Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy • Hacker News Board

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#201

Post by cjonas » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

randysalami wrote: post #195

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.

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

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#202

Post by ffsm8 » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:10 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #196

formichunter wrote: post #190

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, approximate…

"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.

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#203

Post by btwnplaces » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#204

Post by malfist » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC

btwnplaces wrote: post #203

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.

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

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#205

Post by spectralista » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:20 PM UTC

formichunter wrote: post #190

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, approximate…

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#206

Post by marknutter » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:22 PM UTC

raducu wrote: post #112

timr wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 fel…

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#207

Post by marknutter » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:23 PM UTC

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.

Not being able to do a rep with proper form is the definition of failure.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#208

Post by ffsm8 » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #161

vidarh wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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.

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

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#209

Post by vidarh » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #161

vidarh wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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.

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#210

Post by h2zizzle » Thu, Jan 01, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

spectralista wrote: post #205

formichunter wrote: post #190

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, approximate…

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 gene…

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.