NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/fitness/9196

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.6 KB | 113 lines

Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!krw
From: [e-mail] (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Building Muscle
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:02:10 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 101

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Martin) writes:
>[e-mail] (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>Yeah-I wanna know these things too!  I'm nearing goal after losing
>>>close to 80 lbs.  I've been doing some aerobics for the past year
>>>and have recently joined a health club that has many aerobic
>>>machines and Cybex weight machines.  So here's another question:
>>>Is there a difference in doing, say, 3 reps of 8 or 24?  Do the
>>>reps indicate that you rest or go on to another body part?  Sorry
>>>if this is stupid, but I'm just fumbling along!
>>>
>>>Margot
>>>
>>>
>>Hi Margot!
>>Assuming that the limiting factor on the number of reps is resistance/weight
>>(I say this as I have seen folx do a set of 8 with a weight that they could
>>easily do 24 with, a waste of time if you ask me :-)), then:
>
>>    a) if your recovery ability is up to it _and_ you do not injure
>>    yourself by using poor form, or by training w/o proper warmup,
>>    then you can get stronger faster and build muscle mass faster
>>    on an 8 rep/set routine, than on a 24 rep/set routine, simply
>>    because you are using more weight sooner.
>
>>    b) a 24 rep/set routine will give you a better pump earlier in the
>>    workout, and will be kinder/gentler on your joints and connective
>>    tissue.  You will therefore be less injury-prone, and consequently
>>    you will be able to train more regularly/consistantly.  Your
>>    muscles will continue to grow in size/strength as long as you can
>>    continue to increase your training poundages, but it will necessarily
>>    take you longer to be able to do a given weight for 24 reps, than it
>>    will for you to do a given weight for 8 reps.
>>>--
>>Keith R
>
>What your saying is true but it is not the whole story.  If you go on a
>24 rep workout you will be coming closer to your aerobic threshold
>rather than you anerobic threshold. Your muscles will fail becasue you
>aerobic system can't provide the needed oxygen to them, thereby creating
>lattic acid build-up. This will increase your muscular
>endurrance but it will not significantly increase the size of the
>muscle.

I beg to differ.  As long as you can increase the resistance, you can grow.
I respectfully submit that 24 rep sets are not going to bring you anywhere
near aerobic failure except in cases of doing large-muscle exercises such
as deadlifts, squats, or power cleans and other work on that order.
I would also use the example of bicycle racers. Be they big or small, they
all have "hellified" thighs. I wonder how many "reps" a racing cyclist does
in a typical road workout. I also wonder how many "reps" he/she does when
scaling a tough hill.  Mind you, these folx must stay below the anaerobic
threshold during a workout (or a race, for that matter), because if the legs
pump up, the legs will quit.  The aerobic threshold kicks in when the
heart/lungs can no longer keep up with the work that the muscles are trying
to do.  One does not come anywhere near this in upper body work unless they
are doing well-over-50-rep sets.
>
>The main reason for muscle growth is the body increasing the size and
>amount of fibres used by the muscle to complete an exercise. The best
>way to bring about this effect is to train the muscle to anerobic
>failure.  If this is done properly your muscle will experience what is
>referred to as the 'pump'. What happens is your muscles are
>getting filled up with oxygen riched blood used to fuel the muscular
>movement.  The reason for your failure during the set is your muscle
>fibres failing not your cardiovascular system failing .  The more fibres
>you bring to failure the more your body
>will adapt to the stresses by increasing the size of the fibres and thus
>increasing your muscle size.

Nowhere is it written that _all_ of these muscle fibres have to be brought
to failure at the same time.  Some years ago, I experimented with
super-high-rep sets, and one thing that I noticed was that the stress
in the muscle being worked seemed to move around, depending upon where
I was in the set.  I made great progress on this routine for a while,
but I had to stop because my hands were starting to "go to sleep" in the
middle of a set from bearing the weight for too long at a time.  It is
quite true that the body emplys muscle fibres on an "all or nothing" basis,
and thus employs only as many as needed to perform a task.  If you are
training heavy, then you can do low-rep-sets and get a good workout, as
you are using a high percentage of the fibres straight-away.  If you are
working with a more moderate weight, then you have to do enough reps to
enlist a large percentage of fibres in turn..... or else you are wasting
your time.

>A common practise amoung bodybuilders is
>you do 3-4 set to failure at low reps (6-10).  This rule seems to bring
>the most muscle fibres to failure and provide the best results.
>Remember, though, that everyone is different and in order to find out
>what workout suits you best you have to be aware of how you body is
>reacting to different workouts.  It might take you quite a while before
>you find a regimen that you feel comfortable with.

How true!
>
>Regards,
>Dan Martin
>
Keith R