Heavy lifting makes no difference?

Doesn't open? Seems interesting

LowT

LowTman said:

Doesn't open? Seems interesting

LowT

Click to expand...

• Research Article

[h=1]Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men[/h] Authors
[h=2]Abstract[/h]We reported, using a unilateral resistance training (RT) model, that training with high or low loads (mass per repetition) resulted in similar muscle hypertrophy and strength improvements in RT-naïve subjects. Here we aimed to determine whether the same was true in men with previous RT experience using a whole-body RT program and whether post-exercise systemic hormone concentrations were related to changes in hypertrophy and strength. Forty-nine resistance-trained men (mean ± SEM, 23 ± 1 y) performed 12 wk of whole-body RT. Subjects were randomly allocated into a higher-repetition (HR) group who lifted loads of ~30-50% of their maximal strength (1RM) for 20-25 repetitions/set (n=24) or a lower-repetition (LR) group (~75-90% 1RM, 8-12 repetitions/set, n=25), with all sets being performed to volitional failure. Skeletal muscle biopsies, strength testing, DXA scans, and acute changes in systemic hormone concentrations were examined pre- and post-training. In response to RT, 1RM strength increased for all exercises in both groups (p < 0.01), with only the change in bench press being significantly different between groups (HR: 9 ± 1 vs. LR: 14 ±1 kg, p = 0.012). Fat- and bone-free (lean) body mass, type I and type II muscle fibre cross sectional area increased following training (p < 0.01) with no significant differences between groups. No significant correlations between the acute post-exercise rise in any purported anabolic hormone and the change in strength or hypertrophy were found. In congruence with our previous work, acute post-exercise systemic hormonal rises are not related to or in any way indicative of RT-mediated gains in muscle mass or strength. Our data show that in resistance-trained individuals load, when exercises are performed to volitional failure, does not dictate hypertrophy or, for the most part, strength gains.

well, its an interesting study but i didnt see real gainz and thickness thru my whole body until i started heavy deadlifts 2 years ago.... within 3 months i smashed my plateau and started seeing quality growth again.

xbeastmodex said:

well, its an interesting study but i didnt see real gainz and thickness thru my whole body until i started heavy deadlifts 2 years ago.... within 3 months i smashed my plateau and started seeing quality growth again.

Click to expand...

I think the study is missing a key component which is cns loading and it's effect on strength which drives hyper trophy.

JRotten said:

I think the study is missing a key component which is cns loading and it's effect on strength which drives hyper trophy.

Click to expand...

I agree you and beastmode expressed my biggest issue with these so called tests. They rarely are subjected to power lifts or free weight lifts even. ie: dead lifts, cleans , squats (not in a smith machine) or Dumbbells. My strength and hypertrophy didn't really start to take off until I applied power and true lifts to my routine. Over the years I've trained and applied a variety of Spartacus style ( whole body), giant sets, and HIIT sessions to improve speed , muscular endurance, general athleticism. But power was the single component that got me and others I trained to a new level. I'm talking heavy sets of cleans, DL, and Squats. I think absolutely the cns was super taxed during these sessions causing the best gains. Sure I can get big shoulders, arms and calves from high volume training. But the true strength, density, and overall size, especially in my back, glutes and legs.. We're only able to Break the plateau with heavy loads. Not with machines or cables. It's more of an all show and no go with those devices.. And not near as much show..At least in my humble opinion.

JRotten said:

I think the study is missing a key component which is cns loading and it's effect on strength which drives hyper trophy.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rotten, that was a long ass winded way to say... I couldn't agree more!

JRotten said:

I think the study is missing a key component which is cns loading and it's effect on strength which drives hyper trophy.

Click to expand...

These Studies Always Leave Out key Components that would apply to people that actually train at a high level consistently. We dont know what their idea of a full body routine is. There are a ton of variables that can mess with results for something like this.

The one thing that I've learned over the years by reading "studies" is they can manipulate the data to achieve the desired results. Too many other factors exist for me to put much stock in this study.

TouaregV8 said:

The one thing that I've learned over the years by reading "studies" is they can manipulate the data to achieve the desired results. Too many other factors exist for me to put much stock in this study.

Click to expand...

Exactly

TouaregV8 said:

The one thing that I've learned over the years by reading "studies" is they can manipulate the data to achieve the desired results. Too many other factors exist for me to put much stock in this study.

Click to expand...

I agree with this statement 100%

While I am not knowledge enough to refute this study, the industry I work in has studies done that are so slanted they are not worth the paper they are printed on.