Lifting is not the only way to get strong.

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Training and Health
1

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. :smiley:

“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
2

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

3

  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.

4

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?

5

[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1216382]Scott R. Brown, are you saying you have conclusive evidence that this type of workout would produce size but not strength?[/QUOTE]

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.

6

[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1216387]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

[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. :smiley:

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
10

[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;1216370] for athletic performance it is strength to size ratio that matters more than size. [/quote]

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 :eek:

11

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?

12

[QUOTE=IronFist;1216435]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?[/QUOTE]

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 :slight_smile:

13

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.

14

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.

15

[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1216491]
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?
[/QUOTE]
  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?
  4. Residual tension in relaxed muscles is a neurological issue; maximal lifting.
16

Sevenstar,

I have experiences to draw from, as do others, what I am looking for is information I can cite. Do you have studies to support your answers?

How much energy is left and recovery is needed after each type of workout, yes this will vary from person to person, as will all other factors. This will also vary from workout type to workout type.

Which hormones and what do your consider favorable? Are we talking about testosterone, cortisol, etc. In this instance favorable response would probably be testosterone and HGH. Elevated stress/adrenal hormones can wreak havoc on the body over time. Again what is a favorable mixture for someone that trains regularly and how do we attain it?

Do some methods have longer or shorter periods of hormone response. What methods and what differences? This could play a large role in deciding on what to plug in to an overall training regimen.

heavy, maximal weight, few sets, few reps. it trains the muscles to contract harder - neurological response. This is a way, but lifting heavy is not the only way to train them to contract harder. The more often we can train this up to a point, the better our ability to go from fully relaxed to fully contracted will potentially be. Many heavy lifting regimens can’t realistically be done that often.

why target only one type? Why not? If you wish to move towards for instance a faster twitch type of movement, why not encourage the muscle to adapt towards this need?

Residual tension in relaxed muscles is a neurological issue; maximal lifting. Perhaps, but it can also be said that learning to relax is a skill. Perhaps this ability to go from maximal contraction to relaxation could be trained. Why overlook this? If it has not been overlooked, what are the most successful methods for doing so employed today?

I train both in intensity and frequency like a pro athlete and have for the last 13 years. I take my training seriously and dogma is not good enough proof for me. I look towards personal results and try to keep an open mind. That is why I am interested in this subject.

17

[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1216491]So to sum things up in the thread so far:

[LIST]

  • You can put on muscle without lifting weights.[/quote]

    But the limit to how much you can put on is very low.

    Doing pushups and bodyweight squats WILL add some muscle to a beginner.

  • This is not the most efficient way to put on muscle or become strong but it does work.

    • Yes, but it only works to a point.

    Assume your starting point is 1 and your genetic potential for muscle is 10.

    Not using weights will get you to about a max of about 3.

  • 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?

    No, that’s nonsense. Assuming “getting bigger” refers to adding muscle here and not fat.

    The only way you can get bigger without getting stronger is if you used to be a smaller powerlifter and then decide to switch gears and start bodybuilding. Your 1RMs would go down (because you stopped training like a powerlifter) so technically you are not getting stronger, although training and eating like a bodybuilder will probably make you bigger.

    Of course, training and eating like a bodybuilder will increase your endurance for bodybuliding type training (things like multiple sets of 8-12 reps with shorter rest periods) beyond where it was when you were a powerlifter, even though your maximal strength output is decreasing.

    All else being equal, a bigger muscle has more potential for strength, and is stronger.

    In the above example, all else was not equal, because the person in question used to be a powerlifter (high level of nervous system adaptation) and then stopped powerlifting (loses some of that adaptation).

    Strength is really an issue of how efficiently your body can use the muscle you have. There are various safety mechanisms in place to prevent you from using 100% of your muscle, as doing so would damage your body (an example being people who lift cars during emergency situations and injure themselves in the process).

    Strength training makes you stronger by lessening these safety mechanisms. Your body becomes more efficient at using what you have (strength gain without size gain). You can see an example of this with beginners their first day at the gym. Maybe someone can only bench press the bar (45 pounds) on his first day. On his next workout he can bench press the bar with a 5lb plate on each side (55 lbs). That’s over a 20% gain in a couple days (if only it continued like that, lol)! Did he get bigger during those few days off? No. But he experienced CNS adaptation and is now able to use his existing muscle more efficiently.

    Of course if you gain muscle then you have more potential.

    As it turns out, though, training for size and training for maximal strength are done differently. Getting bigger makes you stronger, but not necessarily as efficiently as training ONLY for strength. But training for only strength limits you to the potential of the amount of muscle you currently have. If you want to get stronger still, eventually you have to put on more muscle. Doing so will decondition you to maximal strength in the process (because you have stopped training for maximal strength), so you have to balance the two according to your needs, goals, etc.

    Think of it like a car engine.

    A 1.7L engine will probably have less torque than a 4.0L engine. All else being equal, a smaller muscle is weaker than a bigger muscle.

    That smaller engine can be turbocharged, however. That’s strength training without gaining size.

    In fact, that 1.7L engine can be modified to produce more power than the 4.0L engine.

    But the 4.0L engine (big muscles) has more potential. Turbo charge that engine and leave the 1.7 turboed engine in your rear view mirror.

    • 18

    [QUOTE=Golden Arms;1216491]Some factors I have not heard mentioned so far:

    • How much energy is left and recovery is needed after each type of workout
    [/quote]

    I don’t know that this can be quantified.

    I’ve noticed, however, that I feel more refreshed after a low volume, heavy weight powerlifting type workout, and more tired after a bodybuilding type workout.

  • Which methods have a more or less favorable hormone response

    • I dunno. I’m sure there are studies on this somewhere. Supposedly big compound movements boost testosterone and gh but it’s not really significant IIRC.

  • Do some methods have longer or shorter periods of hormone response

    • I don’t think that’s really the kind of thing most people need to worry about. There’s enough evidence for specific types of training yielding specific results and what happens with the hormones is already taken into account. In other words, if you want to get strong, train for strength. The necessary hormone changes for you to get stronger will occur as you train.

  • 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?

    • See above. This is happening automatically.

  • Different types of workouts can potentially cater towards slower or faster twitch fibers. Is your workout targeting the speed you specifically wish to move?

    • Everyone has a different fast/slow twitch makeup. Supposedly there are ways to test but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, really. What would you do if you find out your quads have more or less fast twitch than average? Would that affect your training, or would your goal still be to get as strong as possible and you’d still train according to the most efficient ways to build strength?

  • Do some methods tends to leave more residual tension in the body during off-time?

    • Probably only if you overtrain.

    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.

    In your example, what would be your goal for triggering a fast twitch response?

    Are you doing that for the sake of fast twitch response, or are you more concerned with explosive negatives as they relate to getting stronger?

    I’m not phrasing this correctly. I’ve posted a lot in this thread already. I need food now and will try to see if I can think of how to say what I want to say later.

    19

    IronFist,

    Thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. I am not honestly looking for much in the way of info for myself as I have done and continue to do my own research. I figured that it would be a good chance for us as a group to examine commonly held beliefs to see if they are the only way or just the way everyone chooses because they assume it is the only way.

    Like I state previously, I don’t train as a hobbyist and have not for a long time. My interests in strength training cater towards the elements I brought up, and I wanted to see if these were even on the radar for most. It looks like if they are, its not necessarily well known. (Another example that comes to mind is training utilizing a the PowerPlate, a vibrating plate while moving through ROM with or without weight. This has been used in the NFL for stretching, muscle activation, and for recovery.)

    Just because I posted some questions does not imply that I am not strong or know nothing about lifting. Strength training for the nebulous goal of “being strong” is not interesting to me at this point, I know a million ways to go about doing that. What is interesting is training that causes very specific adaptation and that can be mapped onto the movement requirements/patterns of my chosen art and that it is a good fit in my overall game-plan, not taking away from my other training, but enhancing it.

    20

    [QUOTE=IronFist;1216749]In your example, what would be your goal for triggering a fast twitch response?

    Are you doing that for the sake of fast twitch response, or are you more concerned with explosive negatives as they relate to getting stronger?[/QUOTE]

    In this example it would be for strengthening specifically my fast twitch muscle response.