Discussion Board

As I continue my quest to reverse my CAD (I am a 55yo. male) I have been pleased with my body's response to resistance training.

I would like to shed a little more body fat without getting bulked up.

I have read that in order to change my body I would need to lift heavier weights in the 6-10 rep range rather than the 12-15 rep range that I have focused on so far.

I am concerned that this will cause me to bulk up more than I want.

What is your take on this?

Raytaupedi,

Your 'bulkability' factor is a function of your genetic potential and training. Most people have to work darn hard to truly build big muscle, though for some it does come easier than others based on hormones and other aspects of genetics. Unless that's you, you probably don't need to worry about runaway bulk.

To 'rip', though, you do need to lean out. It's always surprising to people when they finally get it together on losing fat with a good diet that they've 'really grown some nice muscle'! Often I just have to remind them that, well, now it just shows!

If you are moving in the direction of results you are after, then you could stay with it. I have a video up on my blog that addresses the 'heavy weight/low rep" vs "low weight/high rep" that you may find interesting here:

Light weight and high reps or heavy weight and low reps to make muscle? (video)

Lani

My experience is that I can get increased muscle "density" without hypertrophy; I would call that "tone". That happens just from use of any sort beyond what that muscle is used to. Also, low weight/high reps, I get more endurance without hypertrophy ie I can do increasing number of reps at given weight without rest break.

To get hypertrophy though ie increased size, at least beyond a very small amount, requires serious intensity and volume of work. I get very very slow size increase, at least at first, from lower weight/high reps but the only time I really notice much in the way of size increase is if I go w/ considerably heavier weight. At least so it appears to me.

I'd suggest lifting a little more weight--in the best form you can handle--with fewer reps (think no more than five). Light weights will pump you up...think 'beach muscle'.

A little more weight with max of five reps will stimulate myofibrillar hypertrophy where the intra-muscular contractile proteins increase & add to muscular strength with an accompanying small increase in the size of the muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is associated with the increase of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle (the bloated "pump" bodybuilders try to achieve with higher reps).

That is a generalization, but, you get the point. Simply look at the physiques of Olympic lifters vs.bodybuilders. And with women I encourage to lift, the first complaint is "I don't want to get 'big' " and my answer is so keep your reps low and lift a little more weight. Never have had a complaint with my advice.

With that, simply follow a tight diet...avoid breads and stick with starches like beans, rice, sweet potatoes and you'll be set.

There is so much muscle slang in the fitness world it becomes confusing to fitness and body shaping aspirants.

"Tone" is one of those words.
"Muscle density" is a slang term in the fitness field too, which is searches in scientific journals don't bring up much in the way of results - you only find it on the fitness sites where often the credentials come into question. In body composition, density actually it refers to the relative weight of protein tissue.

"Muscle bulk' is also a slang term in our fitness field, associated with 'size' of muscle. 'Muscle bulk' thus is somewhat associated to muscle hypertrophy, which literally is an increase in diameter size of muscle.

That said, heavier weights with lower reps have the potential to create more muscle damage and result in hypertrophy. Lower weights with higher reps still build muscle, yet without the greater damage can have less hypertrophic impact.


And it's all colored by the participant. Endomorphics are always going to be hypertrophy challenged over the mesomorph, so again we are all an experiment of one, within certain guidelines.

Lani

Maybe I am feeling something else but my muscles feel like they have much more "protein tissue" in them after I have been training for awhile compared to after a prolonged layoff. I am not talking about fluid/pump but even after a couple days rest. And that is without much size increase if doing high rep stuff.

If you want to get ripped, Clarence Bass is the man to show the path to follow. Here he is at 70: http://vimeo.com/2955197

A 2002 study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine challenges bodybuilding dogma. The researchers, led by Dr. J.P. Folland, found that fatigue and metabolic accumulation (pump) is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains. “High resistance training is known to enhance muscular strength and promote hypertrophy, but the physiological link between the activity and the increased accumulation of contractile proteins required for these adaptations has yet to be elucidated,” Folland et al wrote in introducing the study. “It is clear that high force muscle actions are required to increase strength but beyond this there is considerable uncertainty,” they continued.

The following is from a post by Clarence Bass on his website: http://www.cbass.com summarizing the study, which should give you some insight vis-a-vis the answer to your question (just do any kind of resistance training workout you want and don't eat too much and you won't bulk up -- you will gain muscle and loss fat at the same time (been there, done that, many times in my 65 years)):

Study Details

Twenty-three recreationally active adults (18-29 years of age, eight women) were assigned to either a high fatigue (HF) protocol (four sets of 10 reps with 30 seconds rest between sets) to maximize metabolic stress or a low fatigue (LF) protocol (40 reps with 30 seconds between each rep) to minimize the build up of fatigue products. Both groups trained three times a week for nine weeks, lifting 75% of their one repetition maximum (1RM) in full range knee extensions. 1RM was measured every week, and load was adjusted as necessary to keep load at 75% 1RM. If necessary, load was reduced to allow the participants to complete the prescribed number of reps using proper form. The total number of reps was the same for both groups.

As you can see, the protocols were designed to differentiate as much as possible for fatigue and metabolic accumulation.

Mean 1RM increased significantly for both groups, from 85 to 114 kg for the high fatigue group (34%), and from 80 to 112 kg for LF (40%). There was no significant difference between the gains in lifting strength of the two groups after 4.5 weeks or 9 weeks. The HF group was usually unable to lift 75% of 1RM throughout each training session and trained at a mean load of 71.8% of 1RM. The LF group was able to lift 75% for all 40 reps. (1 kg = 2.206 pounds)

Discussion and Conclusion

“The main finding of this study was the similarity in the effects of high fatigue (HF) and low fatigue (LF) training,” the researchers wrote. “Our observations suggest that high fatigue is not an essential or primary stimulus for gains in strength.”

Interestingly, the HF group experienced severe muscle soreness during the first week of training; this was not the case for the LF group. This indicates muscle damage, according to Folland et al. “In theory, this could have attenuated the strength gains and any advantage of HF training,” the researchers opined. In the final analysis, however, it didn’t seem to affect the results. It simply made the HF training more unpleasant in the beginning.

On the other hand, the researchers speculated that the LF group might have been able to complete the training protocol with a training load higher than 75% 1RM “and this may produce greater strength gains than we observed.”

While it would have been possible to measure metabolic accumulation using NMR spectroscopy, they “believe that, in practice, it would be difficult to achieve a greater discrepancy in fatigue” and metabolic accumulation during resistance training than was the case here. In short, the Folland study was an excellent test of the effect of HF and LF training on strength.

“This suggests that significant and comparable strength gains can be achieved with training than involves a low level of discomfort and physical effort,” Folland et al wrote.

They concluded: “Fatigue and metabolite accumulation do not appear to be critical stimuli for strength gains, and resistance training can be effective without the severe discomfort and acute physical effort.”

* * *

Clarence Bass states: "I do not rush through workouts. My approach has always been to take my time moving from set to set and exercise to exercise. I rest as long as necessary to prepare mentally and physically for the next set or exercise. I take care not to lose training focus and momentum, but I don’t do the next lift until I’m ready. This study suggests that my approach is effective. It also confirms that concentrating on effort, not pump, is an effective approach for building strength.

Both methods work, however. Take your pick."

In one of my experiments over my 40 plus years of weight training (I still lift three times a week), I restricted my calories to 1600 per day and 45 grams of protein (I did not check to determine if I was getting all the RDI of essential amino acids), and no more than 5 gms of fat. I lost about 30 pounds of fat, and tripled the amount of iron I was able to bench, for example. I was a lean, mean, fighting machine. I did a 3 sets of 8 reps routine that took about 90 minutes, and then either rowed for 30 minutes or jogged 3 miles (one time I did the rowing after the weights and on another experiment I did the jogging). It takes work to get ripped and you won't bulk up doing it (in fact, when bodybuilders are getting ready for a contest the work on getting ripped -- case study, one of my friends who took 9th place in his first contest found that his bench press dropped from 450 lbs to 225 lbs as he got ripped: that is, as he lost his bulk he could lift less; makes sense).

Good luck.

From The Desk Of Clarence Bass (www.cbass.com)

“Activity is far more important than age in determining fitness level—and an active 50-year-old can be every bit as fit as a sedentary 20-year-old.” Ulrik Wisloff, PhD, Center for Sports and Physical Activity Research, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Science Daily, October 11, 2011)

Exercise Overcomes 30 Years of Aging—Intensity More Important than Duration

Norwegian researchers have produced what may be the most important evidence so far of the power of exercise to combat aging and preserve health. They used the world’s largest fitness database. Stian Thoresen Aspense was awarded his PhD for his study of 4631 healthy volunteers who underwent laboratory examination to measure VO2 peak and record their cardiovascular risk factors. The participants were also given an activity index score, based on exercise frequency, duration, and intensity.

Other studies have come to similar conclusions, but they used indirect measurements of fitness or were based on small populations. Aspense, principle investigator Dr. Ulrik Wisloff, and their colleagues used direct measurement of VO2 peak to assess the association with aging and cardiovascular risk factors. “These data represent the largest reference material of objectively measured VO2 peak in healthy men and women 20-90 years,” the researchers wrote.

Science Daily tells us that the underpinnings of the Aspense-Wisloff research go back to a 1965 study conducted in Dallas, Texas, which highlighted the devastating effect of inactivity. Science Daily calls it “one of the most famous fitness studies of all time.” The Dallas researchers selected five healthy 20-year-olds to spend three weeks in bed. Predictably, they lost fitness—VO2 max dropped by a huge 27 percent. The biggest surprise, however, came 30 years later, when researchers retested these same men.

“Time had not been so charitable to these men,” Science Daily wrote. Their body fat had doubled—they’d gained over 50 pounds on average—and they were far from fit. Their peak oxygen uptake, however, had dropped by only 11 percent as compared to their 20-year-old healthy selves. Thirty years of aging decreased their fitness less than half as much as three weeks in bed.

The Norwegian researchers went beyond the Dallas findings, according to Science Daily. They reversed the process--substituting activity for inactivity--and showed that exercise can stop the decline in fitness that typically comes with aging. They found that fit 50-year olds can be as fit as 20-year olds who don’t exercise. “VO2 peak in inactive participants aged 20-29 was nearly identical with that of highly active participants 50-59 years,” Aspense-Wisloff et al wrote.

The question, then, becomes what kind of exercise worked best. When the Norwegian researchers looked at the importance of intensity versus duration, intensity was far more important than duration in determining peak oxygen uptake, according to information provided by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Science Daily was also told that the Norwegian researchers had looked at the benefits of high intensity interval training, and found that this form of training is a quick and effective way to increase overall fitness.

Fitness and Risk Factors

Aspense-Wisloff et al also observed that both men and women benefited healthwise from above average fitness levels. The figures are somewhat different for men and women, however. Why is not explained.

“Women below median VO2 peak (<35.1 ml kg min) were five times, and men below median (<44.2 ml kg min) were eight times, more likely to have a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors compared to those in the highest quartile of VO2 peak,” Aspense-Wisloff et al wrote. “In a similar analyses, we found that each 5-ml kg min lower VO2 peak corresponded to 54% higher odds for cardiovascular risk factor clustering in men and 58% higher odds in women.”

Exercise pays dividends in health as well as fitness. “Physical condition is the most important factor in describing an individual’s overall health, almost like a report card,” Stian Thoresen Aspense told Science Daily.

The Aspense-Wisloff study is reported in the August, 2011, issue of the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

* * *

Keep in mind that these findings are statistical averages. Wonderful and encouraging as they are, enthusiastic lifetime trainers are likely to benefit even more.



Ripped Enterprises, P.O. Box 51236, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87181-1236 or street address: 528 Chama, N.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108, Phone (505) 266-5858, e-mail: cncbass@aol.com , FAX: (505) 266-9123. Office hours: Monday-Friday, 8-5, Mountain time. FAX for international orders: Please check with your local phone book and add the following: 001-505 266-9123

Steelhead, thanks for posting this stuff, very inspiring.