all posts post new thread

Barbell [vid] easy doesn't work

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Kyle Schuant

Kyle Schuant

Level 1 Valued Member
A study was done purporting to show that load doesn't matter for results. Since the study told the public what it wanted to hear - that easy works - it was widely and enthusiastically reported without any serious analysis or discussion. I corresponded with the authour, and he and his colleagues lack experience of genuine strength training.

In this video, the Starting Strength crew put more thought into analysing the study that the scientists put into making it.

 
I'm at work so I can't watch the vid, but in the original study do they basically say e.g. 100 squats with 50lbs would yield the same results as 10 squats with 500lbs? o_O
 
Kyle, since I believe two of these men it said are competing powerlifters do you think they had any bias? ; ) I would hope that no one would be surprised by their opinions.
 
Study says:
"For the training program the HR group performed 3 sets of 20–25 repetitions per set such that the load
varied between 30 and 50% of 1RM with each set being performed to volitional failure. The LR group
performed 3 sets of 8–12 repetitions per set that corresponded to 75–90% of 1RM with each set
being performed to volitional failure."

As for the discussion: I wouldn't call 3 sets of 20-25 reps taken to failure 'easy'.
 
That was brought up in the discussion. But remember how this was reported in the media - they didn't mention the "to failure for 3 sets an exercise supersetted with another exercise 4 days a week." So people will go and choose a light weight and do it for a stack of reps and wonder "but where was gainz?"
 
I read that study a while ago too.

As far as studies go, they did quite a good job with the way they structured the research and collected the data. It was a shame that entire premise of the study was flawed from the outset. They didn't seem to understand what a low rep training scheme entails and based all their assumptions on several fundamental misunderstandings.

In the wash up it seems that all they did was compare two ineffective training modalities. In effect they proved scientifically that a flawed hypothesis can be proven with customised study designed to do so.

The white coat brigade can prove black is white if they approach the research from the right angle and frame their terms of reference correctly.
 
@Tarzan, why do you think that doing 3 sets of of 8-12 reps using about 80% of your 1RM would be ineffective?

"Sets of eight build strength", Pavel Tsatsouline, Kettlebell Simple&Sinister
 
@Mirek you certainly can build strength in that rep range. I do some of my training in that zone but optimal gains in strength come in lower rep ranges.

My understanding is the energy systems our bodies use when doing different length bursts of energy changes after about 6 - 8 seconds. For the first few seconds we are using the phosphate energy pathways and once we start doing longer sets our bodies start switching over to glycolosis energy pathways when the phosphates have been used up.

So I see sets of 6 -15 reps still as a form of strength training but it's more geared for power production than sheer grunt. When you train in rep ranges that take over about 6 seconds time under tension then you are still strength training but you're getting into the zone where factors like hydrogen buffering efficiency of muscles comes into play and it becomes a form endurance adaptation.
 
Last edited:
Mirek said:
@Tarzan, why do you think that doing 3 sets of of 8-12 reps using about 80% of your 1RM would be ineffective?
Click to expand...
Most people probably can't do 12 reps with 80% of their max. A very experienced lifter perhaps could, but neither this study nor most of the Starting Strength crew - nor indeed, most trainers anywhere - deal with very experienced lifters.

Sets of 8-12 are not ineffective. Sets of 100 are not ineffective. They are just less effective at building strength than sets of 3-5.

Pavel's quote was about kettlebells. Generally kettlebells come in 4kg increments. In for example a KB press, jumping from a 16 to 20kg bell, it's a big jump - a 25% increase. Keep that up and get stuck pretty soon. Thus with kettlebells load can't be the variable in very many workouts, so reps and sets have to be the variable instead. If you do 3-5 reps with a 16kg KB, you go to a 20 and you'll be lucky to grind out a single. But if you're doing sets of 10 then you should be able to get 5 or so with the new weight, and you can just do a lot of sets and build up the reps until you can do 10 or so, and so on.

If we only used fixed barbells, or no plates under 5kg, then we would also have to use reps and sets as the variables, and do a stack of reps with one weight so we could progress to the next. However we have plate-loaded barbells, which means we can take jumps as small as 0.5kg. This lets us use just load as the variable for quite some time.

You can indeed get stronger with 4kg-jump kettlebells and sets of 8-12. But you will get more strength more quickly with microloadable barbells and sets of 3-5. I had a KB trainer come to my gym. She got more strength improvement and more muscle growth in 3 months of progressive resistance training using barbells and sets of 3-5 than she had in 3 years of kettlebell training with sets of 8-12 (or more for swings etc); and when she returned to KB, she could snatch a heavier KB than before for longer, despite not having trained it for 3 months. Now, part of this was going from self-coached to someone else coaching her, which always kicks things up a gear, but it was also the tools and the progressive loading.

The basic physical qualities are strength, endurance and mobility. If you want just strength, barbells are the tool to use. If you want just endurance, go for a run. If you want mobility, do yoga. If you want a little bit of all three, use kettlebells. In terms of what most people need for health and everyday life, they can achieve it with 3 kettlebells, a pullup bar, and a skipping rope or local park. But those who undertake a novice linear progression for 3-6 months will build a base of lean mass and strength which will make those 3 bells, the pullup bar and local park even easier to handle and more effective. And they will also have the option to try more challenging things such as weightlifting.
 
Today at a meet a 68yo woman I trained deadlifted 110kg, and was disappointed (she'd wanted 120). A 31yo woman I'd trained deadlifted 120, and was thrilled - but she came last, the winner in her weight class (75) had pulled 205.

All of them used 5 reps or less in their training, and did not train to failure, unless you count the occasional heavy singles which sometimes get missed.

So I don't think I'll change what we're doing.
 
@Mirek, please read Pavel's Power to the People! for more about rep ranges. 8 is tops for strength building on primary exercises. If you ask me, even 5's are cardio. :). Seriously, with a 70% weight, 8's really are about as high as you should let the rep count go. And for heavier weights, even lower reps are best. And for strength, some programs don't even count anything below 70%.

The next time you have the urge to do a set of 10, grab a heavier weight and do a 2-3-5 ladder instead.

-S-
 
@Steve Freides I do not train using high reps myself, not fan of these, sets of 8 or 10 almost count as treadmill to me.
ETK, which I am doing, won't let you do it for grinds anyway.

I just read somewhere that 8's are good mix for strength and muscles, i.e. increasing your strength via
both neurological and hypertrophy mechanisms.

Thanks for the tip on Power to the People!.
 
@Steve Freides I do not train using high reps myself, not fan of these, sets of 8 or 10 almost count as treadmill to me.
ETK, which I am doing, won't let you do it for grinds anyway.

I just read somewhere that 8's are good mix for strength and muscles, i.e. increasing your strength via
both neurological and hypertrophy mechanisms.

Thanks for the tip on Power to the People!.
 
not to discount what anybody is saying but, like Dan John says "everything works". if you train consistently any rep range will make you stronger. Ed Coan discussed starting training cycles by spending two weeks with sets of 12, another two with sets of 10, another two with sets of 8, continuing to add weight and drop the reps only to eventually start over again with sets of 12. Mr. Coan knew a thing or two about strength.
 
Everything does work - any strength training is better than none. But the higher the rep count, the more we tip the balances towards hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is a valid way to gain strength but ...

-S-
 
andrewswanson said:
not to discount what anybody is saying but, like Dan John says "everything works". if you train consistently any rep range will make you stronger. Ed Coan discussed starting training cycles by -
Click to expand...
He is an advanced lifter peaking for a competition. This is different to a beginner building a base. The lads in the study had benched 90kg, Coan benched 265kg.

I am not going to advise anyone with a 200+kg bench on how to make it better.

Yes, everything works. But Dan John was not saying everything works equally well, if it did then nobody would need coaching at all, and they wouldn't pay $2,500 for a weekend seminar with Dan John.

Yes, everything works. The question is what's optimal. Barbell training for sets of 3-5 is optimal for a healthy beginner.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom