Can't seem to find it in my bookmarks, but it was very clear and offered 2 tables and explained everything with great detail. You start with 4 minutes of alternating sprinting and jogging (30 seconds each) and should end up with 15 minutes by week 8. You do it 3 times a week, adding a minute on each 3rd workout.
Nope. They aren't. But that also may be our definition of 'strength.' Bulk is just that. Bulk. But it looks good. That is why they call it body building or sculpting. Obviously you get stronger but it is a different kind. You don't see body sculpters in the olympics. And the guys you see in the olympics don't look like Mr. Universe. Their bodies look very different. Think of it this way. Most human activity requires some sort of sustained activity. Like hauling several wheelbarrows full of dirt. That requires a lot of strength but you have to be able to sustain that. Bulking up does gain strength, obviously. But it concentrates short bursts of energy that isn't sustainable. You'd quickly fatigue. Aerobics also play a major role. If you never lift any weights and only perform aerobic exercises, you will gain some muscle mass...because there is a relationship between aerobic activities and muscle strength. The extremes are distance runners perform high reps and low weight. Body builders do the opposite. Football players don't look like body builders because they need to get strong but also must be able to sustain that effort. A body builder wouldn't last 2 seconds on a football field. They'd be creamed at every position...as would an olympic weight lifter. They are tuned to maximize body shape or extremely short bursts of energy.
Sane-sounds good to me Football is primarily anaerobic with short bursts. An olympic lifter should never be compared to a bodybuilder with regard to athletics. Olympic lifters beat olympic sprinters in the first 15 meters.
Football is anaerobic? Huh, strange. An entire game is a long time to be anaerobic. There is almost no such thing as pure anaerobic...except maybe olympic weight lifting. That's my point. I didn't compare them...I contrasted them. Care to support that claim? Even if so, what does that have to do with beans? We were talking about the difference between doing more/less reps to gain bulk or strength.
Said primarily anaerobic, not pure. It's short bursts of play (<6 seconds usually) w/ 35 second breaks. There was a study done during the Mexico City Olympics. The point was saying a bodybuilder or olympic lifter wouldn't last 2 seconds on a football field, implying they have no athletic talent like bodybuilders which is untrue considering alot of football players train mainly with olympic lifts. Anyways, more/less reps is not preset for gaining muscle mass or gaining strength.
This is true but they must do that repetitivly over a course of an entire game...that becomes aerobic to sustain that. While it is true that football players need A LOT of anaerobic conditioning, my point was that they also need arobic conditioning too...more so than, say, an olympic weight lifter. That is all I am saying. I didn't imply that...you made an assumption. We were talking about types of workouts. I was stating that different type of workouts produce different results...bulk/strength. I was using weight lifting and football as what you get from DIFFERENT types of workout programs. If a weight lifter decided to play football (which they probably could), they would change their workout program to do so. Professional athletes are highly tuned to maximize performance in their individual sports. A weight lifter couldn't just jump on a football field and expect to play well. I made no mention of athletic ability...that wasn't even a point of discussion. YES IT IS. It is a fundamental preset. It is well known that if you want to gain muscle mass, you do heavy weight w/ low reps. I did a Google search for "High Weight Low Rep" and the third hit produced this: QUOTE] One of the most common methods is the heavy-weight, low-rep method. This method is believed to add the most muscle mass to your frame in the quickest amount of time. The game plan is very self-explanitory; put lots of weight on the bar and push/pull/curl/whatever as hard as possible for 4-6 reps. Form is to remain formidably strict and momentum should be avoided at all costs. The idea is do approximately 3-4 exercises per bodypart, with each exercise consisting of 3 or 4 sets. [/QUOTE] http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/mike20.htm
Yup. But you want to build into it. Don't start w/ 200 a day. Don't kill yourself on them. BTW, belly crunches are much better for your back then full sit-ups and you can get the same benefits. Do a few more crunches than situps.
http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/mike20.htm [/QUOTE] Well, gee, teenbodybuilding.com says so, so you must be right. I'm not going to get in an argument about this, but there's a lot more individual factors involved than to say "it is a fundamental preset that this rep range has this results."
You have to drink water or you won't metabolize anything any you will get stones. People tell you to stop drinking water because the sodium in tap and spring water makes you retain water taking away from your cuts. If you're to that level, and I mean under 10% body fat, that your water retention is making a difference and you have already reduced all other sodium as much as humanly possible, try drinking distilled water.
You missed my point again. I said it is common knowledge...to the degree that a 2 second google search produced hits. I was lazy and didn't feel like finding a better source for you. Yes, every routine must be tailored to the individual. Generally speaking, it is common knowledge that high-weight and low reps builds bulk.
Here is an interesting article I found that speaks to the original question before we spiraled down into details: Here is the link. There is other interesting stuff here too: http://www.intense-workout.com/tone_definition.html tone and definition - How to really get toned and defined Have you ever heard or maybe even said the words "toned" and "defined?" If you are into working out and diet related stuff, chances are you have. The funny thing is, not only do most people not know how to get more "toned and defined," but most people don't even know what those 2 words mean! I personally HATE both of those words. Can't stand when I read them, and I can't stand when someone actually says them out loud. Being toned or being defined means only one thing. It is when you have muscle, and when you have a low enough body fat so that this muscle can be seen. So, the less fat you have covering your muscles, the more "tone" and "definition" you will appear to have. Sounds simple, right? Well, apparently it's not simple. People still can't figure out how to get more toned and defined. One of my favorite bull**** gym phrases is "I work out with lighter weights and do higher reps so I can get more toned." News flash buddy, working out with lighter weight for more reps is doing nothing for you in terms of getting more "toned and defined." Working out with heavy weights for less reps will have the exact same effect when it comes to "tone and definition." It does NOT "tone and define" you! Working out with weights, whether they are light or heavy, low reps or high reps, does one thing and one thing only, it builds and strengthens muscle. But, didn't we just figure out that to be more toned and defined you just had to lose more fat? YES we did! Therefore, when it comes to looking more toned and defined, weightlifting doesn't have anything to do with it! And if you think this whole light weights with high reps thing is a stupid myth, how about this next one. "I don't work out with free weights like dumbbells and barbells because I'm not looking to get huge, I use mostly machines now to tone and define me." This one is a classic! People seem to think that machines use magical powers that free weights don't have. They think a machine will help tone you, while free weights will only add muscle and bulk. Hate to ruin the ending for you, but this is once again, complete and total bull****! Be it free weights or machines, neither one of them is having any effect in terms of "tone and definition." Remember what we learned before? To get more toned and defined, you just need to get rid of more of the fat that is covering your muscles. Sure you need to do some weightlifting in order to have the muscle part of this equation, but that is all the weightlifting is doing. Therefore, high reps or low reps, light weight or heavy weight, machines or free weights, none of these are a factor when it comes to the almighty "tone and definition." Some people must be scratching their heads right now wondering what in the hell will actually get them more toned and defined. The answer to this question is extremely simple. To get more toned and defined, you have to lose more of the fat that is covering your muscles, and the only way, and let me repeat this, THE ONLY WAY to lose fat from any part of your body is through your diet and by doing enough cardio exercise (jogging, riding a bike, etc.). That's it right there, nothing more to it. Since I hate the words "toned" and "defined," and since I have probably said those words about 100 times during this article, hopefully I never have to use those words ever again. But, this doesn't rule out all of the words I hate. Don't even get me started on "sculpt" and "sculpting your muscles," that's a whole other article altogether! lol
No, high weight and low reps does not build bulk. It is not that cut and dry. It depends on many individual and workout factors. Obviously you don't know understand the details, so we'll leave it at that.
Gee, tozai, if I didn't know any better, I would have sworn that you are not some college student who posts on a Rockets BBS but an Olympic trainer that is the second coming of Bill Pearl. Your arrogance about this topic is insufferable.
Sorry if I offended you. I just don't like it when people say stuff as if it is a matter of fact. I'll tone it down.
Well, it is obvious you know your stuff but I think a lot of stuff with lifting don't have definite answers - it is a combination of things. Why else are people always asking questions about it? Hell, I have been lifting on a routine basis for over 2 years now and I still don't know a lot of stuff but I have a basic idea about it. I think you post valuable information about the topic, so don't stop on my behalf. I just don't think things with lifting are so "black and white" if you catch my drift.
Here's more supportive data to the bulk question: http://www.planetfear.com/climbing/training/neilgresham/ng_weights.htm Read the section titled: "Strength vs bulk - background theory" "Getting Started: If you want to tone up and avoid getting bulky muscles, use light weights and do several repetitions, or reps, as the pros call them." Link: http://www.lifetimetv.com/reallife/health/features/strength_train.html "Heavier weights and lower reps build muscles more than lower weights and higher reps, which are good for endurance." Link:http://www.youroffice.ca/full_arts.asp?DocumentID=1713 "The theory is, use small amounts of weight, but perform many repetitions, if you wish to build muscle speed, movement and endurance. Conversely, use large amounts of weight, but perform fewer repetitions, if your desire is to build muscle strength and bulk." Link: http://www.shahbaz.esmartbiz.com/weight_training.htm "There is a belief that light weights with a lot of repetitions will prevent you from getting big muscles." Link: http://www.nancykarabaic.com/p15.html So here is a few links since you don't beleive me. This is a 10 minute search. Need more?
Hmm, maybe I came off wrong, but that was exactly the point I was trying to make and maybe why I seemed a little rude. I was trying to say what krosfyah was saying was too "black and white." krosfyah-I appreciate you taking the effort to provide those links. Look at your sources though. Lifetime? Anyway, maybe your idea of heavy weight and low reps is different than mine. I'm talking about >90% of your 1Rep Max for <5 reps. The generally accepted rep ranges for maximal hypertrophy are between 6-10, but it's individual. You can gain mass doing 20 rep squats and you can gain mass doing low rep bench presses. The bottom line is that muscle is built through: 1. Tension-Heavy weights 2. Duration-Length of sets 3. Density-Proportion of time lifting to rest periods It's a combination of that along with looking as what type of muscle fiber for the bodyparts. Sorry for any offense.
Wow, you refuse to give in on this issue. I agree every program needs to be tailored to the individual...but as a general rule...heavy weights + less reps = bulk. Here is a link that was published by two PHD's about the potential negative affects of heavy lifting in gymnastics. "Training prescribed to encourage muscle hypertrophy usually involves large numbers of sets of repetitions with light to medium loads, movement speeds from rapid to slow, repetitions to maximum effort, and short rest periods (e.g., Bloomer & Ives, 2000; Hatfield, 1984; Poliquin, 1991; Schmidtbleicher, 1992). In contrast, prescriptions for maximizing strength and minimizing hypertrophy usually involve heavier loads, smaller numbers of repetitions, and longer periods of rest." Link: http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0003/was.html Dude, it is a well known fact. I'm not sure it is really even open to debate as I have never even heard an alternative view. Yes, "heavy" is relative as is number of "reps" and will change person to person. But I never suggested a specific definition of "heavy" or "rep." It's just a rule of thumb.
