It's official: Heavy Weights Beats Extra Hours in Gym

[Elvia1023]

I completely agree with the last 3 posts. The 1st 100% but of course it's a very simple way to look at things. The reply is 100% but as mentioned the guy should be able to do both and he should know that because he should be training in different rep ranges. You use bench as an example and I know many hate that exercise but given that as an example he should be doing working sets of 5-8, 10-12 and 15-20 through the year as examples.

To add to things if the guy is not optimally connecting to his chest (lot's of shoulders and tri-ceps) for 5 reps of 405 he could have a much better chest sticking to lighter weights (315 for 10-12 for example). Obviously if he is connecting optimally at 405 then great but form is often a much over looked variable by some when they are simply trying to get as strong as possible. I benched 4+ plates a side for years and my chest was crap which is a prime example of that (my form wasn't even bad). I see lot's of guys who also squat very heavy and have shit legs. Now the key is trying to optimize all variables and if that means pulling back on weight in order to connect to the muscle more effectively it should be done.

 

[jeroendebleser]

I completely agree with the last 3 posts. The 1st 100% but of course it's a very simple way to look at things. The reply is 100% but as mentioned the guy should be able to do both and he should know that because he should be training in different rep ranges. You use bench as an example and I know many hate that exercise but given that as an example he should be doing working sets of 5-8, 10-12 and 15-20 through the year as examples.

To add to things if the guy is not optimally connecting to his chest (lot's of shoulders and tri-ceps) for 5 reps of 405 he could have a much better chest sticking to lighter weights (315 for 10-12 for example). Obviously if he is connecting optimally at 405 then great but form is often a much over looked variable by some when they are simply trying to get as strong as possible. I benched 4+ plates a side for years and my chest was crap which is a prime example of that (my form wasn't even bad). I see lot's of guys who also squat very heavy and have shit legs. Now the key is trying to optimize all variables and if that means pulling back on weight in order to connect to the muscle more effectively it should be done.

Very true. People get too caught up in constantly adding weight to the bar and forget to optimally train the target muscle. I've also seen my fair share of stickboys moving some serious weight. It's not as simple as that.

 

[CONTRACTOR 47]

Very true. People get too caught up in constantly adding weight to the bar and forget to optimally train the target muscle. I've also seen my fair share of stickboys moving some serious weight. It's not as simple as that.

Stick boys..LOL. But your right. Seen some guys that look like they've never touched a weight
in there life but come in and do signals of 275 on bench. Like WTF. But that's all they do. Time will
catch up and be like me with 35lbs of titanium steal rods and screws holding them together.

 

[L2o9]

Research does show that heavier weight puts more stress on the greatest amount of motor units. When lifting lighter weights there are some motor units that don't get called on at all, or minimally. In a light weight set those units can come in toward the end of the set when failure starts to set in, but earlier in the set they aren't very active.

This is key. The lighter you train, the closer to failure you have to be for a set to be "effective". The heavier you train, the less important is to reach failure. Training with heavy weights is more time-efficient and probably has more beneficial effects for connective tissue and bone health (if doing it correctly).

The other thing is that people tend to misinterpret that "heavy weight" = "more tension in the muscle". This is not necessarily true. You also see the typical "I see skinny guys with little muscle being able to bench a lot" as a kind of example that heavier weights are no better than lighter weights. These two things are related: you can move more weight by technique and REDUCE the tension on the muscle. So a good presser will move more weight in the bench press with less tension on the chest, as he will recruit more muscles to move the weight. Effectively, in this case, lifting more weight in the bench press will not derive in more tension and hence more hypertrophy. Lifting is a skill, so you can improve your lifts without increasing the tension in the target muscle.

 

[jeroendebleser]

This is key. The lighter you train, the closer to failure you have to be for a set to be "effective". The heavier you train, the less important is to reach failure. Training with heavy weights is more time-efficient and probably has more beneficial effects for connective tissue and bone health (if doing it correctly).

The other thing is that people tend to misinterpret that "heavy weight" = "more tension in the muscle". This is not necessarily true. You also see the typical "I see skinny guys with little muscle being able to bench a lot" as a kind of example that heavier weights are no better than lighter weights. These two things are related: you can move more weight by technique and REDUCE the tension on the muscle. So a good presser will move more weight in the bench press with less tension on the chest, as he will recruit more muscles to move the weight. Effectively, in this case, lifting more weight in the bench press will not derive in more tension and hence more hypertrophy. Lifting is a skill, so you can improve your lifts without increasing the tension in the target muscle.

Well said my man!

 

[maldorf]

This is key. The lighter you train, the closer to failure you have to be for a set to be "effective". The heavier you train, the less important is to reach failure. Training with heavy weights is more time-efficient and probably has more beneficial effects for connective tissue and bone health (if doing it correctly).

The other thing is that people tend to misinterpret that "heavy weight" = "more tension in the muscle". This is not necessarily true. You also see the typical "I see skinny guys with little muscle being able to bench a lot" as a kind of example that heavier weights are no better than lighter weights. These two things are related: you can move more weight by technique and REDUCE the tension on the muscle. So a good presser will move more weight in the bench press with less tension on the chest, as he will recruit more muscles to move the weight. Effectively, in this case, lifting more weight in the bench press will not derive in more tension and hence more hypertrophy. Lifting is a skill, so you can improve your lifts without increasing the tension in the target muscle.

Exactly. I used to say that bodybuilding is a skill where you take a light weight and try to make it feel heavy.

 

[Creep]

I agree with the mindset that you had to have worked out heavy at some point in order to be able to carry a certain amount of mass later on in your career even though you don’t train as heavy any longer, you built that foundation early in your career

 

[Pericles]

Your muscles know tension. Doesn't matter if you fail at 5 or 12 reps. Taking a set to failure or close will ensure all fibers are recruited.

 

[maldorf]

Your muscles know tension. Doesn't matter if you fail at 5 or 12 reps. Taking a set to failure or close will ensure all fibers are recruited.

The stress placed on the fibers is much greater with heavier weight and the conditions the fibers are in is different, so the response is different. Go too light and you get very little growth,size. The difference between 5 and 12 reps probably isn't all that different though, as long as both are to failure and done in a similar fashion.

 

[TheOtherOne55]

I'm not sure LIGHTER is the right word here.
Weight and failure aren't on inverse planes. But intensity and volume are.

If you cannot train to 100% failure, then adding more volume and training to 80% SEEMS TO BE the next option.
No matter what you do, curling 10lbs to failure isn't going to make you grow.

There seems to be enough literature out there that shows that 75-100% of a 1RM and working in those confines (then adjusting volume) WILL WORK.

This is key. The lighter you train, the closer to failure you have to be for a set to be "effective". The heavier you train, the less important is to reach failure. Training with heavy weights is more time-efficient and probably has more beneficial effects for connective tissue and bone health (if doing it correctly).

The other thing is that people tend to misinterpret that "heavy weight" = "more tension in the muscle". This is not necessarily true. You also see the typical "I see skinny guys with little muscle being able to bench a lot" as a kind of example that heavier weights are no better than lighter weights. These two things are related: you can move more weight by technique and REDUCE the tension on the muscle. So a good presser will move more weight in the bench press with less tension on the chest, as he will recruit more muscles to move the weight. Effectively, in this case, lifting more weight in the bench press will not derive in more tension and hence more hypertrophy. Lifting is a skill, so you can improve your lifts without increasing the tension in the target muscle.

 

[Ds3317]

This is key. The lighter you train, the closer to failure you have to be for a set to be "effective". The heavier you train, the less important is to reach failure. Training with heavy weights is more time-efficient and probably has more beneficial effects for connective tissue and bone health (if doing it correctly).

The other thing is that people tend to misinterpret that "heavy weight" = "more tension in the muscle". This is not necessarily true. You also see the typical "I see skinny guys with little muscle being able to bench a lot" as a kind of example that heavier weights are no better than lighter weights. These two things are related: you can move more weight by technique and REDUCE the tension on the muscle. So a good presser will move more weight in the bench press with less tension on the chest, as he will recruit more muscles to move the weight. Effectively, in this case, lifting more weight in the bench press will not derive in more tension and hence more hypertrophy. Lifting is a skill, so you can improve your lifts without increasing the tension in the target muscle.

People say lots of things. Show me a small guy who can lift very heavy weights. You cannot get stronger without ultimately growing more muscle you can’t grow much larger without getting stronger. You can improve technique all you want but ultimately it is the muscle that is moving the weight. Progressive strength is the ultimate driver for growth.

 

[maldorf]

People say lots of things. Show me a small guy who can lift very heavy weights. You cannot get stronger without ultimately growing more muscle you can’t grow much larger without getting stronger. You can improve technique all you want but ultimately it is the muscle that is moving the weight. Progressive strength is the ultimate driver for growth.

The only thing that throws a monkey wrench into things is the genetic freaks that are just naturally strong. I remember a friend I had at the gym, and he weighed maybe 185 lbs tops. Not a big guy at all, and wasn't very muscular. He was fit, but looked like a fairly regular guy. He would rep out 315 on the bench for 12 reps or more, like it was no big deal. I was about 230 lbs and was a lot more muscular than him, looked strong. I could only manage 315 for about 3 or 4.

On squat I was stronger than bench and could handle some weight, but legs were not a strong point for me as far as how they looked. So you cant always judge a book by its cover. But, to get stronger, a person is going to need to put on some muscle eventually especially if they are already trained. There are guys out there that are a lot stronger than they look, and vice versa.

 

[xpoc]

People say lots of things. Show me a small guy who can lift very heavy weights. You cannot get stronger without ultimately growing more muscle you can’t grow much larger without getting stronger. You can improve technique all you want but ultimately it is the muscle that is moving the weight. Progressive strength is the ultimate driver for growth.

OK but strength is relative. It's not simply adding more weight to the bar. It could be adding more reps. It could be adding more time under tension with the same weight OR even less weight. It could be reducing rest time between sets. It could be switching form to make it MORE difficult by increasing range of motion or reducing leverage (think powerlifting bench press vs guillotine press). I think too many guys get caught up into thinking "progressive overload" and adding more weight are synonymous. I for one would argue, I use less weight and got much bigger even at an advanced age.

 

[xpoc]

Once again, I am being specific to HYPERTROPHY (growing muscle). The attached video link is an example of a guy who is VERY strong. Good form, controlled movement, etc. but he is small at 154lbs. If he competed in bodybuilding he would be in the 130's. BUT, he is using far more weight on the bench than I ever saw Dennis Newman, Troy Zucco, Shawn Ray, Boyer Coe, Rory L. or others who trained in OC back in the day. I don't care what science says, I have seen it first hand for decades. More weight on the bar does not mean more muscle on your body. It certainly CAN mean that (Yates, Coleman, Peters, and so many othes). But for all them, there is guy who used far less weight and still made it to the top (Lee Haney, Shawn Ray, Frank Zane). Many ways to skin a cat. I think moving barbaric pounds is incredibly effective. But at the same time, the cost of long term health is 100-fold that over guys like I previously mentioned who chose moderate weights and looked for other ways to create stimulus rather than simply adding more iron to the bar.

 

[Lilleo187]

People say lots of things. Show me a small guy who can lift very heavy weights. You cannot get stronger without ultimately growing more muscle you can’t grow much larger without getting stronger. You can improve technique all you want but ultimately it is the muscle that is moving the weight. Progressive strength is the ultimate driver for growth.

 

[L2o9]

I'm not sure LIGHTER is the right word here.
Weight and failure aren't on inverse planes. But intensity and volume are.

If you cannot train to 100% failure, then adding more volume and training to 80% SEEMS TO BE the next option.
No matter what you do, curling 10lbs to failure isn't going to make you grow.

There seems to be enough literature out there that shows that 75-100% of a 1RM and working in those confines (then adjusting volume) WILL WORK.

Yes, lighter is the correct word. There is a threshold in which if you go too light then you get less response, but the lower threshold in which it would "work" is around 40% 1RM (but these metrics are not very good).

But, as you go towards the lower threshold you get into problems, such as not really reaching failure (it is very uncomfortable and you'll probably stop way before failure when your muscle is burning) and increased recovery time after you train.

People say lots of things. Show me a small guy who can lift very heavy weights. You cannot get stronger without ultimately growing more muscle you can’t grow much larger without getting stronger. You can improve technique all you want but ultimately it is the muscle that is moving the weight. Progressive strength is the ultimate driver for growth.

There are lot of examples, as shown above. The key is getting stronger in the >1-2RM rep range. You can certainly gain a lot of strength in a 1RM lift without gaining much muscle.

 

[stephenj37826]

Yes, but Juan is also very strong. He may not use massive weights at every training session, but the point is that his body can lift those kind of weights...which is the main reason he is the size he is. I saw the guy inclining 4 plates for quite a few reps on one of his videos from a couple years ago. If he was not capable of lifting that kind of weight, his chest would not be nearly as big as it is. He had to first reach that level of strength in order to build that size.

There are a lot of "volume" trainers out there who are very strong. For example, a lot of people have said "look at Cutler...he uses lighter weights for a lot of sets, with short rest periods...and focuses on the pump...and he is huge!" This is true...partially. What they often neglect to realize is that Jay was ALSO enormously strong and was capable of incline pressing 405 x 14 reps (saw him do it on video), flat benching 550 x 2 reps...squatting with 7 plates, doing barbell rows with 4.5 plates (per side, of course), and a bunch of other similarly impressive lifts. The guy was strong as hell. He never would have reached the size he had if he hadn't gotten that strong. He just didn't "always" use those kind if weights during training, but his body retained the ability to.

The point here is that a volume approach can work for getting massive IF it allows the person to become very strong. This does not mean they have to constantly push huge weights in the gym, but if their body is not continually getting stronger (the ability to push heavier and heavier weights), then neither are their muscles. Their muscles grow with their strength levels.

Like with most bodybuilders, even the pros known for a high volume approach, such as Ronnie, Jay, Arnold, etc...all stopped growing when their strength gains stopped. They were all also very strong. For all of those guys...and many others, they continued growing throughout their careers as their strength levels rose...and when their strength gains stopped, so did their size gains, regardless of how many sets they performed in the gym or how pumped they got.

All of those men were at their very largest when their strength was at its peak. Again, this does not mean they were always pushing maximum weights in the gym, but it does mean their bodies were capable of doing so...and as that capability increased, so did the size of their muscles.

The guys who are able to get very strong with a pump-based, high volume approach are the guys who get very big with a high volume approach. The guys who don't get very string with a high volume approach are the guys who stay small. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of guys out there who struggle to make considerable strength gains with a high volume approach, especially after using it for a while.

This is not an anti-volume post...because I do think that volume training offers certain benefits that can "add" to the size gains made through strength increases...but when evaluated on their own, they're not impressive. In other words, someone can get as pumped as possible at every workout and experience extreme metabolic waste build-up...yet if their strength level stay the same, so will their size. They may gain a small amount of size through increased glycogen storage and fluid retention, but it will be very minor and quickly reach its limit.

I concur 100%. Volume is 100% a waste of time for me. The lockdown really showed me this. I have a lot of equipment at home but mostly freight stuff. I e gained more size in the 2 months the gym was closed than I did the previous 6 months. The difference? I went heavy vs volume. My workout partner has a bad back and we do lots of volume. I went back to lifting heavy like I personally enjoy and everyone noticed a difference. My genetics are crap apparently but we work with what we got lol.

 

[madg]

The only thing that throws a monkey wrench into things is the genetic freaks that are just naturally strong. I remember a friend I had at the gym, and he weighed maybe 185 lbs tops. Not a big guy at all, and wasn't very muscular. He was fit, but looked like a fairly regular guy. He would rep out 315 on the bench for 12 reps or more, like it was no big deal. I was about 230 lbs and was a lot more muscular than him, looked strong. I could only manage 315 for about 3 or 4.

On squat I was stronger than bench and could handle some weight, but legs were not a strong point for me as far as how they looked. So you cant always judge a book by its cover. But, to get stronger, a person is going to need to put on some muscle eventually especially if they are already trained. There are guys out there that are a lot stronger than they look, and vice versa.

Agree

Guy i was deployed with, boxer , could bench 160 kg for 10 at 80 kg and i couldnt even get 6 and i was 3 times as wide as him

Tendons of steel ?

 

[TheOtherOne55]

This entire thread needs to be broken down into STRENGTH gains and HYPERTROPHY muscle mass gains.
You'll end up going in a circle if you talk about both. MY quote was about muscle mass gains.
As a former competitive PLer, i understand the strength process and the need to push your CNS in order to adapt to the heavy weight.

Either or, MOST GUYS ON HERE aren't looking to bench 500lbs. They want to LOOK LIKE they can bench 500lbs.
Simple as that. And both have very different ways to get there. Yes, there are ways to do both and it can be done. But I would train a person very diff if they just asked me, "help me look huge" vs "help me break my state squat record."

Yes, lighter is the correct word. There is a threshold in which if you go too light then you get less response, but the lower threshold in which it would "work" is around 40% 1RM (but these metrics are not very good).

But, as you go towards the lower threshold you get into problems, such as not really reaching failure (it is very uncomfortable and you'll probably stop way before failure when your muscle is burning) and increased recovery time after you train.

 

[b-boy]

I always laugh at this argument and how people use different pro bodybuilders to prove their point of which is more effective.

My personal findings: I have been train since age 13, I'm 48yrs old now, I have trained brutally heavy and I have trained much lighter with more volume, right now I am training with bands and still just as big as I have always been, in my personal opinion the major factor in training is using immense intensity! When I use to incline bench 405 for 7 reps that required immense intensity, now when I use 200-225 going 10 sec positive and 10 sec negative to complete failure this requires immense intensity and one of the reasons I have continued to grow after my joints could no longer put 405 pounds on the bar anymore. INTENSITY is the key IMHO.