My turn for a weightlifting/fitness thread

[EricW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, tx, training with really high reps will NOT get you strong. YOu said it will build endurance but yet you said that they will also get you strong. Reps that high will build mainly endurance because it is the type II, slow twitch muscle fibres that are worked (these muscle fibres are endurance type muscle fibres whose primary function is endurance functions)

[/ QUOTE ]

you're a [censored] tool.

lol @ everything you just said.

hey numbnuts, i'm speaking from experience as a power lifter and personal trainer.


you're a [censored] idiot.

LMAO post pics of yourself, plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the fact that you can't differentiate between type I muscle fibres and type II muscle fibres and what each one does and how to train each one discredits you immediately.

btw, I mixed up the early post. The fast twitch fibres are type II and the slow twitch ones are Type I.

[EricW]

Btw, tx, mr. "personal trainer"

25-50 rep sets are absolutely for endurance building. Since endurance training gets you "so strong", I guess all those skinny marathon runners are really strong too!

[EricW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TxRedMan,

Wow. You are really flooring me with your lack of basic knowledge. Maybe you should work out some short of linear periodization also since nothing major has changed in the last 20 years of weight training.

[/ QUOTE ]

when arnold compiled his encyclopedia of bodybuilding, very little was left to be said.

answer me this:

why was kobe dunking the ball in high school when he was skinny and probably couldnt squat 300 LBS, and yet now that he can squat 400 LBS he's not jumping over Nowitizki's head when he dunks?

vertical leap is about form, timing, and explosion.

i reccomend that after OP trains like i reccomended for the first six weeks, he start to incorporate heavier sets into his program and really work on explosion at the bottom of a rep. i'd also throw in negatives, have him walkking around w/ ankle weights on all day, and have him super setting his truly heavy squats.

also, plz understand that i want OP to go heavy- as heavy as he can go for 25 reps. i'm not advocating putting 135 on the bar and doing 25 reps like a warmup. i want him hitting failure at 25 reps.

whatever.

there's more than one way to grow and get strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, tx, no offense man, but if you're going to support Arnold's book, then you don't really know much about training. His book is not based on science. It's based on Weider [censored]. Anybook that calls for a natural to train with upwards to 50 sets/body part and talks about isolating different parts of the bicep is [censored].

Also, I don't know if Kobe and Jordan squatted as much as guids has been saying, but the NBA players are strong as hell. When I was in high school, I helped run a provincial, senior boys b-ball championship at the Vancouver Grizzlies training facility. I was able to break into their training room and in there, there was a board that listed all their reps for certain lifts. I distinctly remember that most of the guys were strong as hell. Bryon Scott had a 1 rep max for bench press of something like 300 or 400 pounds (pretty sure it was 400).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, "something like 300 or 400 pounds"

LMAO. yeah, not much margin of error in that statement.

i'm not going to argue about arnolds book.

it's a great book that provides awesome training advice that centers around the correct lifts and principals.

hey [censored]: if i don't know much about training, then tell me why i bench press 440 pounds, weigh 220, have 19 inch arms, deadlift 600, and am in outstanding physical shape cardiovascular wise?


i dont know much about training?

LOL!

go back to the bench rookie.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol there's no doubt that you're big and strong. However, when you're on gear (I'm not against gear) you can pretty much train however the [censored] you want and you'll gain like a monster.

[Delphin]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, tx, mr. "personal trainer"

25-50 rep sets are absolutely for endurance building. Since endurance training gets you "so strong", I guess all those skinny marathon runners are really strong too!

[/ QUOTE ]

25-50 reps of anything isn't good for strength training. If you can do that many reps you are not causing enough trauma to the muscle to induce growth. (Side note: this includes ab training, which lots of people seem to believe is different than every other muscle in the body, which it isn't)

25-50 reps with a weight is usually a really bad way to train for endurance too. You would be better off just doing the unweighted version of whatever it is you are trying to develop endurance for. In other words if you want to row for a long time, then practice rowing for a long time. Don't be a moron and do 50 rep sets of light weight on the pulldown or row machine in the gym. If you want to be an endurance runner, don't do 50 rep sets of squats, go out and run. Weight training's purpose is to fatigue your muscles and induce a growth response. This works best with high weights and low reps (10-12 or less).

25-50 rep sets are basically cardio disguised as weight lifting. It's an inefficient way to exercise cardiovasclarly and an inefficient way of doing strength training.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, tx, training with really high reps will NOT get you strong. YOu said it will build endurance but yet you said that they will also get you strong. Reps that high will build mainly endurance because it is the type II, slow twitch muscle fibres that are worked (these muscle fibres are endurance type muscle fibres whose primary function is endurance functions)

[/ QUOTE ]

you're a [censored] tool.

lol @ everything you just said.

hey numbnuts, i'm speaking from experience as a power lifter and personal trainer.


you're a [censored] idiot.

LMAO post pics of yourself, plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the fact that you can't differentiate between type I muscle fibres and type II muscle fibres and what each one does and how to train each one discredits you immediately.

btw, I mixed up the early post. The fast twitch fibres are type II and the slow twitch ones are Type I.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh...i'm done with this thread.

it isn't a blanket statement that OP needs to do sets of 25 on squats for the entire duration of his fitness program, but those of you who discredit a beginner spending the first 6 weeks of his workout regimen doing high volume sets on squat obviously have never worked w/ a lot of beginners and are not speaking from experience.

i never said anything about the difference between fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, i never said that OP should do 25 sets.

and FTR- if you've never switched gears in your leg workouts to the type aforementioned, then how in the hell can you make a comment on what it will or will not do?

i've used that program for myself and many others and i wouldn't reccomend it if it didn't have merit.

for a beginner, it ensures that muscle memory is developed through repetition which is crucial in a lift like squats where injury is readily available, and it also makes sure that OP starts slow.

how many beginners have you seen at the gym attempting to lift a weight for 8-10 reps w/ terrible form?

and YES, doing sets of 25 till failure on squats WILL both make you stronger and simultaneously increase stamina assuming nutritional/rest needs are met. i have this sneaking suspicion that no one who has flamed this workout has ever tried it, or seen it performed in the gym. Want to know why? B/C it's brutal. it will kick your ass. i did it when i WASN'T juicing, and have trained exactly five individuals using that program for 4-6 weeks before switching it up.

something that you need to understand is that the body adapts. it is crucial that you are constantly shocking your body and forcing it to do something it hasn't done before. for those of you who are doing squats 1x-2x week using a standard 10-10-8-8-6 type rep program, i challenge you to do 4 sets of 25 to failure and along with leg press at 4 sets of 25 to failure, and prove me wrong.

LOL whatever, i haven't juiced in years, and still bench 440, up 60 pounds from this time last year. down from 500 at it's peak.

this calls for a new update...coming tonight if i get home in time, w/pics.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're missing my point entirely.

i'm not saying that squatting isn't helpful to a vertical leap.


i'm saying that heavy squatting isn't.


allow me to clarify-

heavy squatting = failure achieved in under 5 repetitions. so on your fifth rep, you must have assistance. that's what i call heavy squatting.

in my OP i reccomended high capacity strength training. squatting for very high repetitions is something that not many people do and are fairly unfamiliar with the results, but from my experience and the experience of others it is an excellent foundation from which to build on and it in itself is a superb way to increase strength.

but i stand by my point- a routine to increase vertical leap that centers around the idea that squatting heavy (by all definitions squatting heavy is max weight for low reps) is going to be the chief exercise in accomplishing that goal is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">You don't have to go to failure when lifting heavy weights.</font> That's probably better too when one might not have perfect form in a potentially dangerous exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

have you read this thread?

i advocated OP not do heavy squats to begin his program. therefore i agree that lifting heavy w/o perfect form is dangerous.

also, *heavy* is different from one person to the next. if i'm bench pressing 315, that's not heavy for me, but for most people it's likely to be more than they could lift.

(not a thinly veiled brag)

heavy weight is a weight that you can do &lt;5 times
...

the LOL about this whole arguement is that not a single one of you has ever done a leg routine like i mentioned above, and therefore are making statements based on assumption. and you seemingly neglect the fact that telling abeginner to squat heavy (which <font color="blue">by all definitions has to include sets of 3-5 reps to failure) which is insane.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just pointing out that going to failure can cause form to deteriorate, and it is possible to lift heavy without going to failure.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
(a calorie is a calorie is a calorie).

[/ QUOTE ]


This is not true. I've discussed this before and regardless of nutrient timing/composition silliness JB writes. His in/out article I cited is very good.

You can gain weight (fat mass) on a restricted calorie diet. You can alter your metabolism a good bit since it's not very standard (Why 200 pound guys in ketosis only eat ~1300 cals while not juicing or on very low doses).

But yes. Skipping breakfast and lunch and eating 2k cals at dinner is a recipe to fat land.

[Thremp]

TxRedMan,


Let me do some math for you. Since it does not seem to be your strong point.

You do 25 reps to failure. I'll assume 40% of you 1RM is "failure".

You squat 400 lbs.

25 x 160 x 4 = 16000

If you do a 10-10-8-8-6-4 regimen, you are doing 46 reps. You'd need to average 348 lbs per rep to do the same amount of work. Not to mention the intensity of this workout is much much higher since 348 is 87% of your max.

You are advocating an insanely high volume method with low intensity. His tonnage using your method is very very high and will lead to over training very very quickly. Anyone who has been around the iron game knows that soreness does not equal progress and is a poor indicator. How "brutal" or "painful" a workout is does not show how good it is. I'm sure this would work for a beginner because anything works for a beginner. I could take SC and likely add 40% to his squat in under 6 months. So could likely anyone on this forum. Because you say it works for beginners does not mean its a good idea or not.


Previous Argument I pwned you in: Kobe and Nike are pimping these guys on national TV.

http://www.westside-barbell.com/

Keep wet dreaming.

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
TxRedMan,


Let me do some math for you. Since it does not seem to be your strong point.

You do 25 reps to failure. I'll assume 40% of you 1RM is "failure".

You squat 400 lbs.

25 x 160 x 4 = 16000

If you do a 10-10-8-8-6-4 regimen, you are doing 46 reps. You'd need to average 348 lbs per rep to do the same amount of work. Not to mention the intensity of this workout is much much higher since 348 is 87% of your max.

You are advocating an insanely high volume method with low intensity. His tonnage using your method is very very high and will lead to over training very very quickly. Anyone who has been around the iron game knows that soreness does not equal progress and is a poor indicator. How "brutal" or "painful" a workout is does not show how good it is. I'm sure this would work for a beginner because anything works for a beginner. I could take SC and likely add 40% to his squat in under 6 months. So could likely anyone on this forum. Because you say it works for beginners does not mean its a good idea or not.


Previous Argument I pwned you in: Kobe and Nike are pimping these guys on national TV.

http://www.westside-barbell.com/

Keep wet dreaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thremp-

don't knock it till you've tried it.

it worked for me, it worked for those i trained who did it, and it's a very very very small part of a workout program that really never ends. six weeks of this stuff is nothing in the long run. i constantly change my workouts b/c i workout by feel.

whatever.

just try it, you'll thank me later.

p.s. i'm very familiar w/ west side and have met plenty of guys who've trained there.

[Thremp]

TxRedMan,


I have some questions.


1) Can you address conjugated vs. linear periodization and its development in the last 20 years vs. your comment that nothing has changed since Arnold wrote his book.

2) Can you explain the comment you made about how your ankle has almost no ROM and you recommend hack squats, but you can manage to deadlift over 600 lbs. Aside from the fact that this could win state champ medals at various events over the last 10 years in your weight class.

3) Can you explain how you thought Kobe was doing a "commercial" movement, when you claim to know the guys who made bands and chains popular?

4) Can you [censored] answer any of my comments without some sort of retarded saying or comment about how you are the master or how [censored] hooge you are?