Lifting is not the only way to get strong.

[Golden Arms]

Well I hate to break it to the folks here, but it looks like it's not the weight that you lift but the fact that you get muscular fatigue that's the critical point in building muscle. I guess horse stance may make your legs stronger after all.

"We conclude that a high intensity-low volume training bout is inferior to a low intensity-high volume bout in stimulating an anabolic response. Quantity of work, however, is important even at low intensities. Our data support the notion that a lower intensity-higher volume resistance exercise paradigm may ultimately be more effective in stimulating hypertrophy [increase in muscle size]."

"The perspective provided in this review highlights that other resistance protocols, beyond the often discussed high-intensity training, can be effective in stimulating a muscle building response that may translate into bigger muscles after resistance training," says lead author Nicholas Burd. "These findings have important implications from a public health standpoint because skeletal muscle mass is a large contributor to daily energy expenditure and it assists in weight management. Additionally, skeletal muscle mass, because of its overall size, is the primary site of blood sugar disposal and thus will likely play a role in reducing the risk for development of type II diabetes."

The authors from McMaster University conducted a series of experiments that manipulated various resistance exercise variables (e.g., intensity, volume, and muscle time under tension). They found that high-intensity muscle contractions derived from lifting heavy loads were not the only drivers of exercise-induced muscle development. In resistance-trained young men a lower workout intensity and a higher volume of repetitions of resistance exercise, performed until failure, was equally effective in stimulating muscle proteins as a heavy workout intensity at lower repetition rates. An additional benefit of the low-intensity workout is that the higher repetitions required to achieve fatigue will also be beneficial for sustaining the muscle building response for days.

Journal Reference:

Nicholas A. Burd, Cameron J. Mitchell, Tyler A. Churchward-Venne, Stuart M. Phillips. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2012 DOI: 10.1139/h2012-022

[bawang]

you are a moron. the article is about weight lifting.

[Scott R. Brown]

1) This is not new information.

2) Hypertrophy means larger muscles, for athletic performance it is strength to size ratio that matters more than size.

3) This is one study. Exercise physiology studies are notoriously narrow and usually fall far outside the everyday practice of athletes AND regular joes.

4) So what? Who cares? This kind of study will only have meaning to people with very little true weight training experience, and who are inherently lazy.

5) The conclusion was, high weight, low reps and low volume vs. Lower weight, higher reps, higher volume were equal in muscle size production. Size over strength production is mostly important to bodybuilders, not athletes.

6) High volume workouts take longer. It is a more efficient use of time to do a high weight, low rep, low volume workout, especially if the results are equal.

7) Nice try though.

[Golden Arms]

Thanks both of you (especially bawang). My point was not that lifting is useless, it was that this type of exercise can also produce results.

Bawang, this type of resistance could be attained without lifting weights.

Scott R. Brown, are you saying you have conclusive evidence that this type of workout would produce size but not strength?

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott R. Brown, are you saying you have conclusive evidence that this type of workout would produce size but not strength?

No and no experienced lifter ever would. The study was about size though not strength. However, low weight, high rep, high volume is not the most efficient method of developing strength.

[Golden Arms]

No and no experienced lifter ever would. The study was about size though not strength. However, low weight, high rep, high volume is not the most efficient method of developing strength.

I don't recall stating that it was the most efficient method. Eugen Sandow, Attila, and other men of their age were pretty experienced lifters. Variants of this method were used by them and others before and after.

On a side note, I have lifted using various methods for about 20 years. I have found benefits and drawbacks to every method/regimen that I have used.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know that study, they seem to have forgotten to mention the protocols they used and that progressive resistance was used, not static or isometric one.

That said, there are many ways to skin a cut, of that there is no doubt.
The studied dealt with concentric and eccentric contraction of muscles, not static or isometric.

Weights are NOT needed to build muscle, this everyone agrees.
THAT said, one will eventually get to the point that some increase in resistance will be needed.

[IronFist]

In order to have muscles that are capable of generating a lot of tension (and therefore strength) they have to contract against increasing resistance.

The only way to achieve this after a point is to use weights.

You can do pushups all day but the amount of weight being moved isn't increasing so you're not getting stronger.

You can do horse stance all day but the amount of weight being held (not even moved) isn't increasing so you're not getting stronger.

If the muscles do not contract against increasing resistance, they will not adapt by getting stronger.

It's really simple, I don't know why people make it more complicated.

Question: are you increasing the amount of resistance against which your muscles are working (meaning a general increase over time, not necessarily an increase every day/week/workout)?

If yes: you are probably getting stronger.

If no: you are not getting stronger (past the first minute or two of a static hold, past the first 30-50 pushups or so (estimate), during which the time under tension and resistance used is sufficient for a noob to get stronger).

What that means in more practical terms is if you take a noob who can only do 5 pushups and get him to the point where he can do 20 pushups, his 1RM in bench press will have increased. He got stronger. His muscles are now capable of generating more tension.

But if you take an advanced trainee who can do 50 pushups and get him to where he can do 100 pushups, his 1RM in bench probably will not have increased, and may likely have gone down if he was focusing exclusively on increasing the amount of pushups he can do and not doing any weight training for a period of time. He did not get stronger. His muscles are not capable of generating more tension and in fact may be capable of generating less tension.

[Frost]

[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1216346]Well I hate to break it to the folks here, but it looks like it's not the weight that you lift but the fact that you get muscular fatigue that's the critical point in building muscle. I guess horse stance may make your legs stronger after all.

i think you have a reading comprehension problem? and also a problem drawing conclusions??
1) no one said stance training didn't build strength just it wasnt that useful unless you are a beginner for building maximum strength, itss more usefull for for muscular endurance
2) a bigger muscle isnt always a stronger muscle

[IronFist]

for athletic performance it is strength to size ratio that matters more than size.

Unless you're talking football.

I'd rather be hit by a 150 pound guy who can squat 3x his bodyweight than a 300 pound guy who can squat twice his bodyweight

[IronFist]

What builds size without strength?

That's not even possible unless you're talking about getting fat.

A muscle will always get stronger when it gets bigger. It's not necessarily the most efficient way to get stronger, and muscles can also get stronger without getting bigger, but I don't think they can get bigger without getting stronger.

Ever seen a bodybuilder who can only bench 135 pounds or something?

[Frost]

What builds size without strength?

That's not even possible unless you're talking about getting fat.

A muscle will always get stronger when it gets bigger. It's not necessarily the most efficient way to get stronger, and muscles can also get stronger without getting bigger, but I don't think they can get bigger without getting stronger.

Ever seen a bodybuilder who can only bench 135 pounds or something?

if this was aimed at me then yes i have seen bodybuilders put on size without getting stronger, but they started out as either power-lifters or athletes and switched to higher reps and lower weights so that probably doesn't count

[Golden Arms]

So to sum things up in the thread so far:

• You can put on muscle without lifting weights.
• This is not the most efficient way to put on muscle or become strong but it does work.
• Getting bigger generally makes you stronger.
• Getting bigger may not make you stronger, even if the tissue you are adding is muscle. Are there studies that support this?

I know that conventional lifting is great and gives strength and size gains depending on how you cater your regimen. That does not mean it is the only effective method.

Some factors I have not heard mentioned so far:

• How much energy is left and recovery is needed after each type of workout
• Which methods have a more or less favorable hormone response
• Do some methods have longer or shorter periods of hormone response
• What about methods that increase the strength of the impulse sent to/received by the muscle as well as muscle fiber recruitment from those impulses?
• Different types of workouts can potentially cater towards slower or faster twitch fibers. Is your workout targeting the speed you specifically wish to move?
• Do some methods tends to leave more residual tension in the body during off-time?

For instance, explosive negatives can fire a fast twitch response that can be very difficult to get with conventional lifts using heavier or even light weights for some.

I don't see most of this stuff discussed on here much.

[JamesC]

That's because people try to complicate it. People over think this stuff and assume if they can tell you exactly how it happens inside your body they will get bigger and stronger.

Most people just do it. Just lift and eat. Figure it out. If it was that complicated there wouldnt be so many idiots at every gym.

[SevenStar]

Some factors I have not heard mentioned so far:

• How much energy is left and recovery is needed after each type of workout
• Which methods have a more or less favorable hormone response
• Do some methods have longer or shorter periods of hormone response
• What about methods that increase the strength of the impulse sent to/received by the muscle as well as muscle fiber recruitment from those impulses?
• Different types of workouts can potentially cater towards slower or faster twitch fibers. Is your workout targeting the speed you specifically wish to move?
• Do some methods tends to leave more residual tension in the body during off-time?

1. Won't that vary from person to person?
2. Which hormones and what do your consider favorable? Are we talking about testosterone, cortisol, etc.
3. Yes
4.heavy, maximal weight, few sets, few reps. it trains the muscles to contract harder - neurological response.
5.why target only one type?
6. Residual tension in relaxed muscles is a neurological issue; maximal lifting.