Weights vs. Reps

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
Weights vs. Reps
3
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 9:23am

This is contrary to what I've been taught but it does make sense:

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/what-builds-more-muscles-weight-or-repetitions/?hpt=Sbin

What do you guys think?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2008
In reply to: gymrat76
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 9:53am

Interesting information.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: gymrat76
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 10:24am

I think that's a study with no practical value to us, at least not

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
In reply to: gymrat76
Tue, 08-17-2010 - 12:24pm

I agree w/ Jen that the measurements aren't indicative of what's "best". Either way, I think a combination is good because we want endurance as well as strength. But, in addition to goals, as Jen said, it also depends on time. Who has time to do 24 reps for every set, 2-3 sets? And, while lighter weights might be good for some people, that many reps could also cause overuse problems for others. Plus, whether studies show it's more effective or not, if an older person can only do light lifting, that person should do light lifting. Sooo, as with everything else, this needs to be person specific.

Personally, I've been doing a combination, kind of like drop sets, only not as intense. I tell people to aim for 8-10 with the heaviest they can do, then drop quickly to the next one and hit 12-15. Both should be to fatigue.

Oh, I like Lincoln Brigham's response below:

Lincoln Brigham

God I hate studies like these. They are all so cookie cutter and useless. A very small group of untrained college age men studied for a very short period of time are examined to predict which protocol might work better. Yawn.
The problem is two fold. One, this particular population has been overstudied, especially when talking about short-term training phase. College age men who are only going to train for a short amount of time are not particularly interesting. What is needed is long-term studies that examine a broader population, including non-college age women.
The second problem with this study is that it puts the cart before the horse. Rather than measuring a marker of muscle building such as short-term protein synthesis, it would be much more useful to actually measure muscle. Of course, this would take more time and effort than the 24 hours these researchers spent on this study.
What is clear from other studies that measure the RESULTS of these training protocols is that in the long run, 30% loads do not build muscle nearly as well as 90% loads. The conclusion of this study SHOULD have been that short-term (24 hour) measures of protein synthesis are NOT good predictors of long term muscle building results.