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

51–60 of 371 posts

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#51

Post by allan_s »

d-us-vb wrote: post #31
zemvpferreira wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth noting that muscle is not all the same. If you’re just into bodybuilding then sure, proximity to failure is what matters. For athletics though, there still seems to be a big impact in the rep range you work in.

This. Muscles can be optimized for volume/endurance or power, or some balance between them. Taking legs as an example: Powerlifters obviously go for pure power, whereas runners need a bit of power but mostly endurance, whereas cyclists need more power than runners but more endurance than powerlifters. All of these benefit from weight training, but depending on the sport, the programming will be very different.

I think I know where they're coming from as I used to have a similar wrong model. I thought strength = more muscle cells and endurance = just better heart/lungs to deliver oxygen and clear waste like CO2 and lactic acid.

Turns out muscle fibers mostly grow bigger rather than more numerous, and there are different fiber types (slow-twitch vs fast-twitch) that adapt based on how you train. So for the same muscle, an Ironman runner and a guy doing heavy low-rep squats will develop different fiber characteristics: you can't fully max out both.

I'm simplifying, but learning this changed a lot about how I understand exercise at the biological level.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#52

Post by teecha »

elevaet wrote: post #9
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.

What about the old gym adage "training to failure is failing to train" - is there any physiological basis for this, or is it mental, or just a myth?

not an expert, 2 years of serious lifting, but this is probably a good adage for the average person from my current understanding

training to failure puts you at higher risk of injury and there are diminishing returns as you approach your 1 rep max and/or failure

hypertrophy can happen with more reps or more weight

strength gains are usually just focused on progressive overload

though, of course, hypertrophy will happen either way and contributes to increased strength, but this seems to be further confirmation that you can gain muscle size either way

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#53

Post by amelius »

overhead4075 wrote: post #30
amelius wrote: post #16

Wait, why are we figuring this out only now?

A paper doesn't necessarily mean the information is new, but that there is now some/more evidence to support it.

True, but this kind of information is so basic it almost fits in the "world is round" category.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#54

Post by rorytbyrne »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #48
rorytbyrne wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom) It is strength training (not body builder) wisdom to use heavy weights with few reps. Hypertrophy (i.e. body builder) programmes usually call for 8-12 reps, which implies relatively low weights.

is "8-12" not "few" for you?

Relatively speaking, no. Strength training (as opposed to hypertrophy) calls for fewer reps, around 5 per set.

Many people advise spending about a year doing more sets of fewer (~5) reps to build strength, and then switch to fewer sets of more reps (8-12) when you want to build muscle mass.

Point being, the idea of doing lighter weights until failure is already kind of there in body building wisdom.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#55

Post by nzeid »

elevaet wrote: post #9
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.

What about the old gym adage "training to failure is failing to train" - is there any physiological basis for this, or is it mental, or just a myth?

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.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#56

Post by bob1029 »

weinzierl wrote: post #5

If I read this correctly the gist is that it does not matter if you use heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom) or lighter weights with more reps. As long as you always exercise to complete muscle fatigue you'll get the maximum for your genetics (which itself varies a lot).

There's no way this works in practice. A lot of heavy lifting (maximums) is about neurology and mind-body training. You cannot develop the ability to deadlift 405lbs by spending 2 hours using a cable crossover machine every day. Picking up something that weighs 2x more than you do requires your brain to send an extremely strong, synchronized signal. This is something that takes a lot of practice to develop. You have to consistently push your maximum voluntary effort in order to expand this capacity.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#57

Post by jjj123 »

bob1029 wrote: post #56
weinzierl wrote: post #5

If I read this correctly the gist is that it does not matter if you use heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom) or lighter weights with more reps. As long as you always exercise to complete muscle fatigue you'll get the maximum for your genetics (which itself varies a lot).

There's no way this works in practice. A lot of heavy lifting (maximums) is about neurology and mind-body training. You cannot develop the ability to deadlift 405lbs by spending 2 hours using a cable crossover machine every day. Picking up something that weighs 2x more than you do requires your brain to send an extremely strong, synchronized signal. This is something that takes a lot of practice to develop. You have…

Right, but this post is about hypertrophy (big muscles). Not about heavy lifts.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#58

Post by throwaway6734 »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #48
rorytbyrne wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom) It is strength training (not body builder) wisdom to use heavy weights with few reps. Hypertrophy (i.e. body builder) programmes usually call for 8-12 reps, which implies relatively low weights.

is "8-12" not "few" for you?

1-3 is few

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#59

Post by SoftTalker »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #48
rorytbyrne wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heavy weights with few reps (common body builder wisdom) It is strength training (not body builder) wisdom to use heavy weights with few reps. Hypertrophy (i.e. body builder) programmes usually call for 8-12 reps, which implies relatively low weights.

is "8-12" not "few" for you?

3-5 reps per set for powerlifting training. Competition lifts are a single rep.

Re: Resistance training load does not determine hypertrophy

#60

Post by fudged71 »

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.

Brad Schoenfeld Has been on this body of work for a long time, and he is "Mr. Hypertrophy" in the field. So yes
Post reply on HN