As I Suspected: You Do Not Need High Weight To Bulk/tone

[ouroborous 519]

This is just one example, but at about ~1:20 in, you can see the result of numerous studies on numerous patient groups. The results are striking in their similarity: both low-repetition, high intensity (weight) and high-repetition, lower intensity (weight) sets produced equivalent results, when performed to fatigue or failure. Of course, you have to use enough weight to produce SOME kind of challenge, but men, you do not, not, not need to use the biggest stack of weight possible to "get big" and muscular. The big stacks of weight are the result of lots of bulking up, not the cause (confusing these two is like believing that not having dandruff causes people to use anti-dandruff Shampoo, instead of the other way around; it's an easy mistake to make if you just connect the dots -- hey, people without dandruff use anti-dandruff shampoo, therefore... -- and scientists/skeptics call this confusing correlation with causation).

Similarly, ladies, higher weights will not cause you to bulk up. Most of you ladies (and many of us men) simply lack the testosterone needed to produce significant muscle bulk, so make sure you're using enough weight to be challenging, or all that toning work will be for nothing.

Finally, it doesn't really matter how much weight you use (as long as it's enough to be eventually challenging, of course). There's no difference between "toning" exercise and "bulking" exercise -- challenging your muscles through any route will produce the same physiological neuromuscular changes, over the long run. Whether you "tone" (get long, lean muscles) or "bulk" (get large, bulky muscles) is almost entirely due to your physiology and hormones, and NOT due to the type of sets you do.

I'd suspected this for a time (some of the biggest, bulkiest bodybuilders at my gym seem to consistently be doing large numbers of lower-weight sets), so it's good to see it confirmed scientifically. I'm sure that some folks will simply dismiss it out of hand, as it goes against the received gospel of bodybuilding. But it's good to know what science says; I'm happy to learn that I don't have to use huge weights that increase my pain and risk of injury, in order to produce the same advantage. The real key -- like with anything -- is consistency, pushing my limits, and arming myself with knowledge of how my body works.

Edit: I forgot to mention this, but it's important. This has ONLY to do with muscle fitness and strength. It has NOTHING to do with training for a particular athletic activity. For instance, to be a good basketball player, you need a certain amount of muscular strength, and for that either high weights/low reps, or low weights/high reps will work. But you also need to train the shots, the defense, the strategy, the cardio endurance, and so on. For these things, the equation is completely different. My post is only about bulking/strengthening/toning muscles, where the amount of weight used is irrelevant.

[ouroborous 519]

As an adjunct, for men: using too much weight can be counterproductive. Why? Because even though it may look impressive and wow the other guys in the gym (which, realistically, should be the LAST thing we care about, but still...) it leads to more pain and likelihood of injury, which can temporarily or permanently sidetrack our bodybuilding routines. In the shorter term, higher weights can lead to a faster "cardio" failure (where you end the set because you're out of breath and sweaty, instead of because the muscle you're targeting failed). In this scenario, you've done very little to encourage the muscle to grow, you've just huffed and puffed a bit and impressed the other gym bunnies. And higher weights encourage poorer form, as we do things like rock our body to add enough lift to a standing biceps curl -- but this risks our lower back and actually reduces the intensity of the workout on the biceps.

I'm really glad to see my suspicions confirmed with studies; it's far more important that you are consistent and safe and use good form, than that you use big weights.

[Beyon Sleeve 57]

Very interesting, good to know. Thanks for sharing .

[Pookeyism 1,143]

It is good to shuffle the two about, in my experience (lots).

For me anyway I like the feeling of being able to do heavy weights and I like the longer cardo-laden effect you get with more reps and lower weights. As long as you keep careful eye on your form (max advantage and injury prevention) I agree - both build and maintain muscle.

Good post!

[ouroborous 519]

Very interesting, good to know. Thanks for sharing .

You're welcome. It's very, very important to counteract folklore with science and knowledge.

Here's another clip, from a (HUGE) professional bodybuilder. One of his last sentences is key: your muscles don't know weight, it knows failure. In other words, your muscle just doesn't "care" if you're using a giant stack of weight or not, it just "knows" when it's being worked to exhaustion.

[ouroborous 519]

It is good to shuffle the two about, in my experience (lots).

For me anyway I like the feeling of being able to do heavy weights and I like the longer cardo-laden effect you get with more reps and lower weights. As long as you keep careful eye on your form (max advantage and injury prevention) I agree - both build and maintain muscle.

Good post!

You have to find the workout that works for you; it's not that your muscles will respond any better to heavy weights, but if you don't like the workout or can't (or won't) stick with it, then even a more scientifically "correct" workout will be a poor choice, because the most important thing is to find a routine that you will stick with.

Like with losing weight, consistency is far more important in the long run. Be safe, challenge your muscles, and stick with it.

[favoredone 590]

Great information.. Thanks!!!

[BlackBerryJuice 349]

Interesting! It supports my theory that genetics trumps everything, anyway. I'm not the strongest woman at my gym - e.g. when we deadlifted the other day, I deadlifted 155 and the women's record was 225 - but I'm the most jacked by far.

[ouroborous 519]

Interesting! It supports my theory that genetics trumps everything, anyway. I'm not the strongest woman at my gym - e.g. when we deadlifted the other day, I deadlifted 155 and the women's record was 225 - but I'm the most jacked by far.

Genetics and steroids I saw some anecdotal evidence that shows that almost all of the top male bodybuilders have used some form of anabolic "help"...

And yeah, how your muscles look and how strong they are is very different; genetics play a big role in whether your muscles look "big" (large in the "belly" of the muscle) or "lean" (long, with a small "belly"... I tend to lean towards "big" in the upper body and "lean" in the lower body, but my high school friend and weightlifting partner was exactly the opposite!)

[Lissa 2,631]

I'm still working low weight and high reps and seeing incredible results in my arms and legs. I wish I could say I'm seeing the same results in my abdominal muscles, but the skin there keeps the abs from being visible still. I may never have a six pack, but I'm WAY stronger now than I was six months ago.

I'm hoping my genetic predisposition is to long and lean rather than bulky muscles. I don't know because almost every woman in my family is BIG. Those who aren't big are so skinny that they look emaciated. I'm gonna find out what we look like as normal weight people! LOL

[wishes 125]

That's awesome. I am so weak in the upper body, and everyone keeps pushing me to do high weights with low reps. However, it really is hard for me and I just don't enjoy working out that way. This gives me a lot of hope that I can still look toned with weights I can manage and high reps. Thank you so much!

[gmanbat 5,889]

Ouroborous,

Thanks, very interesting. So you are saying taking an exercise to failure is the ticket. An old Nautilus principle is "one set done right", one set for each exercise done to failure. Any further sets were a waste, like hammering a nail after it is already in. How do you feel about multiple sets?

I am concerned with the overall time involved in my workout time. In my experience a long, drawn out workout depletes me too much. I even seem to lower my immune system and get sick which derails the whole thing. That is why the heavy weight/low reps tactic appealed to me, although at this point heavy weights are out of the question anyway.

I have a simple exerciser called a Bodyblade http://www.bodyblade.com/bodyblade-home/

It is quick and takes muscles to falure very quickly. It is used a lot in therapy and warm ups but I think it is a great main workout item. I do the bodyblade, knee bends, push-ups, I swing a kettlebell around a bit, and do a small workout on a Bowflex type machine. That's about all I can do right now but it is plenty, I think.

[LilMissDiva Irene 3,282]

This is just one example, but at about ~1:20 in, you can see the result of numerous studies on numerous patient groups. The results are striking in their similarity: both low-repetition, high intensity (weight) and high-repetition, lower intensity (weight) sets produced equivalent results, when performed to fatigue or failure. Of course, you have to use enough weight to produce SOME kind of challenge, but men, you do not, not, not need to use the biggest stack of weight possible to "get big" and muscular. The big stacks of weight are the result of lots of bulking up, not the cause (confusing these two is like believing that not having dandruff causes people to use anti-dandruff Shampoo, instead of the other way around; it's an easy mistake to make if you just connect the dots -- hey, people without dandruff use anti-dandruff shampoo, therefore... -- and scientists/skeptics call this confusing correlation with causation).

Similarly, ladies, higher weights will not cause you to bulk up. Most of you ladies (and many of us men) simply lack the testosterone needed to produce significant muscle bulk, so make sure you're using enough weight to be challenging, or all that toning work will be for nothing.

Finally, it doesn't really matter how much weight you use (as long as it's enough to be eventually challenging, of course). There's no difference between "toning" exercise and "bulking" exercise -- challenging your muscles through any route will produce the same physiological neuromuscular changes, over the long run. Whether you "tone" (get long, lean muscles) or "bulk" (get large, bulky muscles) is almost entirely due to your physiology and hormones, and NOT due to the type of sets you do.

I'd suspected this for a time (some of the biggest, bulkiest bodybuilders at my gym seem to consistently be doing large numbers of lower-weight sets), so it's good to see it confirmed scientifically. I'm sure that some folks will simply dismiss it out of hand, as it goes against the received gospel of bodybuilding. But it's good to know what science says; I'm happy to learn that I don't have to use huge weights that increase my pain and risk of injury, in order to produce the same advantage. The real key -- like with anything -- is consistency, pushing my limits, and arming myself with knowledge of how my body works.

Edit: I forgot to mention this, but it's important. This has ONLY to do with muscle fitness and strength. It has NOTHING to do with training for a particular athletic activity. For instance, to be a good basketball player, you need a certain amount of muscular strength, and for that either high weights/low reps, or low weights/high reps will work. But you also need to train the shots, the defense, the strategy, the cardio endurance, and so on. For these things, the equation is completely different. My post is only about bulking/strengthening/toning muscles, where the amount of weight used is irrelevant.

That may be true for many women, but I am not the norm. I do bulk up a lot! That said it's mostly significant with what I'm eating, which if it's a lot of beef or pork along with lots of weight lifting, I absolutely do build up more than other women do.

That said I wouldn't know if actual heaviness would have anything to do with it. I never typically go over 15 Lbs, more it could be the amount of time I'm doing it. I don't really even lift weights at all, and much prefer calisthenics type of workouts to muscle tone (weight resistance). I also only do this about 3x per week and never 2 days in a row. But, as of Monday I will be doing the highly intense Insanity workout routine which calls to be done 6 days per week. We'll see how that fares.

Again, I am NOT in the majority though! I just wanted to put that out there, and maybe even find out if I am all alone on that boat. LOL!!

Ok... I just read your post again and I realize I'm speaking in FAVOR of your research, not against it. Very good!!!

[LilMissDiva Irene 3,282]

Interesting! It supports my theory that genetics trumps everything, anyway. I'm not the strongest woman at my gym - e.g. when we deadlifted the other day, I deadlifted 155 and the women's record was 225 - but I'm the most jacked by far.

OT: OMGudness BBJ, you look incredible girlie!!! WTG!!!

[ouroborous 519]

Ouroborous,

Thanks, very interesting. So you are saying taking an exercise to failure is the ticket. An old Nautilus principle is "one set done right", one set for each exercise done to failure. Any further sets were a waste, like hammering a nail after it is already in. How do you feel about multiple sets?

I am concerned with the overall time involved in my workout time. In my experience a long, drawn out workout depletes me too much. I even seem to lower my immune system and get sick which derails the whole thing. That is why the heavy weight/low reps tactic appealed to me, although at this point heavy weights are out of the question anyway.

I have a simple exerciser called a Bodyblade http://www.bodyblade...bodyblade-home/

It is quick and takes muscles to falure very quickly. It is used a lot in therapy and warm ups but I think it is a great main workout item. I do the bodyblade, knee bends, push-ups, I swing a kettlebell around a bit, and do a small workout on a Bowflex type machine. That's about all I can do right now but it is plenty, I think.

Yeah, you have to find a workout that works for you; if your entire routine takes too long, you may have to play around with the weight/reps equation.

The sports physiologist in the first video mentions a "90 second anaerobic window" that I'm trying to parse; she seems to be saying that you have to work to fatigue or failure within a 90 second window to produce optimal strengthening/bulking results. I don't know anything about that, but that's just my ignorance of deep sports physiology showing!