Seriously bros, read this study. I'm going to simplify it even further here.
Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men
Eighteen men had their legs randomly assigned to two of three training conditions that differed in contraction intensity (% of maximal strength [1RM]) or contraction volume (1 or 3 sets of repetitions): 30% - 3 sets, 80% - 1 set and, 80% - 3 sets. Subjects trained each leg with their assigned regime for a period of 10 weeks, 3 times a week.
We made pre- and post-training measures of strength, muscle volume by magnetic resonance (MR) scans.
The results
30% of 1RM for 3 sets until failure -
6.8%1.8% increase in muscle size.
80% of 1RM for 3 sets until failure -
7.2%1.8% increase in muscle size.
A statistically insignificant difference!
In accordance with our previous acute measurements of muscle protein synthetic rates a lower load lifted to failure resulted in similar hypertrophy as a heavy load lifted to failure.
So why in perfect health would one want to lift extremely heavy weights and either slowly or catastrophically injure themselves?
If your 1RM max for bench press is 35kg dumbells, roughly you could be lifting 15kg to failure and experience the same growth as lifting 30kg dumbells, minus the risk of injury and adding excellent cardiovascular conditioning at the same time.
Sigh, in untrained men you can get muscle growth from pretty much any load. The gains in muscle will be similar purely because it's not the load limiting muscle growth but the body's ability to add muscle mass at that stage.
Then there's not to mention the
completely fundamental errors in that particular piece of research.
- A sample size of just 18 people?
- "Here, we aimed to test whether the same was true with acute exercise-mediated changes in muscle protein synthesis" - Hypertrophy happens when protein synthesis exceeds protein degradation, leaving out the degradation data makes the conclusion practically a moot point.
- There are studies showing that short term high volume work results in a rebound in hypertrophy. This does not continue long term though, and this study was done over a short timeframe.
Once you've been training a few months I can pretty much guarantee there'd be a big difference.
Incidentally, training to failure is more dangerous than training with heavier loads not to failure. Training truly to failure is mostly idiotic.
Basically, studies show this:
Lifting a higher percentage of your 1RM leads to better increases in bone density, strength, power, myofibrillar hypertrophy, ATP efficiency and a whole heap of other stuff.
Training in the higher rep range (8-20) is more optimal for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and little else.
If all you care about is being big then train in the 8-20 rep range.
If you actually care about the numerous health benefits of heavy lifting then you are better off training with heavier weights.
I've yet to see someone
seriously injured that knew how to lift heavy weights. If you tear a bicep? Fixable. Hamstring? Fixable. Pec? Fixable. Rotator Cuff? Fixable.
If you play any other sport, then studies have confirmed that "injuries sustained during weightlifting training and weightlifting competition are substantially lower than injuries incurred from other sports such as football, gymnastics, or basketball", too.
"In college football players, time lost from injuries during weight training amounted to 1% of the time lost from injuries during football participation."
These are guys that train with heavy weights, that need strength and power in their sport.
Sport
Injuries (per 100 hours)
Soccer (school age) 6.20
UK Rugby 1.92
USA Basketball 0.03
UK Cross Country 0.37
Squash 0.10
US Football 0.10
Badminton 0.05
USA Gymnastics 0.044
USA Powerlifting 0.0027
USA Volleyball 0.0013
USA Tennis 0.001
Weight Training 0.0035 (85,733 hrs)
Weightlifting 0.0017 (168,551 hrs)