Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights

Re:Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights by Perceval on Friday August 13, 2010 @03:25PM (#1601969)

I like Starting Strength, but this study seems to contradict Rippetoe and Kilgore. They recommend 3 sets of 5 reps, whereas this study seems to indicate a higher number of reps with lower weight is just as good.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights by warpwoof on Friday August 13, 2010 @04:08PM (#1602108)

Not true. The measure of success in Starting Strength is 100% based on linearly increasing strength, with zero consideration to appearance aka "muscle growth."

As other posters have mentioned, it's well known that high-rep lifting will increase muscle mass, and that's what bodybuilders do. However, powerlifters don't care about anything but strength, so they use low reps, just as Starting Strength recommends.

So if strength is your main concern, like it is for Rippetoe and Kilgore, you would follow their recommendation. A higher number of reps with lower weight is certainly not just as good for strength development.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Building muscle doesn't require lifting heavy weights by ashconnor on Saturday August 14, 2010 @01:44PM (#1603696)

>The measure of success in Starting Strength is 100% based on linearly increasing strength, with zero consideration to appearance aka "muscle growth."

Strength increase and muscle growth go hand in hand.

[ Parent | on HN ]