.

I

icklemoley

Cathlete
NOTE:

Due to the fact that this informatin was taken from no less than 15 different books and articles, plus re-written by myself i have choose to take it off as to not offend people by not being able to justify it in its entirety.

The information originally posted here was taken and adapted from the following:

K Voight

C Poliquin

J Berardi

C Staley

German Volume Training (google)

High Frequency Training (google)

Freestyle Training (google)

L Dayton

C Davis (coach)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Thanks Wayne, that's very interesting (although I had to look up hypertrophy, lol).
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Hi Wayne :)

As an overweight woman anxiously awaiting the beginner/intermediate DVD's, this sounds very interesting.

Please fast forward to a date when I have mastered the new DVD's. Can you please recommend a Cathe Workout (or two)that best exemplifies this strategy?

~kandy~
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Is this info from some web site? Could you reference it please, if it's not your info?
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Thanks for that Wayne.
There are certainly alot of theories on weight training aren't there?
For me this high rep thing would not work as it kind of constrains the number of different exercises you can do for a specific bodypart. I think it may become a time issue too for some people.
I kind of combine the hypertrophy and endurance into one workout by doing low reps for 2 sets(8 reps) and then the third set to complete failure. By going to failure you recruit more fibers as well. Works well for me. I just don't see the point to endless repetions. In fact that initial "prepping" phase where you are doing all of the repetions with low weight almost reminds me of workout regimes I have seen where they start out with that type of lifting in order to "prepare" the body for later heavier lifting.
It's also interesting that this workout calls the initial phase of 1-6 weeks a "strength" segment when it's really a muscle "endurance" segment.
I'm here to tell everyone that if you want to cut the fat you gotta combine a decent diet, weight lifting, with HIGH INTENSITY cardio sessions involving intervals and perhaps one longer cardio session per week. When I say intense, I mean, intense. You may be breathing hard, but if that heart rate is not in your CORRECTLY calculated HR work zone, then you are not going to get the same results.
And as far as weights go, I think there are as many theories as there are people. In the end, experimenting a bit and finding what works for you is the best way to go about this. No one theory is the best.
Just my 2 cents. Now, you can start shooting the arrows! LOL!
:)
T.
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Kathryn, I'm not picking on you but you really are a stickler for that reference thing aren't you? :)
I do agree with you by the way. If someone wrote something that is copied, they should be credited.
T. :)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Trevor, I don't have any arrows to shoot, but my rose bushes are trying to bloom and it's only 40 degrees here!! Will you take some rose stems, fresh with thorns, instead? }( Actually, I just have a couple of comments to make, and they are likely to show how out of the loop I am when it comes to new theories on weight training.

I do know what hypertrophy means, so I guess I have that going for me ... LOL!! Anyway ... I always thought - and someone please correct me if this is now passe information - that to increase muscle size you had to work said muscle to exhaustion. Also, I always believed that lower weights combined with higher number of reps equaled more of an endurance type workout. On the other extreme, higher weights with lower reps - and working the muscle to exhaustion at the end of those last couple of reps - would result in building the muscle mass - increasing the size. So ... I guess my question in all this is ... why should it matter how many actual reps you do, when the GOAL is to work the muscle to exhaustion?

For example, when I first started doing the Slow & Heavy series, which I use for building muscle, not endurance, I started at a weight I could use, and worked the muscle to exhaustion by the third set, and the last couple of reps of that set. The first time I did Biceps and Triceps, for example, I was using 2 10# dumbells for bicep curls. When the 10's no longer worked the muscle to exhaustion by the end of the cycle, I upped it to 2 12#'s. When that no longer did the trick I upped it to my current weight of 2 15#'s. That is now almost not working the muscle to exhaustion by the end of the third cycle, but the jump from 30# total to 40# total is a big one. Does it really matter that I'm actually doing 24 total reps (3 sets of 8)? What if the workout were designed to do 4 sets of 10? What I'm asking is, is there actual scientific evidence that you have to do a specific number of reps at that exhaustion weight, or is that simply an arbitrary number so it gives you something by which to measure progress? It would seem to me that it wouldn't really matter what the actual count was, if the goal is to work the muscle to exhaustion. Of course, I do understand that to truly monitor progress you have to do the same number of reps each time, but is the actual number you pick significant?

Does this question make any sense to anyone besides me?? LOL!!

Thanks in advance!!

Carol
:)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

>Does this question make any sense to anyone besides me?? LOL!!

Oddly, it does to me, LOL! :) :) :)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Carol, I hear what you are saying. Who set the standard to do the 3 sets of 8 instead of like 4 sets of 10? On Cory Everson's Upper Body video for example, she does 3 sets of 12. So if a person became acclimated to the 8 reps, why not shoot for more reps if increasing the weight is not applicable? When I'm all gung ho, I do 3 sets of 10 on the Slow Heavy as I feel I'm lifting heavy enough at the moment.

So many theories, so little reliable documentation. Perhaps it is just so individualized that it becomes 'whatever you see the best results' is the best for you. ?????
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

>Kathryn, I'm not picking on you but you really are a stickler
>for that reference thing aren't you? :)
>I do agree with you by the way. If someone wrote something
>that is copied, they should be credited.
>T. :)


Yep, as a teacher who must constantly get on my students about plagiarism, I'm pretty much a stickler for referencing.

I also like to follow up on info, and if references are given, I can do that.

(Besides, one should give credit where credit is due.)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Carol, I think your question's a valid one. But does that mean if you exhaust your biceps in two reps with, say, 35# dumbbells, then that's as many reps as you need to do? That would make our workouts a lot shorter, wouldn't it?!

Actually, I remember reading there's a scientific basis for the traditional 8-12 (give or take) reps recommended for strength/endurance gains. Too bad I can't remember what it was! Can anyone shed some light?
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Couldn't this kind of training create overuse injuries? Just seems like overkill to me to do so many reps, but I'm not an expert.
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Far be it from me to challenge a post that goes on that long (and I also believe it was copied from another website; I'd be interested to know which one), but this whole system sounds like more exercise voodoo to me.

Particularly this sentence: "This training method will result in the elimination of fat from the overall body and, more importantly, the local muscle groups involved in activity." I infer from this sentence that this "method" promises to enable the exerciser to lose storage fat selectively by performing specific exercises.

It is a given, in human physiology, that one cannot selectively lose fat stores. WHERE fat is stored is entirely genetically determined. One can increase muscle mass in a given area by strength training, but where fat is lost is up to the genes, not the exerciser.

Wayne, as Kathryn requested, please cite your source for this post. I think the readers here have a right to know which newfangled method is being trumpeted today.

There are two ways to make a killing in the diet / fitness industry: to restate basic human physiology; and to rewrite human physiology. Never underestimate the Barnum and Bailey quality of the Body Beautiful Biz.

A-Jock
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

I'm with Kathryn. No offense meant Wayne, but it doesn't appear you wrote the post. Would you credit your source?

Debra
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

I wish someone would, Susan - thank you! I see what you're saying. I could most likely totally exhaust my bicep muscle with a 50 pound dumbell after one rep. In fact, I'd be lucky to be able to pick up a pencil after attempting a bicep curl with a 50 pound weight - LOL!! That seems very silly to me - to do one rep with the most ridiculously heavy weight I can lift. So, I'm assuming there is a reason behind doing a set number of reps, or perhaps a minimum number of reps, with the heaviest weight you can use, with good form of course. I doubt I'd have good form trying to do a bicep curl with a 50 pound weight. I'm glad you remember reading somewhere that the traditional 8 to 12 reps has some scientific basis. I tried doing a search because I was curious after Wayne's initial post, but I can't find anything concrete. Maybe someone will come along and cite a reference for us? Thanks for responding!!

Carol
:)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Thanks, Donna!!

Carol
:)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

That's so true - even Cathe herself does different amounts of reps in different videos. I just wondered if the "traditional" amount had a reason behind it, but maybe it doesn't? Maybe I'm over-thinking this whole thing, and you're right. We should individualize it according to our body's specific needs, and according to the results we see?

Carol
:)
 
RE: Weight Training for Weight Loss (Muscle Definition)

Do any of you have any idea how long it took to write, re-write and assemble that information? Longer than I care to mention and all I get on here is “over training, plagiarism, copied from another site, and anatomy jargon”. Before you criticise something, how about actually trying it? Just a thought? Then you can give an honest opinion. Until then, why bother saying if it will work, or create over training...how about trying it??? Is this information all mine? Of course not. I wrote this all out, not copied word for word and gotten from a number of no less than 15 different “experts” and adapted greatly for the target audience. But I wish I hadn’t bothered.

Kathryn ... really hope i don't get detention
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top