 |
Search misc.fitness.weights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
misc.fitness.weights -> Beginner question
There are 12 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 12.
|
Author: ColDate: 13:33 01-08-06
|
|
I've read contrasting theories concerning the best way to gain size. Some
say heavy with fewer reps while some insist lighter with more reps is the
way to go. Some say lift a manageable weight for your full set while some
say lift until failure.
What's the general consensus of opinion in the group?
Thank You
|
|
|
|
Author: Curt JamesDate: 14:04 01-08-06
|
|
Col wrote:
> I've read contrasting theories concerning the best
> way to gain size. Some say heavy with fewer reps
> while some insist lighter with more reps is the way
> to go. Some say lift a manageable weight for your
> full set while some say lift until failure. What's the
> general consensus of opinion in the group?
consensus n. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:
"Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the
problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
From: www.answers.com/topic/consensus
I'd guess that there is no consensus. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mike
Mentzer - both men who had success at gaining size - couldn't agree on
one theory, so why expect it from members of a newsgroup? Still, you
said general consensus and so I suspect that's not what you're
expecting.
Train for six to eight weeks using lighter weight with more reps.
Follow that with another six to eight weeks with heavy weight and fewer
reps. Then go another six to eight weeks including some sets to
failure.
You are your own laboratory. Please report back with your findings.
--
Curt
|
|
|
|
Author: JamesGDate: 15:34 01-08-06
|
|
Col,
Here is my opinion, do big exercises (I have also included my typical
rep schemes):
deadlift (1-5 reps), squat(5-10 reps), bench and incline
press(1-20reps), pullups and pulldowns(20 reps), dips(30 reps), dumbell
rows (heavy non-isolation, 10 reps), clean and press(1-5reps).
Do these and move up your amounts whenever possible while maintaining
proper form. Eat a lot. One strategy that I have used is to eat at a
buffet after I work out (either right after or at least the next day at
lunch).
Good luck,
James
|
|
|
|
Author: JMWDate: 15:42 01-08-06
|
|
JamesG wrote:
> Col,
> Here is my opinion, do big exercises (I have also included my typical
> rep schemes):
> deadlift (1-5 reps), squat(5-10 reps), bench and incline
> press(1-20reps), pullups and pulldowns(20 reps), dips(30 reps), dumbell
> rows (heavy non-isolation, 10 reps), clean and press(1-5reps).
If you're competing in bodyweight endurance excercises (i.e., how many
pullups and dips you can do), the foregoing rep scheme might make
sense. If you're trying to develop strength, there is no reason your
dips and pullups shouldn't be in the same range as the rest of the
exercises. 20-30 reps is very definitely an endurance routine, not a
strength routine. Drop a few bucks for a good dip belt, and add some
weight to the dips and pullups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big weight with fewer reps and sets.
Me...I try for eight reps on no more than four sets (that includes the
warm up). Though I seldom lift the last two on the third set and the
last four on the fourth set. I've put on good weight too. You can
work out to hypertrophy while pyrimiding, but that will only cut you
up...not make you big.
Hypertrophy will never make one as big or as strong as their potential
in my opinion...maybe if you only lifted with each muscle group once a
week to hypertrophy.
Randolf
|
|
|
|
Author: Stephen N.Date: 16:07 01-08-06
|
|
randolf_scott@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hypertrophy will never make one as big or as strong as their potential
> in my opinion...
dictionary.com can be your friend.
Stephen N.---> Thanks for the advise...
|
|
|
|
Author: JamesGDate: 16:27 01-08-06
|
|
JMW wrote:
> If you're competing in bodyweight endurance excercises (i.e., how many
> pullups and dips you can do), the foregoing rep scheme might make
> sense. If you're trying to develop strength, there is no reason your
> dips and pullups shouldn't be in the same range as the rest of the
> exercises. 20-30 reps is very definitely an endurance routine, not a
> strength routine. Drop a few bucks for a good dip belt, and add some
> weight to the dips and pullups.
I train in boxing and Muay Thai and I also like to play a lot of other
sports. I like this scheme for me since it builds both strength and
endurance. I have pretty much decided that I am not looking to add
much more weight to my frame (6ft and 200lbs). If I didn't lift I
would weigh around 175lbs.
Since this guy is a beginner I would figure that he could still add a
lot of muscle with this routine; I added thirty pounds in under a year
with it.
Thanks,
James
|
|
|
|
Author: PeteDate: 17:00 01-08-06
|
|
"Col" <Bluey@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> schreef:
> I've read contrasting theories concerning the best way to gain size. Some
> say heavy with fewer reps while some insist lighter with more reps is the
> way to go. Some say lift a manageable weight for your full set while some
> say lift until failure.
> What's the general consensus of opinion in the group?
First 2 years, focus on getting stronger with compound movements, and add a
few isolation movements like curls and pushdowns. Perhaphs some laterals and
flyes. Do lots of rows, dips, overhead presses, squats and leg presses.
Add extensions and leg curls. Do at least twice as much compound movements
then isolations.
Stay in 5-8 rep range, stopping short of failure. Do 3 sets 8, 4 sets of 6
or 5 of 5. Or all 3 on different days.
Get STRONGER! That will build the fibers.
For maximum size, switch to 8-12, later 12-15 and work for maximum pump with
mostly isolation movements for a few months, and then go back to 4-6 moths
of heavy sessions again.
Then, after 4-5 years or so, do several heavy sessions a week and at least
one pump session.
Thats about it.
----
Pete
|
|
|
|
Author: PeteDate: 17:01 01-08-06
|
|
<randolf_scott@hotmail.com> schreef:
> Hypertrophy will never make one as big or as strong as their potential
> in my opinion...maybe if you only lifted with each muscle group once a
> week to hypertrophy.
What?
----
Pete
|
|
|
|
Author: Curt JamesDate: 17:26 01-08-06
|
|
Stephen N. wrote:
> randolf_scott@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hypertrophy will never make one as big or as strong
> > as their potential in my opinion...
>
> dictionary.com can be your friend.
>
> Stephen N.---> Thanks for the advise...
Yeah, that was all gibberish to me, too, but maybe you could tell me
all about advise versus advice, huh? Or should I visit dictionary.com,
too? TIA.
Oh, that, and did *you* have any advice for the OP?
--
Curt
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonDate: 17:36 02-08-06
|
|
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Col wrote:
> I've read contrasting theories concerning the best way to gain size.
> Some say heavy with fewer reps while some insist lighter with more reps
> is the way to go. Some say lift a manageable weight for your full set
> while some say lift until failure. What's the general consensus of
> opinion in the group?
(1) do squats
(2) drink milk
(Curt - stay with the programme, man!)
Er, how many reps, you ask? Okay, that's not covered by the commandments -
time to turn to pubmed!
Well, the official gold standard American College of Sports Medicine
advice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra
ctPlus&list_uids=11828249
is (for hypertrophy):
"For novice and intermediate individuals, it is recommended that moderate
loading be used (70-85% of 1 RM) for 8-12 repetitions per set for one to
three sets per exercise. For advanced training, it is recommended that a
loading range of 70-100% of 1 RM be used for 1-12 repetitions per set for
three to six sets per exercise in periodized manner such that the majority
of training is devoted to 6-12 RM and less training devoted to 1-6 RM
loading."
They also mention that "these programs have been shown to initiate a
greater acute increase in testosterone and growth hormone than high-load,
low-volume programs with long (3-min) rest periods", so keep your rests
short.
Some chaps down in Ohio say something similar:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R
etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12436270
Since "subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group (Low
Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each
exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate
repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with
2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM
for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising control group (Con, n =
5).", and "the low to intermediate repetition resistance-training programs
induced a greater hypertrophic effect compared to the high repetition
regimen.".
Not sure about the training to failure, though; can't find anything on
that. If someone can explain to me how pubmedicating for "train to
failure" brings up 'A high-throughput structural biology/proteomics
beamline at the SRS on a new multipole wiggler', though, that'd be good. I
think i can see how 'Simulated train driving: Fatigue, self-awareness and
cognitive disengagement' and 'A systems analysis of the Ladbroke Grove
rail crash' get there!
So, yeah, squats, milk, 8-12 reps, and a multipole wiggler.
tom
--
Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo Wales |
Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco -- Uncyclopedia
|
|
|
|
Author: Jason EarlDate: 17:57 02-08-06
|
|
Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Col wrote:
>
>> I've read contrasting theories concerning the best way to gain
>> size. Some say heavy with fewer reps while some insist lighter with
>> more reps is the way to go. Some say lift a manageable weight for
>> your full set while some say lift until failure. What's the general
>> consensus of opinion in the group?
>
> (1) do squats
> (2) drink milk
>
> (Curt - stay with the programme, man!)
>
> Er, how many reps, you ask? Okay, that's not covered by the
> commandments -
> time to turn to pubmed!
>
> Well, the official gold standard American College of Sports Medicine
> advice:
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract
Plus&list_uids=11828249
>
> is (for hypertrophy):
>
> "For novice and intermediate individuals, it is recommended that
> moderate loading be used (70-85% of 1 RM) for 8-12 repetitions per set
> for one to three sets per exercise. For advanced training, it is
> recommended that a loading range of 70-100% of 1 RM be used for 1-12
> repetitions per set for three to six sets per exercise in periodized
> manner such that the majority of training is devoted to 6-12 RM and
> less training devoted to 1-6 RM loading."
>
> They also mention that "these programs have been shown to initiate a
> greater acute increase in testosterone and growth hormone than
> high-load, low-volume programs with long (3-min) rest periods", so
> keep your rests short.
>
> Some chaps down in Ohio say something similar:
>
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Ret
rieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=12436270
>
> Since "subjects were divided into four groups: a low repetition group
> (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets
> of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an
> intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for
> three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7)
> performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest, and a non-exercising
> control group (Con, n = 5).", and "the low to intermediate repetition
> resistance-training programs induced a greater hypertrophic effect
> compared to the high repetition regimen.".
>
> Not sure about the training to failure, though; can't find anything on
> that. If someone can explain to me how pubmedicating for "train to
> failure" brings up 'A high-throughput structural biology/proteomics
> beamline at the SRS on a new multipole wiggler', though, that'd be
> good. I think i can see how 'Simulated train driving: Fatigue,
> self-awareness and cognitive disengagement' and 'A systems analysis of
> the Ladbroke Grove rail crash' get there!
>
> So, yeah, squats, milk, 8-12 reps, and a multipole wiggler.
>
> tom
I couldn't bring myself to snip any of that post. It was truly
excellent. I would like to weigh in the on the "failure or not to
failure" issue, however. I've tried both, and have even gone farther
and used reps where my training partner had to help. For me, staying
well clear of failure has worked better. Not only is it much easier
to keep a good log of what you actually did (do you count the three
reps where your spotter did most of the work), but it is less
dangerous as well. I still seem to make progress.
Now, I have heard the neurological arguments for staying clear of
failure, and have likewise read of the physiological evidence that
might suggest that training to failure is useful. I have no idea who
is right and who is not. However, I would certainly recommend staying
clear of failure to someone that is new to weight training. I wish I
would have started my training career by staying away from failure.
Jason
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
Contact | Fitness
|
|
|
