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

211–220 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#211

Post by d357r0y3r »

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…

It really is just mostly this, and social media has tricked people into thinking otherwise.

I was looking at some photos of myself about 10 years ago. At the time, I had been hitting the gym hard, consistently, and intelligently. I had a huge bench press, squad, and deadlift, and was lifting 4-5 days a week, and managed every facet of my diet.

Now, I'm older, have kids, don't sleep as much, and definitely don't make it to the gym as much. I might lift twice a week - and don't try very hard or do progressive overload at all - and try to get in 3-4 days of cardio.

And I honestly don't look very different. Muscles are roughly the same size. In clothes, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#212

Post by vidarh »

DiskoHexyl wrote: post #171
vidarh wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Most of the population is untrained, and in many countries a majority is overweight. I don't think your concern about "correctly assessing their 1RM" matters either - if anything that means the loads are even lower relative to actual 1RM, and their subjects…

That is exactly the issue with incorrectly gauging 1rm- if it’s too low, than the supposed ‘resistance’ training with 70-80% of 1rm isn’t actually that. Is it fair to compare A to B, when the A in question isn’t exactly an A, but rather something closer to B?

It is fairly irrelevant when you're dealing with a group of people who are all using the same means of determining their 1RM.

The point isn't the precise effect on a given percentage of 1RM, but the relative difference between groups.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#213

Post by f33d5173 »

mf_tomb wrote: post #29
Analemma_ wrote: post #3

I know it's practically de rigeur to jump into the comments and immediately complain about methodology for any study that makes it to the front page, and I want to emphasize I don't distrust their findings, but I would like to see an equivalent study go out longer than 10 weeks. When I've been taking weightlifting seriously I feel like I don't even start to notice hypertrophy until 8-10 weeks. I feel like 6 months is…

This is par for the course with exercise science. It's mostly fake. No blinding, small sample sizes, researchers with agenda, low duration, low funding etc. The good news is that doing almost anything works.

How would you blind it? This isn't pharmacy where you can hand out sugar pills.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#214

Post by trallnag »

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…

hormones can be tweaked despite genetics

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#215

Post by malfist »

andreareina wrote: post #149
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...

That is a very underpowered study, only 18 participants

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#216

Post by unaindz »

samiv wrote: post #191
olalonde wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's more difficult to reach true failure with lower load, people tend to stop too early.

False, failing to lift is not the same as lifting until failure. Consider, if I load up the bench press to 200kg I won't get a single rep. If I try to rep it I'll fail but I'm not lifting until failure. If I load it up to smaller weight lets say 100kg and crank out rep after rep I'll get much closer to "lifting until failure." When I reach the end, the last rep is a rep I won't make. But I'm still not at a point wher…

While technically true getting very close to failure is only useful if you don't need optimal results and lack the time to do more volume. The damage by going to failure will make high volumes maintained over time impossible.

Ideally you would leave 1-2 possible reps. I think it's important to train to failure to know your body and learn to gauge your reps to failure but other than that and very little time per week to train it's eventually counterproductive.

And if training with lower weights you tend to end very far from failure if just following a program without knowing what you are doing.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#217

Post by MegaDeKay »

ffsm8 wrote: post #202
swalsh wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Protein is more satiating "if and only if you are not getting enough protein for optimum body recomposition" which Menno in another video puts at 0.8g per lb of body mass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHLXank1PPk

Menno's videos are exceptional: science based and backed up by common sense.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#218

Post by bonesss »

marknutter wrote: post #206
raducu wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Going to failure can also be a question of which ‘link in the chain’ is hitting failure at any given rep range.

Bent over rows being and easy example: at a 5RM upper back is giving out as desired, but past 10RM my lower back is the issue. If my goals are bent over endurance in my core then higher reps will force adaptations where I’m weak, if I’m trying to get my shoulder blades sexy and humpy I gotta keep the stimulus where I want results. In addition to manipulating reps something like a snatch grip can provide a leverage based answer to the same targeting needs.

Proximity to failure is key, targeting and maximizing that proximity is individual and highly goal dependant.

[As a bit of a physio case I’ve found General Gainz (/r/gzcl on Reddit), to be a highly productive RPE based system with very happy adaptive approach to hitting personal limitations mid workout; no “failures” or broken spreadsheets = motivation = consistency = progress; strong recommend to check out]

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#219

Post by samiv »

unaindz wrote: post #216
samiv wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False, failing to lift is not the same as lifting until failure. Consider, if I load up the bench press to 200kg I won't get a single rep. If I try to rep it I'll fail but I'm not lifting until failure. If I load it up to smaller weight lets say 100kg and crank out rep after rep I'll get much closer to "lifting until failure." When I reach the end, the last rep is a rep I won't make. But I'm still not at a point wher…

While technically true getting very close to failure is only useful if you don't need optimal results and lack the time to do more volume. The damage by going to failure will make high volumes maintained over time impossible. Ideally you would leave 1-2 possible reps. I think it's important to train to failure to know your body and learn to gauge your reps to failure but other than that and very little time per week…

Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout. In fact you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear and more recovery while maximizing the growth stimulus.

First intensity. Then recovery. These two dictate the volume. If volume exceeds recovery injury and burnout will follow.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#220

Post by 7bit »

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…

The fact that you state that muscle soreness is necessary for hypertrophy shows that ignoring studies is bad advice.
Post reply on HN