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

141–150 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#141

Post by tormeh »

QuercusMax wrote: post #130
toshinoriyagi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#142

Post by [deleted] »

safety1st wrote: post #85
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 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 p…

[deleted]

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#143

Post by matwood »

siddboots wrote: post #93
safety1st wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

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.

> 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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#144

Post by matwood »

Moto7451 wrote: post #78
wswope wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Don’t sell yourself short though. Those are very respectable numbers ahead of the vast majority of the population.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#145

Post by matwood »

thatcat wrote: post #69
nzeid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where could I find more information on proper set timing?

It ends up being personal, but you want enough time to catch your breath and be “ready” to go again, but no more.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#146

Post by DiskoHexyl »

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

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#148

Post by goodpoint »

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

"HN dismisses study without understanding it"

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#149

Post by andreareina »

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

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...

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#150

Post by vasco »

solumunus wrote: post #122
vasco wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN