Avoiding Weights???

davyjose

I've noticed since signing up for this forum, that a lot of people are reluctant to use weights as part of their exercises because they 'don't want to bulk up'. This seems to be a fairly common misconception.
Firstly, from someone who has managed to put on about 7 or 8 kilo's of muscle recently, this DOES NOT happen by accident. This takes roughly 10 -12 hours of work a week with very heavy weights and strict high-protein dieting, for months on end.
Secondly, even if you did manage to put this much muscle on, it is not the same as putting on that amount of fat: Muscle is a lot less dense than fat, so a few kilo's/lbs will take up a surprisingly small amount of room on your body. And what room it does take up, it adds shape to.
People who look bulky are people who have high body-fat, and regardless of their amount of muscle (high/low) this isn't a good look. This brings me to my third point: MUSCLE BURNS FAT!!! Yes, for every five pounds of muscle you put on, your body works off 1 extra lb of fat, than it otherwise would.
I would advise EVERY fully grown adult to use some form of weight training in their exercise plan.

g'em

kudos on your post, and I agree most of it... I fear it'll fall on deaf ears though Thing is, people will believe what they want to believe, and right now there's still far too many ridiculous misconceptions about lifting to even begin dispelling the myths. But hey, if you want try and change that work away!!!!!! After saying "girls who lift weights do not get big and bulky" for the 17 gazillionth time I gave up and used all that extra energy to lift stuff it's fun!!

walt0r

10-12 hours a week of weight training? I know that if I was to lift 2-3 hours every day doing heavy sets I'd be pretty burnt out by the end of the week...

davyjose

walt0r wrote:

10-12 hours a week of weight training? I know that if I was to lift 2-3 hours every day doing heavy sets I'd be pretty burnt out by the end of the week...

Well that's an extreme example, and perhaps I should have said up to 10-12 as some weeks would have been 8-9 hours, but the essence of my point remains. Muscle doesn't just appear by accident.

iregk

I'm not sure davy if you are registered long enough to remember Jon's excellent past thread on people afraid to get "too big". Let me look for it, its basically what your on about here only quite a bit funnier.

Actually found it: Here

Degsy

Another common one is "I dont want to look like a bodybuilder or anything..." like its easy to do so!

davyjose

iregk wrote:

I'm not sure davy if you are registered long enough to remember Jon's excellent past thread on people afraid to get "too big". Let me look for it, its basically what your on about here only quite a bit funnier.

Actually found it: Here

Ha ha, Brilliant

jester77

Really wish all those misconceptions were true Ah well, it really takes years of dedication, hard work and strict proper diet to put on a decent amount of mass! And 10-12 hours is very extreme IMO. I'm bulking at the moment and only do 2 hours 10 mins a week and I'm knackered after that but still putting on quality mass with little fat gains! It's all about smart training!

davyjose

Yeah i think it was a little to extreme. I'm going about 4 times a week now - two hours a day, which is perfect as i find myself looking forward to going on my days off.

jester77

I still think 2 hours is alot. If you are putting in maximum effort then I can't see how you can do a full 2 hours... of course I could be wrong but I know I couldn't. I go 4 times a week as well and do 40 mins and I'm a wreck at the end!

g'em

For the majority of people a 2 hour training session is just too long. I'm not saying you are or aren't in the majority, you know what works'best for you.

But 120 mintues of constant resistance training will take its toll on your body in a huge way. If you do plan on doing long sessions like that for the forseeable future (which, personally I don't see the need for: everything the average person needs to do can easily be done in 60 minutes or less, any more than that and cortisol levels will go through the roof. Intensity is really what matters, not duration) at least invest in some BCAAs to take during the workout along with some whey, eat a really, really good diet and sleep as much as you can.
Yes, Arnold trained twice a day virtually every day. He was also geared up to the eyeballs :rolleyes:

davyjose

jester77 wrote:

I still think 2 hours is alot. If you are putting in maximum effort then I can't see how you can do a full 2 hours... of course I could be wrong but I know I couldn't. I go 4 times a week as well and do 40 mins and I'm a wreck at the end!

I don't quite understand your logic - are you saying that 2 hrs working out isn't maximum effort but 40 mins is? I see what your getting at, but I could sprint a mile and be shattered, or i could run a marathon and be ten times worse.
Going out, stretching, warming up and benching a couple of reps of 100 kg will have you back in the locker room in no time at all. Going out, stretching warming up, doing five sets of medium rep-medium weight cable flyes, followed by a few sets dumbell presses, followed by 5sets x 6 reps of medium/high weight bench pressing will take up a lot more time, but believe me will have no lesser effect on the feeling in your pectorals two days later, or how shaky and pale you are leaving the gym. So it depends, really on how your working out, and what you're doing.

davyjose

g'em wrote:

For the majority of people a 2 hour training session is just too long.

I really don't feel that it's that much duress though. I mean, there is time between sets. Between bigish lifts i wait up to 3 minutes and that's just for around 5/6 reps. As I said I've done the high-intensity 40 min workouts, but I find this way a lot more effective. I get about 8/9 hours sleep, some days less, drink about once a month, yes I do find myself feeling weak and exhausted at times, but that's where i learnt to throw in a rest day. Otherwise i feel pretty dam good.

jester77

davyjose wrote:

I don't quite understand your logic - are you saying that 2 hrs working out isn't maximum effort but 40 mins is? I see what your getting at, but I could sprint a mile and be shattered, or i could run a marathon and be ten times worse.
Going out, stretching, warming up and benching a couple of reps of 100 kg will have you back in the locker room in no time at all. Going out, stretching warming up, doing five sets of medium rep-medium weight cable flyes, followed by a few sets dumbell presses, followed by 5sets x 6 reps of medium/high weight bench pressing will take up a lot more time, but believe me will have no lesser effect on the feeling in your pectorals two days later, or how shaky and pale you are leaving the gym. So it depends, really on how your working out, and what you're doing.

What I'm saying is that if you are giving each exercise your maximum effort then I can't see how you can benefit from working out for 2 hours. If you train smart with a good program you can reach your goals in less than an hour. For eg. yesterday was my back/abs day and this is what I did.

BB Rows - warm up set
I min break
BB Rows wide grip - x 10
1 min break
BB Rows shoulder grip - x 7
2 min break
pulldowns palms facing - x 7
1 min break
pulldowns plams away- x 10
2 min break
deads x 7
1 min break
deads x 7
2 min break
rope crunches (x 15) supersetted with leg raises (x15)
2 min break
rope crunches (x 15) supersetted with leg raises (x15)

This workout takes about 30 mins and I use a weight where I can meet the target rep. After this I'm wrecked and there is no way I could do any more.

SystemError

Well, I admit I didnt do enough research on the subject before dismissing it, but was well aware I was never going to look like a bodybuilder ! I just thought if I did weights for long period of time I would start to look more muscley (as in Madonna arms, as oppose to slender.
I think in most cases when people say theyre worried about big that they dont necessarily mean bodybuilder big.
And I think when people hear "weights" they think of those huge barbells and are like "whoah, hang on a minute!".
But this is what boards is for, educating people I suppose !

g'em

jester77 wrote:

What I'm saying is that if you are giving each exercise your maximum effort then I can't see how you can benefit from working out for 2 hours. If you train smart with a good program you can reach your goals in less than an hour.

I'd agree with that. davyjose you've said on antoher thread that these are your stats:

I'm 5'11" About 96kg Bodyfat just under 20%
Weights I haven't got offhand. Benching about 4x8x70kg - which i'm not totally happy with.
Deadlifting about 120kg
Don't squat as it gives me trouble with my left knee. Leg pressing pretty much the entire weight on the mchine.

By rights you should really be able to lift a lot heavier than that, and you're more than likely well able for it, but I think the type of training you're doing mgiht just be holding you back. I'm presuming you want to get strong and lean (doesn't everyone??? :rolleyes: ). Keep the volume low and the workouts shorter. Increase lean muscle mass, eat well and the fat will take care of itself. If it doesn't, increase the cardio. When you lift heavy your body will be stimulated to produce oodles of fabulous hormones like GH and Test which will encourage muscle growth (and don't forget the muscles grow at rest- when you lift you're tearing them apart, it's up to you then to provide your body with the fuel - i.e. food - it needs to rebuild them) Prolong the workout however and you'll more than likely start to offset the benefits of these hormones by overprodcution of cortisol, a lifter's worst nightmare. It'll start breaking down muscle and you'll get fatigued very quickly. Your glycogen levels will have plummeted and you'll be going throught the motions of lifting rather than lifting to see strength benefits.

Clever training is different to difficult training. You don't have to annihilate yourself every time you step into the gym- sure, it feels great, but it's not necessary.

rubadub

So how many exercises, reps and sets are you doing in the 2 hours. I imagine it is less than what some people are imagining. I also take long breaks between sets like you.

I have found myself going up to 2 hours lately. I work out at home, and watch TV while working out, so my breaks between sets sometimes strays. I also do one arm at a time on bicep curls, shrugs, military presses (or similar) and sometimes one arm tricep work. I do 7 excercises, 3 sets each (1 for bicep) and average 8 reps. So that is really 10-11 individual times (due to one arm work) 3-4 times I do 3 sets, so say 30 breaks, if my set takes 30sec and break is 3min30 then that is 2 hours.

I do try and keep it shorter since I know there is advantages in getting it over and done with within an hour.

In future I want to try 1/2 the exercises in the morning and 1/2 at night.

Jak

g'em wrote:

For the majority of people a 2 hour training session is just too long. I'm not saying you are or aren't in the majority, you know what works'best for you.

But 120 mintues of constant resistance training will take its toll on your body in a huge way. If you do plan on doing long sessions like that for the forseeable future (which, personally I don't see the need for: everything the average person needs to do can easily be done in 60 minutes or less, any more than that and cortisol levels will go through the roof. Intensity is really what matters, not duration) at least invest in some BCAAs to take during the workout along with some whey, eat a really, really good diet and sleep as much as you can.
Yes, Arnold trained twice a day virtually every day. He was also geared up to the eyeballs :rolleyes:

I think the talk of training times needs to be tempered a bit. Generally all my cardio sessions would be in and out in an hour - weight sessions maybe closer to 1hr 15 and chest session 2hrs - the latter with a training partner. Nobody spends 2 hrs in constant resistance training.

The point with weight sessions is you need to build in adequate rest time - loading time - setup time. All these things take ...time. When people talk about their time in training however, there is far too much inconsistency. Forget how long you are spending in the gym and look at the excersise balance, the peak loads you hit, the total volume and most importantly how well you feel you have hit certain areas afterwards and the next day.

It's all very well for people to say they get their session done in 30mins or that they spend 3 hours in the gym - the time is irrelevant though as obviously enough it is what you do whilst there. The only reason I keep a log of the time of my sessions is for my own personal checks - obviously if my pace is a bit quick I might burn out at parts and not hit the same highs etc.

As a final point - especially by today's standards - Arnold was anything but geared up to the eyeballs. Training twice a day is quite possible for any professional athlete with appropriate nutrition and the freedom to sleep for 4 hours in the afternoon.

JAK.

TerrorFirmer

jester77 wrote:

Really wish all those misconceptions were true Ah well, it really takes years of dedication, hard work and strict proper diet to put on a decent amount of mass! And 10-12 hours is very extreme IMO. I'm bulking at the moment and only do 2 hours 10 mins a week and I'm knackered after that but still putting on quality mass with little fat gains! It's all about smart training!

Yeah 10-12 hours seems way too much, I do about an hour/70 minutes of proper weights every 2-3 days so that would give me more or less the same as yourself, and my arms are still sore for days afterwards, still making ok gains

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

hunnymonster

<<<Please don't flame me, just giving my opinion>>>

A lot of lifters assume when the rest of us say we avoid weights that it's an irrational fear of bulking up. I can only speak for myself but I avoid weights because I find that section of the gym more boring than the proverbial paint drying and also there is a lot of posing going on which is not really my thing. I have been going 3 times a week for the last 3 weeks so too early to notice a difference but I have to say, pure stubborness is the only thing making me go :-)

rubadub

hunnymonster wrote:

A lot of lifters assume when the rest of us say we avoid weights that it's an irrational fear of bulking up.

I would say another factor is ignorance as to how beneficial weight training is to fat loss. I never knew how good it was until this year when I read up a bit about it. If people knew just how good it was at reducing fat I am sure many more would take it up.

miller82

rubadub wrote:

I would say another factor is ignorance as to how beneficial weight training is to fat loss. I never knew how good it was until this year when I read up a bit about it. If people knew just how good it was at reducing fat I am sure many more would take it up.

i do a bit of cardio myself and weights and although i obviously knew that weight trainning does burn a certain amount of calories/fat, i didnt know it burnt a lot ?????

g'em

Jak wrote:

The point with weight sessions is you need to build in adequate rest time - loading time - setup time. All these things take ...time. When people talk about their time in training however, there is far too much inconsistency. Forget how long you are spending in the gym and look at the excersise balance, the peak loads you hit, the total volume and most importantly how well you feel you have hit certain areas afterwards and the next day.

It's all very well for people to say they get their session done in 30mins or that they spend 3 hours in the gym - the time is irrelevant though as obviously enough it is what you do whilst there. The only reason I keep a log of the time of my sessions is for my own personal checks - obviously if my pace is a bit quick I might burn out at parts and not hit the same highs etc..

I agree with you, but I think that for the OP in particular, sessions that long may be holding him back. In fairness Jak you've been lifting a good while, you know exactly what you're able to do, what training protocol suits you best, but it seems that the OP isn't entirely as sure of his training just yet and is questioning it, a great thing to see. So while he's starting out and building strength a lower volume workout (possibly even a full-body plan as opposed to a split) would more than likely do him the world of good. Then when strength levels are better and the lean mass has been built, you can really start to tailor the workouts to your own individual needs.

Lets face it, a committed lifter who goes to the gym can easily spend two hours working out, using perfect form, lifting instinctively, with brilliant results and know when to stop. But the truth is that doesn't apply to most people. Your average Jo Bloggs will go into the gym and during a "2 hour session" (OP, not saying this is you btw!!) will faff around spending more time filling up their water bottle, with stupidly and unnecesarily long recovery times, lifting half-heartedly. For the majority of people (not everyone) short, intense workouts will help maintain focus, keep energy levels up, optimise hormone release and encourages consistency.

rubadub

miller82 wrote:

i do a bit of cardio myself and weights and although i obviously knew that weight trainning does burn a certain amount of calories/fat, i didnt know it burnt a lot ?????

While lifting the weights in the gym you will burn about as many calories as you will doing cardio, depending on intensity and length of breaks etc. Say 500kcal per hour jogging or lifting heavy weights.
it is what happens on your days off that really matters. Your body uses up calories building new tissue- muscle (just like pregnant women need more calories "building" a baby).

Say you are beginning and creating 1lb of muscle per week, this needs about 300kcal per day. So you work out twice a week, using 1000kcal, then add 7x300=2100kcal per week building new muscle. So doing 2 hours a week weight training can use up to 3000kcal and can be comparable to doing 6 hours a week cardio (6x500kcal).

In addition to this every lb of mucsle you put on needs about 35kcal to keep it maintained per day. So if you put on 10lb of muscle your daily basal metabolism will be increased by about 350kcal.

After a while your gains will drop a lot per week, but in the beginning you can see great fat loss and muscle gain. If you are overweight you can gain muscle on a calorie deficit.

davyjose

I've been out of the gym for a long time, I hurt a rotator cuff last year and aggravated it again in the summer. Hence the reason for my low lifting at the moment(I've always had a poor bench tho, for some reason), however I have managed to put on a few kilos in the last few months.
Perhaps I'm not 'giving it my all' so to speak. But I do find the longer sessions more rewarding and In the last couple of weeks am noticing strength gains, in ways I haven't before.