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

301–310 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#301

Post by oarfish »

machomaster wrote: post #256
7bit wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Muscle soreness is not necessary for hypertrophy, but often enough (but not always) it is a good measure of the effort/volume/weight/technique (so a proxy for the mechanical tension, the thing that we want, but it hard to measure directly).

Depends, its also an indicator of novelty, and that by itself isnt useful. Once you are used to a movement and training volume, getting sore is difficult unless you ramp up the volume continuosly.

id say, never being sore at all is maybe a sign you dont do enough for optimum results, but frequently being sore means the load is too high. And for health outcomes it probably matters less.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#302

Post by oarfish »

machomaster wrote: post #258
bendtb wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally as someone who strength trained on a recreational basis the last 20 years (and run a marathon just to see if I could), nothing beats heavy lifting. A Strong lifts 5x5 program build around squat, deadlifts, bench and shoulder press can always make me feel pumped for the day!

To maintain my health I supplement with iron. In a form of barbells and dumbbells. Shoutout to Barbell medicine. It is a good youtube channel by 2 lifting MDs (formerly associated with Starting Strength).

The podcast is where the real meat is, not all of it is on youtube. Best way to innoculate you against bullshit.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#303

Post by landl0rd »

cornel_io wrote: post #154
landl0rd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The research is studying young untrained men. Everyone puts on muscle at mach chicken when untrained.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#304

Post by oarfish »

samiv wrote: post #219
unaindz wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout

Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob. But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i misunderstand.

> you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear

Not a helpful way of thinking about exercise induced adaptations. unless you are doing pro athlete amounts of training, would ignore this completely.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#305

Post by oarfish »

machomaster wrote: post #262
samiv wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doing dumbbell raises to failure with 5repmax will bring more pain, discomfort and wear/tear than doing the same exercise with 20repmax.

Why?

Most people don't build up to such a stimulus, so its not surprising if its uncomfortable, if all youve ever done is 20 rep sets.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#306

Post by swat535 »

d357r0y3r wrote: post #211
spectralista wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Genetics play a factor, but you can still look pretty good, feel great if you consistently go to the gym, lift heavy weights and eat your calories.

You won't look like Arnold as there are genetic factors at play but people shouldn't be discouraged in thinking they won't be able to achieve a good body.

Another factor, that I think many men forget (I can't speak for women), is their testosterone levels. If you are following everything and have no results I recommend that you have your levels tested. Many men are suffering from Hypogonadism without realizing it. I had this issue for years and when I did my tests, I was at 7.6 nmol/L !

My doctor put me on HCG and it was like night and day.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#307

Post by oarfish »

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…

Perfect form isnt a thing, its all a matter of what joint positions you are adapted to produce or reduce force in. So the problem with form breakdown isnt that the position you end up in is dangerous (no, rounding your back some is not bad), but that you are not prepared for the stress in that position.

Its unfortunate that people say deadlifting "wrong" causes injury, while the evidence does not support it. People should not be turned off from lifting heavy by such statements.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#308

Post by hombre_fatal »

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.

If that were true, then protein powder would be satiating (it's not) and potatoes wouldn't be the most satiating food.

This is just more bro-science chained onto bro-science.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#309

Post by oarfish »

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.

these days your better of not reading that, probably. bunch of outdated and bad advice coming from that corner.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#310

Post by oarfish »

amelius wrote: post #17
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.

How about making muscles fail by stretching them under load?

akshually theres quite some interesting data on this. it has been shown that stretching alone can indeed produce hypertrophy (in birds and humans), but the required protocols are so intense that you wont want to do them (i think its hours in incredibly uncomfortable positions), so dynamic exercise still wins.

One would also expect it not to do as much for strenght, since adaptations are somewhat specific to the training.

Post reply on HN