PDA

View Full Version : Rest between workouts for specific muscle groups


The Litwaks
September 21st 06, 06:32 AM
How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
same muscle groups? Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today
and triceps and back tomorrow, or do I need to do a day for lower-body
strengthening in-between? I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't
really used to any approach, except that I've spent the last month
working out, doing strength training, cardio or both, about five days a
week each. I sure wish this would start to take some effect. I am
exactly the same weight today as I was four weeks ago.

Pez D Spencer
September 21st 06, 06:40 AM
just out of curiousity, what books are you reading on the subject of
strength training and conditioning?

i've always gotten the best results by training each muscle group
directly only once per week.

i could recommend some books if you like.

Pete
September 21st 06, 09:24 AM
"The Litwaks" > schreef:

> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the same
> muscle groups?

In general, 2-5 days.
Smaller groups take less time to recover, but they work togethet with the
bigger ones.
Try 3 days, and see what happens. After a while, try 2 and 4.

> Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today and triceps and back
> tomorrow...

A hard bicep workout today can **** up a good back workout tommorow. the
lower arms will also have trouble holding the weight. I would suggest you
wait another day.

> or do I need to do a day for lower-body strengthening in-between?

Thats what i do most of the time. right now, because of a limited amount of
time and energy, i do an upper body or a lower body workout, in a A-B-A,
B-A-B kinda schedule. Works fine.

Typical workout sample is this;

Front presses (machine)
Small grip lat pull-downs
Tricep pushdowns
Cable rows

Next time;

Low inclines
Cable rows
Front presses
Curls

> I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't really used to any approach,
> except that I've spent the last month working out, doing strength
> training, cardio or both, about five days a week each. I sure wish this
> would start to take some effect. I am exactly the same weight today as I
> was four weeks ago.

Not good.

At this point, you should be a little stronger each workout, or at least,
each week.
Take a few more days to recover, and try to eat some more.

----
Pete

Bully
September 21st 06, 09:52 AM
Pete wrote:
> "The Litwaks" > schreef:
>
>> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
>> same muscle groups?
>
> In general, 2-5 days.
> Smaller groups take less time to recover, but they work togethet with
> the bigger ones.
> Try 3 days, and see what happens. After a while, try 2 and 4.
>
>> Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today and triceps and
>> back tomorrow...
>
> A hard bicep workout today can **** up a good back workout tommorow.
> the lower arms will also have trouble holding the weight. I would
> suggest you wait another day.
>
>> or do I need to do a day for lower-body strengthening in-between?
>
> Thats what i do most of the time. right now, because of a limited
> amount of time and energy, i do an upper body or a lower body
> workout, in a A-B-A, B-A-B kinda schedule. Works fine.
>
> Typical workout sample is this;
>
> Front presses (machine)
> Small grip lat pull-downs
> Tricep pushdowns
> Cable rows
>
> Next time;
>
> Low inclines
> Cable rows
> Front presses
> Curls
>
>> I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't really used to any approach,
>> except that I've spent the last month working out, doing strength
>> training, cardio or both, about five days a week each. I sure wish
>> this would start to take some effect. I am exactly the same weight
>> today as I was four weeks ago.
>
> Not good.

Why not good? He's probably gained muscle and lost fat!

>
> At this point, you should be a little stronger each workout, or at
> least, each week.
> Take a few more days to recover, and try to eat some more.
>
> ----
> Pete



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Kettlebell Inc
September 21st 06, 03:27 PM
The Litwaks wrote:
> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
> same muscle groups? Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today
> and triceps and back tomorrow, or do I need to do a day for lower-body
> strengthening in-between? I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't
> really used to any approach, except that I've spent the last month
> working out, doing strength training, cardio or both, about five days a
> week each. I sure wish this would start to take some effect. I am
> exactly the same weight today as I was four weeks ago.

What is your reps/set scheme for your workouts? Is it a bodybuilding
type workout, strength endurance, pure strength, cardio? The reps sets
information will help determine whether you should be stronger or have
lost weight or are seeing changing in your body composition after a
month. It will also determine, on average, how much rest you should
need between workout days.

For instance if you're doing 2 sets of 8 reps on an exercise, you're
likely not to see much of a gain, but if you're doing 4-5 sets of 5 for
each exercise, you should be seeing some gains.

In general:
Strength = low reps/set and high volume, lots of rest & recovery
Size = high volume and food, lots of rest & recovery
Strength endurance and body comp. = mid range reps w/ mid range weight,
medium rest and recovery
Cardio = high reps, light or no weight, short rest and recovery

John
http://www.kettlebellinc.com

Steph
September 21st 06, 03:48 PM
Firstly, I want to applaud you on your decision to become more active.

What is your goal?

If you are trying to add muscle mass then weight training 4 or more
days a week makes sense.

Since, you are new to weight training I recommend completing 3
full-body workouts with at least 48 hours rest in between. If you find
yourself in the gym more frequently; then on the alternating days do
your cardio.

If you have any more questions feel free to visit my website
http://www.fitnessesentials.ca


The Litwaks wrote:
> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
> same muscle groups? Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today
> and triceps and back tomorrow, or do I need to do a day for lower-body
> strengthening in-between? I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't
> really used to any approach, except that I've spent the last month
> working out, doing strength training, cardio or both, about five days a
> week each. I sure wish this would start to take some effect. I am
> exactly the same weight today as I was four weeks ago.

NYC XYZ
September 21st 06, 05:22 PM
The Litwaks wrote:
> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
> same muscle groups? Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest today
> and triceps and back tomorrow, or do I need to do a day for lower-body
> strengthening in-between? I'm somewhat new at this so m body isn't
> really used to any approach, except that I've spent the last month
> working out, doing strength training, cardio or both, about five days a
> week each. I sure wish this would start to take some effect. I am
> exactly the same weight today as I was four weeks ago.


At my prime I worked out five or six days a week with no problems,
benching 315-lbs. (3 reps, 3 sets). Nowadays I have plenty of rest but
am stuck doing ~275-lbs. I'm thirteen years older now, but there's
more than age involved....

I'm a big believer in "feeling your way" and working out
"mindfully"...by this I mean to really enjoy the physical sensations of
it all. I've never subscribed to any particular program (except when I
had to do daily calisthenics in the Army, I guess), and just done what
I felt like doing. It's kind of like eating when you're hungry -- you
do it naturally, you don't really need to get all technical about
things. The technical stuff is for high-performance athletes in
competition, when every little bit can make the difference. Otherwise,
I think all this focus on "book keeping" is akin to "equipment
idolatry" where people, newbies in particular, get all focused on the
latest gym contraption.

If you're in this for the love of it, numbers don't mean a thing.
They're fun, but besides the point. If you're into baseball, do you
get frustrated not being able to hit as many home-runs as the pros?
Numbers don't really tell you anything you didn't already know. When
you're in touch with your body, it tells you how strong you are, etc.

Steve Freides
September 21st 06, 05:46 PM
"The Litwaks" > wrote in message
...
> How long do I need to rest, 1 day, 2 days, between workouts on the
> same muscle groups? Can I do machines mainly for biceps and chest
> today and triceps and back tomorrow, or do I need to do a day for
> lower-body strengthening in-between? I'm somewhat new at this so m
> body isn't really used to any approach, except that I've spent the
> last month working out, doing strength training, cardio or both, about
> five days a week each. I sure wish this would start to take some
> effect. I am exactly the same weight today as I was four weeks ago.

For most people most of the time, losing or gaining weight is mostly
about diet. Continue to exercise, of course, but look to your diet to
help you change your weight.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Pez D Spencer
September 21st 06, 05:55 PM
Steve Freides wrote:
>
> For most people most of the time, losing or gaining weight is mostly
> about diet.

yes--as long as the workout routine isn't ridiculous.

Steve Freides
September 21st 06, 07:35 PM
"Pez D Spencer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>> For most people most of the time, losing or gaining weight is mostly
>> about diet.
>
> yes--as long as the workout routine isn't ridiculous.

Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and without any
great merit, either, save for the fact that they get people used to using
their bodies to move against resistance, burn a few extra calories, etc.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Pez D Spencer
September 21st 06, 09:17 PM
Steve Freides wrote:
>
> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and without any
> great merit, either, save for the fact that they get people used to using
> their bodies to move against resistance, burn a few extra calories, etc.

and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine when i
was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for six
days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every excercise
routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the gym.

that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
ethic like no other.

i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis in
twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!

Jason Earl
September 21st 06, 10:40 PM
"Pez D Spencer" > writes:

> Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and
>> without any great merit, either, save for the fact that they get
>> people used to using their bodies to move against resistance, burn
>> a few extra calories, etc.
>
> and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine when
> i was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
> overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
> period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for
> six days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every
> excercise routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the
> gym.
>
> that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
> ethic like no other.
>
> i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
> routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis
> in twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!

I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
that kind of time.

Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.

Of course, I don't think that I have ever really organized my strength
training workouts around body parts. Workouts with lots of isolation
exercises are going to take longer no matter how you slice things.

Jason

Steve Freides
September 21st 06, 10:58 PM
"Jason Earl" > wrote in message
...
> "Pez D Spencer" > writes:
>
>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and
>>> without any great merit, either, save for the fact that they get
>>> people used to using their bodies to move against resistance, burn
>>> a few extra calories, etc.
>>
>> and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine when
>> i was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
>> overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
>> period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for
>> six days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every
>> excercise routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the
>> gym.
>>
>> that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
>> ethic like no other.
>>
>> i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
>> routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis
>> in twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!
>
> I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
> before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
> workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
> with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
> to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
> that kind of time.
>
> Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
> or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
> opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.
>
> Of course, I don't think that I have ever really organized my strength
> training workouts around body parts. Workouts with lots of isolation
> exercises are going to take longer no matter how you slice things.

And if you are not a bodybuilder, such "lots of isolation exercises"
aren't needed.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Curt James
September 21st 06, 11:14 PM
Pez D Spencer wrote:
[...]

re books on the subject of strength training and conditioning

> i could recommend some books if you like.

Post your list. Start a new thread with it, too, please. I'd be
interested in taking a look at that book shelf, Spence.

--
Curt

Curt James
September 21st 06, 11:26 PM
Bully wrote:
> Pete wrote:
> > "The Litwaks" schreef:
[...]

> >> I am exactly the same weight today as I was four
> >> weeks ago.
> >
> > Not good.
>
> Why not good? He's probably gained muscle and lost fat!

Iirc, the OP is doing two sets per exercise? I probably have that
wrong, but if I don't then I suspect there's no "gained muscle and lost
fat" happening.

And iirc again, he said he's totally new to exercising. Basic beginner
protocol recommends 3 sets of 10. In fact, the one book I have directs
the first week to be 1 x 10 per exercise, 2nd week at 2 x 10, 3rd week
at 3 x 10, and then shifts to 4 x 8.

I'm currently doing 5 sets x 3 reps on my big three (clean/press,
deads, squats) and 4 x 6-8 on auxiliary exercises (pulldowns, rows,
reverse curls, lunges).

Lit, pick up a basic weight training book at the library. My original
"bible" or intro to bodybuilding was courtesy of Lou Ravelle and his
book _Bodybuilding for Everyone_
<http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0671540645/Lou_Ravelle/Bodybuilding_For_Everyone.html>.


--
Curt

Jason Earl
September 22nd 06, 12:39 AM
"Steve Freides" > writes:

> "Jason Earl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Pez D Spencer" > writes:
>>
>>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and
>>>> without any great merit, either, save for the fact that they get
>>>> people used to using their bodies to move against resistance, burn
>>>> a few extra calories, etc.
>>>
>>> and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine when
>>> i was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
>>> overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
>>> period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for
>>> six days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every
>>> excercise routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the
>>> gym.
>>>
>>> that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
>>> ethic like no other.
>>>
>>> i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
>>> routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis
>>> in twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!
>>
>> I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
>> before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
>> workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
>> with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
>> to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
>> that kind of time.
>>
>> Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
>> or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
>> opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.
>>
>> Of course, I don't think that I have ever really organized my strength
>> training workouts around body parts. Workouts with lots of isolation
>> exercises are going to take longer no matter how you slice things.
>
> And if you are not a bodybuilder, such "lots of isolation exercises"
> aren't needed.

Heck, even if you are working out just to look good nekkid sticking to
the big money compound exercises is not too shabby an idea. My biceps
continue to grow despite the fact that I haven't done a curl in over a
year.

Someday soon I am going to hit Pete up for a bodybuilding style
workout and I am going to follow it for 3 to 4 months religiously just
to see what happens. First, however, I have some deadlifting goals to
meet.

Jason

Kettlebell Inc
September 22nd 06, 02:32 AM
Jason Earl wrote:

> I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
> before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
> workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
> with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
> to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
> that kind of time.
>

yup, exactly the same for me. as I got older and busier and had more
responsibilities, the hour to hour and a half workout just didn't fit
in anymore. and like you said below, it is hard not to have an hour
long workout to get in all the isolation exercises.

> Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
> or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
> opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.
>

yup, exactly the same for me again. easy to get in 15 minutes in the
morning and then another 15 minutes in the afternoon or at night.
maybe 20 the next day, 10 two days after that. it all adds up. I'm in
way better shape, stronger, and have a much better body comp. than
when I was doing the hour long workouts less frequently. combining
muscles chains together in your workout more approximates your everyday
living. no one really does a curl during their normal daily routine or
a triceps kickback. you're doing cleans, clean and presses, squat
cleans, deadlift, etc. I'm not knocking bodybuilding and isolation
exercises if bodybuilding is your goal. But I think a lot of people
are doing bodybuilding routines where their goals are more functional
strength, general physical fitness, and weight loss. With those goals,
short workouts with compound movements is what your workout program
should consist of.

John

Kettlebell Inc
September 22nd 06, 02:35 AM
Jason Earl wrote:

>
> Heck, even if you are working out just to look good nekkid sticking to
> the big money compound exercises is not too shabby an idea. My biceps
> continue to grow despite the fact that I haven't done a curl in over a
> year.
>

same with me. I haven't done curls as part of a workout in 3 years,
but my biceps are bigger and stronger than when I was doing them
religiously.

John

Steve Freides
September 22nd 06, 03:34 AM
"Jason Earl" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>
>> "Jason Earl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Pez D Spencer" > writes:
>>>
>>>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and
>>>>> without any great merit, either, save for the fact that they get
>>>>> people used to using their bodies to move against resistance, burn
>>>>> a few extra calories, etc.
>>>>
>>>> and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine
>>>> when
>>>> i was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
>>>> overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
>>>> period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for
>>>> six days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every
>>>> excercise routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the
>>>> gym.
>>>>
>>>> that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
>>>> ethic like no other.
>>>>
>>>> i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
>>>> routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis
>>>> in twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!
>>>
>>> I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
>>> before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
>>> workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
>>> with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
>>> to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
>>> that kind of time.
>>>
>>> Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
>>> or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
>>> opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.
>>>
>>> Of course, I don't think that I have ever really organized my
>>> strength
>>> training workouts around body parts. Workouts with lots of
>>> isolation
>>> exercises are going to take longer no matter how you slice things.
>>
>> And if you are not a bodybuilder, such "lots of isolation exercises"
>> aren't needed.
>
> Heck, even if you are working out just to look good nekkid sticking to
> the big money compound exercises is not too shabby an idea. My biceps
> continue to grow despite the fact that I haven't done a curl in over a
> year.
>
> Someday soon I am going to hit Pete up for a bodybuilding style
> workout and I am going to follow it for 3 to 4 months religiously just
> to see what happens. First, however, I have some deadlifting goals to
> meet.
>
> Jason

If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond Bodybuilding. It
contains many, many routines, but all are geared towards being as strong
as you look, no fluff muscle.

http://www.kbnj.com/bb.htm

You might be able to get bigger and meet those deadlifting goals at the
same time. There are some deadlift-squat combinations in there that
might work for you.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

The Litwaks
September 22nd 06, 04:28 AM
I haven't read any books specifically on weight training. My recent
reading on the value of strength training was at the web site for the
American COllege of SPorts Medicine, and I decided to start doing weight
training because that site stated that you burn calories while doing
cardio, but you continue to burn calories for hours after doing strength
training. I'm planning on a trip to my university's library (I work at
APU) for a book or two on exercise physiology because I want more
scientific data than the health club personnel are telling me. What do
you think I should read and why? That's not meant to sound negative.
It's just a simple question.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Rest between workouts for specific muscle groups
Date

Pez D Spencer wrote:
> just out of curiousity, what books are you reading on the subject of
> strength training and conditioning?
>
> i've always gotten the best results by training each muscle group
> directly only once per week.
>
> i could recommend some books if you like.
>

Jason Earl
September 22nd 06, 04:36 AM
"Steve Freides" > writes:

> "Jason Earl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steve Freides" > writes:
>>
>>> "Jason Earl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Pez D Spencer" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, but many beginner routines are relatively harmless and
>>>>>> without any great merit, either, save for the fact that they get
>>>>>> people used to using their bodies to move against resistance, burn
>>>>>> a few extra calories, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> and, you know what, i'm glad that i did the cybergenics routine
>>>>> when
>>>>> i was just starting out! most people would say that it's probably
>>>>> overtraining, but it introduced me to being in the gym for a long
>>>>> period of time and hitting muscles twice a week with drop sets for
>>>>> six days a week. maybe i did overtrain, but pretty well every
>>>>> excercise routine since then has taken me a lot less time in the
>>>>> gym.
>>>>>
>>>>> that type of overtraining, with a training partner, instills a work
>>>>> ethic like no other.
>>>>>
>>>>> i can't imagine much work ethic being instilled by a "heavy duty"
>>>>> routine where i show up and do one set for tris and one set for bis
>>>>> in twenty minutes and then go home and worry that i did too much!
>>>>
>>>> I feel exactly the opposite. I tried getting in shape several times
>>>> before working out finally "stuck." The reason that my previous
>>>> workout attempts failed was that they were too easy to skip. Faced
>>>> with the prospect of a workout that would take an hour (plus a drive
>>>> to the gym) I found that I simply wouldn't go. I don't really have
>>>> that kind of time.
>>>>
>>>> Once I realized that I could get an effective workout in a half hour
>>>> or less all of a sudden my day was filled with "workout
>>>> opportunities." In fact, most days I work out several times a day.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I don't think that I have ever really organized my
>>>> strength
>>>> training workouts around body parts. Workouts with lots of
>>>> isolation
>>>> exercises are going to take longer no matter how you slice things.
>>>
>>> And if you are not a bodybuilder, such "lots of isolation exercises"
>>> aren't needed.
>>
>> Heck, even if you are working out just to look good nekkid sticking
>> to the big money compound exercises is not too shabby an idea. My
>> biceps continue to grow despite the fact that I haven't done a curl
>> in over a year.
>>
>> Someday soon I am going to hit Pete up for a bodybuilding style
>> workout and I am going to follow it for 3 to 4 months religiously
>> just to see what happens. First, however, I have some deadlifting
>> goals to meet.
>>
>> Jason
>
> If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond Bodybuilding.
> It contains many, many routines, but all are geared towards being as
> strong as you look, no fluff muscle.

In the end I am pretty sure I am going to own all of Pavel's books.
So far his advice has proved very effective. I was able to borrow a
few from a buddy, but I had to give them back. I really could use
another peek or two at Relax into Stretch. That's probably what I
will buy first.

> http://www.kbnj.com/bb.htm
>
> You might be able to get bigger and meet those deadlifting goals at
> the same time. There are some deadlift-squat combinations in there
> that might work for you.

As tempted as I am to switch things up I am not going to alter my
workout as long as I continue to make progress. I am going to be at
the top of my cycle again next week, and as strong as I felt today I
wouldn't be surprised if I didn't add another 10 pounds to my deadlift
PR.

I am glad that you clued me in to using 1 arm swings though. My grip
is no longer a factor on swings. That makes me happy (except when I
am doing swings).

Jason

The Litwaks
September 22nd 06, 04:57 AM
Curt James wrote:

>
>>>>I am exactly the same weight today as I was four
>>>>weeks ago.
>>>
>>>Not good.
>>
>>Why not good? He's probably gained muscle and lost fat!
>
>
> Iirc, the OP is doing two sets per exercise? I probably have that
> wrong, but if I don't then I suspect there's no "gained muscle and lost
> fat" happening.
I usually do three sets of 12-15 reps for each exercise. The weight for
upper-body stuff is in the 60-75 pound area (depending upon the machine)
and by about the 12th rep it's all I can do to keep going for one or two
more usually (and if not, I increase the weight for the next set, if I
don't stop immediately and raise it). I don't do super-hard loads
because when I first got an intro to the machines from a trainer, he had
me doing a lot more weight and I was in misery (not just sore) for over
three days and when I tried to talk to that trainer again about this,
they told me they let him go the day before!

I'm not new to exercise per se. When I was a triathlete I did a
little bit of lifting dumbbells and a barbell, following the advice of
Dave Scott in his triathlete book (he obviously knew what to do for
weight lifting for that sport). I didn't do much with weights, but I
ran four days a week, and did a bike ride and a swim three days a week.
I used to do a mile swim twice a week before work. THat regimen, with
hardly any weights, and eating according to the Pritikin Plan got me in
great triathlete shape and helped me lose forty pounds.

Now I'm older, and multiple knee surgeries later, I can't do that
kind of working out anymore. In fact, I can't really run anymore to
speak of. Well< I can but I better be ready for huge pain during and
after for a long time.

So now I am going to a gym and using mainly the elliptical machine
(nicer to my knees than the track) for cardio (30 minutes and then maybe
five minutes on the rowing machine or a five-minute jog on the
treadmill) and then 20-30 minue of weight lifting. I always do at least
five macines at try to always do three sets of 12-15 reps. As an
example, I can usually handle 15 reps on the deltoid machine but only
twelve each on the machine where you rest your elbows ona pad and lift
a bar from the elbow (which I assume does the biceps).

Now I have fifty pounds to lose. I am not trying to look like
Arnold (nor willing to take the, uh, substances necessary for that).
Here are my two goals:
1. Lose forty pounds as fast as I can (this is a must-do, with or
without my gym membership and as my triathlete experince shows, I'm
willing to work hard for the goal if it is productive--it shows results
in my belt size).
2. Look more toned. This is a "nice to have" that I expect as a
by-product of #1. If I get #1 but not #2 I'll be a bit disappointed but
not depressed.

I think that after four weeks of one-hour workouts that mostly look
like hte above (occasionally they are shorter because I skip either hte
weights or the cardio for pain reasons), I should see some results.
What do I have that's empirical? Today I put on slacks that were tight
a month ago and they are still tight. Maybe I lost fat elsewhere but I
can't see where. THe scale says the same number as a month ago. My
sleeves don't fit any different (so I might be toning muscles but not
enlarging them). I don't midn working hard if I have something to show
for it, but I don't. I can't keep this up unless I see some empirical
data to show it is proving something. This time next month I need to be
fitter.

Oh, and while my days vary, my calorie count for today, minus the
fianl snack of the day, which I haven't had yet, is 1688 according to
FitDay (and the only thing I dind't include were the cooked veggies I
had at dinner, which are insignificant).



> And iirc again, he said he's totally new to exercising. Basic beginner
> protocol recommends 3 sets of 10. In fact, the one book I have directs
> the first week to be 1 x 10 per exercise, 2nd week at 2 x 10, 3rd week
> at 3 x 10, and then shifts to 4 x 8.
>
> I'm currently doing 5 sets x 3 reps on my big three (clean/press,
> deads, squats) and 4 x 6-8 on auxiliary exercises (pulldowns, rows,
> reverse curls, lunges).
>
> Lit, pick up a basic weight training book at the library. My original
> "bible" or intro to bodybuilding was courtesy of Lou Ravelle and his
> book _Bodybuilding for Everyone_
> <http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0671540645/Lou_Ravelle/Bodybuilding_For_Everyone.html>.
>
>

Bully
September 22nd 06, 07:52 AM
Curt James wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>>> "The Litwaks" schreef:
> [...]
>
>>>> I am exactly the same weight today as I was four
>>>> weeks ago.
>>>
>>> Not good.
>>
>> Why not good? He's probably gained muscle and lost fat!
>
> Iirc, the OP is doing two sets per exercise? I probably have that
> wrong, but if I don't then I suspect there's no "gained muscle and
> lost fat" happening.

Au contraire. As a beginner he will (or at least should) gain from any
rep/set protocol.

>
> And iirc again, he said he's totally new to exercising. Basic beginner
> protocol recommends 3 sets of 10. In fact, the one book I have directs
> the first week to be 1 x 10 per exercise, 2nd week at 2 x 10, 3rd week
> at 3 x 10, and then shifts to 4 x 8.
>
> I'm currently doing 5 sets x 3 reps on my big three (clean/press,
> deads, squats) and 4 x 6-8 on auxiliary exercises (pulldowns, rows,
> reverse curls, lunges).

I'm on a 5x5 program for squat, bench, dead, press & b/bell row. I find it
[relatively] "easy" compared to a program using the 8-10 rep range.

>
> Lit, pick up a basic weight training book at the library. My original
> "bible" or intro to bodybuilding was courtesy of Lou Ravelle and his
> book _Bodybuilding for Everyone_
> <http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0671540645/Lou_Ravelle/Bodybuilding_For_Everyone.html>.



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Bully
September 22nd 06, 07:56 AM
The Litwaks wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
>
>>
[...]


> So now I am going to a gym and using mainly the elliptical machine
> (nicer to my knees than the track) for cardio (30 minutes and then
> maybe five minutes on the rowing machine or a five-minute jog on the
> treadmill) and then 20-30 minue of weight lifting.

Swap 30 mins on the elliptical trainer for 30 mins on the rower; shoot for
7,000m or more. Add 50m per week to your target. What's the purpose of the 5
min jog?

Do the weight lifting first, followed by the cardio.


> I always do at
> least five macines at try to always do three sets of 12-15 reps.

You manage that in 20-30 mins?

> As
> an example, I can usually handle 15 reps on the deltoid machine but
> only twelve each on the machine where you rest your elbows ona pad
> and lift a bar from the elbow (which I assume does the biceps).

You need to look at your actual exercise regime. What exercises do you do on
which days?

>
> Now I have fifty pounds to lose. I am not trying to look like
> Arnold (nor willing to take the, uh, substances necessary for that).
> Here are my two goals:
> 1. Lose forty pounds as fast as I can (this is a must-do, with or
> without my gym membership and as my triathlete experince shows, I'm
> willing to work hard for the goal if it is productive--it shows
> results in my belt size).
> 2. Look more toned. This is a "nice to have" that I expect as a
> by-product of #1. If I get #1 but not #2 I'll be a bit disappointed
> but not depressed.
>
> I think that after four weeks of one-hour workouts that mostly look
> like hte above (occasionally they are shorter because I skip either
> hte weights or the cardio for pain reasons), I should see some
> results. What do I have that's empirical? Today I put on slacks that
> were tight a month ago and they are still tight. Maybe I lost fat
> elsewhere but I can't see where. THe scale says the same number as a
> month ago. My sleeves don't fit any different (so I might be toning
> muscles but not enlarging them). I don't midn working hard if I have
> something to show for it, but I don't. I can't keep this up unless I
> see some empirical data to show it is proving something.

Get your body fat measured.

> This time
> next month I need to be fitter.

Fitter does not necessarily equate to leaner !!!

>
> Oh, and while my days vary, my calorie count for today, minus the
> fianl snack of the day, which I haven't had yet, is 1688 according to
> FitDay (and the only thing I dind't include were the cooked veggies I
> had at dinner, which are insignificant).

According to that and all of the above you should be losing fat !!!

>
[...]
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Charles
September 22nd 06, 09:04 AM
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:57:42 GMT, The Litwaks
> wrote:
>
>Curt James wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>I am exactly the same weight today as I was four
>>>>>weeks ago.
[...]

>
> I think that after four weeks of one-hour workouts that mostly look
>like hte above (occasionally they are shorter because I skip either hte
>weights or the cardio for pain reasons), I should see some results.
>What do I have that's empirical? Today I put on slacks that were tight
>a month ago and they are still tight. Maybe I lost fat elsewhere but I
>can't see where. THe scale says the same number as a month ago. My
>sleeves don't fit any different (so I might be toning muscles but not
>enlarging them). I don't midn working hard if I have something to show
>for it, but I don't. I can't keep this up unless I see some empirical
>data to show it is proving something. This time next month I need to be
>fitter.
>
> Oh, and while my days vary, my calorie count for today, minus the
>fianl snack of the day, which I haven't had yet, is 1688 according to
>FitDay (and the only thing I dind't include were the cooked veggies I
>had at dinner, which are insignificant).
>

If you aren't losing weight and there are no obvious signs of body fat
loss, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending in
energy output.

If you want it to be accurate, despite what Fitday informs you, you
must count carefully every calorie that passes the two lip barrier -
from all sources, including what you drink.

If your weight is static at the moment, and you know exactly what you
are ingesting, then simply remove a further 500 calories a day to
guarantee a weight loss of 1lb in a week.

All the gym time you are allocating won't affect your weight if you
are eating and drinking more than your metabolism requires for
maintenance. Contrary to what you may believe, exercise is not a
particularly productive or effective way to lose weight.

For guidelines see

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WeightLoss.html

HTH!

Have a great weekend - I always do! ;o)

TFIF!

Pete
September 22nd 06, 11:26 AM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

> If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond Bodybuilding. It
> contains many, many routines, but all are geared towards being as strong
> as you look, no fluff muscle.

Moron.

----
Pete

Pete
September 22nd 06, 11:38 AM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

> If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond Bodybuilding. It
> contains many, many routines, but all are geared towards being as strong
> as you look, no fluff muscle.

Jason, i will be the first to admit that, pound for pound, my strength
sucks, and that it NEVER will be nowhere NEAR what guys like DZ have (if you
are 250-300, it will ALWAYS be lower then the lighter guys... ;-(

But Freides, as usual, talks out of his ass again.

Ask Robert what weights he used when he was competing. Ask Will about the
weights moved by some of the Pros.

For myself, at my strongest, i moved 125 kilos for 10-12 reps on the
overhead press machine.
The lever was 125%, so that was still 100 kilos i moved for about 15-20
seconds, with continues tension, no pause at the bottom or top.

With cable rows i pulled 130 kilos for 10-12 reps.

And there a LOT stronger bodybuilders then me.
there aint NO such thing as "pretty boy fluffed muscle"!

Its made up by guys like Steve, who lack the genetic potential to gain ANY
substantial weight.

Lets put down something we dont have, right?

This is a good example of why i refuse to kill-file him.

----
Pete

Jason Earl
September 22nd 06, 01:53 PM
"Pete" > writes:

> "Steve Freides" > schreef:
>
>> If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond
>> Bodybuilding. It contains many, many routines, but all are geared
>> towards being as strong as you look, no fluff muscle.
>
> Jason, i will be the first to admit that, pound for pound, my
> strength sucks, and that it NEVER will be nowhere NEAR what guys
> like DZ have (if you are 250-300, it will ALWAYS be lower then the
> lighter guys... ;-(

That's all right. I'm not particularly concerned about being the
strongest little guy ever. I'm 6'2" and I like the idea of blocking
out the sun.

> But Freides, as usual, talks out of his ass again.

Freides sets you off, but I would bet that you would acknowledge the
fact that you can train for hypertrophy as opposed to strength.

> Ask Robert what weights he used when he was competing. Ask Will
> about the weights moved by some of the Pros.

I don't think that even Freides would argue that professional
bodybuilders aren't strong. I certainly wouldn't argue that.

> For myself, at my strongest, i moved 125 kilos for 10-12 reps on the
> overhead press machine. The lever was 125%, so that was still 100
> kilos i moved for about 15-20 seconds, with continues tension, no
> pause at the bottom or top.

That's a big press.

> With cable rows i pulled 130 kilos for 10-12 reps.
>
> And there a LOT stronger bodybuilders then me. there aint NO such
> thing as "pretty boy fluffed muscle"!

I tend to agree. You'd be hard pressed to find a bodybuilder that
wasn't concerned with moving more weight.

> Its made up by guys like Steve, who lack the genetic potential to
> gain ANY substantial weight.

Steve has different goals, but I would bet that he could put on weight
if he really wanted to. Krispy Kreme donuts are practically magical
when it comes to adding weight :).

> Lets put down something we dont have, right?

If there is one thing that I think is unfortunate about Pavel's work
it is the notion that his techniques are radically different from what
a bodybuilder might try. I mean seriously, both use weights to get
stronger, and both manipulate the very well known intensity and volume
parameters to meet their goals. Now, I can see why Pavel might make a
distinction between his program and a typical bodybuilder program when
he is advocating programs based around two sets of five. That's
clearly training for strength over hypertrophy. Steve is clear
evidence that this sort of training can be very effective at building
strength without adding mass. He's stronger than I am in nearly every
lift while giving up over sixty pounds. Now, I still have a little
fat that I need to lose, but certainly not sixty pounds worth.

However, while I haven't read Pavel's "Beyond Bodybuilding" book, you
don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that Pavel is going to
prescribe more volume than he does in "Power to the People" with an
effort to promote hypertrophy. This is *precisely* what a bodybuilder
does. Now chances are good that Pavel will stay away from the higher
rep ranges (because he is Pavel), but if my primary goal was to get
bigger then Pavel's methods are probably sub-par. What's more, if my
primary goal was to become stronger then adding more volume on a
regular basis probably isn't a good idea either.

In the end it boils down to choosing a program that is aligned with
your goals.

> This is a good example of why i refuse to kill-file him.

I'm glad that you don't have him kill-filed. I like these
conversations.

I do wish that you and Steve could discuss this stuff without talk of
"fluff" muscles and accusations about folks being "unable to add
weight." Both you and Steve have accomplished a great deal, and have
a lot to teach folks like me. You just have wildly different goals.

I'm interested in learning from both ends of the spectrum. Right now
I am focusing on strength, but once I reach my short term strength
goals I am going to spend some time working on hypertrophy, and I am
going to want to talk with you (for obvious reasons).

Jason

Steve Freides
September 22nd 06, 02:33 PM
"Jason Earl" > wrote in message
...
> "Pete" > writes:
>
>> "Steve Freides" > schreef:
>>
>>> If you want to try another Pavel book, consider Beyond
>>> Bodybuilding. It contains many, many routines, but all are geared
>>> towards being as strong as you look, no fluff muscle.
>>
>> Jason, i will be the first to admit that, pound for pound, my
>> strength sucks, and that it NEVER will be nowhere NEAR what guys
>> like DZ have (if you are 250-300, it will ALWAYS be lower then the
>> lighter guys... ;-(
>
> That's all right. I'm not particularly concerned about being the
> strongest little guy ever. I'm 6'2" and I like the idea of blocking
> out the sun.
>
>> But Freides, as usual, talks out of his ass again.
>
> Freides sets you off, but I would bet that you would acknowledge the
> fact that you can train for hypertrophy as opposed to strength.
>
>> Ask Robert what weights he used when he was competing. Ask Will
>> about the weights moved by some of the Pros.
>
> I don't think that even Freides would argue that professional
> bodybuilders aren't strong. I certainly wouldn't argue that.
>
>> For myself, at my strongest, i moved 125 kilos for 10-12 reps on the
>> overhead press machine. The lever was 125%, so that was still 100
>> kilos i moved for about 15-20 seconds, with continues tension, no
>> pause at the bottom or top.
>
> That's a big press.
>
>> With cable rows i pulled 130 kilos for 10-12 reps.
>>
>> And there a LOT stronger bodybuilders then me. there aint NO such
>> thing as "pretty boy fluffed muscle"!
>
> I tend to agree. You'd be hard pressed to find a bodybuilder that
> wasn't concerned with moving more weight.

I see plenty who are more concerned with gutting out the 12th rep on
their bench press. For me, that is not trying to move more weight. As
you observed above, it' possible to train for hypertrophy without a
focus on strength, and in any training program we hope you achieve the
goals for which you set out.

>> Its made up by guys like Steve, who lack the genetic potential to
>> gain ANY substantial weight.
>
> Steve has different goals, but I would bet that he could put on weight
> if he really wanted to. Krispy Kreme donuts are practically magical
> when it comes to adding weight :).

Oh, I've gained weight before. Anyone who doesn't gain weight doesn't
eat enough to gain weight, period, and I am happy to count myself among
their number. When I started squatting regularly, I could literally
_feel_ it starting - hungry all the time, and I felt fantastic, too,
because I was at the beginning of a classic 'get bigger and stronger'
cycle. But it's not what I want, so I stopped it. The whole genetic
potential argument, at anything less than a professional or elite level,
just doesn't hold up. There are plenty of people who'd tell you that
someone my size would never be able to do the kind of lifts I can do -
it just takes hard, smart work to achieve any reasonable goal.

>> Lets put down something we dont have, right?
>
> If there is one thing that I think is unfortunate about Pavel's work
> it is the notion that his techniques are radically different from what
> a bodybuilder might try. I mean seriously, both use weights to get
> stronger, and both manipulate the very well known intensity and volume
> parameters to meet their goals. Now, I can see why Pavel might make a
> distinction between his program and a typical bodybuilder program when
> he is advocating programs based around two sets of five. That's
> clearly training for strength over hypertrophy. Steve is clear
> evidence that this sort of training can be very effective at building
> strength without adding mass. He's stronger than I am in nearly every
> lift while giving up over sixty pounds. Now, I still have a little
> fat that I need to lose, but certainly not sixty pounds worth.
>
> However, while I haven't read Pavel's "Beyond Bodybuilding" book, you
> don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that Pavel is going to
> prescribe more volume than he does in "Power to the People" with an
> effort to promote hypertrophy. This is *precisely* what a bodybuilder
> does. Now chances are good that Pavel will stay away from the higher
> rep ranges (because he is Pavel), but if my primary goal was to get
> bigger then Pavel's methods are probably sub-par. What's more, if my
> primary goal was to become stronger then adding more volume on a
> regular basis probably isn't a good idea either.

Well, I have to disagree with some of those things, but maybe it's just
the words you chose, Jason. As I know you know, Pavel's BB book
advocates a _lot_ of volume. Pavel does stay away from high rep ranges
for the most part although not altogether for the simple reason that
there isn't much one set of 10 or 15 reps can accomplish that cannot be
better accomplished by two or three sets of 5 done with short rest
periods and a heavier weight. And adding more volume is absolutely
_the_ best way to get stronger because more volume is more practice -
that' where I disagree with what you said. The key difference in
Pavel's approach is to get that volume while remaining as fresh as
possible. Compress the rest periods and, voila, you have a strength and
hypertrophy program. In fact, one of the points he makes in Enter The
Kettlebell is about rest periods, basically saying that he doesn't
prescribe a specific rest period between the ladder sets in the program
because different people can use different rest periods to achieve
different purposes, e.g., I do the ladders in ETK as prescribed but take
at least 10 minutes between them, while other people take only a minute.
Adjust the rest period anywhere along that continuum and tweak the focus
of the program to achieve your particular goal in terms of neural and/or
hypertrophy adaptations. I'm using much heavier weights, relatively,
than the people using one minute rests - there's no way I could complete
my schedule on those short rests, and the people using them could
undoubtedly push more weight if they rested longer. One size does not
fit all and that's good in this case.

> In the end it boils down to choosing a program that is aligned with
> your goals.

OK, so you said it shorter than I just did. :)

>> This is a good example of why i refuse to kill-file him.
>
> I'm glad that you don't have him kill-filed. I like these
> conversations.
>
> I do wish that you and Steve could discuss this stuff without talk of
> "fluff" muscles and accusations about folks being "unable to add
> weight." Both you and Steve have accomplished a great deal, and have
> a lot to teach folks like me. You just have wildly different goals.

There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One kind
builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that looks
bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield results 100%
to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy kind will yield what
you'd expect.

> I'm interested in learning from both ends of the spectrum. Right now
> I am focusing on strength, but once I reach my short term strength
> goals I am going to spend some time working on hypertrophy, and I am
> going to want to talk with you (for obvious reasons).
>
> Jason

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Bully
September 22nd 06, 02:40 PM
Steve Freides wrote:

[...]

> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One kind
> builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that looks
> bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield results
> 100% to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy kind will
> yield what you'd expect.

Can you give an example please?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Steve Freides
September 22nd 06, 04:11 PM
"Bully" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One kind
>> builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that looks
>> bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield results
>> 100% to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy kind will
>> yield what you'd expect.
>
> Can you give an example please?

A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant reading:

http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm

That's the first link that comes up. The second one offers this quote,
"sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is typically seen among bodybuilders"

The third link discusses how lifting in the 10 to 15 rep range tends to
yield "fluff" or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

I don't think there's much for me to add to what's out there already.
As I said, Pavel discusses this in PTP and make the point in his
mass-gaining program that doing multiple sets of low reps on short rests
with heavy weights is a way to get both bigger and stronger, and that is
what I prefer to recommend to those seeking increases in muscle size
(and what I avoid myself because I do not want to get bigger). In a
nutshell, it's about whether you get your 30 reps in 2 or 3 sets of
10-15 reps or 10-15 sets of 2 or 3 reps - or somewhere in between.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
> matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>
>

Pete
September 22nd 06, 07:13 PM
"DZ" > schreef:

>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One
>> kind builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that
>> looks bigger but doesn't do much.

>> A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant
>> reading

> Right. So, a guy with big muscles will outdo you hands down in a long
> strenuous task, like hauling heavy stuff for hours, in something like
> construction work, or digging holes in the ground with a shovel. How
> is that a fluff?

Exactly!

Thats like saying WSM competitors are fluff, which is just silly.

You can build "strength" in *many* different rep ranges, not just ONE!

----
Pete

Jason Earl
September 22nd 06, 09:06 PM
"Steve Freides" > writes:

> "Jason Earl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Pete" > writes:

-snip preliminaries-

>> I tend to agree. You'd be hard pressed to find a bodybuilder that
>> wasn't concerned with moving more weight.
>
> I see plenty who are more concerned with gutting out the 12th rep on
> their bench press. For me, that is not trying to move more weight.
> As you observed above, it' possible to train for hypertrophy without
> a focus on strength, and in any training program we hope you achieve
> the goals for which you set out.

That's a valid point. However, I do something similar when training
for swings. My 24kg kbell is a breeze until about rep 50. I just
don't see the big difference.

>>> Its made up by guys like Steve, who lack the genetic potential to
>>> gain ANY substantial weight.
>>
>> Steve has different goals, but I would bet that he could put on
>> weight if he really wanted to. Krispy Kreme donuts are practically
>> magical when it comes to adding weight :).
>
> Oh, I've gained weight before. Anyone who doesn't gain weight
> doesn't eat enough to gain weight, period, and I am happy to count
> myself among their number. When I started squatting regularly, I
> could literally _feel_ it starting - hungry all the time, and I felt
> fantastic, too, because I was at the beginning of a classic 'get
> bigger and stronger' cycle. But it's not what I want, so I stopped
> it. The whole genetic potential argument, at anything less than a
> professional or elite level, just doesn't hold up. There are plenty
> of people who'd tell you that someone my size would never be able to
> do the kind of lifts I can do - it just takes hard, smart work to
> achieve any reasonable goal.

Precisely. I don't feel constrained to stay the same size as I am
right now, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to learn the
techniques that would allow me to stay the same size while gaining
strength.

>>> Lets put down something we dont have, right?
>>
>> If there is one thing that I think is unfortunate about Pavel's
>> work it is the notion that his techniques are radically different
>> from what a bodybuilder might try. I mean seriously, both use
>> weights to get stronger, and both manipulate the very well known
>> intensity and volume parameters to meet their goals. Now, I can
>> see why Pavel might make a distinction between his program and a
>> typical bodybuilder program when he is advocating programs based
>> around two sets of five. That's clearly training for strength over
>> hypertrophy. Steve is clear evidence that this sort of training
>> can be very effective at building strength without adding mass.
>> He's stronger than I am in nearly every lift while giving up over
>> sixty pounds. Now, I still have a little fat that I need to lose,
>> but certainly not sixty pounds worth.
>>
>> However, while I haven't read Pavel's "Beyond Bodybuilding" book,
>> you don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that Pavel is
>> going to prescribe more volume than he does in "Power to the
>> People" with an effort to promote hypertrophy. This is *precisely*
>> what a bodybuilder does. Now chances are good that Pavel will stay
>> away from the higher rep ranges (because he is Pavel), but if my
>> primary goal was to get bigger then Pavel's methods are probably
>> sub-par. What's more, if my primary goal was to become stronger
>> then adding more volume on a regular basis probably isn't a good
>> idea either.
>
> Well, I have to disagree with some of those things, but maybe it's
> just the words you chose, Jason. As I know you know, Pavel's BB
> book advocates a _lot_ of volume. Pavel does stay away from high
> rep ranges for the most part although not altogether for the simple
> reason that there isn't much one set of 10 or 15 reps can accomplish
> that cannot be better accomplished by two or three sets of 5 done
> with short rest periods and a heavier weight. And adding more
> volume is absolutely _the_ best way to get stronger because more
> volume is more practice - that' where I disagree with what you said.
> The key difference in Pavel's approach is to get that volume while
> remaining as fresh as possible.

Yes, Chad Waterbury makes a similar point with his 10x3 program as
opposed to the proverbial 3x10. The question then becomes when does
adding reps become silly. If 10x3 is good 400x3 should be awesome,
right?

> Compress the rest periods and, voila, you have a strength and
> hypertrophy program. In fact, one of the points he makes in Enter
> The Kettlebell is about rest periods, basically saying that he
> doesn't prescribe a specific rest period between the ladder sets in
> the program because different people can use different rest periods
> to achieve different purposes, e.g., I do the ladders in ETK as
> prescribed but take at least 10 minutes between them, while other
> people take only a minute. Adjust the rest period anywhere along
> that continuum and tweak the focus of the program to achieve your
> particular goal in terms of neural and/or hypertrophy adaptations.
> I'm using much heavier weights, relatively, than the people using
> one minute rests - there's no way I could complete my schedule on
> those short rests, and the people using them could undoubtedly push
> more weight if they rested longer. One size does not fit all and
> that's good in this case.

That makes sense.

>> In the end it boils down to choosing a program that is aligned with
>> your goals.
>
> OK, so you said it shorter than I just did. :)
>
>>> This is a good example of why i refuse to kill-file him.
>>
>> I'm glad that you don't have him kill-filed. I like these
>> conversations.
>>
>> I do wish that you and Steve could discuss this stuff without talk
>> of "fluff" muscles and accusations about folks being "unable to add
>> weight." Both you and Steve have accomplished a great deal, and
>> have a lot to teach folks like me. You just have wildly different
>> goals.
>
> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One
> kind builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that
> looks bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield
> results 100% to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy
> kind will yield what you'd expect.

I suppose that's the bit that I am not sure I believe. I have a hard
time believing that one set rep scheme could trigger one form of
hypertrophy while a slightly different set rep scheme (still based on
lots of volume) could trigger another form of "bad" hypertrophy.

Jason

Steve Freides
September 22nd 06, 09:25 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides > wrote:
>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One
>> kind builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that
>> looks bigger but doesn't do much.
> ...
>> A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant
>> reading
>
> Right. So, a guy with big muscles will outdo you hands down in a long
> strenuous task, like hauling heavy stuff for hours, in something like
> construction work, or digging holes in the ground with a shovel. How
> is that a fluff? Remember, the training you advocate will be optimal
> to dig into the soil a couple of times, then sit around for a few
> minutes.

Not so fast. This is not a simple subject and by no means do I consider
myself expert, but there are a few things to consider. First of all,
limit strength is greatly underappreciated and undertrained by most
people. For quite a while in the life of most trainees, improving limit
strength will improve strength/endurance. Second, all training has a
specificity component to it. I don't think anyone except an experienced
ditch digger is going to dig ditches all day without problems of some
sort, regardless of how they train in the weight room. Third,
bodybuilder training designed for sacroplasmic hypertrophy does just
that. Compare that to Girevoy Sport training, which involves much
higher numbers of repetitions yet tends to yield lean bodies. I am not
dismissing high-rep training in a blanket manner, rather I gave some
very specific instances. You are assuming many things not in evidence
about my opinions. I highly doubt you will find more in common between
a construction worker's muscle composition and that of a bodybuilder who
trains for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than you will between a construction
worker and a strength trainee. I suggested that one train to be as
strong as one looks, by whatever means possible, and I am not the only
one who has seen examples in the gym like those in the articles to which
I gave links.

I'm offline for a day and will check back on this discussion some time
tomorrow.

To all of our Jewish mfw'ers, Shana Tova.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Curt James
September 22nd 06, 09:27 PM
Steve Freides wrote:
[...]

> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. <snip>

Muscle is muscle. There's no such thing as... fluff muscle.

> more fluff <snip> a focus on the fluffy <snip>

I had a cat named Fluffy.

--
Curt

Curt James
September 22nd 06, 09:44 PM
Bully wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
[...]

> > Iirc, the OP is doing two sets per exercise? I probably have that
> > wrong, but if I don't then I suspect there's no "gained muscle and
> > lost fat" happening.
>
> Au contraire. As a beginner he will (or at least should) gain from any
> rep/set protocol.

Well, this next comment doesn't necessarily apply to the OP, but...
there are beginners and then there are beginners. Some people pick up a
light barbell, exert (next to) no effort, and call themself a beginner
while others get right to it.

> > And iirc again, he said he's totally new to exercising. Basic beginner
> > protocol recommends 3 sets of 10. In fact, the one book I have directs
> > the first week to be 1 x 10 per exercise, 2nd week at 2 x 10, 3rd week
> > at 3 x 10, and then shifts to 4 x 8.
> >
> > I'm currently doing 5 sets x 3 reps on my big three (clean/press,
> > deads, squats) and 4 x 6-8 on auxiliary exercises (pulldowns, rows,
> > reverse curls, lunges).
>
> I'm on a 5x5 program for squat, bench, dead, press & b/bell row. I find it
> [relatively] "easy" compared to a program using the 8-10 rep range.

Yes, I'm loving the 5 x 3. My rows are typically 5 x 4, but the deads,
squats, and press are all 5 x 3.

--
Curt

Andrzej Rosa
September 22nd 06, 10:31 PM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "Bully" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds of
>>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One kind
>>> builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that looks
>>> bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield results
>>> 100% to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy kind will
>>> yield what you'd expect.
>>
>> Can you give an example please?
>
> A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant reading:
>
> http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm
>
> That's the first link that comes up.

That is the first which came up for "pudzianowski,training"
http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:nrWcmrZB2ncJ:www.muscletalk.co.uk/Mariusz_Pudzianowski%27s_Training_Cycle/m_248884/tm.htm+pudzianowski,training&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

Google cache, because original did not work for me.

> The second one offers this quote,
> "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is typically seen among bodybuilders"
>
> The third link discusses how lifting in the 10 to 15 rep range tends to
> yield "fluff" or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

#v+
Mariusz Pudzianowski's Sample Training Cycle

Mariusz trains twice a day, five days a week. Below you'll find a sample
workout routine as well as the loads used for various exercises.

Python's Training
Monday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Back Squat
Warm-up: 8 sets, pyramiding from 60 to 160kg
Work sets: pyramiding from 160 to 280kg, reps going from 6 down to 2
Mariusz performs his squats olympic-style, he uses knee wraps and a belt.

Leg Curl (for hamstrings)
6 sets of 20 reps

Leg Extension (for quads)
6 sets of 20 reps

Pull Up
6 sets of 15 reps

Chin Up
6 sets of 10 reps

Behind-the-neck Pulldowns
4 sets of 15 reps

Barbell Rows
4 sets of 15 reps

Abs: 6 sets of 30 reps
exercises used (haging leg raise, bends, various)

Afternoon Event Training (19.00) with Strongman Equipment

Sandbag Carry (130kg on back)
3 times 170 meters

Conan's Wheel - 290kg
3 times 2.5 revolutions

Tire Flip
3 sets of 10 flips

Tuesday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Front Squats
work up to 250

Calf Work
6 sets of 15 reps

Standing Military Press
Warm-up sets - 7 sets of 60 to 100kg
Work sets - 6 sets pyramiding up from 110, 120, 130, 140kg for 5-4 reps

Deadlifts
Warm-up sets - 6 with 200kg
Work sets - work up to 300kg

Good Mornings
8 sets with 100kg

Afternoon Session (19.00)
Bushman's Walk
300 kg 3 x 15 meters

Presses with Machine Used in Competition
3 sets of 10 reps with 120kg

Parallel Crucifix
Hold 40kg weights for 30 seconds

Wednesday
Morning Gym Session (9.00)

Bench Press
Warm-up sets - work up to 180kg in 8 sets
Work sets - work up from 150kg to 220kg, going from 8 down to 2 reps

Barbell Extensions: work up to 80kg

Standing French Press

Afternoon (19.00)
Same as Monday plus powerstairs and so called parallel stairs

These are just excerpts of Mariusz's training program. Each of his training
sessions is precluded by 15-min of skipping rope (of course, he used to be
a boxer). He finishes every workout with abdominal work. On top of all
this, there is twice-a-week karate practice and recovery work which
includes swimming. (...). You can also find Mariusz doing his
medium-distance runs.
#v-

I guess, he must be a bunch of sacroplasms, but if they make him a champ I'm
all for it.


> I don't think there's much for me to add to what's out there already.
> As I said, Pavel discusses this in PTP and make the point in his
> mass-gaining program that doing multiple sets of low reps on short rests
> with heavy weights is a way to get both bigger and stronger,

....at triples. If you want to be stronger at higher reps you need to train
for it.

> and that is
> what I prefer to recommend to those seeking increases in muscle size
> (and what I avoid myself because I do not want to get bigger). In a
> nutshell, it's about whether you get your 30 reps in 2 or 3 sets of
> 10-15 reps or 10-15 sets of 2 or 3 reps - or somewhere in between.

Both protocols will produce increase in strength, just at different rep
ranges.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Charles
September 22nd 06, 11:40 PM
On 22 Sep 2006 13:27:48 -0700, "Curt James" >
wrote:

>Steve Freides wrote:
>[...]
>
>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. <snip>
>
>Muscle is muscle. There's no such thing as... fluff muscle.
>
>> more fluff <snip> a focus on the fluffy <snip>
>
>I had a cat named Fluffy.
>

Which proves that not all pussies are the same!

HAGW!

TFIF!

Pete
September 23rd 06, 03:08 PM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

> Not so fast. This is not a simple subject and by no means do I consider
> myself expert...

Introspection!

My English vocabulaire is expending there days.
(actually, that is BS, because in Dutch, its "introspectie", same word...)

> First of all, limit strength is greatly underappreciated and undertrained
> by most people. For quite a while in the life of most trainees, improving
> limit strength will improve strength/endurance. Second, all training has
> a specificity component to it. I don't think anyone except an experienced
> ditch digger is going to dig ditches all day without problems of some
> sort, regardless of how they train in the weight room. Third, bodybuilder
> training designed for sacroplasmic hypertrophy does just that.

For the last time...

The majority of BODYBUILDERS use low reps for building mass, you idiot!
The high/medium reps are also used, but only to get *that extra little* that
low reps dont give!

>Compare that to Girevoy Sport training, which involves much higher numbers
>of repetitions yet tends to yield lean bodies. I am not dismissing
>high-rep training...

Yes_you_are !
YES_YOU_ARE !!!

> I'm offline for a day and will check back on this discussion some time
> tomorrow.

Jesus, an ENTIRE full day ?!?!?!
Arent you afraid you are gonna miss something ?!?!?!

> To all of our Jewish mfw'ers, Shana Tova.

Yeah, Cheers!

----
Pete

Pete
September 23rd 06, 03:11 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > schreef:

> Both protocols will produce increase in strength, just at different rep
> ranges.

Yes, exactly!

----
Pete

Pete
September 23rd 06, 03:15 PM
"DZ" > schreef:

> Someone like Steve who trained for neural adaptation and primarily
> myofibrillar hypertrophy would appear as having "fluff muscle" when
> performing a task for which sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the primary
> adaptation.

What ?!?!?!

Are you saying that he did high reps with his hair?

----
Pete

mike
September 23rd 06, 09:49 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On 22 Sep 2006 13:27:48 -0700, "Curt James" >
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Freides wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. <snip>
> >
> >Muscle is muscle. There's no such thing as... fluff muscle.
> >
> >> more fluff <snip> a focus on the fluffy <snip>
> >
> >I had a cat named Fluffy.
> >
>
> Which proves that not all pussies are the same!
>
> HAGW!
>
> TFIF!

Exactly - not all are fluffy

Steve Freides
September 23rd 06, 10:00 PM
"Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> "Bully" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds
>>>> of
>>>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One
>>>> kind
>>>> builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff that
>>>> looks
>>>> bigger but doesn't do much. No training is going to yield results
>>>> 100% to one side or the other, but a focus on the fluffy kind will
>>>> yield what you'd expect.
>>>
>>> Can you give an example please?
>>
>> A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant
>> reading:
>>
>> http://www.dolfzine.com/page216.htm
>>
>> That's the first link that comes up.
>
> That is the first which came up for "pudzianowski,training"
> http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:nrWcmrZB2ncJ:www.muscletalk.co.uk/Mariusz_Pudzianowski%27s_Training_Cycle/m_248884/tm.htm+pudzianowski,training&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8
>
> Google cache, because original did not work for me.
>
>> The second one offers this quote,
>> "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is typically seen among bodybuilders"
>>
>> The third link discusses how lifting in the 10 to 15 rep range tends
>> to
>> yield "fluff" or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.
>
> #v+
> Mariusz Pudzianowski's Sample Training Cycle
>
> Mariusz trains twice a day, five days a week. Below you'll find a
> sample
> workout routine as well as the loads used for various exercises.
>
> Python's Training
> Monday
> Morning Gym Session (9.00)
>
> Back Squat
> Warm-up: 8 sets, pyramiding from 60 to 160kg
> Work sets: pyramiding from 160 to 280kg, reps going from 6 down to 2
> Mariusz performs his squats olympic-style, he uses knee wraps and a
> belt.
>
> Leg Curl (for hamstrings)
> 6 sets of 20 reps
>
> Leg Extension (for quads)
> 6 sets of 20 reps
>
> Pull Up
> 6 sets of 15 reps
>
> Chin Up
> 6 sets of 10 reps
>
> Behind-the-neck Pulldowns
> 4 sets of 15 reps
>
> Barbell Rows
> 4 sets of 15 reps
>
> Abs: 6 sets of 30 reps
> exercises used (haging leg raise, bends, various)
>
> Afternoon Event Training (19.00) with Strongman Equipment
>
> Sandbag Carry (130kg on back)
> 3 times 170 meters
>
> Conan's Wheel - 290kg
> 3 times 2.5 revolutions
>
> Tire Flip
> 3 sets of 10 flips
>
> Tuesday
> Morning Gym Session (9.00)
>
> Front Squats
> work up to 250
>
> Calf Work
> 6 sets of 15 reps
>
> Standing Military Press
> Warm-up sets - 7 sets of 60 to 100kg
> Work sets - 6 sets pyramiding up from 110, 120, 130, 140kg for 5-4
> reps
>
> Deadlifts
> Warm-up sets - 6 with 200kg
> Work sets - work up to 300kg
>
> Good Mornings
> 8 sets with 100kg
>
> Afternoon Session (19.00)
> Bushman's Walk
> 300 kg 3 x 15 meters
>
> Presses with Machine Used in Competition
> 3 sets of 10 reps with 120kg
>
> Parallel Crucifix
> Hold 40kg weights for 30 seconds
>
> Wednesday
> Morning Gym Session (9.00)
>
> Bench Press
> Warm-up sets - work up to 180kg in 8 sets
> Work sets - work up from 150kg to 220kg, going from 8 down to 2 reps
>
> Barbell Extensions: work up to 80kg
>
> Standing French Press
>
> Afternoon (19.00)
> Same as Monday plus powerstairs and so called parallel stairs
>
> These are just excerpts of Mariusz's training program. Each of his
> training
> sessions is precluded by 15-min of skipping rope (of course, he used
> to be
> a boxer). He finishes every workout with abdominal work. On top of all
> this, there is twice-a-week karate practice and recovery work which
> includes swimming. (...). You can also find Mariusz doing his
> medium-distance runs.
> #v-
>
> I guess, he must be a bunch of sacroplasms, but if they make him a
> champ I'm
> all for it.
>
>
>> I don't think there's much for me to add to what's out there already.
>> As I said, Pavel discusses this in PTP and make the point in his
>> mass-gaining program that doing multiple sets of low reps on short
>> rests
>> with heavy weights is a way to get both bigger and stronger,
>
> ...at triples. If you want to be stronger at higher reps you need to
> train
> for it.
>
>> and that is
>> what I prefer to recommend to those seeking increases in muscle size
>> (and what I avoid myself because I do not want to get bigger). In a
>> nutshell, it's about whether you get your 30 reps in 2 or 3 sets of
>> 10-15 reps or 10-15 sets of 2 or 3 reps - or somewhere in between.
>
> Both protocols will produce increase in strength, just at different
> rep
> ranges.

You will note that he does low-rep sets for the primary exercises, back
squats and military presses, and higher reps for assistance and/or
isolation exercises. Westside and others practice similarly.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve Freides
September 23rd 06, 10:01 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
.. .
> Steve Freides > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Steve Freides > wrote:
>>>> There is such a thing as fluff muscle. There are different kinds
>>>> of
>>>> hypertrophy - Power To The People gives a nice explanation. One
>>>> kind builds more muscle that works, the other builds more fluff
>>>> that
>>>> looks bigger but doesn't do much.
>>> ...
>>>> A quick Google on Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy yields some relevant
>>>> reading
>>>
>>> Right. So, a guy with big muscles will outdo you hands down in a
>>> long
>>> strenuous task, like hauling heavy stuff for hours, in something
>>> like
>>> construction work, or digging holes in the ground with a shovel. How
>>> is that a fluff? Remember, the training you advocate will be optimal
>>> to dig into the soil a couple of times, then sit around for a few
>>> minutes.
>>
>> I highly doubt you will find more in common between a construction
>> worker's muscle composition and that of a bodybuilder who trains for
>> sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than you will between a construction worker
>> and a strength trainee.
>
> Then invent your own example. The point is - sarcoplasmic hypertrophy
> is an ADAPTATION to a specific type of work. If you developed a
> different kind of adaptation and hypertrophy, you will appear as
> having a "fluff muscle" when trying to perform that type of work.

Would you care to enlighten me here as to an occupation whose physical
adaptations are similar to high-rep bodybuilding training? I'm not
saying there isn't any, I just can't think of one.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Andrzej Rosa
September 23rd 06, 11:00 PM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "Andrzej Rosa" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>
[...]
>>> and that is
>>> what I prefer to recommend to those seeking increases in muscle size
>>> (and what I avoid myself because I do not want to get bigger). In a
>>> nutshell, it's about whether you get your 30 reps in 2 or 3 sets of
>>> 10-15 reps or 10-15 sets of 2 or 3 reps - or somewhere in between.
>>
>> Both protocols will produce increase in strength, just at different
>> rep ranges.
>
> You will note that he does low-rep sets for the primary exercises, back
> squats and military presses, and higher reps for assistance and/or
> isolation exercises.

I remember he did DL for sets of 15. He definitely is no stranger to high
rep "primary" moves.

> Westside and others practice similarly.

Westside and others test in competition their 1RM. Strongmen sometimes too,
but relatively rarely. Specifically better strongmen often have to rep
quite high to win a contest where weights are chosen so as to prevent
excessive bombing out by weaker competitors.

BTW - IMVHO Westside should not be considered as be all, end all strength
training program. Russians beat the squat suits out of USA at the worlds
in powerlifting and even Poland is typically rated higher. Funny thing is
that I'd be hard pressed to find people who ever heard anything about
powerlifting. Maybe this westside thingy is not such a marvel, after
all...

--
Andrzej Rosa

Steve Freides
September 24th 06, 05:03 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides > wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> The point is - sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an ADAPTATION to a
>>> specific type of work. If you developed a different kind of
>>> adaptation and hypertrophy, you will appear as having a "fluff
>>> muscle" when trying to perform that type of work.
>>
>> Would you care to enlighten me here as to an occupation whose
>> physical adaptations are similar to high-rep bodybuilding training?
>> I'm not saying there isn't any, I just can't think of one.
>
> Let me start by listing numerous occupations similar to limit strength
> training instead. That would be
>
> (1) powerlifting,
> (2) ... uh ... that's about it
>
> The thing is - bodybuilding type of training is midway between limit
> strength and muscular endurance training. And don't forget that one
> has to progressively increase resistance to develop big muscles. So,
> most occupations with strenuous bouts of work, including construction
> work would be closer to bodybuilding training than to limit strength
> training.
>
> I also suspect that bodybuilding type of training is better for
> maintaining good health, you know, for things like propping insulin
> sensitivity - because the nature of adaptations to such training is
> comparatively more metabolic.

Interesting theories but I would like to see some supporting evidence.
My "theory" is that, for most people most of the time, improving limit
strength is the proverbial rising tide that floats all boats.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Pete
September 24th 06, 07:43 PM
"Steve Freides" > schreef:

> Interesting theories but I would like to see some supporting evidence. My
> "theory" is that, for most people most of the time, improving limit
> strength is the proverbial rising tide that floats all boats.

WHEN YOU SETS OF 5-8 REPS, YOUR 1RM, WHICH YOU REFER TO AS "LIMIT STRENGTH"
GOES UP AS WELL, YOU ****ING MORON !!!

I suspect that DZ will give a more civilized and more in depth answer...

----
Pete

Pete
September 24th 06, 09:35 PM
"DZ" > schreef:

> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
> strong.

> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.

Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)

----
Pete

Steve Freides
September 24th 06, 11:39 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
. ..
> Steve Freides > wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Steve Freides > wrote:
>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>> The point is - sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is an ADAPTATION to a
>>>>> specific type of work. If you developed a different kind of
>>>>> adaptation and hypertrophy, you will appear as having a "fluff
>>>>> muscle" when trying to perform that type of work.
>>>>
>>>> Would you care to enlighten me here as to an occupation whose
>>>> physical adaptations are similar to high-rep bodybuilding training?
>>>> I'm not saying there isn't any, I just can't think of one.
>>>
>>> Let me start by listing numerous occupations similar to limit
>>> strength
>>> training instead. That would be
>>>
>>> (1) powerlifting,
>>> (2) ... uh ... that's about it
>>>
>>> The thing is - bodybuilding type of training is midway between limit
>>> strength and muscular endurance training. And don't forget that one
>>> has to progressively increase resistance to develop big muscles. So,
>>> most occupations with strenuous bouts of work, including
>>> construction
>>> work would be closer to bodybuilding training than to limit strength
>>> training.
>>>
>>> I also suspect that bodybuilding type of training is better for
>>> maintaining good health, you know, for things like propping insulin
>>> sensitivity - because the nature of adaptations to such training is
>>> comparatively more metabolic.
>>
>> Interesting theories but I would like to see some supporting
>> evidence.
>> My "theory" is that, for most people most of the time, improving
>> limit
>> strength is the proverbial rising tide that floats all boats.
>
> When I switched to training from bodyweight to weighted pullups, my
> max of 40 pullups went down while strength increased - simply because
> I changed emphasis from muscular endurance to strength. Do you find
> this at all unusual and surprising? What floats most boats is the
> compromise between strength and endurance - the type of training that
> also happen to increase muscle size. That's not how I train, but I'm
> not going to rationalize around my own choice.

I'm not trying to rationalize my own choice as best. I'm trying to
suggest that, so far as I understand it, there are two ways in which a
muscle can grow, one of which leads to increased strength while the
other does not. It is possible to train to be both strong and big, and
with a focus on using high training volume to increase muscle size, and
that's something I'm all for. I am just not for training to increase
muscle size solely for the purpose of display of muscle size for anyone
who is not interested in bodybuilding contests.

> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
> strong.

This whole conversation has gotten way out of proportion, IMHO. I
train the way I do because it yields results I want. For different
goals, different approaches are appropriate, and that's fine with me.
And bodybuilding is fine with me.

> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.

High rep kettlebell lifting is not, IMHO, about muscle endurance, it is
about acquiring the skill to use muscle tension efficiently, to turn
muscle tenion on and off very quickly, and to direct energy precisely
where it is needed while not wasting it where it is not. To undertake
it in a manner that focuses on muscular endurance is the domain of
people like Dragan Radovic and not something I practice, it is not
something I know anything about, and it is not something I recommend to
people for general fitness purposes, not because it is unsuited to such
purposes, but simply because I have no experience with it nor any desire
to acquire such experience.

Knowing what I know of Jason's goals for himself, I suggested Pavel's
Beyond Bodybuilding and that how a traditional bodybuilder trains may
not be what he wants. I stand by those two things, and I acknowledge
that not all bodybuilders train the same way, which is why I used the
word "traditional" in my comments. I am content to leave it at that.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Andrzej Rosa
September 24th 06, 11:40 PM
DZ wrote:

> Steve Freides > wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
[...]
> What floats most boats is the
> compromise between strength and endurance - the type of training that
> also happen to increase muscle size. That's not how I train, but I'm
> not going to rationalize around my own choice.

You put it well.

> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
> strong.

There is a grain of truth in it, IMHO. I train now one-handed barbell
snatches and one-handed clean and press and I find that carry-over to real
life is surprisingly strong. Not because of some specific rep scheme but
because in real life you are not called to perform a set of bent over flies
very often. Picking something from the floor and putting it somewhere
hight happens more often, so here I'd see this grain of truth.

> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.

I read a book by Artur Saxon and he definitely preferred barbells and
adjustable dumbbells for training over kettlebells (he did both, just to be
competent lifter).

--
Andrzej Rosa

JMW
September 25th 06, 12:50 AM
DZ > wrote:
>Pete > wrote:
>> "DZ" schreef:
>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>> strong.
>>
>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>
>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>
>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>real Fro.
>
>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!

Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
ushanka.

Andrzej Rosa
September 25th 06, 02:21 AM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "DZ" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Steve Freides > wrote:
>>
>> When I switched to training from bodyweight to weighted pullups, my
>> max of 40 pullups went down while strength increased - simply because
>> I changed emphasis from muscular endurance to strength. Do you find
>> this at all unusual and surprising? What floats most boats is the
>> compromise between strength and endurance - the type of training that
>> also happen to increase muscle size. That's not how I train, but I'm
>> not going to rationalize around my own choice.
>
> I'm not trying to rationalize my own choice as best. I'm trying to
> suggest that, so far as I understand it, there are two ways in which a
> muscle can grow, one of which leads to increased strength while the
> other does not.

Why do you "need" this "fluff hypothesis"? Which facts require it for
explanation?

Because it is quite radical, from an evolutionary point of view. Four
billions years of evolution trying to make the best use of available
resources and here we have some sort of "muscle fat" which weights the same
as fat but stores less than half of its energy.

I'd suspect that this kind of adaptation would be filtered out by natural
selection like at least a billion years ago.

> It is possible to train to be both strong and big, and
> with a focus on using high training volume to increase muscle size, and
> that's something I'm all for. I am just not for training to increase
> muscle size solely for the purpose of display of muscle size for anyone
> who is not interested in bodybuilding contests.

Goals of training have nothing to do with ways a body adopts to stress. You
may train for performance and become pretty, too.

>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>> strong.
>
> This whole conversation has gotten way out of proportion, IMHO. I
> train the way I do because it yields results I want. For different
> goals, different approaches are appropriate, and that's fine with me.
> And bodybuilding is fine with me.

DZ described a continuum from which you happen to support two extremes.
Instead of answering to it you dodge a problem.

>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>
> High rep kettlebell lifting is not, IMHO, about muscle endurance, it is
> about acquiring the skill to use muscle tension efficiently, to turn
> muscle tenion on and off very quickly, and to direct energy precisely
> where it is needed while not wasting it where it is not.

Sure, it is about skill too. Like most exercises, for that matter.

> To undertake
> it in a manner that focuses on muscular endurance is the domain of
> people like Dragan Radovic and not something I practice, it is not
> something I know anything about, and it is not something I recommend to
> people for general fitness purposes, not because it is unsuited to such
> purposes, but simply because I have no experience with it nor any desire
> to acquire such experience.

I imagine that all people secretly dream about getting more skilled at
swinging kettle-bells. ;-)

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa

Jason Earl
September 25th 06, 02:41 AM
"Steve Freides" > writes:
> "DZ" wrote:

-snip-

>> When I switched to training from bodyweight to weighted pullups, my
>> max of 40 pullups went down while strength increased - simply
>> because I changed emphasis from muscular endurance to strength. Do
>> you find this at all unusual and surprising? What floats most boats
>> is the compromise between strength and endurance - the type of
>> training that also happen to increase muscle size. That's not how I
>> train, but I'm not going to rationalize around my own choice.
>
> I'm not trying to rationalize my own choice as best. I'm trying to
> suggest that, so far as I understand it, there are two ways in which
> a muscle can grow, one of which leads to increased strength while
> the other does not.

That's essentially the one bit of Pavel's stuff that I have a hard
time believing. I can understand how 10x3 as opposed to 3x10 gives
you more chance to rest and allows you to use heavier weights, but I
just don't believe that there is something magical with one scheme.
Especially considering that I have also had some success with programs
where I try and get "as many as possible" in a set time period.

> It is possible to train to be both strong and big, and with a focus
> on using high training volume to increase muscle size, and that's
> something I'm all for. I am just not for training to increase
> muscle size solely for the purpose of display of muscle size for
> anyone who is not interested in bodybuilding contests.

The more I lift the more I am convinced that the primary difference
between "powerlifters" and "bodybuilders" is the amount of practice
they get "measuring" limit strength. It basically goes without saying
that powerlifters should be better at one rep maxes than bodybuilders.
After all, powerlifters spend a lot of time actually *training* their
one rep max.

Bodybuilders, on the other hand, couldn't care less how much they lift
as long as their arms get bigger. Still, they manage to move around a
substantial amount of weight without really ever testing the limits of
how much they could do.

When Pavel describes lifting as a skill I believe that completely.
Seeing as how that's the case then why should it surprise someone that
folks that lift for the specific purpose of lifting more weight are
able to lift more similar individuals with the goal to create the
biggest muscles possible.

>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance
>> type of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is
>> somehow a no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being
>> exceptionally strong.
>
> This whole conversation has gotten way out of proportion, IMHO. I
> train the way I do because it yields results I want. For different
> goals, different approaches are appropriate, and that's fine with
> me. And bodybuilding is fine with me.

Still, no one wants to hear their form of training as designed to
build "fluff" muscles. Likewise no one wants to hear that folks that
train for maximal strength at a given size are unable to grow.

>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell
>> training has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells
>> being of a fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>
> High rep kettlebell lifting is not, IMHO, about muscle endurance, it
> is about acquiring the skill to use muscle tension efficiently, to
> turn muscle tenion on and off very quickly, and to direct energy
> precisely where it is needed while not wasting it where it is not.
> To undertake it in a manner that focuses on muscular endurance is
> the domain of people like Dragan Radovic and not something I
> practice, it is not something I know anything about, and it is not
> something I recommend to people for general fitness purposes, not
> because it is unsuited to such purposes, but simply because I have
> no experience with it nor any desire to acquire such experience.

That's interesting. Especially considering that I swing my kettlebell
primarily because I like it better than running, and the results are
"close enough for the girls I go out with."

> Knowing what I know of Jason's goals for himself, I suggested
> Pavel's Beyond Bodybuilding and that how a traditional bodybuilder
> trains may not be what he wants. I stand by those two things, and I
> acknowledge that not all bodybuilders train the same way, which is
> why I used the word "traditional" in my comments. I am content to
> leave it at that.

I think it's a good suggestion, and I will almost certainly get the
book eventually. Pavel's workouts appeal to me in that they are
effective with a small time investment and they are fun. I also like
the fact that the folks I have met that swing kettlebells tend to be
the sort of people that measure crazy things like how much weight they
can one arm military press while doing the splits. I like the idea of
training based around crazy feats of strength. That's far more
interesting to me than the size of my forearms.

Jason

Pete
September 25th 06, 02:54 PM
"DZ" > schreef:

> Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
> chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
> factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
> forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
> to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
> some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!

You are WellCome!

Thank YOU for the inspiration!

Time for a new "stack"...

----
Pete

Charles
September 25th 06, 10:25 PM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:14:49 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> wrote:

>JMW > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>> strong.
>
>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>
>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>
>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>>>
>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>real Fro.
>>>
>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>
>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>> ushanka.
>
>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!

He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
necessarily so.

A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
much about these matters!" ;o)

See:
http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm

Charles
September 25th 06, 11:52 PM
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:33:41 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> wrote:

>Charles > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW > wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
>>>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>>>> strong.
>>>
>>>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>>>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>>>
>>>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
>>>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
>>>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>>>>>
>>>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>>>real Fro.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>>>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>>>> ushanka.
>>>
>>>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!
>>
>> He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
>> necessarily so.
>>
>> A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
>> reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
>> much about these matters!" ;o)
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm
>
>But did you know that by the Party decree all heads of Soviet citizens
>come in standard sizes and increments?

Er... of course, that goes without saying...

>It is only through the
>impeccable achievements that I was allowed to grow a custom size
>cranium.

I assumed that as that was the custom that you would no doubt become
accustomed to it as it eventually grew on you!

mike
September 26th 06, 12:24 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:33:41 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> > wrote:
>
> >Charles > wrote:
> >> DZ wrote:
> >>>JMW > wrote:
> >>>> DZ wrote:
> >>>>>Pete > wrote:
> >>>>>> "DZ" schreef:
> >>>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps
AND
> >>>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance
type
> >>>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow
a
> >>>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
> >>>>>>> strong.
> >>>
> >>>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
> >>>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
> >>>
> >>>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell
training
> >>>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being
of a
> >>>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
> >>>>>real Fro.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
> >>>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
> >>>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
> >>>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
> >>>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
> >>>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
> >>>> ushanka.
> >>>
> >>>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!
> >>
> >> He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
> >> necessarily so.
> >>
> >> A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
> >> reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
> >> much about these matters!" ;o)
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm
> >
> >But did you know that by the Party decree all heads of Soviet citizens
> >come in standard sizes and increments?
>
> Er... of course, that goes without saying...
>
> >It is only through the
> >impeccable achievements that I was allowed to grow a custom size
> >cranium.
>
> I assumed that as that was the custom that you would no doubt become
> accustomed to it as it eventually grew on you!

Im confused...which head are u guys talking about..lol

JMW
September 26th 06, 04:43 AM
DZ > wrote:
>JMW > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance type
>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>> strong.
>
>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>
>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell training
>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of a
>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>
>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>>>
>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>real Fro.
>>>
>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>
>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>> ushanka.
>
>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!

Such a hat was one of the sub-themes in "Gorky Park."

I have a humble rabbit fur ushanka. Those of us with shaved heads
appreciate such things during the winter months.

David
September 26th 06, 02:39 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:33:41 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> > wrote:
>
>>Charles > wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>JMW > wrote:
>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>>>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance
>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>>>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>>>>> strong.
>>>>
>>>>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>>>>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell
>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>>>>real Fro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>>>>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>>>>> ushanka.
>>>>
>>>>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!
>>>
>>> He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
>>> necessarily so.
>>>
>>> A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
>>> reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
>>> much about these matters!" ;o)
>>>
>>> See:
>>> http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm
>>
>>But did you know that by the Party decree all heads of Soviet citizens
>>come in standard sizes and increments?
>
> Er... of course, that goes without saying...
>
>>It is only through the
>>impeccable achievements that I was allowed to grow a custom size
>>cranium.
>
> I assumed that as that was the custom that you would no doubt become
> accustomed to it as it eventually grew on you!

I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!

Charles
September 26th 06, 02:48 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:39:09 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:33:41 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Charles > wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>JMW > wrote:
>>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps AND
>>>>>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance
>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow a
>>>>>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>>>>>> strong.
>>>>>
>>>>>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>>>>>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell
>>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being of
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy, Fluffy)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>>>>>real Fro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>>>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>>>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>>>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that tuxedo
>>>>>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>>>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>>>>>> ushanka.
>>>>>
>>>>>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!
>>>>
>>>> He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
>>>> necessarily so.
>>>>
>>>> A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
>>>> reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
>>>> much about these matters!" ;o)
>>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm
>>>
>>>But did you know that by the Party decree all heads of Soviet citizens
>>>come in standard sizes and increments?
>>
>> Er... of course, that goes without saying...
>>
>>>It is only through the
>>>impeccable achievements that I was allowed to grow a custom size
>>>cranium.
>>
>> I assumed that as that was the custom that you would no doubt become
>> accustomed to it as it eventually grew on you!
>
>I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!
>

I'm not just a pretty face mate! ;o)

David
September 26th 06, 03:21 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:39:09 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:33:41 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charles > wrote:
>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>JMW > wrote:
>>>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>>>Pete > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "DZ" schreef:
>>>>>>>>>> I think you are being irrational by thinking that both low reps
>>>>>>>>>> AND
>>>>>>>>>> very high reps like in your kettlebell swings (muscular endurance
>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> of training) provide functionality while moderate reps is somehow
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> no-no, even though many bodybuilders end up being exceptionally
>>>>>>>>>> strong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>>>>>>http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would think that musclular endurance variety of kettlebell
>>>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>>>> has more to do with the historic limitation of kettlebells being
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> fixed weight than with anything carefully thought out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you read this St... I mean Fluffy (your hair IS fluffy,
>>>>>>>>> Fluffy)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I bet my hair is even fluffier than Steve's when it's long. It's a
>>>>>>>>real Fro.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pete, it's not to put down Steve, but would you please make the next
>>>>>>>>chapter of you dreams called something like "Kettlebell smelting
>>>>>>>>factory", where Steve is being exploited (I mean disciplined) as a
>>>>>>>>forced labor in a Siberian camp. You can send me there in that
>>>>>>>>tuxedo
>>>>>>>>to oversee the situation. I will also need a furry hat, valenki, and
>>>>>>>>some heavy duty mittens. Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a "furry hat"? I see you more in a custom-fitted black sable
>>>>>>> ushanka.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John, you know WAY too much about these matters!
>>>>>
>>>>> He will be enormously pleased to hear you say that, but it aint
>>>>> necessarily so.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simple Google search with the search criteria being 'Russian Hats',
>>>>> reveals the depth of knowledge that enables us all to "know WAY too
>>>>> much about these matters!" ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> http://www.military-quotes.com/military-gear/russian-hats.htm
>>>>
>>>>But did you know that by the Party decree all heads of Soviet citizens
>>>>come in standard sizes and increments?
>>>
>>> Er... of course, that goes without saying...
>>>
>>>>It is only through the
>>>>impeccable achievements that I was allowed to grow a custom size
>>>>cranium.
>>>
>>> I assumed that as that was the custom that you would no doubt become
>>> accustomed to it as it eventually grew on you!
>>
>>I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!
>>
>
> I'm not just a pretty face mate! ;o)

That's always been obvious to me - (some things need not be mentioned
(specially before breakfast!)

Charles
September 26th 06, 05:21 PM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:00:38 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> wrote:

>Charles > wrote:
>>>>>>> P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
>>>>>>> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
>>>
>>> I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!
>>>
>> I'm not just a pretty face mate! ;o)
>
>The movie is called Funny Face. She's such a Pavelite in it!

She was absolutely gorgeous, but the nearest she came to anything so
close to Kettlebells, was to wear Pavel's Bolero in a dance routine of
the same name!

Kettlebell Inc
September 27th 06, 01:36 PM
Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:00:38 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> > wrote:
>
> >Charles > wrote:
> >>>>>>> P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
> >>>>>>> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
> >>>
> >>> I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!
> >>>
> >> I'm not just a pretty face mate! ;o)
> >
> >The movie is called Funny Face. She's such a Pavelite in it!
>
> She was absolutely gorgeous, but the nearest she came to anything so
> close to Kettlebells, was to wear Pavel's Bolero in a dance routine of
> the same name!


Your chance to try out kettlebells absolutely free!
Only 3 days left to sign up for our Grand Opening Kettlebell Giveaway
Contest!
1st Prize: Kettlebell Classic Set
2nd Prize: Free Kettlebell of choice
3rd Prize: Choice of any book or DVD we carry
Register TODAY! Contest drawing is September 30th.

http://www.kettlebellinc.com/registrations/contestpage.php

John
http://www.kettlebellinc.com

Kettlebell Inc
September 27th 06, 08:15 PM
DZ wrote:
> Kettlebell Inc > wrote:
> > Charles wrote:
> >> DZ wrote:
> >> >Charles > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> P.S. Something I meant to share with y'all -
> >> >>>>>>> http://home.nc.rr.com/netsink/Functional_Advantage.jpg
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I am not accustomed to such impeccable logic from you!
> >> >>>
> >> >> I'm not just a pretty face mate! ;o)
> >> >
> >> >The movie is called Funny Face. She's such a Pavelite in it!
> >>
> >> She was absolutely gorgeous, but the nearest she came to anything so
> >> close to Kettlebells, was to wear Pavel's Bolero in a dance routine of
> >> the same name!
> >
> > Your chance to try out kettlebells absolutely free!
> > Only 3 days left to sign up for our Grand Opening Kettlebell Giveaway
> > Contest!
> > 1st Prize: Kettlebell Classic Set
> > 2nd Prize: Free Kettlebell of choice
> > 3rd Prize: Choice of any book or DVD we carry
> > Register TODAY!
>
> So I remember that story how our "Interpol" Pete did something very
> very bad when he was a little puppy, and then completely suppressed
> the memory of it. Now I know - he dropped one of those on your head!

There is still time DZ, there is still time. You might as well just
sign up, you know you want to. You just got them kettlebells on your
mind all the time...

John
http://www.kettlebellinc.com/registrations/contestpage.php