|
2004/11/17, 03:33 PM
For the love of god it does not help with definition, i've seen others at the gym popping pimples in the mirror and doing bicep curls with more weigh than they can handle heaving their backs into but you won't see me following in their steps.Looking at what other people in the gym and following what they do or comparing yourself to them is the last thing someone should be doing. shocking method yes, defintion no. I don't need scientific studies i just want an explanation but there isn't one so i'm really not expecting to get one thats the whole point.
|
|
|
|
2004/11/17, 04:57 PM
hey justin, i got very cut in my pecs from combining my old workout with high reps(30-45). I didnt gain as much muscle mass......but i definitaley can tell my pecs are more toned and defined.
--------------
Tobias
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:17 PM
Well there cobrtoba i see you 15 years old and 6'3" and 183lbs. Your gonna look defined no matter what with such a low BF%. I was 192lbs. in the first picture and i'm 5'10" I'm that 2 weeks into a cutting cycle at about 15%BF, i'm fairly toned. Just a little food for thought. Keep doing the high reps and you won't see any muscle mass gains.
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:19 PM
Lets just drop it ok? Justin I would suggest you try it a few times and see what I am talking about.
--------------
LIFT HEAVY! BECOME STRONG, LIKE BULL!
7707mutt@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:22 PM
i have had many muscle gains before that.....
--------------
Tobias
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:23 PM
i agree with mutt. if you are so strong against it... why dont you just give it a try
============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
Lets just drop it ok? Justin I would suggest you try it a few times and see what I am talking about.
=============
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:25 PM
totally, it's obviously going no where neither sides gonna budge. We'll just leave the way it is, i don't know if i'll be trying but i'm in agreence to put this to rest.
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:29 PM
sure big guy:cool:
|
|
2004/11/17, 05:37 PM
I might have tried it if Ron didn't give me the advice he did but since he did I don't think i will since his advice has gotten me to where i am today and he is extremely knowledgable. But feel free to workout the way one wants last time i checked its still a free country.
|
|
2004/11/17, 07:43 PM
Justin first off.....take a big breath.....
the way I phrased it I fell to Myth #4...so in that you were correct...'this is where you jump and scream "you punk i knew i was right"'.. High reps don't produce definition/toning...
However, I primarily use it to switch up my workouts. And as Mutt pointed out also, it will still give you results. You will not lose muscle by doing more reps with less weight(notice u don't do 100 reps with weight u can do 200..u do 100 reps with weight u can do for just that many reps...or right around it). In fact that's a way to switch up workouts. Was I advocating using just 100 rep sets? No....But I do occassionally grab 10s? and rep out as many as I can... last time I did it I got 118 or so...My arms were sore for days...and my arms are NEVER sore after heavy workouts... I usually lift between 1-10 reps....last workout I did 13,6,4,2...I don't go by what everyone thinks is right or wrong...I go by feel or by whatever pops into my head to kill my body part that day...Every1 says that going low reps for biceps is bad....I do it and I got great results...granted I had to fix my form a bit by dropping weight...to make sure I don't injure myself...Now I go very heavy for rep or two with good form and see amazing results...hence I think it's fine to go from anywhere from 1 to 100 reps or more....Do I do primarily 1 rep sets? no.. do i do primarily 100 rep sets? no....should you? probably not....mostly I stay right around the 'accepted' 6-12 reps...but I have no qualms about switching things up...if I go too heavy then my tendons take a beating...so i have to take it easy next couple workouts and so forth...So lets just call it a tie and move on...I was wrong about high reps=definition, i think you were off when you said that high reps will make you lose muscle...so i hope this issue is settled...
|
|
2004/11/17, 09:37 PM
Justin wasn't talking about using it a a "shock method" he was saying......."doing more reps won't get you cut" thats the debate.............we all know high reps can shock a muscle into growth, but he is saying, You won't get CUT as in defination wise off a high rep sheme.
Hwo will you retain the muscle if your not stimulating it with a heavy load? Your body won't keep muscle around for curling 85 lbs if all your doing is 50lbs a bunch of times. Both are great and have advantages and disadvantages. But again old post.........and the orgainal question......was how to gain MASS not defination.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/18, 12:02 AM
i disagree andrew....when i progress with high rep sets, I also progress with lower rep sets....maybe not as much as I could have, had I trained exclusively with low rep sets....WHen I increase my reps from 20 to 25 curling 50s for example...I am more thna likely will also increase my 70s by a rep or two as well...had I trained with just 70s, or 60s , or whatever else...ie higher weight...I potentially could have had even better gains...but i am speculating here....Your body is forced to acclimate to different ways of training and in this way becomes stronger...by lower weight with higher reps....I don't mean curl 50s for 1 rep when I can curl 100s for 1 rep...I mean curl 50s for 20 reps but those 20 are your max with this particular weight...and when you progressively are able to do more reps...you become stronger....strength can be defined with either high weight , very low reps, or particular weight for many reps...this is why NFL test upper body strength with 225 lb for as many reps as possible...so the guys that cna do close to 50 reps...are also the ones whose max bench is 500 lb...is this the best/fastest way to get to 500? ofcourse not...but your body still becomes progressively stronger....no matter what reps you're doing...
|
|
2004/11/18, 03:16 AM
it's a lost cause andrew, we know whats right so do what you know let them do what they want, obviousy this isn't going to get any where.
|
|
2004/11/18, 05:42 AM
ok justin whatever you suggest...I am just not sure why you won't try something new...I have had great results and maybe you can too...being stuck in a particular rep range over a long period can get you to plateau...switching exercises is one way....but changing rep schemes significantly is another...in my opinion going from 12-10-8 to 8-6-4 is not significant...I go through those reps all the time...I also don't restrict myself to a particular rep range for a cycle like this...but to each his own...so good luck with your style of training hope it continues to work for you...
|
|
2004/11/18, 06:39 PM
menace for gods sakes.........we wasn't talking about shock methods, or switch things up for a change, nor pyramiding sets.......good lord nevermind damn, you keep sayingt he same thing over and over again, eventhough thats not what we are talking about.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/18, 06:50 PM
============
Quoting from bigandrew:
menace for gods sakes.........we wasn't talking about shock methods, or switch things up for a change, nor pyramiding sets.......good lord nevermind damn, you keep sayingt he same thing over and over again, eventhough thats not what we are talking about.
=============
ditto both of em
|
|
2004/11/18, 08:20 PM
i was responding to what u andrew/justin said later on, obviously we all digressed from the original thread..i think this is obvious...so no point in making pointless drama on that aspect
|
|
2004/11/18, 08:31 PM
The body adapts very quickly. If you do high reps/low weight for any length of time, the body will start to discard uneeded muscle. Remember, muscle is a load on the body it does not want, it has to be maintained, with a high price tag to the system. The body will quickly realize it does not need as much muscle if you reduce your weights for very long at all, and will adjust accordingly. You will rapidly find this out when these reduced weights that were light all of a sudden start to become heavy. Your body has adjusted its muscle mass. If you think about this, take a 20 lb. dumbbell and do isolation curls. Will you get a pump? Do enough, and of course you will. Will you grow from, of course not. At higher reps, endurance training comes into play rather than hypertrophy. Cutting is a matter of hard training and diet. Just what rational would lighter weights be to cutting???? Why would this work? Well, the answer is simple, you will cut, but at the expense of lean tissue. Let your diet and cardio do the cutting.
To increase calorie expenditure in your weight training for cutting, supersets, drop sets, etc. are great, but not at the expense of heavy weight. Make your first set of each superset your heaviest weight for instance, or the same with massive drop sets. You did not build your mass on high reps, low weight, did you?:dumbbell::dumbbell::dumbbell:
============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
Justin I know for a fact that a higher rep scheme will help you gain muscle and not loose it IF YOU FREAKING USE IT SPARINGLY, AND THAT IS WHAT MENACE MEANT IF I AM NOT WRONG you seem to jump to the conclusion that I am saying that high reps should be uses exculsively. I am not. All I am saying is that used the right way you can get some good gains from it. And I have seen others in gyms using this to help get more definition. No I do not have all the scientific studies that you seem to want sorry, but I do believe that it can help. And what is confusing about what I am saying? That as a shocking method (which I use) low weights/high reps can help. What is confusing about that? To build mass lower reps and a progessivly heavier weight is needed. But any work that the body is not used to will cause it to grow.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/18, 08:35 PM
No I did not build my mass with high reps all I said is that I never LOSt muscle by using it from time to time for a week or two that was all....I never suggest it as a more permanant routine.
--------------
LIFT HEAVY! BECOME STRONG, LIKE BULL!
7707mutt@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/18, 08:59 PM
A blend of low reps/high weight and high reps/low weight is prudent at times. But even a muscle that is equally divided in fast twitch and slow twitch fibers, it is still prudent to work the fast twitch fibers, as they have the most potential for growth. High rep schemes may have an effect on for instance the brachialis, but the rep scheme needed for growth is very high, up around the 25-50 rep range, and this is still in question.
I am glad to see noone is suggesting it as a permanent routine for cutting. That is very old school, and very wrong. The price to learn this for yourself is very high.
============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
No I did not build my mass with high reps all I said is that I never LOSt muscle by using it from time to time for a week or two that was all....I never suggest it as a more permanant routine.
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/18, 10:03 PM
============
Quoting from 7707mutt:
No I did not build my mass with high reps all I said is that I never LOSt muscle by using it from time to time for a week or two that was all....I never suggest it as a more permanant routine.
=============
then what was the purpose of switching the lighter weight high reps mutt? It doesn't help with definition and it won't help build muscle so it's not going to help to get over a plateau there are alot of other ways to get over a plateau i'm trying suggest maybe you try a different route to get over one.
|
|
2004/11/18, 10:21 PM
I do not have problems geting over a plateau. and in my opinion it will help break one as you are using the muscles differently. The is my last word on this as it is going nowhere
--------------
LIFT HEAVY! BECOME STRONG, LIKE BULL!
7707mutt@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/19, 12:27 PM
lol wow is all I can say lol
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/19, 03:50 PM
justin...mutt like I suggested using it as means to keep your muscles guessing, to switch up your usual workouts, do something else cuz u're bored with current ways....whatever
point is you don't lose muscle with this work out...you don't lose muscle if you take a month off...why would you lose muscle if u switch to a high rep/lower weight work out...explain that to me...neither Mutt nor I suggested this workout on consistant or long term basis....but I think it has its benefits in the short term...
|
|
2004/11/19, 03:54 PM
but the argument was you saying higher reps make you more cut........we or him never said it didn't build muscle, nor was it not good for shocking methods.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/19, 04:03 PM
me no we*
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/19, 05:15 PM
============
Quoting from menace3000:
point is you don't lose muscle with this work out...you don't lose muscle if you take a month off...why would you lose muscle if u switch to a high rep/lower weight work out...explain that to me...neither Mutt nor I suggested this workout on consistant or long term basis....but I think it has its benefits in the short term...
=============
bb1 explained it perfectly did you not read his post? So there is no need to explain it twice especially when bb1 is the most knowledgable on these boards. And you most certainly would loose some muscle if you took a month off i took a month off about 5 months ago and lost quite a bit of muscle. You guys obviously can't admit you were wrong about high reps low weight giving you more definition so now your trying to point out the other benefits of high reps low weight when that was never the argument..simple as that.
|
|
2004/11/19, 05:17 PM
============
Quoting from bb1fit:
The body adapts very quickly. If you do high reps/low weight for any length of time, the body will start to discard uneeded muscle. Remember, muscle is a load on the body it does not want, it has to be maintained, with a high price tag to the system. The body will quickly realize it does not need as much muscle if you reduce your weights for very long at all, and will adjust accordingly. You will rapidly find this out when these reduced weights that were light all of a sudden start to become heavy. Your body has adjusted its muscle mass. If you think about this, take a 20 lb. dumbbell and do isolation curls. Will you get a pump? Do enough, and of course you will. Will you grow from, of course not. At higher reps, endurance training comes into play rather than hypertrophy. Cutting is a matter of hard training and diet. Just what rational would lighter weights be to cutting???? Why would this work? Well, the answer is simple, you will cut, but at the expense of lean tissue. Let your diet and cardio do the cutting.
To increase calorie expenditure in your weight training for cutting, supersets, drop sets, etc. are great, but not at the expense of heavy weight. Make your first set of each superset your heaviest weight for instance, or the same with massive drop sets. You did not build your mass on high reps, low weight, did you?:dumbbell::dumbbell::dumbbell:
=============
|
|
2004/11/19, 05:59 PM
i have read a couple studies justin that say that you can take 2 weeks off and not lose strength/muscle, even when you take a month off, you shouldn't lose much, maybe a little bit of strength, i forget how the article phrased it but i think it was neural connections(feeling weaker) rather than actually being...and definetely you shouldn't lose muscle, unless you change your diet...which is probably the real reason why you would lose significant muscle in 1 month...
|
|
2004/11/19, 07:17 PM
Your right about diet if thats not right then you can't expect to keep all your muscle around and my diet was horrible on my time off and i do agree with you on that. I know 2 weeks is ok but never heard anything about a month so i can't say for certain except for my experience but like i said my diet wasn't good at all. But lets not get off subject once again this argument has changed from topic to topic.......
|
|
2004/11/20, 06:19 AM
justin that's how we learn...digressing and addressing surrounding issues....part of what you believe is based on a misconception imo because you lost weight when you didn't work out while having a poor diet...had you been eating well that may not have been the case....yet you keyed on the 'lack of training' as the most significant factor...which i don't think is necessarily the case...I read this in Men's Health...a couple different times...also read something similar in Flex...i have read that up to a month of break there should be no muscle loss...however, loss of strength is possible...which is different...and initially it's mostly 'the weight seeming to be heavier' than before...anywayz...i don't know what else there's to say on this issue..
|
|
2004/11/20, 01:10 PM
First off i said i agreed that diet plays a big role. Secondly Men's Health is definitely something you shouldn't be quoting everything in that magazine should be taken with a grain of salt. All those magazines are trying to sell their magazine just like supplement companies they'll do anything to move product....Once again your moving off topic.
|
|
2004/11/20, 01:17 PM
Here i posted little while ago on those kinds of magazines.
http://www.freetrainers.com/FT/jsp/Message.jsp?f_ix=2&t_ix=1066
|
|
2004/11/20, 06:44 PM
Most folks atrophy when taking time off due to lack of good diet(intake of necessary amino acids).
============
Quoting from menace3000:
i have read a couple studies justin that say that you can take 2 weeks off and not lose strength/muscle, even when you take a month off, you shouldn't lose much, maybe a little bit of strength, i forget how the article phrased it but i think it was neural connections(feeling weaker) rather than actually being...and definetely you shouldn't lose muscle, unless you change your diet...which is probably the real reason why you would lose significant muscle in 1 month...
=============
--------------
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything....
bb1fit@freetrainers.com
|
|
2004/11/20, 11:58 PM
first off justin I agree with you to a point...but the magzines ahve separate sections where they just recite the studies...you may question the study...but then thsoe studies had nothing to do with men's health...they were just making readers aware of the newest research...it was not tied to any product..so i thought it was a fairly trustful article...obviouslly i don't read an advertisement for a product which has a grain of truth and retell that...and forget about the digression of topic already....is this worth repeating? topic changed x times already
|
|
2004/11/21, 08:27 AM
muscles are able to atrophy that quickly??? never thoguht that.ii just took a week off before starting mass gaining thats still ok right??
|
|
2004/11/21, 11:41 AM
what the hells the argument now?
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/21, 10:53 PM
topic only changed cause you brung somthing else up. MEnace, also flex is a body building mag, again they are all juiceing for the most part, You can GAIN 4 to 5 % muscle mass, just by taking steriods with no change in diet or excercise.
Hince why they can take a month off, without losing muscle, and also why they can do high reops and get massive, and alos how they can work out 3 times a week on a muscle group with out over training. I only own a subscription to these mags only to read somthing on the "jon".
Diet is key to not losing muscle, however with a month off , you won't be back at 100% when you left. i Fyou can bench 300lbs in jan and you don't work out, till march, your not gonna come back in gym and bench 300 again. It maybe 250, maybe 275, but with in a month or so you will hit or even surpass your old max.
So please everyone stop this nonsense, this is almost as bad as the bench forum. This isn't nothing but becoming a pissing contest trying to prove what one knows. I for one being one being guilty. So please let it go. Stop bring up stupid crap, for no reason.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/22, 02:47 AM
fine...(jan to march is 2 months...i am just playing tho)...
Anywayz... i am just making a point on this because I found it to relate greatly with my own training...I literally train my back/legs once every 14-22 days and have been making exceptional gains, especially with back exercises...I found that this doesn't work as well on smaller muscles...but on bench...squat...deadlift.. .I actually make good increases....although even arms are fine if I do once every 2 weeks....this is why i am questioning whether it's training or diet that makes you lose muscle in fairly short period like 2-4 weeks...when I read 2 weeks off doesn't even really affect strength not to mention muscle...it really hit me because of how it related to me/my training...and believing that maintaining all if not almost all muscle after a month off is not too unbelievable...
Also on a sidenote even though those bodybuilders all but likely consume considerable amounts of steroids...they still eat some of the strictest diets...so i think it's unfair to just say 'they can eat anything and make great gains' ....if that was the case then any1 could become a mr olympia...
hope this doesn't irritate most people...because i am just learning and expanding my understanding of certain things...not doing it to piss anyone off...
|
|
2004/11/22, 10:27 AM
It becasue they can menace, by taking testasterone, synthetic or real they are BUILDING muscle 24/ 7 literaly. THE strict diet is just to keep the body fat even lower for comptition.
Eevn if one took stweriods it won't change your bone structure, which is why everyone can't body build. One need sa small waist and hips.......somwhere around the 32 33 in mark, and extremly broad shoulders. To get the v tapper, the bigger your waist the bigger you shoulders need to be to acomplish this look.
So yes steriods do help and play a huge part
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/22, 12:39 PM
genetics!
|
|
2004/11/22, 01:24 PM
Yea precisly. You need a small bone structure, with the ability to gains lots of muscle on that frame, which is how prohormons and steriods help.
Ever notice how when body builders describe their child hood, or 1st years working out as being a "hard gainer" But now they can add 20 and 30lbs a muscle a year?hmm ?
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/22, 05:53 PM
andrew this is in part to slowing down of metabolism...so while it's a bad thing for majority of population who get progressively fatter on avg over the years as they mature...for bodybuilders it's a good thing...they don't lose muscle/bodyweight as fast...this is why in bodybuilding most athletes peak after 30s...although I still question gains because natural testosterone starts to dip after 30s as far as i know...
|
|
2004/11/22, 06:29 PM
============
Quoting from menace3000:
andrew this is in part to slowing down of metabolism...so while it's a bad thing for majority of population who get progressively fatter on avg over the years as they mature...for bodybuilders it's a good thing...they don't lose muscle/bodyweight as fast...this is why in bodybuilding most athletes peak after 30s
=============
:laugh:Where are you getting this information from? You need to stay off the steroid forum you've been going to.
|
|
2004/11/22, 07:08 PM
Ok i should've elaborated. True your metabolism does slow the older you get. Bodybuilders are not like the rest of the population, their genetics are far superior in the muscle building aspect. Also all that muscle helps speed their metabolism up so a 30 year old bodybuilder could have the same metabolism as a 25 year old not to mention the steriods will help with that. You want a fast metabolism to help get rid of fat faster for a show. Most peak at their 30's because it takes a long long time to develop a world class body not to mention this is the time where these guys peak at strength and body muturation. Ronnie coleman didn't start serious training till he was 25 but he was gentically gifted as are most of these guys. the end
|
|
2004/11/22, 11:19 PM
Menace what you said made absolutly no damn sense!
And actually its not the years that are making people fatter its fast foods and society. Yes it does slow down, however its people who are shoving food in their mouth, not their metabolism.
ronnie coleman eats about on average 4500+ calories a day, I highly doubt he has, a "low" metabolism.
I don't mind debating but damn this is getting tiresome.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
|
2004/11/23, 01:57 AM
everything i said is common knowledge....
1. metabolism slows down as we get older
2. natural testosterone peaks around 30 for most guys and then starts to fall off
Americans on average gain pounds over the years because they metabolism falls off...so they need to consume less calories...but their body doesn't adjust so they continue eating same calories...hence gradual weight/fat increase...
Americans however, have issues of obesity beyond what i mentionaed before...but this is on top of that....
But yea we can drop this thread...it served it purpose...takes forever to load on my dial up LOL
|
|
2004/11/23, 03:08 AM
dial up?.. i didn't know that still exsisted lol..why stop now we're almost at a 100 posts:laugh::laugh: i believe this thread started some where around 30 posts so we have debated quite a bit.
|
|
2004/11/23, 03:18 PM
yep..unless i am at school...indeed
|
|
2004/11/23, 08:41 PM
Peopel aren't obese cause of their metabolism its cause they eat to damn much period....then fuss abotu it. Has nothing to do with all that other crap, you eat too much even at 18 your gonna be obese. period.
--------------
The following, has not be approved by the FDA or FT, it was not meant to diagnose,treat,or prevent any diease(s) Please consult a moderator or doctor before using any of the suggestions or comments.
|
