Posted On:10/23/2003 4:15pm
Originally posted by ronin69
I like to work my UP to my max working weight ( not my MAX), usually 2-3 sets, smack the "work set" to failure, drop 20% ( more or less) and , no rest, pump out as many reps As I can.
Works really well, for me.
Ususally 2 exercise per body part at the most, both compound movements, I only do 1 exercise for biceps and triceps and forarms.
I Love squats, deadlifts, weighted chins and dips :)
The thing about Pyramiding is that its GREAT for building Hypertrophy , becasue you arent requiring the FULL FORCE of your Nervous System when you are Lifting in the Higher (6+) Rep Ranges . When you go Full Out tho , you are losing the abilities/full Resources of yoru CNS from the time you start Lifting , Its best to Start "Fresh" in these things , you know .
And ALL Militairy lads love Chins and Dips . With 37.5inch Thighs , I HATE them !
Posted On:10/23/2003 8:00pm
Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
It's getting pretty deep here. Where to start...
#1. Body builders are bodybuilders due to genetics and 'roids. Period. The same principles of fitness, however, apply to every human being. If a muscle is to become stronger it must become bigger. No way around that.
#2. Skill specific development is just that...skill (task)specific. One can't trigger nervous system "growth" per se...least of all with activities which aren't precisely those one wishes to develop. However, when there exists greater relative force output due solely to the neurologic adaptation to a given skill, there will be very little crossover to any other activity which, though engaging the same muscle (group), is not precisely the same movement.
On the other hand, more strength due to more muscle will apply to any activity engaging said muscle.
A "full force" bench press, for example, will not develop greater punching acumen. Only punching will. One doesn't practice the skills of competitive cross country skiing on a nordic track...they do it on skis, in the snow, in real world conditions.
#3. Sets shmets. All that needs to done to grow muscle (and get stronger) is to threaten the body's margins of survival. Give it a very compelling reason to adapt. This can be accomplished in one set done with proper intensity. How many times must one stimulate the adaptation? That's a rhetorical question of course, but "once" is the answer.
#4. Reps shmeps. Reps are a measure of time. A measure of time under which a muscle or muscle group is engaged in work. To be more precise, METABOLIC work...as opposed to mechanical work (which neccesarily hinges on MOVING a mass). There is nothing magical about a given rep scheme, since not all reps are created equal. As far as the body is concerned, 1 rep lasting 60 seconds is the same as 2 reps each lasting 30 seconds is the same as 4 lasthing 15, 5 lasting 12, 10 lasting 6 etc etc.
A precise measure of metabolic output much more befitting the SCIENCE of exercise is a TUL standard. Time under load. What's the best TUL? That's rather subjective. Some respond better to relatively lower ones, some respond better to relatively higher ones. The subjectivity is due in part to the variation we have in our respetive muscle fiber distributions.
Posted On:10/23/2003 8:11pm
I think people would appreciate an explanation of why mass does not equate to strength
This was on another thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.
Muscle mass does equate to strength, neccesarily. The problem, however, is in trying to make comparisons across more than one person, for there are other variables which account for greater or lesser degrees of MECHANICAL output; i.e. muscle fiber type, muscle attachments, height etc.
More of my muscle will make me stronger. However, because I have more of my muscle, that does not neccesarily mean I can or should produce the same mechanical work as someone ELSE with less muscle (but perhaps more favorable muscle attachments, for example). But, it still stands that more of HIS muscle will make HIM stronger.
Posted On:10/23/2003 9:42pm
Style: Shi Ja Quan
Nice to see everyone contributing :)
The size chart is a proportion chart, not a size chart.
Check it again.
Basically it shows what your body part measurment should be to be in proportion to either your height and weight, or in proportion to the rest of you.
EX: if your waist is such and such, your chest should be so much to LOOK in Propotion to your waist, etc.
IF your size is not here, you can pretty much do the math and figure it out yourself.
I agree 100% about the 3-6 rep range for building pure strength, but the examples cited for the bodyweigth to lifting ratio is just that, an example.
If you can do 200% of your body weight for 15 reps, you can obviously do more weight for 10 and even more for 3.
Although some advice against "abusing" low reps in things such as squats and deadlifts.
Neutral, or nearly so
Posted On:10/23/2003 9:48pm
Time under load:
definition: The latest material to be regurgitated by nambypamby personal trainers.
There is NO scientific consensus on the majority of strength training issues due to individual variation. In general the information put forth by Djimbe will hold true for all of the more advanced weightlifters. Beginners can do just about anything and get stronger.
Oh and by the way: porportionally bodybuilders are WEAK. everybody should realize this and it is often apparent just watching them work out.
Of all the routines I have used for the past 15 years lifting weights, pyramiding to a heavy weight ( warming up) has yelded me the best reults in terms of strength and size.
You really have to do what is best for you.
exeperiment with a system and stick to the one the gives you the best reults.
I bench over 270
I squat over 350
I deadlift over 320 ( bad back)
I chin with 50 lbs
I dip with 60
All this for at least 8 reps ( 10 on the squat & DL)
at a body weight of 170.
For me this has been the best routine.
I haven't tested my max this quarter, When I do, I will keep you posted :)
I know that these numbers are not that immpressive, but, they are the best for me since coming back from a month layoof ( baby girl :D ).
Posted On:10/24/2003 8:03am
everybody should realize this and it is often apparent just watching them work out.
Regarding TUL, well, enlighten me as to what exactly a rep is a measure of.
Posted On:10/24/2003 8:14am
In the end, you need to try out different systems, much like MA, find the one that works best FOR YOU.
You should stick with a system for at least 3 months, 6 to a year would be better. You can get results from almost ANY system in the first few weeks, just from your body adapting to something different, but its the long run that matter.
If over MONTHS of using a sysytem, you still progress and show the gains, then that MAY be the system for you.
Posted On:10/24/2003 8:53am
ST is doen to compliment your MA training, NEVER to replace it.
Your number 1 priority should still be your MA training.
But too many MA think that their "technique" will make up for any lack of strength, and while this may sound good in theory, the fact is, strength can make up for lack of technique also.
And if you are going at it with a guy who is strong AND has technique...
ST is indispensable to the Martial artist.
Posted On:10/24/2003 1:28pm
Power = speed & strength.
This brings up a point worth mentioning.
The function of muscle is to produce force.
Work=the transfer of energy (for our purposes, simply *moving* a mass)
Power=the *rate* at which mechanical work is performed
Force=*Accelerating* a mass.
Power and mechanical work provide no indication of what's happening internally (in the muscle itself) since it's a bio-chemical process behind muscle fiber contraction. The muscle can become fatigued and grow without a single unit of work being performed...or force for that matter.
I have nothing to do with fighting or martial arts, but I presume that what one primarily wants to develop via strength training is *force*....strictly speaking. Right?
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info