Size or Strength? Opinion...

[_raVen_]

When you have time to read, I would like opinions on the following two links.

The first is an old one, but good.

 

It seems this issue is everywhere. Which do you find true?

 

Size or Strength

 

and...

 

More Strength = More Size?

[Gorilla]

I found the second link really good. Thanks. I've had exactly the same experience regarding squats and machine presses.

[Jay]

The first article is very close to correct. All the articles though are partially wrong and a little too one sided.

 

It is possible to train for size more so than strength and vice versa, (but only to a limited extent) and if you make gains at the one (and not other) than simply changing your routine to shoot for the other will result in very fast gains at the other. I guess my training right now might get delineated as a "size routine" (not that I care at all about size). But I know if I make good improvements in the volume I move, then whenever I go back to lifting heavy I will make very good strength improvements within the first few workouts.

[willpeavy]

I think the reason there are so many different opinions on what kind of training works is because people's bodies respond in different ways and because people have different attitudes towards training. For example, I get a big mental rush off of doing a bunch of different types of pullups and rowing exercises several times a week and I think this gives me the best physical results too

[Bigbwii]

I remember when I was younger I always used to out lift older, bigger guys at the gym.

 

I think both articles have some merit!

 

But as Will said, people react differently to different things and some people just don't have the genes in my opinion.

 

It also annoys me when websites have these questions with no answers to them! I think it just goes to show that there is no one answer.

[Mr. Hardgain]

The answer is "Do that extra rep!"

[Kathryn]

You can definitely get stronger through neuromuscular adaptation (basically, your nervous system becoming more efficient) without adding apppreciable size. This mostly happens when one is a beginning weight trainer.

 

And some people (like martial artists) can be strong without being very big.

[_raVen_]

So no one has any specific agreements or disagreements with the authors? ;D

 

If your read the first link, I would appreciate some translation or opinions on a few points that I am unclear. As well, I have some questions. Thanks to anyone who can answer!

 

"For years, most bodybuilders have made the mistake of "bulking up" - gaining size by adding fatty tissue, intending to reduce just prior to a contest; but no amount of fatty tissue will increase muscular size - and it won't win a contest, either, If training is properly conducted, almost all additions of size will be in the form of muscular tissue, and there will be little if any need to "cut down" just before a contest."

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Also, he's implying ( I think ) that this "bulking" is just fat that is not going to serve the person well.

Agree or disagree? I see a lot of people who think "big" is good, and they think the bigger they are getting the better; but they just look fat to me I just assumed they were going for strenght and that for some reason, they were strong even with all that fat; but this whole article seems to be saying extra fat does not = strength or muscle formation for bb'ing...

 

"Apart from physique competition, there is little if any advantage to trying to maintain an extreme degree of muscular definition - but it is just as certain that more than an actual very small amount of unrequired fat will always be a disadvantage; Paul Anderson is certainly strong, but he is just as certainly too fat - he would perform better with less fat, whether he is aware of it or not. You car may run well with the trunk full of sand - but it will run better without the sand."

 

 

-----Also...

 

"By and large, most weightlifters come much closer to training properly than most bodybuilders do; but on the whole, very few trainees - bodybuilders, Olympic lifters, or power lifters - train properly. Primarily, I think, because they simply don't understand the actual factors involved - basing their opinions on hearsay or common belief rather than upon facts; and ...the very fact that apparently good results are produced in at least "some" cases is merely proof of the productivity of systematic weight-training... - rather than proof that the training was "right."

 

Would someone explain this to me? Specifically, the bolded print.

 

 

"In practice, most bodybuilders quickly fall into a pattern of training where the "amount" of their training uses up all of their recovery ability - and growth thus becomes impossible,. Secondly, they seldom train "hard enough" to stimulate over-compensation - so little or no growth would occur even if their system was capable of over-compensation."

 

My question: What is "hard enough"?!!!!

How to determine this for me?

 

 

 

 

"In a set of ten repetitions leading to a point of failure during the tenth repetition, the first seven or eight repetitions are simply "preparation' - they do little or nothing to stimulate growth: but they do use up part of the recovery ability that makes growth possible. Thus - if the last two or three repetitions are not performed - then the set was wasted; worse than that, it actually did some harm to your progress - because while it did nothing to stimulate growth, it did exhaust part of your recovery ability."

 

What I am gleaning from him is "Less=More" but here he says one set of 10 -- isn't this too much? Or is he just saying the last 2 or 3 lifts in a set are the most important, and the "10" is just an example?

 

I find that I often feel I've done too many too stimulate growth; and at the same time, if I do less, as he says by not doing those last few, then I'm done nothing to stimulate growth...

I am confused about how to know how many to do for my muscles to grow

And, since he says weightlifters and bodybuilders should be doing the same, basically; I assume I would benefit both in strength and looks from doing this ...

Right?

 

Also, I want to work my arms for looks; but I realize that for my main goal -- which is to have a strong skeleton for health -- I want strength to build bones. So if I want both strength and muscle...any advice? (specific)

[Mr. Hardgain]

I really enjoy debating this stuff back and forth, but it's really not as complicated as some people like to make it sound (some people make a living out of making it sound as complicated as possible!).

 

There might be some room for debate at the highest levels of the sport, but for beginners, the principles are pretty simple.

 

If you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any stronger. And if you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any bigger. If you add just one more rep to each session at a given weight (and eat right!), you will get both bigger and stronger.

 

Find a weight, _raVen_, where you can do about 8 reps, moderately comfortably, but not too easily. Next session, do 9 reps at that weight. The next session do 10 reps. And so on, until you reach 12 reps. Then add about 5 lbs. to the bar, and start back at 8 reps again. Repeat the cycle. You can't go wrong with this method. You will gradually gain both size and strength (it's not one or the other, they both go hand in hand, especially for beginners).

 

That's really all it takes (I know it's easier said than done!)

Edited April 12, 2006 by Mr. Hardgain

[robert]

Very well put, and very clear.

 

Thanks for your input. I especially like the opening paragraph. It really isn't as complicated as people think, especially at the beginning level. I totally agree there.

 

Mr. Hardgain, welcome aboard by the way!

[willpeavy]

It would take all day to respond to all the points made in the articles, but I'll just in my 2 cents about this one part:

 

 

"In a set of ten repetitions leading to a point of failure during the tenth repetition, the first seven or eight repetitions are simply "preparation' - they do little or nothing to stimulate growth: but they do use up part of the recovery ability that makes growth possible. Thus - if the last two or three repetitions are not performed - then the set was wasted; worse than that, it actually did some harm to your progress - because while it did nothing to stimulate growth, it did exhaust part of your recovery ability."

 

There's another theory that says that stopping a rep or two before failure, doing a lot of sets, and repeating this several times throughout the week can build muscle really well. I get the feeling the author figured out what works best for him, and then assumed that his approach is best for everyone else too. So yeah, his philosophy may work for some, but not everyone. So it's hard to say whether it's right or not. It may be right in some cases, but wrong in others.

 

When I've talked to, and read stuff written by guys who have years of experience and success in the gym I've noticed that a lot of them have been through a dozen or so different training methods and had to experiment around a lot to figure out what works best for them. I've also noticed that a lot of the best strength athletes out there find two or three different approaches that work best for them personally, and they alternate between these approaches every so often to keep from being stagnant.

[_raVen_]

I really enjoy debating this stuff back and forth, but it's really not as complicated as some people like to make it sound (some people make a living out of making it sound as complicated as possible!).

 

There might be some room for debate at the highest levels of the sport, but for beginners, the principles are pretty simple.

 

If you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any stronger. And if you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any bigger. If you add just one more rep to each session at a given weight (and eat right!), you will get both bigger and stronger.

 

Find a weight, _raVen_, where you can do about 8 reps, moderately comfortably, but not too easily. Next session, do 9 reps at that weight. The next session do 10 reps. And so on, until you reach 12 reps. Then add about 5 lbs. to the bar, and start back at 8 reps again. Repeat the cycle. You can't go wrong with this method. You will gradually gain both size and strength (it's not one or the other, they both go hand in hand, especially for beginners).

 

That's really all it takes (I know it's easier said than done!)

 

Mr. Hardgain, I really appreciate your responses , thanks. I'm also glad it is very simple for you to understand

 

I've done similar to what you've suggested but I did not increase the repetitions every session because I've been told not to BUT...I shall try that, thanks!

 

If I may -- will you help me out a bit more? ...If I ask real nice

 

I have a few questions, if so. If not, that's okay; and thanks for the above advice, it helps!

 

 

willpeavy, I know, there is just so much info out there. That's the problem for me: I haven't been able to find out what works for me. So yea, I guess I have to keep trying different things. I'm told so many different things...plus reading different things...

But, still, my main problem is motivation; but I'm getting better because I really need to do this for long-term gain and stop thinking about just the aesthetics of it all thanks for responding.

[Jay]

So no one has any specific agreements or disagreements with the authors? ;D

Well... how bout I just answer what you ask here....

 

If your read the first link, I would appreciate some translation or opinions on a few points that I am unclear. As well, I have some questions. Thanks to anyone who can answer!

 

"For years, most bodybuilders have made the mistake of "bulking up" - gaining size by adding fatty tissue, intending to reduce just prior to a contest; but no amount of fatty tissue will increase muscular size - and it won't win a contest, either, If training is properly conducted, almost all additions of size will be in the form of muscular tissue, and there will be little if any need to "cut down" just before a contest."

 

Agree or disagree?

Actually by eating a lot more (bulking) you definitely gain muscle you otherwise would not have gained. I'm not so sure it really works though as because when you cut back you can end up losing all the muscle you gained then. I'm not a fan of bulking but many people seem to have success with it. I think though some bodybuilders just do it a little because to stay "shredded" all the time is no fun. So they get a little lax on their diet and gain a little weight between competitions. This is somewhat different than "bulking" but is often called the same thing.

 

Anyway bulking never did me any good in that when I cut back I just lost all the muscle I gained.

 

Also, he's implying ( I think ) that this "bulking" is just fat that is not going to serve the person well.

Agree or disagree? I see a lot of people who think "big" is good, and they think the bigger they are getting the better; but they just look fat to me I just assumed they were going for strenght and that for some reason, they were strong even with all that fat; but this whole article seems to be saying extra fat does not = strength or muscle formation for bb'ing...

Some people definitely gain a lot of muscle as a result of stuffing their face and gaining some fat. I do.

 

"Apart from physique competition, there is little if any advantage to trying to maintain an extreme degree of muscular definition - but it is just as certain that more than an actual very small amount of unrequired fat will always be a disadvantage; Paul Anderson is certainly strong, but he is just as certainly too fat - he would perform better with less fat, whether he is aware of it or not. You car may run well with the trunk full of sand - but it will run better without the sand."

Wrong. Paul Anderson's performance main goal was squatting as much weight as possible and he would not have squatted more as a result of losing bodyweight simply through eating better/eating fewer calories.

 

But supposedly people with low bodyfat %s will gain a higher percentage of muscle as a result of bulking. But I think this is a very small negligible phenomenon if it's even actually true at all..... Obviously in general it's good for health and just feeling good about yourself to keep a low bodyfat though.

 

-----Also...

 

"By and large, most weightlifters come much closer to training properly than most bodybuilders do; but on the whole, very few trainees - bodybuilders, Olympic lifters, or power lifters - train properly. Primarily, I think, because they simply don't understand the actual factors involved - basing their opinions on hearsay or common belief rather than upon facts; and ...the very fact that apparently good results are produced in at least "some" cases is merely proof of the productivity of systematic weight-training... - rather than proof that the training was "right."

 

Would someone explain this to me? Specifically, the bolded print.

It's a very bold statement.... but considering how weak most people who lift weights are at average gyms there's probably some truth to it. But it's just an assertion....

 

"In practice, most bodybuilders quickly fall into a pattern of training where the "amount" of their training uses up all of their recovery ability - and growth thus becomes impossible,. Secondly, they seldom train "hard enough" to stimulate over-compensation - so little or no growth would occur even if their system was capable of over-compensation."

 

My question: What is "hard enough"?!!!!

How to determine this for me?

This is just speculation on this guys part. Sounds like a HIT jedi. (A guy who believes in the one set to failure training idea. (High Intensity Training)).

I used to suspect this idea was right but have finally learned it's crap. "Amount" is similar to runners trying to increase their base and of course if a runner spends a long time establishing a good base and then starts tapering off, they usually get a nice boost and have some really good runs. In strength training the same occurs and people mistakenly think that proves that all the volume training was just a waste of time. I really strongly disagree with such HIT sentiments as this guy is pushing.

 

"In a set of ten repetitions leading to a point of failure during the tenth repetition, the first seven or eight repetitions are simply "preparation' - they do little or nothing to stimulate growth: but they do use up part of the recovery ability that makes growth possible. Thus - if the last two or three repetitions are not performed - then the set was wasted; worse than that, it actually did some harm to your progress - because while it did nothing to stimulate growth, it did exhaust part of your recovery ability."

 

What I am gleaning from him is "Less=More" but here he says one set of 10 -- isn't this too much? Or is he just saying the last 2 or 3 lifts in a set are the most important, and the "10" is just an example?

No this is just crap. There is plenty of training routines where you never do those last few reps and people still make great gains. Pretty much all olympic lifters in their training virtually never do those last few reps and obviously are doing something right. In reality there is no magic point where suddenly muscle "stimulation" starts happening. Any use at all of a muscle is stimulation to cause it to grow.

 

I find that I often feel I've done too many too stimulate growth; and at the same time, if I do less, as he says by not doing those last few, then I'm done nothing to stimulate growth...

I am confused about how to know how many to do for my muscles to grow

And, since he says weightlifters and bodybuilders should be doing the same, basically; I assume I would benefit both in strength and looks from doing this ...

Right?

 

Also, I want to work my arms for looks; but I realize that for my main goal -- which is to have a strong skeleton for health -- I want strength to build bones. So if I want both strength and muscle...any advice? (specific)

First off don't listen to this guy. He does not recognize how people have been successful with very different routines and instead acts like he knows it all and has the one correct way.

 

As for you, I'm afraid there's no easy answer. Just mess around with different stuff and try to figure out what works for you.

 

I'd suggest trying a high volume low intensity routine and a low volume high intensity routine. The advantage of the LVHI is that you will be less likely to overtrain. But I think in the long run the HVLI will take you farther.

 

A LVHI would be a single set to failure of a few different exercises each workout. Rest a few days for upper body and maybe 4 to 6 for legs..... A HVLI would be 5, 10, 60! sets of each exercise and just try to do the same number of reps for each set. If you can't get the same number on the last set that you did on the first, the intensity was probably too high.

 

Of course there are hundreds of workouts out there. I think those two are the two extremes on the spectrum. See what you like... If you have more questions please ask and I'll try to help.

 

Personally right now I'm doing a very high volume low intensity routine. For chinups I'm doing 60 sets (one every minute for an hour) every other day. I seem to be making improvement on this. In the previous 16 years I did far fewer sets with more intensity (including years of HIT training) and had been stuck for many years.

[Jay]

And the size vs strength thing isn't something you should worry much about. If you got one and not the other it would be easy to switch to the other pretty quick. I'd suggest 5 to 10 reps per set is a good place to stay within. But really if you can only do 1 rep (like on chins at first) it's not a big deal. You'll get stronger and eventually be doing more reps.

 

But if your max chins is say 2 reps or less than bodyweight chins would be too intense if you wanted to do them with higher volume.... So you'd have to find something else.... Perhaps high intensity low volume for chins and then high volume low intensity for some other exercises. Actually trying each basic idea at the same time (for different bodyparts) might be a good way to compare the two and how they work for you.

[Jay]

I really enjoy debating this stuff back and forth, but it's really not as complicated as some people like to make it sound (some people make a living out of making it sound as complicated as possible!).

 

There might be some room for debate at the highest levels of the sport, but for beginners, the principles are pretty simple.

 

If you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any stronger. And if you do the same amount of reps with the same weight each session, you won't get any bigger. If you add just one more rep to each session at a given weight (and eat right!), you will get both bigger and stronger.

 

Find a weight, _raVen_, where you can do about 8 reps, moderately comfortably, but not too easily. Next session, do 9 reps at that weight. The next session do 10 reps. And so on, until you reach 12 reps. Then add about 5 lbs. to the bar, and start back at 8 reps again. Repeat the cycle. You can't go wrong with this method. You will gradually gain both size and strength (it's not one or the other, they both go hand in hand, especially for beginners).

 

That's really all it takes (I know it's easier said than done!)

Yeah of course you reach a point where you just can't do another rep. And workout after workout passes with no improvement. So then guys start getting desperate for that next rep and doing all kinds of stuff that really isn't worth it with respect to this short silly life we all have.

[_raVen_]

Jay, you sweetie! Thanks.

 

 

Anyway bulking never did me any good in that when I cut back I just lost all the muscle I gained.

 

When you lost all the muscle did you lose the strength you gained too?

 

Some people definitely gain a lot of muscle as a result of stuffing their face and gaining some fat. I do.

 

And you got stronger?

 

... he would not have squatted more as a result of losing bodyweight simply through eating better/eating fewer calories.

 

But supposedly people with low bodyfat %s will gain a higher percentage of muscle as a result of bulking. But I think this is a very small negligible phenomenon if it's even actually true at all.....

 

Hmm, okay.

 

[ ...the very fact that apparently good results are produced in at least "some" cases is merely proof of the productivity of systematic weight-training... ...

 

but considering how weak most people who lift weights are at average gyms there's probably some truth to it. But it's just an assertion....

 

So it's merely that they are working out that = some results rather than anything specific they do; is that correct? Okay. I didn't understand what "systematic weight-training" meant; I thought it was some specific thing.

 

"In practice, most bodybuilders quickly fall into a pattern of training where the "amount" of their training uses up all of their recovery ability - and growth thus becomes impossible,. Secondly, they seldom train "hard enough" to stimulate over-compensation - so little or no growth would occur even if their system was capable of over-compensation."

 

 

This is just speculation on this guys part. Sounds like a HIT jedi. (A guy who believes in the one set to failure training idea. (High Intensity Training)).

I used to suspect this idea was right but have finally learned it's crap. "Amount" is similar to runners trying to increase their base and of course if a runner spends a long time establishing a good base and then starts tapering off, they usually get a nice boost and have some really good runs. In strength training the same occurs and people mistakenly think that proves that all the volume training was just a waste of time. I really strongly disagree with such HIT sentiments as this guy is pushing.

 

I agree about the running part because as a (very)long-time runner, cutting back and doing intensity has helped me --boost my heartrate, lose fat -- and I get faster whenever I do fartlek-type stuff.

But you say for strength, volume, meaning doing a lot of lifting = results; is that correct? And that isn't overtraining? Sorry, if I'm being a pain, I'm just finding some of this hard to absorb.

 

 

...No this is just crap. There is plenty of training routines where you never do those last few reps and people still make great gains. Pretty much all olympic lifters in their training virtually never do those last few reps and obviously are doing something right. In reality there is no magic point where suddenly muscle "stimulation" starts happening. Any use at all of a muscle is stimulation to cause it to grow.

 

Okay.

 

I find that I often feel I've done too many too stimulate growth; and at the same time, if I do less, as he says by not doing those last few, then I'm done nothing to stimulate growth...

I am confused about how to know how many to do for[/color] my muscles to grow

And, since he says weightlifters and bodybuilders should be doing the same, basically; I assume I would benefit both in strength and looks from doing this ...

Right?

 

Also, I want to work my arms for looks; but I realize that for my main goal -- which is to have a strong skeleton for health -- I want strength to build bones. So if I want both strength and muscle...any advice? (specific) ...

 

First off don't listen to this guy. He does not recognize how people have been successful with very different routines and instead acts like he knows it all and has the one correct way.

 

Haha, that's why I'm asking for help.

 

As for you, I'm afraid there's no easy answer. Just mess around with different stuff and try to figure out what works for you.

 

I know; it seems I'm hopeless.

 

I'd suggest trying a high volume low intensity routine and a low volume high intensity routine. The advantage of the LVHI is that you will be less likely to overtrain. But I think in the long run the HVLI will take you farther.

 

A LVHI would be a single set to failure of a few different exercises each workout. Rest a few days for upper body and maybe 4 to 6 for legs..... A HVLI would be 5, 10, 60! sets of each exercise and just try to do the same number of reps for each set. If you can't get the same number on the last set that you did on the first, the intensity was probably too high.

 

Of course there are hundreds of workouts out there. I think those two are the two extremes on the spectrum. See what you like... If you have more questions please ask and I'll try to help.

 

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So how about helping me make it a little more specific?

 

How do I spread this out? Are you saying to try LVHI for one month and then HVLI the next? Or are you suggested weekly rotations, etc?

 

MWF = ?

 

Just for clarification, I understand one "set" to be, for example, lifting one arm bicep curls 10 times; second set would be 10 more lifts, etc.; is that correct? Yes, I need it spelt out

 

How much rest in between sets? One minute? 30 seconds?

 

And what type of exercises? Bicep curls? Should I buy a bar? I have 10-lb weights and 15-lb weights. Most I've done is use the 15lb weights for alternating bicep curls -- is this 30 lbs okay?

I am doing this also

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mystretchcenter.com/standing%20military%20press%20a.jpghttp://www.mystretchcenter.com/standing%20military%20press.jpg

 

 

 

 

and this one

 

 

http://www.easygym.com/musculation/exercice-triceps-05.gif

 

and

 

http://images.meredith.com/lhj/images/2002/07/a_Slideshow_TricepsKickback.jpg

 

Now, sadly, (along with biceps) this is it I'm trying to get back into the pullups though... a heh

 

 

 

 

Personally right now I'm doing a very high volume low intensity routine. For chinups I'm doing 60 sets (one every minute for an hour) every other day. I seem to be making improvement on this. In the previous 16 years I did far fewer sets with more intensity (including years of HIT training) and had been stuck for many years.

 

Improvement, how? You're getting stronger or more muscular? I'm sure you're getting pretty cut.

sigh...I need to do these; but I'm so weak up top, I can't lift myself or even do static holds...

 

Thanks for your patience, and really trying to help. I appreciate it.

 

It just occurred to me this is probably the first time I've ever wanted to be told what to do ...and I'm even asking for it

Edited April 13, 2006 by _raVen_

[_raVen_]

... and doing all kinds of stuff that really isn't worth it with respect to this short silly life we all have.

 

True for most stuff we do

[willpeavy]

But, still, my main problem is motivation; but I'm getting better because I really need to do this for long-term gain and stop thinking about just the aesthetics of it all thanks for responding.

 

Are there any exercises that you really get a rush off of doing? If so, make those the core of your workout and you'll start craving the gym. I'm not sure if it's due to dopamines or adrenaline or some other chemical in your brain, but if you find a routine that really works for you you'll get a high off it and crave going to the gym. At least that's what happened to me

[Mr. Hardgain]

Mr. Hardgain, I really appreciate your responses , thanks. I'm also glad it is very simple for you to understand

 

I've done similar to what you've suggested but I did not increase the repetitions every session because I've been told not to BUT...I shall try that, thanks!

 

If I may -- will you help me out a bit more? ...If I ask real nice

 

I have a few questions, if so. If not, that's okay; and thanks for the above advice, it helps!

 

 

 

_raVen_, please ask away! I do favor a simple approach, but as I said, this is one of my favorite topics, and I can go on about it forever (strange paradox, I know)!

 

One of my favorite sayings is "everything works for a while, nothing works forever". For a beginner, though, the "everything works" part is the most relevant. I have yet to meet a person whose first six months in the gym didn't leave them stronger, somewhat bigger, much more radiant, and feeling better than ever before!

 

There's almost no way for a beginner (I'm just assuming you're a beginner!) to go wrong with it, so don't stress! Lifting weights is one of the rare things in this world that's pure fun! Keep it that way!

[_raVen_]

Hey, willpeavy I totally understand that! However, that's what running did for me . I can't seem to find the magick with weights

I get pretty dang high from running

 

Mr Hardgain, thank you!

Okay, I'm sort of a beginner...meaning, I have done weights moderately having no knowledge of weightlifting, off and on for years. I just burn on it because, unfortunately, for me, it is not fun BUT, I am committing to doing this, mainly for health (good bones). If it can become fun, all the better; that way I'll have a better chance of doing well.

 

Okay, so, if you want, you can look in my journal and on page 1 -- scroll down -- there are pics of my arms; the last one being current. This is from where I am starting. My goal is to have muscle (definition, preferably) to replace the softness. I'd like to have nice shape, nice cut, but I want strength without size. I know it's not easy to put on size!; but, at the risk of getting lambasted for using the dreaded, "toned"; I'm trying to be as clear as possible .

 

So, can you suggest a routine for me? I really, really, need something that I can follow...I just haven't been able to come up with a routine for myself. I need structure...clear program or I will wander/slack.

 

What I need is specific instruction on what to do; for example:

 

Monday:____ 15lbs, 5 sets of 20...etc..

Tues:_______

Wed___

 

And how many days off, how much rest in between sets, etc.

 

Is that asking too much? If not, I would be most grateful! Thanks.

[Jay]

Jay, you sweetie! Thanks.

 

 

Anyway bulking never did me any good in that when I cut back I just lost all the muscle I gained.

 

When you lost all the muscle did you lose the strength you gained too?

Yes.

 

Some people definitely gain a lot of muscle as a result of stuffing their face and gaining some fat. I do.

 

And you got stronger?

Yes.

 

... he would not have squatted more as a result of losing bodyweight simply through eating better/eating fewer calories.

 

But supposedly people with low bodyfat %s will gain a higher percentage of muscle as a result of bulking. But I think this is a very small negligible phenomenon if it's even actually true at all.....

 

Hmm, okay.

 

[ ...the very fact that apparently good results are produced in at least "some" cases is merely proof of the productivity of systematic weight-training... ...

 

but considering how weak most people who lift weights are at average gyms there's probably some truth to it. But it's just an assertion....

 

So it's merely that they are working out that = some results rather than anything specific they do; is that correct? Okay. I didn't understand what "systematic weight-training" meant; I thought it was some specific thing.

Yeah, a bunch of people workout, some are going to get somewhere (obviously relative to the average someone is going to do "good".)

 

"In practice, most bodybuilders quickly fall into a pattern of training where the "amount" of their training uses up all of their recovery ability - and growth thus becomes impossible,. Secondly, they seldom train "hard enough" to stimulate over-compensation - so little or no growth would occur even if their system was capable of over-compensation."

 

This is just speculation on this guys part. Sounds like a HIT jedi. (A guy who believes in the one set to failure training idea. (High Intensity Training)).

I used to suspect this idea was right but have finally learned it's crap. "Amount" is similar to runners trying to increase their base and of course if a runner spends a long time establishing a good base and then starts tapering off, they usually get a nice boost and have some really good runs. In strength training the same occurs and people mistakenly think that proves that all the volume training was just a waste of time. I really strongly disagree with such HIT sentiments as this guy is pushing.

 

I agree about the running part because as a (very)long-time runner, cutting back and doing intensity has helped me --boost my heartrate, lose fat -- and I get faster whenever I do fartlek-type stuff.

But you say for strength, volume, meaning doing a lot of lifting = results; is that correct? And that isn't overtraining? Sorry, if I'm being a pain, I'm just finding some of this hard to absorb.

Yes, you get faster but you know the volume that came before is an important part of the gains you make when you up the intensity/reduce volume, right?

 

But anyway high volume equals results for some people.... some people claim it does nothing for them... Perhaps they didn't do it right.... I dunno.

 

As for you, I'm afraid there's no easy answer. Just mess around with different stuff and try to figure out what works for you.

 

I know; it seems I'm hopeless.

 

I'd suggest trying a high volume low intensity routine and a low volume high intensity routine. The advantage of the LVHI is that you will be less likely to overtrain. But I think in the long run the HVLI will take you farther.

 

A LVHI would be a single set to failure of a few different exercises each workout. Rest a few days for upper body and maybe 4 to 6 for legs..... A HVLI would be 5, 10, 60! sets of each exercise and just try to do the same number of reps for each set. If you can't get the same number on the last set that you did on the first, the intensity was probably too high.

 

Of course there are hundreds of workouts out there. I think those two are the two extremes on the spectrum. See what you like... If you have more questions please ask and I'll try to help.

 

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! So how about helping me make it a little more specific?

 

How do I spread this out? Are you saying to try LVHI for one month and then HVLI the next? Or are you suggested weekly rotations, etc?

 

MWF = ?

OK you could try MWF with one or a couple exercises done just one set to failure and then one or a couple exercises done with higher volume. You choose how much volume you want to try out. At leat 5 sets per exercise. Choose a number of reps that you can still get that number of reps on the last set same as the first. Maybe try even to leave one in the tank usually for that last set.

 

Just for clarification, I understand one "set" to be, for example, lifting one arm bicep curls 10 times; second set would be 10 more lifts, etc.; is that correct? Yes, I need it spelt out

Yes.

 

How much rest in between sets? One minute? 30 seconds?

Doing a set every minute would be the absolute minimum rest. Try something between a set every minute and every 5 minutes. Once every 2 or 3 minutes might be good to start. Maybe use a cooking timer or something to keep the rest periods consistent.

 

And what type of exercises? Bicep curls? Should I buy a bar? I have 10-lb weights and 15-lb weights. Most I've done is use the 15lb weights for alternating bicep curls -- is this 30 lbs okay?

I am doing this also

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.mystretchcenter.com/standing%20military%20press%20a.jpghttp://www.mystretchcenter.com/standing%20military%20press.jpg

 

 

 

 

and this one

 

 

http://www.easygym.com/musculation/exercice-triceps-05.gif

 

and

 

http://images.meredith.com/lhj/images/2002/07/a_Slideshow_TricepsKickback.jpg

 

Now, sadly, (along with biceps) this is it I'm trying to get back into the pullups though... a heh

OK I don't know how much time you want to put into this or exactly what you think looks good..... If you are lifting at home I'd suggest one main pushing exercise and one main pulling exercise. For me that's chinups and pushups. Curls are fine too. I find that I can work my triceps really well with certain hand placements on pushups. Overhead pressing is fine of course. That's good for the shoulders.

 

Personally right now I'm doing a very high volume low intensity routine. For chinups I'm doing 60 sets (one every minute for an hour) every other day. I seem to be making improvement on this. In the previous 16 years I did far fewer sets with more intensity (including years of HIT training) and had been stuck for many years.

 

Improvement, how? You're getting stronger or more muscular? I'm sure you're getting pretty cut.

sigh...I need to do these; but I'm so weak up top, I can't lift myself or even do static holds...

 

Thanks for your patience, and really trying to help. I appreciate it.

 

It just occurred to me this is probably the first time I've ever wanted to be told what to do ...and I'm even asking for it

I'm getting stronger. I guess I'm getting more muscular but I don't really pay much attention to such things. I'm not really anymore cut.... Too much chips and choco.

 

OK here's a routine:

MWF

Chinups-just one set to failure.

Curls- one set to failure (try to keep the reps between 5 and 15).

Pushups- 10 sets with the same number of reps in each set, slowly add reps as you feel up to it. Do them off your knees if regular are too hard.

Then same idea with dumbell overhead press like in the picture.

 

I have to get offline and I haven't addressed how to do chinups if bodyweights chins are too heavy...... There's all kinds of ways but no very good ones..... I'll try to say more tomorrow or you can call.

[Kathryn]

http://images.meredith.com/lhj/images/2002/07/a_Slideshow_TricepsKickback.jpg

 

I think there are many other tricep exercises that are more effective. Kickbacks are good as an add-on, IMO, but they are not great as the only tricep exercise to do. Tricep dips or even push-ups with elbows close to the sides would give you more bang for the buck.

[_raVen_]

...

Yes, you get faster but you know the volume that came before is an important part of the gains you make when you up the intensity/reduce volume, right?

 

Yes, it makes sense it would be cumulative I wonder, though, if I could have reached that end (those gains) by forgoing all that volume and doing the intense/reduction stuff to start ? I guess that's what some are saying -- that it can be reached without all the excess.

 

 

..I have to get offline and I haven't addressed how to do chinups if bodyweights chins are too heavy...... There's all kinds of ways but no very good ones..... I'll try to say more tomorrow or you can call.

 

Well, address when you can, no rush. I appreciate all the help so far. If you can type it here, that would be good for reference and maybe for others who may read here; but I'll talk to you soon anyway

 

Thanks!

 

eta: Oh, Jay, this is OT, but there is a thread here you may (or may not!) find funny{ let's see if I've got your idea of humor correct }. I thought of you when I read it since that mention of stevia in your log a while back. It's starts as an innocent stevia post and turns into an argument

 

kathryn, I agree about the pushups. I was doing them for a few years -- everyday, 100; then I cut back to only about 50, three times a week in martial arts class, then when I had to quit, I haven't done them since . They are definitely an advantage and my shoulders looked great; but I, personally, need more because my triceps suck, bigtime!