mid-high reps + light weight = ?

[buksing_king]

Hey everyone

I was wondering what relatively high reps ( 12 ) repeated 3 times ( 3 sets ) with light weights ( 40 kg on one of those machines which are multi-purpose ) will do for muscles ?

I do not know if anyone is familiar with the machine I am talking about but it has two padded vertical bars at one end for working your pectorals, 3 handles on a type of bench press thing where you are sitting upright on the other side , a leg machine at the bottom of the seat in which you move your calfs upwards and away from you , also a bar above you which you can pull down .............. all of these are connected by pulleys to some flat black weights which are stacked on top of eachother

I hope that is an accurate description ...... it is a kind of " home gym "

Also what will 7kg dumbells do for my biceps if I do 3 sets of 12 reps with them

Any replies will be appreciated :)

[Ford Prefect]

3 sets of 12 is a common bodybuilding protocol.

[WarriorX]

The effect of the training will depend on how you feel at the end of the 12 reps, if you feel at the point of fatigue, and could maybe do only one more then it is having a physiological effect according to the overload principle, this would lead to increases in strength and muscular definition, and maybe a small increase in size.

On the other hand if you feel like you could carry on with a lot more reps but are stopping at 12 because thats the number you have chosen then its probably having little effect, though if you are new to lifting this would cause improvements in the neuromuscular system, giving an increase in strength due to nervous activation.

Neil

[NPMantis]

As a rule of thumb, less reps builds (6-8) greater strength and size and higher reps (12+) builds more fitnes and toning.

[IronFist]

Originally posted by NPMantis
As a rule of thumb, less reps builds (6-8) greater strength and size and higher reps (12+) builds more fitnes and toning.

Hey Ford, can you take this one? I've refuted this "toning" claim so much that my fingers are refusing to type it another time.

IronFist

[NPMantis]

Would you like to enlighten me then to your wisdom?

(Sorry, I'm only going on 6-7 years of past experiences of myself my training partners.)

[IronFist]

Didn't we have this conversation a few months ago? I remember arguing with someone here who came in boasting that they were a "certified personal trainer" and I thought it was you. :D They said they were going to leave, but came back. Anyway, I'm too lazy to check the archives so it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I can't remember what the argument was about, but whoever I was arguing with was spouting off with some "conventional weight training" paradigm that has been shown to be false (kind of like spot reduction) but people still believe it. Chances are, it was one of the following, because these are the main things I always argue with people about:

They must have said one or more of the following:
1. In order to get stronger a muscle must get bigger.
2. It's impossible to perform big lifts (DL, Bench, SQ) every day and make progress.
3. High reps are for definition and toning.
4. Muscles can be isolated into sections. For example incline bench works the upper pecs and hanging leg raises work the lower abs.

Those are the 4 main ones that I hear a lot. Anyway, all 4 of those are 100% false.

Anyway, since this is already long winded, and you said that high reps are for toning, I will give you a short explination of why that is wrong.

1. "Tone" or "definition" is a product of how low one's bodyfat percentage is. That's it. Granted, the muscle must be large enough to be seen once the bodyfat has been sufficiently reduced, but that's not the point. Fat people can do high reps all day and they won't get definition.

2. Higher reps (12+ as you put it) with moderate weights most likely burn more calories than lower reps (1-5) with higher weights, and calorie burning is the key to reducing bodyfat, but the amount of calories burned from "high reps" is not significant enough to promote any noticible fat loss, so don't try to argue this point.


(Sorry, I'm only going on 6-7 years of past experiences of myself my training partners.)

So? Am I supposed to be impressed? Arnold trained for 30+ years and as far as I know he believed the same thing, too (because I believe it's stated in his Bodybuilding Encylopedia that high reps are for definition).

Make sense? Sorry this was so long. I'm not trying to be a díck, I'm just saying that you're wrong about high reps creating defintion.

IronFist

[IronFist]

It was you I was arguing with, NPMantis. Here's the link:

Big Argument :) (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=116782)

It was number 1 from above, you said that a muscle cannot get stronger without getting bigger. There might have been more but I only read a couple posts.

No problem, though. I used to think the same things when I got in to fitness.

Cheers :)

IronFist

[NPMantis]

Hey,

No I am not a certified personal trainer and no I'm not trying to impress you, i'm just showing that I'm not some novice whos read a couple of books now thinks he's the man.

Of the numbers 1-4 you list I strongly agree with 1-3 and of course 4 in crazy, you can make an exercise have more tension of certain parts of a muscle but certainly can't isolate completely.

There is no point discussing the matter, you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. I get good results and I'm sure you do also from your method or else you wouldn't believe it!

When I was training twice a week I put on about 18-20 lbs of muscle over an 18 month period and doubled every 1RM in every exercise so certainly my method is right for me and my friends I have taken to the gym for any length of time.

But I'm sure you also agree there is no set method to do anything, different things works for different people and I am stating what has worked in the instances I have be to involved with - I am just trying to show a different viewpoint to your own.

God luck with your training mate,

NMantis

[NPMantis]

I still believe that, it is a physiological fact but everyone is entitled to hold different opinions.

As I said before your method works for you and mine for me. That's all that counts.

[IronFist]

Oops, sorry I didn't reply earlier. I've been busy finishing up a program for class.

Ok.

Different things for for different people. Yup. However, if high reps give you definition, then you are a genetic freak* and should be winning bodybuilding contests because you wouldn't need to worry about the dieting stage. All you'd need to do was high reps.

*"genetic freak" isn't an insult. It just refers to someone who's genetics allow them to break the standard laws of physical culture. Example: Ronnie Coleman. Yes, he uses drugs, as do all pro BB'ers, but even if 1,000,000 people were to copy his exact diet, routine and drug schedule, no one else would come close to being as big or as strong as he is because he is a genetic freak.

btw, high reps don't give Ronnie definition, either :D

IronFist

[buksing_king]

does anyone here have any first hand experience on what these type of reps will do ? The way i take it is that the relitively high reps that i am doing will not build up size and strength as significantly as doing 1-5 reps but will increase muscular endurance? is this right?

Also ..... i know this is know as one the show of muscles but .....
For biceps , are bicep curls sufficient to build up your biceps by doing 1- 5 reps of relitively heavy weights


Does muscle endurance mean the muscle will be able to simple endure contraction for longer?

Thanks for the input so far guys .... :)