Am I getting bad advice from my gym?
Replies
-
rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.0 -
CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
What?!?!0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Sure but again this really comes down to what the individual's goals and preferences are ultimately, what they enjoy and therefore will stick to for a sufficient period of time.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. This is why i said her training should be periodized (moving between the rep ranges) over time depending on her specific training goals. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*0 -
this guy must have been talking to the Tennis guy from yesterday,
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Right. That was my take on it as well.
I also think it is a mistake to think of rep ranges as discrete bands that you must stay within rather than indicators on a spectrum as to roughly where adaptations fall.
In addition, the upper end of the rep range correlating to "endurance" may be a lot higher than what was first imagined:
High reps and strength
The good news for the average person who wants to get into shape and enjoy life is that they have a large range in terms of reps they can play around with and still get sweet results with.0 -
OP, have him show you the basics. In any case you will not learn the basic moves with heavy weights, you need to figure out form first. Starting with lower weights higher reps to figure out form is very common. When you feel comfortable, he is not going to stop you increase the weight. At least I hope so.
Now, as for the book, I know it is popular here, but from what I have seen I do not think his reaction was that weird if you are a complete beginner. It looks to me far overcomplicated for someone just starting to get familiar with weights who does not even know if he/she will like lifting. I think that outside of these forums, at least in my personal experience, this is not how people start: you go to the gym, get familiar with equipment and free weights, figure out the basics, then figure out what you want to do next, what are your goals, and even if you like lifting or would rather do something different. For someone just walking into the gym, no experience with weights at all, and armed with a book, I think the trainer rolling their eyes is not an unusual reaction
0 -
OP, have him show you the basics. In any case you will not learn the basic moves with heavy weights, you need to figure out form first. Starting with lower weights higher reps to figure out form is very common. When you feel comfortable, he is not going to stop you increase the weight. At least I hope so.
Now, as for the book, I know it is popular here, but from what I have seen I do not think his reaction was that weird if you are a complete beginner. It looks to me far overcomplicated for someone just starting to get familiar with weights who does not even know if he/she will like lifting. I think that outside of these forums, at least in my personal experience, this is not how people start: you go to the gym, get familiar with equipment and free weights, figure out the basics, then figure out what you want to do next, what are your goals, and even if you like lifting or would rather do something different. For someone just walking into the gym, no experience with weights at all, and armed with a book, I think the trainer rolling their eyes is not an unusual reaction
I personally don't like new rules very much but to call it feminism gone wild is way over the top. I know it's a good, well established program but it is just not for me. I am more of a strong lifts, non gender specific prigram type of girl. His comment shows that he has issues with women lifting heavy. If it was more in line with what you said he would have told her "let's learn the basics first and proper form before starting to lift heavy". You don't have to do 25 reps to learn proper form. Actually it's likely your form will break down before the end of a set if you are doing 25+ reps0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Right. That was my take on it as well.
I also think it is a mistake to think of rep ranges as discrete bands that you must stay within rather than indicators on a spectrum as to roughly where adaptations fall.
In addition, the upper end of the rep range correlating to "endurance" may be a lot higher than what was first imagined:
High reps and strength
The good news for the average person who wants to get into shape and enjoy life is that they have a large range in terms of reps they can play around with and still get sweet results with.
To increase muscle size the participants were probably eating at a surplus, if you did the same in a deficit I bet the results would be dramatically different when it comes to 1RM and muscle retention.0 -
Um.... I am a woman, and I do as heavy lifting as I can, for 3 sets of up to 6 reps. I am building a lot of muscle AND losing fat in the process. Whoever told you women shouldn't lift heavy is an idiot.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Right. That was my take on it as well.
I also think it is a mistake to think of rep ranges as discrete bands that you must stay within rather than indicators on a spectrum as to roughly where adaptations fall.
In addition, the upper end of the rep range correlating to "endurance" may be a lot higher than what was first imagined:
High reps and strength
The good news for the average person who wants to get into shape and enjoy life is that they have a large range in terms of reps they can play around with and still get sweet results with.
To increase muscle size the participants were probably eating at a surplus, if you did the same in a deficit I bet the results would be dramatically different when it comes to 1RM and muscle retention.
I'm not going to comment on the study he posted specifically.
But, just wanted to point out that resistance training, adequate protein intake, and a moderate calorie deficit are all that i've seen that's required for muscle retention while losing weight.
We know that some LBM will be lost with weight loss and is inevitable. In other words, training in one of the rep ranges is not necessarily more beneficial for "losing weight and retaining muscle". From what i've seen resistance training in any of the forms i mentioned are beneficial and therefore should be tailored to specific fitness goals of the individual.
(Unless of course i'm wrong, in which case please provide me a study so i can read up on that. I haven't seen anything stating otherwise and i've trained most of my clients any myself in this fashion)0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Right. That was my take on it as well.
I also think it is a mistake to think of rep ranges as discrete bands that you must stay within rather than indicators on a spectrum as to roughly where adaptations fall.
In addition, the upper end of the rep range correlating to "endurance" may be a lot higher than what was first imagined:
High reps and strength
The good news for the average person who wants to get into shape and enjoy life is that they have a large range in terms of reps they can play around with and still get sweet results with.
To increase muscle size the participants were probably eating at a surplus, if you did the same in a deficit I bet the results would be dramatically different when it comes to 1RM and muscle retention.
Agreed there will probably be a difference (particularly with 1RM), but dramatically for muscle retention? I'm not sure on that as it comes down to what underpins this: overload which increases in a progressive manner along with a suitable rather than severe deficit. The high rep / low weight mythology was partly inspired historically by bodybuilders who were essentially on pre contest starvation diet and to save face and mask the loss of strength triggered by starvation said they were doing it to "cut".
Don't get me wrong - I do think if you are dieting then it would be better to work somewhere in a more traditional range (say 5-15) but offset against this are other factors such as enjoyment, capability and so on.
Edited: for clarity0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »OP, have him show you the basics. In any case you will not learn the basic moves with heavy weights, you need to figure out form first. Starting with lower weights higher reps to figure out form is very common. When you feel comfortable, he is not going to stop you increase the weight. At least I hope so.
Now, as for the book, I know it is popular here, but from what I have seen I do not think his reaction was that weird if you are a complete beginner. It looks to me far overcomplicated for someone just starting to get familiar with weights who does not even know if he/she will like lifting. I think that outside of these forums, at least in my personal experience, this is not how people start: you go to the gym, get familiar with equipment and free weights, figure out the basics, then figure out what you want to do next, what are your goals, and even if you like lifting or would rather do something different. For someone just walking into the gym, no experience with weights at all, and armed with a book, I think the trainer rolling their eyes is not an unusual reaction
I personally don't like new rules very much but to call it feminism gone wild is way over the top. I know it's a good, well established program but it is just not for me. I am more of a strong lifts, non gender specific prigram type of girl. His comment shows that he has issues with women lifting heavy. If it was more in line with what you said he would have told her "let's learn the basics first and proper form before starting to lift heavy". You don't have to do 25 reps to learn proper form. Actually it's likely your form will break down before the end of a set if you are doing 25+ reps
I do not disagree. Maybe he is an idiot. Maybe he has seen a lot of women walking in the gym asking about lifting heavy because it is the new cool thing and then they quit and he got fed up. It does not matter to the OP. If she has already a membership at the gym, she can benefit from him showing her the basics, getting familiar with the equipment, and then she can just work on whatever routine she likes. What I am trying to say is she can for now benefit for whatever he can show her, details on the final plan do not matter to her right now, and then she can move on as she sees best. She should not get disappointed or overanalyse this.0 -
As long as he lets you on the equipment when you are there just stick out your contract, put your headphones in and ignore his moronic *kitten*.
Now if he starts being a prick, take your contract in that shows no limits to what women can do and either he can let you out of your contract, or he can STFU.
I had a wonderful gym I used to go to and I was lifting 3-4 days a week. We even had a 1RM competition twice a year for those who wanted to participate. Was great for seeing progress. I miss it now since it does not have a daycare and I have an infant. The trainer would even for free point out any form issues I had, and a few of the guys there if I needed a spotter would always try to help. I was stubborn and would say no till I smushed myself on my bench press trying for a few more reps. Opps.0 -
mjrkearney wrote: »... I can understand not being "allowed" to use the men's locker room, or not being "allowed" to use the rock wall without supervision or clearance like everybody else. But lifting heavy? What makes him think he can control that?
Exactly this.
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Right. That was my take on it as well.
I also think it is a mistake to think of rep ranges as discrete bands that you must stay within rather than indicators on a spectrum as to roughly where adaptations fall.
In addition, the upper end of the rep range correlating to "endurance" may be a lot higher than what was first imagined:
High reps and strength
The good news for the average person who wants to get into shape and enjoy life is that they have a large range in terms of reps they can play around with and still get sweet results with.
To increase muscle size the participants were probably eating at a surplus, if you did the same in a deficit I bet the results would be dramatically different when it comes to 1RM and muscle retention.
It's typically not0 -
ahhhh just use NROF and be done with it- if he says you can't use the "none women's" side of the gym just ask him to point out the contract where it says that.
He's an idiot. For real.
My gym owner laughs at anything over 10 as being cardio- because we are all juice head power lifters and bodybuidlers (okay- not all of us- but it totally looks like that).
Just gotta let it go and do what is best for you- and high reps unless your training for a specific competition isn't necessary.0 -
CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »Everything I've read on here and online in general suggests that women should heavy lift.
The advice for woman as overweight as myself seem to be to lift heavy from the start, don't wait until you're close goal weight as it will help to prevent muscle loss through deficit eating and help with skin sagging.
Am I right so far?
Only partially true. Depends on your goals. Depends on where you are in fitness and balance. Resistance training can start with a variety of programs that may or may not include "lift heavy" lifting.
If your primary goals are muscle retention and reducing sagging skin the type of lifting can vary significantly -- low rep, high weights isn't what one should start with anyway.
NROLFW is a relatively good (if overly complex program) that starts with intermediate and high reps work (2x15, 2x12s, AMRAP mostly)
A good program is aligned with your physical level, is progressive, pushes you to learn about balance and equilibrium, aligned to your goals without just focusing on a few cookie cutter exercises and just "lifting heavy".
So yes, start lifting, get to the heavy when you are ready if that is what you want, but it likely shouldn't be anything near maximal work in the first months.
0 -
CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »If your grocery bags, cooking pot, purse, toddler are heavier than the weights you're lifting, then I think there's a problem.
I love this!
Yes my toddler is 30lbs. I can throw him in the air and wave him around. He has me lifting 10lbs! I feel like I'm stood there playing with a feather!
Love this! I use the ability to carry my kids out of a burning building if necessary as my training goal. The youngest is 9 and weighs 100lbs. (he's also already 5 ft tall) Listen to your body, not your gym owner. I rotate 12 weeks of Stronglifts with 12 weeks of a hypertrophy program. (currently doing hypertrophy with 10-12 reps per lift)0 -
I'll add that I'm 61 and my dumb bell sets go up to 25# plus an EZ curl bar I use for deadlifts and put 60# on. It isn't "heavy" for most, but it should show you that 10# are way too light.CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »If your grocery bags, cooking pot, purse, toddler are heavier than the weights you're lifting, then I think there's a problem.
I love this!
Yes my toddler is 30lbs. I can throw him in the air and wave him around. He has me lifting 10lbs! I feel like I'm stood there playing with a feather!
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »Everything I've read on here and online in general suggests that women should heavy lift.
The advice for woman as overweight as myself seem to be to lift heavy from the start, don't wait until you're close goal weight as it will help to prevent muscle loss through deficit eating and help with skin sagging.
Am I right so far?
Only partially true. Depends on your goals. Depends on where you are in fitness and balance. Resistance training can start with a variety of programs that may or may not include "lift heavy" lifting.
If your primary goals are muscle retention and reducing sagging skin the type of lifting can vary significantly -- low rep, high weights isn't what one should start with anyway.
NROLFW is a relatively good (if overly complex program) that starts with intermediate and high reps work (2x15, 2x12s, AMRAP mostly)
A good program is aligned with your physical level, is progressive, pushes you to learn about balance and equilibrium, aligned to your goals without just focusing on a few cookie cutter exercises and just "lifting heavy".
So yes, start lifting, get to the heavy when you are ready if that is what you want, but it likely shouldn't be anything near maximal work in the first months.
This and the posts from @rainbowbow probably put the whole thing in better perspective than most others posts.
Depending on the context from the owner, it's just as likely you got bad advice from listening to the internet or MFP too much. There are plenty of different ways to gain strength, bulk, or lift and make progress.0 -
He's stuck in the 80's.0
-
I would be concerned about taking form advise from him as well. Is he going to allow you to do a full squat or insist that 4 inches is deep enough?
Insist and demand your knees never pass your toes?
We know that women can't squat because their uterus will fall out.
What happens when you get to more than 5 lb pink dumbbells and your form breaks down, will you be able to get advise from him or will he make you use the 3 lb dumbbells and not see a flaw in your form?
You are on your own at this gym. Practice setting your phone up to record your lifts and post here for advice. You are breaking news ground here, a beginner woman who is trying to lift heavy....blasphemy.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CatherineElizabeth13 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
If he DID say that women should never work out in that manner, then yes, he's an idiot. But really, the answer is women shouldn't have to train any differently from men.
He did say women shouldn't lift heavy. Then referred to the New Rules of Weight Lifting for Women as "feminism gone wild".
then he's an idiot.
Regardless, my point still stands that you should begin RESISTANCE training (in general), now. Not necessarily "heavy lifting".
The point isn't correct though. SL 5x5 starts you with just the bar and slowly builds up to heavy lifting. There is zero, non-medical reason, why you can't start lift straight away.
You will be starting with little to no weight but that is the idea. You learn form before adding weight.
When people say start heavy lifting, they don't usually mean, go and whack your body weight on the bar and have a go at squating it or benching as much as humanly possible from the get go.
How are you defining "heavy lifting"? I am inclined to agree with the other poster (and yes, much of that is because I made the same point earlier on in the thread...)
5x5 is an excellent routine if the trainee is looking to target neural strength and some power but not necessarily hypertrophy. If the trainee wishes to target other adaptations they will use different rep ranges and so on.
When most exercisers (rather than more specialised exercisers) say heavy lifting I think what they are really alluding to is in fact some form of resistance training which uses progressive overload. The most common recommendation and I good one as a catch all would be 3x10 in terms of sets/reps. This is because it mixes in some neural and metabolic hypertrophy with some strength as well - jack of all trades as it were.
This was my point exactly.
I do wonder if a common misconception of a low weight / high rep routine is one never progresses beyond pink dumbells rather than progressively increasing the weight within the given range...
This guy was saying 25 reps, so you could still increase weight but that type of training, is resisted endurance training, not strength training (though some small strength gains would be made, just alike someone that sprints will get some endurance benefit, but not the same training for distance.
Of course. This is why i said her training should be periodized (moving between the rep ranges) over time depending on her specific training goals. But from what i gathered from OP's initial post her goal is to lose weight (primarily) and retain some muscle mass. She never mentioned having goals for hypertrophy, maximal strength, power, etc. This is why i was questioning what her goals were and what the guy said to her specifically.
Telling her to perform endurance training for her stated goals (weight loss, muscle retention, etc.) doesn't seem too off the beaten path. Especially if she is out of shape and just beginning. That's why i asked what he actually said and whether or not it was misinterpreted. Turns out he's just a nazi. *shrug*
Yeah...I kind of feel like some context or something is missing here. Gyms tend to have a lot of competition and small margins...I can't imagine an owner of a gym being all..."no way *kitten* I'm not letting you lift heavy and your New Rules is feminism gone wild"...I'm just not able to wrap my head around a business person who would be highly invested in having more people in his gym acting this way...stranger things I'm sure have happened, but I'm just feeling like some kind of context is missing or there's been a misinterpretation or something.
Also, while I do realize that 5x5 and "heavy" tends to be the stock lifting answer, it isn't the be all and end all. Having worked with a coach now for1.5 years, I've learned a lot about general fitness and periodized training is really optimal from an overall fitness perspective.
I'd also add that when I see my coach and his wife working with untrained clients and in particular overweight clients, they do tend more towards high rep, low weight, little rest and lots of conditioning type of work...part of what they're trying to do is build up stamina and endurance...the other part of what they're trying to do is bump up the calorie burn to assist in creating an energy deficiency...so in that context, I could see someone suggesting a lighter weight, higher rep routine to start with...but again, I just feel like some kind of context is missing here or there has been a misunderstanding or something....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions