Article: Heavy Or Light?
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
jack_black
Member
Why do these crappy studies always involve leg extensions and Tom Platz was a freak! Those high rep sets were still with an assload of weight.
andreaelmeyer
New member
I agree, I think high reps have their place but that study is ridiculous. They did ONE KIND of exercise. I would also be interested to see how different the results would be if they had the subjects do compound or any other kind of exercise. I really do not think that the single study here is the "be all end all" to building muscle. Also as a woman who has beem busting my ass to build muscle, I have found that going heavy (singles and triples or as hgih as five reps) has worked great for me. If it is an isolation exercise or I want to change it up MIGHT go 8 to 10...but that is just my experience.
Ducoteycd
New member
Except that this study doesn't use Tom Platz at all, nor is he compared to anybody else...
Platz was used as an example by Stoppani that high reps can build muscle, but nowhere in the study does it mention Tom Platz
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Relative my friend, relative to him it was light weight.
The results are true. If you disagree, its probably because you are still in your beginner phase of lifting and still seeing gains from lifting sub 6 rep routines where you are pushing 90% of your 1RM for a set or two.
Strength training is inevitable for growth at some point. I've nearly hit the wall on my higher rep schemes - but it took 6 years to get there. Time for strength training to raise my working set lifts by 10% or more.
Like I've said in the past, if building muscle is your aim, 2/3 of your time should be spend on higher rep schemes (something between 10-30 reps) and 1/3 of your time should be spend on strength training using something like 5/3/1 or 7 X 3 protocol. Otherwise your mass gains will stall a few months into strength training and injuries will start becoming perpetual since it isn't natural nor is it safe for your joints long-term to do strength training continuously.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
The rules for growth are the same for steroid users. Dont fool yourself to justify not training like they do.
Fact is, people like to come up with excuses, and as expected, the "roid card" is used more often than not. No one gets excited about 10-20 reps for 12-16 sets with only 60-90 second breaks. Thats just harder than the average bear can handle.
If anything, steroid users can get away with lifting less often and going for heavier reps and still see gains. This is especially true for those using GH.
If you aren't using anything to help you along, then you have no excuse. GH release is positively correlated to number of repetitions. The more reps, the more GH release.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Well thanks Ric. Most dont want to listen to me though lol. Its almost like I need to post my track record and current stats in my sig or sumthin to get folks to believe or trust me.
drFLEXxin88
New member
With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Steroids are cheats to gains your body can only sustain while taking the steroids. Packing on muscle naturally takes much more work, persistence and dedication. Steroids are an easy yet expensive way to getting easy muscle gains and almost any routine will work with them.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Have u tried them? I'm just checkin because I've seen too many guys on here that talk down about pro bb'ers and talk up the roids and they havent ever tried them. Seriously, too many folks r victims of mainstream media.
Btw, u are correct in that they make things easier.. at first. But honestly, when u start to approach that matured mass level (this is different for everyone) - steroids give diminishing returns. They really do. I'm not lying brother.
Thing is, I can say from personal experience that without the appropriate diet and consistent training, steroids provide very little benefit or maintainable gains. So in part I agree with u but in other ways, I think its being up-played too much. They dont do the work for u especially when u've started to mature in muscle mass. They enhance performance but they wont empty the dinner plate for u and they wont force u to sleep a full 8 hours and they certainly wont encourage u to go to the gym consistenly. Often times, they do just the opposite - meaning u have to have EVEN MORE discipline and resolve to follow thru.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
And also, we can agree to disagree.
Again though, we're not talkin about whats easier to get results from. We know steroids do this. But I challenge the notion that u have to do something different to get said results. I think based on past experience and research that u have to do the exact same thing with or without steroids.
Again though, we're not talkin about whats easier to get results from. We know steroids do this. But I challenge the notion that u have to do something different to get said results. I think based on past experience and research that u have to do the exact same thing with or without steroids.
drFLEXxin88
New member
Nope haven't tried them. A good friend of mine who has competed in The michigan BB show openly told me all about his experiences with steroids and hgh. I personally would not take them because I pride myself in being natural but I obviously can see why people take them lol. I guess what I was trying to say is that I feel like the results of a study that used subjects on steroids can be inaccurate for a reader like me because the steroids magnified the results and if I followed the same routine then I would not see the same results
fueledpassion
Well-known member
I think u would, just not to the same extent perhaps. Most of the weight gain from steroids is fleeting anyways.
Instead of 5lbs gained, u might see 2. Instead of 1" circumference increase, u might be 1/2". You get the drift.
6andaHalf
Active member
Seems the responses this pertains to are gone but I'll say it anyway...
If you haven't done steroids, your argument lacks the needed experience to make a assumption that they make everything "easy". Not all steroids work well to begin with. I've made more progress in a few short years naturally than I have with the two cycles I've ran. FAR more progress.
Muscle is extremely slow going nomatter how you slice it. Most middle level compounds only give a small "boost". The work and effort are still VERY real.
If you haven't done steroids, your argument lacks the needed experience to make a assumption that they make everything "easy". Not all steroids work well to begin with. I've made more progress in a few short years naturally than I have with the two cycles I've ran. FAR more progress.
Muscle is extremely slow going nomatter how you slice it. Most middle level compounds only give a small "boost". The work and effort are still VERY real.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
I appreciate that support man. I agree 100% as this is consistent with what I have experienced.
drFLEXxin88
New member
No assumption needed. Steroids are hormones. Hormones are messengers in they body, the message they deliver are "repair and build muscle." obviously with excessive hormones circulating through your body you will automatically produce more muscle mass no matter what you do. Try setting goals and put in the effort to reach them without all those synthetic hormones in your body. It takes much more hard work!
6andaHalf
Active member
Please read before commenting. I have made far more progress without steroids.
I actually have experience on both sides of the fence so maybe a little open mindedness would enable you to understand that steroids (an EXTREMELY broad word btw) don't just put muscle on you. Especially because you will lose much of what you gained after ward. Yes, on cycle you see above average results.... but that's not the hard part in the slightest. PCT is for maintaining "some" of the muscle that you gained.
Not trying to be rude, but you have no idea because you have never tried any of the 1,000s of types out there. None, so of course you think that, everyone does until they try them haha.
I actually have experience on both sides of the fence so maybe a little open mindedness would enable you to understand that steroids (an EXTREMELY broad word btw) don't just put muscle on you. Especially because you will lose much of what you gained after ward. Yes, on cycle you see above average results.... but that's not the hard part in the slightest. PCT is for maintaining "some" of the muscle that you gained.
Not trying to be rude, but you have no idea because you have never tried any of the 1,000s of types out there. None, so of course you think that, everyone does until they try them haha.
6andaHalf
Active member
Yea man, it only took one post to see you know your stuff.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
The truth lies somewhere in between. I've packed on pounds both ways personally.
You ever heard of androgen receptor desensitization? Most guys who havent used them wouldnt know this but each passing cycle brings about a less responsive nervous system. The "message" u speak of gets quieter and quieter to the point that the body has little response to it at all. So perpetual cycles or ongoing use loses effectiveness.
The only reason I insist on remarking to ur last post is because I feel that natty guys are leaning on their pride and a twist of denial about why they arent further along than they should be. Its an epic excuse to accept mediocrity in urself by looking at other success stories and totally neglecting their efforts and give all the credit to hormones.
Technically, u could say the same about another "natty" guy that is blessed with better genetics than urself. Just another excuse to lay belly up, imo. Not sayin u r this, but when guys respond like this it just appears as a self-righteous person with a chip on their shoulder about anyone who does things "the easy way". Even worse, ur perspective isnt a multi-dimensional one. Your opinion serves ur pride, but not necessarily the truth. I dont say this harshly or flippantly. I'm just stating how it looks to others.
You ever heard of androgen receptor desensitization? Most guys who havent used them wouldnt know this but each passing cycle brings about a less responsive nervous system. The "message" u speak of gets quieter and quieter to the point that the body has little response to it at all. So perpetual cycles or ongoing use loses effectiveness.
The only reason I insist on remarking to ur last post is because I feel that natty guys are leaning on their pride and a twist of denial about why they arent further along than they should be. Its an epic excuse to accept mediocrity in urself by looking at other success stories and totally neglecting their efforts and give all the credit to hormones.
Technically, u could say the same about another "natty" guy that is blessed with better genetics than urself. Just another excuse to lay belly up, imo. Not sayin u r this, but when guys respond like this it just appears as a self-righteous person with a chip on their shoulder about anyone who does things "the easy way". Even worse, ur perspective isnt a multi-dimensional one. Your opinion serves ur pride, but not necessarily the truth. I dont say this harshly or flippantly. I'm just stating how it looks to others.
ricroc
Well-known member
Agree 100%!
ricroc
Well-known member
It's their loss. I always gain a better understanding on what you post.
It's one thing I've gleaned over the years about gathering info and using what's applicable at that time.
EatMoar
Well-known member
I find this true. My chest has grown substantially from doing more volume/super sets than it ever did with just 5x5 bench/incline.
Actually I was talking to an old school power lifter at my gym who lifted heavy for a very long time. He said once he plataued he switched it up to a 15+ rep scheme for everything and he blew up and broke all his pleatues when he hopped back on the power lifting train the next year.
Also I've been doing should press 12-15 reps for 6-7 sets and its grown my shoulders like no other.
Just adding to the proof
drFLEXxin88
New member
then what was the reason to take them?
drFLEXxin88
New member
I personally don't care whether you guys do steroids or not. Although I would rather you don't because they are dangerous for your long term health. I'm in the best shape of my life and personally am proud of my results. I'm not trying to hate on your guys success stories because you take steroids, however, I stand by the fact that they had much to do with your gains. I'm not taking away your efforts but I would be much more impressed with your progress/physiques if you challenged your body to produce them by the bodies natural pathways. You already produce hormones and by injecting or orally taking synthetic versions then you are playing with fire, but I guess this is like a non smoker telling a smoker that cigarettes are bad lol which is why I don't care what you do. Just stating my own opinion bro.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Thats fair enough. Fortunately, I dont do AAS at this point. I have done 4-6 week ph cycles recently but I've repented of being unlawful at least.
For what its worth, the concept of cycling is to counter the long term adverse effects. Its discouraging to me though that there are plenty of folks that do all the right things and avoid all the harmful drugs and still drop dead before the age of 50 from heart disease or catch lung cancer having never smoked a cigarette in their life.
In that regard, I keep in mind that I'm just a sojourner in this life passin thru and no matter how much control I like to think I have over my health, I could still die tonight unexpectedly. I agree that it isnt healthy overall l. I'll leave it at that.
samo
New member
In your eyes "us steroid users are cheats"
In my eyes we are just that bit more dedicated.
Not knock it unless you've tried it
lee_gomo
New member
This is very true also for me. I have been stuck at 160 kg squat 200 kg dead lift and 150kg bench for months after reading and researching I switched my reps up to 15 reps for 4-5 sets for a few months with around 60% 1RM and found the gains to be awesome I was constantly asked what I were taking. But the other thing I change was diet I are like a horse after the gym until I couldn't eat any more now I am bigger and stronger then ever. 200 kg squat 250 kg dead lift 180 kg bench oh and I am 95 kg.
6andaHalf
Active member
To gain muscle. Cycles only last "X" amount of time. I've trained naturally 20x as much as I've cycled, hence gaining more naturally in my life. Steroids only gave me slightly better than natural results when all was said and done after PCT. Not all roids are highly noticeable like you might think. No one I knew suspected anything.
Its minimal dude, I wasn't pinning test and taking dbol or anything man... that's why I say steroids are a terribly general term to use. Way too broad.
btw keeping gains after a cycle is 5x harder than gaining naturally. There's your hard work and effort. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
rockme
Member
This article makes a poor argument for light weights. First of all, who does leg ext for 4 reps? That will do jack squat. Of course 25 reps is going to be more effective than 4 reps on leg ext. why? Because its a friggin leg ext! Second, compare doing free weight barbell squats for sets of 4 against sets of 25. sets of 4 will produce a bigger, thicker, stronger human being... And I'm pretty sure that's what most of us want. Plus, platz was a juiced up freak. You cannot use him as an example.
EatMoar
Well-known member
You're implying that you can not get stronger using higher reps and this is completely.wrong.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
I'm not gonna say anyone is wrong about this or that. Obviously, everyone has an opinion based on their experiences.
What I'm trying to understand is this --> How lifter X has had great success with 1-5 rep ranges for size and how lifter Y has not had success with it at all.
I'm lifter Y. High reps have undoubtedly worked well for me far beyond heavier loads with lower rep schemes. The fact that I've put on 50lbs of mass, about 42lbs of muscle, in 6 years having never done a SINGLE strength training protocol says something about lowering the weight and getting quality, high volume, extremely high intensity lifts for maximum muscle gains.
High intensity, high volume correlates to GH release. Low rep, heavy weight correlates to Testosterone production. So for the natty guys, BOTH is necessary for a well-rounded physique, IMO. I dont know a single person that has actually grown more than a few lbs by staying on a heavy weight scheme. The guys that I see that are perpetually lifting heavy, never going lighter and bangin out reps...those guys were already overweight @ 250+lbs. I also never see them get lean with that scheme either. Not to say heavy weight-lifting isn't good - it is. From a scientific and anecdotal standpoint, it isn't the best option for building the muscle. There is gobs of studies indicating that 8-15 rep ranges, or even higher in some muscle groups like legs, is best for fast growth. If you are an athlete, it also makes sense to focus on strength and power, too. But understand that your coach tells you to do more strength and power training because its more applicable to your need as an athlete. This doesn't mean that strength and power training are superior to mass-building routines like the bodybuilders do. Each serves a purpose is what I'm getting at.
My experience lines up with the studies and what this article talks about too and I'm certainly not alone on this either. Many others have started growing when they lowered the weight, focused on targeting muscles properly, using impeccable form and increasing the intensity via drop sets, giant sets, pause sets, supersets, etc.
What I'm trying to understand is this --> How lifter X has had great success with 1-5 rep ranges for size and how lifter Y has not had success with it at all.
I'm lifter Y. High reps have undoubtedly worked well for me far beyond heavier loads with lower rep schemes. The fact that I've put on 50lbs of mass, about 42lbs of muscle, in 6 years having never done a SINGLE strength training protocol says something about lowering the weight and getting quality, high volume, extremely high intensity lifts for maximum muscle gains.
High intensity, high volume correlates to GH release. Low rep, heavy weight correlates to Testosterone production. So for the natty guys, BOTH is necessary for a well-rounded physique, IMO. I dont know a single person that has actually grown more than a few lbs by staying on a heavy weight scheme. The guys that I see that are perpetually lifting heavy, never going lighter and bangin out reps...those guys were already overweight @ 250+lbs. I also never see them get lean with that scheme either. Not to say heavy weight-lifting isn't good - it is. From a scientific and anecdotal standpoint, it isn't the best option for building the muscle. There is gobs of studies indicating that 8-15 rep ranges, or even higher in some muscle groups like legs, is best for fast growth. If you are an athlete, it also makes sense to focus on strength and power, too. But understand that your coach tells you to do more strength and power training because its more applicable to your need as an athlete. This doesn't mean that strength and power training are superior to mass-building routines like the bodybuilders do. Each serves a purpose is what I'm getting at.
My experience lines up with the studies and what this article talks about too and I'm certainly not alone on this either. Many others have started growing when they lowered the weight, focused on targeting muscles properly, using impeccable form and increasing the intensity via drop sets, giant sets, pause sets, supersets, etc.
rockme
Member
You should elaborate on your response if you're going to disagree with someone... Anyways, high rep schemes have their place in training protocol. As I alluded to earlier, exercises such as leg extensions, leg curls, db rows, etc I will perform at 10-20 reps. However, these are accessory exercises, and are not responsible for the mass. The big 4 lifts I always keep at 3-8 reps and sometimes even go down to a single. If an individual is on AAS, he will surely grow on a high rep scheme. I've trained natty for 15 years now, and my best gains come when I go heavy. I think it is necessary for nattys to go heavy if they want to optimize gains.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Really though, I think any rep scheme will only last so long before results stop. Nothing can be done perpetually and continue to get similar if any results year after year.
EatMoar
Well-known member
Indeed, gotta cycle what you do. rockme I agree with you, but when you're natural and you come to a point where you plateau hard with heavy lifts it is time to switch up the rep scheme. Eben though I go higher rep now, for my compounds ill go as low as 8 and as high as 15 . aux lifts I'll go as high at 30.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Thats what I do too. It works well.
rockme
Member
This post made me laugh a little...mainly because there is some truth to it as well as some falsehood. I'm a lifelong natty, and have often times been accused of being "on something." Many of these individuals were merely justifying their lack of results by assuming this. However, many nattys are good at what they do and achieve great results, sometimes even surpassing those on AAS. Would I like to be bigger and stronger? Sure... but not at the expense of other facets in life. The reasons for opting to not take AAS are numerous. Career, health, hair loss, family, longevity, cosmetic damage, etc. AAS are not a magic bullet, but when you have the test levels of eight men, you better look damn good I say.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Yeah my feathers were ruffled in that last post, lol.
8 times normal T? Even having taken AAS I wouldn't know what that feels like lol.
8 times normal T? Even having taken AAS I wouldn't know what that feels like lol.
compudog
Well-known member
The article opens with anecdotal evidence spanning a few careers (presumably of dedicated, successful lifters), then goes on to base it's conclusion on experimental data spanning perhaps a few weeks, gathered from (likely) an essentially non-lifting population. This is a logical error called "argument from authority". It shows a lack of critical thinking skills, which is sadly pretty common nowadays. Just to spell it out clearly, there's no *real* reason to prefer the experimental data over the anecdotal data. The experimental data is clearly thin, whereas the anecdotal data is clearly "stronger", pun intended. It's up to the author to determine which data should have more "weight", they shouldn't prefer one over the other just because it has the word "study" in the title.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
That's a cordial response and I appreciate it. Regarding the bold section, I am considering PED's that do this rather than replacing my own these days. Instead of GH, its GHRP's. Instead of TRT, it's Clomid. Granted, still not "natty" but its probably as safe as being natty in that regard.
The results I would have gotten without steroids is no doubt less than what I have gotten. There is no denying that.