Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> how much stronger and how fast? and for who? everybody is different, and

> some people might want to put on muscle faster than others.

Yes, everybody is different, but they are similar as well.

If you want to put on more muscles than increase strength, then doing more

(around 12 rep till failure or near failure) is the way to go. But some people

prefer to be stronger and more functional than bigger. It is achieved with less

reps (around 5) with heavier weights.

So, it depends on what you want: strength, size, or stamina.

> i could gain muscle in *one* area *slowly* by doing 5 minutes a day, but if i

want to >increase

> muscle mass as quick as i can without wearing myself out, and want to do so in

> my whole body, i need to do it 3 times a week, and take at least an hour for a

> full-body workout, considering all the time needed to wait between sets for

> your muscles to recoup.

You are thinking of working out only one area. By working with free weights you

can strengthen the whole body with just one or two exercises. And for that you

don't need to workout more than 10 min or so 3 times a week. And as Heidi said,

multiple sets are not necessary. Doing only one set eliminates wasting time

between sets.

Roman

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> if i have time to do it as slowly as i like,

> my weight training workout takes about an hour and a half. however, i do it

> faster than i did when i first started, and i do an aerobic warmup for 15

> minutes, and spend 5 minutes stretching. half the time is waiting between

sets. i

> prefer to go 3 times a week, but often have the time only for two, and have

> missed my workout for weeks now and can't wait to get back to it.

At one time I did some research about the need for multiple sets, and my finding

was that one set of resistance exercise(s) with heavy weight is virtually as

effective for increasing muscle strength as multiple sets. But since it takes

much less time to do only one set, it makes the method much more efficient. But

as I said to Suze, if one enjoys exercising similarly to sex, then I understand

the desire to prolong it. I don't have as much patience to do it a long time, so

I search for an efficient method.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> I did " light weights " for a long time until I read an article about how

> they used heavy weights (so the person can't do more than 8 reps), with

> only one set, on elderly women. And they got great results! Using light

> weights and resistence bands on the old ladies did not much good at all,

> but the heavy weights helped with arthritis etc. and they had some who

> could barely move, climbing stairs in a week or two.

Wow! I didn't know the difference between approaches was that big.

> I get 200% better results doing my little 5 reps very slowly (count 8 up,

> count 8 down, until you *can't* do any more) than I ever did doing 3 sets

> of 20. It is much, much harder though -- I groan a lot.

I've listened to interviews with Pavel Tsatsouline (you can find his books at

http://www.dragondoor.com/) and attended his workshop. He used to train Soviet

Specnaz, which is similar to a SWAT team (and they, of course, need more

strength than muscle mass) in the USA, and he trains SWAT teams here now. He

recommends tensing the whole body when doing lifting or other resistance

exercises. As it is tension that stimulates muscles to becomes stronger, tensing

all muscles as much as you can makes exercises more effective. And harder too.

Roman

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> It must differ from person to person. I do my sets so I can do a maximum of

> ten reps before muscle failure, but my workout lasts an hour and a half.

This method tends to increase muscle mass than strength. Doing less reps with

more resistance results in more strength than mass, and I prefer strength. It

reflects my general philosophy that content is more important than form.

>For

> a given set of muscles, after I go to muscle failure once, it takes me about

> one minute to be able to lift again. And I go from machine to machine,

working

> out different muscle groups. I don't have time to work out all my muscle

> groups while doing it very slowly unfortunately,

Working with free weights as opposed to machines solves this problem. You work

out the whole body with very few exercises. And you get what is called

functional training. Your muscles become stronger in a way to support you in

natural situations. They are trained to work together. Working on machines

isolating muscles and muscle groups is less efficient, more expensive, and

produces less usable results than working with free weights, IMO.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Roman-

>This method tends to increase muscle mass than strength. Doing less reps

>with more resistance results in more strength than mass, and I prefer

>strength. It reflects my general philosophy that content is more important

>than form.

This is a very interesting subject that I don't know much about. What

exactly determines a person's -- or a muscle's -- strength-to-size

ratio? Chimps, our very close relatives, have muscles that are

proportionately much stronger than ours. And even aside from steroids,

I've often noticed that a person's actual strength doesn't necessarily

correlate well with the size of his muscles. I'd also guess, though not

confidently, that a muscle with a higher strength-to-size ratio is a more

efficient tissue and more useful metabolically.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Working with free weights as opposed to machines solves this

problem. You work out the whole body with very few exercises. And you

get what is called functional training. Your muscles become stronger

in a way to support you in natural situations. They are trained to

work together. Working on machines isolating muscles and muscle groups

is less efficient, more expensive, and produces less usable results

than working with free weights, IMO.

>

> Roman

Roman, this is all very interesting. I am thinking about getting

freeweights (depending on price). I dislike the weight machines at

the gym, in part because of all the people there. Where can I learn

good methods using freeweights?

Thanks!

daphne b.

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> This is a very interesting subject that I don't know much about. What

> exactly determines a person's -- or a muscle's -- strength-to-size

> ratio? Chimps, our very close relatives, have muscles that are

> proportionately much stronger than ours. And even aside from steroids,

> I've often noticed that a person's actual strength doesn't necessarily

> correlate well with the size of his muscles. I'd also guess, though not

> confidently, that a muscle with a higher strength-to-size ratio is a more

> efficient tissue and more useful metabolically.

I don't know what exactly determines the strength-to-size ratio, but I agree

that such a muscle is more efficient. Maybe not always more useful. For example,

when starving, you will probably live longer if you have more muscle (amino acid

storage) similarly to having more stored fat.

I am thin, and you wouldn't think that I am have much strength by looking at me.

But I'd say that I am stronger than an average man, judging by push-up, pull-up,

etc.

Roman

[Guest guest]

biophile410 wrote:

> Roman, this is all very interesting. I am thinking about getting

> freeweights (depending on price). I dislike the weight machines at

> the gym, in part because of all the people there. Where can I learn

> good methods using freeweights?

>

> Thanks!

>

> daphne b.

As someone suggested (elsewhere), you can make your own free weight equipment

for free. It can really be anything (depending on your level): water jars filled

with water, sand, etc. I guess you can get a wooden or metal stick and attach

the jars or whatever to the stick to emulate a standard piece of equipment (I

forgot its name).

You can probably get a free intro to using these methods at Dr. Stoll's bulletin

board (http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/wwwboard.html). One of posters there,

Lincoln, seems very knowledgeable in this area.

Another source can probably be one of books by the man I have mentioned, Pavel

Tsatsouline, at http://www.dragondoor.com/. There are others there, but I don't

know them, whereas I'd heard him speak and saw him in person. He seemed

competent. Maybe you can get some useful information at their forum

(http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/tpost.pl)

They also have article (http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode1)

with interesting titles. They require that you subscribe (appears free) to one

or more of their newsletters.

Roman

[Guest guest]

I think two major factors are genetics and hormones,

specifically testosterone and estrogen.

Many times women worry when it comes to participating

in a resistance training program because they don't

want to " bulk up " . For most females it is hard to

increase muscle mass because we lack testosterne AND

have lots of estrogen.

The recurring subject in stuff I have read regarding

muscles and metabolism indicate that increasing the

mass of your muscle tissue is what causes that effect.

It is extremely difficult to make *new* muscle fiber;

we are making the ones we already have bigger and

stronger. The question I still have is do the changes

to the muscle fibers which occur when your training is

focused on making then stronger versus making them

bigger yeild the same increase in metabolism.

Carol

--- Roman <romeml@...> wrote:

> Idol wrote:

>

> > This is a very interesting subject that I don't

> > know much about. What exactly determines a

> > person's -- or a muscle's strength-to-size ratio?

> > --Chimps, our very close relatives, have

> > muscles that are proportionately much stronger

> > than ours. And even aside from steroids,I've

> > often noticed that a person's actual strength

> > doesn't necessarily correlate well with the size

> > of his muscles. I'd also guess, though not

> > confidently, that a muscle with a higher

> > strength-to-size ratio is a more

> > efficient tissue and more useful metabolically.

>

> I don't know what exactly determines the

> strength-to-size ratio, but I agree that such a

> muscle is more efficient. Maybe not always more

> useful. For example, when starving, you will

> probably live longer if you have more muscle (amino

> acid storage) similarly to having more stored fat.

>

> I am thin, and you wouldn't think that I am have

> much strength by looking at me. But I'd say that I

> am stronger than an average man, judging by push-up,

> pull-up, etc.

>

> Roman

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Here's an interesting article about strength training -

http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2 & articleid=153

I hope some of you will find it useful. While it mentions martial arts a lot,

it's actually about developing strength.

Roman

[Guest guest]

>>>>Working with free weights as opposed to machines solves this problem.

You work out the whole body with very few exercises. And you get what is

called functional training. Your muscles become stronger in a way to support

you in natural situations. They are trained to work together. Working on

machines isolating muscles and muscle groups is less efficient, more

expensive, and produces less usable results than working with free weights,

IMO.

---->free weights are a *holistic* approach to strength training :-) i think

i might try to graduate to free weights one day...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>> But as I said to Suze, if one enjoys exercising similarly to sex, then

I understand the desire to prolong it. I don't have as much patience to do

it a long time, so I search for an efficient method.

----->hey wait! i didn't say it was *that* enjoyable! lol

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/03 12:30:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

romeml@... writes:

> But as I said to Suze, if one enjoys exercising similarly to sex, then I

> understand the desire to prolong it. I don't have as much patience to do it a

> long time, so I search for an efficient method.

>

sex or weight training?

lol

chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/03 12:30:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

romeml@... writes:

> Yes, everybody is different, but they are similar as well.

> If you want to put on more muscles than increase strength, then doing more

> (around 12 rep till failure or near failure) is the way to go. But some people

> prefer to be stronger and more functional than bigger. It is achieved with

> less reps (around 5) with heavier weights.

> So, it depends on what you want: strength, size, or stamina.

Then why do people to very small sets with heavy weights to put on bulk? And

why does no one get bulked from doing 50 pushups?

-chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/03 12:30:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

romeml@... writes:

> This method tends to increase muscle mass than strength. Doing less reps

> with more resistance results in more strength than mass, and I prefer

strength.

> It reflects my general philosophy that content is more important than form.

>

I *do* want to increase muscle mass at this point, although one of my main

targets has to gain *fat*. And it's been quite effective. About half the

weight I've put on is fat, by my guess. But I'm also much stronger. So far I

haven't had quite a conflict between gaining mass and strength.

And again, pushups are great for toning and increasing strength, but don't do

*squat* for mass. And all of the big bulky guys that try to get " ripped " do

sets of three reps. So I just do not understand why you are saying the

complete opposite.

> >For

> >a given set of muscles, after I go to muscle failure once, it takes me

> about

> >one minute to be able to lift again. And I go from machine to machine,

> working

> >out different muscle groups. I don't have time to work out all my muscle

> >groups while doing it very slowly unfortunately,

>

> Working with free weights as opposed to machines solves this problem. You

> work out the whole body with very few exercises. And you get what is called

> functional training. Your muscles become stronger in a way to support you in

> natural situations. They are trained to work together. Working on machines

> isolating muscles and muscle groups is less efficient, more expensive, and

> produces less usable results than working with free weights, IMO.

>

>

I believe you and agree with you. I do want to transition to free weights.

-chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/03 2:34:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@...

writes:

> I am thin, and you wouldn't think that I am have much strength by looking

> at me. But I'd say that I am stronger than an average man, judging by push-up,

> pull-up, etc.

Remember also that those measure your strength to body weight ratio and not

your strength. I'm small, but can do 50-60 pushups and have done more, and can

do about 15 dips and 12 wall pushups, which is much more than most other

people, but i bet a lot of the people that *can't* do that much are stronger

than

me. but i don't have any fat to be lifting.

-chris

[Guest guest]

Someone a couple months ago on this list said to weight train in the morning

because testosterone levels are higher. Whoever that was, thank you. I've

found this is *unquestionably* true for myself, and I highly recommend doing

your routine before the sun comes up if you can.

-chris

p.s. it's really neat to go in the gym when the sun is down, thoroughly

exhaust yourself, then go out to the refreshing morning sunshine.

In a message dated 6/8/03 7:58:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

carolnpepa@... writes:

> I think two major factors are genetics and hormones,

> specifically testosterone and estrogen.

>

> Many times women worry when it comes to participating

> in a resistance training program because they don't

> want to " bulk up " . For most females it is hard to

> increase muscle mass because we lack testosterne AND

> have lots of estrogen.

>

> The recurring subject in stuff I have read regarding

> muscles and metabolism indicate that increasing the

> mass of your muscle tissue is what causes that effect.

> It is extremely difficult to make *new* muscle fiber;

> we are making the ones we already have bigger and

> stronger. The question I still have is do the changes

> to the muscle fibers which occur when your training is

> focused on making then stronger versus making them

> bigger yeild the same increase in metabolism.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

Roman-

>I don't know what exactly determines the strength-to-size ratio, but I

>agree that such a muscle is more efficient. Maybe not always more useful.

>For example, when starving, you will probably live longer if you have more

>muscle (amino acid storage) similarly to having more stored fat.

I'm not sure we can assume that a bigger muscle necessarily contains more

protein. After all, 100g of beef may only have 20g or so of protein. The

rest is water, fat, indigestible tissue, traces of carbs, etc. It seems

quite possible to me that a muscle that is much stronger and more efficient

for its size will be more protein-dense than a larger but lower-quality

muscle. Too bad this is just speculation, though. We need somebody rich

like Bill Gates to donate a few billion dollars to the cause of creating a

new body of more lab test results on all kinds of subjects. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

> > I did " light weights " for a long time until I read an article about how

> > they used heavy weights (so the person can't do more than 8 reps), with

> > only one set, on elderly women. And they got great results! Using light

> > weights and resistence bands on the old ladies did not much good at all,

> > but the heavy weights helped with arthritis etc. and they had some who

> > could barely move, climbing stairs in a week or two.

>

>

>Wow! I didn't know the difference between approaches was that big.

I think the differences might be bigger for older women. Guys tend to build

muscle really easily with not much work! For women, when they use heavy

weights, they start secreting more testosterone, which builds muscle AND

makes you feel more confident.

It has to do with breaking bonds in muscle fibers though -- and for that,

you need to do something like heavy weights, gardening, or yoga.

Women never gain muscle mass much, regardless of how they train (even the

professionals -- they have little fat, but they are not bulky, or very

rarely). And free weights DO exercise more of the body -- esp. my hands,

which need it, just picking up the weight does that! I'm up to 25 lbs now

per hand. They are also very cheap, and you can store them under your bed,

and you can go work out during a 15 minute break from the kids, which is

also very important to some women!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Hi Roman,

> To gain fat??? Why?

>

Because I don't have any ;-) I don't want to *be* " fat " , but I don't want to

look like a sick chicken either. Just getting a little bit to hold onto, if

you know what I mean :-)

But seriously, I believe my body type that is very *very* low in bodyfat,

bordering on unsafe the way it used to be, is related to my thyroid-dominance.

According to Ann Louise Gittleman weight training stimulates the adrenals and

can help balance the endocrine system for thyroid-dominants. (And I'm quite

sure I'm significantly hypoadrenal). I have not researched this sufficiently

*at all* but I thought I'd just go for it on a hunch sort of, and it seems to be

working. I gained 7 lbs in one month, about half of which was fat.

Unfortunately, I went through an anti-candida diet, some trouble getting to the

gym,

and some trouble with headaches, etc, so that I have lossed a little of what I

gained over the last two months rather than continued gaining. Hopefully I'll

get back on track this summer.

> >So far I

> >haven't had quite a conflict between gaining mass and strength.

>

> Gaining weight, I am sure, comes with strength too, so there's really no

> conflict there. It's a matter of what training is optimized for?

>

Right. I want to bulk up a little bit, not much, but just a little bit.

More like I feel bulking up slightly will come with the endocrine balancing I'm

trying to achieve. Anyway, I think you're totally right about free weights vs

machines. I want to get off machines and transition to free weights soon. I

didn't do pushups for the first two months of weight training at all, and

assumed I'd be able to do more, since I'd nearly doubled my weight on the

machines

since starting. But when I tried, the number of pushups I could do actually

fell by ten, even though my biceps and pecs were visibly larger (though

they've shrank a little over the last month :-/ ) So I think working out with

machines is next to worthless and want to switch.

> >And again, pushups are great for toning and increasing strength, but don't

> do

> >*squat* for mass. And all of the big bulky guys that try to get " ripped "

> do

> >sets of three reps. So I just do not understand why you are saying the

> >complete opposite.

>

> I am saying what I've heard and what is widely known to be truth (that, of

> course, doesn't mean it can't be incorrect).

It isn't widely known to be the truth because everything I've ever heard has

been the exact opposite. No one would do pushups or even pullups to put on

bulk, but they are absolutely fantastic for strength. So maybe there is an

alternative theory I'm unaware of and maybe it is true in certain situations,

but

it certainly isn't universally accepted as truth, because I've never heard it

before today.

My guess would be that those guys do it because both approaches (not 50

million

> reps with little weight) result in both strength and mass increases. But

> short (3-5 reps) sets with heavier weights are known to produce more strength

> gains than a little longer sets with a little lighter weights. The difference

> is not that big. I am *not* talking about 3 reps vs 50 reps but 3-5 vs around

> 10. These ranges vary from a source to source. For example,

> http://www.fitflex.com/weight_training_4.html has this to say: " Much research

has been done

> on rep and set numbers. And almost all of the studies agree?he ideal number of

> reps per set for building muscular size is 6 to 8. Some studies show

> comparable results up to 10 reps, but why do 10 if doing 6 to 8 produces the

same

> results? Above 12 reps per set, rate of improvement is lower than with 6 to

8. "

> This article has ot

> her interesting things.

How does that support your point? " Building muscular SIZE " is achived with

few reps and heavy weight. That's what I'm saying, and the opposite of what

you're saying. Or am I missing something that is perhaps staring me in the

face?

-chris

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the article Roman. In a newsletter I just got from my gym, the

trainer's column says the freeweight squat is the #1 exercise to do, which

works 600 different muscles. He doesn't mention stance though. They have a

thing at the gym that is for squats which is actually a free-weight setup and

not

a machine, but the weight is loosely guided in a track so if you were to,

say, drop it it wouldn't fall past a certain point. I haven't used it but that

is how it seems it works.

The only thing stopping me from swtiching to free weights is that I always go

alone, but I can probably get someone there to spot me on the bench press i'm

sure.

Does anyone know how the dead weight lift, or whatever it is called is done?

What is meant by " stand up " with it, and what position do you start in?

-chris

In a message dated 6/8/03 8:15:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@...

writes:

>

>

>

> Here's an interesting article about strength training -

> http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode2 & articleid=153

> I hope some of you will find it useful. While it mentions martial arts a

> lot, it's actually about developing strength.

>

> Roman

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> Someone a couple months ago on this list said to weight train in the morning

> because testosterone levels are higher. Whoever that was, thank you. I've

> found this is *unquestionably* true for myself, and I highly recommend doing

> your routine before the sun comes up if you can.

There's a book on http://www.dragondoor.com on using hormonal biorhythms to

maximize efficiency of training. I don't remember the book's name, though. Maybe

there are other tricks in it that can be helpful.

Roman

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/8/03 12:30:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> romeml@... writes:

>

>

>>Yes, everybody is different, but they are similar as well.

>>If you want to put on more muscles than increase strength, then doing more

>>(around 12 rep till failure or near failure) is the way to go. But some people

>>prefer to be stronger and more functional than bigger. It is achieved with

>>less reps (around 5) with heavier weights.

>>So, it depends on what you want: strength, size, or stamina.

>

>

> Then why do people to very small sets with heavy weights to put on bulk? And

> why does no one get bulked from doing 50 pushups?

>

> -chris

Probably because doing short sets with heavy weights increases muscle mass in

addition to strength, but this approach is said to increase more strength than

mass.

Doing 50 pushups is obviously working with too little weight. This approach is

more effective for increasing stamina. Of course, it increases strength and mass

somewhat too, but mostly stamina.

Roman

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/8/03 9:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@...

writes:

> Maybe what I said didn't come out right. Maybe I said in in another message

> (I don't have time to go through them). I didn't mean that pushups or

> pullups are good for building mass.

>

Oh, I know you didn't, but the implication of what you did say, at least as I

understood it-- that more weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less

weight, more reps, is good for mass-- is that those exercises are good for

bulk. The opposite is true-- while it would be nealy impossible to do enough

pushups in a day to gain as much strength as is possible using weights, you can

certainly get a *lot* stronger while having next to no effect on the size of

your muscle. Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do only

5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your bulk

range, but they don't do squat for bulk.

> >How does that support your point? " Building muscular SIZE " is achived

> with

> >few reps and heavy weight. That's what I'm saying, and the opposite of

> what

> >you're saying. Or am I missing something that is perhaps staring me in the

>

> >face?

>

> Both methods result in strength and mass gain. It's just each one is said to

> be somewhat better for strength or mass gain. I quoted to the article to

> show that ranges of reps are different from different sources.

>

Well, when I read the quote, I didn't see *any* mention whatsover comparing

bulk- and strength-promoting exercises. In fact, the quote you offered, shown

again below, says exactly the opposite of what you've been saying-- that

smaller sets of heavier weight are good for muscle *size*, ie., bulk, or mass,

if i

understand it correctly.

" Much research has been done on rep and set numbers. And almost all of the

studies agree?he ideal number of reps per set for building muscular SIZE is 6 to

8. Some studies show comparable results up to 10 reps, but why do 10 if doing

6 to 8 produces the same results? Above 12 reps per set, rate of improvement

is lower than with 6 to 8. "

(caps mine)

-chris

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/8/03 12:30:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> romeml@... writes:

>

>

>>This method tends to increase muscle mass than strength. Doing less reps

>>with more resistance results in more strength than mass, and I prefer

strength.

>>It reflects my general philosophy that content is more important than form.

>>

>

>

> I *do* want to increase muscle mass at this point, although one of my main

> targets has to gain *fat*.

To gain fat??? Why?

>So far I

> haven't had quite a conflict between gaining mass and strength.

Gaining weight, I am sure, comes with strength too, so there's really no

conflict there. It's a matter of what training is optimized for?

> And again, pushups are great for toning and increasing strength, but don't do

> *squat* for mass. And all of the big bulky guys that try to get " ripped " do

> sets of three reps. So I just do not understand why you are saying the

> complete opposite.

I am saying what I've heard and what is widely known to be truth (that, of

course, doesn't mean it can't be incorrect). My guess would be that those guys

do it because both approaches (not 50 million reps with little weight) result in

both strength and mass increases. But short (3-5 reps) sets with heavier weights

are known to produce more strength gains than a little longer sets with a little

lighter weights. The difference is not that big. I am *not* talking about 3 reps

vs 50 reps but 3-5 vs around 10. These ranges vary from a source to source. For

example, http://www.fitflex.com/weight_training_4.html has this to say: " Much

research has been done on rep and set numbers. And almost all of the studies

agree—the ideal number of reps per set for building muscular size is 6 to 8.

Some studies show comparable results up to 10 reps, but why do 10 if doing 6 to

8 produces the same results? Above 12 reps per set, rate of improvement is lower

than with 6 to 8. " This article has ot

her interesting things.

Roman