What's the right weight to lift?

I'm having a problem with bicep curls. I can barley do 75 pounds for 4 reps
/ 3 sets with a full minute between each set, or 50 pounds at 10 reps at 3
sets with 20 seconds between each set (but I'm straining on the last set)...
however I am finding that when I do only 30 pounds at 15 reps for 4 sets, I
feel the most burn even into the next day. Is it a problem to mix things up
like 50lb x 10 x 3 and then after 5 minutes, 30lb x 15 x 3 ? Is that a bad
idea?

Richard wrote:
> I'm having a problem with bicep curls. I can barley do 75 pounds for 4 reps
> / 3 sets with a full minute between each set, or 50 pounds at 10 reps at 3
> sets with 20 seconds between each set (but I'm straining on the last set)...
> however I am finding that when I do only 30 pounds at 15 reps for 4 sets, I
> feel the most burn even into the next day. Is it a problem to mix things up
> like 50lb x 10 x 3 and then after 5 minutes, 30lb x 15 x 3 ? Is that a bad
> idea?

Whatever works. Try them all. Report back! Thank you.

--
Curt

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Richard wrote:

> I'm having a problem with bicep curls. I can barley do 75 pounds for 4
> reps / 3 sets with a full minute between each set, or 50 pounds at 10
> reps at 3 sets with 20 seconds between each set (but I'm straining on
> the last set)... however I am finding that when I do only 30 pounds at
> 15 reps for 4 sets, I feel the most burn even into the next day. Is it a
> problem to mix things up like 50lb x 10 x 3 and then after 5 minutes,
> 30lb x 15 x 3 ? Is that a bad idea?

Well, it won't make your arms fall off or anything.

Firstly, forget about 'burn'. Burn has nothing to do with getting bigger
or stronger - it's caused by buildup of lactic acid in the muscle, which
is a result of you using energy too fast and for too long for your
circulation to keep your muscles supplied with fresh blood, which brings
in oxygen and takes away lactic acid. When you're feeling the burn, your
muscles are becoming limited by blood supply, and may actually be working
at *less* than full capacity, which will not drive them to get stronger.
You'll build up more endurance, but not more strength. See here:

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/PumpBurn.html

The sensation the next day is something different - soreness induced by
damage to the muscle, which is also not necessarily a good thing.

So, getting back to your description, what exactly is the problem with
only being able to do 3 x 4 x 75? Keep doing that for a while, eat plenty,
and before too long you'll be able to do 3 x 5 x 75, 3 x 6 x 75, and at
some point 3 x 5 x 80. That's the way to get stronger. Going to 3 x 15 x
30 isn't going to get you to 3 x 5 x 80.

Depending on what you want, though, 3 x 10 x 50 might be better; the
science suggests that 8-10 reps (IIRC) is best for building muscle mass,
whilst fewer reps is better for building maximal strength (which is about
neuromuscular patterning as much as raw power, apparently).

Some people like 'pyramiding' their workouts, where they start with a set
of many reps of a lower weight, and move to sets of fewer reps of higher
weights. I don't really get why this is a good idea, but it works for
plenty of people.

Lastly, why are your breaks between sets so short? A minute is fine, as is
two minutes; twenty seconds seems unlikely to be enough to let your muscle
recover, which means you won't be working at full power for your next set,
which means you won't be getting as much out of it.

tom

--
The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1 hour,
do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would that do for
muscle development?

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0611101727270.19370@urchin.eart h.li...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Richard wrote:
>
> > I'm having a problem with bicep curls. I can barley do 75 pounds for 4
> > reps / 3 sets with a full minute between each set, or 50 pounds at 10
> > reps at 3 sets with 20 seconds between each set (but I'm straining on
> > the last set)... however I am finding that when I do only 30 pounds at
> > 15 reps for 4 sets, I feel the most burn even into the next day. Is it a
> > problem to mix things up like 50lb x 10 x 3 and then after 5 minutes,
> > 30lb x 15 x 3 ? Is that a bad idea?
>
> Well, it won't make your arms fall off or anything.
>
> Firstly, forget about 'burn'. Burn has nothing to do with getting bigger
> or stronger - it's caused by buildup of lactic acid in the muscle, which
> is a result of you using energy too fast and for too long for your
> circulation to keep your muscles supplied with fresh blood, which brings
> in oxygen and takes away lactic acid. When you're feeling the burn, your
> muscles are becoming limited by blood supply, and may actually be working
> at *less* than full capacity, which will not drive them to get stronger.
> You'll build up more endurance, but not more strength. See here:
>
> http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/PumpBurn.html
>
> The sensation the next day is something different - soreness induced by
> damage to the muscle, which is also not necessarily a good thing.
>
> So, getting back to your description, what exactly is the problem with
> only being able to do 3 x 4 x 75? Keep doing that for a while, eat plenty,
> and before too long you'll be able to do 3 x 5 x 75, 3 x 6 x 75, and at
> some point 3 x 5 x 80. That's the way to get stronger. Going to 3 x 15 x
> 30 isn't going to get you to 3 x 5 x 80.
>
> Depending on what you want, though, 3 x 10 x 50 might be better; the
> science suggests that 8-10 reps (IIRC) is best for building muscle mass,
> whilst fewer reps is better for building maximal strength (which is about
> neuromuscular patterning as much as raw power, apparently).
>
> Some people like 'pyramiding' their workouts, where they start with a set
> of many reps of a lower weight, and move to sets of fewer reps of higher
> weights. I don't really get why this is a good idea, but it works for
> plenty of people.
>
> Lastly, why are your breaks between sets so short? A minute is fine, as is
> two minutes; twenty seconds seems unlikely to be enough to let your muscle
> recover, which means you won't be working at full power for your next set,
> which means you won't be getting as much out of it.
>
> tom
>
> --
> The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Richard wrote:
> I'm having a problem with bicep curls. I can barley do 75 pounds for 4 reps
> / 3 sets with a full minute between each set, or 50 pounds at 10 reps at 3
> sets with 20 seconds between each set

the right weight to lift depends on whose theory of strength/muscle
building you buy into.

70 lbs on a straight bar for 4-6 reps for 6 sets would be one option of
many.

usually, i'll do 3, 4, or 5 reps for six sets on straightbar....but,
today i did 6 super-slow reps on a strive curl machine and called it a
day (on the biceps front).

everyone you ask will have a different opinion...you'll just have to
see what works best for you both mentally and physically.

Dnia 2006-11-11 Richard napisa³(a):
> Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
> though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1 hour,
> do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would that do for
> muscle development?

The weights you listed, are per hand or for both hands? If they are per
hand, you should know; if the are for both hands, you shouldn't care.

I mean it. You really shouldn't care how to bring your biceps up, if
all you can do is 3 sets of four reps with 75 lbs. I _never_ trained
curls for at least a year and I can do that with almost twice that
weight. Bring your general strength up, then you'll know if you can
tolerate that much volume. Besides, triceps are twice bigger than
biceps and even grow faster, like some studies suggest.

If the weights are per hand, then you should be smarter than asking us
about it. If you will increase volume of work systematically and are
sure that your body will handle it, go for it. If you are shooting in
the dark, don't do it. It will hurt you.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ej39do$748$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-11-11 Richard napisa³(a):
> > Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
> > though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1
hour,
> > do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would that do
for
> > muscle development?
>
> The weights you listed, are per hand or for both hands? If they are per
> hand, you should know; if the are for both hands, you shouldn't care.
>
> I mean it. You really shouldn't care how to bring your biceps up, if
> all you can do is 3 sets of four reps with 75 lbs. I _never_ trained
> curls for at least a year and I can do that with almost twice that
> weight. Bring your general strength up, then you'll know if you can
> tolerate that much volume. Besides, triceps are twice bigger than
> biceps and even grow faster, like some studies suggest.
>
> If the weights are per hand, then you should be smarter than asking us
> about it. If you will increase volume of work systematically and are
> sure that your body will handle it, go for it. If you are shooting in
> the dark, don't do it. It will hurt you.


Its 75lbs per hand (150lb total) and yes I'm shooting in the dark. Tricpes
are going ok, but my biceps are lagging behind. I'm going to try some
things.. i'll report back later. Thanks.

Richard

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Richard wrote:
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ej39do$748$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Dnia 2006-11-11 Richard napisa³(a):
>>> Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another
>>> question though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a
>>> break for 1 hour, do it again, and again all day long.
>>> Theoretically, what would that do for muscle development?
>>
>> The weights you listed, are per hand or for both hands? If they are
>> per hand, you should know; if the are for both hands, you shouldn't
>> care.
>>
>> I mean it. You really shouldn't care how to bring your biceps up, if
>> all you can do is 3 sets of four reps with 75 lbs. I _never_ trained
>> curls for at least a year and I can do that with almost twice that
>> weight. Bring your general strength up, then you'll know if you can
>> tolerate that much volume. Besides, triceps are twice bigger than
>> biceps and even grow faster, like some studies suggest.
>>
>> If the weights are per hand, then you should be smarter than asking
>> us about it. If you will increase volume of work systematically and
>> are sure that your body will handle it, go for it. If you are
>> shooting in the dark, don't do it. It will hurt you.
>
>
> Its 75lbs per hand (150lb total) and yes I'm shooting in the dark.

WTF! I do curls with 20kg [44lb] dummies at the end of my back workout and
can only do sets of 10 before failure. For comparison what do you bench /
squat? I'm doing 110kg/140kg both for sets of 8 last week.

> Tricpes are going ok, but my biceps are lagging behind. I'm going to
> try some things.. i'll report back later. Thanks.
>
> Richard
>
>> --
>> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

WTF!"

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

"There are millions who willingly and enthusiastically cut calories to
lose weight and end up gaining weight. " TC

Dnia 2006-11-11 Bully napisa³(a):
> Richard wrote:
>>
>> Its 75lbs per hand (150lb total) and yes I'm shooting in the dark.
>
> WTF! I do curls with 20kg [44lb] dummies at the end of my back workout and
> can only do sets of 10 before failure.

For three sets of four, fresh, it would be closer to 25 kg per hand or
more than that. I tried recently 20kg per side on my bar (whatever it
weights) and it went up easily (which surprised me, because I never
curl).

> For comparison what do you bench /

I don't.

> squat?

7 sets of four of Zercher sandbag squats. I don't know how heavy is
this sandbag.

> I'm doing 110kg/140kg both for sets of 8 last week.
>
>> Tricpes are going ok, but my biceps are lagging behind. I'm going to
>> try some things.. i'll report back later. Thanks.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>> --
>>> Andrzej Rosa 1127R
>
> WTF!"

Exactly.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Richard wrote:

> Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
> though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1
> hour, do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would
> that do for muscle development?

Off the top of my head, i don't think it would do you much good. The first
three sets (in fact, the first two sets) are enough to send your muscle a
signal that it needs to grow; further sets won't have any additional
effect. Indeed, as i understand it, they would interfere with your
muscle's recovery, and so reduce the overall rate of development.

Unless you're so full of steroids you make Pete look like Pee-Wee Herman,
of course.

tom

--
The final chapter, prophetic, poetic

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

> Firstly, forget about 'burn'. Burn has nothing to do with getting bigger
> or stronger...

YOU CAN GROW WITH A BURNING !!!

----
Pete

"Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:

> Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
> though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1
> hour,
> do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would that do for
> muscle development?

Your arms will grow to 24 inches.

----
Pete

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

> WTF! I do curls with 20kg [44lb] dummies at the end of my back workout and
> can only do sets of 10 before failure. For comparison what do you bench /
> squat? I'm doing 110kg/140kg both for sets of 8 last week.

I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.

If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see it.

Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...

----
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:4555e138$0$69441$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
> > WTF! I do curls with 20kg [44lb] dummies at the end of my back workout
and
> > can only do sets of 10 before failure. For comparison what do you bench
/
> > squat? I'm doing 110kg/140kg both for sets of 8 last week.
>
> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.
>
> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see it.
>
> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...
>
> ----
> Pete

75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
curling my body weight. But that's straining.. can only do 4 reps / 3 sets,
sometimes less. I remember a link somebody posted about limits on what to
lift based on body weight, but can't find it. Triceps are growing like crazy
but I get comments on how puny the biceps are

Richard

"Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:

>> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.

>> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see it.

>> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...

> 75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
> curling my body weight.

Performed strict, thats a BIGASS lift!

> But that's straining.. can only do 4 reps / 3 sets,
> sometimes less. I remember a link somebody posted about limits on what to
> lift based on body weight, but can't find it. Triceps are growing like
> crazy
> but I get comments on how puny the biceps are

Dont let that bother you.

Ignore what everyone is telling you, and work on your strong points.

Maybe you should switch to higher reps for the bis. For a few months...

----
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:45564880$0$7609$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:
>
> >> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.
>
> >> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see
it.
>
> >> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...
>
> > 75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
> > curling my body weight.
>
> Performed strict, thats a BIGASS lift!
>
> > But that's straining.. can only do 4 reps / 3 sets,
> > sometimes less. I remember a link somebody posted about limits on what
to
> > lift based on body weight, but can't find it. Triceps are growing like
> > crazy
> > but I get comments on how puny the biceps are
>
> Dont let that bother you.
>
> Ignore what everyone is telling you, and work on your strong points.
>
> Maybe you should switch to higher reps for the bis. For a few months...

Good idea.. thanks. I've got to do something and I'll try almost anything at
least once.
Richard


> ----
> Pete
>
>

Dnia 2006-11-11 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:
>
>>> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.
>
>>> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see it.
>
>>> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...
>
>> 75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
>> curling my body weight.
>
> Performed strict, thats a BIGASS lift!

Not unheard of, but actually world class lift.
http://www.ironage.us/fineprint/fineprint9.html
Here is an article about feats of strength from old issue of Ironman.
They obviously had some rating system, which I don't understand, but if
like Richard, I could be in shape to get some serious score, I'd
probably search for it.

Anyway, Richard seems to be within some 900+ range, which is world
class.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
[...]

re BIG curling

> Not unheard of, but actually world class lift.
> http://www.ironage.us/fineprint/fineprint9.html
> Here is an article about feats of strength from old issue of Ironman.
> They obviously had some rating system, which I don't understand, but if
> like Richard, I could be in shape to get some serious score, I'd
> probably search for it.
>
> Anyway, Richard seems to be within some 900+ range, which is world
> class.

Not sure if you were around, Andrzej, but there was a guy here
previously who said he could dip with an ungodly amount. I don't know
about world class, but, iirc, it was a number that was highly disputed.
Wonder whatever happened to him.

> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

--
Curt

Dnia 2006-11-12 Curt napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> [...]
>
> re BIG curling
>
>> Not unheard of, but actually world class lift.
>> http://www.ironage.us/fineprint/fineprint9.html
>> Here is an article about feats of strength from old issue of Ironman.
>> They obviously had some rating system, which I don't understand, but if
>> like Richard, I could be in shape to get some serious score, I'd
>> probably search for it.
>>
>> Anyway, Richard seems to be within some 900+ range, which is world
>> class.
>
> Not sure if you were around, Andrzej, but there was a guy here
> previously who said he could dip with an ungodly amount. I don't know
> about world class, but, iirc, it was a number that was highly disputed.
> Wonder whatever happened to him.

I don't remember it, so I probably wasn't around. But I always
wondered how come double bodyweight bench is relatively common and
bodyweight dip is not. I always could dip more than bench. Maybe a
range of motion thing? No matter how big your chest is, you still can
dip with full ROM, which isn't the case for bench; especially if one
has a "good bencher" build, with short arms and deep chest.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I always
>wondered how come double bodyweight bench is relatively common and
>bodyweight dip is not. I always could dip more than bench.

I think if you ask around MFW, you'll find that most folks can dip
more weight in terms of their bodyweight plus plates than they can
bench press.

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> Not sure if you were around, Andrzej, but there was a guy here
>> previously who said he could dip with an ungodly amount. I don't know
>> about world class, but, iirc, it was a number that was highly disputed.
>> Wonder whatever happened to him.

> I don't remember it, so I probably wasn't around. But I always
> wondered how come double bodyweight bench is relatively common and
> bodyweight dip is not. I always could dip more than bench. Maybe a
> range of motion thing?

I am sure, yes.

People with a big torso (HUGE ribcage) and short arms can work up to...
well, a LOT.
Because the ROM is about a 1 1/2 feet.

> No matter how big your chest is, you still can
> dip with full ROM, which isn't the case for bench; especially if one
> has a "good bencher" build, with short arms and deep chest.

Thats correct.
No matter how big you get, that wont matter when you dip.

You will still go all the way down.

----
Pete

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>> Firstly, forget about 'burn'. Burn has nothing to do with getting bigger
>> or stronger...
>
> YOU CAN GROW WITH A BURNING !!!

What.

tom

--
to feel an impulse / rising rising / a mess of reason / and kissing eyes

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

>> YOU CAN GROW WITH A BURNING !!!

> What.

Thats what Arnold told Jeff Bridges in Stay Hungry.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:
>
>>> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.
>
>>> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to
>>> see it.
>
>>> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...
>
>> 75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
>> curling my body weight.
>
> Performed strict, thats a BIGASS lift!
>
>> But that's straining.. can only do 4 reps / 3 sets,
>> sometimes less. I remember a link somebody posted about limits on
>> what to lift based on body weight, but can't find it. Triceps are
>> growing like crazy
>> but I get comments on how puny the biceps are
>
> Dont let that bother you.
>
> Ignore what everyone is telling you, and work on your strong points.

Maybe he should work on his weak points!?!

>
> Maybe you should switch to higher reps for the bis. For a few
> months...
> ----
> 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

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Ignore what everyone is telling you, and work on your strong points.

> Maybe he should work on his weak points!?!

Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.

Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> Ignore what everyone is telling you, and work on your strong points.
>
>> Maybe he should work on his weak points!?!
>
> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.
>
> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.

I think you're totally wrong.

--
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" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.

>> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.

> I think you're totally wrong.

If certain muscle groups are "weak"compared to others, its not because they
are not worked hard enough. Usually, these bodyparts are worked harder,
because people figure if they work them harder, they wil catch up.

It doesnt work that way.

Its better to train those bodyparts just like anything else, and put a
little more effort in muscles/movements that respond better. Best example is
calves. If you are not genetically gifted to get big calves, they wont grow
no matter WHAT you do, and piling the SCM with 1000 pounds certainly will
NOT help.

IF you genetically gifted to get great calves, all you need is one legged
raises without any additional weight.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.
>
>>> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.
>
>> I think you're totally wrong.
>
> If certain muscle groups are "weak"compared to others, its not
> because they are not worked hard enough. Usually, these bodyparts are
> worked harder, because people figure if they work them harder, they
> wil catch up.
> It doesnt work that way.

It does if the reason they are weak is because they have been ignored!

>
> Its better to train those bodyparts just like anything else, and put a
> little more effort in muscles/movements that respond better. Best
> example is calves. If you are not genetically gifted to get big
> calves, they wont grow no matter WHAT you do, and piling the SCM with
> 1000 pounds certainly will NOT help.
>
> IF you genetically gifted to get great calves, all you need is one
> legged raises without any additional weight.
>
> ----
> 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

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>> If certain muscle groups are "weak"compared to others, its not
>> because they are not worked hard enough. Usually, these bodyparts are
>> worked harder, because people figure if they work them harder, they
>> wil catch up.
>> It doesnt work that way.

> It does if the reason they are weak is because they have been ignored!

So if i ignore YOU, that will make you shrink to the size of a peanut?

----
Pete

Dnia 2006-11-13 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.
>
>>> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.
>
>> I think you're totally wrong.
>
> If certain muscle groups are "weak"compared to others, its not because they
> are not worked hard enough. Usually, these bodyparts are worked harder,
> because people figure if they work them harder, they wil catch up.
>
> It doesnt work that way.
>
> Its better to train those bodyparts just like anything else, and put a
> little more effort in muscles/movements that respond better. Best example is
> calves. If you are not genetically gifted to get big calves, they wont grow
> no matter WHAT you do, and piling the SCM with 1000 pounds certainly will
> NOT help.

Arnold found a way to make his calves grow. He cut the sleeves of his
pants, so they were always on display. To make them look half decent,
he had to pump them, and they started to grow.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>> If certain muscle groups are "weak"compared to others, its not
>>> because they are not worked hard enough. Usually, these bodyparts
>>> are worked harder, because people figure if they work them harder,
>>> they wil catch up.
>>> It doesnt work that way.
>
>> It does if the reason they are weak is because they have been
>> ignored!
>
> So if i ignore YOU, that will make you shrink to the size of a peanut?
>

Try it and I will grow BIGGER, I will grow STRONGER, but mostly I will get
LOUDER

--
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 wrote:
> "Richard" <nomail@spam.invalid> schreef:
>
> >> I never used more then 80 kilos doing curls.
>
> >> If this guy uses 75 pound dumbells, i sure as hell would like to see it.
>
> >> Right now, i use 65 kilos for curls. Very strict, though...
>
> > 75lb each hand (I'm sure of the weight). I weigh only 150lb so that's
> > curling my body weight.
>
> Performed strict, thats a BIGASS lift!

that is big liftin' if it's true. the most i've ever curled was 135 on
an olympic straightbar for a triple. and, that was a long time ago...

Pete wrote:
[...]

> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.

Old School Bodybuilding Trivia:

I'm almost certain that Don "The Ripper" Ross offered that same advice
in an article in, maybe, Muscular Development or Strength and Health
back in the day.

> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.

Bastard! ;o)

> Pete

--
Curt

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> schreef:

>> Its better to emphasize your strong points. Its more rewarding.

> Old School Bodybuilding Trivia:

> I'm almost certain that Don "The Ripper" Ross offered that same advice
> in an article in, maybe, Muscular Development or Strength and Health
> back in the day.

Well, Arnold did it. Tom Platz did it.

I am willing to bet that Gunnar Rosbo did it.

They are famous because of certain bodyparts.

>> Weak points will stay weak points, no matter what you do.

> Bastard! ;o)

Hey, i cant get a "peak" in my biceps!

Or anywhere else for that matter. And i always do what i do best.

Which results in endless discussions in the gym.

----
Pete

Yeah, me too. I took three years off. No training whatsoever. Just
eating crap and sleeping all day. The first day back to the gym I was
curling 130's on each arm. Felt like paper weights almost. Strange.....



Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-11 Richard napisa³(a):
> > Thanks for all that info.. makes sense. This brings up another question
> > though... what if one were to do 3 sets of 12 reps, take a break for 1 hour,
> > do it again, and again all day long. Theoretically, what would that do for
> > muscle development?
>
> The weights you listed, are per hand or for both hands? If they are per
> hand, you should know; if the are for both hands, you shouldn't care.
>
> I mean it. You really shouldn't care how to bring your biceps up, if
> all you can do is 3 sets of four reps with 75 lbs. I _never_ trained
> curls for at least a year and I can do that with almost twice that
> weight. Bring your general strength up, then you'll know if you can
> tolerate that much volume. Besides, triceps are twice bigger than
> biceps and even grow faster, like some studies suggest.
>
> If the weights are per hand, then you should be smarter than asking us
> about it. If you will increase volume of work systematically and are
> sure that your body will handle it, go for it. If you are shooting in
> the dark, don't do it. It will hurt you.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R