Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh wow...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Younglifter14 [/i]
[B][b]Raising reps is changing things up. I only raise reps to cut fat. Go for more of a cardio workout or circuit train. Unless doing pure cardio type exercise.[/b]
Using high reps to cut fat? well I see im done here.
Young [/B][/QUOTE] Yes you are Young. If there are others on this board that know how the body works and anything about health at all, they'll see you just put your foot in your mouth.
Thank you for the discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh wow...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by martyds761 [/i]
[B]Yes you are Young. If there are others on this board that know how the body works and anything about health at all, they'll see you just put your foot in your mouth.
Thank you for the discussion. [/B][/QUOTE]
thats fine. You can throw away the other points becuase you don't know what to say. It doesnt really matter. Keep using high reps to tone yourself and burn fat
[b]Performing lighter weight with more repetitions (15-20 reps, 20-30 reps, or 20-50 reps) does not burn more fat or tone (simultaneous decrease of fat and increase muscle) better than a heaver weight with moderate repetitions (8-12 reps). Weight training utilizes carbohydrates after the initial ATP and CP stores have been exhausted after the first few seconds of intense muscular contraction. Typically a set's duration is 20 to 30 seconds. For the average fit person, it requires 20 to 30 minutes of continuous aerobic activity with large muscle groups (eg. Gluteus Maximus and Quadriceps) to burn even 50% fat; fat requires oxygen to burn. Performing a few extra repetitions on a weight training exercise is not significant enough to burn extra fat and may in effect burn less fat. If intensity is compromised, less fat may be burned when light weight is used with high repetitions. The burning sensation associated with high repetition training seems to be the primary deterrent for achieving higher intensities.
For individuals attempting to achieve fat loss for aesthetics, the intensity of weight training can be a double edge sword. When beginning an exercise program, muscle mass increases may out pace fat losses, resulting in a small initial weight gain. Significant fat loss requires a certain intensity, duration, and frequency that novice exercisers may not be able to achieve until they develop greater tolerance to exercise. If an exercise and nutrition program is not adequate for significant fat loss, a lighter weight with higher repetitions may be recommended to minimize any bulking effects, although less fat may be utilized hours later. If an aerobic exercise and nutrition program is sufficient enough to lose fat, a moderate repetition range with a progressively heavier weight will accelerate fat loss with a toning effect. If a muscle group ever out paces fat loss, the bulking effect is only temporary. For a toning effect, fat can be lost later when aerobic exercise can be significantly increased or the weight training exercise(s) for that particular muscle can be ceased altogether. The muscle will atrophy to a pre-exercise girth within months. Higher repetitions training may be later implemented and assessed.[/b]
[url]http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html[/url]
take care
Young
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh wow...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Younglifter14 [/i]
[B]thats fine. You can throw away the other points becuase you don't know what to say. It doesnt really matter. Keep using high reps to tone yourself and burn fat
[b]Performing lighter weight with more repetitions (15-20 reps, 20-30 reps, or 20-50 reps) does not burn more fat or tone (simultaneous decrease of fat and increase muscle) better than a heaver weight with moderate repetitions (8-12 reps). Weight training utilizes carbohydrates after the initial ATP and CP stores have been exhausted after the first few seconds of intense muscular contraction. Typically a set's duration is 20 to 30 seconds. For the average fit person, it requires 20 to 30 minutes of continuous aerobic activity with large muscle groups (eg. Gluteus Maximus and Quadriceps) to burn even 50% fat; fat requires oxygen to burn. Performing a few extra repetitions on a weight training exercise is not significant enough to burn extra fat and may in effect burn less fat. If intensity is compromised, less fat may be burned when light weight is used with high repetitions. The burning sensation associated with high repetition training seems to be the primary deterrent for achieving higher intensities.
For individuals attempting to achieve fat loss for aesthetics, the intensity of weight training can be a double edge sword. When beginning an exercise program, muscle mass increases may out pace fat losses, resulting in a small initial weight gain. Significant fat loss requires a certain intensity, duration, and frequency that novice exercisers may not be able to achieve until they develop greater tolerance to exercise. If an exercise and nutrition program is not adequate for significant fat loss, a lighter weight with higher repetitions may be recommended to minimize any bulking effects, although less fat may be utilized hours later. If an aerobic exercise and nutrition program is sufficient enough to lose fat, a moderate repetition range with a progressively heavier weight will accelerate fat loss with a toning effect. If a muscle group ever out paces fat loss, the bulking effect is only temporary. For a toning effect, fat can be lost later when aerobic exercise can be significantly increased or the weight training exercise(s) for that particular muscle can be ceased altogether. The muscle will atrophy to a pre-exercise girth within months. Higher repetitions training may be later implemented and assessed.[/b]
[url]http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html[/url]
take care
Young [/B][/QUOTE] I can't believe you're using an internet site. Dot net, com are not acceptable unless it has a study from a sports med college or better. They test everything that comes out. I don't, and won't consider an internet site unless it has EDU in it somewhere.
The only things I see in that article that I agree w/ is that aerobics burns fat better. That's true. Read closely Young. [b]Get your facts from an accredited source.[/b] I suggest ISSA, ACE, ACSM, NSCA, etc. ACSM being the best.
Good luck w/ your research.
By the way, what does FIT stand for?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh wow...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by martyds761 [/i]
[B]I can't believe you're using an internet site. Dot net, com are not acceptable unless it has a study from a sports med college or better. They test everything that comes out. I don't, and won't consider an internet site unless it has EDU in it somewhere.
The only things I see in that article that I agree w/ is that aerobics burns fat better. That's true. Read closely Young. [b]Get your facts from an accredited source.[/b] I suggest ISSA, ACE, ACSM, NSCA, etc. ACSM being the best.
Good luck w/ your research.
By the way, what does FIT stand for? [/B][/QUOTE]
Everything is an internet site. This wasn't a study what I posted, but rather a reference to just outline for you. I know where I have gotten my studies, Im surprised you know about those considering you failed to give me a study.
The site I reccomended is a pretty good sight and provides studies on some good topics. What I showed you was not meant to be a study.
average fit person, is someone in shape.
here are the actual studies/references used:
[url]http://www.exrx.net/Notes/References.html[/url]
on top of that, high reps don't do much, but in fact will probably inhibit gains. They provide an increase in capillarity density, and on top of that, alot of lactic acid. Unless the sets of these high reps start lasting about 2 minutes, Its not aerobic work, therefore the fat it burns is minimal. You might be using creatine phosphate to resynthesize ATP, as opposed to ATP itself, but thats about it.
Young
Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
15 years old , with a post count of 1750 says it all. The dumbazz must post 50 times a day. Young, you suck, and suck some more. Your a retard. A fool. A panzie. A nobody. I'd like to smack you around a little bit. Like your step daddy does. How does he keep from killing you? Your still alive, so he must not be to bad of a guy.
I just got home from the gym. What have you been doing all day youngdork? Postin on the forums? What a rough day. Young, you poke fun at everything anybody says. You can talk your bull**** over this forum. But should you ever come face to face with one of us "men" on these forums, you will hang your head like a beaten basset hound.
Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RedDelPaPa [/i]
[B]15 years old , with a post count of 1750 says it all. The dumbazz must post 50 times a day. Young, you suck, and suck some more. Your a retard. A fool. A panzie. A nobody. I'd like to smack you around a little bit. Like your step daddy does. How does he keep from killing you? Your still alive, so he must not be to bad of a guy.
I just got home from the gym. What have you been doing all day youngdork? Postin on the forums? What a rough day. Young, you poke fun at everything anybody says. You can talk your bull**** over this forum. But should you ever come face to face with one of us "men" on these forums, you will hang your head like a beaten basset hound. [/B][/QUOTE] Hey Red, don't be too hard on Young. He's just 15 and learning. Still growing. All kids think they know everything. It's part of life.
As for meeting one of us in person, he would rethink and probably even have questions for us. That happen to me at work the other day w/ a 16 yr old while I was training. This kid was pretty big too.
Anyway, Young is still just a kid and will argue, think he knows it all, and keep throwing articles form non-accredited sources at us. Over look it and just try to tell him the right things. If he listens. great, if not, go on and keep trying to teach him. It's all we, as reasonable adults can do for a new athlete that just started two years ago.
Peace.
Re: Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by martyds761 [/i]
[B]Hey Red, don't be too hard on Young. He's just 15 and learning. Still growing. All kids think they know everything. It's part of life.
As for meeting one of us in person, he would rethink and probably even have questions for us. That happen to me at work the other day w/ a 16 yr old while I was training. This kid was pretty big too.
Anyway, Young is still just a kid and will argue, think he knows it all, and keep throwing articles form non-accredited sources at us. Over look it and just try to tell him the right things. If he listens. great, if not, go on and keep trying to teach him. It's all we, as reasonable adults can do for a new athlete that just started two years ago.
Peace. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmm, I'm not sure whats going on here. Do you guys feel your losing a big argument or something? Im trying to have a friendly debate, and all im getting is im "a kid".
Non credited sources, I showed you the studies you asked for. You have showed me nothing...
let me say it again
nothing
just flames and bad names for no reason. If you dont have anything worthwhile to tell/show me, there is no reason to sink as low as to flame me. The board is here for debating, not flaming.
Young
Re: Re: Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[QUOTE]
Non credited sources, I showed you the studies you asked for. You have showed me nothing...
let me say it again
nothing[/QUOTE]
Who cares kid! What is it your looking for? A fast, easy way to get big and strong? Ain't gonna happen. Even steroids require some effort to grow. I read some of your "credited" bull**** kid. Not repping to absolute failure is a waste of time and money. You get out of lifting what you put into it. If you half azz your workouts, you get half azz results. You want "credited" information? Talk to the biggest and strongest bodybuilders in the sport. Ask them how they did it. Don't fall for the little weasel scientists that "think" they know how Arnold got so big. If you followed the so called "health experts", you'd know that one week they're saying eggs are good for you. The next week, they're saying their bad.
Bodybuilding is just as much mental exercise as it is physical. Bust your guts in the gym. Eat lots of protein, and grow. It feels good and is mentally rewarding when you see your gut getting smaller, but the scale shows your gaining weight.
[QUOTE]
just flames and bad names for no reason. If you dont have anything worthwhile to tell/show me, there is no reason to sink as low as to flame me. The board is here for debating, not flaming.
[/QUOTE]
There is a reason kid. You come in here poking fun at me(us), and insulting my(our) intelligence, expect to get kicked around.
Re: Re: Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Younglifter14 [/i]
[B]Do you guys feel your losing a big argument or something?
Im trying to have a friendly debate, and all im getting is im "a kid".
Non credited sources, I showed you the studies you asked for.
just flames and bad names for no reason.
The board is here for debating, not flaming.
Young [/B][/QUOTE] I don't feel like I'm losing anything. I enjoy a debate. I didn't enjoy a comment you made earlier. But, I have gone past that.
You are a kid Young.
The study you showed me didn't have anything of WHERE it came from. Who wrote it and what scientific base it came from.
I'm not flaming, just stating a fact. Oh, and I haven't called you any bad names.
Actually, the board is here for reviewing/debating articles that are posted. This one is originally a 3 day mass increase article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[b]Who cares kid! What is it your looking for? A fast, easy way to get big and strong? Ain't gonna happen. Even steroids require some effort to grow. I read some of your "credited" bull**** kid. Not repping to absolute failure is a waste of time and money.[/b]
I can see why your so misinformed. "who cares"... well theres no point in debating something if you have nothing to show except insults. You obviously arent researching. Training to failure seems like commen sense inorder to promote hypertrophy, but in fact its not...
read this: [url]http://www.avantlabs.com/page.php?pageID=238&issueID=19[/url]
dont go preaching your bull**** before you research. When I first found out you could trian a muscle every 2-3 days, I was like "thats overtraining". Then I thought about it and i realized, 7 days was just a bablyon reference to keep track of time, not for deciding when a muscle fully recovers. Keep researching before bull****ting
[b] You get out of lifting what you put into it. If you half azz your workouts, you get half azz results. You want "credited" information? Talk to the biggest and strongest bodybuilders in the sport. Ask them how they did it. Don't fall for the little weasel scientists that "think" they know how Arnold got so big. If you followed the so called "health experts", you'd know that one week they're saying eggs are good for you. The next week, they're saying their bad.[/b]
thats totally inaccurate and just bull****. Look into HST and read that link I showed you. You will see your wrong. Instead of trying to use commen sense/logic to grow (which seems accurate, but in reality isnt), look into the real facts as they totally contradict each other and what your saying is the exact opposite. And theres a huge difference from health experts and training researchers. Check into alot of Mell Siff's writings and articles backed with every single study you can think of.
You keep going by pros, thats fine. Dont yell at me when it suggests sticking needles in your ass at a certiain point. And to be honest, all the greatest powerlifters/strongman have trained with periodization. its quite funny how little you know. Like I said, research before trying to use commen sense
here are the studies from the link I gave you showing the negatives and how failure isnt needed to grow:1. Andersen B, Westlund B, Krarup C. Failure of activation of spinal motoneurones after muscle fatigue in healthy subjects studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Physiol. 2003 Aug 15;551(Pt 1):345-56. Epub 2003 Jun 24.
2. Belhaj-Saif A, Fourment A, Maton B. Adaptation of the precentral cortical command to elbow muscle fatigue. Exp Brain Res. 1996 Oct;111(3):405-16.
3. Deschenes MR, Giles JA, Kraemer WJ, et al. Neural factors account for strength decrements observed after short-term muscle unloading. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002 Feb;282(2):R578-83.
4. Deschenes MR, Judelson DA, Kraemer WJ, et al. Effects of resistance training on neuromuscular junction morphology. Muscle Nerve. 2000 Oct;23(10):1576-81.
5. Deschenes MR, Brewer RE, McCoy RW, Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular disturbance outlasts other symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage. J Neurol Sci. 2000 Mar 15;174(2):92-9.
6. Deschenes MR, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ, et al. The effects of exercise training of different intensities on neuromuscular junction morphology. J Neurocytol. 1993 Aug;22(8):603-15.
7. Deschenes MR, Covault J, Kraemer WJ, Maresh CM. The neuromuscular junction. Muscle fibre type differences, plasticity and adaptability to increased and decreased activity. Sports Med. 1994 Jun;17(6):358-72. Review.
8. Deschenes MR, Kraemer WJ. Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Nov;81(11 Suppl):S3-16. Review.
9. Deschenes MR, Will KM, Booth FW, Gordon SE. Unlike myofibers, neuromuscular junctions remain stable during prolonged muscle unloading. J Neurol Sci. 2003 Jun 15;210(1-2):5-10.
10. Gandevia SC, Allen GM, Butler JE, Taylor JL. Supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue: evidence for suboptimal output from the motor cortex. J Physiol. 1996 Jan 15;490 ( Pt 2):529-36.
11. Gandevia SC. Neural control in human muscle fatigue: changes in muscle afferents, motoneurones and motor cortical drive [corrected] Acta Physiol Scand. 1998 Mar;162(3):275-83. Review. Erratum in: Acta Physiol Scand 1998 Jul;163(3):305.
12. Gandevia SC. Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiol Rev. 2001 Oct;81(4):1725-89. Review.
13. Jones DA. Muscle fatigue due to changes beyond the neuromuscular junction. Ciba Found Symp. 1981;82:178-96.
14. Jones DA. High-and low-frequency fatigue revisited. Acta Physiol Scand. 1996 Mar;156(3):265-70. Review.
15. Kato T, Takeda Y, Tsuji T, Kasai T. Further insights into post-exercise effects on H-reflexes and motor evoked potentials of the flexor carpi radialis muscles. Motor Control. 2003 Jan;7(1):82-99.
16. Lamb GD. Excitation-contraction coupling and fatigue mechanisms in skeletal muscle: studies with mechanically skinned fibres. J Muscle Res Cell Motil. 2002;23(1):81-91. Review.
17. Liepert J, Kotterba S, Tegenthoff M, Malin JP. Central fatigue assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Muscle Nerve. 1996 Nov;19(11):1429-34.
18. Liu JZ, Shan ZY, Zhang LD, Sahgal V, Brown RW, Yue GH. Human brain activation during sustained and intermittent submaximal fatigue muscle contractions: an FMRI study. J Neurophysiol. 2003 Jul;90(1):300-12. Epub 2003 Mar 12.
19. Liu JZ, Dai TH, Sahgal V, Brown RW, Yue GH. Nonlinear cortical modulation of muscle fatigue: a functional MRI study. Brain Res. 2002 Dec 13;957(2):320-9. Erratum in: Brain Res. 2003 May 30;973(2):307.
20. Ljubisavljevic M, Milanovic S, et al. Central changes in muscle fatigue during sustained submaximal isometric voluntary contraction as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Aug;101(4):281-8.
21. Loscher WN, Nordlund MM. Central fatigue and motor cortical excitability during repeated shortening and lengthening actions. Muscle Nerve. 2002 Jun;25(6):864-72.
22. Matyushkin DP, Krivoi II, Drabkina TM. Synaptic feed-backs mediated by potassium ions. Gen Physiol Biophys. 1995 Oct;14(5):369-81. Review.
23. Nielsen JJ, Mohr M, Klarskov C, Kristensen M, Krustrup P, Juel C, Bangsbo J. Effects of high-intensity intermittent training on potassium kinetics and performance in human skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 2003 Nov 21
24. Pasquet B, Carpentier A, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Muscle fatigue during concentric and eccentric contractions. Muscle Nerve. 2000 Nov;23(11):1727-35.
25. Pitcher JB, Miles TS. Alterations in corticospinal excitability with imposed vs. voluntary fatigue in human hand muscles. J Appl Physiol. 2002 May;92(5):2131-8.
26. Russ DW, Vandenborne K, Binder-Macleod SA. Factors in fatigue during intermittent electrical stimulation of human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Aug;93(2):469-78.
27. Sejersted OM, Sjogaard G. Dynamics and consequences of potassium shifts in skeletal muscle and heart during exercise. Physiol Rev. 2000 Oct;80(4):1411-81. Review.
28. Siff, MC. Supertraining. 2002. Supertraining Institute, Denver USA.
29. Taylor JL, Butler JE, Allen GM, Gandevia SC. Changes in motor cortical excitability during human muscle fatigue. J Physiol. 1996 Jan 15;490 ( Pt 2):519-28.
30. Taylor JL, Butler JE, Gandevia SC. Altered responses of human elbow flexors to peripheral-nerve and cortical stimulation during a sustained maximal voluntary contraction. Exp Brain Res. 1999 Jul;127(1):108-15.
31. Todd G, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC. Measurement of voluntary activation of fresh and fatigued human muscles using transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Physiol. 2003 Sep 1;551(Pt 2):661-71. Epub 2003 Aug 08.
32. Wallinga W, Meijer SL, Alberink MJ, Vliek M, Wienk ED, Ypey DL. Modelling action potentials and membrane currents of mammalian skeletal muscle fibres in coherence with potassium concentration changes in the T-tubular system. Eur Biophys J. 1999;28(4):317-29.
33. Zatsiorsky, VI. Science and Practice of Strength Training. 1995. Human Kinetics.
34. Powell JA, Molgo J, Adams DS, Colasante C, Williams A, Bohlen M, Jaimovich E. IP3 receptors and associated Ca2+ signals localize to satellite cells and to components of the neuromuscular junction in skeletal muscle. J Neurosci. 2003 Sep 10;23(23):8185-92.
there are plenty more out there as well.
[b]Bodybuilding is just ...blah,blah,blah, look how misinformed I am[/b]
Much better
[b]There is a reason kid. You come in here poking fun at me(us), and insulting my(our) intelligence, expect to get kicked around. [/b]
No, I wanted a simple friendly debate, and you came around with the insults or degrading names. Go read over your posts. I just wanted reasoning for your ideas.
Young
Re: Re: Re: Re: Younglifter is a dork azz weenie
[b]I don't feel like I'm losing anything. I enjoy a debate. I didn't enjoy a comment you made earlier. But, I have gone past that.[/b]
Dont call me kid then. Its simple :)
[b]You are a kid Young[/b]
nice. and your an adult. I bet you feel like an idiot now :confused::confused:
[b]The study you showed me didn't have anything of WHERE it came from. Who wrote it and what scientific base it came from.[/b]
the text I showed you wasn't a study, it was an article which included a study. Lets get that straight. Then I sent you the link which showed all the references/studies the sight has used to create its articles. but you are simply ignoring that. But hey, tell me what it is where talking about, and Ill go get some real studies if you want. just dont cry and call it "scientific jumbo"
[b]I'm not flaming, just stating a fact. Oh, and I haven't called you any bad names.[/b]
bad names isnt the only way to insult someone. Go back and read your posts
[b]Actually, the board is here for reviewing/debating articles that are posted. This one is originally a 3 day mass increase article. [/b]
Yeh, did I miss something? Like I said "The board is here for debating, not flaming."
Young
Marty and Young's arguement
Well done you two!
What a fantastic arguement (sorry debate).
I must admitt, Young knows his stuff, and although he does seem a little eager to argue, he certainly presents an impressive case, whether he is 15 years old or not. In fact I reckon Young presented more valid points than anyone else, and didn't resort to being ageist.
Young, if you are as passionate and sensible with your Training as you are debating on this forum, you will go a long way!!
Check out my Business website (not 100% complete)
[url]www.pro-matrixinternational.com[/url]
If anyone wants to send me articles or pictures, i will put them up.
Re: Marty and Young's arguement
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Japester [/i]
[B]Well done you two!
What a fantastic arguement (sorry debate).
I must admitt, Young knows his stuff, and although he does seem a little eager to argue, he certainly presents an impressive case, whether he is 15 years old or not. In fact I reckon Young presented more valid points than anyone else, and didn't resort to being ageist.
Young, if you are as passionate and sensible with your Training as you are debating on this forum, you will go a long way!!
Check out my Business website (not 100% complete)
[url]www.pro-matrixinternational.com[/url]
If anyone wants to send me articles or pictures, i will put them up. [/B][/QUOTE]
thanks alot. Someone will be checking out the link :)
feel free to check out my journal also
take care
Young
3 day workout (e.g., full body workout)
In general i liked the routine but then i'm biased as it's pretty much the same routine i've been using for the past few months.
* It's a time saver; i look forward to the every other day off.
* It's forgiving; if i miss a day i just pick up the next day. No rejuggling everything.
* Recovery time;
- every other day feels pretty good to me. It is, afterall, pretty close to 48 hours between workouts.
- like Olivia Newton John sings, "Listen to Your Body Talk". And, sometimes, it's saying, "hey, take an extra day off here".
Because of time constraints, age, injuries and arthritis i've done some optimizations that work for me;
* i've ordered body parts starting from large to small; e.g., legs, chest, back, shoulders, traps, arms, abs. Big groups get the little groups pre-warmed and good to go.
* i do 3 sets for each body part;
- a high (15 - 20) rep (lower weight) set. It's more than a warm up. i call it a working set because i really have to work for the last few. Form is very good and i really squeeze the muscle.
- a medium (8 - 12) rep set. A traditional body builder set. Form is still good.
- a low (3 - 5) rep (heavy weight) set. A traditional strength/size builder set. Weight is everything.
Comments:
* This is more than a beginner's routiine BUT it IS a GR8 beginner's routine. A beginner typically responds favorably to most anything and everything but since this offers everything in a uniform, balanced and symetrical way it's a good start to a balanced and symetrical physique (rather than the strange beach look of Pecs 'n' biceps balanced on a pair of stilts).
* At my age it's hard to crank up intensity / add weight everyday but, with the above, i can usually add a rep or a plate somewhere. In fact, at my age, anyday i don't have to drop a weight or rep ain't a bad day :-)
* The high rep set is more than a warm up. It's a working set. It's also a guage. It's a safe way to inventory for abnormal pain. Arthritis is like that. So is being old. Some days are better than others. If it doesn't feel right i either pass or stay with high reps that day.
i've also clumped body parts into complimentary pairs so i can do everything as antagonistic supersets;
* Quads / hammies (and/or calves for good measure).
* Chest / back
* Shoulders / traps
* BIs / TRIs
* abs
* E.G., i do a chest exercise and while the chest is resting run over to a back exercise. When i finish the back exercise i run back to the chest exercise (as it should be rested even though i'm not :-) i go through the whole workout like that. The only "rest" is running to machines or setting up.
Low boredom factor;
* doing 40 minutes of chest or BIs was boring. And the all the rests only added to the time required further exacerbating the boredom. All the running, changes and variety seems to keep me interested, challenged and motivated.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh wow...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by joewattie [/i]
[B]"feeling a burn doesnt mean anything" ... now i'm shocked :-)[/b]
I could get a burn from doing 100 reps, honestly I dont think its a good indicator of growth. With that being said, I dont know what to think about your post, If I posted My real opinon I would really have these guys on my tail with my "scientific jibberish"
[b]"neural strength aquistion" ???[/b]
The reason the first time you do an exercise you can add so much weight the next time is becuase of this, motor units start recruiting better and snchronizing.