It is well established that higher rep workouts better promote hypertrophy, and heavier low rep workouts promote neuromuscular efficiency. However, average trainees get both effects from any workout. The effects really only start to matter for more advanced trainees.
Whatever you do, don't rush out and start doing heavy 5 rep sets of squats without proper coaching. Heavy, low rep exercises must be done with impeccable form because otherwise the risk of injury is high. Developing good form takes time and carefully performed lighter high rep sets to train your body to maintain that form.
Keep in mind that if you want significant hypertrophy, you have to continually increase the weight, even if you're doing "high rep." Bodybuilders typically do more high-rep workouts than, say, a powerlifter. But their loads on high-rep workouts are still significantly more than an average person.
Personally, when I strength train, I mix it up between high-rep days (10 or more reps with a moderate weight, usually 4 sets), medium days (5 sets of 5 reps with loads that range from 70% to 90% of my max) and heavy days (7-10 reps of singles at higher than 90% of max). The hardest days, mentally and physically, are the high-rep days because it taxes my conditioning just as much as my strength.
I should have qualified that: by "high rep" I meant in the 10 - 12 rep range, as opposed to, say 5 reps. It's true that some training protocols call for much higher reps, but those are not typical.
The appropriate references supporting this can be found in "Practical Programming for Strength Training" by Rippetoe, amongst other resources.
Everything I've read is somewhere in the middle. Higher weight (85% of max) at 8-12 reps is the sweet spot for hypertrophy. I've seen that in lots of different places.
Actually, I don't think that's true -- most, if not all, studies are performed on untrained subjects. It is not at all established that methods that work for the first 6 months work the same at 5+ years.
No such thing is established at all. In particular, high rep only workouts can easily lead to muscle loss. The premier power methods seem to be a blend as discovered by the soviets if I remember correctly; see eg West Side Barbell and remember he's produced 20+ lifters who broke the two thousand pound mark. ie they're fucking huge
But yes, please do not rush out and do any heavy exercises without coaching, particularly squats or deads. You will give yourself lifelong injuries.
This mostly agrees with my own experience growing up and doing various types of weight training for various sports.
However, I'd say the very biggest thing that determines whether your weight-training leads to a big bulky physique or a lean and cut one isn't the number of reps you do. It's diet. If you eat large meals, you'll be big; if you don't, you'll be lean.
It may not be possible to get "huge" without using relatively heavy weights or your body weight, but a lot of people I've known have a ridiculous fear that they'll somehow accidentally develop the kind of physique that professional bodybuilders get after spending thousands of hours in the gym and taking anabolic steroids. It's also worth pointing out that some very lean people are shockingly strong. One guy at my school weighed about 160lbs, looked nothing like a bodybuilder and could bench 350lbs with ease.
There are 2 ways you can get stronger -
1. Adding muscle mass
2. Increasing the amount of muscle that's recruited for doing something. Ie increasing your neuromuscular efficiency.
Low reps increase strength by the second method. The second method also explains why you can be small but very strong
We've known about this for a long time: just ask any weight lifter. A routine of high weight compound movements would help pretty much anyone, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight, gain it, convert fat to muscle, whatever. Just exercise 3 times a week and eat more or less than your calorie needs according to what you're trying to do.
Starting Strength is a good program to look into, but really anything with squats, deadlifts, presses, etc. would be fine.
It's much much harder to gain muscle and lose fat simultaneously, than it is to simply focus on one then the other. They are fundamentally at odds with each other: to lose fat, you need less calories; to gain muscle, you need more calories.
The advice I've heard is to build strength and size first, by eating lots and training hard until you have the muscles you're after. Then you can turn your attention to losing fat and maintaining muscle, by eating less (though you'll still need more calories than before, as larger muscles burn a lot more energy even at rest), lowering the intensity of your training, and focusing more on cardiovascular exercise like jogging and cycling.
Up to a certain point, you can do both just by exercising more and harder. A complete beginner starting from zero volume will definitely lose fat and gain muscle if they start working out, as long as they eat no more than enough to maintain their weight. The only problem is that you can only do it if you're pretty poorly trained to start with. Most people who work out seriously are well past the point where they can do both at the same time.
Do you really need to do both? Seems to me you should lose fat first, for the health benefits if nothing else.
Try two things: rowing and push-ups. Rowing is spectacularly good cardiovascular exercise, and once you work your way up to 45+ minutes a day, you'll lose weight fairly rapidly. Rowing does not build muscle, but it does tone what you have. Once you've lost fat and toned up, you might actually like the results. If you don't, then start weight training. Starting Strength, etc.
As for push-ups, they're just plain good for you. Start something like the "hundred push-ups" program.
For your diet, just eat healthy meals and don't obsess with counting calories for now.
That's a pretty difficult path to follow. Chances are you'll end up not eating enough, and start burning muscle in addition to fat. If you lose more than about 1 kg / ~2.2 lbs a week, you're at risk of doing just that. On the other extreme, you can easily wind up eating too much, and gaining more than fat than actual muscle.
To really know what's going on, you'd of course have to measure actual body fat lost, rather than just weight lost. Muscles weigh more than fat, some build muscle more easily than others, etc.
Generally I'd say there's a reason most body builders bulk up for months, then spend time dropping excess weight, rather than aiming for a steady increase in muscle mass with zero fat gain.
For the most, my experience is that aiming for slow weight / fat loss through any muscle exercise is also bound to provide some muscle build up. That seems adequate for most people.
Eat meat and veggies. Eliminate any foods that are white and come in a box or bag from the middle of the supermarket. Walk a lot in between working out, and swim from time to time.
Go for a caloric surplus (and hit proteins) shortly after you finish your workout when your muscles are rebuilding / recharging, while keeping a caloric deficit for the whole day.
Have to disagree with people who say you do one and not the other.
Building muscle, without changing your diet, will cause changes in your body that will reduce the impact of what you eat. A pound of muscle takes ~100 calories a day to survive, a pound of fat ~10. It also changes your body in other, more subtle ways.
Serious low-carb dieters (as opposed to people who just binge on meat instead of cake) often do weight-training. (Especially women!)
They eat 11-15 calories/lb of current body weight, with lots of protein, which sustains them healthily and creates a caloric deficit. (And the ketosis helps.)
"A pound of muscle takes ~100 calories a day to survive"
This defies math when on the order of 1/3rd of your weight is muscle. The more commonly cited value is 50 calories a pound, and even that appears too high.
I've had good results with the 5x5 programme. It's a good manly thing to do, not as boring as hours on a bike, and is quick to perform (I can get in an out of the gym in 45 minutes).
Ditto. Brief summary for anyone who is interested: most crossfit workouts are a mix of weights and body weight exercises, but done at an aerobic pace. A typical workout might be 15-30 minutes (+ stretching before and after), after which you feel completely spent. Crossfit scales well with different ability levels and there is a lot of variety in workouts, so you don't get bored. The WODs (Workout of the Day) are posted on crossfit.com daily, and you usually won't see the same workout for 2-4 months at a time. It's fun to do a workout, struggle, then do the workout again a few months later and find that you improved significantly and no longer struggle.
From the CrossFit Faq (http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html):
"The world's most successful athletes and coaches rely on exercise science the way deer hunters rely on the accordion."
I hate to say this damages my perception of CrossFit.
This is because exercise science is doing experiments that were proven effective by practitioners years ago. In the same way you wouldn't expect to learn bleeding-edge hacking techniques taking classes at the undergraduate college level.. you'd expect to learn them from people who've used them effectively and are re-using them often.
This is 6 machines (back, legs, arms, breast, stomach, and neck) once a week.
Each repetition should take 20 seconds (so you do it slowly, which makes it harder) and you should be able to do about 7 repetitions before your muscles give up.
If you continue past two and a half minute the weight is increased.
I was skeptical at first, but today I am a believer ;) I have gone from 90 KG to 72 KG and would describe myself as muscular (but certainly not bulky) and feel overall in great shape (not just raw strength and duration, but also ability to do prolonged work in front of the computer in questionable positions w/o feeling back or neck pains).
Of course my weight loss can also be attributed to other factors (eating less and burning more calories), strength training alone is not necessarily giving a weight loss, but it does help increase the metabolism and ensures that eating less does not cause burning muscle tissue, plus give a nicer shape when the fat is gone.
I think familiarization and adaption are the enemy. You should vary workout cycles so you're never a heavy weight/low rep or a low weight/high rep person. But rather one who always varies workout variables at least every 3 weeks. These variables: reps, weight, rest duration, big body exercise (squat/dead lift), specific body exercise (bicep curl), tempo, sets, reps, super sets.
It's certainly not related to hacking, but on the other hand, there's always that broad "satisfies our intellectual curiosity" banner that you have to hold things to. Although it was short and to the point, it caused me to reevaluate something I had taken for granted, so personally I think it fit the bill.
Plus, I have a suspicion that the overlap between people who work out and people who go to hacker news is larger than you might think. I know that jogging, for instance, helps me focus, and I've heard other coders say the same. But I think I'm getting a bit tangential.
Weight lifting has been my primary form of workout for the last 9-10 years. I've found that its the only way of training I can do and still keep half a brain focused on a code / architectural issue.
As with biking / jogging / rowing, I find that a proper weight workout also helps me stay focused after finishing up.
Jogging I can see, but body-building and "working out" to me seems sort of the diametrical opposite, something I associate more with jocks. Being healthy and in reasonable shape is one thing, but obsessing over reps, weights, and muscle tone?
I think that largely depends on the gym. Some are really just show-off spots, I agree, but my experience is that the less mainstream, often kinda run-down joints have a much friendlier, less cocky and pretty intelligent under-tone to them.
I guess I have no opinion on that, never having stepped foot in a gym. =]
Mostly, the idea seems oddly artificial to me. I use my muscles when I want to do something with them, like go for a walk, or go hiking, or swimming, but not just for the sake of using them. Sort of how I approach coding, too...
Gah. I find this really irritating. You have never stepped foot in a gym, clearly have no idea what happens there, but are perfectly willing to pass judgement on it.
I find weightlifting itself immensly enjoyable, what I like to do with my muscles is to lift heavy things. I enjoy the fact that this strength is useful throughout the other aspects of my life. (Think yardwork, sex, sports, etc.) I have solved more difficult problems both personal and intellectual while weight training that anything else that I do.
I also enjoy the long term challenge of planning my training. Once the easy gains are completed, advancing in strength becomes a rather difficult exercise in planning, discipline, execution, creativity, etc.
If you enjoy weightlifting, that's fine, but I don't see what it has to do with hacker culture. Some people enjoy literary theory too, and I don't begrudge them that, but I would be pretty surprised to see it here.
I can see that, but I was coming more from the perspective of someone interested in being a healthy/in-shape layperson, not a sportsman. If you don't care about sports, will weight-training improve quality of life? I can definitely say "yes" to recreational hiking for that (it's enjoyable in itself imo), but I can only imagine that being true for weight-lifting is if it were necessary to avoid health problems (and there were no outdoor alternatives that worked).
A CrossFit guy I know says, squatting when you are 30 means when you are 80 you can go to the bathroom unassisted.
I don't know what you mean by recreational hiking, but it's hard to see how greater strength wouldn't help. For me, that means a load of 25-50 lbs on my back, moving swiftly across rough terrain. Core stability is paramount, and with weights you can develop that and be ready when you go on a trip.
>A CrossFit guy I know says, squatting when you are 30 means when you are 80 you can go to the bathroom unassisted.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, but I haven't been able to track down any solid information on it. There are a lot of articles talking of research showing elderly runners and elderly former runners suffer less disability in terms of doing those sorts of daily tasks than their non-running cohorts.
Yes. Past about 30, muscle you don't use is muscle you lose. We don't have to become frail in our old age. Regular strength training is a way to prevent it.
Yes, but it's still useful to not make HN about every possible thing. If "weightlifting is hacking your body", then "being into cosmetics is hacking your appearance", "political activism is about hacking government/society", and every possible interest is hacking something. Isn't the point of this site to be tech-focused?
What seems to be ignored is the difference in the muscle itself from more weight fewer reps contra less weight more reps; bigger muscles faster, contra notable endurance gain.
You will always gain size by increasing weight to push the muscle and force it to rebuild as the fibers break down when their potential's limit is approached, but the only way to build enduring muscle fiber is by more reps; by tiring the muscle out entirely to the point it can't do more repetitions. A muscle can be big, bulky, and deliver explosive power, and it can be lean, "tendony", hardy and durable. It is no different to normal stamina build from typical "cardio training" like jogging - every 100 meter extra you add to your trip slowly becomes easier for your entire body - heart, lungs, muscles.
While true, I think there's more to the mix than that. For the last 9-10 years I've stuck with a high-weight-few-reps approach, and I've found that while my strength has increased a lot, I by no means look bulky. I'd think most people would just place me in the "possibly working out" category if they saw me in a t-shirt.
Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy.
Biking, on the other hand, which I for the most had a brief encounter with to shed 45 excess lbs 10 years ago, I found built huge leg muscles. My biking had much more in common with the low-weight-many-reps-strategy.
Same experience here. I think people get confused because of how professional athletes are built. The best long-distance cyclists are very light and lean, while the best sprinters have huge lower bodies. Same thing with runners: sprinters are very muscular, and marathoners look like coat hangers covered with a thin layer of beef jerky. That is because of selection effects and professional levels of training, though, and is a misleading way of judging the effect of casual training on normal people with day jobs.
I know a lot of people believe that lower weight x many reps is "toning" and higher weight x few reps is "bulking" but I have found credible arguments AGAINST this idea that there is any difference.
It also seems to me like people won't get very large muscles without either incredible amounts of dedications, or juicing.
Unfortunately weight training works best if your muscles actually move instead of just stretching. I do wonder whether the "trying to lift your car" exercise routine would eventually build your muscles, though.
The other thing I wonder is whether you can do weight training without weights by pitting one hand against the other. Try to curl your biceps on one arm while pushing down with your other hand to try to prevent it. Is there any reason this won't work? Could be a good way to build muscle while sitting at your desk.
Trying to lift a car probably would eventually build some muscle, though as its not a full range of motion, it'd be weird, but I can't see how you'd be able to keep working at it without doing some serious damage to your back. Good luck maintaining proper form while attempting it!
Whatever you do, don't rush out and start doing heavy 5 rep sets of squats without proper coaching. Heavy, low rep exercises must be done with impeccable form because otherwise the risk of injury is high. Developing good form takes time and carefully performed lighter high rep sets to train your body to maintain that form.
Diet, of course is also an essential component.