8 Reasons your Weight Training Results SUCK.

Katemarie34

BUMP!

TheAncientMariner

bumping for later

TheNewo

great info, thank you for posting!

Sassy922

This seems like a lot of good information, so I copied and pasted it so I could read it later on paper.
Thanks for posting this!

royaldrea

Nice!

MaryD4900

bump

Loulady

Saving for later. Thanks!

dr3wman

The only one I dont agree with is the training split. I lifted for two years on an upper/lower split with little results...then switched to one body part per week and saw an instant change (drug free of course). Different splits work for differently for everyone. There is no method set in stone that will be effective for everyone, just use trail and error.

Rae6503

And if they continually get bigger, then at some point you would reach "bulky". If they don't continually get bigger, then wouldn't you be back to "sucky results" (maintaining)?

Not at all. It's a misconception that muscle size and muscle strength go hand-in-hand, they really don't. Actually, most of your female/male bodybuilder types are not remotely as strong as a professional athlete or an intermediate to advanced powerlifter. You can very much get stronger without significantly increasing muscle mass.

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

Nia Shanks.



She can deadlift 300lbs and bench press 145lbs. She weighs 122lbs.

mrsbiscuit

This is a great article. Some things new to me, some things I needed reminding of. The progression thing is really important I agree -- it's so easy to fall into a routine and not shake things up!

nelsaphine

Great article...will finish later :P

Rae6503

I'm interested in knowing why they recommend 8 reps. That's a rep range that a body builder or strength training individual would lift in. If a person's goal is to "tone" or even build endurance and burn more calories, they would be lifting in the 12-15 rep or 20-25 rep range respectively.

12 to 15 Rep Sets
Training in the 12 to 15 rep range offers, in theory, an opportunity to both build greater energy stores and strengthen muscle fibers. By performing a standard overload set in this rep range; energy depletion and fiber damage are occurring equally. However, by performing the reps with continuous tension, eliminating relaxation, more energy is depleted (energy depletes in
proportion to the duration of muscle tension), thus resulting in super-compensation (increase) of energy storage (new mitochondria), during recovery. On the other hand, by incorporating a pause in every rep (in a position of relaxation), the working muscle can take up oxygen and release wastes, to some degree, allowing for the offset of failure. This translates into the performance of more fiber damaging repetitions. This type of stress on the structural fibers in the 12-15 rep range induces adaptation through the production of more new myofibrils. Relaxation during heavy, 4 to 6 rep training is NOT recommended as significant damage can result in the joints and surrounding tissue when they are called upon to support extremely heavy weights while soft tissue is relaxed.


20 to 25 Rep Sets
It is important to realize that the reason for the performance of 20 to 25 rep sets is to 1) At high intensity-build new mitochondria; improving the endurance capability of the working muscles by increasing energy storage capacity; 2) At low intensity-purposely expend as much stored glycogen as possible; in order to maximize fat mobilization during recovery glycogen replacement. Glycogen is rapidly depleting during a continuous tension set, and this is the purpose of this high rep range. It then makes perfect sense to always use continuous tension in this rep range. As a reminder, this rep range is not recommended for significant growth stimulation. It offers adaptation of the muscle by increasing muscle endurance, adding
to future energy stores by building new mitochondria, and increasing recovery fat release. The performance of 20-25 rep sets is of tremendous value for everyone from the beginner to the competitive athlete. Increased muscle energy is good for everyone.

I omitted the section related to body building as I doubt anyone has joined MFP for strength training purposes.

NFPT

I think its great that someone else posted this. I have seen so many where the reps were max of 13. I do max of 30 before failure and I think you get enough out of 30 to give your arms good tears to build more muscle.

I'd encourage you to read this (and ALL of Lyle's other articles):

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html

Wonderob

Great article...will finish later :P

Me too - plenty in there for my wife to mull over too

4flamingoz

bump-makes perfect sense to me!

4d9r

Bumping for later re-reading. Thanks for posting this! :drinker:

Blaqheart

Bump. Thanks for sharing this. :laugh:

purplegoboom

Bump! Great article.

bigbrownbear123

I actually have a few comments myself. Though I am not the typical weight lifter IMO. I know exactly why weight training sucks for most people. The bottom line is that most people "DO NOT TRY". I say this from experience. I go to the gym 3-4 times a week, spend 20-30 minutes weight training and get more workout than anyone in the gym. You know why? Because 99% of them are taking 1-3 minute rest periods between sets and machines. They sit in there for 1-2 hours and get minimal work done, barely pushing their bodies and also not raising their heart rate above normal. I am doing my sets, pushing as hard as I can and go to the next machine within 10-15 seconds and begin my next workout. People are too lazy to see results and thats why they do not get them.

Unless you're training primarily for endurance, then 60 second recovery periods as standard is generally the way to go. Significantly shorter recovery periods will drastically reduce your lifting capacity and you will no longer be training the top end of your strength, but rather your endurance and recovery. Obviously if that's your goal then go for it, but for mass gains you want to be looking at ~60 seconds between sets working the same muscle groups. I'd agree with you about a 3 minute rest period though...

I realize that this section is about progression, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why is getting good results and then maintaining them "sucky results"? If you get to where you want to be, then maintenance doesn't seem "sucky" to me. If the results were good why aren't they still good?

I don't think that's what was really meant by the article. Obviously if you get to a point where you are totally happy with your results, you will want to maintain that rather than continue to build upon your gains. I think the article is referring more to people that go through 1 cycle of progression and then expect to continue to improve their gains without further progressing.

I enjoyed this article, but I'd like to point out that the reason women use those little, light dumbbells is not because we don't want to look like men, but because we're TOLD to, repeatedly. OK, I can't speak for everybody else, but that's certainly my experience. I've heard over and over that small weights are best. In fact somebody told me that last week. I had a trainer at a gym a few years ago and I was told to do 20 set reps of small weights. In fact, I can't remember anyone ever telling me (in real life) that I should be lifting heavier and heavier weights. I'm only doing that because of the internet.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with using light dumbbells, it depends entirely upon what your goals are. Light weight/high rep sets are an excellent way to improve your anaerobic endurance and they can also be used with short recovery periods to improve your recovery.

This brings up the debate yesterday about which works abs better, weighted crunches or squats/deadlifts. I have been pushing hardcore on the weighted crunches and have felt more of a burn than I ever have doing situps. I have done squats, not so many deadlifts but have not felt much of anything for abs. As far as getting rid of fat.. squats and deadlifts may win that, but if you are already toned, I think crunches win.

There is no debate... Squats and deadlifts are not ab exercises. Yes, you use your abs and other muscles as stabiliziers during any sort of free weight exercise but there is really no comparison between crunches and squats/deadlifts. The abdominals are the prime movers in a crunch and so are obviously worked harder than during a squat or a deadlift.

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

There is a difference between bulk and strength. Bulk can be a contributing factor towards strength, but strength can be improved without gaining a single pound of muscle due to adaptations by the nervous sytem and within the existing muscle cells.

bcattoes

And if they continually get bigger, then at some point you would reach "bulky". If they don't continually get bigger, then wouldn't you be back to "sucky results" (maintaining)?

Not at all. It's a misconception that muscle size and muscle strength go hand-in-hand, they really don't. Actually, most of your female/male bodybuilder types are not remotely as strong as a professional athlete or an intermediate to advanced powerlifter. You can very much get stronger without significantly increasing muscle mass.

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

Nia Shanks.
She can deadlift 300lbs and bench press 145lbs. She weighs 122lbs.

Kudos to her, but that doesn't address my question. Which is, if continually lifting heavier continually builds new muscle tissue, how could a woman (or man) not eventually get bulky if they continually add more weight? Unless the unspoken suggestion is that muscle tissue is being lost at the same time new is being built, then logically muscle mass would continually increase.

Twiztedbeing

I actually have a few comments myself. Though I am not the typical weight lifter IMO. I know exactly why weight training sucks for most people. The bottom line is that most people "DO NOT TRY". I say this from experience. I go to the gym 3-4 times a week, spend 20-30 minutes weight training and get more workout than anyone in the gym. You know why? Because 99% of them are taking 1-3 minute rest periods between sets and machines. They sit in there for 1-2 hours and get minimal work done, barely pushing their bodies and also not raising their heart rate above normal. I am doing my sets, pushing as hard as I can and go to the next machine within 10-15 seconds and begin my next workout. People are too lazy to see results and thats why they do not get them.

Unless you're training primarily for endurance, then 60 second recovery periods as standard is generally the way to go. Significantly shorter recovery periods will drastically reduce your lifting capacity and you will no longer be training the top end of your strength, but rather your endurance and recovery. Obviously if that's your goal then go for it, but for mass gains you want to be looking at ~60 seconds between sets working the same muscle groups. I'd agree with you about a 3 minute rest period though...

You are not understanding what I mean. I do not do 10 second rest periods between the same machine. I do a circuit. I will do 1 set of tri's, then go to leg press for 1 set, then abs for 1 set, then bicep curls for another set and I dont rest very long and have full strength for each. By the time I get to my second set of tri's, I have the strength to do it.

Rae6503

And if they continually get bigger, then at some point you would reach "bulky". If they don't continually get bigger, then wouldn't you be back to "sucky results" (maintaining)?

Not at all. It's a misconception that muscle size and muscle strength go hand-in-hand, they really don't. Actually, most of your female/male bodybuilder types are not remotely as strong as a professional athlete or an intermediate to advanced powerlifter. You can very much get stronger without significantly increasing muscle mass.

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

Nia Shanks.
She can deadlift 300lbs and bench press 145lbs. She weighs 122lbs.

Kudos to her, but that doesn't address my question. Which is, if continually lifting heavier continually builds new muscle tissue, how could a woman (or man) not eventually get bulky if they continually add more weight? Unless the unspoken suggestion is that muscle tissue is being lost at the same time new is being built, then logically muscle mass would continually increase.

I don't understand it completely but strength doesn't come just from increased muscle mass. A lot of it comes from reprogramming your nervous system. You won't build muscle mass, especially if you are on a deficit, but you can continually get stronger, especially if you are new to lifting. I also think that even if you are building muscle mass, you muscles can just because denser and not visually bigger in size. Size and strength are not always related. You train differently depending on which is your goal. But eventually you will hit your "genetic potential" where strength gains slow drastically and you have to do different things to get them.

pundas

bump

SuperAmie

bump for later

Twiztedbeing

And if they continually get bigger, then at some point you would reach "bulky". If they don't continually get bigger, then wouldn't you be back to "sucky results" (maintaining)?

Not at all. It's a misconception that muscle size and muscle strength go hand-in-hand, they really don't. Actually, most of your female/male bodybuilder types are not remotely as strong as a professional athlete or an intermediate to advanced powerlifter. You can very much get stronger without significantly increasing muscle mass.

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

Nia Shanks.
She can deadlift 300lbs and bench press 145lbs. She weighs 122lbs.

Kudos to her, but that doesn't address my question. Which is, if continually lifting heavier continually builds new muscle tissue, how could a woman (or man) not eventually get bulky if they continually add more weight? Unless the unspoken suggestion is that muscle tissue is being lost at the same time new is being built, then logically muscle mass would continually increase.

I get what your saying, but from what I have learned from experience, muscle mass has nothing to do with strength. I was benching 240 yet had no visual muscles, and I was not fat. Strength and muscle build independently of themselves from what I have seen.

bcattoes

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

There is a difference between bulk and strength. Bulk can be a contributing factor towards strength, but strength can be improved without gaining a single pound of muscle due to adaptations by the nervous sytem and within the existing muscle cells.

Okay, so at some point you will indeed stop gaining muscle tissue no matter what you do. And I assume that at some point you will stop gaining strength, because the human body is only capable of so much. And the author considers this "sucky results" unless you have pushed yourself to your absolute limits. Is that right?

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to understand the author's point. Which I think I now do, even though I don't agree.

Twiztedbeing

So "creating muscle tissue" would not mean more muscle mass? Where does the new tissue go if it doesn't become part of the previous mass?

There is a difference between bulk and strength. Bulk can be a contributing factor towards strength, but strength can be improved without gaining a single pound of muscle due to adaptations by the nervous sytem and within the existing muscle cells.

Okay, so at some point you will indeed stop gaining muscle tissue no matter what you do. And I assume that at some point you will stop gaining strength, because the human body is only capable of so much. And the author considers this "sucky results" unless you have pushed yourself to your absolute limits. Is that right?

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to understand the author's point. Which I think I now do, even though I don't agree.

I think what the author was just trying to say is that people go to the gym for years without any visual results, or none that stay long. But dont quote me on that.

JNick77

I don't understand it completely but strength doesn't come just from increased muscle mass. A lot of it comes from reprogramming your nervous system.

Yes, yes, yes.... A lot of people forget this. That's why maximal strength training and higher-rep training (somebody argued 20 or 30+ earlier) is not the same thing and will not achieve the same level of strength.

Toning, cutting, bulking, re-comping, all comes from diet. Bulking may require a little more specialized training but nothing major unless you are a pro-bodybuilder.

MoreBean13

Bumping to read later.

LittleButMightyOne

Bump

JNick77

Okay, so at some point you will indeed stop gaining muscle tissue no matter what you do. And I assume that at some point you will stop gaining strength, because the human body is only capable of so much. And the author considers this "sucky results" unless you have pushed yourself to your absolute limits. Is that right?

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to understand the author's point. Which I think I now do, even though I don't agree.

Who knows what the human body is really capable of. Sure there are limits but humans have gone from lifting total weights at powerlifting sessions in the 1500 and 1600's to know lifting 2400 and 2500 total poundage in a meet. Much of it is due to improved knowledge about training and diet. You can point some of it to steroid use but steroids isn't magic, you still need a solid programming system and a solid diet or the drug is useless.