Anytime I see a study that seems to contradict common practice, it makes me sit up and take notice. It usually means there is something new going on.
Theory to Practice has this article: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/2 ... protocols/
It relates to this study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0012033
These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.
The study compares using light loads taken to failure and claim, based on blood tests, that this produces more hypertrophy than higher loads. The study compares 90% loads and 30%. It doesn't say what reps or time under tension this produces but my experience is that 90% would produce about 10 seconds TUT while 30% would be several minutes. I could see this generating much pain, but it's far too long to be optimal for hypertrophy. That it's better than 10 seconds is not surprising but probably far worse than 30 to 90 seconds which is the usual exercise range, with 40-60 being the normal hypertrophy range.
There is also debate as to whether the blood test is correlated with actual muscle growth or not. I would think that the damage to the muscles would be extensive and therefore require more protein sysnthesis to repair it.
Does anyone else see it this way or am I missing something?
The article doesn't say how much pain the young guinea pigs went through.
Edit: I just found table 2. TUT in the 90% group was 16.3 while the 30% was 43.3. That seems low to me.