Lift big to get big? What do YOU think??

[LoneTree]

People who disagree with it are just plain lazy.
They would rather take 2 gm of test than lift heavy.

 

[mendo]

Heavy is different for everyone. To grow well, you need to lift heavy for YOU. Shit a heavy curl for a pro could be a heavy bench for some little dude with no lifting history. But in the end there is no way to get big working in the 20 rep range.

 

[NickyE3]

I try to keep most of my lifts at maximum 12 and the least 5. But then I am a newbie and still learning.

 

[majutsu]

Lift smart.

Now you're talkin' . . .

 

[RADAR]

Lift heavy? You will not get much hypertrophy near your 1RM. If lifting heavy got you bigger, then how could powerlifters increase their bench or dead between comps without changing weight classes? The fact is if you lift heavy doubles or triples like I do to cycle up for push-pulls you will not gain much size, say arm size. Powerlifters are not that big at all in proportion to their 1 rep max lifts. Hypertrophy is best achieved at 60-85% of your maximum with a lot more volume. I'm actually doing a hypertrophy cycle after months of westside. My bodyweight and measurements are changing weekly now, but I did not budge my weight at all while doing westside despite increasing my bench 22%. Most of the adaptations to maximum effort training are fiber transitions (ST - FT), neurological adaptations and form improvements.

So lifting very heavy, near your max will not make you big. It will make you strong. Working out 60-85% of your maxes at a high volume is the best way to increase muscle size.

That being said, I believe that going near 80% gives a thicker physique than the guys who coast around 60%. Franco, Lou, Ronnie, Dorian, etc prove this.

Let's take a bodybuilder who's one-rep max squat is 425lbs. This is a good beginner/low-intermediate squat number. That bodybuilder will get a lot more size doing light sets of 75% of his one-rep max (which means 4 sets of 10 at 315lbs (75%)) than he will going heavy at 95% (doing 2 sets of 2 at 405lbs). There just isn't enough volume for good growth stimulus going heavy (95%) as there is when going light (75%).

Anyone who wants to read about all the latest training theories and periodizations along these lines should check out Tudor Bompa's (the Romanian Olympic weight training coach and trainer of 11 medalists) book Serious Strength Training, the second edition. It has EMG studies of exercises, explanation of hypertrophy, mixed, and max effort/powerlifting phases to blend to your satisfaction and goals. Very interesting read, even if you ultimately discard it for yourself.

This i definetely agree on.

RADAR

 

[TRAPezoid]

LMAO at this ...and it never fails they are the ones that want to try and correct your/someone’s form and act as if they know it all

totally, that three inches is one SET for them...

 

[Whiskey]

I think one needs to lift heavy, but does need the lighter, more rep sets.
I'll get a good warm up in, do my heavy lifting for whatever muscle, then finnish off with lighter sets with more reps.

I like the strength aspect of it all though, so sometime I myself skip the lighter work, but for overall size, I believe the higher rep is needed.

Majutsu, good post. I'll have to check out that link

Whiskey

 

[ocisbomb]

Does "Big" mean "heavy", "Large movements", or "Large quantity"?

 

[Alyosha K.]

I always thought it was "eat big to get big". You should always be pushing yourself in the gym, no matter what the rep range/weight.

 

[Tweakle]

heavy is relative, while doing nothign but singles can and will make you bigger if done correctly I believe in 4-6 reps on the compound stuff with a full ROM and leave the bouncing & cheating for the frat boys..

to quote dante

I havent seen a guy who can squat 500 for 20 reps, bench press 500 for 15 and deadlift 500 for 15 who was small yet ---but I have seen alot and i mean alot of people in the gym and on these forums that are a buck 65 or two and change--shouting that you dont have to lift heavy to get big.