would me doing heavier sets of my exercises burn more fat in addition to help me gains more muscle mass? i read somewhere than traing with heavier weights bulds more muscle, is this true?

nope…there is no correlation at all.

[quote]talon2nr7588 wrote:

would me doing heavier sets of my exercises burn more fat in addition to help me gains more muscle mass? i read somewhere than traing with heavier weights bulds more muscle, is this true?[/quote]

ABSOLUTELY not. The heavier you go the more chance there is you’ll overtrain and injure yourself. Trainn with the lightest weights possible…

NAHHHH jk man, heavier weights on lower reps is for size, lighter weigh on higher reps is for endurance.

The first thing to building more muscle is food. You need to eat a lot. About 50-60% of your calories should come from carbs, 25-30% from protein, and the rest from healthy fats. Multiply your lean muscle mass by 18 and that is the amount approx. of calories you should eat per day.

Second, you should check Waterbury’s and Thibadeau’s locker for lifting advice. Especially, read Chad Waterbury’s Set/Rep Bible.

is this a serious post?

Bench Press example A: 10 sets of 3 reps with 200lbs

10x3 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~60 seconds total TUT for the routine…

10x3 @ 200 Lbs = 6000 LBS @ ~60 seconds total TUT…

## Approx~ 100LBS/sec… for ~60sec of TUT

Bench Press example B: 6 sets of 10 reps with 100 LBS

6x10 at a TUT of ~2 sec per rep = ~120 seconds total TUT for the routine…

6x10 @ 100 LBS = 6000 LBS @ ~ 120sec of total TUT…

## Approx~ 50LBS/sec… for ~120sec of TUT

Now the volume is the same, 6000 LBS at 2 different rep ranges. The lighter range also is twice as long under tension.

Now with the volume the same… How can lifting 50 LBS per second possibly be more damaging than lifting 100LBS per second?

If I had a 6000 LB group of bricks, and 2 guys moved them in two different ways. There is no way that the guy who took twice as long to move that same pile got the better workout.

I’m still waiting for someone to comment on this. I didn’t even mention the fact that the muscles you are building are the larger type strands yet… but I’m saving it.

I’m just trying to convince myself that light weights are pointless. The only reason to use them is to target muscles you cant target with heavier weights.

Dude, in all honesty, the TYPE of person who would even ask this question is probably on the wrong site.

Anyone claiming this is not the case, I would love to hear your hugging/caring/patronizing explanation for it.

[quote]talon2nr7588 wrote:

would me doing heavier sets of my exercises burn more fat in addition to help me gains more muscle mass? i read somewhere than traing with heavier weights bulds more muscle, is this true?[/quote]

Heavier weights do = more muscle, but make sure you learn the exercises before going real heavy, train witha partner at least for a while and don’t get too ambitious too soon or you may find yourself with a bar on your neck or a big purple spot where one of your tendons used to connect to one of your bones.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Dude, in all honesty, the TYPE of person who would even ask this question is probably on the wrong site.

Anyone claiming this is not the case, I would love to hear your hugging/caring/patronizing explanation for it.[/quote]

LOL!

“hugging/caring/patronizing”

Of course you’re almost certainly right and I even thought this was a "“fake” post just for the sake of getting a reaction, but what the hell. Ya never know.

In many ways, it’s true. But at the same time, getting stronger doesn’t always mean you will get bigger. It’s going to depend on your genetic make-up, diet and how you are training. So you can’t just say yes or no without taking into account many other factors.

You could train with heavy weights and low volume and only get stronger with little to no muscle mass increase. Or, you could lift heavy weights with more volume and at the right percentage of your 1RM and make great muscle mass gains along with strength. Will it last forever? Probably not. That’s when you’ll need to switch up your parameters again and find a way to fool your body into making more mass gains.

Overall, heavier weights will help you increase muscle mass if done right. But, it may not work forever and you’ll need to utilize other methods to continue to progress.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:

I’m just trying to convince myself that light weights are pointless. The only reason to use them is to target muscles you cant target with heavier weights.[/quote]

Not necessarily pointless.

Use 150 lbs and a half second (explosive speed) up and down, no rest on the chest.

Lighter weights do have some applications, but not many.

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

Go heavy fool wrote:

I’m just trying to convince myself that light weights are pointless. The only reason to use them is to target muscles you cant target with heavier weights.

Not necessarily pointless.

Use 150 lbs and a half second (explosive speed) up and down, no rest on the chest.

Lighter weights do have some applications, but not many.

[/quote]

Dammit Sky! You already tapped into my next discussion/argument, whatever, on another thread that we’re trying to solve.

since F=M*A

Force on the muscles(force of gravity/9.8 meters per seconds squared) equals mass times acceleration.

then A*F= M

[EDIT] disregard this formula because I typed it wrong, it should read M = F/A or F/A = M… I’ll leave it up there so the other posts make sense

So increasing the acceleration(explosive speed) increases the weight(mass).

Use heavy weights with explosive movements for strength and this will tie in with the mass gains as well. Topic for another time.

[quote]talon2nr7588 wrote:

would me doing heavier sets of my exercises burn more fat in addition to help me gains more muscle mass? i read somewhere than traing with heavier weights bulds more muscle, is this true?[/quote]

No, not really. Muscular development comes about as a result of progressive overload. Your muscles possess a certain nominal work capacity. When you exceed that capacity with weight training, your body adapts by strengthening and/or physically enlarging them.

A popular mainstream notion, common among women and other non-serious gym-goers, is that using higher rep ranges with weights will prevent the muscles from getting bulky. This is widely considered to be a fallacy by educated coaches and trainers. The muscles either grow as a result of resistance training or they don’t. There are no specific “toning” effects that can be achieved through rep scheme manipulation. And the same thing has to be said for the other side of the coin: using heavier weights and lower rep schemes won’t elicit more muscle growth.

If you want to burn fat while lifting (and it’s completely possible), you need a high intensity routine. HIT doesn’t refer to some idiotic 1-set-per-day program developed in the 70’s. Intensity is the amount of work performed in a certain period of time. HIT training calls for moderate rep schemes and short rest periods. Exercises should be performed rapidly in circuit fashion, structured according to agonist-antagonist principles (opposing muscle groups and training planes of movement).

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:

since F=M*A

Force(force of gravity/9.8 meters per second squared) equals mass times acceleration.

then A*F= M

So increasing the acceleration(explosive speed) increases the weight(mass).

Use heavy weights with explosive movements for strength and this will tie in with the mass gains as well. Topic for another time.

[/quote]

Your math is so far off, but your point remains.

While we are doing math and physics though, the other part of your question about burning fat…

What is going to burn more calories.

10*3 in the squat, with a 1 meter range of motion.
With 50kg, we have a total amount of work done equal to:
10*3

*1*50*9.8=14700 joules of work.

Do the same set rep scheme for 100kg, and you are doing twice the work (29400j).

Since the kilocalorie is a measure of work, which do you think will raise your metabolism more? Seems obvious.

Also, what do you think will force your muscles to adapt better, 50lbs, or 200lbs?

I should add on, that this is only true in some circumstances. For example, the thursday night squatter in our gym that comes in late, puts on 4 plates, has problems unracking, and then does 6in reps… is accomplishing nothing.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

There are no specific “toning” effects that can be achieved through rep scheme manipulation. And the same thing has to be said for the other side of the coin: using heavier weights and lower rep schemes won’t elicit more muscle growth.

[/quote]Huh? “using heavier weights and lower rep schemes won’t elicit more muscle growth” Did you just say that… or did I read it wrong? I really don’t feel like explaining this to you, so I wont. Using heavier weights requires more fiber stimulation and activates the largest strands of muscle fiber to perform the task. Also, by using the heaviest loads, you in turn build more of these larger type muscle fibers.

Do not listen to that statement that is wriiten above me. It was clearly wriiten by someone that doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I’m sorry, nominal… but your statement is dead wrong.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:

SkyzykS wrote:

Go heavy fool wrote:

I’m just trying to convince myself that light weights are pointless. The only reason to use them is to target muscles you cant target with heavier weights.

Not necessarily pointless.

Use 150 lbs and a half second (explosive speed) up and down, no rest on the chest.

Lighter weights do have some applications, but not many.

Dammit Sky! You already tapped into my next argument on another thread that we’re trying to solve.

since F=M*A

Force on the muscles(force of gravity/9.8 meters per second squared) equals mass times acceleration.

then A*F= M

So increasing the acceleration(explosive speed) increases the weight(mass).

Use heavy weights with explosive movements for strength and this will tie in with the mass gains as well. Topic for another time.

[/quote]

Theres an error in your math.F/A=M, not A*F=M. This means,assuming maximum force, that mass must decrease if acceleration increases. This makes sense because it is very hard to lift your 1 RM fast, but your 20RM acceleration is lightning fast.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

There are no specific “toning” effects that can be achieved through rep scheme manipulation. [/quote]

This statement is false too. But, since you’re putting all these false statements up… maybe you’d like to explain why higher reps can’t release lactic acid or alpha hydroxy acids.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

And the same thing has to be said for the other side of the coin: using heavier weights and lower rep schemes won’t elicit more muscle growth.

[/quote]

Wow, I guess I had better tell my body to lose that weight it has gained over the last decade because I obviously imagined the muscle growth from heavier weights and lower reps.

[quote]wressler125 wrote:

Go heavy fool wrote:

since F=M*A

Force(force of gravity/9.8 meters per second squared) equals mass times acceleration.

then A*F= M

So increasing the acceleration(explosive speed) increases the weight(mass).

Your math is so far off, but your point remains.

While we are doing math and physics though, the other part of your question about burning fat…

What is going to burn more calories.

10*3 in the squat, with a 1 meter range of motion.
With 50kg, we have a total amount of work done equal to:
10*3

*1*50*9.8=14700 joules of work.

Do the same set rep scheme for 100kg, and you are doing twice the work (29400j).

Since the kilocalorie is a measure of work, which do you think will raise your metabolism more? Seems obvious.

Also, what do you think will force your muscles to adapt better, 50lbs, or 200lbs?

I should add on, that this is only true in some circumstances. For example, the thursday night squatter in our gym that comes in late, puts on 4 plates, has problems unracking, and then does 6in reps… is accomplishing nothing.

[/quote]Well I tried to make it viewable in laymans terms.

Whose going to understand this… F = G*M*m/r2 = 6.67*10-11 m3/s2kg * 6*1024 kg * m / 4*1012 m2

F = m*10 m/s2

F=M*A for dummies.

[quote]caneman wrote:

Go heavy fool wrote:

SkyzykS wrote:

Go heavy fool wrote:

I’m just trying to convince myself that light weights are pointless. The only reason to use them is to target muscles you cant target with heavier weights.

Not necessarily pointless.

Use 150 lbs and a half second (explosive speed) up and down, no rest on the chest.

Lighter weights do have some applications, but not many.

Dammit Sky! You already tapped into my next argument on another thread that we’re trying to solve.

since F=M*A

Force on the muscles(force of gravity/9.8 meters per second squared) equals mass times acceleration.

then A*F= M

So increasing the acceleration(explosive speed) increases the weight(mass).

Theres an error in your math.F/A=M, not A*F=M. This means,assuming maximum force, that mass must decrease if acceleration increases. This makes sense because it is very hard to lift your 1 RM fast, but your 20RM acceleration is lightning fast. [/quote]

Shit! you fuckers are right… I don’t know why I wrote it like that. No fucking wonder i got people telling me math is off. It is off…and when its off by any means it will make no sense. Thanks guys for pointing it out.

wow. How the hell did I ever make it thru engineering school by fucking up a basic physics equasion?