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

151–160 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#151

Post by torben-friis »

vjk800 wrote: post #135
torben-friis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While one might think "I can do 50 reps with low weights" The caveat is that you need anaerobic training. Low enough weight and it’s cardio, you don’t get giant legs by walking to failure for example.

I don't know. All cyclists I know seem to have massive thighs. And these are amateurs who don't do any kind of strength training, just hours and hours of cycling every week.

>All cyclists I know seem to have massive thighs.

Yeah uphill cycling or sprints probably go anaerobic at times, you can tell because you need to stop from the muscle burning/refusing to move, rather than going out of breath or general tiredness.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#152

Post by vasco »

mnky9800n wrote: post #47
vasco wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Loads for each set were adjusted to ensure that volitional fatigue was reached within 8–12 and 20–25 repetitions for the HL and LL limbs, respectively I would argue both categories of the study are about low reps. I don't see how the body would tell the difference between 12 and 25 reps. If you said between 5 and 500, like it has to meaningfully take much longer, otherwise why would doing something so similar have…

I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12 to 25 reps on any exercise I do. Although typically I max out at 8 before adding more weight.

You consciously notice of course, like what kind of argument is that. The point is the stimulus is the same for the body unless you change it by orders of magnitude, the study agrees that this is the same also.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#153

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

Retric wrote: post #128
nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes guess it depends on your goals. Whether you are doing it for health, vanity, work or competitions will adjust the calculus.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#154

Post by cornel_io »

landl0rd wrote: post #80
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.

Fifty is excessive but you’re better-served doing 12-20 reps more than fewer, heavier reps if you’re pushing hypertrophy and already well-trained.

This article claims that's false, that 8-12 at higher weight leads to the same result as 20+ at lower weights.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#155

Post by vjerancrnjak »

DiskoHexyl wrote: post #146

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…

They have to start video recording the workouts. Even veterans in this academic field sometimes design workouts that just can’t be done to failure if you’re actually going to failure over 6-12 weeks.

Even 1 workout sometimes has so many sets prescribed where I cant imagine all of them were actual failure

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#156

Post by vidarh »

DiskoHexyl wrote: post #146

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…

> 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 were still getting results.

It may not tell us much about outcomes at the top end, but more knowledge of what advice to give "most people" is important, and if they can get good results at low percentages of 1RM, it seems a lot more likely you'll get people to try.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#157

Post by sigmoid10 »

DiskoHexyl wrote: post #146

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…

>It’s when you are older and/or accustomed to some kind of physical training, that you really noticeably benefit from resistance training.

Do you have any sources for that? I'm asking because that is a bold statement given the (almost non-) existing literature on pro athlete hypertophy. Especially since athletes in almost every sport don't even care about hypertrophy - unless you talk about pro bodybuilding. And there you have tons of pharmacological interventions, so it's not really easy to paint a picture either. I don't know a single good study performed on a significant set of tested natural bodybuilders regarding hypertrophy.

Studies like this are also aimed at couch potatoes, because that is the normal population, so the results will be applicable to most people, which in turn is important when you want to get funding for your research. In that sense it also doesn't matter that these people will not have reached their full neuromuscular connection compared to actual weightlifters, because most people haven't either. So the results are still relevant. Usually when scientists sell this kind of research to grant departments, they try to provide a benefit to geriatric or otherwise medically impaired people, so that existing treatments may be improved. Studying muscle building itself just for the sake of it in gymbros is not a good strategy unless you want to spend your own money. And this stuff quickly gets very expensive if you want to do it right.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#158

Post by vidarh »

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…

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 significantly higher total volume.

> I've seen other colleagues and how they trained -- I can say there was 100% correlation that those people who were not training hard also did not have big gains. People who had enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply did not gain as much as people I saw as training hard.

Well, yes, but training with lower weights and higher rep ranges does not automatically translate to "not training hard".

Having gone through a period of really high rep training, including for a short period doing 1000 squats per day as an experiment, mostly bodyweight, that was far harder exercise than when I 1RM'd 200kg. But the effects are different.

I much prefer Stronglifts and Madcow but because I favour strength over size, and it's far more time efficient, not because you can't also get results with more, lower-weight reps.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#159

Post by user_7832 »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #117
westurner wrote: post #105

What about Time Under Tension? "Equalization of Training Protocols by Time Under Tension Determines the Magnitude of Changes in Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy" (2022) https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2022/07000/equal... : > Abstract: [...] In conclusion, training protocols with the same TUT promote similar strength gains and muscle hypertrophy. Moreover, considering that the protocols used different num…

So could I just do one super slow (some minutes) squat per week at like 60% and get all the benefits still?

I’m not at all a biology expert, but if the squat is actually pushing you somewhat close to your limit (it’s not super easy), you’ll definitely get stronger. Case in point: isometric exercises. Also: folks who do planks for a few weeks/months.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#160

Post by taneq »

hatefulheart wrote: post #103
taneq wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That matches what I've been told by various personal trainers. 6-8 reps if focusing on strength, ~12 for all round, and 16-18 for size/endurance. Do three sets, weight should be enough that the last couple of reps on the first set are a bit of a struggle. Subsequent sets just push through as far as you can.

Your trainers clearly never read Starting Strength.

No idea, I certainly haven't. This was decades ago, though, so it's entirely possible that established best practice has changed.
Post reply on HN