Higher reps/low weights "VS" Low reps/high weight

Cathe~~ (or anyone could help answer this debate).
I have heard the only way to really add muscle (tone up) and lean down is doing the Low reps/high weight. That the Higher reps/low weights really does absoutley nothing for you and might actually cause you to lose muscle, especially in a calorie deficit. Also that doing cardio more 3 times a week is really just wasting time and if you do HIIT 2-3 times a week for 20 mins is more than enough.
And second if anyone has used Stevia as a sweetner and what they thought of it?
 
RE: Higher reps/low weights

Hi, Kathleen!

I don't think you'll ever find consensus about the issues you asked about above; you could put 10 PhD's in exercise physiology in a room together and ask them to come to consensus, and what you'd have is a professional slugfest. Same with people of lesser formal education in the field. That being said, I'll offer my Point-Oh-Two, based on personal experience and ACE studies and continuing ed . . .

1: My experience has been that the only way I build muscle mass, and absolute strength, is to go heavy on the weights, and the heavy weightloads will indeed drive down the number of reps I can accomplish in one set. I do, however, also try to do some weighted work outside of my normal Sunday nosebleed-weightlifting set with somewhat lighter weights (not ultra-light) for all muscle groups more to keep the muscles pumped, and myself energized, between Sunday sessions. Just for reference, I do about 10 minutes of sustained squats and lunges with a combined weight load of 82 pounds on Sundays for legs (as well as ankle-weight work with 10.5-lb ankle weights), and on Mondays I usually do a Cathe circuit workout with strictly barbell squats and lunges with a 55-lb barbell. Also, I do my upper body set on Sundays with the lightest weightload at 25-lb dumbbells (heavier dumbbells and barbell for certain back exercises), but my mid-week upper body set I use 22.5-lb dumbbells. I've benefited from that heavy - moderate system for a couple of years no, again both in terms of absolute strength and mass-building. IMHO if you were to do hi-rep/lo-load training exclusively, you would indeed lose strength and probably mass; however, if you did it to a lesser degree in terms of frequency and as a complement to your heavy lifting you'd be okay.

2: I disagree with the assertion that doing cardio more than 3X per week is wasting your time. Cardiovascular / cardiopulmonary fitness and endurance are extremely important to overall health. And keep in mind that the first few minutes of any cardio bout is taken up by the body's warm-up. Duration of the cardio bout is important, frequency of the cardio bouts is important, and intensity of the cardio bout is important as well. IMHO a person needs more cardio than you've listed above, especially given that modern life makes so few physical demands on the body.

3. My experience has been that a little heavy lifting goes a long way, and if I were to completely discontinue the mid-week lighter lifting I wouldn't sacrifice any mass or absolute strength. (I'm not going to do that, but I've done it before with that result.) Then I can throw more of my scheduled time over to cardio, which offers more variety for me. But that's just me.

HOWEVER . . .

Much is driven by your personal goals. It could be that, at this time in your overall exercise history, you need to focus more on strength-building than cardio (which is often the case with women). And whatever the emphasis of your current program, YOU NEED TO FUEL YOURSELF PROPERLY, calorically as well as macronutrients. I see a lot of posts on this board stating that the person is consuming only 1400 calories a day; IMHO that's nowhere near enough to maintain a good, vigorous exercise program. (I'm probably gonna get seriously flamed for that, but what the hell.)

I've never even heard of Stevia, although I do have a brother named Stephen. Sorry.

HTH - I look forward to others chiming in.

A-Jock
 
RE: Higher reps/low weights

"YOU NEED TO FUEL YOURSELF PROPERLY, calorically as well as macronutrients."
With that stated, I have started off way to low around 1000 calories. Not by choice just a serious lack of funds at the time. I have gone to some fitness sites which state I should be around 1900. Is there a good place to get an estimate (I am not sure how much I trust these sites) on how much I should be taking in and how do I increase to that amount without seriously gaining weight?
 
RE: Higher reps/low weights

Hello again, Kathleen!

If your total exercise volume is at a recommended rate (in terms of time spent each session, frequency of sessions per week, intensity of sessions {moderate to high}) and well-roundedness of sessions (varying modes of cardio and a similar amount of strength training), then I'd suggest 1900 calories is a good starting point. Keep in mind, though, that your height can affect your optimum caloric consumption, your current body composition (the proportion of fat mass to fat-free mass including muscle mass), as well as the amount of physical movement in your daily activities outside of your exercise bouts. Going from 1000 calories a day to 1900 calories a day might be a bit of a leap, but I'd suggest increasing your daily consumption to at least 1500 for a start for a weeek or two. (I'm a tad worried for you that you've had to cut back on your caloric consumption due to lack of funds.)

I'm sure there are several websites, some oriented to food intake alone, others oriented to fueling for your workouts, that offer their own suggestions; just like my endless post above, I'll bet you'll get conflicting advice. Like you, I don't trust those sites very much; often they're trend- and skinny-driven, OR hardbody-driven, rather than health-driven. Anything with a Dot-Com domain is something I usually avoid. (Never underestimate the Barnum & Bailey quality of the "diet" / nutritional industry, or its many amateur pundits.)

Regarding food intake, WHAT you consume is as important as how much you consume. Try to avoid or minimize overly processed foods, and also try to avoid overly-high sodium-containing foods (these often go hand in hand). Try to avoid or minimize foods with high sugar concentrations, and high saturated fat concentrations. Do NOT try to cut fat out or radically reduce it; focus on eating foods with healthy unsaturated fats. (Healthy fats are an important energy source, and are also necessary for the absorbtion of various vitamins and minerals.) Try to maximize your intake of healthy whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, and lean bioavailable proteins (white fish, tuna and salmon; chicken and turkey; eggs and lighter cheeses; milk and yogurt {I personally can't stand white milk so I go yo}), and be more sparing on marbled red meats. If all of that sounds like mundane dutch-uncle nutritional advice, it's because the value of that advice has stood the test of time in general nutrition studies.

My experience was, when I brought purposive, increasingly heavy weight lifting for all muscle groups into my weekly program, my appetite for crappy foods diminished (although it'll never go away), my appetite for healthier, less processed foods increased, and my body told ME what it needed through my cravings, as well as how much I needed. That was a gradual process to be sure, but I believe that when you're giving your body what it needs in terms of a well-rounded, productive and challenging workout and physical activity program, you won't need to impose a pre-fab "diet" onto your body - it will tell you what it wants and needs.

Sermon over.

HTH again -

a-Jock
 
RE: Higher reps/low weights

I use Stevia and like using it (but I also used to like saccharin). I use very little of it at one time. It does not affect the blood sugar which is why I use it instead of sugar. I use Pure Stevia Extract Powder and it usually comes with its own scoop. You may wish to try it first and do packets instead. They also have liquid Stevia which I have no experience using.

Sheila
 

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top