VERY new..any help?

[pliftkl]

he may have less muscle mass in size compared to the avg man but im talking about HIS overall body composition.his body consist of more muscle than it does fat.THEREFORE HE HAS GREATER MUSCLE MASS % THAN BODY FAT%.when your fat % is lower the body burns a much greater amount of calories.that goes hand in hand with the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.you really need to study up because arguing such basic knowledge in the field of kinesiology and sports medicine shows your ignorance

Your body fat % by itself has almost nothing to do with how many calories you burn. Let's be really clear on this. Muscle requires energy to maintain itself. Fat also requires energy, but much less than muscle. Someone who is 120 pounds and 3% bodyfat is going to burn the calories associated with their lean body mass and the minimal fat that they are carrying. Someone who is 200 pounds and 10% bodyfat is carrying nearly 60 pounds more muscle the the previously mentioned 120 pounder, and will need to consume many more calories. The fact the the 120 pounder is lean has nothing to do with this. In fact, the body responds to excessive leanness by dramatically slowing down the metabolism to preserve fat.

AGAIN... most peoples CALORIC INTAKE not just "eating" is much higher than they realize because people dont tend to count all the calories from a dr. pepper,coffee,orange juice and are unaware that one meal at mcdonalds is almost equal to the daily limit for the avg person. the avg woman should consume 1500-1800 cals a day and one combo meal is almost 1300 cals leaving just 200 cals for the rest of the day in which they can eat/drink and not store the energy..LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS..read about it

First of all, this paragraph has nothing to do with the "LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS" (at least not the ones that I took classes on in grad school). Secondly, we're not talking about fatties who eat a lot, we're talking about the original poster, who clearly isn't eating enough, as evidenced by the fact that he's 5 11 and 140 pounds.

really...adding an extra 1100 calories through protein,vitamin d and calcium guarantees that they consume more...who wouldve thought. it is also much easier to have 2x500 calorie shakes spread out throughout the day than it is to carry around a jug of borden.AND NOT TO MENTION THE HEALTH RISK INVOLVED WITH OVER CONSUMING VITAMIN D.a shake along with chicken,steak,eggs and some carbs added twice a day will do the same thing but in a much safer,healthier way

I'm not arguing this point - as I said, I'm not an advocate of the GOMAD. I'm merely pointing out that the reason it works is that most people are eating within a few hundred calories of maintenance, and the GOMAD ensures that they are in a caloric surplus.

when trying to add size any technique that offers resistance to the muscle will have a positive effect on its growth.

This is quite obviously untrue, or long distance runners would have massive legs, while sprinters would have tiny ones. The only technique that is going to have a positive effect on muscle growth is one that causes a physiological adaption.

FIRST OFF, where did i say identical. the muscles are working in the same way,contracting just the same as in a bench.of course it isnt the same.in the bench press your hips,core,back,and head are stabilized.just as it is in an upright seated bench press. now take away the back support from the seated upright press and the excercise is extremely more difficult,although you are still using the SAME MOTION, AND MUSCLE CONTRACTING JUST THE SAME.

I don't get it. First you say they aren't the same. Then that they are working in the same way. Then that of course they aren't the same. They are different. But it's the same. Doesn't your total inability to communicate hinder your ability to work with clients?

so let me get this right...a man doing a 400lb squat 30 MAYBE 40 times once a week for 30-45 minutes has more pressure on his joints than a man carrying around an extra 120lbs of fat 24 hrs a day, 7 days aweek. the athlete in the gym with his few dozen reps once a week vs an obese man's every step,going up stairs,ladders,cutting the grass,getting out of bed,off the toilet,taking out the trash,walking through parking lotsgrocery shopping...

Thank you. We're in agreement, even if your reading comprehension skills aren't strong. You are the one arguing that "low weight high reps" is good. We're in agreement that fat people are basically doing low weight high reps by living their normal lives, and that they have joint problems.

id much rather do 30,40 even 50 reps once a week as opposed to 120 lbs for 3000 reps...THATS JUST ME

Um, but the rest of your advice is completely the opposite, which is why so many people are having an easy time making you look deranged. You started your responses in this thread advocating high repetition low reps. You compare the "burn" of a 700 rep pushup session to a bench press session (that might have 30 reps in it including warmup).

At this point, I'm pretty much just assuming you are a troll, since you're taking both sides of an argument, claim to have some level of education, but can't seem to write coherent sentences.

 

[Jubacat]

This thread is becoming epic. Perhaps someday we will speak of it in the same tone as the Pain Train classic.

To nosweattkennels, I know it is hard to realize most of what you know is wrong. Will you swallow your pride and admit you are wrong? Or will you stick to old ideas and walk away from this thread, and this forum, claiming everyone here is an idiot because your ego got crushed?

 

[ronin0352]

OK, I am going to make one more comment since I got a PM about this. nosweattkennels, here's the problem: You are talking about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, we are concerned with myofibrillar hypertrophy. You are talking increasing the size of the muscle without significantly increasing strength, while we are talking about increasing the actual contractile fibers increasing strength and the increased size is a by-product of that. Wiki explains it better than I can:

During sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength. During myofibrillar hypertrophy, the myofibrils, comprised of the actin and myosin contractile proteins, increase in number and add to muscular strength as well as a small increase in the size of the muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is characteristic of the muscles of bodybuilders while myofibrillar hypertrophy is characteristic of extreme weightlifters.

Sets of 10 or so, "slow and controlled" and "breaking the muscle down" is all bodybuilder stuff. This is a performance-based board that doesn't give 2 shits what bodybuilders & "fitness" competitors do to look pretty on stage.

Someone else already conceded this point earlier, but I will restate it. You CAN get stronger training the way you're talking about using the progressive overload you're talking about, and you can get bigger. It is NOT a very efficient means of doing so, however and since the TS asked this on a performance based forum, he got answers concerning the best way to achieve his goals. Or at least I hope he got some answers in all that shit that was talked. If not, TS feel free to PM or just state that your question was not answered to your satisfaction and I will attempt to help as will some of the other regulars I'm sure

 

[anaconda]

THATS WHY YOU ARE A FOOL... the TS asked how to add size... i said i added size by doing lighter weight and higher reps. 135 lbs on the shoulder press is light for me now. i can do 6,7,8 sets of 15. i started after a year off by doing the barbell 150 times and i could barely do it. i increased the weight,keeping the reps high.




so it is completely impossible to get stronger by progressively overloading your muscles? except for a little bit.you cant be serious. your body will just end all growth in strength developement? what pound is that magical number? when is it that your body says "you know what, im not going to get strong this week, im going to start building endurance instead"? you constantly add weight each week, keeping your body adapting.

i started with the bar doing 150 reps because it wwas light and i knew i could get some reps in. 150 wasnt that easy. the next week i went up 15 lbs on each side and did 100 or 150 reps, dropped back down to the bar and did another 100 reps. this routine continued until now i use 135 lbs for 100 reps, then 90lbs for 100 reps and sometimes ill do 60 for 100 and finish with the bar. thats all my shoulder workout. doing 135 lbs 100 times takes some strength. go put 135 lbs on the military press and put out 4 sets of 25 and tell me its all endurance

lol so you will just keep getting stronger and stronger and stronger forever huh. I guess you know the secret to it all.

and I love how you say "do 4 sets of 25 and tell me its all endurance" as if thats some crazy challenge. Lol, its mostly endurance dude. Sorry.

 

[stewy37]

Guys, he's a Marine. That actually explains a lot.

Hey. Ronin and myself are Marines. We're not all fucking idiots.

 

[ronin0352]

Hey. Ronin and myself are Marines. We're not all fucking idiots.

I was gonna say that, but then I got to thinking about some of the guys I knew back then and I'm forced to accept the likelihood that we are the exception to the rule. Remember:
Muscles
Are
Required
Intelligence
Not
Expected (or Essential, I've heard both variations)

I also saw that written in a guard duty log book in Okinawa with intelligence spelled
intellegents."

 

[stewy37]

Nice. I love irony.

 

[nosweattkennels]

You are talking increasing the size of the muscle without significantly increasing strength, while we are talking about increasing the actual contractile fibers increasing strength and the increased size is a by-product of that.

and thats exactly what the question was...the TS asked how to get more size...he didnt ask how do i gain strength for a powerlifting competiton , or just overall strength

You CAN get stronger training the way you're talking about using the progressive overload you're talking about, and you can get bigger.

so progressive overload,does work? ...so one CAN get bigger AND stronger with progressive overload?...if you read 99% of the guys on here you cant, or just "for a bit" one said ..you get just muscular endurance, NOT bigger or stronger...isnt that EXACTLY what the TS asked..how to increase his size?

so let me ask you....if a guy maxed out at at 225lbs on the bench, lets say....starting with light weights according to "his" ability,135lb ,for example, and doing high reps he steadily increases the weight each week. two months down the road he is lifting 245lbs for 10-12 reps for 7-9 sets by using the "progressive overload" method. according to most on here, he didnt get stronger, or bigger during that 2 month time frame, he just developed more muscular enurance. if he maxed out at 225lbs and 8 maybe 10 weeks later he is doing reps with heavier weight, how is that not getting stronger? how is it possible that he didnt gain additional size?

 

[Deleted member 87037]

diet is 75% of ANY goal....i bet you can eat and it never shows? thats because your body has more muscle than fat...fat burns 3 cals per pound and muscle 9...so the more muscle you have the more calories you can burn...therefore you have to increase your caloric intake drastically.....weight gain drinks are definately helpful...you should probably be around the 6k calories a day intake. within those calories eat at least 1 gram of protein for every pound you way. you would need at least 140 grams of protein....albacore tuna, and baby food are rich in protein and relatively cheap...dont listen to false science of to get big you must lift big....whether you do heavy weight at low reps or light weight at high reps depends on you....im 250 lbs and lift very light but high reps to avoid joint pain and other injuries. for instance on shoulder day i do military/overhead presses with 20lbs on each side of the bar. do 100 reps..not continuosly but however many sets it takes to get 100, then drop down to 10lbs and do another 100 reps to finally im rep'in just the barbell....i switch between high reps and alternating reps...to make change you follow the F.I.T.T. PLAN...frequency,intensity,time or type...adjust any of those to make your body adapt......but caaloric intake is the number 1 step in achieving any goal...i joined the marines at 135lbs out of high school and i began eating a loaf a bread a day to get my body used to high calories..i was 250lbs last month but have dropped down to 235 now and hoping to get to 225 to better my jiu-jitsu

lllloooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

[anaconda]

still waiting on the pic nosweatt

 

[ronin0352]

You're taking things out of context again. That shit's the kind of reason I said the hell with this thread in the first place.
First, yes you will get stronger doing sets of 10, but not as efficiently as doing sets of 3-5 with heavier weight.
Second, this forum along with the conditioning forum and the S&P forum, is about PERFORMANCE, not aesthetics. It is assumed that because the TS asked here, he wants to get bigger for a stronger performance and NOT just to look pretty.
Third, how long do you think that will last. Yeah that's possible for a total beginner to progress like that but not for long, especially doing high-rep shit. If your hypothetical client is maxing out @ 225 then he's a real beginner and would do much better on the Starting Strength routine.

 

[nosweattkennels]

First of all, this paragraph has nothing to do with the "LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS" (at least not the ones that I took classes on in grad school). Secondly, we're not talking about fatties who eat a lot, we're talking about the original poster, who clearly isn't eating enough, as evidenced by the fact that he's 5 11 and 140 pounds.

the "law of thermodynamics" is about calories in vs calories out...to get bigger, which is what the TS asked, his caloric intake must be higher than what he burns.he must put in more than he takes out...cosumes 4000 cals- burns 2500 thru excercise and daily life = + 1500 calories extra....those cals will be used to build muscle or go become "stored energy", fat.....if he wanted to lose weight he would need to take in fewer calories than he is burning putting himself in a caloric deficit.therefore forcing his body to burn fat for energy, make sense? i said many people are unaware that they are consuming as many calories as they really are. they dont count calories in the tea he had for lunch or the oranges he consumed after lunch,the dr.pepper he had or the btl of oj he had on the way to work.

I'm not arguing this point - as I said, I'm not an advocate of the GOMAD. I'm merely pointing out that the reason it works is that most people are eating within a few hundred calories of maintenance, and the GOMAD ensures that they are in a caloric surplus.

im not arguing for either method but it is much cheaper and easier to drink a weight gaining shake than it is to drink a gallon of milk a day.

This is quite obviously untrue, or long distance runners would have massive legs, while sprinters would have tiny ones. The only technique that is going to have a positive effect on muscle growth is one that causes a physiological adaption.

progressive overload...look it up...a marathon runner doesnt go out their first month and run 25 miles. they run 5...then 10...then 15..20 and build up to their goal. the "progressively" increase the distance. the same method can be used to build muscles. you train for your goal

I don't get it. First you say they aren't the same. Then that they are working in the same way. Then that of course they aren't the same. They are different. But it's the same. Doesn't your total inability to communicate hinder your ability to work with clients?

they ae both working your chest, tris and delts in a lesser degree. they are the same in that way but the level of difficulty varies based upon other conditions. doing over head press seated work the same muscles as doing it standing, HOWEVER they are different in dificulty. standing you must have a much stronger core and other muscles come into play.besides just mainly the delts you have to use your legs,and back. both build the delt muscles...just like a seated bench press builds muscle like a push up and a bench press.the degree of difficulty varies

 

[nosweattkennels]

First of all, this paragraph has nothing to do with the "LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS" (at least not the ones that I took classes on in grad school). Secondly, we're not talking about fatties who eat a lot, we're talking about the original poster, who clearly isn't eating enough, as evidenced by the fact that he's 5 11 and 140 pounds.

the "law of thermodynamics" is about calories in vs calories out...to get bigger, which is what the TS asked, his caloric intake must be higher than what he burns.he must put in more than he takes out...cosumes 4000 cals- burns 2500 thru excercise and daily life = + 1500 calories extra....those cals will be used to build muscle or go become "stored energy", fat.....if he wanted to lose weight he would need to take in fewer calories than he is burning putting himself in a caloric deficit.therefore forcing his body to burn fat for energy, make sense? i said many people are unaware that they are consuming as many calories as they really are. they dont count calories in the tea he had for lunch or the oranges he consumed after lunch,the dr.pepper he had or the btl of oj he had on the way to work.

I'm not arguing this point - as I said, I'm not an advocate of the GOMAD. I'm merely pointing out that the reason it works is that most people are eating within a few hundred calories of maintenance, and the GOMAD ensures that they are in a caloric surplus.

im not arguing for either method but it is much cheaper and easier to drink a weight gaining shake than it is to drink a gallon of milk a day.

This is quite obviously untrue, or long distance runners would have massive legs, while sprinters would have tiny ones. The only technique that is going to have a positive effect on muscle growth is one that causes a physiological adaption.

progressive overload...look it up...a marathon runner doesnt go out their first month and run 25 miles. they run 5...then 10...then 15..20 and build up to their goal. the "progressively" increase the distance. the same method can be used to build muscles. you train for your goal

I don't get it. First you say they aren't the same. Then that they are working in the same way. Then that of course they aren't the same. They are different. But it's the same. Doesn't your total inability to communicate hinder your ability to work with clients?

they are both working your chest, tris and delts in a lesser degree. they are the same in that way but the level of difficulty varies based upon other conditions. doing over head press seated work the same muscles as doing it standing, HOWEVER they are different in dificulty. standing you must have a much stronger core and other muscles come into play.besides just mainly the delts you have to use your legs,and back. both build the delt muscles...just like a seated bench press builds muscle like a push up and a bench press.the degree of difficulty varies

 

[anaconda]

Lol - so a marathon runner's legs are stronger than a sprinter's legs, right? I mean, he can go for 26 miles while a sprinter might not be able to go more than one or two.

Plus, by your logic, someone who can run 100 miles should have bigger and stronger muscles than someone who can run 26 miles or just a couple of miles, right?

So out of these three, who is the strongest?

Hungarian-born Akos Konya, now of Oceanside, Calif., was the overall winner of the Lean Horse Ultra Marathon held in Hot Springs the weekend of Aug. 25-26. The 32-year-old runner completed the 100-mile endurance race in a record 15 hours and 24 minutes. Curt Nettinga/Hot Springs Star

Damn those are some powerful, gigantic legs! He must be really strong; after all he can run 100 miles!

Now this guy is just a normal marathon runner - notice how his legs aren't as big and strong as the ultra marathon guy.

Finally:

If it isn't painfully obvious by the pathetically weak and underdeveloped leg muscles, this guy is a weakass sprinter. DEFINITELY the two guys above have bigger AND stronger muscles than he does.

But since you obviously can't read or comprehend anything being said in this thread, I give up on you learning anything. But I'll try this one more time:

POST THE PIC OF YOURSELF

 

[nosweattkennels]

thanks for being able to argue your point of view with intelligence and an open mind

First, yes you will get stronger doing sets of 10, but not as efficiently as doing sets of 3-5 with heavier weight.

go back and re-read most of the post here. they say you can not gain strength. for a "VERY new" lifter he amy not have the muscle coordination,partner or core strength to just jump off the edge into the deep end of the pool. starting lighter and doing higher reps builds stabilizing muscles,builds confidence,allows him to workout without a partner and is safer for a beginner.

Third, how long do you think that will last. Yeah that's possible for a total beginner to progress like that but not for long, especially doing high-rep shit

how long will heavy weight light reps last? doing your way wont have an endless progression either. i learned the method while taking classes and seminars but living in southern california i took it with a grain of salt. it wasnt until i got injured by an americana did i resort back to what i had learned as a personal trainer. i had no choice but to start off very very light resistance. 1 push-up made me sweat due to pain.i continued to increase every workout and saw pretty damn good results so i continued to use the method. would i go enter a lifting competition using strictly my method..absolutely not. im not as strong as i once was but i do 225lbs on the bench and keep reps between 50-100. im sure my "max" isnt the 400 it once was but if i can do sets of 10 with 225 lbs then im pretty positive it would be close to 300lbs.

. If your hypothetical client is maxing out @ 225 then he's a real beginner and would do much better on the Starting Strength routine

EXACTLY....the TS said he was a real beginner

 

[ronin0352]

The reason most are saying you cannot gain strength is your presentation. You keep talking about doing 75-100 reps and at a glance that looks like straight, endurance exercise. I have done 10 sets of 10 reps before. In high school before I'd ever heard of it referred to as "German Volume Training" I got stronger, and I got bigger. But at that point I couldn't imagine lifting the weights I'm doing now, and I never imagined I'd be the size I am now. I only pulled my head out and started training the right way a little over a year ago too. I hadn't done any real lifting for years, and even then I was lifting like a dumb-ass curl monkey.

 

[ronin0352]

OK, I just went back and re-read the OP

Hey guys, I'm needing some help on what I should do for building (effective)muscle. I'm a pretty lanky guy, and really need to build some muscle. Besides pumping iron, what should I do? I'm very skinny, around 5'11'' and around 140lbs. I'd really like to get bigger.
I'm here with open ears. I'd like to get some muscle that will help me out, but I also would be lying if I said I dont want some muscle that look good too. What are some good tips in achieving both, or meeting halfway. Any help would be cool. Thanks to anyone who helps and isnt leaving some smartass comments.

Besides that, this thread is in Diet & Supplementation and really most of this discussion should be in S&P. (where you would be tarred & feathered BTW)

 

[nosweattkennels]

Lol - so a marathon runner's legs are stronger than a sprinter's legs, right? I mean, he can go for 26 miles while a sprinter might not be able to go more than one or two.

Plus, by your logic, someone who can run 100 miles should have bigger and stronger muscles than someone who can run 26 miles or just a couple of miles, right?

youre taking everything out of context....the TS asked how to get bigger.. is that agreed? i told him that using lighter weight/higher reps, using a progressive overload method, CAN add size and strength. do you agree with that if you start with 100lbs, for example, and the next week you do 150 lbs and the third week you lift 200 lbs that you are getting stronger? if you are getting stronger then your body is adapting and growing..."IF" your diet is at a caloric surplus. is that agreed? you cant increase the resistance/weight and not increase muscle size and strength as long as you have the resources ( from caloric intake) to do it. if youre eating 1000k cals a day of course you wont get bigger, agreed?

 

[nosweattkennels]

The reason most are saying you cannot gain strength is your presentation. You keep talking about doing 75-100 reps and at a glance that looks like straight, endurance exercise. I have done 10 sets of 10 reps before. In high school before I'd ever heard of it referred to as "German Volume Training" I got stronger, and I got bigger. But at that point I couldn't imagine lifting the weights I'm doing now, and I never imagined I'd be the size I am now. I only pulled my head out and started training the right way a little over a year ago too. I hadn't done any real lifting for years, and even then I was lifting like a dumb-ass curl monkey.

i see your point of view....you highlighted "effective" muscle...what does EFFECTIVE muscle mean to a guy who weighs a 140lbs? im willing to bet he has never been to a gym more than a month straight. would you agree? you said you started doing 10 sets of 10 reps in high school anf got stronger and bigger, right? do you,honestly, think a 140lb boy or man doesnt have the same muscle size,knowledge,experience at weight lifting and strength of a high school student? so if the high reps helped you get started wouldnt you advise a similar person to began the way you did? getting him started, motivated, safe from injuries, and seeing results will lead him further into developing more goals. i seriously doubt his goal right now is to be a power lifter. overtime, as he gets bigger and stronger he may want to pursue that goal.

 

[ronin0352]

I would think "effective muscle" means he has a desire to get stronger.

Yes I got stronger. I also implied that I could have/would have gotten a lot stronger had I trained smart. Also, I was not your average 16-17 year old kid. I weighed over 200 lbs my sophomore year and pulled 430. I also "squatted" 540, but it was really a half squat cause that was fine with the HS coaches, they just wanted to say they had linemen squatting 500+, not caring whether it was a real lift.

Had I known how to train properly I might have been able to squat 500+ for real and been a strong SOB by now.