No announcement yet.

Light Weight Training for Muscle Development

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    Here is a recent very small study comparing drop set resistance training to conventional resistance training. I am not sure any type of consensus can be formed from such a short study involving only 16 participants. I can easily post several studies that have conflicting conclusions but I also can provide several studies that support the conclusion of this particular study.





      You lost me at lincoln logs



        Hey Devil Dog is there a pm to this site

        Had a quick question for you





          Fantastic! I love this shit! Got any more?

          By only reading this abstract you can get a gist that drop sets may be just as or more effective then conventional sets. Now, it's just a abstract so we don't see the whole study but you mean to tell me I only have to do 1 drop set and it will be as effective as 3 normal sets? Awesome! Time saved so I can read some more studies!

          But wait a minute, this doesn't tell the whole story and I am going to poke a million holes in this abstract...

          What level of 1RM were the conventional sets performed under? What level of 1RM did the drop set start at and at what % did the weight drop at each interval? Were the conventional sets done to failure? Were the conventional sets a % of 1RM only to 10 reps? 5 reps? 20 reps? 

          Or the kicker: were they timed? If so, was the total TUT for the 3 conventional sets the same as the TUT total for the drop set?

          I tried to get to the entire study article but the link isn't working to check if any of these parameters were taken into account but I guess the point I am trying to make is to always use a skeptical eye when reading studies. If everything checks out, great! But wouldn't this mean this is really a measure of overall intensity, not that drop sets are better than conventional sets?

          I would love to see a study just like this looking at all of the variables to see if it really matters what set methodology is used (this study might have this info and I am just a fucking asshole). I don't personally think it does and that's why TUT has become so popular. It translates over so many areas of training and always works in the end. If a muscle is under tension for a total given amount of time under a given amount of weight (%1RM) and the amount of time or weight is increased as a trainee improves then boom! Gains!

          Granted, it's not THAT simple but us Meatheads are smart so we can figure the rest of this iron game out on our own.

          I'll get off my soapbox now



            Go to your profile. I sent you a friend request. In the future if you want to PM a member they first need to be added as a friend. To add a friend click the link below their avi in the forum topic.


            SEMPER FI



              "In fact, most of you know more about hormone interaction than most medical doctors."

              Speaking as someone who is in the medical field and around people the medical field 24/7 I can say:

              YOU ARE 100% CORRECT!

              US medicine as a whole stopped caring about AAS's once the government decided to make them a Schedule III drug.



                I have more than I care to mention. I even break them down to the degree that would even satisfy your abundant curiosity but I only have a limited amount of time to offer my hard earned research for free.

                Seriously though.... we are smarter than we are given credit for. In fact, most of you know more about hormone interaction than most medical doctors and more about muscle development than most of the so-called trainers in our local gyms or better yet... on YouTube.


                SEMPER FI



                  I know it's a dated thread, but wanted to at least acknowledge the awesomeness of the material!

                  Thanks guys!