Lifting Reps or Heavy?

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post
    bla bla bla. I agree with you that all the other factors you mentioned have an effect on how efficient a type of training is for you. bla bla bla.

    it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

    now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

    training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post

    it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

    now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

    training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.
    Ohh dont forget the fact some focus on sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and myofibrillar hypertrophy and base training programs around them but in actuality a good routine will do both.
    Online community manager/lead rep of Chaos and Pain,LLC and Fundamental Nutrition.Check us out!chaosandpain.com fnsupps.com Follow me on instagram:@pyrobatt
    •   
       


  3. IMO, I think more important factor(s) that "seem" to make differences come from the mental aspect ie: whether or not people respond better from rep numbers or differing levels of intensities etc. in peoples training, are more from what they are comfortable doing, enjoy doing, or wrap their heads around, than an actual "under the microscope" reason why certain things work for certain people.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    it appears you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. simplify or over complicate: we are all homo sapien. therefore we all have the same anatomy. therefore we all the same physiology. therefore we all have the same mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation. that is why programs like 5/3/1 work for every body. that is why a 5x5 program works for every body. that is why proven programs work for every body. the mechanisms are the same.

    now does leverages make a difference, sure they do. but do the require a different program, no. does carb tolerance or intolerance effect a body, yes. does that mean the mechanisms behind reaching ones goals are different, no. do we have different muscle fiber types, yes. are they enough to make a mechanical difference in our training, no. and we know via research that muscle fiber types can change and that most homo sapiens have the same mix of type 1 and type 2.

    training age can make a far bigger impact on a program than what you label as genetics. your genetics are majoring in the minors. things that are great to know academically but dont make a difference to the other 99+% of the world.
    First not sure when we went from a discussion to being condescending to one another... Second, I am far from digging myself out of a hole because I am not in one. I am simply discussing this with you and would be happy to tip my hat to you and say I was wrong if I felt you had proved your side of the argument. You have not. You have proven that you know for a program to be universally effective it has to address the mechanism for muscular adaptation across the board for everyone. You have not proven that genetics do not play a part in the results of your training and or which method of training may be ideal for you.

    Let me make sure I understand your stance here. Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with how your body responds to training. So if I take 2 untrained people with very different genetic traits, let's just say one can naturally run distance pretty easily, but is not very fast in sprinting, can't lift a lot of weight but can do a lot of reps with low-moderate weight. Then take someone who is not a great endurance runner, but is a naturally fast sprinter, is extremely explosive, and can lift a lot of weight. Then train them both the same way that they would get the same results in strength and muscle mass gains because the mechanisms of training are the same so the adaptation should be the same therefore the results would be identical if genetics were not a factor.
    Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
    Current Training Log -
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/276206-kleen-strong-body.html

  5. Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post
    You have not proven that genetics do not play a part in the results of your training and or which method of training may be ideal for you.
    thats cause i have not tried to, nor will i. i will hold by my statement that genetics as you have defined them plays such a minor role, and that the mechanisms as i have stated, are the same from person to person so they make such a greater part of the variables to determine what works and does work that your genetics just dont matter. it would be analogous to saying that drinking orange juice over grape juice is better. i ask better for what? and by how much? a significant amount? enough of an amount that different people can measure the same results in the same and different people with enough accuracy to be considered viable..... i say not. again, majoring in the minors.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post
    Let me make sure I understand your stance here. Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with how your body responds to training.
    nope. you stated here:
    What about the Origin and Insertion points of muscle is that not genetically controlled either?

    i responded and you even quoted:
    now does leverages make a difference, sure they do.

    which if you may have missed. was my reference to your insertion/origin point. that was an interpretation of the intent of that which i stated as leverages. which insertion and original points do directly affect leverages, thank you physics.



    Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post
    So if I take 2 untrained people with very different genetic traits, let's just say one can naturally run distance pretty easily, but is not very fast in sprinting, can't lift a lot of weight but can do a lot of reps with low-moderate weight. Then take someone who is not a great endurance runner, but is a naturally fast sprinter, is extremely explosive, and can lift a lot of weight. Then train them both the same way that they would get the same results in strength and muscle mass gains because the mechanisms of training are the same so the adaptation should be the same therefore the results would be identical if genetics were not a factor.
    do you think they would get the same results? i am guessing you would think no. and you would be correct. but not for the reason you think. the mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same between them, therefore they will both respond to the training. training age can allow for varying effect. so can age, sex, hormone levels, nutrition, sleep and stress habits. much more so than your defined genetics.

    training age being a huge part here especially with their type of training. a marathoner trains like a marathoner and therefore does not have 1RM absolute strength of a sprinter, and sprinter does not have the endurance capacity of the marathoner. we know from research that type 2b fibers can change their main focus. now you may think that is genetics, but that is a mechanism. therefore they will get different results and not because of genetics but due to training age, past training, and likely actual age and hormonal levels, and even possibly sex and actual age. all of which have a much greater impact on training than your defined genetics.

    to wrap up, someone can train to be more specific and someone can train to have more endurance. then they can switch to train for the other. as their training age increases per their specific training that has a great effect on training. and in no way am i saying genetics dont have an effect, just not in they way you seem to keep thinking and stating.


    now back to the OP, this is a great discussion as well as some other posts to maybe help your answer. both can help. training age, hormone leves, sleep, nutrition, and belief in the program can have an effect of which is better.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    thats cause i have not tried to, nor will i. i will hold by my statement that genetics as you have defined them plays such a minor role, and that the mechanisms as i have stated, are the same from person to person so they make such a greater part of the variables to determine what works and does work that your genetics just dont matter. it would be analogous to saying that drinking orange juice over grape juice is better. i ask better for what? and by how much? a significant amount? enough of an amount that different people can measure the same results in the same and different people with enough accuracy to be considered viable..... i say not. again, majoring in the minors.



    nope. you stated here:
    What about the Origin and Insertion points of muscle is that not genetically controlled either?

    i responded and you even quoted:
    now does leverages make a difference, sure they do.

    which if you may have missed. was my reference to your insertion/origin point. that was an interpretation of the intent of that which i stated as leverages. which insertion and original points do directly affect leverages, thank you physics.

    do you think they would get the same results? i am guessing you would think no. and you would be correct. but not for the reason you think. the mechanisms behind muscle stimulus and adaptation are the same between them, therefore they will both respond to the training. training age can allow for varying effect. so can age, sex, hormone levels, nutrition, sleep and stress habits. much more so than your defined genetics.

    training age being a huge part here especially with their type of training. a marathoner trains like a marathoner and therefore does not have 1RM absolute strength of a sprinter, and sprinter does not have the endurance capacity of the marathoner. we know from research that type 2b fibers can change their main focus. now you may think that is genetics, but that is a mechanism. therefore they will get different results and not because of genetics but due to training age, past training, and likely actual age and hormonal levels, and even possibly sex and actual age. all of which have a much greater impact on training than your defined genetics.

    to wrap up, someone can train to be more specific and someone can train to have more endurance. then they can switch to train for the other. as their training age increases per their specific training that has a great effect on training. and in no way am i saying genetics dont have an effect, just not in they way you seem to keep thinking and stating.


    now back to the OP, this is a great discussion as well as some other posts to maybe help your answer. both can help. training age, hormone leves, sleep, nutrition, and belief in the program can have an effect of which is better.
    Okay so I started typing up a response to this but decided to think on what you are saying to make sense in my head over the conversation. Let me take a stab at this and see if I have arrived at some understanding of what you mean. Since we actually agreed on so much and you seem educated in the matter I tried to see if I could come up with a bridge to the gap in our conversation. The last part of your post in bold is what got me thinking a little differently.

    My thought process was that there may be a genetic predisposition for certain attributes, IE someone being naturally muscular, explosive and powerful. That this person would get better results training specifically for his natural given traits like heavy lifting and lower reps. So it would seem that genetically that type of training would be ideal for him. Say another guy was very thin, not strong but could run distances without any training. Thought would be that higher reps and endurance training might be ideal for him.

    Now after taking a moment to process what you were saying regarding proven programs use universally proven mechanisms of training stimulus, it began to occur to me that perhaps as you say the training mechanism being universal that the results are the only thing that is individual. That brought me to this though process.

    If the mechanisms behind the training are the same, EI the two people listed above are both doing 5x5, they will get results, albeit different results. However the different results are not due to if the training was ideal for the genetics but if the genetics were ideal for growth/strength. Meaning the naturally muscular guy is probably going to make more muscular gains than the naturally skinny guy regardless of what type of resistance training they use because he is made to naturally carry more muscle. So certainly genetic traits has something to do with it, but there are more important factors that can actually be manipulated which are the factors we have been agreeing on thus far like training age, rest, stress and all of the other factors.

    So is that along the same lines as what you have been saying? Someone may be naturally inclined toward a type of training because they are naturally gifted in that area. However that does not mean that the training is any more ideal for him than training in a completely different and opposite end of the spectrum. Basically a naturally muscular guy will gain more muscle than a naturally skinny guy whether on a high volume moderate weight, low volume heavy resistance or moderate volume moderate weight program because he is naturally predisposed to gaining and holding more muscle.

    Is that more along the lines with how genetics would play a role from your understanding?

    I hope others are actually enjoying or learning from this conversation. I think it is a good one and you seem to be intelligent which is why I bother to go back and forth with you at all. It is always good to discuss things, and if you don't just close the book on people with different views there is so much to learn out there.
    Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
    Current Training Log -
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/276206-kleen-strong-body.html

  7. I've been reading and following. Your debate is a good read. Interesting points and logic from both of you.
    May I suggest using this app to track your bloodwork tests:
    myBloodTracker for IPhone and IPad
    https://appsto.re/us/vvMndb.i

  8. Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post
    Is that more along the lines with how genetics would play a role from your understanding?

    I hope others are actually enjoying or learning from this conversation. I think it is a good one and you seem to be intelligent which is why I bother to go back and forth with you at all. It is always good to discuss things, and if you don't just close the book on people with different views there is so much to learn out there.
    well sh!t. if that wasnt well put i dont know what is. that is what i am [trying] to say.

    the way i have commonly tried to explain how different people get different results even on a proven program i got from a chemist. they know mathematically how things will react. but mathematics allow for a controlled environment. if a chemical reaction is not as expected there was something else involved in the reaction. this can still be explained mathematically but that variable is an unknown and needs to still be taken into account.

    to add to that. genetics plays a role in this example that say we take 2 people and one person has way higher test levels. using directly the chemical reaction analogy we know we are going to get a different solution from the chemicals/hormones involved. mechanically the process is the same but the amounts used were different so the outcome is different.

    does that make sense?
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  9. Without reading all the arguments, I know I've always responded better to heavy weight, performed sprints better than long distance runs etcetera. Whether the tiny genetic percentage difference between myself or another guy is statistically insignificant, performance wise I am oceans apart from endurance athletes where the rubber meets the road.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    well sh!t. if that wasnt well put i dont know what is. that is what i am [trying] to say.

    the way i have commonly tried to explain how different people get different results even on a proven program i got from a chemist. they know mathematically how things will react. but mathematics allow for a controlled environment. if a chemical reaction is not as expected there was something else involved in the reaction. this can still be explained mathematically but that variable is an unknown and needs to still be taken into account.

    to add to that. genetics plays a role in this example that say we take 2 people and one person has way higher test levels. using directly the chemical reaction analogy we know we are going to get a different solution from the chemicals/hormones involved. mechanically the process is the same but the amounts used were different so the outcome is different.

    does that make sense?
    Cool, I can totally make sense out of that. Basically genetics should not be the deciding factor for training but instead the training should be focused toward your specific goal at the time. Genetics will have a factor in your results but on a much broader stroke across all forms of training, not one type specifically.

    I would add that personal preference is a factor in getting a lot out of your program. If you really enjoy doing it and pushing yourself with the training you will make better gains because you give more of yourself to the endeavor. I would say shocking the body but really that comes to the training age since it is typically "new training" to the body even in a trained state.
    Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
    Current Training Log -
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/276206-kleen-strong-body.html

  11. Here's a brilliant training mind giving a short discourse on the very topic you guys are covering:

    http://articles.elitefts.com/trainin...rent-training/
    Training log:
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/240172-herders-2014-log.html

  12. A timely find here. I just ran across this video from Elliot Hulse and he touches on this very thing.

    Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
    Current Training Log -
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/276206-kleen-strong-body.html

  13. Quote Originally Posted by herderdude View Post
    Here's a brilliant training mind giving a short discourse on the very topic you guys are covering:

    http://articles.elitefts.com/trainin...rent-training/
    Thanks I will check it out.
    Live Hard, Laugh Hard, Love Hard and Heal Fast! - KLEEN
    Current Training Log -
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/276206-kleen-strong-body.html

  14. Quote Originally Posted by MrKleen73 View Post

    Thanks I will check it out.
    Good discussion, by the way!
    Training log:
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/240172-herders-2014-log.html

  15. I heart Jenny P...

  16. Quote Originally Posted by napalm View Post
    I heart Jenny P...
    Me too. She warms my, um, heart. And stimulates my, um, brain. Yeah, that's what I meant to say.
    Training log:
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/240172-herders-2014-log.html

  17. Staying within your anaerobic threshold will yield the best results. It is the fast-twitch muscle fibers that have the primary function of the contractions within a muscle group that is under great resistance and use more phosphate than glucose...and will also hypertrophy in a greater degree of response than slow-twitch muscle fibers will. However, some individuals though, do not HAVE fast-twitch fibers as the dominant makeup of their muscle groups or certain muscle groups. Instead, they have more slow-twitch, "endurance type" fibers that do not hypertrophy as much. But they do. Going short of having your dominant fiber type determined by an anatomist, simply experimenting to find your "prescription" for reps is all you can do.

  18. Wow. You may as well be a bot with that cut and paste response.

  19. Whatever that is. I wrote it.

    Before that; I learned it in 10th grade biology class.

  20. I've heard that it's more about total weight lifted than a particular rep scheme.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by jmiyamoto View Post
    I've heard that it's more about total weight lifted than a particular rep scheme.
    this is true in a way. one way to look at it is to refer to prilipins chart. that shows, at least for strength, a good range of total volume when compared to intensity to reach ones goals. training for size can get away with lower intensity and can use/need much more volume. i think it was zirred that posted a research article he found that showed that rep range was secondary to going to concentric muscular failure on the last rep of a set. so whether it was 5 reps or 10 or 20 it was how hard you worked not how many reps.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  22. I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by jmiyamoto View Post
    I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.
    Thats why I was certain to clarify concentric and not eccentric or isometric failure.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  24. Saw that now. Gotcha.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by jmiyamoto View Post
    I'm conflicted about that. The NSCA-CPT book I have actually had a whole paragraph about how going to failure might be counterproductive, which is weird, but I'm not a strength scientist so I have no idea who to trust.
    It depends on the fitness level, and many other factors, of the person going that far. If you're a beginner; that's too much...it can force too high of a lactic acid and blood CK level to recover from in a practical amount of time.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Good form, or heavy weight
    By someguy1984 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 06:31 PM
  2. What's better...one more rep, or more weight?
    By drivehard in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 12:40 AM
  3. Heavy reps or lighter reps better for back?
    By GOG in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-15-2006, 10:23 PM
  4. Light squat or heavy leg press???
    By lvtrojan in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-25-2003, 05:00 PM
Log in
Log in