gaining muscles..

I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift heavy
weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend any book
website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like to know
which kind of food is good while I am exercising. appreciate your help
in advanced.

<userme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160576563.169497.241620@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift heavy
> weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend any
> book
> website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like to know
> which kind of food is good while I am exercising. appreciate your help
> in advanced.

I would start with a web search on the word "hypertrophy," the term we
use around here for increasing muscle size. The Wikipedia entry was
interesting.

One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.

Good luck.

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

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> schreef:

> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats. Search
> on that and you'll find books and articles as well.

Note to OP;

20 rep squats are NOT the best way to gain size.

Stick to anything between 6-10, or 12 if you insist.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Steve Freides" schreef:
>
> > One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as
> > 20-rep squats. Search on that and you'll find books and
> > articles as well.
>
> Note to OP;
>
> 20 rep squats are NOT the best way to gain size.
>
> Stick to anything between 6-10, or 12 if you insist.

Freides, why are you commenting in a thread titled "gaining muscles"?
But if you're going to then would it have killed you to include a link
to Strossen's _Super Squats_? See:
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Squats-P.../dp/0926888005

Hypertrophy's not your thing, is it?

> Pete

I recently blinked mightily but remained silent (any protest, I
suspect, woulda fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately) as a medical
professional warned me of the dangers of gaining really big muscles
because, "all that muscle will turn to fat."

It's inconceivable that anyone still believes that is a possibility.
But there it was. And said with a straight face to boot. Incredible.

--
Curt

start with sets up to 12 reps and with 2 secs on and 1 sec off ...

food is very important.. eat eat eat and eat more

6 meals a day

Curt James wrote:
> I recently blinked mightily but remained silent (any protest, I
> suspect, woulda fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately) as a medical
> professional warned me of the dangers of gaining really big muscles
> because, "all that muscle will turn to fat."
>
> It's inconceivable that anyone still believes that is a possibility.
> But there it was. And said with a straight face to boot. Incredible.

That, along with "You've gotta have some fat to turn into muscle".
It's amazing how many people think that's the way it works...

If only it were true... I'd have killer abs by now. :-)


Stu

Stu wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
> > <snip> a medical professional warned me of the dangers of
> > gaining really big muscles because, "all that muscle will turn
> > to fat."
> >
> > It's inconceivable that anyone still believes that is a possibility.
> > But there it was. And said with a straight face to boot. Incredible.
>
> That, along with "You've gotta have some fat to turn into muscle".
> It's amazing how many people think that's the way it works...
>
> If only it were true... I'd have killer abs by now. :-)

D hhaHA! Same here, same here.

> Stu

--
Curt

Dnia 2006-10-12 Stu napisa³(a):
> Curt James wrote:
>> I recently blinked mightily but remained silent (any protest, I
>> suspect, woulda fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately) as a medical
>> professional warned me of the dangers of gaining really big muscles
>> because, "all that muscle will turn to fat."
>>
>> It's inconceivable that anyone still believes that is a possibility.
>> But there it was. And said with a straight face to boot. Incredible.
>
> That, along with "You've gotta have some fat to turn into muscle".

Well, I think it makes a little bit of sense... Not overly much, but I
wouldn't ridicule it, not totally.

My point is that gaining muscle at 5% would be kinda hard. Much!
harder than at 15%.

This calorie excess requirement does not convince me. What you can
gain in a month? 1kg of muscle? How much extra calories would it
require? 30 a day?

But still most people get stronger if they bulk up a little, so there
should be some other explanation. I suspect that it works the same way
as with a people, who would buy some luxury thingies if they have a fat
account (pun intended) in the bank, but refrain from it if they are
broke.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Well, I think it makes a little bit of sense... Not overly much, but I
> wouldn't ridicule it, not totally.


No we're talking about people who think fat turns into muscle... ie,
you put on fat, then somehow convert it to muscle by working out... and
when you stop, it all turns into fat again.

> My point is that gaining muscle at 5% would be kinda hard. Much!
> harder than at 15%.

Depends if you've just dieted down to 5% and get a rebound or not...
:-)


Stu

"Stu" <sswain@iname.com> schreef:

>> Well, I think it makes a little bit of sense... Not overly much, but I
>> wouldn't ridicule it, not totally.

> No we're talking about people who think fat turns into muscle... ie,
> you put on fat, then somehow convert it to muscle by working out...

I think thats physiologically impossible. A fat molecule doent have
nitrogen. I think.

> and when you stop, it all turns into fat again.

I think the aminos will leave a carbon skeleton (JMW?) So there is sugar
availeble for energy.
If you dont burn the sugar it will be stored as fat.

So...

Muscle ---> Fat is not correct.
Muscle ---> Sugar ---> Fat *could* be correct.

>> My point is that gaining muscle at 5% would be kinda hard. Much!
>> harder than at 15%.

Well, there is a ton of fat in baby milk. Must be in there for a reason.

----
Pete

Dnia 2006-10-12 Stu napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Well, I think it makes a little bit of sense... Not overly much, but I
>> wouldn't ridicule it, not totally.
>
> No we're talking about people who think fat turns into muscle...

Are you sure they mean it literally?

> ie,
> you put on fat, then somehow convert it to muscle by working out... and
> when you stop, it all turns into fat again.

From the mirror point of view, I've seen it happen. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend
>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like
>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>
> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.

Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?

"DZ" <7712@1939025018.2828318134.16707.11401.23831> wrote in message
news:14980@3018427030.20195235.32520.24542.23285.. .
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
>>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend
>>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like
>>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>>
>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
>> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>
> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph:

"Two different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases
rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in
contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in which there is an
increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in muscular contractile
strength."

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

DZ wrote:
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> > userme@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
> >> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend
> >> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like
> >> to know which kind of food is good while I am
> >> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
> >
> > One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
> > Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>
> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?

High volume agitation of muscles makes them extra fluffy, like meringue.

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
>>>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you recommend
>>>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also like
>>>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>>>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>>>
>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
>>> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>>
>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>
> No.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph:
> "Two different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases
> rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in
> contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in which there is an
> increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in muscular contractile
> strength."

So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats" should
promote?

"DZ" <28670@2776322014.153216704.15543.13632.23711> wrote in message
news:20009@2284724151.263216357.20057.970.10843...
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
>>>>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you
>>>>> recommend
>>>>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also
>>>>> like
>>>>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>>>>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>>>>
>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
>>>> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph:
>> "Two different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases
>> rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in
>> contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in which there is an
>> increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in muscular contractile
>> strength."
>
> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats" should
> promote?

I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats, which was
popular with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength, will favor
myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You didn't think I'd avoid the word
"fluff," did you?

Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?

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

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by lift
>>>>>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you
>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>>>>>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep squats.
>>>>> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>>
>>> No.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph:
>>> "Two different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases
>>> rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in
>>> contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in which there is an
>>> increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in muscular contractile
>>> strength."
>>
>> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats" should
>> promote?
>
> I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats, which was
> popular with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
> looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength, will favor
> myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You didn't think I'd avoid the word
> "fluff," did you?

So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote the
sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
bodybuilding range?

Or do you think bodybuilders have to go the other direction and do
some kind of "80 rep squats"?

Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter what
the rep range is?

> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?

I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
muscle.

Steve Freides wrote:
[...]

> I don't know.

"No shit, Sherlock."

heh

Anyway...

> My guess

Kindly label all future posts of this type clearly as conjecture. I
mean at least until which time this newsgroup is renamed
misc.guesswork.weights, 'kay? Thanks!

> is that a program like 20 reps squats, which was popular
> with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
> looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength,
> will favor myofibrillar gains ... over fluff.

Uh huh.

> You didn't think I'd avoid the word "fluff," did you?

Not necessarily, but I would think that someone has asked for a
definition of fluff in the context you seem to favor. HAS anyone asked
for that particular definition? And, if so, have you offered any
response? Tia.

[...]

--
Curt

"DZ" <13674@2058925408.3218021598.28828.7891.19514> wrote in message
news:6425@3069125884.84553615.27516.27438.5693...
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>> userme@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I am 40 years old male, and i want to gain weight/muscles by
>>>>>>> lift
>>>>>>> heavy weight. I started doing that and I love it.. do you
>>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>>> any book website show how to exercise and gain muscles. I also
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> to know which kind of food is good while I am
>>>>>>> exercising. appreciate your help in advanced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep
>>>>>> squats.
>>>>>> Search on that and you'll find books and articles as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph:
>>>> "Two different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>>>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell
>>>> increases
>>>> rather than the contractile protein, and hence no increase in
>>>> contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in which there is
>>>> an
>>>> increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in muscular contractile
>>>> strength."
>>>
>>> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats" should
>>> promote?
>>
>> I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats, which
>> was
>> popular with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
>> looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength, will
>> favor
>> myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You didn't think I'd avoid the
>> word
>> "fluff," did you?
>
> So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote the
> sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
> with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
> bodybuilding range?

Ah, careful, Comrade. I did not say "20 reps is myofibrillar" and
please do not put words in my mouth. There are many variables in a
training program.

> Or do you think bodybuilders have to go the other direction and do
> some kind of "80 rep squats"?
>
> Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
> cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter what
> the rep range is?

All silliness following on your mistake above.

>> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?
>
> I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
> muscle.

OK, so you disagree with the Wikipedia entry I quoted and most of the
rest of the strength training and bodybuilding world - be my guest, to
each his own.

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

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:59:25 -0400, "Steve Freides"
<steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

>I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats, which was
>popular with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
>looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength, will favor
>myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You didn't think I'd avoid the word
>"fluff," did you?
>
>Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?

The book I am reading says bodybuilders have greater volumes of
sarcoplasm than any other muscular athletes do. The author only
speculates as to what that means or how they got it.

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep
>>>>>>> squats. Search on that and you'll find books and articles as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>>>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph: "Two
>>>>> different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>>>>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell
>>>>> increases rather than the contractile protein, and hence no
>>>>> increase in contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in
>>>>> which there is an increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in
>>>>> muscular contractile strength."
>>>>
>>>> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats" should
>>>> promote?
>>>
>>> I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats,
>>> which was popular with old-timers and is still popular with
>>> strength athletes looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to
>>> add strength, will favor myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You
>>> didn't think I'd avoid the word "fluff," did you?
>>
>> So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote the
>> sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
>> with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
>> bodybuilding range?
>
> Ah, careful, Comrade. I did not say "20 reps is myofibrillar" and
> please do not put words in my mouth. There are many variables in a
> training program.

Does it involve things like squatting for 20 reps in a set?

>> Or do you think bodybuilders have to go the other direction and do
>> some kind of "80 rep squats"?
>>
>> Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
>> cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter what
>> the rep range is?
>
> All silliness following on your mistake above.

What mistake? Please tell.

>>> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?
>>
>> I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
>> muscle.
>
> OK, so you disagree with the Wikipedia entry I quoted and most of the
> rest of the strength training and bodybuilding world - be my guest, to
> each his own.

My opinion on that is actually mainstream.

"DZ" <4912@614814473.30583884.11565.1060.12072> wrote in message
news:27202@3130216108.87751629.28509.26073.15724.. .
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep
>>>>>>>> squats. Search on that and you'll find books and articles as
>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>>>>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph: "Two
>>>>>> different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>>>>>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell
>>>>>> increases rather than the contractile protein, and hence no
>>>>>> increase in contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in
>>>>>> which there is an increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in
>>>>>> muscular contractile strength."
>>>>>
>>>>> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats"
>>>>> should
>>>>> promote?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats,
>>>> which was popular with old-timers and is still popular with
>>>> strength athletes looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to
>>>> add strength, will favor myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You
>>>> didn't think I'd avoid the word "fluff," did you?
>>>
>>> So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote
>>> the
>>> sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
>>> with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
>>> bodybuilding range?
>>
>> Ah, careful, Comrade. I did not say "20 reps is myofibrillar" and
>> please do not put words in my mouth. There are many variables in a
>> training program.
>
> Does it involve things like squatting for 20 reps in a set?

Does _what_ involve squatting 20 reps in a set?

>>> Or do you think bodybuilders have to go the other direction and do
>>> some kind of "80 rep squats"?
>>>
>>> Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
>>> cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter
>>> what
>>> the rep range is?
>>
>> All silliness following on your mistake above.
>
> What mistake? Please tell.
>
>>>> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to
>>>> favor?
>>>
>>> I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
>>> muscle.
>>
>> OK, so you disagree with the Wikipedia entry I quoted and most of the
>> rest of the strength training and bodybuilding world - be my guest,
>> to
>> each his own.
>
> My opinion on that is actually mainstream.

No, I don't think it is. I think the Wikipedia entry states things
pretty simply and clearly. Please point out exactly what in the section
I quoted you disagree with.

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

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "DZ" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the classic hypertrophy programs is known as 20-rep
>>>>>>>>> squats. Search on that and you'll find books and articles as
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying that doing 20 rep squats will result in all that
>>>>>>>> voluptuous nonfunctional fluff muscle?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy - 4th paragraph: "Two
>>>>>>> different types of hypertrophy are common; Sarcoplasmic
>>>>>>> hypertrophy, in which sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell
>>>>>>> increases rather than the contractile protein, and hence no
>>>>>>> increase in contractile strength. Myofibrillar Hypertrophy, in
>>>>>>> which there is an increase in myofibrils, and hence increase in
>>>>>>> muscular contractile strength."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So which kind of hypertrophy do you think the "20 rep squats"
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> promote?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats,
>>>>> which was popular with old-timers and is still popular with
>>>>> strength athletes looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to
>>>>> add strength, will favor myofibrillar gains ... over fluff. You
>>>>> didn't think I'd avoid the word "fluff," did you?
>>>>
>>>> So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote
>>>> the
>>>> sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
>>>> with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
>>>> bodybuilding range?
>>>
>>> Ah, careful, Comrade. I did not say "20 reps is myofibrillar" and
>>> please do not put words in my mouth. There are many variables in a
>>> training program.
>>
>> Does it involve things like squatting for 20 reps in a set?
>
> Does _what_ involve squatting 20 reps in a set?

The program.

Does the 20 rep squat program actually involve 20 rep squats? What are
the "variables" in that program that promote myofibrillar hypertrophy?

>>>> Or do you think bodybuilders have to go the other direction and do
>>>> some kind of "80 rep squats"?
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
>>>> cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter
>>>> what
>>>> the rep range is?
>>>
>>> All silliness following on your mistake above.
>>
>> What mistake? Please tell.
>>
>>>>> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to
>>>>> favor?
>>>>
>>>> I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
>>>> muscle.
>>>
>>> OK, so you disagree with the Wikipedia entry I quoted and most of the
>>> rest of the strength training and bodybuilding world - be my guest,
>>> to
>>> each his own.
>>
>> My opinion on that is actually mainstream.
>
> No, I don't think it is. I think the Wikipedia entry states things
> pretty simply and clearly. Please point out exactly what in the section
> I quoted you disagree with.

I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
increase in both strength and endurance.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:39:43 +0000 (UTC), DZ
<17771@74712641.1197032680.26064.31692.25232> wrote:

>I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
>the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
>bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
>increase in both strength and endurance.

Just to clarify the link posted states that more than 15 reps is too
light a weight to increase growth. On the others hand it does say
increasing reps is a means to get more growth not just increasing
resistance. So if you are working out with reps 5 and switch to reps
of 12 you may get results as good as increasing the weight.

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
>>the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
>>bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
>>increase in both strength and endurance.
>
> Just to clarify the link posted states that more than 15 reps is too
> light a weight to increase growth.

.... or strength

> On the others hand it does say increasing reps is a means to get
> more growth not just increasing resistance. So if you are working
> out with reps 5 and switch to reps of 12 you may get results as good
> as increasing the weight.

You'd still have to progressively increase the weight while at that
hypothetical 12 rep program.

"DZ" <4912@614814473.30583884.11565.1060.12072> schreef:

>>> So, if 20 reps is myofibrillar, then does it mean that to promote the
>>> sarcoplasmic (aka fluff, per you) hypertrophy, one would have to go
>>> with HEAVIER weights and decrease the reps into the more familiar
>>> bodybuilding range?

>> Ah, careful, Comrade. I did not say "20 reps is myofibrillar"...

"My guess is that a program like 20 reps squats, which was
popular with old-timers and is still popular with strength athletes
looking to add size and bodybuilders looking to add strength, will favor
myofibrillar gains ... over fluff."

There, he DID say it...

>> and please do not put words in my mouth.

We dont have to.

You do that all by yourself.

>> There are many variables in a training program.

Yes.

> Does it involve things like squatting for 20 reps in a set?

>>> Or perhaps do you think that squats, being a magic exercise and all,
>>> cannot be used to develop the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy no matter what
>>> the rep range is?

Of course.

If you squat and deadlift, or use KBs for that matter, you increase the
amount, or size, of the myofibrils.

But when you do curls, tricep pushdowns or ANY exercise for the chest, its
just fluff muscle...

I really am starting to be convinced that Steve is in denial about
something. No, i am SERIOUS. I really am!
I mean, why would *anyone* be so terrified that certain bodyparts end up
being ... fluffed ?!?!?!

Especially the chest.

Whats the matter, Steve?

Are you afraid that having fluffed pectorals might unleash certain feelings?
You know, the kind you dont want to have? Or, perhaps you DO, but are
ashamed?

Is that why anything related to BBing kinda disgusts you?

Or, are you afraid that after an intense training, you are forced to shower
together with those... fluffy guys?

Dont be.

After all, they are just fluffed. No strength.

Tonight On Dr. Phil!

"People who became homosexual after they fluffed certain bodyparts"

>> All silliness following on your mistake above.

> What mistake? Please tell.

He doesnt want to admit that he is wrong.

>>>> Which kind of hypertrophy would _you_ expect 20-rep squats to favor?

I was looking that WC-OL in Santo Domingo recently.
Those guys had pretty impressive quads, yet they train for strength, not
fluff.

Seems like we have found a non black/white issue.

And again, if the amount of weights used have EVERYthing to do with
neuromuscular strength, and not fluffy bulk, i still am amazed why Reza
Zadeh jerked 560 pounds overhead.

Seems like the more fluffy guys have better neurons.
Or... could it be that those big nasty fluffed muscles allowed them to press
more weight overhead ?!?!?!

And why those guys in the -105 class had lower bodies that would make a lot
of BBers envious?

Damn, i am confused!

----
Pete

"DZ" <17793@215125393.1139513624.7754.18334.18049> schreef:

>> On the others hand it does say increasing reps is a means to get
>> more growth not just increasing resistance. So if you are working
>> out with reps 5 and switch to reps of 12 you may get results as good
>> as increasing the weight.

> You'd still have to progressively increase the weight while at that
> hypothetical 12 rep program.

Lets say a novice chooces to do 20 reps, mostly basic exercises.

This hypothetical person is gifted with very strong heart and lungs, and red
blood cells are whopping.

So he starts doing squats with 200 pounds. For 20 reps.
After 20 years, he progressed to 600 pounds with 20 reps.

I wonder...

ALL that weight is moved by just an increase in sarcoplasm ?!?!?!

Or... you will build the myos as you get stronger, *no matter what rep range
is chosen?* (within reasonable limits)

----
Pete

Shute wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:39:43 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> <17771@74712641.1197032680.26064.31692.25232> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
>> the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
>> bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
>> increase in both strength and endurance.
>
> Just to clarify the link posted states that more than 15 reps is too
> light a weight to increase growth.

Which is utter bollocks.

>On the others hand it does say
> increasing reps is a means to get more growth not just increasing
> resistance. So if you are working out with reps 5 and switch to reps
> of 12 you may get results as good as increasing the weight.



--
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

Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:39:43 +0000 (UTC), DZ
><17771@74712641.1197032680.26064.31692.25232> wrote:
>
>>I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
>>the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
>>bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
>>increase in both strength and endurance.
>
>Just to clarify the link posted states that more than 15 reps is too
>light a weight to increase growth. On the others hand it does say
>increasing reps is a means to get more growth not just increasing
>resistance. So if you are working out with reps 5 and switch to reps
>of 12 you may get results as good as increasing the weight.

Relying on Wikipedia for the solid answer is like trying to write a
paper for a scientific journal from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Dnia 2006-10-13 Shute napisa³(a):
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:39:43 +0000 (UTC), DZ
><17771@74712641.1197032680.26064.31692.25232> wrote:
>
>>I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
>>the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
>>bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
>>increase in both strength and endurance.
>
> Just to clarify the link posted states that more than 15 reps is too
> light a weight to increase growth.

With 20 rep squats you do not do sets of 20. You do a set of 10, take
a breath with barbell still on your back, squeeze some more reps, take
a breath, and so on until you reach 20 reps.

The weight you use should be more or less your 10-12 rep max. It's
very intense and will work, especially for someone who has
under-trained lower body.

--
Andrzej Rosa

"DZ" <17771@74712641.1197032680.26064.31692.25232> wrote in message

-snip-

>> Does _what_ involve squatting 20 reps in a set?
>
> The program.
>
> Does the 20 rep squat program actually involve 20 rep squats?

Yes, of course.

> What are
> the "variables" in that program that promote myofibrillar hypertrophy?

There is not a simple answer to that one. The general guidelines are
that certain types of lifting tend to encourage myofibrillar growth
while others tend to encourage "fluff" growth, but there are a myriad of
possiblities in terms of exercise selection, sets, reps, weights, rest
periods, training schedules, and the like. Generally speaking, to
promote myofibrillar hypertrophy, try for a high total training volume
achieved with a moderately heavy weight.

Or just look at a powerlifter's training log, one who continues to get
both bigger and stronger. I took the liberty of copying a few entries
from "powerlifter54" on the DragonDoor forum, better known to most as
Jack Reape, a multi-time armed forces PL champion. I edited out a few
of the comments but left in all the lifts. (A few hundred of us keep
online training logs there.) To me, this looks like a classic "get
bigger and get stronger" way of training, with a focus on lots of volume
with heavy weights used for short sets on the large compound movements,
and higher reps for assistance exercises.

Sept. 4, 2006
--------------
mobility
squat 225x3x2, 315x3, 405x3
BP 135x5, 225x5, 315x3,
48 Katana on
4 board 405x1, 495x1, 605x1
3board 605x1
2 board 605(20lb PR)xX
loose 52 F6 on
3 board 495x3,4
no board 405x5x2
DL 225x3, 315x3, 405x3x2
chinx7x2

later KB bu snatch and press 53X3L+3R
KB press 53x10L+10R, 88x12R+12L PR!!
kb swing 53x70 reps alternate on fly
blue+mini band pushdownx30
pink band rear deltsx30x2

Sept. 7, 2006
--------------
BP 135x5x2, 225x3, 275x3, 325x3, 275x3, 325x3
close grip 275x3, 325x3
squat 225x3x2
bodyweight dip 7x5 sets
hammer iso high row 225x7,315x7x3, 365x7

Sept 11, 2006
---------------
mobility
squat 225x3x2, 315x3, 405x3, 405x3
Speed Bp 135x5x6 3 grips, 225x3x6 3 grips
fat bar DL 225x3, 315x3, 405x3, 455x3, 405x3, 455x3

- more snippage -

>>>>> I think you know my answer - there ain't no such thing as fluff
>>>>> muscle.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so you disagree with the Wikipedia entry I quoted and most of
>>>> the
>>>> rest of the strength training and bodybuilding world - be my guest,
>>>> to
>>>> each his own.
>>>
>>> My opinion on that is actually mainstream.
>>
>> No, I don't think it is. I think the Wikipedia entry states things
>> pretty simply and clearly. Please point out exactly what in the
>> section
>> I quoted you disagree with.
>
> I don't know why you quoted it at all. I disagree with you, not with
> the entry. You are missing the fundamental requirement of any
> bodybuilding program - the progressive resistance, which leads to
> increase in both strength and endurance.

No, you don't disagree with me, you just don't know it yet. I think
a bodybuilding program that leads to increases in strength and endurance
is a fine thing, not for me, but nonetheless a fine thing. I have
nothing against bodybuilding programs, I'm just pointing out that there
is more than one way to structure a progressive resistance program. The
choices one makes do matter to what type of hypertrophy is achieved.

Lastly, I want to add that I'm currently doing a program from Pavel's
latest, "Enter The Kettlebell", that I fully expect to result in some
small amount of hypertrophy for me. It features ladders as a way of
increasing volume, using a light/medium/heavy weekly scheme, and I'm
doing it with overhead kettlebell presses. Yesterday, e.g., I pressed a
28 kg kettlebell overhead for a total of 84 reps, 42 each side, never
doing more than 4 reps in a set. The program maxes out a 5 reps per set
and 150 reps, 75 per side. My goal, when I've worked up to 75 presses
per side in a single workout, is to take a few days off and see if I can
get a new 1RM with a 36 kg or even a 40 kg kettlebell. If I can manage
40 kg at 152 lbs. bodyweight or less, I will be, at least among the
DragonDoor crowd, the lightest person ever to strict press that weight
overhead. I don't know if I'll ever get there but I thin