How to stabilize shoulders during workout?

[jayk]

hey RFDers

I started working out this past week, and as a newbie it can be embarassing having people watch you do small weights as they lift heavy stuff.

But I found that when I was doing bench presses, that (5lbs on each side LOL) my shoulder muscles weren't stable so my bar was not balanced and was moving about. Should I keep the bar a bit wider than shoulder distance (which was what I was aiming for)?

Is it important to do exercises to stabilize your shoulders, and how can you do that?

PS also, do you guys have a routine for doing stretches before and after working out? I hear stretching out helps tone the muscles. Not sure if that's real or rumor.

thanks

[cOmAtOaSt]

I wouldn't worry about it. You just started working out, and the bench press will feel 'odd' the first few times you do it. Just keep your feet on the floor and don't lift your butt to make the lift. As your body gets used to it, you'll lose that feeling and can concentrate on increasing the weight.

I don't stretch before or after a workout - before the workout I jump on a treadmill for a few minutes to increase my body temperature. I've read that you shouldn't stretch before working out, but afterwards is fine.

[Havo]

Yea just warm up with some cardio... like go on the treadmill or do the bike for a few mins to get warmed up.

[nwmrkt]

it will feel weird at first...just keep working hard and dont care what other people think. Everyone starts somewhere.

[Shen]

make sure your form is correct and you'll see a BIG jump once your body is used to the weights, then you'll see smaller weight increases....

and don't worry about other ppl, you'll get there one day ^__^

[hyperion]

Your muscles that stabilize are not developed yet. As you workout they will get developed and you will stop shaking. Don't worry, everyone did that when they just started working out.

[jayk]

thanks guys

There were these 2 goons smirking when they saw me lifting. Not like they were the biggest or strongest guys there either.

[Peter Pan]

5lbs on each side LOL

Hehe. Sorry man, that really made me laugh out loud!

[phd1969]

Don't worry about it, you have to start somewhere.

[Smashy]

The standard bench press is hands wider than shoulder width apart so you can work your chest, stabilizers, and triceps. The closer your hands are together, the more your triceps are worked, and as you move them further apart, you are working your chest more.

To build up your stabilizer muscles, train on dumbell presses for a while instead of using the bar.

For warmup, do some light "cardio" exercises keeping in mind that the goal is not to work your cardio but just to get your muscles warmed up. You could do some light stretching, but if you stretch too much before lifting then you will lose a little strength temporarily.

[ephemera]

I wouldn't even bother warming up. Its a small amount of weight. Don't forget the bare bar is like 40 pounds itself.

Just keep doing the bench presses daily and you will build up your muscle enough that you won't shake the bar anymore. You will make progress very fast.

Try to increase the weight gradually over a few weeks. When the weight is heavier get a spotter too.

Remember that even those BIG guys started out very SMALL too. Just ignore them or find a spot away from them. Don't attempt to show off by doing more weight than you can handle.

[robattoronto]

Heh, thats what I was thinking too. Normally I'd be supportive of anyone starting out. But hard to respect the grand total of 10 lbs. :lol:

Hehe. Sorry man, that really made me laugh out loud!

[mpt]

With the bar you are lifting 55 lbs, thats reasonable to start out with if you are new to weight lifting and especially if you have a fairly small frame. Dont worry about the wobbling, that is just your body working to try to move the bar in the right motion. This will improve the more you practice. Think about a kid who has never skated before; their legs shake a lot too. Overtime you'll notice that they will get better. Expect this to last for 4 - 6 weeks, then you'll be nice and smooth.

[poedua]

Heh, thats what I was thinking too. Normally I'd be supportive of anyone starting out. But hard to respect the grand total of 10 lbs. :lol:

LOL ? He's easy to respect actually.

I have more " respect " for someone who can check his ego at the gym door and use weights that are appropriate to their training goals than those gym jerks who are pre-occupied with their " how much can you bench " obsession. The idea is to weight train properly - not lift as much as you can or " weight lift " ( i.e see how much you can lift )

Better to start at 10 lbs. and learn to bench properly than to go too heavy just for " show " or because of an insecure male ego.

If others laugh or have " no respect " for someone training with 10 lbs. , it says more about those that have an issue with it then the guy who is using the 10 lb weights IMO.

That sort of shallow criticism speaks for itself IMO.

[Smashy]

Yeah don't worry about the "big guys."

Just work on your own schedule, keeping focus and intensity throughout. Accept that fact that you have to start with lower weights, and work diligently with good habits. If you keep on it, you will be able to increase your weight steadily.

A significant number of the guys just push the same weight everytime they "work out." They experience no gains and work with low intensity and discipline.

[poedua]

With the bar you are lifting 55 lbs, thats reasonable to start out with if you are new to weight lifting and especially if you have a fairly small frame. Dont worry about the wobbling, that is just your body working to try to move the bar in the right motion. This will improve the more you practice. Think about a kid who has never skated before; their legs shake a lot too. Overtime you'll notice that they will get better. Expect this to last for 4 - 6 weeks, then you'll be nice and smooth.

Well said.

I'd only say that I also agree with smashy and the he try and do some dumbbell presses at much lighter weights he feels comfortable with - both on a flat and incline bench. I say incline, because it's been my experience that inclines are what develop the upper part of the chest, which is where a lot of the lifting power comes from - just my opinion of course. A short stint on some machine presses ( falt & incline ) may not be a bad idea either

[robattoronto]

Alright, relax and take a chill pill. I wasn't trying to be condescending to the guy. I agree with the - proper form & exercise is more important than your male ego bit.

I'm not sure what physical condition the guy is in (or if he is a guy), but for an average sized man to start off with 10 lbs is amusing, no matter how you slice it. Its not heavy at all. A beginner can do 20lbs and learn good form. I mean where do you draw the line, start off with an empty bar just to perfect your exercise form?

Anyways, like I said, I support anyone starting out on any sport. I figured a friendly ribbing between guys were ok, seeing how he started off doing 10lbs. People are getting their panties in a bunch unnecessarily. But y'know what, good for him. I'm sure he'll bench more in the future.


LOL ? He's easy to respect actually.

I have more " respect " for someone who can check his ego at the gym door and use weights that are appropriate to their training goals than those gym jerks who are pre-occupied with their " how much can you bench " obsession. The idea is to weight train properly - not lift as much as you can or " weight lift " ( i.e see how much you can lift )

Better to start at 10 lbs. and learn to bench properly than to go too heavy just for " show " or because of an insecure male ego.

If others laugh or have " no respect " for someone training with 10 lbs. , it says more about those that have an issue with it then the guy who is using the 10 lb weights IMO.

That sort of shallow criticism speaks for itself IMO.

[poedua]

Alright, relax and take a chill pill. I wasn't trying to be condescending to the guy.

Your comment " But hard to respect the grand total of 10 lbs " seemed somewhat condescending to me. But, you obviously don't think so. Fair enough, we simply disagree - let's leave it at that.

I'm not sure what physical condition the guy is in (or if he is a guy) but for an average sized man to start off with 10 lbs is amusing, no matter how you slice it. Its not heavy at all. A beginner can do 20lbs and learn good form. I mean where do you draw the line, start off with an empty bar just to perfect your exercise form?

Yup. An empty bar of 40 lbs. may not be the best weight to build mass ( then again, - who knows ), but it IS a good place to learn " form " - by all means...especially if you're doing 12-15 reps as a newbie.


Anyways, like I said, I support anyone starting out on any sport. I figured a friendly ribbing between guys were ok, seeing how he started off doing 10lbs..

There's no reason to rib at all - that's the point. You may get a laugh out of it - he may not.

[bdckr]

With the bar you are lifting 55 lbs, thats reasonable to start out with if you are new to weight lifting and especially if you have a fairly small frame. Dont worry about the wobbling, that is just your body working to try to move the bar in the right motion. This will improve the more you practice. Think about a kid who has never skated before; their legs shake a lot too. Overtime you'll notice that they will get better. Expect this to last for 4 - 6 weeks, then you'll be nice and smooth.

+1

You might want to consider getting better at pushups before benching. With pushups, you're pushing approx. 2/3 your bodyweight, so unless you're really light, you'll still be getting a pretty good chest/triceps workout with pushups. Once you get better at pushups, you'll find that benching 55 lbs is pretty easy.

[jayk]

Is it OK to workout even when you're sore on the second day (not first day) after workout?

thanks

[Firebot]

Is it OK to workout even when you're sore on the second day (not first day) after workout?

thanks

Your muscles need a good 48 hours rest minimum before being fully worked again. I'd use this day to target other muscle groups using different exercises if I were you that you haven't used on your first workout, then work on the bench pressing, etc again in a day.

[jayk]

Your muscles need a good 48 hours rest minimum before being fully worked again. I'd use this day to target other muscle groups using different exercises if I were you that you haven't used on your first workout, then work on the bench pressing, etc again in a day.

First of all, thanks to all you guys for your time to put in replies.

So just to confirm, I should wait at least 48h before working out the same muscles again. But my problem is that I am trying to do a full body workout (credit poedua) since I'm a newbie, but at this rate I'd be working out only twice a week since I would need at least 3-4 days to wait for the soreness to go away.
A friend of mine who's pretty built said that it's OK to workout even if I'm sore since it's been 2 days already, but just wanted to check with you guys too, since I don't want to tear any muscles from working out while I'm sore despite the fact that it's been 2 days already.

Thanks

[nwmrkt]

First of all, thanks to all you guys for your time to put in replies.

So just to confirm, I should wait at least 48h before working out the same muscles again. But my problem is that I am trying to do a full body workout (credit poedua) since I'm a newbie, but at this rate I'd be working out only twice a week since I would need at least 3-4 days to wait for the soreness to go away.
A friend of mine who's pretty built said that it's OK to workout even if I'm sore since it's been 2 days already, but just wanted to check with you guys too, since I don't want to tear any muscles from working out while I'm sore despite the fact that it's been 2 days already.

Thanks

Its ok, im always sore except the weekend when im off...
here is my first real workout routine i used and it was awesome, really strength oriented. Good for newbs who need to build a base.:

Monday:
Squat 5x5 (work up to a five rep max, i.e, 100x5
105x5,110x5,115x5,120x5)
Dead 5x5 (same)
Bench 5x5 (same)
Incline Bench 2x12-20

Wednesday:
Light Squat or Lunges 4 sets (if you're doing lunges, 8 each leg or 16 total)
Good Mornings 3x8-12
Military Press 5x5 (5RM)
Pullups 4 sets, to failure each set
OR
Dips 4 sets, 12 each time then add weight

Friday:
Squat: 3x5 (with your last set 5 pounds heavier than your last squat set on monday)
Tricep Extensions 2x12-20
Bent Over Row 5x5
Incline Bench 5x5

Good luck

[jayk]

Thanks guys

[poedua]

First of all, thanks to all you guys for your time to put in replies.

So just to confirm, I should wait at least 48h before working out the same muscles again. But my problem is that I am trying to do a full body workout (credit poedua) since I'm a newbie, but at this rate I'd be working out only twice a week since I would need at least 3-4 days to wait for the soreness to go away. A friend of mine who's pretty built said that it's OK to workout even if I'm sore since it's been 2 days already,

No problem in waiting 3-4 days. I'd wait it out for now ( till the pain subsides ) if it were me.

The pain you're feeling usually " peaks " anywhere from 24-72 hours afterwards.... but could last longer. Though it should last no more than 7 days - max. The good news is that pain indicates that the muscles are "adapting" to your workout routine - the sort of adaptations that will make your muscles stronger and better able to handle the exercises as you move along.

A friend of mine who's pretty built said that it's OK to workout even if I'm sore since it's been 2 days already, but just wanted to check with you guys too, since I don't want to tear any muscles from working out while I'm sore despite the fact that it's been 2 days already.

Thanks

Again... don't worry that it's been 2 days.

You can't speed the recovery from this pain too much - if at all. But you can do some stuff to help with the soreness, and it just involves using some common sense measures. Rest is an obvious one - don't train again until the soreness is gone. Although, you might want to consider a light cardio workout which will help get the blood flowing to all your muscles , including the affected "sore areas " - which will help reduce the soreness. Also, some anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen for a couple of days will help reduce the soreness - but again, not speed up your recovery. Beyond that, some very gentle stretching of your muscles may help a bit as well.

[UrbanPoet]

why dont u hit up some dumbbell bench presses @ all 3 angles?
incline,decline, and flat... that should help you get your stabalizers stronger...

[w4x]

to help answer ur shoulder stabilization, you should try to push your shoulder blades together when you bench. that should help give you a firmer platform to push off the bench from. it'll also help you isolate more of your pecs

[mpt]

why dont u hit up some dumbbell bench presses @ all 3 angles?
incline,decline, and flat... that should help you get your stabalizers stronger...

this is a good idea, but should only be done after you have been working out for a while. Doing three chest exercises like this in one workout will lead to a lot of chest soreness for the next few days. Start off slow and gradually build up your tolerance.

[evoviii]

Using dumbells incorporate stabilizers more but if he's already struggling with the barbell, might be wise to slowly accustomize to that first.

When I first started, I had already been doing pushups for awhile so I didn't have the same problem but I did with squats.

Hell I still shake when going real heavy and pushing my max. My arms shake but not the weights.

You might be going too heavy if you need that long to recover. Though on the other hand if you are just starting out, after a week or two recovery time should be much quicker as well as the ability to put on more weight to the bar. Man I miss newbie gains. You could always try and go for a upper and lower body split if you want to workout more during the week.

[poedua]

why dont u hit up some dumbbell bench presses @ all 3 angles?
incline,decline, and flat... that should help you get your stabalizers stronger...

I agree ......dumbbells are the way to go.

Given the anterior delts are synergists for the flat bench, he might also want to try and strengthen his shoulders with some sort of shoulder presses etc.

[Smashy]

Just remember, it's not where you start that matters, it's where you end up (.. and the progress you make).

[jayk]

My triceps somehow are still sore today. They seem to be the sorest set of muscles the longest, even from past experience (years ago).

On poedua's advice I will wait till tomorrow cuz I think the soreness will have gone away by then.

I really hope these sore episodes are gonna get shorter, cuz tomorrow would be day 4 (eek!)

[Smashy]

My triceps somehow are still sore today. They seem to be the sorest set of muscles the longest, even from past experience (years ago).

On poedua's advice I will wait till tomorrow cuz I think the soreness will have gone away by then.

I really hope these sore episodes are gonna get shorter, cuz tomorrow would be day 4 (eek!)

Maybe they are your weakest area relative to your other muscle groups. For chest work, also do some dumbells flys or use the seated resistance machine.

[poedua]

My triceps somehow are still sore today. They seem to be the sorest set of muscles the longest, even from past experience (years ago).

On poedua's advice I will wait till tomorrow cuz I think the soreness will have gone away by then.

I really hope these sore episodes are gonna get shorter, cuz tomorrow would be day 4 (eek!)

Don't forget, triceps are synergists for the flat bench as well. Once the soreness subsides, as with delts, try and strengthen your triceps with some form of dumbbell exercises

[poedua]

My triceps somehow are still sore today. They seem to be the sorest set of muscles the longest, even from past experience (years ago).

On poedua's advice I will wait till tomorrow cuz I think the soreness will have gone away by then.

I really hope these sore episodes are gonna get shorter, cuz tomorrow would be day 4 (eek!)

You may even have to wait till day 5 or 7 - or whenever the soreness subsides.

[jayk]

hey guys

I've been using the gym the past 2 weeks.

So today I got my fitness assessment. I'm 25% fat according to the assessor, and my goal should be 16% according to her.

Kinda embarassing that I actually felt really dizzy after their boxing workout (quite taxing on the body...like OK everybody pushups, now squats, now pushups, now jumps, now come box) for what seemed like such a long time. Had to have some juice.

I was offered personal training for $50/h at the "student discount" rate instead of the $60/h rate. Is this reasonable? It's for weights or cardio, and I was strongly suggested to take 12 sessions which would cost me $600 (eek!).
Scary amount! I'm wondering if I can get a personal trainer cheaper elsewhere :O

So I'm getting my demo tomorrow.

What would you guys recommend I do? Take the training with Premier? Or do it somewhere else, and how do you think that the 12 sessions is really necessary?

I told the assessor that I would prefer weight training over cardio, and then she agreed and said yeah, you probably can do that yourself.

[poedua]

hey guys

I've been using the gym the past 2 weeks.

So today I got my fitness assessment. I'm 25% fat according to the assessor, and my goal should be 16% according to her.

Kinda embarassing that I actually felt really dizzy after their boxing workout (quite taxing on the body...like OK everybody pushups, now squats, now pushups, now jumps, now come box) for what seemed like such a long time. Had to have some juice.

I was offered personal training for $50/h at the "student discount" rate instead of the $60/h rate. Is this reasonable? It's for weights or cardio, and I was strongly suggested to take 12 sessions which would cost me $600 (eek!).
Scary amount! I'm wondering if I can get a personal trainer cheaper elsewhere :O

So I'm getting my demo tomorrow.

What would you guys recommend I do? Take the training with Premier? Or do it somewhere else, and how do you think that the 12 sessions is really necessary?

I told the assessor that I would prefer weight training over cardio, and then she agreed and said yeah, you probably can do that yourself.

How often do they suggest you see the trainer ? Once, twice, three times a week ?

And I guess the next question is ....how tight is money for you...can you really afford $400 a month ( i.e 2X a week ) for a trainer or $200 a month ?

[jayk]

How often do they suggest you see the trainer ? Once, twice, three times a week ?

And I guess the next question is ....how tight is money for you...can you really afford $400 a month ( i.e 2X a week ) for a trainer or $200 a month ?

She suggested I get 2x cardio 1/2 each time, 2x a week, and 3x workout per week. Since she understood that I was paying back student debts, she said OK, then maybe once a month for now. But it seems like so much money since it's not just twice or three times, $50 each time, but rather for 8+ sessions?

I'd rather pay $200-300 once and for all, then have to commit to hundreds for months on end (that would be too much money considering I am paying apartment, electricity bills, financing my car etc)

thanks

[poedua]

She suggested I get 2x cardio 1/2 each time, 2x a week, and 3x workout per week. Since she understood that I was paying back student debts, she said OK, then maybe once a month for now. But it seems like so much money since it's not just twice or three times, $50 each time, but rather for 8+ sessions?

I'd rather pay $200-300 once and for all, then have to commit to hundreds for months on end (that would be too much money considering I am paying apartment, electricity bills, financing my car etc)

thanks

BTW - how much do you weight right now ?

Cardio : Heres the thing. You're at 25% bodyfat...and they are right, you should shoot for somewhere around 15% bodyfat. To lose that fat, you want to do cardio to burn calories and possibly also alter your diet to take in fewer calories as well. If I were keen on losing the fat as a primary goal, I'd try for cardio 3X a week at 20 minutes to 30 minutes per session to start with. All you need to do is go on an elipticial machine and do an easy 3-5 minute warmup and 20-25 minute cardio normal exercise phase and the a 3-5 minute cool down. During the normal exercise phase, exercise so that you are breathing very deeply and not gasping for breath.

So I would use a trainer just once for cardio - that's it. Have the trainer show you proper form ( i.e rower ) on some cardio machines and how to use their on-board displays and heart rate monitors. Let the trainer take 10 minutess or so per machine and have him/her show you 3 or 4 machines in one 1 hour session - bike, treadmill, eliptical, stepper, rower etc. Bring a notepad and take notes if need be. If there are 1 or 2 of the machines you like over the others, tell the trainer to show you all the aspects and workout options for those 2 machines you like most - i.e spend more time learning about the machines you think you'll use most often. You can take it from there on your own quite easily without a trainer IMO.

Weights: As I said before, you should probably try for a full-body workout 3X a week. This is where you do one ( or 2 ) exercises per bodypart for all bodyparts each session. One way to save money with the trainer is to ask them to show you proper form on at at least 2/3 exercises per bodypart. Tell the trainer you want to be shown a full-body workout you can do 3x a week ( M,W,F ) and that can be done in under 1 hour - ask for 2 different workout routines ( A and B ) . This could be done in a little as 4-6 sessions. For example, learn a full-body workout routine A in 2/3 sessions and then learn full-body workout B in the next 2/3 sessions ( same body parts but different exercises ) The trainer can help you find the right weight levels to start with.Take a notepad with you and take notes for all 4 sessions - note names of exercises, order that they are done, reps & sets to start and reps & sets long term goals, weight amounts ( lbs. ) used, tips provided on form, safety etc. Better yet, get the trainer to jot down your workout routines on paper for you. Once you feel comfortable with how to do routine A and B or some combo of A and B ( mix it up so you won't get bored ) you can then go to the gym on your own 3x a week without a trainer.

Keep in mind, if you are new to weight training, it will take up to 3 months to get to a level where you are strong enough to train with some degree of sustained intensity for all sessions - some cases it's longer. Remember, the gym and the training staff represent a business first and most foremost, their goals are all about maximizing cash flow. Trainers will try and sell you their services for as long they can justify it - for as long as you are " learning " or still " reaching toward some goal "...they'll train you for a year if they can. Training with a trainer for 6 months is ideal, but you can workout on your own and still do very well without a trainer IMO.

Remember, a trainer is only a NICE to have option, you don't HAVE to have a trainer to take full advantage of a gym by any means.

So, with this plan I suggested.....1 session for cardio and 6 sessions ( or 4 sessions ) for weights - 5 ( $250 ) or 7 sessions ( $350 ) in all - instead of 12 ( $600 ) sessions.

[jayk]

I'm 145lbs, 5'8ish, I have some excess abdominal fat

I had my demo workout session today. Actually the guy was pretty helpful. I made lots of notes.

He offered $40 per session for a couple and said that he wouldn't mind throwing in a free session too.

It definitely was worth the demo.

[poedua]

I'm 145lbs, 5'8ish, I have some excess abdominal fat

I had my demo workout session today. Actually the guy was pretty helpful. I made lots of notes.

He offered $40 per session for a couple and said that he wouldn't mind throwing in a free session too.

It definitely was worth the demo.

OK, so if you're at 145 now and you have to get to 15% BF - you need to lose 18 lbs of fat. to get there.

Keep in mind...to lose 1 pound of fat, you need to lose 3,500 calories. Take an eliptical machine as an example. A 145-lb person like you burns about 300 calories in 30 minutes ( see link below ) on that machine. So if you did nothing but cardio on that machine to lose the fat it would take about 12 sessions ( 3,500 / 300 ) to lose 1 pound of fat. At 3 cardio sessions per week, it will take 4 weeks to lose 1 pound of fat....a pound a month. However, a half pound or a pound a week is not an unreasonable goal either.

I mention this , because if you want to loee fat quicker, you can boost the calories you lose each week by cutting back on high calorie foods, or doing cardio longer or doing cardio more often - or all 3. Also, I raised the point to remind you to be patient and that losing fat takes time. Even at losing 4 pounds of fat a month - your looking at around just under 5 months to lose 18 pounds.

Just something to keep in mind.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/tp/cardioexercise.htm

[Smashy]

OK, so if you're at 145 now and you have to get to 15% BF - you need to lose 18 lbs of fat. to get there.

Keep in mind...to lose 1 pound of fat, you need to lose 3,500 calories. Take an eliptical machine as an example. A 145-lb person like you burns about 300 calories in 30 minutes ( see link below ) on that machine. So if you did nothing but cardio on that machine to lose the fat it would take about 12 sessions ( 3,500 / 300 ) to lose 1 pound of fat. At 3 cardio sessions per week, it will take 4 weeks to lose 1 pound of fat....a pound a month. However, a half pound or a pound a week is not an unreasonable goal either.

I mention this , because if you want to loee fat quicker, you can boost the calories you lose each week by cutting back on high calorie foods, or doing cardio longer or doing cardio more often - or all 3. Also, I raised the point to remind you to be patient and that losing fat takes time. Even at losing 4 pounds of fat a month - your looking at around just under 5 months to lose 18 pounds.

Just something to keep in mind.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/tp/cardioexercise.htm

It does seem like it would some time, but doing a 30-minute cardio also boosts metabolism for an extended period, which is the main thing. Combine that with a proper diet and you will be on your way.

[jayk]

OK, so if you're at 145 now and you have to get to 15% BF - you need to lose 18 lbs of fat. to get there.

Keep in mind...to lose 1 pound of fat, you need to lose 3,500 calories. Take an eliptical machine as an example. A 145-lb person like you burns about 300 calories in 30 minutes ( see link below ) on that machine. So if you did nothing but cardio on that machine to lose the fat it would take about 12 sessions ( 3,500 / 300 ) to lose 1 pound of fat. At 3 cardio sessions per week, it will take 4 weeks to lose 1 pound of fat....a pound a month. However, a half pound or a pound a week is not an unreasonable goal either.

I mention this , because if you want to loee fat quicker, you can boost the calories you lose each week by cutting back on high calorie foods, or doing cardio longer or doing cardio more often - or all 3. Also, I raised the point to remind you to be patient and that losing fat takes time. Even at losing 4 pounds of fat a month - your looking at around just under 5 months to lose 18 pounds.

Just something to keep in mind.

http://exercise.about.com/cs/cardioworkouts/tp/cardioexercise.htm


But won't I need to take in more calories for my muscles to grow? Can I not just use the excess fat to supply my muscle growth somehow?

[poedua]

But won't I need to take in more calories for my muscles to grow?

You've touched on a classic dilemma a lot of gym rats and bodybuilders face. Another version of the question is to ask if it is possible to do both - for example, gain 6 lbs of muscle while at the exact same time losing 6 lbs. of fat.

The dilemma is in the fact that losing fat ( or not gaining it ) and building muscle are goals that are in conflict with one another. Your reasoning is 100% correct - if you want to gain muscle you need to eat more calories than you burn . If you want to lose fat you need to eat less calories than you burn ( or don't eat any more ). What happens is that by holding calories or cutting calories in an effort to lose fat or not gain fat you won't be taking in the extra number of number of calories your muscles need to grow bigger...or as you put it " muscles to grow ".

Ideally, if you knew how many calories a day you take in just to maintain your weight without exercise, then bumped your calories by just enough to fuel your workouts and muscle growth and recovery, you'd keep wegiht gains to muscle only. But it's anyones guess as to what what that proper bump in calories should be. Again, since people new to weight training like you can initially add about 3 pounds of muscle a month with good weight training..the trick is to make sure any weight gains aren't due to fat.

But, do you measure your body fat every week to see if weight gains are fat or muscle ? No. Hardly practical. Perhaps it's best to just not to be too concerned about body fat and simply have 2 phases of training. A phase of training where you focus primarily on adding muscle mass. Later, once you've added some mass, then you can focus the next phase on shedding body fat while minimizing muscle loss of the mass you've gained. Then do a mass phase again followed by another fat shedding phase....then repeat, then repeat etc. etc. Or you can start with the cardio phase first or do all cardio and no weights..depends on what your goals are.

Can I not just use the excess fat to supply my muscle growth somehow?

I have to head out ...but I'll try and address this question for you when I return.

[poedua]

It does seem like it would some time, but doing a 30-minute cardio also boosts metabolism for an extended period, which is the main thing. Combine that with a proper diet and you will be on your way.

True. I agree.

I was trying to keep it simple for him by pointing out to him what his time-line of losing 18 lbs might look like. Just giving him a rough idea of what it takes to lose a lb. and what 30 minutes of cardio burns - ballpark - in terms of calories.

[jayk]

I worked out today without the trainer and I was tired in my chest rather than feeling tight afterwards.

Am I not doing it right?

Should I be doing each rep until I tire out, starting with heavier weights?

Thanks

Sidenote: Does anyone know of a good website or book or DVD video that has all the exercises, and exactly how to do it, or what to watch out for?

[poedua]

I worked out today without the trainer and I was tired in my chest rather than feeling tight afterwards.

Am I not doing it right?

Should I be doing each rep until I tire out, starting with heavier weights?

Thanks

Frankly, if you are paying for a trainer...these are questions you should put to him/her.

Sidenote: Does anyone know of a good website that has all the exercises, and exactly how to do it, or what to watch out for?


Here you go....http://www.exrx.net/Lists/Directory.html :)

Does anyone know book or DVD video that has all the exercises, and exactly how to do it, or what to watch out for?

If you are looking for instructional videos / DVD's there are only a few from Human Kinetics ( see web ) but they are on more specific issues related to training , and they mostly do books.

- Functional Resistance Training Techniques CD-ROM

- Advanced Strength Training DVD

- Weight Training Video - Steps to Success

- Advanced Strength Training Video Set


http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showsubject.cfm?cat1=strngth_cond&cat2=strngth_train&cat3=all_strength_train


I've found that most of the instructional videos on the market are targeted with women in mind for basic info in weight training - with women instructors - but the principles and techniques are universal, so they should be fine. That said, collagevideo.com is a site that sells only exercise and fitness videos...but again, it caters to women......if you find one or 2 that look promising, check out the reviews it gets on

amazon.com

http://www.collagevideo.com

You may also want to try homegymwarehouse - you see their ads for books / videos in Ironman magazine a lot - tho it is catered to more seasoned gym rats...

- Beginning Bodybuilding DVD : A Complete Guide to Building Muscle

http://homegym.stores.yahoo.net/begbod1.html

[jayk]

Thanks for the resources poedua

Also, today I spoke to a guy in the boxing club at my Premier gym and he said he goes 1 hour a day 5x/week, and for a year's membership they charge $349/yr. It's offered 6x a week. The first time I went for 10 min. continuous nonstop boxing exercises for the demo session, it was so strenuous that when I sat down at the manager's office, I almost fainted and had to have a glass of orange juice which got me back to normal again.

Do you guys think that this boxing membersihp is the right thing for me for building both cardio AND muscle at the same time? The guy I spoke to is kinda obese, and said he used to play lots of sports but after a medical problem, he gained 55 lbs, and in 3 weeks of joining boxing, he lost 7 lbs (showed me how his belt size went down 2 holes).

BTW I am meeting the trainer next Monday to set up 4 classes (he offered more for free, easy-going guy) at $60/session (I said that I'm a student, and they said the manager will have to be there to negotiate the price down). Any strategies for talking down prices?



Thanks all.

[jayk]

I just signed up for 4 classes for $50 each, totalling $212 at Premier with the manager.

I was a bit peeved because the workout trainer said he wouldn't mind giving it to me for $40-45 but then he brought me to the manager who wouldn't budge at $50.

Tell me I didn't get ripped off :O

I signed some piece of paper, not sure if they make you commit on that piece of paper with your signature. I said I'd pay in cash cuz I was leery of paying with CC or debit.

[poedua]

I just signed up for 4 classes for $50 each, totalling $212 at Premier with the manager.

I was a bit peeved because the workout trainer said he wouldn't mind giving it to me for $40-45 but then he brought me to the manager who wouldn't budge at $50.

Tell me I didn't get ripped off :O

I signed some piece of paper, not sure if they make you commit on that piece of paper with your signature. I said I'd pay in cash cuz I was leery of paying with CC or debit.

Al I would say is that if money is tight, you should explain to the trainer that the 2 of you be very clear on what the goals of the 4 sessions should be.

If your goals is to have the trainer give only you an instructional base from which you can workout on your own...you may want to say you want to have all the techniques and notes needed to workout on your own once the 4 are done. Say your goal is to " fly solo " after 4 sessions ( if that's what you want ) - but be very clear that this is your goal. . Because after 4 sessions - you don't don't want anymore.

Keep in mind, they are going to try and sign you up for as many training sessions as they can.

Be ready for it.

[d0fuz]

I didn't read the whole thread but I assume the RDF'er covered most points.

-Don't worry what people think. I get in the gym and do my thing and get the hell out. Your doing this for yourself!
-Everyone starts somewhere.
-Yes it's close to new year and this is the part of the year where EVERYONE has new year resolutions. Just don't make this joining the gym a new year resolution, cause its hilarious to see a whole bunch of people joining the gym at this time of the year and dropping it off their to do list in a month or so. And most important of all KEEP MOTIVATED!!!! AND ASK FOR HELP ON ANYTHING. We rdf'er will definetly help.

[actng]

hahaha when i first started i can barely bench the bar. then i realized it wasn't that i was weak. it was cuz i couldn't balance the bar. once i figured out how to balance the bar i added 20-25lbs on each side, gradually increasing the weight.

thing i don't like about benchpresses is you don't know how heavy the bar is. and different gyms have different bars. or maybe i'm just a n00b and dunno how to figure it out.

i should go back to the gym.

[blexann]

Al I would say is that if money is tight, you should explain to the trainer that the 2 of you be very clear on what the goals of the 4 sessions should be.

If your goals is to have the trainer give only you an instructional base from which you can workout on your own...you may want to say you want to have all the techniques and notes needed to workout on your own once the 4 are done. Say your goal is to " fly solo " after 4 sessions ( if that's what you want ) - but be very clear that this is your goal. . Because after 4 sessions - you don't don't want anymore.

Keep in mind, they are going to try and sign you up for as many training sessions as they can.

Be ready for it.


poedua,

what credentials and experience should I be looking for in a personal trainer ?

[jayk]

I didn't read the whole thread but I assume the RDF'er covered most points.

-Don't worry what people think. I get in the gym and do my thing and get the hell out. Your doing this for yourself!
-Everyone starts somewhere.
-Yes it's close to new year and this is the part of the year where EVERYONE has new year resolutions. Just don't make this joining the gym a new year resolution, cause its hilarious to see a whole bunch of people joining the gym at this time of the year and dropping it off their to do list in a month or so. And most important of all KEEP MOTIVATED!!!! AND ASK FOR HELP ON ANYTHING. We rdf'er will definetly help.

hey thanks man, I'm still going twice-3x a week to lift weights and twice a week for cardio as you guys had suggested and still at it.

I guess the pretty ladies at the gym keep me motivated :) (not the buff guys thankfully)

[poedua]

poedua,

what credentials and experience should I be looking for in a personal trainer ?

This link covers mosts of the points to keep in mind.............

http://exercise.about.com/cs/forprofessionals/a/choosetrainer.htm

Just to add a couple of my personal thoughts to what's in the link ( and this is just my personal opinion of course )..

- if you can find a trainer who has an academic degree in Phys Ed etc, that would be a bonus IMO. Their grounding in anatomy ( as an example ) is a big plus.

- don't always judge a book by it's cover. Obviously, a trainer should practice what they preach and not be out of shape. But, just because the trainer doesn't have a " perfect " physique is not a major issue IMO. A lot of trainers with great bodies are just plain jerks or ego maniacs - or both. Physiques are as much about genetics as anything else. You want to find someone who knows what they're doing , has a good reputation with lots of experience and that you " click ' with - someone who can really motivate you, instill confidence in you and make you feel good about setting and reaching goals. Working out with dicipline is as much a mental challenge as a physcial challenge IMO.

- you'll do a lot of chatting for the hour you're with a trainer, so assuming all other thing being equal, you may want to find someone closee to your own age if they're easier to talk to - but this is minor point at best.

[blexann]

This link covers mosts of the points to keep in mind.............

http://exercise.about.com/cs/forprofessionals/a/choosetrainer.htm

Just to add a couple of my personal thoughts to what's in the link ( and this is just my personal opinion of course )..

- if you can find a trainer who has an academic degree in Phys Ed etc, that would be a bonus IMO. Their grounding in anatomy ( as an example ) is a big plus.

- don't always judge a book by it's cover. Obviously, a trainer should practice what they preach and not be out of shape. But, just because the trainer doesn't have a " perfect " physique is not a major issue IMO. A lot of trainers with great bodies are just plain jerks or ego maniacs - or both. Physiques are as much about genetics as anything else. You want to find someone who knows what they're doing , has a good reputation with lots of experience and that you " click ' with - someone who can really motivate you, instill confidence in you and make you feel good about setting and reaching goals. Working out with dicipline is as much a mental challenge as a physcial challenge IMO.

- you'll do a lot of chatting for the hour you're with a trainer, so assuming all other thing being equal, you may want to find someone closee to your own age if they're easier to talk to - but this is minor point at best.


excellent - thank you

[enko]

LOL ? He's easy to respect actually.

I have more " respect " for someone who can check his ego at the gym door and use weights that are appropriate to their training goals than those gym jerks who are pre-occupied with their " how much can you bench " obsession. The idea is to weight train properly - not lift as much as you can or " weight lift " ( i.e see how much you can lift )

Better to start at 10 lbs. and learn to bench properly than to go too heavy just for " show " or because of an insecure male ego.

If others laugh or have " no respect " for someone training with 10 lbs. , it says more about those that have an issue with it then the guy who is using the 10 lb weights IMO.

That sort of shallow criticism speaks for itself IMO.


+1. I see tons of people using a lat pulldown machine as some sort of rowing machine or something. It's hilarious, they have no idea what they're doing, and if they cut their weight in half and did it properly they'd see much more gain.

[poedua]

+1. I see tons of people using a lat pulldown machine as some sort of rowing machine or something. It's hilarious, they have no idea what they're doing, and if they cut their weight in half and did it properly they'd see much more gain.

Good examples.

Of the 2 , I think the seated cable row is the one I see done incorrectly most often.

[enko]

Yup the seated cable row is also right up there :) Kind of fun to watch while I'm stuck doing boring cardio for 35 minutes. I wonder if I will get to see their back snap in half or something cool.

[taichiubg]

Also try this: work out your quads before any other excersize each time at the gym (after you warm up on treadmill). This "tells" your body that you are about to work out. My friend is a body builder and he told me about this.

Also, I find that the biggest losers at the gym are the skinny guys, they walk around with such attitude.

[jayk]

hey guys

I need some help.
My trainer (good guy btw) said he'd be available in January too. But my fears were confirmed and Premier said he's gone, said they couldn't explain why. The girl at the front desk said he left, the manager said he kept on getting sick and he thought it would be in my benefit that I got someone else who was there for me. Manager said this guy is good. OK fine.

So yesterday I met the replacement guy, heavy accent, can't hear what he's saying half the time, doesn't explain what he's doing, doesn't illustrate a plan for me. Says he'll continue where we left, asks what do I want to do today? I thought a trainer's supposed to have knowledge of what plan HE should have for me? No personality, asking me personal questions about my birthday, my job, etc. WTF. Most of the time I have to ask him questions. He didn't tell me to stretch at any point, and all he did was just tell me to get on the machine and push, actually he worked me pretty hard. Got me to do benchpresses (the ones where your head is down) and he put more weight than I could handle and told me to keep going. Didnt' give me encouragement like the previous trainer did, just said "two more".

I said I'd be 10 minutes late, we started 20 minutes after the hour, and he ended on the hour. My previous trainer was really laid back and would normally be cool with giving me a full hour even if I was late, but this guy insisted on ending on the hour, even though I had to wait a couple minutes for him to show up at the health centre. At the end, he tells me to get on the treadmill for 1/2 hour, it's going so slow that I'm literally walking, and he says goodbye.

Any advice? I still have 3 sessions, since yesterday was supposed to be a "free session" to apologize for the replacement. That's $150 + tax so I don't want to waste it on some douchebag who's there to be my gym buddy, cuz I can get that for free from a workout friend. I doubt Premier will give me a refund seeing their terrible CSR history. I paid cash instead of CC, so I had to pay in full amount. People in the past have had bad experiences with CC's.

[Firebot]

See if you can request a replacement trainer from the manager and explain how you did not enjoy the session. I think it's the best option.

[poedua]

hey guys

I need some help.
My trainer (good guy btw) said he'd be available in January too. But my fears were confirmed and Premier said he's gone, said they couldn't explain why. The girl at the front desk said he left, the manager said he kept on getting sick and he thought it would be in my benefit that I got someone else who was there for me. Manager said this guy is good. OK fine.

So yesterday I met the replacement guy, heavy accent, can't hear what he's saying half the time, doesn't explain what he's doing, doesn't illustrate a plan for me. Says he'll continue where we left, asks what do I want to do today? I thought a trainer's supposed to have knowledge of what plan HE should have for me? No personality, asking me personal questions about my birthday, my job, etc. WTF. Most of the time I have to ask him questions. He didn't tell me to stretch at any point, and all he did was just tell me to get on the machine and push, actually he worked me pretty hard. Got me to do benchpresses (the ones where your head is down) and he put more weight than I could handle and told me to keep going. Didnt' give me encouragement like the previous trainer did, just said "two more".

I said I'd be 10 minutes late, we started 20 minutes after the hour, and he ended on the hour. My previous trainer was really laid back and would normally be cool with giving me a full hour even if I was late, but this guy insisted on ending on the hour, even though I had to wait a couple minutes for him to show up at the health centre. At the end, he tells me to get on the treadmill for 1/2 hour, it's going so slow that I'm literally walking, and he says goodbye.

Any advice? I still have 3 sessions, since yesterday was supposed to be a "free session" to apologize for the replacement. That's $150 + tax so I don't want to waste it on some douchebag who's there to be my gym buddy, cuz I can get that for free from a workout friend. I doubt Premier will give me a refund seeing their terrible CSR history. I paid cash instead of CC, so I had to pay in full amount. People in the past have had bad experiences with CC's.

It's your money, so be assertive with management. My suggestion ? Simply ask for a different trainer.

Just tell them there is no rapport between the 2 of you and you can't afford the time or money to see if any will develop. Don't go to any other details with management beyond that. If they ask you specifics as to " why " you want to change - just say " no rapport " and you " don't feel comfortable " - no other details apart from these are needed. If they say no other trainers are available - tell them you'll wait for one.

A good rapport with your personal trainer is the key to getting the most out of these sessions IMO. If you and your trainer don't click or just have different personalities or philosophies, it's going to be a total waste of time for the both of you IMO.

Working with a personal trainer that you don't like isn't something you should have to put up with.

Make the change.

[Gold Monkey]

Here's a link to a new workout I'm trying...give it a shot and you'll be sore for days....
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=712752

[stealth]

I wouldnt even bother with 5lbs on each side, cuz ya, it prob did look a little funny (kids can be cruel, as mom used to say). I'd work on a combination of dumbells and a bare bar until I could convincingly do a high number of reps e.g. 20-25 reps x 3 sets to get the balance and coordination going. People will just think you're "working through an injury" :) Then you should have no trouble going up to 25lbs on each side and doing 3 sets of 8, first with a spotter.
Sounds like a big jump, but it isnt because I bet your biggest problem is in coordination and balance and not just strength.

[nfnx]

LOWER YOUR WEIGHT! and do them properly.

i used to work out everyday and was benching 180. i only weigh 130 at that time...
i curled 40 each hand, 75 pound dumbell presses,

but.... i plateaued after about 2 months and couldnt go up. my posture was also very very bad because i was more focused on heavy weights rather then quality form.

now i curl 15 - 20 lbs
bench 130
40 lb dumbell press
etc etc for all the other exercises,

trust me though, even though u look like a wimp doing little weights, the difference is enormous. im much more lean now and have much better posture.

6 seconds per rep.

[klyew]

To the OP, you know.. if you're not handling that small amount of weight you really should start off with pushups, arm crawls, climbing ropes first. If you can do 50+ pushups and have decent grip strength from roping then it'd be a good time to use weights. Starting with weights when you're not ready's just gonna make your muscles knot and become shorter.

[krash322]

To lift weights properly, you really have to push your ego aside and lift with the best possible form. Don't worry so much about the poundage, it will come in due time. Remember, most guys who start off will be lifting the same as you. Don't compare yourself to guys who look like they've been working out for years.

One major problem I see nowadays is people lifting with poor form. So many people at my gym go (barely) half-way down on a bench press. They slap on two 45s on each side and think they are the next Arnold. They can't even bench properly. The bar should touch your chest (around your nipple area). You should note that bodybuilding and power-lifting is different. If all you are trying to do is lift as much weight as possible, you won't maximize building your muscles. However, power-lifting sometimes will benefit you in a bodybuilding sense.

[nfnx]

To lift weights properly, you really have to push your ego aside and lift with the best possible form. Don't worry so much about the poundage, it will come in due time. Remember, most guys who start off will be lifting the same as you. Don't compare yourself to guys who look like they've been working out for years.

One major problem I see nowadays is people lifting with poor form. So many people at my gym go (barely) half-way down on a bench press. They slap on two 45s on each side and think they are the next Arnold. They can't even bench properly. The bar should touch your chest (around your nipple area). You should note that bodybuilding and power-lifting is different. If all you are trying to do is lift as much weight as possible, you won't maximize building your muscles. However, power-lifting sometimes will benefit you in a bodybuilding sense.

really thats true.
like i said i am lifting half or less than half of what i really can, but am compensating with very slow sets and quality posture. my back and neck dont hurt as much during the day as they used to now thanks to my new rebuilt posteroid muscles during shoulder days.

i can move up but i am sticking at this weight for another week or so and make sure i excite the muscle groups. ill probably raise just 5 pounds for each exercise by the end of the next week and then switch my entire program again and start at a low weight.



and if u are worried about confidence... i seen a HUGE RIPPED muscle builder, looked about 200 pounds, lean, about 5'7 doing lat raises with 10 pounder and sweating... i bet no one was laughing at him though

[poedua]

To lift weights properly, you really have to push your ego aside and lift with the best possible form. Don't worry so much about the poundage, it will come in due time. Remember, most guys who start off will be lifting the same as you. Don't compare yourself to guys who look like they've been working out for years.

One major problem I see nowadays is people lifting with poor form. So many people at my gym go (barely) half-way down on a bench press. They slap on two 45s on each side and think they are the next Arnold. They can't even bench properly. The bar should touch your chest (around your nipple area). You should note that bodybuilding and power-lifting is different. If all you are trying to do is lift as much weight as possible, you won't maximize building your muscles. However, power-lifting sometimes will benefit you in a bodybuilding sense.

Excellent post krash322.

You're dead on. The best place to find massive egos is at a gym IMO - and specifically at a bench press. Most gym rats I've seen find it impossible to check their ego at the door. I can't remember how many times I've heard gym rats asking " How much can you bench ? " They'll always sacrifice good form for weight in anticipation of answering just that sort of question.

Most gym rats don't seem to understand that bodybuilding and weight lifting have different goals.

[krash322]

Excellent post krash322.

You're dead on. The best place to find massive egos is at a gym IMO - and specifically at a bench press. Most gym rats I've seen find it impossible to check their ego at the door. I can't remember how many times I've heard gym rats asking " How much can you bench ? " They'll always sacrifice good form for weight in anticipation of answering just that sort of question.

Most gym rats don't seem to understand that bodybuilding and weight lifting have different goals.

Having a good bench is a good thing, if you do it right. I see this idiot in the gym all the time, doing bench press while moving the bar 6 or 7 inches. He's got close to two 45s on each side, so he thinks he's really strong. His buddy meanwhile does only the 45s but goes all the way down. Wanna-be Arnold tells his buddy how to lift. I just laugh when I see stuff like that. It's just amazing how many guys lift with poor form at my gym. I never saw anything like this growing up.

[stealth]

Having a good bench is a good thing, if you do it right. I see this idiot in the gym all the time, doing bench press while moving the bar 6 or 7 inches. He's got close to two 45s on each side, so he thinks he's really strong. His buddy meanwhile does only the 45s but goes all the way down. Wanna-be Arnold tells his buddy how to lift. I just laugh when I see stuff like that. It's just amazing how many guys lift with poor form at my gym. I never saw anything like this growing up.

I agree with most of that. Although some people can get a BETTER contraction by doing partial reps on certain exercises that with a full range of motion. Bench is one of these because it hits various muscle groups e.g. arms and shoulders at different parts of the motion. If what you want it to really blast your chest, partial reps can be beneficial because it keeps the stimulation concentrated on that particular muscle for eh entire set, which reg. lifts often dont. This is also an awesome way to break through a plateau.

Point is, there may be some method to their madness so dont be too quick to judge

[jayk]

Thanks for the tips, just finished my lessons with the trainer.

I also read all your posts, so thank for the input guys.

Currently I am still in the ~10lbs of abdominal fat around the waistline, and want to get cut with good muscle mass (not too much, and certainly not beefcake) as my goal.

1) I was told by my last trainer that if I want to do that, I should focus on more weight with less reps to build mass first, then if I want to get cut after that, then start doing more reps with less weight. Does that make any sense?

2) I find that even benching little weight, my shoulder won't support it even though my chest seems like it can. Should I do more pushups to strengthen my upper frame before I attempt any benching in the future?

I'm also focusing on other muscle groups too, like shoulders, back, tri's and bi's and legs, and abdo.

3) I find tri's really hard to do well, cuz you gotta keep the elbows close to your body. Not sure if you guys recommend any particular exercise then.

4) And lastly, should I focus on machines before I do free weights? I know free weights are good cuz they allow more free range of motion of the muscle, but sometimes when you work your chest with free weights while lying down, or do some triceps motion while lying down or sitting up, I sometimes feel like there's that 5% chance that the weight might fall on me. Hence, I feel that maybe I should persist with machines for a while first?

5) I was also told by the trainer that I should burn calories to trim down only later, after I've gained some muscle mass. This makes me think about poedua's point about the apparent dilemma about losing vs gaining mass. What's your take on this trainer's advice?

Thanks

[Vault]

Thanks for the tips, just finished my lessons with the trainer.

I also read all your posts, so thank for the input guys.

Currently I am still in the ~10lbs of abdominal fat around the waistline, and want to get cut with good muscle mass (not too much, and certainly not beefcake) as my goal.

1) I was told by my last trainer that if I want to do that, I should focus on more weight with less reps to build mass first, then if I want to get cut after that, then start doing more reps with less weight. Does that make any sense?

2) I find that even benching little weight, my shoulder won't support it even though my chest seems like it can. Should I do more pushups to strengthen my upper frame before I attempt any benching in the future?

I'm also focusing on other muscle groups too, like shoulders, back, tri's and bi's and legs, and abdo.

3) I find tri's really hard to do well, cuz you gotta keep the elbows close to your body. Not sure if you guys recommend any particular exercise then.

4) And lastly, should I focus on machines before I do free weights? I know free weights are good cuz they allow more free range of motion of the muscle, but sometimes when you work your chest with free weights while lying down, or do some triceps motion while lying down or sitting up, I sometimes feel like there's that 5% chance that the weight might fall on me. Hence, I feel that maybe I should persist with machines for a while first?

5) I was also told by the trainer that I should burn calories to trim down only later, after I've gained some muscle mass. This makes me think about poedua's point about the apparent dilemma about losing vs gaining mass. What's your take on this trainer's advice?

Thanks

Hey man, glad to see you're still sticking with it. Full disclosure: I'm not a professional, but I have taken some weight training classes and worked out quite regularly before, so my opinions are not uninformed. That said:

You said a while ago that your body fat was measured at 25%. If that was done eletrically (metal plates on your bare feet), you should know that the reading comes out differently depending on how hydrated you are. I know that from experience. The only dependable way to determine body fat is water weighing.

1) That does make sense... in relative terms. The way you should probably look at it is keeping your repetitions low (8-10) and keep upping the weight (as much as you can do for that number of reps) until you build the amount of muscle you want. Then try to stay at that weight and add more repetitions to increase the definition.

The standard advice is that 5-7 repetions for strength, 8-10 reps for mass, and 12-14 for definition. Of course, these amounts may vary depending on the source.

All that being said, you will probably automatically look defined and 'cut' if you keep your body fat low. That will require eating a health diet (as much fruits, vegetables, and lean meats as possible) and 1/2 to 1 hour of cardio 5 days a week. And DRINK LOTS OF WATER! In fact, don't drink any liquids other than water (I would say a protein shake counts as food more than drink, lol).

I know people will say that you don't want to do too much cardio as it will prevent you from gaining weight, but that depends on your body type. If you have a naturally high metabolism or a small frame, then you will have a hard time gaining muscle. However, cardio is very good for your overall health!

2) You can do exercises specifically for your shoulders. I would recommend exercising shoulders after your chest so they are not tired when you get to the chest workout. I had trouble with my shoulders actually popping out slightly when doing a lot of weight with chest exercies.

One overlooked aspect is your rotator cuff strength:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotator_cuff
You could do the first exercies described there after your chest workouts.

3) If you are having trouble with the form, you may be doing to much weight (although it's hard to say because I don't know what exercise you are talking about). I like overhead extensions:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Triceps/DBTriExt.html
However, I recommend using a smaller weight and standing up when you do them so you can exercise your core muscles as well. The skullcrusher requires less stabilizing muscles and so might be easier for you to do:
http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Triceps/BBLyingTriExtSC.html

4) I would say start with free weights and stick with free weights! If you start with machine exercises, only the largest mucles will get exercised and develop. Then when you want to switch to free weights, the small supporting mucles will not be as developed which may lead to injuries.

Your overall strength will be better if you're using free weights. I suppose if functional strength is not important to you...

5) See point #1.

Good luck and don't give up!

[poedua]

Thanks for the tips, just finished my lessons with the trainer.

I also read all your posts, so thank for the input guys.

Currently I am still in the ~10lbs of abdominal fat around the waistline, and want to get cut with good muscle mass (not too much, and certainly not beefcake) as my goal.

How do you know you have 10 lbs of fat .......around your gut ?

1) I was told by my last trainer that if I want to do that, I should focus on more weight with less reps to build mass first, then if I want to get cut after that, then start doing more reps with less weight. Does that make any sense?

This is the general rule of thumb that's been around for years.....

- heavy weight / low rep ( 3-6 ) ..........................best for strength gains
- moderate weight / medium rep ( 8 - 12 ) ..........best for muscle mass gains
- light weight / high rep ( 12 + ) ..........................best for muscular endurance


......however...... HIT would claim that a heavy weight / low rep protocol would also yield gains in muscle mass just as well.

On high reps. If anyone tell you that high reps will help you get " cut " or more " definition " - then they have no clue what they're talking about. This is a gym myth that has been around for years and one that is entirely false. The whole high rep/definition simply makes no sense. High reps condition your muscles to adapt primarily for endurance.

If a trainer told you this, I'd question his credentials.

2) I find that even benching little weight, my shoulder won't support it even though my chest seems like it can. Should I do more pushups to strengthen my upper frame before I attempt any benching in the future?

If you have shoulder pain while benching, then it is a form issue - and likely related to rotator cuff issues. If you just feel weak overall while lifting, it's a strength issue and a wide variety of dumbbell weight and body weight exercises for the chest and triceps certainly can't hurt to help develop your stength.

3) I find tri's really hard to do well, cuz you gotta keep the elbows close to your body. Not sure if you guys recommend any particular exercise then.

Do a RFD thread title search for " triceps " - there were 2 threads which discuss exercise options for triceps.

4) And lastly, should I focus on machines before I do free weights? I know free weights are good cuz they allow more free range of motion of the muscle, but sometimes when you work your chest with free weights while lying down, or do some triceps motion while lying down or sitting up, I sometimes feel like there's that 5% chance that the weight might fall on me. Hence, I feel that maybe I should persist with machines for a while first?

Free weights and machines each have their pro's & con's - you really can't go wrong with either one, since the principles for building stength and muscle mass are the same no matter what you do.

Free weights do allow for a greater variety of exercises and can help with develop your stabilizer muscles. Free weights also allow you to do more compound exercises. Then again, machines do allow for a more " set " plane of movement that can minimize the liklihood of injury.

A prudent approach would be to start with more lighter free weights and shooting for perfect form above all, and only gradually increasing weight as you feel stronger. If you feel unsafe at any time, simply ask another gym rat or a trainer on the floor for a spot.

[poedua]

You said a while ago that your body fat was measured at 25%. If that was done eletrically (metal plates on your bare feet), you should know that the reading comes out differently depending on how hydrated you are. I know that from experience. The only dependable way to determine body fat is water weighing.

Most body fat measures don't vary a great deal from one another. But even if you think they do, it's the relative measure before and after with the particular method you choose that is more important - rather than the absolute measure being 100% accurate IMO.

Also, let's be realistic, the average gym rat hasn't the time ( or money ) to get a water weighting test done twice a year.

1) That does make sense... in relative terms. The way you should probably look at it is keeping your repetitions low (8-10) and keep upping the weight (as much as you can do for that number of reps) until you build the amount of muscle you want. Then try to stay at that weight and add more repetitions to increase the definition.

The standard advice is that 5-7 repetions for strength, 8-10 reps for mass, and 12-14 for definition. Of course, these amounts may vary depending on the source.

On your claim suggesting that high reps lead to definition.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but that's a myth.

[bananaman]

2) I find that even benching little weight, my shoulder won't support it even though my chest seems like it can. Should I do more pushups to strengthen my upper frame before I attempt any benching in the future?


Maybe try flaring out your elbows a bit more so that your upper arms are close to perpendicular to your body and/or widen your grip on the bar? I've had a similar problem and my shoulders constantly gave out but after changing my position, it felt so much better and the chest was getting an insane workout.

[Vault]

Most body fat measures don't vary a great deal from one another. But even if you think they do, it's the relative measure before and after with the particular method you choose that is more important - rather than the absolute measure being 100% accurate IMO.

Also, let's be realistic, the average gym rat hasn't the time ( or money ) to get a water weighting test done twice a year.



On your claim suggesting that high reps lead to definition.

Sorry to burst your bubble...but that's a myth.

I would like to see some evidence that higher repetitions does not lead to greater definition. I can think of two reasons why it could give you better definition. Higher-repetition programs do not increase muscle fiber size but DO convert Type IIB muscle fibers to Type IIA.
See "Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones".
Furthermore, the increase in energy use can lead to a decrease in body fat. The change in muscle fiber composition combined with a loss in body fat could easily lead to greater definition, IMO.

Once he reaches his desired "size" he will have to continue doing at least as much exercise in order to maintain the muscle mass. Increasing the repetitions will not increase muscle size, but will at the very least help him burn more calories in a day.

As far as the body fat percentage measurements, I wasn't suggesting he get water weighing done, I was just saying that he should take the other result with a grain of salt. I had the measurement done on the same machine twice within a week. The first time it said 25% body fat, the second time 17%. You tell me how accurate that is for tracking progress.

[bdckr]

I would like to see some evidence that higher repetitions does not lead to greater definition. I can think of two reasons why it could give you better definition. Higher-repetition programs do not increase muscle fiber size but DO convert Type IIB muscle fibers to Type IIA.
See "Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones".
Furthermore, the increase in energy use can lead to a decrease in body fat. The change in muscle fiber composition combined with a loss in body fat could easily lead to greater definition, IMO.

Once he reaches his desired "size" he will have to continue doing at least as much exercise in order to maintain the muscle mass. Increasing the repetitions will not increase muscle size, but will at the very least help him burn more calories in a day.

As far as the body fat percentage measurements, I wasn't suggesting he get water weighing done, I was just saying that he should take the other result with a grain of salt. I had the measurement done on the same machine twice within a week. The first time it said 25% body fat, the second time 17%. You tell me how accurate that is for tracking progress.
Not "evidence", but a good explanation (http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html). Scroll down to "High Repetitions Burn More Fat Myth."

[LL29]

Hehe. Sorry man, that really made me laugh out loud!

HAHAHA

jkjk
everyone started somewhere
who cares

[Vault]

Not "evidence", but a good explanation (http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html). Scroll down to "High Repetitions Burn More Fat Myth."

The website only refers to scientific articles when talking about the relationship between repetitions and increase in muscular size. I never said that higher reps would increase the size of your muscles.

All it says is that higher reps may not burn more fat if intensity is compromised. If higher reps can burn the same amount of fat as lower reps without seeing the same muscle increases, that can't hurt for someone who doesn't want more bulk but wants more definition. I will, however, admit that the number of repetitions should be higher than 15 after reading some articles.

Most of that is written towards people who want to lose fat without gaining any muscle (for "aesthetic" reasons). Obviously traditional cardio is better than weight training when it comes to burning fat. However, if you're not also weight training you'll burn off muscle too.

[poedua]

The website only refers to scientific articles when talking about the relationship between repetitions and increase in muscular size. I never said that higher reps would increase the size of your muscles.

All it says is that higher reps may not burn more fat if intensity is compromised. If higher reps can burn the same amount of fat as lower reps without seeing the same muscle increases, that can't hurt for someone who doesn't want more bulk but wants more definition. I will, however, admit that the number of repetitions should be higher than 15 after reading some articles.

Most of that is written towards people who want to lose fat without gaining any muscle (for "aesthetic" reasons). Obviously traditional cardio is better than weight training when it comes to burning fat. However, if you're not also weight training you'll burn off muscle too.

No...the " high rep leads to definition " notion is a 100% " myth " - pure and simple.

The high rep / definition myth can only be valid if you accept the theory of '" spot reducing ". And spot reducing simply cannot work - based on science. This high rep / definition myth, while one of the most enduring myths in bodybuilding, is simply a myth. It doesn't work, and more it importantly, it can't work. This myth has been "de-bunked" in the bodybuilding / fitness literature time and time and time again - in fact it appears so often it's the "grandaddy " of weight lifting myths.

Let me explain my reasons why the high rep/ defintion is a myth..then I''d welcome you to do the same - and supply your reasons why it is not a myth.

Here's why it's a myth.

The High-Rep Builds Defintion "Myth":

Your notion that high reps will build “definition” seems to be based on 2 things based on what I've gleaned from your posts.

- 1. You think the high reps will burn fat near the muscles that is the target muscle ( i.e a bicep or a thigh ). This is what is commonly referred to a “spot reducing “. This suggests that the muscles involved in the high reps exercise is actually use the fat surrounding the muscle that's being hit ( for high reps ) for energy. And this fat loss nearest to the muscle being worked with ( and caused by ) high reps is what causes the muscle to look "cut", & "defined"

- 2. You think that high reps will provide a higher level of “muscle tone “

Lets deal with both of these assumptions of yours…and why I think both assumptions are wrong.

Spot reducing – This is the same notion that suggests that if you do 100 sit-ups or twist you’ll lose fat around your waist and love–handles ( i.e see those stupid ab machine infomercials ) . Well, it doesn’t work.

The simple fact is, no one single muscle group can burn enough calories to noticeably reduce fat. When you do lose fat, it comes from all over your body – there is no “hardwiring” in your body that says the muscle being worked has to use the fat closest to it for energy ( as you’re suggesting ). The selection process your body uses to mobilize fat for energy is based on genetic programming…and it starts from the last place your body stored fat as the first place it uses fat – not the fat closest to the muscle.. It has nothing to do with the muscle requiring the energy. It doesn’t come just from the one area you’re hitting with high reps – i.e. the bicep or thigh. You cannot target one particular area for fat reduction. So, despite what you may read or see on TV……. no single exercise will reduce bodyfat in a target “high reps “area.

There are 2 studies commonly cited that prove this ( let me know if you want the study references ) . One looked at the fat deposits found in the right and left arms of advanced level tennis players. The hypothesis was that if spot reduction worked, the playing arm of each player should have considerably less fat than the inactive arm – due to the active arm’s exposure to high reps while playing. . In turns out, fat measures revealed no difference in fat deposits between the two arms. No change in definition. The second study had men do a strenuous ab exercise program for a month. . Each guy performed a total of 5,000 sit-ups. Fat samples were taken before and after the program from their stomach, butt and upper back. They found that the same amount of fat dropped at all three sites - not just in the stomach which did the 5,000 sit-ups.. However, this may explain one reason why you think the spot reducing myth might work. If you burn enough calories, it will cause fat from your entire body to be lost, including the target high reps area.

So, if you want to get rid of unwanted fat – no matter where it is ( i.e bicep, tricep, back, leg , abs ) you have to do exercises that utilize as many of the major muscle groups as you possibly can - not just one muscle group. Things like running, jumping rope , cycling, eliptical machines, rowers etc. performed over an extended period of time. In other words…… cardio.

Muscle Tone - The definition of ” tone “refers to a state of contraction of the muscle. It’s the degree to which your muscles remain contracted ( i.e tensed ) when you relax. Nothing else. .If you do high reps with low resistance and low reps with high resistance…you’re going to get the same improvements in muscle tone. You can do 6 reps, 15 reps and get that tone or do 50 reps and get that tone.

No difference.

[poedua]

Not "evidence", but a good explanation (http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/Myths.html). Scroll down to "High Repetitions Burn More Fat Myth."

I agree with you - as does the entire bodybuilding community - it's a myth.

Examples of some others ( from among dozens ) that agree.....


" Bodybuilding Myth #4: Low Reps Are For Size & High Reps Are For Cutting. "
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/topicoftheweek83.htm

" Myth 2. - Lifting light weights for high reps will shape and tone your muscles! "
http://www.monstersupplements.com/store/articles_detail-32-lang-1.html

" Myth #1: Lifting light weights for high reps will "shape and tone" your muscles."
http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_training-myths.htm

" 6 Strength Training Myths Debunked - #5. For maximum definition, the more repetitions of each exercise, the better."
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=15088

" MYTH NUMBER TWO - "Lifting lighter weights for many repetitions creates muscular definition."
http://www.rustyiron.net/myths.htm

" Myths About Weight Training- 18 -- High repetitions make your muscles harder and more cut up " .
http://www.muscle-building.com/weight_training_myths.html

" 20 Biggest Training Myths! - 10. High reps build definition; low reps build bulk."
http://www.muscle-fitness.com.au/331.html

" The High Repetitions For Definition Myth "
http://www.trulyhuge.com/news/tips63he.htm

" Myth #4 "You need high reps for definition and low reps for mass."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sisco13.htm

" Myth no. 3: For muscle mass, you need low reps; while for definition, you need high reps. "
http://www.muscle-pro.com/bodybuilding-weight-training-myths.htm


Well, if Vault thinks there is still no " hard evidence " for this well established " myth ", perhaps Vault still clings to the myths of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too ! :lol:

[Vault]

No...the " high rep leads to definition " notion is a 100% " myth " - pure and simple.

The high rep / definition myth can only be valid if you accept the theory of '" spot reducing ". And spot reducing simply cannot work - based on science. This high rep / definition myth, while one of the most enduring myths in bodybuilding, is simply a myth. It doesn't work, and more it importantly, it can't work. This myth has been "de-bunked" in the bodybuilding / fitness literature time and time and time again - in fact it appears so often it's the "grandaddy " of weight lifting myths.

Let me explain my reasons why the high rep/ defintion is a myth..then I''d welcome you to do the same - and supply your reasons why it is not a myth.

Here's why it's a myth.

The High-Rep Builds Defintion "Myth":

Your notion that high reps will build “definition” seems to be based on 2 things based on what I've gleaned from your posts.

- 1. You think the high reps will burn fat near the muscles that is the target muscle ( i.e a bicep or a thigh ). This is what is commonly referred to a “spot reducing “. This suggests that the muscles involved in the high reps exercise is actually use the fat surrounding the muscle that's being hit ( for high reps ) for energy. And this fat loss nearest to the muscle being worked with ( and caused by ) high reps is what causes the muscle to look "cut", & "defined"

- 2. You think that high reps will provide a higher level of “muscle tone “

Lets deal with both of these assumptions of yours…and why I think both assumptions are wrong.

Spot reducing – This is the same notion that suggests that if you do 100 sit-ups or twist you’ll lose fat around your waist and love–handles ( i.e see those stupid ab machine infomercials ) . Well, it doesn’t work.

The simple fact is, no one single muscle group can burn enough calories to noticeably reduce fat. When you do lose fat, it comes from all over your body – there is no “hardwiring” in your body that says the muscle being worked has to use the fat closest to it for energy ( as you’re suggesting ). The selection process your body uses to mobilize fat for energy is based on genetic programming…and it starts from the last place your body stored fat as the first place it uses fat – not the fat closest to the muscle.. It has nothing to do with the muscle requiring the energy. It doesn’t come just from the one area you’re hitting with high reps – i.e. the bicep or thigh. You cannot target one particular area for fat reduction. So, despite what you may read or see on TV……. no single exercise will reduce bodyfat in a target “high reps “area.

There are 2 studies commonly cited that prove this ( let me know if you want the study references ) . One looked at the fat deposits found in the right and left arms of advanced level tennis players. The hypothesis was that if spot reduction worked, the playing arm of each player should have considerably less fat than the inactive arm – due to the active arm’s exposure to high reps while playing. . In turns out, fat measures revealed no difference in fat deposits between the two arms. No change in definition. The second study had men do a strenuous ab exercise program for a month. . Each guy performed a total of 5,000 sit-ups. Fat samples were taken before and after the program from their stomach, butt and upper back. They found that the same amount of fat dropped at all three sites - not just in the stomach which did the 5,000 sit-ups.. However, this may explain one reason why you think the spot reducing myth might work. If you burn enough calories, it will cause fat from your entire body to be lost, including the target high reps area.

So, if you want to get rid of unwanted fat – no matter where it is ( i.e bicep, tricep, back, leg , abs ) you have to do exercises that utilize as many of the major muscle groups as you possibly can - not just one muscle group. Things like running, jumping rope , cycling, eliptical machines, rowers etc. performed over an extended period of time. In other words…… cardio.

Muscle Tone - The definition of ” tone “refers to a state of contraction of the muscle. It’s the degree to which your muscles remain contracted ( i.e tensed ) when you relax. Nothing else. .If you do high reps with low resistance and low reps with high resistance…you’re going to get the same improvements in muscle tone. You can do 6 reps, 15 reps and get that tone or do 50 reps and get that tone.

No difference.

Did I ever once mention spot reduction of fat? I clearly said that traditional cardio is better for reducing fat. I'm well aware that fat has to be burned all over your body and aerobic exercise is the best way to do that. All I said was that high reps are no worse for burning fat.

You just said that "You can do 6 reps, 15 reps and get that tone or do 50 reps and get that tone." Meanwhile doing lower reps will also lead to hypertrophy. So... if you want more 'tone' without the size increase, what would you suggest a person do?

[Spidey]

thanks guys

There were these 2 goons smirking when they saw me lifting. Not like they were the biggest or strongest guys there either.

Thats what made me buy my own gym for home. I hated guys like that. When I started lifitng in gyms I was 120 lbs. I got pointed at all the time because I couldnt lift a lot.

Just remember you are there to help yourself out. Dont let what other people think make you stop

[Vault]

Well, if Vault thinks there is still no " hard evidence " for this well established " myth ", perhaps Vault still clings to the myths of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too ! :lol:

Today, class, we are going to study logical fallacies. First up, a decent example of the ad hominem argument. If you can't counter the arguement, insult the person!

Seriously, none of those websites said anything that I haven't seen before. They insist that definition is only a function of muscular size and body fat, while even you admitted that muscular tone was important as well.

[poedua]

Today, class, we are going to study logical fallacies. First up, a decent example of the ad hominem argument. If you can't counter the arguement, insult the person!

I DID counter the argument.

I gave you a lengthy reply citing 2 studies that highlight and other reasons why such a notion is a myth. I also cited a handful of sites to underscore the point that the this high rep / definition notion is also generally accepted among most fitness / athletic / bodybuilding sites as a myth. No one in the literature or on exercise sites has ever debated the reality of this myth - except of course now, for you. If you choose to live in denial with respect to this myth and ignore information both I and bdckr used to support our claims - fine. You claim it isn't a myth - but a fact. So, go ahead and provide support for your opposing argument that it isn't a myth - but a fact. Lean into your logical fallacies and assume the burden of proof for your assertion.

BTW - there's no need to insult you...the logic supporting your rationale on this issue speaks for itself. If you want to believe in something ( like this myth ) that is at odds with science ...you're capable of believing anything.

Seriously, none of those websites said anything that I haven't seen before. They insist that definition is only a function of muscular size and body fat,

Learn to read...for the last time.........you can't train muscles specifically " for definition " simply by doing high reps - which is your claim. You're right, you get defined when you lose body fat and / or increase muscle size. But forget that, what YOU are claiming is that if you sat there all day and did a bicep curl all day with high reps, say 100+ reps with a light weight that just by doing this high rep protocol you''ll be " spot reducing " - i.e you'll lose fat off that bicep and get more defined. Ridiculous ! If you want to get defined, lose fat thru cardio and diet - not high reps. And if you want to build muscle mass, engage in high intensity training to overload your muscles with moderate reps to bring about failure and to spur growth.

High reps won't burn fat in one area only. High reps with a light weight also won't build muscle mass.

while even you admitted that muscular tone was important as well.

No - I simply defined what " toned " means.

But so you're clear. The reason your claim that high reps leads to defintion is a myth is because - as I said before - it can only be a valid calim if the theory of " spot reducing " is valid. Trouble is, spot reducing has no validity in science - thus, the notion that high reps leads to defintion is a myth. Logic. Let me quote the American Council on Exercise......

ACE Lists Most Common Fitness Myths

" Spot reducing is possible - Spot reducing is not possible. The concept is based on the flawed notion that it is possible to “burn off” fat from a specific part of the body by selectively exercising that area. However, numerous studies have refuted this claim. Only regular exercise training (aerobic and strength) and a sensible diet can eliminate excess body fat. "

http://www.acefitness.org/media/media_display.aspx?NewsID=168


You however, still DO believe in spot reducing - i.e high reps lead to definition - despite the fact the ACE calls it a myth.

[satisfcuktion]

I gotta say, Poedua, you're very well spoken haha. You seem to know quite a bit, you studying in this field?

[poedua]

Did I ever once mention spot reduction of fat?

Yup - you did.

You claim high reps causes defintion. That is an example of the classic " spot reducing " argument for achieving defintion. You claim that if you do high reps on your biceps ( as an example ) , they will get defined....or in your own words " add more repetitions to increase the definition " & " 5-7 repetions for strength, 8-10 reps for mass, and 12-14 for definition "

A claim, which of course, is not only ludicrous, but a myth.

I clearly said that traditional cardio is better for reducing fat. I'm well aware that fat has to be burned all over your body and aerobic exercise is the best way to do that. All I said was that high reps are no worse for burning fat.

High reps are " no worse " for burning fat .........no worse than what - cardio ?

Who are you kidding ?

The calories you'd burn just doing arm curls comes nowhere close to the calories you'd nned to burn fat than you''d burn running on a treadmilll for the equivalent amount of time.

You also said doing high reps on one muscle groups will " define " that muscle group you're training - it's a myth.

You just said that "You can do 6 reps, 15 reps and get that tone or do 50 reps and get that tone."

Correct, you get tone with 6 or 50 or 100 - then why do more than you have to ?

Also, 6,12, 50, 100, 200 reps won't burn fat on the muscle area you're using to make it defined. High reps don't burn localized fat as you claim - it's simply a irrefutalbe fact

Meanwhile doing lower reps will also lead to hypertrophy. So... if you want more 'tone' without the size increase, what would you suggest a person do?

You get improvements in muscle tone with high reps and low resistance and also with low reps and high resistance. Either one will do it.

If you think high reps and low resistance will add the mass you don't want, then opt for low reps and high resistance. Keeping in mind the latter will tone only - and do nothing with repspect to definition.

[poedua]

I gotta say, Poedua, you're very well spoken haha. You seem to know quite a bit, you studying in this field?

No...at least not formally.

My backgroud is in finance and consulting.

Sad to say, fitness / training is just a side hobby I've developed from when I played hockey and football and spending way too many years in the gym :)

That, and I've collected a lot of fitness / weight training books over the years as well. Mostly, to help me figure out where and why I'm going wrong in the gym.

[Vault]

Muscle Tone - The definition of ” tone “refers to a state of contraction of the muscle. It’s the degree to which your muscles remain contracted ( i.e tensed ) when you relax. Nothing else. .If you do high reps with low resistance and low reps with high resistance…you’re going to get the same improvements in muscle tone. You can do 6 reps, 15 reps and get that tone or do 50 reps and get that tone.

No difference.

What I'm saying is, you can increase muscle tone (muscles remaining contracted) without increasing muscle size by using more reps. Two different aspects of the muscle... tone being the amount that it stays contracted when rested.

I'm saying that there are more than two factors (muscle size and body fat) when it comes to muscular definition. Hence muscular definition can be increased by changing factors other than muscular size and body fat, e.g. tone.

You are trying to say that the physiological changes that occur when your muscles gain more endurance (conversion of Type IIB muscle fibers to Type IIA, etc.) will result in absolutely no change in the tone or appearance of the muscle.

You however, still DO believe in spot reducing - i.e high reps lead to definition - despite the fact the ACE calls it a myth.

What can I say to this? You tell I'm completely illogical for believing something that I have clearly said I do not believe. Then you insist that I must believe it because of your own false dichotomy. It's completely unfair and rather insulting.

[Vault]

High reps are " no worse " for burning fat .........no worse than what - cardio ?

No worse than low reps. You really only read what you want to, eh?

If you think high reps and low resistance will add the mass you don't want, then opt for low reps and high resistance. Keeping in mind the latter will tone only - and do nothing with repspect to definition.

I just realized we're arguing semantics. You are using an extremely limited meaning for the word "definition" that automatically excludes anything other than body fat percentage and muscle size. My definition of "definition" would include muscle tone as well, at the very least.

Let me ask you one thing, do you look more "defined" when your muscles are contracted or relaxed?

[poedua]

What I'm saying is, you can increase muscle tone (muscles remaining contracted) without increasing muscle size by using more reps.

I never claimed otherwise.

And while this may be a fact, it is an irrelevant fact to your claim - your claim was that HIGH REPS lead to DEFINITION. They don't - yet, you claim they do. You " tone " with either low reps or high reps - tone has nothing to do with achieving definition. High definition is primarily a function of low bodyfat.

Here is what you actually said .....(in your own words )......." add more repetitions to increase the definition " & " 5-7 repetions for strength, 8-10 reps for mass, and 12-14 for definition " You discuss 2 factors as being related - reps & definition ........ not tone.

Two different aspects of the muscle... tone being the amount that it stays contracted when rested..

Yes , I know what tone is, I brought up the specific sub-topic, issue / definition of " tone " to this discussion - not you


I'm saying that there are more than two factors (muscle size and body fat) when it comes to muscular definition. Hence muscular definition can be increased by changing factors other than muscular size and body fat, e.g. tone.

Tone is related to definition ? Huh ? How does that work ?

How does tone cause or promote definition ? If 2 guys are toned from doing the same weight routine after 3 months and one guys is 7% bf and the other 1 guy is 28% bf - the latter 28% will not be defined at all - though his muscles are just as toned as the 7% bf guy.

Also, you haven't mentioned REPS * DEFINITION - you still haven't explained how the " number of reps " - high - causes fat loss on only one part of the body - the one muscle getting the high reps. Tel me how all the studies are wrong on this issue when they claim it's a myth - tell me once and for all why 14 reps will cause your arms to be " defined " but 8 reps won't do it as well.

You can be " toned " all you want - but if there is a layer of fat covering your " toned " muscles, you'll have " zip ' definition.

You are trying to say that the physiological changes that occur when your muscles gain more endurance (conversion of Type IIB muscle fibers to Type IIA, etc.) will result in absolutely no change in the tone or appearance of the muscle.

I never said that. I said all rep levels will lead to " toned " muscles - 6, 20, 100, or 200. You claim high reps of as little as 14 leads to definition - which is ridiculous.

I did say that doing high reps for endurance must be in the HUGE volume of reps ( i.e hundreds ) - and only then are you training the slow-twitch fibers. Reps in the 20's, 30's 40', etc, range are way too low for endurance training to hit these fibers.

What can I say to this? You tell I'm completely illogical for believing something that I have clearly said I do not believe.

You said you do believe high reps lead to definition if exercising one muscle group - and this can only occur by means of localized fat loss - which is a myth.

Illogic is believing in something as fact - your claim was that you belieive HIGH REPS lead to DEFINITION - without any evidence to support your view althe while ignoring all evidence that disproves your allegation of fact.


Then you insist that I must believe it because of your own false dichotomy. It's completely unfair and rather insulting.

No, you simply have no clue as to what you're taking about.

Case in point, your claim that 14 reps can lead to more ( if any - which there isn't ) definition than 8 reps is so ridiculous I don't have to be " unfair and rather insulting " - such a stupid assertion speaks for itself.

The American Council on Exercise is wrong ( i.e it's a myth ) - but you're right ( it isn't a myth ).

Got it. :rolleyes:

[poedua]

No worse than low reps. You really only read what you want to, eh?

- Low reps tone just as high reps tone
- High reps tone just as low reps tone

- Low reps don't burn fat
- High reps don't burn fat


But despite this, you say " All I said was that high reps are no worse - than low reps - for burning fat "

So, since " no reps " burn fat ...how does 14 reps cause more definition than 8 reps - as you claim ?


I just realized we're arguing semantics. You are using an extremely limited meaning for the word "definition" that automatically excludes anything other than body fat percentage and muscle size. My definition of "definition" would include muscle tone as well, at the very least.

You can be toned and not be very defined ( overfat )

You can be defined and not be very toned ( underfat )


I like the bodybuilding.com definition of " definition " .......

Definition - The absence of fat over clearly delineated muscular movement. Definition is often referred to as "muscularity," and a highly defined bodybuilder has so little body fat that very fine grooves of muscularity called "striations" will be clearly visible over each major muscle group.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glossam.htm#d

.....and it speaks to what I said earlier - again - " High definition is primarily a function of low bodyfat " .

So " definition " actually refers to the amount of muscularity you can see coming through because of the absence of body fat. That's why judges at bodybuilding contests are looking for " defined muscularity " ....along with things like muscle mass, symmetry & proportion.

Let me ask you one thing, do you look more "defined" when your muscles are contracted or relaxed?

I'm " defined " at 13% bf whether my muscle is " relaxed " or " contracted " - why do you ask ?

[nfnx]

i was too lazy to read all this but just to throw it out there after readint the first 3 pages, dont concentrate on cardio THAT much as cardio burns calories per hour as bigger muscle burns more throughout the day so dont compensate intense training for cardio.

that being said, i do do about 40 minutes of cardio before every routine...
depending on my workout ill alternate between 2 or 3 diff machines.

ex. leg day
for my cardio i always do
20 min treadclimber
10 min stairclimber
5 min treadmill, intense
5 - 10 min bike cool down....

then i stretch for 10 minutes and hit the weights...

=)

[Shen]

you should do weight first, then cardio

[Vault]

Tone is related to definition ? Huh ? How does that work ?

How does tone cause or promote definition ? If 2 guys are toned from doing the same weight routine after 3 months and one guys is 7% bf and the other 1 guy is 28% bf - the latter 28% will not be defined at all - though his muscles are just as toned as the 7% bf guy.

You are comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying "Take a guy who has 100 pounds of muscle and 50% body fat and compare him to a guy who was 50 pounds of muscle and 5% body fat. Clearly the guy with less muscle is more defined, therefore the amount of muscle has nothing to do with definition."

For it to be a valid comparison you would take a 2 guys with the same amount of muscle and body fat, one of which is more toned than the other. Which guy has more definition? You would say none so that you can keep your strict definition of the word. Yet if anyone else saw the two guys side by side, they would pick the guy with more tone.

Flex your bicep and see if the edges don't become more clearly defined. Now imagine that your bicep always stays slightly flexed...

I think you are talking about definition when posing, like during a bodybuilding competition. You average person, however, probably wants to look good without having to flex.


Case in point, your claim that 14 reps can lead to more ( if any - which there isn't ) definition than 8 reps is so ridiculous I don't have to be " unfair and rather insulting " - such a stupid assertion speaks for itself.

First of all, I have never made a comparative statement like that. I said high-repetition muscle increases muscle definition. Not that it would increase it more than low-repetition. The reason someone would chose high-repetition over low- is to avoid hypertrophy.

I'm going to lay it out very straightforwardly, so you don't misunderstand at all.

A) High-repetition exercise increases muscle tone.
B) Greater muscle tone means greater definition.
Therefore:
C) High-repetion exercise increases definition.

You disagree with me because you disagree with statement B. My reasoning regarding statement B is given above.

The entire argument has nothing to do with the following statement:
D) Spot reduction of fat is possible.
The argument above (A and B imples C) in no way invokes statement D. This has nothing to do with spot reduction or the article from the ACE. I have never argued with the ACE.

If you cannot follow the logical chain A+B=>C as shown above, we cannot have a rational conversation.

By the way, your insistence on substituting statement D for statement B is an example of the straw man logical fallacy. This is fun. Want to try for a third?

[poedua]

You are comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying "Take a guy who has 100 pounds of muscle and 50% body fat and compare him to a guy who was 50 pounds of muscle and 5% body fat. Clearly the guy with less muscle is more defined, therefore the amount of muscle has nothing to do with definition."

Correct - it is the " guy with the less " FAT that is more defined......not less muscle as you pointed out. And I'm glad it has finally sunk in with you .......and you finally agree with me - as you say - " muscle has nothing to do with definition " - it's fat.

As I said before, definition is ( and now you agree ) mostly about FAT " High definition is primarily a function of low bodyfat " .

For it to be a valid comparison you would take a 2 guys with the same amount of muscle and body fat, one of which is more toned than the other. Which guy has more definition?

Tone is a description of your muscles at rest and it isn't related to definition - they both have the same amount of tone since both are advanced lifters. Very fit people have excelllent muscle tone - their level of muscle contraction at rest is very high. And, it can be high if it has a lot of fat over the muscle or if it has very lityle fat over the muscle. Definition is a function of fat ( primarily ) and muscle mass ( secondarily ).

High reps do not " define " because high reps tone muscle - the basic assumption is dead wrong. The degree of defintion is a function of fat , not a degree of a muscle at rest - which is tone.

Nice try though.

You would say none so that you can keep your strict definition of the word. Yet if anyone else saw the two guys side by side, they would pick the guy with more tone.

It's not my definition of " definition " - it is the defintion in the literature and studies.

You inclusion of " tone " as being fundamantal to what fitness people and studies mean by " definition " is your own made-up definition of the term - and it is wrong.

Flex your bicep and see if the edges don't become more clearly defined. Now imagine that your bicep always stays slightly flexed..

Flexing is not a fuction of tone ...tone is a matter of muscle contraction at rest....and definition is a function of fat.

I think you are talking about definition when posing, like during a bodybuilding competition. You average person, however, probably wants to look good without having to flex.

irrelevant

First of all, I have never made a comparative statement like that.

But you have ....you said....

- add more repetitions to increase the definition "
- " 5-7 repetions for strength"
- " 8-10 reps for mass '
- " and 12-14 for definition ".

.....you claim there is a causal relationship between reps and fat loss - i.e defiintion. There isn't - it's a myth.

I said high-repetition muscle increases muscle definition.

It doesn't. And that is a scientific impossibility as proven by studies. There is not one site or study that affirm this - its a myth. If so, cite me a link or study that supports your claim.

Not that it would increase it more than low-repetition. The reason someone would chose high-repetition over low- is to avoid hypertrophy.

Huh ? So now you're saying low reps lead to the same degree of definition you claim that high reps do ?

Here's the point you're missing - REPS have NOTHING TO DO do with defintion. This is an abslolute truth that has been proven over and over again in the literatur and it among one of the most supportable truths in fitness.

I'm going to lay it out very straightforwardly, so you don't misunderstand at all.

A) High-repetition exercise increases muscle tone.

So what ?

So does low reps, moderate reps and high reps - any form of muscle training protocol leads to the toning of muscle. So, it should read " ANY-repetition exercise increases muscle tone ". Your assumption that toning is unique to high reps is false.

B) Greater muscle tone means greater definition

LOL. No it doesn't.

Definition has to do with the degree of FAT in and / or on top of your muscles - the issue is FAT. Tone has to do with the contraction of muscle at rest. Your assumption is false.


Therefore:
C) High-repetion exercise increases definition.

Sorry buddy ...it's a myth. Science has proven it - over and over again.

Your false conclusion is based on 2 false assumptions. For further insights, read these articles that discuss why it's a myth......

" Bodybuilding Myth #4: Low Reps Are For Size & High Reps Are For Cutting. "
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/topicoftheweek83.htm

" Myth 2. - Lifting light weights for high reps will shape and tone your muscles! "
http://www.monstersupplements.com/store/articles_detail-32-lang-1.html

" Myth #1: Lifting light weights for high reps will "shape and tone" your muscles."
http://www.defrancostraining.com/articles/archive/articles_training-myths.htm

" 6 Strength Training Myths Debunked - #5. For maximum definition, the more repetitions of each exercise, the better."
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=15088

" MYTH NUMBER TWO - "Lifting lighter weights for many repetitions creates muscular definition."
http://www.rustyiron.net/myths.htm

" Myths About Weight Training- 18 -- High repetitions make your muscles harder and more cut up " .
http://www.muscle-building.com/weight_training_myths.html

" 20 Biggest Training Myths! - 10. High reps build definition; low reps build bulk."
http://www.muscle-fitness.com.au/331.html

" The High Repetitions For Definition Myth "
http://www.trulyhuge.com/news/tips63he.htm

" Myth #4 "You need high reps for definition and low reps for mass."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sisco13.htm

" Myth no. 3: For muscle mass, you need low reps; while for definition, you need high reps. "
http://www.muscle-pro.com/bodybuilding-weight-training-myths.htm

You disagree with me because you disagree with statement B. My reasoning regarding statement B is given above.

No, I disagree with you because you are making up defintions and misunderstanding basic fitness terms - in short, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I disagree with you because I know what is in the literature and what reps can do and can't do - and have cited studies and exllanations to support this fact. Just because you get this information / myths from your buddies in your high school gym class / weight room - doesn't mean it is fact. Talk to your gym teacher about this myth - he/she can set you straight. Your high school buddies are feeeding you a bunch of crap.

The entire argument has nothing to do with the following statement:
D) Spot reduction of fat is possible.

Spot reduction is not possible. Repeated high reps of one body part cannot not lead to greater defiintion - which is a reduction of fat. It's a myth.

Yet, you claim " high-repetition muscle increases muscle definition "



The argument above (A and B imples C) in no way invokes statement D. This has nothing to do with spot reduction or the article from the ACE. I have never argued with the ACE.

You claim high reps lead to defintion...ACE claims it doesn't.

If you cannot follow the logical chain A+B=>C as shown above, we cannot have a rational conversation.

The logic is fine ...your 2 assumptions are dead wrong ...and thus,so is your conclsuion.

By the way, your insistence on substituting statement D for statement B is an example of the straw man logical fallacy. This is fun. Want to try for a third?

I didn't substitute anything.

By default, when you claim high reps cause defintiuon for 1 given exercise ( i.e abs or biceps ) , you claim high rep numbers will burn fat near the muscle being worked - and as we all know, less fat means more defined. You claim more reps lead to defiintion....." add more repetitions to increase the definition "......" ..... " and 12-14 [reps] for definition ".

Defiintion isn't a function of tone - but of mass and fat.

- High reps don't promote tone any more than low reps do,
- High reps don't promote mass, lower reps do.
- High reps don't burn localized fat.

If you reject fat as a primary determinant of definition and insist tone is a neccessary detertminant , then your understanding of the term " defintion " is at complete odds with science - i.e it is also at odds with the term " definition " found in those 11 sites i provided.

Sorry, I'll put my fath in terms found the scientific literature rather than terms and myths coming from you and your buddies in your high school weight room.

[Vault]

You claim high reps lead to defintion...ACE claims it doesn't.
No, ACE claims D is false, which I showed you has nothing to do with my argument.

[In response to statement A] So what ?

So does low reps, moderate reps and high reps - any form of muscle training protocol leads to the toning of muscle.

The logic is fine ...your 2 assumptions are dead wrong ...and thus,so is your conclsuion.

You just contradicted yourself. You agreed with statement A and then later decided it was "dead wrong."


I didn't substitute anything.
See the ACE statement above. "ACE claims it doesn't." That is substituting statement D for statement C.

Sorry, I'll put my fath in terms found the scientific literature rather than terms and myths coming from you and your buddies in your high school weight room.
Scientific literature? Like from www.monstersupplements.com? That is clearly a highly scientific website with absolutely no questionable motives. Did you ever notice that those websites are trying to sell you a product?

Shocking that a website like www.trulyhuge.com would tell you that high-repetition exercise is worthless!

All that said, I have no more energy for this discussion. You constantly jump around, using misdirection and straw man arguments to try to make your point.

It was fun though. It's enjoyable to play the devil's advocate once in a while. All the best.