[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Your math is so far off, but your point remains.
[/quote]
sorry wressler125, you have every right to call me out on that… i’m an idiot!
my point remains, don’t do math on the kepboard, do it on paper or in your head… or else type stupid shit like F*A=M christ!!!
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
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 reallt 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 staement that is wriiten above me. It was clearly wriiten by someone that doesn’t know what they’re talking about. I’m sorry, noominal… but your statement is dead wrong.
[/quote]
The fact that heavier weights build bigger (and stronger) muscles has been known through experience if not science for just about all of human history to one degree or another.
Go heavy Fool is obviously correct and the restraint with which he expressed this has me wondering if he’s in a particularly good mood or something this Saturday night.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
There are no specific “toning” effects that can be achieved through rep scheme manipulation.
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]
Yes. It is false. Heavy, and particularly explosive, lifting is known to improve muscle tonus-the degree of natural contraction of muscles at rest. Commonly viewed as hardness or ‘tone.’
The difference may not be dramatic as opposed to those exclusively working in higher rep ranges at a slower place. But it is real, and it is documented. [and heavy, explosive, low-rep work clearly has many other and more important benefits, obviously.]
IMHO, which ever method you choose to you, lighter weights for more reps or heavy weights for less reps, that is what you are training your body for.
So if you want to be able to do 10 reps with as much weight as possible one year from now, then train each time with the most you can use for 10 reps. But if you want to life the most you can for three reps, then train doing three reps.
I have no formulas or studies to back this up. But it makes sense if you look at runners. Runners must choose to be the best at either 1000, 3000, or 5000 meters, but being the best at all is just about impossible.
But there are other considerations. Although you may think you should train doing heavy weights for low reps, at some point it may wear on you, physically and mentally, and then you will have to switch. My guess is that would be true for any scheme you choose. So in the end there is no magic formula.
If you are an elite athlete, top in the field of whatever you do, or very dedicated to one endeavor like olympic style lifting, or bodybuilding, then and only then are you stuck with having to do whatever you think is the perfect routine. If that is not you, then the real key is how hard can you consistenly work, and realizing that whatever you choose to do now, you will eventually need to change it.
As to what burns fat more, I don’t think that anybody can say for sure. Whichever makes you leave the gym feeling wrecked probably burns more fat.
Full disclosure. I am a beginner, and probably not strong enough to be giving anybody advice. So those more experienced should definitely correct me where I am wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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]
Pretty sure that you and GHF are missing the point of my post. Maybe I didn’t explain it too well. It’s somewhat of a tricky concept.
You gained muscle because you pushed your body past a certain threshhold, beyond which it had to adapt by adding new mass. The point is that the threshhold was surpassed - it doesn’t matter by how much. What I’m trying to drive home to the OP is that muscle growth either occurs or it doesn’t. You don’t get “bulky” muscles by lifting heavy and “toned” ones by going light. Lots of people hold this misconception
This is the context in which I viewed the OP’s question. Perhaps he meant it differently.
Lower rep schemes are generally better suited for hypertrophy, but I was making a distinction between different TYPES of hypertrophy. If you want to speak about hypertrophy training in general - versus, say, endurance and strength training - then I would say that low rep schemes are best suited for strength, medium for hypertrophy, and high for endurance.
[quote]onewall wrote:
IMHO, which ever method you choose to you, lighter weights for more reps or heavy weights for less reps, that is what you are training your body for.
So if you want to be able to do 10 reps with as much weight as possible one year from now, then train each time with the most you can use for 10 reps. But if you want to life the most you can for three reps, then train doing three reps.
I have no formulas or studies to back this up. But it makes sense if you look at runners. Runners must choose to be the best at either 1000, 3000, or 5000 meters, but being the best at all is just about impossible.
But there are other considerations. Although you may think you should train doing heavy weights for low reps, at some point it may wear on you, physically and mentally, and then you will have to switch. My guess is that would be true for any scheme you choose. So in the end there is no magic formula.
If you are an elite athlete, top in the field of whatever you do, or very dedicated to one endeavor like olympic style lifting, or bodybuilding, then and only then are you stuck with having to do whatever you think is the perfect routine. If that is not you, then the real key is how hard can you consistenly work, and realizing that whatever you choose to do now, you will eventually need to change it.
As to what burns fat more, I don’t think that anybody can say for sure. Whichever makes you leave the gym feeling wrecked probably burns more fat.
Full disclosure. I am a beginner, and probably not strong enough to be giving anybody advice. So those more experienced should definitely correct me where I am wrong.
[/quote]
Finally!.. somebody making some sense around here.
(for all you little tykes out there)
If you want to get big and strong, you have to eat and lift like it… its really the only way(don’t get me started, I know it can be done other ways…but you show the %'s of people that are doing it that way with average genetics and no drugs)
If you want to weigh 200 and you weigh 150, eat like a 200lb man. If you want to be able to have size like a 200 lb man, you have to lift like him… chances are he uses heavy weights and low reps almost exclusivly… this light shit is only used for detail and when he needs to rely on a light movement to hit a muscle he would have a hard time controlling with the heavier weight. If you lift in the low rep range, you will build muscles that will lift in the low rep range, these are the ones that are bigger and bulk you up. If you lift in the light rep range, you better hope your using a muscle that has alot of those types of fibers because that is what you are training it to do now. the range that you lift in is where your body adapts too.
Lift in the wussy range and you will in fact look like a wussy. you have to grab some man size weights and let your body get used to it, so it can adapt and build muscles like that. what do i know though? And that damn Professor, he’s still at about 155lbs and hitting those bench presses for 35 reps at 100lbs… he’s hoooooge!
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
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.
Pretty sure that you and GHF are missing the point of my post. Maybe I didn’t explain it too well. It’s somewhat of a tricky concept.
You gained muscle because you pushed your body past a certain threshhold, beyond which it had to adapt by adding new mass. The point is that the threshhold was surpassed - it doesn’t matter by how much. What I’m trying to drive home to the OP is that muscle growth either occurs or it doesn’t. You don’t get “bulky” muscles by lifting heavy and “toned” ones by going light. Lots of people hold this misconception
This is the context in which I viewed the OP’s question. Perhaps he meant it differently.
Lower rep schemes are generally better suited for hypertrophy, but I was making a distinction between different TYPES of hypertrophy. If you want to speak about hypertrophy training in general - versus, say, endurance and strength training - then I would say that low rep schemes are best suited for strength, medium for hypertrophy, and high for endurance.[/quote]
You’re making a little more sense. But, these lower rep sets are a tie in with strength & size. Size comes from as low as 3 to probably as high as 15 reps for most muscles on a single set to almost failure or failure. Most of the overall size gains will come from building up your strength and from the lower rep range. you really can’t get big without getting strong… and strength will always be directly related to the heaviest loads. strebgth is not the only thing a massive powerlifter recieved by doing his 1-3 rep routines.
The overall factor here is the load. Generally the more the load(even as low as 1 rep because that is not all strength and all the strength that you get anyway directly relates to your ability to add size with just a few more reps, the bigger you’re gonna get… you obviously make it a progressive overload in any rep range or there is no adaptation to take place.
Ronnie Coleman doesn’t deadlift 800lbs for 2 reps because he’s not trying to gain size. This is how you get size… why am I still typing!!!
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.
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.
Pretty sure that you and GHF are missing the point of my post. Maybe I didn’t explain it too well. It’s somewhat of a tricky concept. [/quote]
It isn’t tricky at all. You were simply wrong with the statement you made. Simple as that, isn’t it?
[quote]
You gained muscle because you pushed your body past a certain threshhold, beyond which it had to adapt by adding new mass. The point is that the threshhold was surpassed - it doesn’t matter by how much. What I’m trying to drive home to the OP is that muscle growth either occurs or it doesn’t. You don’t get “bulky” muscles by lifting heavy and “toned” ones by going light. Lots of people hold this misconception[/quote]
Well, it actually does matter by how much as I would make the point that someone who is truly going to their limits and beyond most of the time they train compared to the guy who only uses a weight that just slightly causes effort to be moved, the guy going all out will likely see more growth assuming all other factors (like food intake and rest) are taken care of.
Yes, we know that there is no such thing as “toning” a muscle because you can only make a muscle larger or allow it to atrophy. That still doesn’t make what you wrote before correct and it wasn’t because it was ‘complicated’.
[quote]
This is the context in which I viewed the OP’s question. Perhaps he meant it differently.[/quote]
No, the OP is clearly looking for the Men’s Health forum because anyone who even has the goal of lifting truly light weight or holds that as a possibility in their head as far as a route to reach their goal is clearly on the wrong web site.
[quote]
Lower rep schemes are generally better suited for hypertrophy, but I was making a distinction between different TYPES of hypertrophy. If you want to speak about hypertrophy training in general - versus, say, endurance and strength training - then I would say that low rep schemes are best suited for strength, medium for hypertrophy, and high for endurance.[/quote]
None of that is written in stone and could be debated for pages. It also isn’t info neded by the OP as his question was clearly aimed at the most basic understanding of what the gym is used for.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
…The overall factor here is the load…
[/quote]
This is the key to all of weightlifting if you had to pick one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…It also isn’t info needed by the OP as his question was clearly aimed at the most basic understanding of what the gym is used for…[/quote]
ROFLMAO!!
The OP started here in April near as I can tell (albeit some sparse posting) and is either fulla shit or beyond any hope of ever grasping “what the gym is used for”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
…The overall factor here is the load…
This is the key to all of weightlifting if you had to pick one.[/quote]
If there were only more people like you Tiribulus, I could just shut up forever. But, there’s not. That’s how these fuckin’ threads get started and my freewill just ain’t strong enough to keep my mouth shut.
I figured I would work subliminally… if people read enough of my posts, then they would just fall asleep saying "go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool, go heavy fool…
nah… I don’t get that lucky. The 15LB dumbbell guys still come up to me in the gym and ask me how to curl so they can get big arms.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
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…quote]
i read in mens health magazine that in order to gain muscle you have to lift over 60% of your 1RM. but what is the formula to find my 1RM?
[quote]talon2nr7588 wrote:
i read in mens health magazine that in order to gain muscle you have to lift over 60% of your 1RM. but what is the formula to find my 1RM?
[/quote]
Gym + Weight you can only lift one time / Getting off your ass=1 rep max
I have found that I cut fat best by building big strong muscles using high weight low reps (5-7) and the fat burns away. Big muscles at rest burn calories.
Burning calories = weight loss.
Some people are advocates of high intensity for burning calories. I find my time is better spent focusing on building muscle rather than burning calories in the gym. Heck, if just burning calories as my goal I would do a cardio routine and be done with it.
Of course it doesn’t work for everyone.