appreciate that this is a necessary step in research, but that’s all it is/was. A step.

And I still don’t like the inference that this exercise at the low intensity is going to cause significant type II fiber recruitment, but I’ve already gone there before. If we’re getting into ischemic models then are we all going to start doing that Japanese training where they actually provide external occlusion to induce ischemia?

So leg press would be a completely different story? Is this because of the larger acute hormonal response :wink:

But the reality is, we’re going to have people out there picking the squat, taking a light load, and repping out to failure not realizing the isolated experimental model ensured 30%relative intensity whereas the relative load in a complex movement is going to be very different across different muscles. So even IF 30%FAIL is the way to go (or anything to fail is really the overall insinuation as long as max volume is attained), they’re going to screw that up too…

27

Ok, here’s a question.

Does it matter how this low intensity volume is accumulated? THe particular group was to failure, but what if they stopped just short of true failure in that set, had a break, then just kept doing more sets to accumulate more volume? Or are the findings from this lab restricted to the 1 set model of testing owing to method constraints?

Is it volume by any means necessary?

28

So I do my first session after this newfound knowledge has been put out there, and I see so many guys at the gym clearly training the right way, with their one plate tricep pushdowns, high rep 10 lb bicep curls, 80lb bench presses, hitting their 20-30 reps and clearly having to stop, then amazingly they have a break and can go again…wow…

…and I just cry as I load on the 3rd 45lb plate each side for my rest pause HS shoulder press, that I’ll never get the amazing muscle growth, strength, and results these guys are going to get…the end.

29

^^^

Give it up, you’ll never get as big as those guys, you’re just wasting effort.

You gotta feel the pump baby…

30

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
^^^

Give it up, you’ll never get as big as those guys, you’re just wasting effort.

You gotta feel the pump baby…[/quote]

Although I do believe that a pump and going to failure are both conductive to hypertrophy gains. I think hard and heavy lifting is the only style of lifting that can cause substantial growth for a natural trainee.

Dorian Yates said something like you can dig a ditch for days at a time but that doesn’t mean your going to have a big back.

Your body adapts to stress. If that stress is an hour and a half of 30 rep bicep curls their is no need for that muscle to grow bigger since it needs to adapt to an endurance type of stress so the muscle because more efficient at enduring a low intensity stress for an hour and a half. Heavy lifting is the best way to force an adaption of this kind to occur. That muscle must get bigger and stronger or it will literally tear.

This type of loading I believe not only strengthens muscles but soft tissue and bone as well, provided protein intake and calories are being taken care of, heavy lifting in a moderate rep range to or near failure is the best way to cause hypertrophy gains. This is also supported by literature thats much more meaningful than that shady ass study.

31

Just keep in mind that, muscle collagen (turns over ~2- and 4- fold lower than myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic proteins, respectively) is not feeding sensitive and most likely probably related to the fact that it is not a storage reservoir of amino acids.

But it looks like you guys have it figured out. In the end, just stay in the gym and keep building that metabolically active tissue!

Keep it heavy and good luck with the training.
-NAB

32

[quote]Elite0423 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
^^^

Give it up, you’ll never get as big as those guys, you’re just wasting effort.

You gotta feel the pump baby…[/quote]

Although I do believe that a pump and going to failure are both conductive to hypertrophy gains. I think hard and heavy lifting is the only style of lifting that can cause substantial growth for a natural trainee.

Dorian Yates said something like you can dig a ditch for days at a time but that doesn’t mean your going to have a big back.

Your body adapts to stress. If that stress is an hour and a half of 30 rep bicep curls their is no need for that muscle to grow bigger since it needs to adapt to an endurance type of stress so the muscle because more efficient at enduring a low intensity stress for an hour and a half. Heavy lifting is the best way to force an adaption of this kind to occur. That muscle must get bigger and stronger or it will literally tear.

This type of loading I believe not only strengthens muscles but soft tissue and bone as well, provided protein intake and calories are being taken care of, heavy lifting in a moderate rep range to or near failure is the best way to cause hypertrophy gains. This is also supported by literature thats much more meaningful than that shady ass study. [/quote]

Sorry, that post of mine was actually me being sarcastic :slight_smile:

33

[quote]HeavySci wrote:
Just keep in mind that, muscle collagen (turns over ~2- and 4- fold lower than myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic proteins, respectively) is not feeding sensitive and most likely probably related to the fact that it is not a storage reservoir of amino acids.

But it looks like you guys have it figured out. In the end, just stay in the gym and keep building that metabolically active tissue!

Keep it heavy and good luck with the training.
-NAB[/quote]

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…I feel like you should spend more time under the bar and less time reading studies about untrained people on sub-par diets on questionable programs that are “working out”.

34

He may be the closest thing we’ve got to a researching bodybuilder…the OP may have been a “waving the flag” post to show that someone gives a shit.

However, more context in the article, and in the news report by his lab Professor, would go a long way.

Would be interesting if he hangs around and contributes but I think thats it.

35

The point of this study like people have said is its a good demonstration of the size principle. It doesnt suggest we should all be nannies and spend our time lifting 10lbs dumbbells for 200 reps.

To put things into perspective, lets say you work out at 70% 1RM, which I expect is the intensity that most people on here workout at.

So you begin to lift the 70% weight, initially, you recruit all the type I fibres as described by the size principle. However, most likely these will not produce enough force and you sense this via feedback in your brain, hence you start sending more intense signals to the muscle which sequentially starts to recruit type IIa fibres. After all the Type IIa fibres have been recruited this is still not enough force to move the weight and once again your brain senses this via feedback and you yet again increase the intensity of your nerve signal.

Next you start recruiting a few type IIx fibres, and then suddenly the weight starts to move, at this point, your brain keeps this intensity of signal constant to your muscle, and therefore there are also some type IIx fibres left that have not been recruited, for by definition we are at 70% 1RM.

BTW the above all happens in a tiny fraction of a second.

Now you start pumping out some reps, after 2 reps, the type IIx fibres you initially recruited become exhausted / damaged and no longer fire, instantly, your brain senses this and increases the nerve impulse yet again, recruiting even more type IIx fibres. ( This is why a weight “feels” heavier the more reps you do becuase of the increase in nerve signal intensity )

After another 2 reps, the cycle repeats, until suddenly at 10 reps, all the type IIx fibres are either exhausted or damaged and can no longer fire. You push ferociously to do rep 11 but soon realise and feel that the muscle doesnt have enough type IIx fibres left working in order to produce the force nessecery to lift the weight, you are at failure.

You wait 2 minutes, until your type IIx fibres regenerate thier phosphates, then perform another 2 sets. Then move on.

Great Workout!

Oh well but uhm was it?

Lets see, your type IIx fibres got a nice workout surely, since they all fatigued. But what about your type IIa fibres? Given the rule of the size principle, we know for sure that on all reps, pretty much all of the type I and type IIa fibres were in use. We also know from physiology that type IIx fibres fatigue far quicker than either type I or IIa, therefore we can assume with high confidence that “almost” all the type I and IIa fibres had juice left in them at the end of each set when we reached failure.

If they had juice left in them, chances are they didnt get a complete workout and were not exposed to the chemical environment to trigger hypertrophy for the next workout. It’s akin to only doing 6 reps in the above example.

I mean, everyone KNOW’s that you wont get the same results from a 6 rep routine as a 10 rep routine keeping all other variables constant.

Instead, what you could of done is let go of the " I must lift heavy weight for gains" meme brain infection and scaled down the weight immediately upon hitting failure at 70%, to say 50%, then continued pumping reps. the lighter weight means you didnt need the exhausted type IIx fibres to lift it, and you could bring some or most of your type IIa fibres to exhaustion and get them to hypertrophy for your next workout aswell.

Apologies for the long post but I thought people on this forum would of known better.

36

We do, which is why I’m ignoring your bullshit physiology.

My goodness, go spout your first year garble elsewhere or at least use a better textbook.

37

[quote]kindke wrote:
Instead, what you could of done is let go of the " I must lift heavy weight for gains" meme brain infection and scaled down the weight immediately upon hitting failure at 70%, to say 50%, then continued pumping reps. the lighter weight means you didnt need the exhausted type IIx fibres to lift it, and you could bring some or most of your type IIa fibres to exhaustion and get them to hypertrophy for your next workout aswell.

Apologies for the long post but I thought people on this forum would of known better.
[/quote]

And us dumb lot thought that you had to lift heavy with enough volume, thanks for clearing that up.

Since when has 70% of your 1RM been “heavy weights”? LOL

You’d better stay away from the 85% 1RM loads, your muscles may shrivel into oblivion!

Be sure to tell all the best bodybuilding authors/vets on here your conclusions…

38

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]kindke wrote:
Instead, what you could of done is let go of the " I must lift heavy weight for gains" meme brain infection and scaled down the weight immediately upon hitting failure at 70%, to say 50%, then continued pumping reps. the lighter weight means you didnt need the exhausted type IIx fibres to lift it, and you could bring some or most of your type IIa fibres to exhaustion and get them to hypertrophy for your next workout aswell.

Apologies for the long post but I thought people on this forum would of known better.
[/quote]

And us dumb lot thought that you had to lift heavy with enough volume, thanks for clearing that up.

Since when has 70% of your 1RM been “heavy weights”? LOL

You’d better stay away from the 85% 1RM loads, your muscles may shrivel into oblivion!

Be sure to tell all the best bodybuilding authors/vets on here your conclusions…[/quote]

The point is that the size principle predicts that if you train only at very high % 1RM then there will always be a distinct subset of fibres in the muscle that dont get ‘trained’ fully.

To exploit the size principle for maximum gains, one could start at 85% 1RM and go until close to faliure, then immediately scale down the weight to say 65% 1RM and continue doing reps until you get close to failure once again, then scale down to 40%.

The only problem is finding how practical this is for some exercises, for example with Squats, you need 3 bars loaded with the appropriate weight so you can instantly change once you fail at 85% and go to 65% (no rest allowed).

39

Well, strip sets are nothing new, and you certainly don’t need several pre-loaded bars set up to do them.

40

True, although the strip sets that I’m used to is only a drop by 5-10%. That’s after working up to a load somewhere between 80-90% ~RM.

On the “smaller” exercises I only go up to around 70%, and don’t bother with strip/drop sets…never seen the need.