Fitness myths

>heavy lifting is required to build mass
>you can't get big muscles going lightweight or runners would be jacked
You often find these totally illogical false comparisons to unequal situations being made.
1. Runners aren't running muscular fatigue usually their cardiovascular system tires out before their muscles do
2. Runners diet is often intentionnaly geared towards staying slim as less weight on the body can be moved quicker and for longer periods.
>If light weight is all you need how come I don't get jacked carrying groceries
You aren't carrying groceries to muscular fatigue or anywhere close to it or you'd be losing your groceries. You probably also aren't eating right even if you were.
Furthermore people who lift light weights tend to be not knowledgeable on fitness.
1. They don't lift to muscular fatigue
2. They don't understand how muscle protein synthesis works
3. They don't work all body parts enough each week
>b-but how come bodyweight training guys are skinny
Most of them have to stay on the light side to perform the movements correctly and not many of them are trying to optimize hypertrophy either.

Fact of the matter is the science shows you can get as jacked as you possibly can lifting that 30lb db and you don't even have to increase the weight for a long ass time because you can make any weight harder by controlling tempo, ROM, levers, bar path, reps, rest time, etc. There are more scientifically proven ways to progress than simply adding more poundages.

If these people who use false examples and comparisons actually lifted the light weight to muscular fatigue and ate properly they asbolutely would effectively build muscle and the science proves it.

Other urls found in this thread:

jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Truth be told you're addicted to adrenaline. That's the magic that you think is happening when you lift heavy. You don't get your adrenaline fix from going light so you demonize it to protect your addiction. You need mental help, not fitness.

yes but you reach muscular fatigue faster with heaver weights so its still best to lift heavy.

Post your body.
100% guarantee you're dyel.
Always the case with people who tell others they are doing wrong.

>inb4 you don't need to look good to know what you're talking about.
Nobody cares what dyel little boys think.

pls be bait

...

Heres a good fitness myth:

>OP lifts.

one of the key factors in muscle growth is progressive increases in mechanical tension, because one of the key elements in muscle growth is structural damage

you cannot just continually increase volume, because at a certain point whatever weight you use will be below the threshold necessary to cause that structural damage

what you're describing is essentially metabolite training, which is a known technique (seeing some resurgence now with BFR) and is one small part of the muscle building equation but is not a substitute for bread and butter work in the 60-85% 1rm range

-t. DYEL

enjoy your hernias and fucked up joints
I 100% guarantee you look like shit without being a manlet, having perfect muscle insertions or on roids no matter the routine you choose. The science stands.
>muh epic gains
wow it's fucking nothing

I would suggest using lighter weight after you do your heavy work. Why? Because it will make them grow larger. Especially if you focus on doing concentric to failure and afterwards eccentric to failure

Nobody cares what a no-body dyel says.
As always its just another "im dyel and angry but too weak willed to make the effort to improve so i will tell people they are doing everything wrong to try and drag them down to my level" thread.

>can't defeat the argument
>resort to ad hominem attacks
stay in school child

No, you reach CNS fatigue, not muscular. Skeletal muscle is capable of insane volumes with moderate weights. Most people here stick to about 5 reps with an intensity close to their 5rm.

If you dropped the weight enough to do sets of 10, and took the same amount of rest as you did on heavy sets you'd easily hit 10+ sets of the same lift.

ATP and muscles recovers quickly, but the CNS's ability to maximally contact as much muscle as possible does not due to electrolyte channels and other garbage I won't bother writing about.

With moderate weight, it's extremely easy to get 3-4x more quality volume in than with heavier weights, and you'll still make strength gains. Rep ranges don't have cut offs for gains. I've gains plenty of strength on 20+ rep sets before, and so have others.

> In conclusion, high- and low-repetition (low and high load, respectively) training paradigms elicit a comparable stimulus for the accretion of skeletal muscle mass when resistance exercise is performed until volitional failure. The current findings taken together with previous reports (1, 20, 28) show that these effects are not contingent upon training status or study design. Increases in lean body mass, as an indirect measure of muscle mass, and muscle fiber CSA, a direct measure of muscle area, occurred in both LR and HR groups with no differences between groups. There was a significant increase in 1RM strength for the leg press, knee extension, and shoulder press exercises, again with no differences between groups. While 1RM bench press increased in both groups, it increased to a greater extent in the LR group. We speculate that because the participants in the HR group performed greater volume, they were able to exercise until volitional failure, which allowed for maximal activation of their motor units and ultimately led to the similar increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy seen in the LR group. In agreement with previous studies (50–52) it is clear that the postexercise increases in systemic hormone concentrations are unrelated to changes in muscle hypertrophy or strength

>people will still argue against this

>> In conclusion, high- and low-repetition (low and high load, respectively) training paradigms elicit a comparable stimulus for the accretion of skeletal muscle mass when resistance exercise is performed until volitional failure.

But later...

>While 1RM bench press increased in both groups, it increased to a greater extent in the LR group. We speculate that because the participants in the HR group performed greater volume, they were able to exercise until volitional failure, which allowed for maximal activation of their motor units and ultimately led to the similar increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy seen in the LR group.

So...yeah.
You understand why I highlighted those two portions and why this completely blows you out of the water?

He's saying if the lightweight group performed equal volume as heavyweight group the small difference in 1RM would evaporate. This only supports lightweight training further.

So 5x10 50kg = 2500kg volume
would be as effective as 5x5 100kg = 2500kg volume?

nobody cares what you have to say dyel-boy

No, the heavyweight group can't perform to full muscular exhaustion. They'll be completely wiped before that ever happens.
Anyone who's natural and lifted heavy shit can tell you this.

The lightweight group can and does work to near or complete failure as a rule.
MEANING that the lightweight group not only gains more muscle pure mass they get comparable strength gains.

However further specialization over the years(and some cases drug abuse) will further alter how their bodies function when it comes to force output so it really comes down to personal preference in the end.

No I'm saying the low rep group is capable of producing more volume, thus negating the strength gains from heavy lifting. Why match for volume when the hypertrophy group has more lefr in the tank? Furthermore IDGAF about optimizing strength gains the point is to show the minimal differences in gains between either method and that strength reps is not needed for building mass.

About, yes. But that's not taking into consideration that adding more volume via sets is a lot easier with lighter weight than higher weight. The person doing 5x10 could probably add a few more sets with a bit of rest, but the 5x5 person probably couldn't due to neuromuscular fatigue.

>listen to me I'm a manlet, roider or genetic aesthetics. IGNORE SCIENCE.

Nobody cares dyelboy
Not one person who reads this thread will change anything about their training.
If you actually looked like your advice worked then maybe they would.

The mental toughness it takes to lift a heavy 400+ 1RM is more of a reward than any fag flooping around with 40lb Dumbbells will ever hope to achieve. That shit helps prepare you for high stress situations. Deadlifting 600 lbs or just choking a dude out in BJJ makes you hard and stoic

ok kinobody

Yeah gotta have that mental fortitude to cope with all those high stress daily situations like reading your mail and playing the vidya bro

yes very rewarding until you get an inguinal hernia, herniated disc and blow out your joints and need hip and knee replacements and shoulder surgery

>having this little understanding of human body

>heavy 400+ 1RM
>flooping around with 40lb Dumbbells

Apples to oranges. Since 1RM are relative to each lifter, 400lbs doesn't mean shit. A 400lbs Samoan can pick you little 400lbs up and toss it across the room like a frisbee. Weight is irrelevant to someone's maximal effort.

Constantly lifting near maximal amounts will grind you down overtime, and isn't any harder than pushing a higher rep set to failure.

Well the guy may be a sperg but honestly most of you body building fags are stupidly unhealthy and barely make it 50

>cope with all those high stress daily situations like reading your mail and playing the vidya bro

Not everyone is a jizz crusted NEET like you.

>lifting near maximal amounts will grind you down overtime, and isn't any harder than pushing a higher rep set to failure.

And this is how I know you have no fucking clue what you're taking about.

MODS

Nah man I feel you, going to the supermarket and having to talk to the monkey working the register, really glad I could rip her head off at any moment with my supreem muscles. You know, if I had to.

squatting below parallel may be safer for the ligaments but it's harder on the articular cartilage and miniscus neither of these things get stronger with heavier weight, squat depth is also limited by hip anatomy and exacerbated by heavier weight
it takes less than 2k n shear on the spine to herniate a disc at 315 lb deadlift, a small enough value that a small mistake in form could easily cause herniation. a 600 lb deadlift causes enough shear to herniate a disc by weight alone regardless of form
inguinal hernias are cause by heavy lifting
heavy pressing is much harder on the rotator cuff and shoulder injuries are among the most common in powerlifters

heavy lifting is for stupid idiots

thx doc

Go on. Sorry but despite your brief stint with SS there's more to lifting than sets of 5.

>heavy lifting is for stupid idiots

Amen

Are you fucking retarded?
That's a fucking fact.
What's wrong with you?

HEY bros off topic but I have to ask:
I had 4 drinks in about 80 minutes and then finished it off with 40mg of hydro.
I'm feeing the hydro kicking in and I'm wondering if I should just ride it out or go to the medical center on campus. I'm really really worried and ashamed of my behavior.

What's wrong with me is I don't struggle deadlifting 225 like you. Lift some real weights like a man then come back and post shit, until then continue fapping to cuck porn you stupid pussy

I really only want to get to 1plate press, 2plate bench, and 3plate squat/dl. Is that safe?

Hi guys!

I'm from Veeky Forums so I'm not very aquainted with Veeky Forums.
Can you please tell me guys how can I increase my leg strength? Would just running a lot increase my resistance aswell as the strength of my legs? I am referring to kick power, durability and all that.
Thing is that I walk a lot and my feet are the only part of my body that refuses to get fat.
Also, I really want some stronk af legs. I thought that bodybuilding might help but that also fucks up your joints aswell as making it hard to run.
I know a few people that are Ronnie Coleman sized, but those people can't really run anymore due to very large legs. I'm not interested in form/aesthetic, all I want is function.
Thank you so much guys!

As someone that has at least a 440lb DL, I can say you're a fucking tard.

Got to 440lbs with sets of 15-20, come at me homo.

pls halp

"At least a 440lb Deadlift"

Weak as fuck. Opinion discarded. Go away normie

>asking if your about to OD on one of the most pseudo science, fucked up, trolling Malaysian carpet weaving websites
Yeah Id say youre pretty fucked up

What does the literature say on gymnastic movements? True gymnastic exercises take absurd amounts of strength.

>says 225lbs like it's a big deal
>says 440lbs isn't a big deal
>is a big deal bc he can't do lmao 3pl8
>4-440 is no big d-deal

Like I said "at least". I haven't test my max in over 5 months because maxing is dumb and have made tons of gains since.

4 drinks and 40mg hydro

thats not terrible m8...
take a strong upper

Gymnastics is a little tricky because it's better to weigh less and be shorter. Shorter lever arms and weighing less makes the holds substantially easier to perform. It's also governed more by core strength than basic weight training.

I meant more about stresses on joints and shit

I could bench 225 as a fucking 14 year old bro.
I was hitting 315+ the first time I ever officially started squatting.
And I have long as fuck legs.
This will have an effect on you long term.
That is THE PRICE you have to pay for your strength and mass and performance.
If you know these things and are not willing to pay that price or worse is trying to downplay it or make it seem not that bad then you're a fucking pussy.
Go sit in the fucktard corner.

>I was hitting 315+ the first time I ever officially started squatting.
>His first time lifts are similar to literal exaggerated legends such as Ed Coan and Kirk Karwoski
>Somehow he can only Diddy 440
Not even the guy but honestly i'll have to agree with this guy. Just fuck off.

There is really no reason to lift heavy. It just increases the chance of an accident happening.

thanks bro

Give my your sources on how low weight high reps produce the same strength and muscle gains as high weight low rep.

I also would like a comparison of injury rates.

jap.physiology.org/content/121/1/129

And meaningful injury rates are impossible to obtain the fact is heavy lifting is much harder on the body. Repetitive use injuries don't apply to the relatively small number or movements, high or low rep, in a weightroom.

Thanks, doc.

Did you do 5/3/1?

Excellent so I would get similar muscular results lifting heavy to a guy doing a bbing program and also get to call him, win-win.

^ That's me,
v that's not
>sets of 15-20 diddlies
>5/3/1
wat

If you had the work capacity to go to complete muscular rather then cns failure like the bodybuilding guy?
Yes you could
But you won't and you don't.
The BB guy will get superior muscle mass gains and about equal total strength gains.

This is all for naturals though. Once you get on cycles all of this shit goes out of the window and anything you do will have an instantaneous affect and little things like recovery and work capacity means nothing.

>Yes you could
>But you won't and you don't.
If some 3rd degree sport "scientists" managed to achieve this i'm sure I will. Thanks lad gonna be strong and big as well sweet.

totally bro just lift heavy there are no downsides it's like a cheatcode for the muscles

P O S T B O D Y
O
S
T
B
O
D
Y

Don't worry I don't lift rocks thanks though.

If you can take your muscle to complete failure, not cns, your muscle, to failure while strength training.
Then you're not strength training.

If you've worked out for more then a month then you'd know the difference between not being able to do a movement because you don't have it in the tank and not being able to do the movement because the muscles needed are fucked.

Thanks doc

Enjoy your hemorrhoids.

On 5/3/1 you work up to a top set and start way below your maximum capacity. My brother did 5/3/1 and squatted/deadlifted a lot of top sets between 10-20 reps.

I thought it was retarded, but it seemed to work really well for legs.

Nah even that study the low rep weights had stronger bench.
So gotta get that strength right there.
Stay mad and weak lad.

You don't know what you're talking about do you?

Enjoy your hemorrhoids, hernias, heart attacks and hip replacements for no appreciable gains.

i just do cardio and lift. i dont give a flying fuck how i appear, physically. so long as i'm healthy and reaching my goals, then i'm cool with it.

Falling for OP's bait

More than a dyel like you
Stay mad and weak.

Post body

This is the dumbest fucking meme ever. Here's how it always plays out.

>person does, person calling them out vanishes

>person does, looks great, but since they're using unconventional methods everyone criticizes their physique for not being 100% perfect, even though they look great

>person does, looks exceptional, get's called a fraud.

In all three cases literally nothing is accomplished, it just tangents the thread into a shitshow.

Nah. No one to date has posted a time stamped pic.

And the few who do post usually post pictures of other people and say all kinds of ridiculous bullshit.

Not an argument.

but I don't want to just look strong
I want to be strong

>Moderate-light weights = same strength and mass gains as heavy weights

>Crossfit prescribes as many reps as possible on multiple sets

>crossfit is superior to conventional lifting per OP's argument and sources

Crossfit: 1
Oly Lifting: 0
Bodybuilding: -1
Powerlifting: KYS

Pic related

...

...

Fine here you go. I didn't want to have to pull out the big guns to prove my point but you forced me to. This is what peak performance looks like. Record holder in deadlift and squat too btw

...

>white

Not gonna make it

You aren't taking into account the body's adaptation to stimulus. Supercompensation through maximized time under tension, which is what a lot of high volume/light weight training is trying to achieve, generally peters off after a month to six weeks because the body can only jampack so much glycogen into a cell. You need to induce myofibrillar hypertrophy to continue to grow and then go back a program that induces sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. You need to do both at different times. How long have you been lifting?

Shut up from now on no more heavy lifting allowed otherwise your tendons will explode your hemmorids will be painful and you'll turn into a Black

that's what OP is arguing for. Do you even Moderate Weight?

>Supercompensation through maximized time under tension, which is what a lot of high volume/light weight training is trying to achieve, generally peters off after a month to six weeks
The studies linked in this thread are 12 weeks, controlled for tempo, trained lifters. No studies exist prove otherwise.

>no more heavy lifting allowed
But it's fun.

You only have "fun" lifting heavy because you're addicted to adrenaline. You have a problem and should seek help.

Is this the Veeky Forums version of "fun is a buzzword"?

Post a picture of your body.

this is literally me world class powerlifter

so they're literally equal but the LR group got gains with less time and more work.
HR got gains that take more time but probably easier

going to failure, i feel like i'm more prone to injury.

Yeah.
Bodybuilding figured that problem out centuries ago.
It's called putting more weight on the bar.

You can continue to gain with the same weight for long ass months. BUT it will, like you said taper off.

BUT you overcome that by, say it with me, putting a bit more weight on the bar. And by the time you do decide to put more weight on the bar you'll have built a strength and strength endurance base so profound that you can probably easily add and use another 20+ pounds onto the bar with ease.

Where does it say that?