thinkin about tryin a run with 20 rep dips. Anyone have any thoughts/experience?
  This is a LABEL FREE Zone  |
|  Sign up for the FREE NaturalStrength newsletter |  |
20 rep dips
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 grffn |
20 rep dips |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 154 (22-Jul-08 15:40:13) Moderator |
|
||
|
Fred Fornicola |
|||
|
Posts: 33 (22-Jul-08 16:52:18) |
grffn,
Doing high repetition work for the upper body is much different than that for the lower body. I had a very interesting conversation with a long-time strength coach about this on a number of occasions. It appears that the lower body can withstand a greater capacity for more endurance - possibly due to our "fight or flight" capability our legs seem to "go further" when they need to. The upper body, however, does not have the same capicity and therefore will peeter out much quicker. I make this point because it may take you some time to develop some muscular endurance to achieve 20 good, consecutive dips - maybe not, I don't know your current abilities/training/capacities, etc. but give it some time. I did find that when embarking on higher rep training that adding more volume helps because you are building up more endurance (and strength) so do a max set to see where you are and work from there. |
||
|
grffn |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (22-Jul-08 20:08:24) Moderator |
I see what your saying Fred. I can easily perform 20 reps with bodyweight. My only concern is,is it worth it to use less weight to achieve higher reps? I'm
more concerned with strength and muscular growth than muscular endurance,but need to try somethin different. I rarely go higher than 8 reps with upper body
training so I don't really know what effect the higher reps will have. Only one way to find out tho. I always thought lower body responded better to higher
reps due to building up a resistance to workloads due to supporting the body walking,running,years of sports playing,etc. I didn't think that up,I read
that somewhere!!!!!!LOL
|
||
|
Fred Fornicola |
|||
|
Posts: 33 (22-Jul-08 20:14:37) |
Strength is a relative term.
Yes, you can glean muscular growth from high reps if worked hard. |
||
|
grffn |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (22-Jul-08 22:41:50) Moderator |
I get ya. Don't want to open the "magic number of reps" debate. I realize there really isn't a difference between doin 20 or 16 or 22 reps in
a squat for example. But I have experienced a little "magic" with 20 rep squats! Was wondering if high rep dips could do the same or close. That may
come back to upper vs. lower body like you mentioned earlier,and how they respond to workloads. Don't want to open the fast twitch vs. slow twitch debate
either,even tho there may be some validity to it. Although I don't think thats a given.
|
||
|
Fred Fornicola |
|||
|
Posts: 33 (23-Jul-08 05:56:37) |
grffn,
I'm not really concerned about the magic number debate - my statement isn't going to correlate on a post so I'll leave it "as is". The best you can do is give a whirl and see what it does for you. And give it a true test - like for 3-4 weeks. Even if it doesn't give you the partiuclar results you are looking for, you can still use high reps as part of a productive strength program |
||
|
J Duggan |
|||
|
Posts: 126 (23-Jul-08 10:30:37) Moderator |
I've never done high rep dips. It sounds like a good idea, and Good Luck with it Jgriff. I forgot who made the statement, but dips have been described as
"upper body squats." I also never figured out the comparison regarding high reps for the lower body versus the upper body. It certainly makes sense.
Sometimes it does take a bit of science to understand the finer points of training.
|
||
|
grffn |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (23-Jul-08 11:38:18) Moderator |
I was hesitant to even write "fast twitch" "slow Twitch" on this forum. We have stayed away from the deep science,which is a good thing.
The last time I read something about fibers I think it was still open to debate. There are a many different reasons given as to why lower body responds to
higher reps differently than upper,but who cares,just do it!!!!!!!!!!LOL
|
||
|
Silverback1946 |
|||
|
Posts: 45 (23-Jul-08 14:21:09) |
The difference in firing rates between "Fast Twitch and Slow Twitch Muscles" is in the Milliseconds. Good for science people to reflect on but not
much for the gym rat or garage gorilla.
|
||
|
J Duggan |
|||
|
Posts: 126 (23-Jul-08 22:30:28) Moderator |
I never really bought into the whole fast/slow twitch muscle fiber thing. Like you said Jgriff, "Just do it." That is probably the best piece of
advice to give anybody who is trying to gain strength/size. So many people read ( and even write ) complicated training programs which emphasize a bunch of
bulls--- theories, data, and information when the answer to most trainng problems would be to just do it. Hard work on the basics. An easy concept to
understand, but not always easy to apply.
|
||
|
grffn |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (23-Jul-08 23:49:00) Moderator |
It seems most strength training authors will take a piece of science and spin it to sell their "system". After the basics (what makes a muscle
grow,etc) its all talk. There are alot of variations but I believe there are only a few different ways for a drug free trainee to gain muscular size and
strength.
|
||
|
Fred Fornicola |
|||
|
Posts: 33 (24-Jul-08 08:02:00) |
I wouldn't spend any time worrying about FT/ST or any other "twitching" that goes on. Some have pointed out (I believe it was Dr Michael Wolfe)
that FT fibers come into play when a set is taken to muscular fatigue and that the repetitions don'e really matter. Anyone can take a weight and do it for
5-8 reps but if they don't work to muscular failure (or at least close to it) they aren't stimulating all the fibers since the fibers have a
"firing" order. Whether that or anything else is truly accurate, it probably doesn't matter. I think reps/sets/exercises shold be varied often -
especially for the aging trainee.
|
||
|
bigcracker |
|||
|
Posts: 88 (24-Jul-08 12:27:21) |
Yep and to many newcomers all the "extra" science leads to paralysis by analysis and they make NO progress. I forget who said it, maybe Kim Wood but
" Strength Training ain't rocket science".
|
||
|
M BOB WHELAN |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (28-Jul-08 10:37:11) Administrator |
There are also those who "use" science to make everything a debate (and stay confused on purpose) just to delay doing the hard work needed. We all
know these types.
|
||
|
M BOB WHELAN |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (28-Jul-08 16:29:13) Administrator |
Here are 2 reasons for the science problem I can think of at the moment between clients. There are many more I'm sure.
One is - A lot of what is written as "science" is not science but just "freedom of speech" by internet guru's with no academic background at all. This gives science a lot of the bad name it has. There is some disagreement in science, but for the most part, a University course in Exercise Physiology will stay consistent at different universities and by different professors. "Certifications" are part of the problem. Anyone can make their own organization (and certification) and say whatever they want and charge money for it even if the certification has no academic value. There are several hundred of them now in the fitness field. Some are good but most are crap and just enable unqualified people to speak as experts in nutrition and fitness. All you need is an opinion to train people, spout science, give advice etc. Sad but true. People take advice from anyone that looks the part: their bartender with big arms, their co worker on steroids etc. I hear this stuff every day. Its really funny. You can be a great hands on coach or personal trainer without a degree but just leave the science part to guys like Ted Lambrinides who has REAL scientific training. Two is - The term strength is being watered down now to mean many things instead of its true academic meaning - the ability to produce force. Muscular endurance, being lean or having low body fat, looking good etc are being called "strength" now in TV ads, in mags etc. People that are just "lean" with abs only are labelled strong in TV commercials etc so the average person has no idea what strength is anymore. |
||
|
bigcracker |
|||
|
Posts: 88 (29-Jul-08 08:29:44) |
Bob I laughed when I read the part about seeking advice from the guy with big arms. Here at Gitmo, at the Marine Hill Gym, I saw this guy the other day who is
a "Personal Trainer". (He advertises but doesn't list his cert.) Anyway, he was training this chick and they were monopolizing the power rack (
my other home!) doing of all things VERY light SLDLs, shrugs and wrist curls behind the back. This guy was lean but...he was NOT strong by any definition of
the word. This ass clown was doing shrugs with a whopping 135 lbs and worked up to a frigging partial shrug of 225 and had to use straps even for that. I was
hearing him say crap like "you need to go slow and feel the movement. " and "you will get bigger if you pump the muscle with blood, so max out
the reps". I actually couldn't belive my ears. He was actually a living stereotype like the kind that Kubik used to parody in his writings.
Now, lest I am misinterpreted, I am not criticizing anyone for handling a weight that seems light to me or others IF they are working hard and it is truly heavy to them. If a certain weight is all a person can handle for now that is fine but sticking with a certain weight to "pump" is ridiculous not to mention never increasing the load or not increasing it progressively. This guy told her he had been training for 25 years. If that is the case he has been goofing off for 24 years at a minimum. I would venture to say that any healthy trainee with one year of solid lifting under his belt could have handled the poundages this guy was "working". Pathetic.
Last Edited By: bigcracker
29-Jul-08 08:33:00.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
M BOB WHELAN |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (29-Jul-08 09:41:08) Administrator |
Its typical of how sad the whole fitness/nutrition/health field has become. I liked it a lot more when only a few of us did it and we had more of a bonding or
brotherhood. Now, I can't stand most lifters! :-) Or I should say the newbies who think they are lifting. It was better 30 years ago when we were more of a
cult. Joking.
|
||
|
M BOB WHELAN |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (29-Jul-08 12:55:33) Administrator |
Its a double edged sword. In a lot of ways it is WAY better now despite what I said above. (Thats true too! I did like it better then!) It depends on how you
look at it. Many more people are training now which is better, the info OVERALL about training/nutrition etc is much better than it was to the masses. The
AVERAGE PERSON knows more now than the average person 30 years ago did. (The hardcore guys where better THEN but there were few of us.) There are many more
good well equipped gyms now etc too, but with this information explosion comes much more confusion, headaches etc with beginners etc. When you do this every
day as a business it can wear on you a lot more.
|
||
|
dblutz10 |
|||
|
Posts: 9 (29-Jul-08 17:19:28) |
I agree with Bob and the other comments all the way. Back in the 70's, we had very little information available for the novice trainer-I somehow figured
out that the mega-set muscle mag stuff was BS from the git-go, so I stuck with full body, three times a week, three set routines. But nothing really explained
much beyond that. There is much better information available now, thanks to the internet, as long as you go to the right places.(this and the old forum, for
example) If I had known back then what I have learned in the last few years, I would be King Kong by now! (instead of a very middle aged chimpanzee). Like the
cliche goes, youth is wasted on the young!
|
||
|
grffn |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (29-Jul-08 17:39:22) Moderator |
Things are better if you know where to look sums it up perfectly! How could a publication like Hardgainer not become the #1 selling weight training mag if
things were in their proper place? you have to dig thru a mountain of garbage to find a nugget of truth on the internet and in print!!! never mind finding a
trainer that knows what he's doing. As far as I can tell I would have to commute to D.C. to find a decent trainer!!!!! People refuse to accept what we on
this forum know to be true about drug free weight training!!!!!!
|
||
|
drumstrong |
|||
|
Posts: 31 (30-Jul-08 17:21:16) |
I don't know why people complicate the issue, maybe because they don't like to train hard and try to justify it. Maybe they actually believe this stuff
is more complicated than it really is. Maybe creating and promoting new "complexities" in exercise allows more "experts" to be in the
business of fitness. I prefer simple, basic, hard, and progressive whether its high reps, low reps, machine, freeweight, or bodyweight. Change the exercises
periodically and/or the sequence for mental variety. That's about it, but on this everyone knows this.
|
||
- Strength Training & Iron Game
- Physical Culture & Iron Game History
- Grip, Feats, Odd Objects & Strongman
- Strength Coach Forum - Training Athletes
- Strength & Conditioning - Football Only
- Strength Nutrition
- Strength Science & Research
- Dangers of Steroids/ PEDs
- Body Weight Exercise, Fitness, & Strength Endurance
- Mental & Spiritual Strength
- Martial Arts & Self Defense
- Sports Talk
- Strength BS Rants
- Posts Without A Home
- Admin Announcements
Quick Reply
   |
| Sign up for the FREE NaturalStrength Newsletter   |
 HOME BIZ |
NaturalStrengthTRAVEL.com  |
 | ||
