Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#121

Post by solumunus »

sedivy94 wrote: post #110
armcat wrote: post #4

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.

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 appa…

> bodybuilders will periodize their training to cycle through the different flavors of stimulus

Some will, many won’t. It’s clearly not necessary.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#122

Post by solumunus »

vasco wrote: post #49
pjc50 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spoken like you've never done any reps at all?

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.

What do you mean by there’s no difference? The difference is in the relative load needed in each example.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#124

Post by solumunus »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #48
rorytbyrne wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

is "8-12" not "few" for you?

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#125

Post by esperent »

henning wrote: post #94

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. N…

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#126

Post by RickyLahey »

AstroBen wrote: post #34

> 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

this is peak gym bro science

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#127

Post by leonflexo »

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#128

Post by Retric »

nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote: post #106
Retric wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 go…

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.

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#129

Post by [deleted] »

calmbonsai wrote: post #116
armcat wrote: post #4

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.

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 expl…

[deleted]

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#130

Post by QuercusMax »

toshinoriyagi wrote: post #90
toomuchtodo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

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.

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?

Post reply on HN