Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 >>>>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@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 >>>>> 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@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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> - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.