Heavy weight vs light weight? Which is better for BBing?

[BigNattyMcGee]

Chris Beardsley has quite a few articles at (Chris Beardsley – Medium) and two books (https://www.amazon.com/Strength-Specific-optimal-strength-training-ebook/dp/B07FGG4LNC?ref_=ast_sto_dp (Strength)and https://www.amazon.com/Hypertrophy-Muscle-growth-mechanical-tension-ebook/dp/B07MPCKPRF (Hypertrophy)) that cover a lot of the science behind how we get big and strong.

TL;DR - heavy weights (think 5 - 6rm range) cause the max recruitment of motor units AND require max force to lift the bar (you want to move fast but can't). Fatigue causes a similar response - so that is why you see the reports showing hypertrophy with weights that are 30% of your 1rm.

It's really interesting stuff! We know how to turn muscle growth on, but we don't 100% understand it. This is a case of where 'bro science' (experience) has been ahead of science (how it actually works).

 

[niclor]

As many of us already know, studies have shown that whether you use 30% of your 1RM or 70% of your 1RM, gains are virtually the same, so long as you take your sets to or close to failure. So one may conclude that using either method is best for bodybuilding for the long term. But let's think about this further:

A six-rep set won't get you as much of a pump as a 12-rep set.

If a pump responsible for sarcoplasmic "growth," via metabolic stress, then wouldn't we be missing out doing lower-rep sets? One way to that I've learned to get a pump with six-rep sets, is to do more sets: like five sets of six, which is a total of 30 reps. But does this achieve the same as three sets of 12, which his 36 reps?

A six-rep set will be more strenuous on your joints/tendons than a 12-rep set.

I find that extension movements are more prone to pain than curling movements; so in this thought experiment, lets take one-arm overhead dumbbell triceps extensions.

A six-rep 35lb dumbbell extension will certainly put more stress on your elbows than a 12-rep 20lb dumbbell extension; even with proper warm up, you can feel the tension on the elbow much more. In fact, many people like to warm up with cables before doing skull crushers and others movements, so they can get away with using less weight.

Most injuries seem to come from using heavier weights.

From all the tears I've seen on video, and the stories shared by the pros, injuries were caused by using heavy weights. Although it is certainly possible to tear a bicep or blow out your back doing some simple chore at home, like picking up a couch, virtually all of the videos I've seen of gym injuries have been with heavy sets.

Conclusion:

So with all this being said, wouldn't it make more sense for bodybuilders not to do heavy sets at all, and just stick to the "safer" 8-12 rep rage? Of course the term "heavy" is also relative, so it is hard to determine it for each person, but the six-rep range I would consider "heavy."

Tuttavia, ultimamente ho sperimentato con set di ripetizioni più basse, facendo le serie 4-5 di 6-8 ripetizioni, ma sto usando periodi di riposo super-brevi da 45 secondi a un minuto al massimo, con ampi set di riscaldamento; quindi il peso "pesante" che sto usando, è in realtà molto più leggero di quello che potrei usare, se avessi riposato più a lungo. In questo modo, ottengo una pompa, ma non devo nemmeno affaticarmi tanto facendo un set di ripetizioni più alto per esercizi che metterebbero a dura prova il mio SNC. Io per primo amo spingere forte, ma amo anche la pompa, quindi in questo modo, ottengo il meglio da entrambi i mondi, senza farmi male. Non sono mai stato ferito prima (a parte un manubrio da 130 libbre che cade sull'alluce), e non ho intenzione di farlo.

Ho avuto questa idea guardando Jay Cutler, che ha detto in un video che usa periodi molto brevi, e quindi, deve usare pesi "più pesanti" e più set per ottenere quel volume. Ha anche detto, se non può fare otto ripetizioni, non lo tocca.

Il motivo per cui mi sono imbattuto in Jay, è perché stavo facendo ricerche su chi sono i bodybuilder meno feriti là fuori, e mi sembra, quelli che sono meno feriti addestrati non così follemente pesanti come quelli che sono completamente distrutti oggi - Branch / Ronnie / Dorian ecc. Vediamo ragazzi come Dexter, che non credo si sia mai fatto male, pompare nei loro 50 anni lol. Quindi ci deve essere qualcosa in questo tipo di formazione.

Quindi, non ha senso che i modi più sicuri per allenarsi siano o fare serie di ripetizioni più alte con periodi di riposo più lunghi, o serie di ripetizioni più basse con periodi di riposo più brevi per rendere il peso "relativamente" pesante, quindi in entrambi i casi si ottiene lo stesso "volume" alla fine senza il rischio, invece di usare pesi pesanti con periodi di riposo più lunghi, Come se fossimo powerlifter, scambiando super-intensità per meno volume alla fine?

Solo alcuni pensieri da buttare là fuori.rec'è nessuno studio serio ed presso

As many of us already know, studies have shown that whether you use 30% of your 1RM or 70% of your 1RM, gains are virtually the same, so long as you take your sets to or close to failure. So one may conclude that using either method is best for bodybuilding for the long term. But let's think about this further:

A six-rep set won't get you as much of a pump as a 12-rep set.

If a pump responsible for sarcoplasmic "growth," via metabolic stress, then wouldn't we be missing out doing lower-rep sets? One way to that I've learned to get a pump with six-rep sets, is to do more sets: like five sets of six, which is a total of 30 reps. But does this achieve the same as three sets of 12, which his 36 reps?

A six-rep set will be more strenuous on your joints/tendons than a 12-rep set.

I find that extension movements are more prone to pain than curling movements; so in this thought experiment, lets take one-arm overhead dumbbell triceps extensions.

A six-rep 35lb dumbbell extension will certainly put more stress on your elbows than a 12-rep 20lb dumbbell extension; even with proper warm up, you can feel the tension on the elbow much more. In fact, many people like to warm up with cables before doing skull crushers and others movements, so they can get away with using less weight.

Most injuries seem to come from using heavier weights.

From all the tears I've seen on video, and the stories shared by the pros, injuries were caused by using heavy weights. Although it is certainly possible to tear a bicep or blow out your back doing some simple chore at home, like picking up a couch, virtually all of the videos I've seen of gym injuries have been with heavy sets.

Conclusion:

So with all this being said, wouldn't it make more sense for bodybuilders not to do heavy sets at all, and just stick to the "safer" 8-12 rep rage? Of course the term "heavy" is also relative, so it is hard to determine it for each person, but the six-rep range I would consider "heavy."

However, lately I've been experimenting with lower-rep sets, doing the 4-5 sets of 6-8 reps, but I'm using super-short rest periods of 45 seconds to a minute max, with ample warm up sets; so the "heavy" weight I'm using, is actually much lighter than what I could be using, had I rested longer. In this way, I get a pump, but I also don't have to fatigue myself as much doing higher rep set for exercises that would tax my CNS. I for one love to push hard, but I also love the pump, so in this way, I get the best of both worlds, without getting injured. I've never been injured before (aside from a 130lb dumbbell dropping on my big toe), and I don't plan on it, either.

I got this idea watching Jay Cutler, who said in a video that he uses very short periods, and thus, has to use "heavier" weights and more sets to get that volume. He also said, if he can't do eight reps, he doesn't touch it.

The reason why I ran into Jay, is because I was researching who are the least injured bodybuilders out there, and it seems to me, those who are least injured trained not as insanely heavy as those who are utterly destroyed today—Branch/Ronnie/Dorian etc. We see guys like Dexter, who I don't think has ever gotten injured at all, pumping along in their 50's lol. So there must be something to that kind of training.

So, doesn't it make sense that the safest ways to workout would either be to do higher-rep sets with longer rest periods, or lower-rep sets with shorter rest periods to make the weight "relatively" heavy, so in both cases you get the same "volume" in the end without the risk, instead of using heavy ass weights with longer rest periods, as if we were powerlifters, trading super-intensity for less volume in the end?

Just some thoughts to throw out there.

credo che dici una inesattezza. Non mi risulta nessuno studio serio e comprovato che dimostri che lavorare con pesi pesanti o con pesi bassi dia gli stessi risultati.
Né in termini di massa, né in termini di forza.