Do You agree - If you want to build muscle and strength lift lighter weights higher reps?

PGM

Well-known member
Trusted Member
The article is below ... the author references 1, 12 week study on strength and muscle gain and the researcher found the participants strength levels were about the same except in the BP where the lower rep higher weight guys were stronger. A 12 week study, you are barely starting to accumulate strength after this time so stats are useless ... how about a year or a 2 years study ... I bet you would see a big difference in the two methods.

Well in my opinion and after numerous years of lifting experience. I was never stronger than when I was lifting heavy weights at lower volume. I was the weakest when I was doing high reps low weight. I don't care if the guy writing the article is a PHD, is head of Kinesiology at McMaster's University ... his Bio which I could not find did not reference any bodybuilding competitions that he had competed in or won, nor any powerlifting strongman competitions. So he had not practice any of these methods with enough effort to personally know what method worked. No respect.

https://www.mensjournal.com/health-...gain-strength-lift-lighter-weights-more-reps/
 
Last edited:
Take 2 identcal twins feed them the same , 1 guy go to failure in the 30 -40 rep range.
1 guy go to 5-10 range
Same food same same protein etc . With 1 year 5 days a week., same excercises.
Id think the high rep guy would be bigger and stronger , and his physic would last longer.

Then after i thought about this , id think the high rep guy would have to eat 300 calories more a day. Because i think he would burn more in the high rep range.

If you follow x3 and john janqiush he claimes low weight high reps .faster and bigger muscles
 
Last edited:
I think it’s important not to hang any hats on this one. The article itself points out some limiting factors and flaws with it such as size of the study itself, history, experience, previous training methods employed by each lifter, where they were in relation to a plateau, what other uncontrolled things factor in like fatigue, rest, injury, diet changes and how if at all were these considered etc etc etc.

One question that needs to be answered is why did the low rep heavy group outperform on the bench press? This I find interesting to note. Is that linked to dominant type of muscle present in the area being worked and it’s response to this stimulation method? Is it do to the type of exercise being it’s really the only free weight compound lift included here and all other were machine assisted? I’d like to see this study done on the big 3 (bench, squat and dead).

It would also be interesting to ask the powerlifting coach that was quoted in the article if he’s now changed his entire approach to training in his athletes he’s getting ready for a comp? I know there’s more going on for a prep than strength alone, however pure strength is obviously an important factor. If he’s backing this claim wholeheartedly, is he prepared to pull the plug entirely here? Why or why not? Perhaps one has to look at a far bigger picture to what the continual evolutionary process looks like? Not working a small relatively short term study. Perhaps these measured gains cam from a break of the proverbial mold in what these guys had been doing? Perhaps it comes down to the way they are measuring strength increase? Perhaps its a deload to some effect that helped snap through a plateau.

my take? Like everything in life.... variety is important. You can’t train heavy in the low rep range all the time. Not only does progress slow by doing the same thing all the time, risk of injury is inevitable for the most part. The body is very efficient and wants to limit things that cost it energy. Why because evolution over thousands and thousand of years has made it so. It constantly adapts so change is necessary for continuous growth. This is why new guys can slap on 30 lbs with decent effort but guys who have neared or even surpassed their physiological limits struggle to move the scale 5lbs. Well part of the story but that goes beyond the scope of this story.

one other thing I can say that I’ve learned is finite statements when it comes to the human body and how it’s fueled and how it behaves is impossible. There is truly nothing that works for everyone 110% of the time. We as humans want that so much to make things easy for us to understand, but it’s impossible. You see this approach to many things, not just diet and exercise. Like always.... the best answer usually starts with.... Well it depends. Diet and exercise subject matter is exponentially complicated because there’s just so much we don’t know about the body and how it behaves. What we do know though is yes some things work generally for everyone to at least some extent.... but where does the start and finish line begin and end? It’s not the same for everyone. And what is measured success exactly? Lines blur quite easily sometimes.

I know I’ve had some decent success with lower weights, high reps but it’s success hinged on other important factors such as time under tension, contraction and mind to muscle connection. However I will say it’s difficult to get past your ego on this approach because even though you are still training to failure in the end, you also feel lazy and maybe even self conscious to some degree. It can be a real mind fuck.

Regardless I think the message I’m attempting to convey here is never put all your eggs in one basket and make the mistake of believing one approach is the best one. We all benefit from change and the only way to truly know what works best for you is to do it and really commit to it before you pass judgement. Then you will know. We are all a little different in our make up and our comfort and that can also dictate success or failure. And despite the feeling of loss it can create, failure can be a good thing. It’s how we learn and evolve. We also have different reasons which depend on a lot of what we have learned and may choose one method over another based on what it affords us in other aspects of our lives and the specific goals we have at any given time.... because they do change for most of us over time.

I mean if @King56 had never introduced @The Old Guy and I to naked hot Zumba classes we may have missed out on our life calling.

it’s cliche I know but the saying variety is the spice of life can be employed in a lot of ways for overall success. Regardless still interesting discussion and there are certainly some takeaways but as I said in the first few lines.... not enough to stake a concrete claim and ditch the heavy sets forever.
 
"Increasing loads—with increasing volume, intensity, and weakness correction through accessory exercises—is really the only way to build strength,”

The guy could have saved a lot of time and effort and literally just wrote this as how to build muscle and strength.

The title is very misleading as he goes on later in the article to sort of contradict himself. The article is all over the place and could lead a bigginer down a wrong path or, at least a very confusing path.

It doesn't offer much of anything as far as Im concerned
 
I think it’s important not to hang any hats on this one. The article itself points out some limiting factors and flaws with it such as size of the study itself, history, experience, previous training methods employed by each lifter, where they were in relation to a plateau, what other uncontrolled things factor in like fatigue, rest, injury, diet changes and how if at all were these considered etc etc etc.

One question that needs to be answered is why did the low rep heavy group outperform on the bench press? This I find interesting to note. Is that linked to dominant type of muscle present in the area being worked and it’s response to this stimulation method? Is it do to the type of exercise being it’s really the only free weight compound lift included here and all other were machine assisted? I’d like to see this study done on the big 3 (bench, squat and dead).

It would also be interesting to ask the powerlifting coach that was quoted in the article if he’s now changed his entire approach to training in his athletes he’s getting ready for a comp? I know there’s more going on for a prep than strength alone, however pure strength is obviously an important factor. If he’s backing this claim wholeheartedly, is he prepared to pull the plug entirely here? Why or why not? Perhaps one has to look at a far bigger picture to what the continual evolutionary process looks like? Not working a small relatively short term study. Perhaps these measured gains cam from a break of the proverbial mold in what these guys had been doing? Perhaps it comes down to the way they are measuring strength increase? Perhaps its a deload to some effect that helped snap through a plateau.

my take? Like everything in life.... variety is important. You can’t train heavy in the low rep range all the time. Not only does progress slow by doing the same thing all the time, risk of injury is inevitable for the most part. The body is very efficient and wants to limit things that cost it energy. Why because evolution over thousands and thousand of years has made it so. It constantly adapts so change is necessary for continuous growth. This is why new guys can slap on 30 lbs with decent effort but guys who have neared or even surpassed their physiological limits struggle to move the scale 5lbs. Well part of the story but that goes beyond the scope of this story.

one other thing I can say that I’ve learned is finite statements when it comes to the human body and how it’s fueled and how it behaves is impossible. There is truly nothing that works for everyone 110% of the time. We as humans want that so much to make things easy for us to understand, but it’s impossible. You see this approach to many things, not just diet and exercise. Like always.... the best answer usually starts with.... Well it depends. Diet and exercise subject matter is exponentially complicated because there’s just so much we don’t know about the body and how it behaves. What we do know though is yes some things work generally for everyone to at least some extent.... but where does the start and finish line begin and end? It’s not the same for everyone. And what is measured success exactly? Lines blur quite easily sometimes.

I know I’ve had some decent success with lower weights, high reps but it’s success hinged on other important factors such as time under tension, contraction and mind to muscle connection. However I will say it’s difficult to get past your ego on this approach because even though you are still training to failure in the end, you also feel lazy and maybe even self conscious to some degree. It can be a real mind fuck.

Regardless I think the message I’m attempting to convey here is never put all your eggs in one basket and make the mistake of believing one approach is the best one. We all benefit from change and the only way to truly know what works best for you is to do it and really commit to it before you pass judgement. Then you will know. We are all a little different in our make up and our comfort and that can also dictate success or failure. And despite the feeling of loss it can create, failure can be a good thing. It’s how we learn and evolve. We also have different reasons which depend on a lot of what we have learned and may choose one method over another based on what it affords us in other aspects of our lives and the specific goals we have at any given time.... because they do change for most of us over time.

I mean if @King56 had never introduced @The Old Guy and I to naked hot Zumba classes we may have missed out on our life calling.

it’s cliche I know but the saying variety is the spice of life can be employed in a lot of ways for overall success. Regardless still interesting discussion and there are certainly some takeaways but as I said in the first few lines.... not enough to stake a concrete claim and ditch the heavy sets forever.

Over the years the low rep ...higher sets with relatively heavy weights has worked for me but it may not be the correct formula for everyone. Everyone one responds differently. To gain strength in the sense of pushing heavy weight for near max effort you can't do this if you are lifting light weights for high reps, I have tried when I did bodybuilding for a couple of years, my muscle size went up but my strength went way down. Paul Anderson and his training methods were an example of maximal strength with frequent low rep high poundage training. I do think you hit it on the nose when you said variety of exercises is important, as I think assistance exercises will help your major lifts. A look at Paul Anderson's routine

https://neckberg.com/paul-anderson-training-routine/
 
A big component of strength building is the CNS, that and tendons are very limiting. Both need a lot of stimulation and time to change and increase the ability to do more work.
Muscles and building them is one part of the equation, the other is Central nervous system. Immune system as well is a huge factor. Build those and strength will advance.
First comes strength, muscle follows. Due to CNS etc.

Harley00, I have known John Jaq from the boards etc and a friend of mine Phil Hernon a long time.
He is a salesman, X# is nice to have if on the road etc. But he is selling a product and is a smart man, but again, he is selling a product.

Continuous weight adding over time stimulating the muscles and CNS will build strength much better than a high rep person.
The best strength i get is from Doggcrapp style training. I was a sponsored athlete for 8 years of his and he taught me all kinds of things. I still follow it to this day. Add weight or a rep over and over until you can not do so any longer, park the exercise and pull up another compound type movement and go again. When you stall out on that, go back to another one you parked already. You will beat your PR everytime.
My humble opinion.
 
A big component of strength building is the CNS, that and tendons are very limiting. Both need a lot of stimulation and time to change and increase the ability to do more work.
Muscles and building them is one part of the equation, the other is Central nervous system. Immune system as well is a huge factor. Build those and strength will advance.
First comes strength, muscle follows. Due to CNS etc.

Harley00, I have known John Jaq from the boards etc and a friend of mine Phil Hernon a long time.
He is a salesman, X# is nice to have if on the road etc. But he is selling a product and is a smart man, but again, he is selling a product.

Continuous weight adding over time stimulating the muscles and CNS will build strength much better than a high rep person.
The best strength i get is from Doggcrapp style training. I was a sponsored athlete for 8 years of his and he taught me all kinds of things. I still follow it to this day. Add weight or a rep over and over until you can not do so any longer, park the exercise and pull up another compound type movement and go again. When you stall out on that, go back to another one you parked already. You will beat your PR everytime.
My humble opinion.

Totally agree with this approach. Cause my mobility is limited I can only vary my exercises so much. I am going to start rotating in cambered bar squats and good mornings along with safety bar squats with my sumo's. Continually adding weight has always added to my strength, where I am not as interested in muscular size. I think CNS plays a major roll in strength ... cause I know I have not gained muscle size and my strength had gone up considerably so there is something else going on there and I think it's the ability through the CNS to recruit more muscle fibers and to contract them more intensely. From all the reading I have done that is what most of the guys lifting really heavy weights have implied
 
"Increasing loads—with increasing volume, intensity, and weakness correction through accessory exercises—is really the only way to build strength,”

The guy could have saved a lot of time and effort and literally just wrote this as how to build muscle and strength.

The title is very misleading as he goes on later in the article to sort of contradict himself. The article is all over the place and could lead a bigginer down a wrong path or, at least a very confusing path.

It doesn't offer much of anything as far as Im concerned
The article was really a crapper ... but the issue is real .... there is a lot of different idea's on the 2 approaches or a combination of the 2. I honestly think a combination of the 2 is healthy as the lighter weight, higher reps allows me to deload for a while giving my body a break from the heavier lifting.
 
The article was really a crapper ... but the issue is real .... there is a lot of different idea's on the 2 approaches or a combination of the 2. I honestly think a combination of the 2 is healthy as the lighter weight, higher reps allows me to deload for a while giving my body a break from the heavier lifting.

Yeah I'll stick with believing a combo of the 2 is the best approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PGM
The article was really a crapper ... but the issue is real .... there is a lot of different idea's on the 2 approaches or a combination of the 2. I honestly think a combination of the 2 is healthy as the lighter weight, higher reps allows me to deload for a while giving my body a break from the heavier lifting.
100% agree. I use higher volume and less weight to deload as well. Its not light weight though. You just cant keep up with the hardcore training day in and day out year round.
 
Heavy weights and higher reps works best..lol. honestly you have to find out what works for you. I did heavy squats for years and my legs just got stronger but not bigger. For me, now I do upper body exercises in the 8-12 range for size and for lower body its all about the 20-25 reps.
 
i would say no, progressive overload and heavy weight lifting is neccessary for gaining size and strengh. for me after a while i change my program to higher reps lower weight to maintain but i lose size and strength even if diet is on point. i do it because my joints and tendons need the break. so no i dont agree with the statement.
 
With respect to strength training, for any purpose, I defer to the wisdom and experience of Louie Simmons. As far as I'm concerned his training methods and accumulated experience is all one needs. Lighter weight & higher reps are an essential component of his conjugate method. I've mentioned this previously, but I saw a 145lb guy doing 245lb 8 rep sets of power cleans with metronome precision. It was a thing of beauty. He had an impressive squat as well, but this was all designed to further his track athletics.
 
Heavy weights and higher reps works best..lol. honestly you have to find out what works for you. I did heavy squats for years and my legs just got stronger but not bigger. For me, now I do upper body exercises in the 8-12 range for size and for lower body its all about the 20-25 reps.
yep everybody reacts differently. And if you are going for muscular size you have experiment to see how your muscle responds to different poundages reps and sets.
 
"Do You agree - If you want to build muscle and strength lift lighter weights higher reps?"

ARE YOU FUCKING DRUNK!!!!!?????
lol... right on the button. But remember the guy doing the study was a PHD and his study ran 12 weeks. ffs
 
Top