Muscle lab: Bulk up with the science of bodybuilding

[Analog]

Looking to beef up? As research sheds new light on how our muscles work, it may be time to scrap old bodybuilding advice. New Scientist brings you top tips for the budding Mr Universe.

What is the best way to pump iron?

Standard advice for gym bunnies is to lift as much weight as you can in a training session. But Stuart Phillips and his team at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reckon this might not be the best way to build muscle. Instead, they suggest that slow and steady wins the race. In Phillips's study, men in their early 20s lifted weights with their legs over various periods at 30 and 90 per cent of the maximum weight they could lift. Phillips analysed biopsies from the leg muscles before and after each training session.

He found that the production of new muscle proteins was greatest when the men were lifting the relatively light weights – at 30 per cent of their maximum – until they were fatigued, and couldn't lift any more. The idea that you should lift progressively heavier weights to bulk up is "completely false", says Phillips. Instead, the best way to build muscle is to lift more manageable weights until you tire out, he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19330-muscle-lab-bulk-up-with-the-science-of-bodybuilding.html

 

[Wyndru]

Shens, I've been lifting a 12 ounce can over and over and all I have to show for it is this gut.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Muscles are highly overrated.

 

[Fritzo]

I do three sets of 12 reps, and increase the weight on each set. Seems to work pretty well.

 

[Phokus]

This has been known forever. Bodybuilders use lighter weights and do more reps (and thus tear more muscle fibers and grow more muscle) while power lifters tend to do more weights, less reps (and are smaller).

 

[Ika]

EDIT: wait a minute... I was right. I just got my terms mixed up.

 

[Terzo]

I'm guessing this doesn't apply to strength training? Since I doubt doing 100 pound squats to fatigue wont help you squat 300.

 

[techs]

F*ck muscles. Buy a gun.

 

[Hacp]

This guy is wrong. I've taken the slow and steady approach and have no results. I want my money back.

 

[TheVrolok]

This has been known forever. Bodybuilders use lighter weights and do more reps (and thus tear more muscle fibers and grow more muscle) while power lifters tend to do more weights, less reps (and are smaller).

Oh, is that what this article says? No reason to read it then, I guess. Seems like pretty common knowledge.

 

[Ika]

F*ck muscles. Buy a gun.

what happens when you are too weak to carry/lift the gun? :awe:

 

[goog40]

Sounds like some BS someone would try to sell you in an infomercial.

The findings are published in PLoS ONE.In the study, the authors had 15 men perform leg extensions by kicking their knees against a weight while seated. They were randomly assigned to either lifting their legs using a weight that was 90 percent of their best lift or 30 percent.

The participants with the heavier load could lift about five to 10 times. Those who lifted at 30 percent of the load could lift about 24 times. A sample of their muscle was taken.

While both exercises produced proteins that help build muscles, the people who lifted at 30 percent to the point of fatigue (where the limbs start to jiggle and tremble) produced slightly more muscle than those who lifted at 90 percent, said Stuart Phillips, associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster University.

The subjects probably just never work out. They could do 5-10 reps at 90%, but they can only crank out 24 reps at 1/3 of the weight? Imagine benching 180 vs 60 pounds to failure, who do you think is going to get stronger?

 

[AznAnarchy99]

15 people? Thats it?

How fit are they, are they fat and never worked out in their life or have they been going to the gym 5 days a week? Hows their diet?

 

[Koing]

Sounds like some BS someone would try to sell you in an infomercial.



The subjects probably just never work out. They could do 5-10 reps at 90%, but they can only crank out 24 reps at 1/3 of the weight? Imagine benching 180 vs 60 pounds to failure, who do you think is going to get stronger?

If it was a true 90% you would barely get 3-5reps let alone ***10 REPS*** and ONLY 24reps with 1/3 of that?! wtf?! What sort of BS is this...worst 15 subjects eVAR.

EATING properly and SLEEPING is the biggest factor in gaining muscle size. Training helps but if your not eating you won't magic muscle out of THIN AIR...

Koing

 

[0roo0roo]

Because the nuclei of muscle fibres are key to the production of new muscle protein, Gundersen thinks that after a bout of training, the potential to grow muscle sticks with you for life. So no matter how much time has passed since you were in the peak of muscular fitness, it should be easier to achieve the second time around.

yea this seems to be true, even when i slack off its easier to get back than it was the first time around

 

[skace]

My anecdotal evidence in favor of this study is that I had some pretty awesome leg workouts that were completely weightless compared to my heavy weighted squats.

 

[Lamont Burns]

Not much groundbreaking material there. Many people go heavy for 5s and then 12-15s on the rest on a given day.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I don't give a god damn about that study. I'd rather slam my dick in a car door than go to the gym to lift 30 percent of my max.

 

[polarmystery]

I don't give a god damn about that study. I'd rather slam my dick in a car door than go to the gym to lift 30 percent of my max.

shens.

 

[katank]

High intensity (85%+) which corresponds to sets of 1-5 will tend to produce more strength adaptation while higher reps in the 8-15 range will tend to create more hypertrophy.

That said, hypertrophy is greatest when you do lots of reps w/ lots of weight. The fastest way to get there is to train for strength to enable you to get to the crazy weights.

I'm sure in another couple of days, we'll see a study that says shakeweight for men is the ultimate for hypertrophy :-/

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I'm guessing this doesn't apply to strength training? Since I doubt doing 100 pound squats to fatigue wont help you squat 300.

No, it doesn't apply well to functional mass gains or strength training. Higher rep stuff actually induces a high level of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is just an extraneous portion of the muscle that doesn't actually contract. It's what bodybuilders go for since it makes them bulky. If you want myofibrillar hypertrophy to occur, you do low reps, high weight. Reps at 6 or under maximize myofibrillar hypertrophy.

This research doesn't really surprise me. I've known about Stuart Phillips and he does good research. A sample size of 15 is actually fine in this type of research, if their individuals are representative of the population. If you actually read the research, it will tell you what the conditions of choosing these subjects were.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Here's a direct link to the actual research: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012033.

 

[surfsatwerk]

shens.

I exaggerate to express my extreme reluctance to engage in this Canadian scientific muscle building program.

 

[darkewaffle]

I'd rather slam my dick in a car door than go to the gym to lift 30 percent of my max.

I read this in Murderface's voice.

 

[brikis98]

Bah.

* This is primarily related to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and not myofibrillar hypertrophy. Only the latter actually makes you stronger.

* How were subjects able to do 5-10 reps at 90 percent of 1RM? Most charts and personal experience will tell you that 3 reps is as good as it gets at 90 percent. 10 reps is in the 70-75 percent range.

* And most importantly, no discussion of how this applies to a long term routine. Progressive overload is a requirement to make progress: you must gradually increase the weight or the body stops adapting. The 30 percent weight might be "light" at first and let you get through ~25 reps, but next time you workout, you need to increase that a few pounds. Repeat this for a few months and I would bet an enormous amount of money that an athlete doing sets of ~25 will stall LONG before the athlete doing sets of ~5. Extremely long sets are much more grueling mentally and much harder to recover from. Anyone who has done 20 rep squats knows how brutal it is and that you can only keep it up for a short time. I would love to see a group try a routine based around 25 reps for a year and see how they compare to another group doing sets of 5. My money is on the latter group being far bigger and stronger, if for no other reason than the fact that they'll actually be able to stick with the routine for a whole year.