Re: Chris- High-rep or Low-rep (was Strength training and osteoporosis?)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/7/04 7:25:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dezinegal@... writes:

mass building and strengtn building are inseparable.

Of course they aren't. I'm not sure why you think this, but can more easily

control your mass gains through diet and more easily control your strength

gains through work out approach-- certainly they are related, but by no means

inseparable.

Yes you can

train with lower reps (ie. 1-6) to emphasize strength gains over mass

gains and you can use intermediate reps (ie. 8-12) to emphasize mass

gains over strength, but the two are always increased together. If

*you* choose to ignore all of the expertise and experience of the

steroid-free old school era of bodybuilding and also today's serious

body building experts, then that is *your* choice.

I don't listen to anyone who takes steroids, so, frankly, I have no idea what

you're talking about.

However your choice

of what to believe or not believe has no bearing on the proven

effectiveness of 20 rep squats done *properly*. Instead of blaming the

exercise, look to what mistakes you are making in your approach and

execution of the exercise. I provided the instructions and even

reposted them. Try following them and then see what results you get.

Is it not true that you haven't done this exercise committedly yourself? I

can find an experienced expert for any given opinion on any subject.

Besides, if you reread your own articles, which are the only ones I've read

on the subject, you will see a clear emphasis on gaining mass over strength.

One author, for example, explicitly stated that he only gained strength when

doing low reps and did not gain mass, and it was only after introducing the

20-rep squat that he gained mass.

Also, *please* stop making false statements that have no basis in fct

such as: " And if it works, by all accounts its value is mass-building,

not strength-building or bone-building, etc. " You obvioulsy have not

kept up on the latest osteoporosis studies that have been done with

weight training such as this one:

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/lung2.htm

That study is pretty irrelevant to this discussion, since the control group

didn't lift any weights at all. In fact, it supports my view, because zero is

lighter than any specified weight, which supports a correlation between higher

weight and increased bone density. There's no indication that the control

group was stationary and did not move at all, so any normal day to day movements

would represent the limit of low-weight.

The above study used a MUCH lighter exercise program than an intense 20

rep squat routine and still showed a major amount of new bone growth.

So yes, a 20 rep squat routine (done as Mc instructed) will have

value as a mass, strength and bone building exercise. Try doing some

indepth research into 20 rep squatting. It will really help.

The fact that moving the muscles involved in a squat with low weight is an

improvement over no weight is no indication that it is an improvement over

higher weight.

I don't see the justification for your condescending attitude, since you seem

to be unfamiliar with the non-steroid school that advocates high-weight

low-rep exercises, and with the concept of powerlifting while simultaneously

restricting mass growth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/7/04 8:14:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dezinegal@... writes:

I'm top posting my response as you refused to separate your

responses below from my original post and as a result have created a

post that's very hard to read. Since I've made my point and provided

the necessary information on several occasions I dont feel the need,

(nor do i have the time) to keep rehashing this topic. I wish you the

best of luck in your training endeavors

_______________

Hi ,

Actually, I didn't write a post that looked anything like what came out of

. I don't know why that happened, but it was a computerized automated

goofup. I'll try to repost it. If you don't want to respond, that's fine, but,

this way anyone interested will be able to read it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi folks,

This post got jumbled up so I'll try to do extra to make sure everything is

clearly separated.

____________

EMILY:

<<<<<mass building and strengtn building are inseparable.>>>>

____________

ME:

~~~~~~~Of course they aren't. I'm not sure why you think this, but can more

easily

control your mass gains through diet and more easily control your strength

gains through work out approach-- certainly they are related, but by no means

inseparable.

___________

EMILY:

<<<<<Yes you can

train with lower reps (ie. 1-6) to emphasize strength gains over mass

gains and you can use intermediate reps (ie. 8-12) to emphasize mass

gains over strength, but the two are always increased together. If

*you* choose to ignore all of the expertise and experience of the

steroid-free old school era of bodybuilding and also today's serious

body building experts, then that is *your* choice.>>>>>

__________

ME:

~~~~~~~~I don't listen to anyone who takes steroids, so, frankly, I have no

idea what

you're talking about.

__________

EMILY:

<<<<<<<However your choice

of what to believe or not believe has no bearing on the proven

effectiveness of 20 rep squats done *properly*. Instead of blaming the

exercise, look to what mistakes you are making in your approach and

execution of the exercise. I provided the instructions and even

reposted them. Try following them and then see what results you get>>>>>>>

____________.

ME:

~~~~~~~~~Is it not true that you haven't done this exercise committedly

yourself? I

can find an experienced expert for any given opinion on any subject.

~~~~~~~~~Besides, if you reread your own articles, which are the only ones

I've read

on the subject, you will see a clear emphasis on gaining mass over strength,

at least in one of them. One author, for example, explicitly stated that he

only gained strength when

doing low reps and did not gain mass, and it was only after introducing the

20-rep squat that he gained mass.

________________

EMILY:

<<<<<<<Also, *please* stop making false statements that have no basis in fct

such as: " And if it works, by all accounts its value is mass-building,

not strength-building or bone-building, etc. " You obvioulsy have not

kept up on the latest osteoporosis studies that have been done with

weight training such as this one

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/lung2.htm>>>>>>>>

______________

ME:

~~~~~~~~That study is pretty irrelevant to this discussion, since the control

group

didn't lift any weights at all. In fact, it supports my view, because zero

is

lighter than any specified weight, which supports a correlation between

higher

weight and increased bone density. There's no indication that the control

group was stationary and did not move at all, so any normal day to day

movements

would represent the limit of low-weight.

___________

EMILY:

<<<<<<<<<The above study used a MUCH lighter exercise program than an intense

20

rep squat routine and still showed a major amount of new bone growth.

So yes, a 20 rep squat routine (done as Mc instructed) will have

value as a mass, strength and bone building exercise. Try doing some

indepth research into 20 rep squatting. It will really help.>>>>>>>>

___________

ME:

~~~~~~~The fact that moving the muscles involved in a squat with low weight

is an

improvement over no weight is no indication that it is an improvement over

higher weight.

~~~~~~~I don't see the justification for your condescending attitude, since

you seem

to be unfamiliar with the non-steroid school that advocates high-weight

low-rep exercises, and with the concept of powerlifting while simultaneously

restricting mass growth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [mailto:dezinegal@...]

>

> mass building and strengtn building are inseparable.

> Yes you can train with lower reps (ie. 1-6) to emphasize

> strength gains over mass gains and you can use intermediate

> reps (ie. 8-12) to emphasize mass gains over strength, but

> the two are always increased together.

http://www.adfpa.com/records/american/women-open.htm

If strength-building and mass-building are inseparable, you should have no

trouble matching the lifts in your weight class.

> Also, *please* stop making false statements that have no

> basis in fact such as: " And if it works, by all accounts its

> value is mass-building, not strength-building or

> bone-building, etc. " You obvioulsy have not kept up on the

> latest osteoporosis studies that have been done with weight

> training such as this one:

>

> http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/lung2.htm

>

> The above study used a MUCH lighter exercise program than an

> intense 20 rep squat routine and still showed a major amount

> of new bone growth.

For one unaccustomed to it, any sort of resistance exercise will produce

rapid gains in strength, muscle mass, and bone mass. It's beyond that point,

when the easy gains start to plateau, that different programs begin to

produce radically different results.

And the article above says nothing about the weight load of the exercise;

only the time spent doing it. Chris's contention is, I think, that strength

and bone-density gains are primarily a function of the amount of weight

used.

[Guest guest]

At 05:22 PM 8/7/04 -0700, you wrote:

> For one unaccustomed to it, any sort of resistance exercise will produce

> rapid gains in strength, muscle mass, and bone mass. It's beyond that point,

> when the easy gains start to plateau, that different programs begin to

> produce radically different results.

Once that plateau is hit, how can you choose those different programs?

*fumbles for words*

Think of this from a complete newbie perspective. Compare it to, say,

someone wanting to lose weight and realizing that diet is a huge part of

that, and think of the vast range of " diets " out there that you'd have to

wade through, tossing what was patently stupid but still left with half a

dozen choices. What do you do, experiment with each? How long do you

give each experiment? Various approaches have different results, some

slower, some faster, etc.

*still fumbling*

Recommendations?

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/8/04 10:33:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

mfjewett@... writes:

I asked her what her focus was, her specialty(s). She said she works

with a combination of diet, aerobics and toning exercises.

Toning exercises... hmm... is that like, massaging your cerebellum or

something?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Update on trainer stuff -

I talked to the second woman that my friend had recommended, trying to get

a feel for her approach, just in case the first one didn't work out.

*snort*

I asked her what her focus was, her specialty(s). She said she works

with a combination of diet, aerobics and toning exercises.

When the word " toning " came out of her mouth I almost laughed out loud.

Fortunately this was over the phone so she couldn't see my face.

Thanks for giving me that laugh.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

On the topic of size vs strength, i know from experience that there

are often disparities. But of course, bigger muscles are usually

stronger than smaller ones.

Off the top of my head, Tsatsouline talks about this subject in a couple

of his books. The extreme case of mothers lifting small cars off their kids

is the example given where neural control is the limiting factor of

muscle recruitment. (another extreme case would be nerve gas victims,

but anyways...) He also wrote about one person who was a powerlifter

and became a body builder, but had to drastically drop squat poundage

and increase reps to get the mass he wanted.

There was also a web page I used to visit a few years ago where this guy

lifted small cars (and squatted immense weights for training). He was

definitely

not huge at all.

Stuart Mc's Beyond Brawn deals with this whole high-rep/low-rep

debate. A random selection from his book: (paragraph 4-100):

If you love single-rep training, can consistently perform it safely, and

gain

well on it, why do high reps? But if your body structure cannot tolerate

singles no matter how carefully and progressively you work into using them,

do not use them. If you enjoy high reps and respond well to them, stick with

them. If you enjoy very slow reps and they work for you, use them. But if

you hate very slow reps, then never mind that someone else can gain well on

them.

[Guest guest]

>Stuart Mc's Beyond Brawn deals with this whole high-rep/low-rep

>debate. A random selection from his book: (paragraph 4-100):

Also a good thing to remember for beginners ... if you have never

lifted weights, no matter WHAT you do, you will get stronger

fast (unless you damage something in the process). When you

are a " weakling " just about any ol' exercise makes a huge difference.

Lifting a heavy thing up and down til you get tired makes a big

difference really quick, no matter how you do it.

It's only after you start getting into shape, and want to get into

BETTER shape, that you really need to get picky (or when you

get bored!). But when you start out, it's best to err on the

side of caution ... like, don't strain any tendons, drop a weight

on your toe, spend too much money on equipment, stuff

like that. So my advice is: get a book on weight lifting (or a trainer),

do 5 simple exercises every other day for starters. Keep track

of what you do, and tweak it depending on how you feel.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 10:09 PM 8/9/04 -0700, you wrote:

>But when you start out, it's best to err on the

>side of caution ... like, don't strain any tendons, drop a weight

>on your toe, spend too much money on equipment, stuff

>like that. So my advice is: get a book on weight lifting (or a trainer),

>do 5 simple exercises every other day for starters. Keep track

>of what you do, and tweak it depending on how you feel.

How about falling/rolling off the bench? Should I avoid that too?

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

>

>How about falling/rolling off the bench? Should I avoid that too?

I dunno ... sounds like it could be fun! Maybe add a few

pillows, or position the bench on a long 2x6 over a pool

of water, which would make falling off far more interesting!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 11:49 PM 8/10/04 -0700, you wrote:

>

>>

>>How about falling/rolling off the bench? Should I avoid that too?

>

>I dunno ... sounds like it could be fun! Maybe add a few

>pillows, or position the bench on a long 2x6 over a pool

>of water, which would make falling off far more interesting!

>

>-- Heidi Jean

LOL - or position a tall blond named Thor under the bench, perhaps.

Had my first session with the trainer this morning, I like her. After

she left, the first words out of my mouth were " Well THAT was interesting " .

I think this is gonna work out just fine.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?