excercising chest and arms ???????

Fatloss08

hey im in the gym 5 days a week , 45 mins intense cardio and weights after it ( feels better for me than weights first )

i wanna know , for somebody wanting to lose weigh/fat how much should you do on say ur chest ???? im doing 3 x 10 bench press and 3 x 10 incline press

i mean that takes 10 mins , surely u need to more on chest ???

just dont know how much i need to be doing on each muscle

AARRRGH

The thing about lifting weight is it has to be heavy and you have to eventually be unable to lift it.

I do 3 x 6. On the 6th rep I will be nearly killing myself to lift it.

So it's not about time, but rather how much your muscles have to struggle to lift the weight.

r3nu4l

AARRRGH wrote: »

So it's not about time, but rather how much your muscles have to struggle to lift the weight.

Doesn't this depend on your goal though? If you want to build muscle then heavy weight is the way to go but if it's part of a fat loss routine shouldn't it be 3 x 12-15 of a lighter weight done with little or no rest as part of a circuit of exercises?

Just asking.

AARRRGH

It's possible, my advice here is only whatever works for me.

I don't do any cardio (well, I walk to work - 30 minutes of speed walk) and I eat 4000 or so calories per day, but my heavy lifting seems to expand enough energy to keep me slim.

I don't really take any breaks between exercises though. That could be a factor. For example, after I've worked my back I immediately work my chest.

madmik

r3nu4l wrote: »

Doesn't this depend on your goal though? If you want to build muscle then heavy weight is the way to go but if it's part of a fat loss routine shouldn't it be 3 x 12-15 of a lighter weight done with little or no rest as part of a circuit of exercises?

Just asking.

increased muscle mass will burn fat too

cardio style hi-rep lifting is not the only way

rubadub

AARRRGH wrote: »

The thing about lifting weight is it has to be heavy and you have to eventually be unable to lift it.

Yes, and doing cardio before the weights will wear you out, so you will not be able to lift to your fullest ability. So you do less work on the muscles resulting in less growth in size & strength.

Your cardio probably feels better since you are full of energy. But you would be better off weights first, then most of the energy in your muscles will have been used up doing weights, and I think you are then more prone to burn fat doing the cardio afterwards.

r3nu4l

madmik wrote: »

increased muscle mass will burn fat too

cardio style hi-rep lifting is not the only way

I'm aware of that but as mad as it sounds a lot of guys do not want to add a lot of muscle mass but instead just want to burn fat while making small strength gains.

AARRRGH

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm aware of that but as mad as it sounds a lot of guys do not want to add a lot of muscle mass but instead just want to burn fat while making small strength gains.

Well you could lift heavy weights and have a low protein diet. That way your muscles won't grow very big.

celestial

Fatloss08 wrote: »

hey im in the gym 5 days a week , 45 mins intense cardio and weights after it ( feels better for me than weights first )

i wanna know , for somebody wanting to lose weigh/fat how much should you do on say ur chest ???? im doing 3 x 10 bench press and 3 x 10 incline press

i mean that takes 10 mins , surely u need to more on chest ???

just dont know how much i need to be doing on each muscle

The real questions to ask first of all are-

Are you making progress with your current routine?
Do your clothes fit better/are you losing fat?
What are your goals?
How often do you train upper body?

Keeping it simple, you need to up the intensity on a regular basis and mix things up frequently.

madmik

heavy lifting without a surplus of calories will make you gain strength but not bulk

BobbyOLeary

heavy lifting without a surplus of calories will make you gain strength but not bulk

No. This will make you tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout.

aye

r3nu4l wrote: »

Doesn't this depend on your goal though? If you want to build muscle then heavy weight is the way to go but if it's part of a fat loss routine shouldn't it be 3 x 12-15 of a lighter weight done with little or no rest as part of a circuit of exercises?

Just asking.

the rep range 12-15 is used to build muscle endurance, much like prolonged cardio build endurance. this uses slow twitch muscle fibers, common in endurance athletes.


the lower rep range, 2-6 reps is to build strength, and 6-12 is for hypertrophy (muscle mass), mostly using fast twitch muscle fibers, common in power atheltes.

you muscle fiber type is largely genetic.

the 12-15 rep range is used a a fat burning tool, as it is considered more endurance based, muscle like endurance cardio is used as a fat burning tool.

Either way building muscle mass, which wil increase your metabolism and help burn fat, but some rep ranges suit other persons better, depending on their fiber type.

Hanley

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

No. This will make you tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout.

Lol... that's what I was thinking. Don't know many people getting strong on a calorie deficit like.

I would say that if you're worried about adding in another chest exercise being the key to your fat loss, you're waaaaay off the mark.

I dunno how you're doing all that work in 10 minutes either. I would guess you're fairly inexperienced. As you progress and become more neurologically (sp) efficient, there's no way you'll do 6 sets of a near all out set of 10 in one workout, never mind 10 minutes.

celestial

I'd like to see what progress you're making OP. My guess is that you may not be putting in the work to see the results you want to see, and you are looking at irrelevant details like chest workout sequences/plans, number of reps etc as a way of distracting yourself from this.

Transform

Fatloss08 wrote: »

hey im in the gym 5 days a week , 45 mins intense cardio and weights after it ( feels better for me than weights first )

i wanna know , for somebody wanting to lose weigh/fat how much should you do on say ur chest ???? im doing 3 x 10 bench press and 3 x 10 incline press

i mean that takes 10 mins , surely u need to more on chest ???

just dont know how much i need to be doing on each muscle

Man i pm you on this before - at your current level just move between a back and chest or chest and leg exercise for 10mins NOT do a set rest do a set rest.

Put up your stats if you like.

You can't flex fat so doing more chest exercises is not the answer and when you get your weight under 200lbs THEN you can focus on refining the specifics of the program.

If its weight loss your concerned about then keep on track with diet and stop thinking about specific muscles and more the body in general.

What leg exercises are you doing, how much rest are you taking between sets, what are you currently benching, chinning/rows.

In 10mins i have clients doing 6-7sets of bench/push ups and lunges/step ups (virtually no rest between exercises)- reps do not matter half as much as intensity, if your not sweating then its not working.

Sorry to be so direct but the coffee i drank earlier is making me jittery - back to work now

Fatloss08

im probably resting 30 secs between sets

im not doing any leg work at the min , as i do my cardio first and i feel thats working the legs , i dont want big legs etc

i go in , few stretches , then high intense bike level 12 around 95-100 rpm constant for 30 mins then , walk , jog for 10 mins treadmill and then do weights

kevpants

Fatloss08 wrote: »

im not doing any leg work at the min , as i do my cardio first and i feel thats working the legs , i dont want big legs etc

*Anger...Rising

You're getting free advice from Transform who should really be charging you per letter and you're disregarding it, choosing to believe the old wives tale about getting big legs.

Trust me, I'd love big legs, I know what it takes to get them and with your approach I doubt you'll accidentally end up with them.

God I could just rant on here but I won't. Just to say your problem clearly isn't with sets or reps. My theory is you love the idea of losing weight and researching it, but by god do you not want to actually do it.

Ok I did rant just a little bit.

the drifter

why oh why are people scared of leg work....

ill tell you what go do a 5 week 5x5 squat program and i bet you that you burn off more than 30 mins on a statci bike

also have you seen transform the guys ripped to s*hit listen to the man!!

BobbyOLeary

why oh why are people scared of leg work....

Because its hard. Unlike eating cheeseburgers.

celestial

kevpants wrote: »

*Anger...Rising

You're getting free advice from Transform who should really be charging you per letter and you're disregarding it, choosing to believe the old wives tale about getting big legs.

Trust me, I'd love big legs, I know what it takes to get them and with your approach I doubt you'll accidentally end up with them.

God I could just rant on here but I won't. Just to say your problem clearly isn't with sets or reps. My theory is you love the idea of losing weight and researching it, but by god do you not want to actually do it.

Ok I did rant just a little bit.

Yep as I said when you want a distraction from the fact that you're not doing what you should be doing then you go off an over-think things and spend your time researching and asking irrelevant questions instead.

nice_guy80

info.

I've been squatting and deadlifting and lunging and all the machines stuff as well for 4 months now and I can tell you that there isn't much difference in the size of my legs. I mean i still fit into trousers and shorts and jocks...

just that i'm way stronger and feek way better

Hanley

Lol I love it....

Building big legs is easy. But losing fat's hard.

davyjose

Fatloss08 wrote: »

i dont want big legs etc ... then high intense bike level 12 around 95-100 rpm constant for 30 mins

Stay off the bike so... just in case :rolleyes:

delllat

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

No. This will make you tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout.

so u suggest what?

lifting weights that arent heavy enough to challenge the muscles??

delllat

Hanley wrote: »

Lol... that's what I was thinking. Don't know many people getting strong on a calorie deficit like.

I would say that if you're worried about adding in another chest exercise being the key to your fat loss, you're waaaaay off the mark.

I dunno how you're doing all that work in 10 minutes either. I would guess you're fairly inexperienced. As you progress and become more neurologically (sp) efficient, there's no way you'll do 6 sets of a near all out set of 10 in one workout, never mind 10 minutes.

lads,lads,lads

theres a big differnce in a excess of calories and a calorie deficit

it is possible to eat "maintainance" calories that will keep you at your current weight

its also possible to increase strength without getting heavier ,growing new muscle is only 1 way to increse strength

Hanley

delllat wrote: »

lads,lads,lads

theres a big differnce in a excess of calories and a calorie deficit

it is possible to eat "maintainance" calories that will keep you at your current weight

its also possible to increase strength without getting heavier ,growing new muscle is only 1 way to increse strength

Have you not realised the purpose of this thread is so the OP can talk about LOSING weight?

Transform

Fatloss08 wrote: »

im probably resting 30 secs between sets

im not doing any leg work at the min , as i do my cardio first and i feel thats working the legs , i dont want big legs etc

i go in , few stretches , then high intense bike level 12 around 95-100 rpm constant for 30 mins then , walk , jog for 10 mins treadmill and then do weights

Its really simple - your putting a priority on a secondary activity (aerobic exercise) rather than a primary activity - weight training.

1st - do weights. When doing weights do body weight squats/lunges followed by bench press (15reps on both) for 5-6 sets with little recovery between. The pair up 3 other pairings e.g. lat pulldown and seated leg curls, biceps curls and weighted crunches, plank position for 30secs and standing dumbbell overhead press. All do not require a lot of excessive weight so do the work as stated or keep searching for the 'secret' that no one is going to provide here.

2nd - do intervals - doing the bike at the same level for 30mins is NOT high intensity as high intensity is doing any activity for no more than 30-60secs.

3rd - ANY OTHER REMAINING TIME YOU HAVE LEFT IN THE WEEK DO LIGHT AEROBIC EXERCISE

rubadub

delllat wrote: »

it is possible to eat "maintainance" calories that will keep you at your current weight

+1

Hanley wrote: »

Have you not realised the purpose of this thread is so the OP can talk about LOSING weight?

Well the OP said...

Fatloss08 wrote: »

i wanna know , for somebody wanting to lose weigh/fat

And his name is even fatloss! I think we all know most want to be just look thinner, only competitive sportsmen in weight classes are overly worried about their weight. It would not bother me much if I put on 1 stone tomorrow yet looked the exact same. Most are equating looks with weight, which is understandable.

delllat wrote: »

its also possible to increase strength without getting heavier ,growing new muscle is only 1 way to increse strength

I have done so and got thinner all the time. I remember a girl in work saying I had lost loads of weight in the last 6 months, and was bewildered when I told here I had actually put weight on!

Gaining muscle on a calorie deficit is very hard to do, so there will not be much growth, but keeping and maintaining the muscle you do have will lead to more fat loss. No point losing all the fat to reveal a malnourished looking body underneath.

delllat

Hanley wrote: »

Have you not realised the purpose of this thread is so the OP can talk about LOSING weight?

He can LOSE or maintain weight and still increase strength and body composition through adjustment of diet and training

two men each weighing 90kg men could have very differnt body compositions

its not all about the number on the scale...:rolleyes:

BobbyOLeary

delllat wrote: »

so u suggest what?

lifting weights that arent heavy enough to challenge the muscles??

Now where did I suggest that exactly?

I was responding to

heavy lifting without a surplus of calories will make you gain strength but not bulk

Which isn't true and will just lead to you becoming, and I quote

tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout

If you've got a way for me to get stronger without having to eat as much do tell me, it's a recession after all and I could do with saving money somewhere.

TKD SC

delllat wrote: »

He can LOSE or maintain weight and still increase strength and body composition through adjustment of diet and training

two men each weighing 90kg men could have very differnt body compositions

its not all about the number on the scale...:rolleyes:

Yeh Hanley, Don't you know anything!!

BossArky

Fatloss08, when you step out of the shower and wink at yourself in the bathroom mirror, obviously you will see your chest and arms reflected back at you i.e. your frontal upper body. It is harder to look at your legs or back, so out of sight out of mind, eh? I guess this is the reason for this thread.

What you need to understand is that when the woman of your dreams kicks you out of bed to put on the kettle, she isn't going to be too impressed if you have a saggy fat behind supported on chicken legs and a weak skinny back.

Training your legs and back hard with heavy weights will burn lots of cals, build muscle, boost your metabolism and release lots of good growth hormones to aid the growth of your chest / arms too.

Continue with some chest, arm and cardio... but don't neglect the other areas. Strong legs and back are far more important.

If I recall correctly legs make up ~50% of your overall body muscle mass, whilst the lats are the largest muscle in the upper body. So, training these = maximal calorie burn.

corribdude

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Now where did I suggest that exactly?

I was responding to

"heavy lifting without a surplus of calories will make you gain strength but not bulk"

Which isn't true and will just lead to you becoming, and I quote
tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout

"tired as hell, sore and more than likely pissed off at your workout"

If you've got a way for me to get stronger without having to eat as much do tell me, it's a recession after all and I could do with saving money somewhere.

By saying delllat is wrong are you actually recommending the op, who wants to lose weight, take in a surplus of calories, which is what he is probably already doing and is what made him overweight in the first place.

I fail to see how delllat is incorrect in saying that if the op who is fairly overweight lifts heavy while either keeping the same calorie intake or going into a bit of a calorie deficit, he is going to get stronger while dropping weigth/fat. And anyway isn't it a basic fact that for overweight people to get in shape they have to both exercise and start eating less calories.

BobbyOLeary

My original point was off topic and had nothing to do with the OP so apologies if that is confusing you.

heavy lifting without a surplus of calories will make you gain strength but not bulk

This is what I had a problem with. Gaining strength is not as simple as simply lifting heavy weights and not eating. Strength training, unfortunately, is not that simple. You're right in saying that this overweight person in particular will get stronger while on a calorific deficit, but broad sweeping statements like the one above are simply not true.

And anyway isn't it a basic fact that for overweight people to get in shape they have to both exercise and start eating less calories.

Really? Wow I never knew that. Thanks for that.

delllat

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Now where did I suggest that exactly?

I was responding to



Which isn't true and will just lead to you becoming, and I quote



If you've got a way for me to get stronger without having to eat as much do tell me, it's a recession after all and I could do with saving money somewhere.

its pretty complex to explain but you can recruit more muscle fibres and train your muscles to become stronger without getting bulkier

russian special forces use various form of it to make their soldiers stronger with less bulk

it works on the basis that a physical exercise starts in the mind etc ...

google pavel,hes the resident expert on it

BobbyOLeary

Muscle fiber recruitment and CNS efficiency? Its all possible, I've no debate about that. I could be mistaken but is Pavel's stuff not nearly totally based on bodyweight stuff as opposed to barbell exercises? I can't remember much about improving your squat 1RM via his methods (could be wrong).

Though in fairness I think heavy weights with low reps have a better track record for primarily increasing strength without adding huge bulk than Pavel's stuff.

delllat

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Muscle fiber recruitment and CNS efficiency? Its all possible, I've no debate about that. I could be mistaken but is Pavel's stuff not nearly totally based on bodyweight stuff as opposed to barbell exercises? I can't remember much about improving your squat 1RM via his methods (could be wrong).

Though in fairness I think heavy weights with low reps have a better track record for primarily increasing strength without adding huge bulk than Pavel's stuff.

pavel uses bodyweight exercises ,thats true,but he also focuses on how to recruit more strength through a few clever techniques

he uses kettlebells as opposed to weights but his work is worth reading for the variety alone

he has a fresh perspective and many ebooks specialising in various areas of strength and fitness

Hanley

rubadub wrote: »

I think we all know most want to be just look thinner, only competitive sportsmen in weight classes are overly worried about their weight. It would not bother me much if I put on 1 stone tomorrow yet looked the exact same. Most are equating looks with weight, which is understandable.

delllat wrote: »

He can LOSE or maintain weight and still increase strength and body composition through adjustment of diet and training

two men each weighing 90kg men could have very differnt body compositions

its not all about the number on the scale...:rolleyes:

Guys, can we be real here for just one second??

From his posting history, I think FatLoss08 is around 280lb. It's fairly clear from his posts that he's a relative newb when it comes to training. Thus it's fair to assume the majority of the weight he's carrying is fat.

We can talk all day about how guys 175-200lb can maintain the same bodyweight but build muscle and lose fat, so their appearance improves without their weight changing. But this guy is 280-bloody-lb. There is NO WAY he can stay even close to that and look good.

He HAS to lose weight. That point is just unarguable I'm afraid.

Of course it's not all about the numbers on the scales. But when that number's nearly 300lb, it HAS to come down for him to look better. It simply has to.

delllat wrote: »

pavel uses bodyweight exercises ,thats true,but he also focuses on how to recruit more strength through a few clever techniques

I'd hardly calling tightening up a clever technique. I have his book, The Naked Warrior. And there's not a whole lot in it other than locking in the bodypart you're using, and squeezing everything else fcuking tight.

he uses kettlebells as opposed to weights but his work is worth reading for the variety alone

Kettlebells aren't weights now? I'm only doing this cos you did it to me --> :rolleyes:

Roper

Here's a question. Ponder it and get back to me. If Pavel is so deadly and trains so many special forces blokes why does he have so much time to add another chapter to the internet each week?

Internet incarnations are not Gods.

delllat

Hanley wrote: »

Guys, can we be real here for just one second??

From his posting history, I think FatLoss08 is around 280lb. It's fairly clear from his posts that he's a relative newb when it comes to training. Thus it's fair to assume the majority of the weight he's carrying is fat.

We can talk all day about how guys 175-200lb can maintain the same bodyweight but build muscle and lose fat, so their appearance improves without their weight changing. But this guy is 280-bloody-lb. There is NO WAY he can stay even close to that and look good.

He HAS to lose weight. That point is just unarguable I'm afraid.

Of course it's not all about the numbers on the scales. But when that number's nearly 300lb, it HAS to come down for him to look better. It simply has to.



I'd hardly calling tightening up a clever technique. I have his book, The Naked Warrior. And there's not a whole lot in it other than locking in the bodypart you're using, and squeezing everything else fcuking tight.



Kettlebells aren't weights now? I'm only doing this cos you did it to me --> :rolleyes:

For a start,i didnt read his entire posting history,i only read this thread so i didnt know his exact stats

if pavels techniques help some people to focus or get stronger then hes doing something right (hes getting rich off it too)

pavel has more books than the naked warrior ,you should check them out if you think his only trick is telling people to "squeez everything else fcuking tight"

Yes ,kettlebells are an alternative form of resistance,which could be called weights..:rolleyes:

delllat

Roper wrote: »

Here's a question. Ponder it and get back to me. If Pavel is so deadly and trains so many special forces blokes why does he have so much time to add another chapter to the internet each week?

Internet incarnations are not Gods.

I am not a Pavel expert but i think he lives in america now with his american wife and makes his money from personal training of american law enforcement personell like swat teams etc

he also sells books and ketlebells from his website

money is probably his god now

Transform

Jesus guys listen to hanley - drop the weight FIRST and stop getting complicated.

oh and on Pavel - he has a fresh perspective. what a joke!!!!!!

Kettlebells were just a tool that people forgot about until he came along.

Clever techniques maybe yes but when it comes to basic training for much weight loss lets just keep it simple please.

delllat

Transform wrote: »

Jesus guys listen to hanley - drop the weight FIRST and stop getting complicated.

oh and on Pavel - he has a fresh perspective. what a joke!!!!!!

Kettlebells were just a tool that people forgot about until he came along.

Clever techniques maybe yes but when it comes to basic training for much weight loss lets just keep it simple please.

I think pavel has made more breakthroughs in the health and fitness industry than you have

its really fantastic to ridicule a mans achievments from behind your keyboard

i take my hat off to you,youre an inspiration to us all.......

davyjose

delllat wrote: »

I think pavel has made more breakthroughs in the health and fitness industry than you have

its really fantastic to ridicule a mans achievments from behind your keyboard

i take my hat off to you,youre an inspiration to us all.......

It looked to me simply like Transform was trying to make another (of many) attampt to get the OP to keep it simple and stick to basics, until the OP sheds enough weight/gets himself to a level of fitness where he can begin to try other more complicated.

If you want to get into an argument about Pavel, my advice would be to start another thread TBH.

Hanley

Pavel's a god... Transform knows nothing... and a 280lb guy doesn't need to worry about dropping fat to look good.

This thread's finally starting to live up to it's potential.

delllat

Hanley wrote: »

Pavel's a god... Transform knows nothing... and a 280lb guy doesn't need to worry about dropping fat to look good.

This thread's finally starting to live up to it's potential.

well of course he needs to drop fat at that size

he didnt tell us his weight