Reps don't matter

Discussion of peer refereed articles and clinical applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, darshana, stuward

Locked
User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6612
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Reps don't matter

Post by stuward » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:59 am

This article is important as it refers to a new meta-study that concludes that reps don't matter for strength gains. There are also links to articles from other bloggers like Clarance Bass that are well worth reading.

http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2 ... for-speed/
Many resistance training experts claim that a very heavy resistance is required to produce optimal strength gains. However, the size principle, motor unit activation studies, and the overwhelming majority of resistance training studies refute that claim. In fact, these studies support the premise that a moderate amount of resistance will produce similar strength gains.



What matters is the effort you put in.

I think this article is important as many get wrapped around the axle over lifting heavy for strength vs volume. I know I do myself sometimes. The bottom line I take from this is to do what works for you and don't be afraid to experiment.

Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:56 pm

The majority of resistance training studies are short-term and involve untrained subjects.

For strength training to be effective long-term it has to be progressive, and that means you'll eventually end up handling heavy weights.

jonbey
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:29 pm

Post by jonbey » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:49 pm

It is really annoying that there have been no scientific trails on those that are already fit and have been strength training for a while. However, there have been plenty of studies that have concluded that lifting heavier makes you stronger - it makes sense really. How could lifting 50kg in training allow you to eventually lift 200kg? Progressive overload must be the key.

I compiled all the relevant articles/papers that I could find here, and attempted to make some sense of them: Weight Training Intensity or Volume for Bigger Muscles?

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6612
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:40 pm

Good article Jon. I have 2 questions. Have you read "HIT with a hammer" by Fred Hatfield, and why do you have a picture of a women doing curls with baby weights on the page?

Here's the link to the Hatfield article. It covers some of the same ground you did. http://drsquat.com/content/articles/hit-hammer

jonbey
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:29 pm

Post by jonbey » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:30 pm

Lol. the baby curl woman is an ad. Beggers cannot be chosers.

Will read that article.

jonbey
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:29 pm

Post by jonbey » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:50 pm

I liked that. I did suspect something fishy was going on. Like some bodybuilders promote a brand of supplements, some magazines, some organize bodybuilding events. I did wonder if the whole HIT thing was just a cunning way to market a new brand of equipment.

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:40 pm

Back when I was still moving about from program to program early on, I tried HIT for 2 months, never worked for me - saw a stark decline from the multi-sets (even prior to "total rep count" pacing).

Strange how this accidental double-post of "reps dont matter" evolved into two unrelated discussions.

Locked