|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 4:53:00 AM
|
|
|
Alex Brenner PT MPT OCS
Posts: 1057
Joined: February 29, 2004
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
Aqua,
What is the difference between toning muscles and building mass? How do you tell the difference? Is it possible to lift weights such that the shape of the muscle is improved but not change the mass or overall strength?
_____________________________
Alex Brenner, PT, MPT, OCS
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 4:57:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Good point, Alex.
I see this term "toning" all the time. What the heck does that mean? As far as I can tell, this is a near-meaningless layperson's term for low subcutaneous body fat and prominent musculature.
Certainly there are protocols which are designed more around hypertrophy and some more around strength.
What that has to do with "tone" is uncertain...
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 6:59:00 AM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Yeah, the term "tone" has always baffled me too. "muscular definition" is the term I prefer when describing the phase of higher repetition resistance exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 9:52:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the studies, Jason.
Toning, shaping are all term used for the same procedure; building muscle and losing weight.All cooked up by the magazines to fill up their pages every month.
[QUOTE]"muscular definition" is the term I prefer when describing the phase of higher repetition resistance exercise.[/QUOTE]This is one big mistake people do on a diet. when you are ona diet, weighjts should always be heavy (in the range of 4-8 or closer to the 1RM). No reason for the body to hold on to the muscles when ypou are on a diet unless you are sending some really strong signals.
However, some programs do include high reps for glycogen depeletion.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 11:06:00 AM
|
|
|
aquatherapysc
Posts: 34
Joined: June 14, 2005
Status: offline
|
Toning defined is simply the simultaneous decrease of fat and restoration of muscle. So yes, mass building can be classified as toning. Speaking not as a PT but as a amateur weight lifter I would classify toning as geared more towards weight loss and with an added emphasis on defining the muscles through increase of repition. Point being, if I am looing to build mass, I am not going to kill myself on a treadmill for 45 minutes prior to weight training and then lift 3 sets of 15 reps per exercise using a low weight. Inevitably, you will lose weight and condition your muscles. If I am looking to build mass I will refrain from running long distances and stick to 3 sets of about 8 reps with heavy weights. It's what you would call shocking your muscles. You would also need to change up exercise about every month or so. It's somewhat analagous to the distance runner as compared with the sprinter. Distance runners are lean with long and slender muscles, because they train for endurance which requires them to run several miles per day. Sprinters in most cases has larger legs and upper bodies than do distance runners. A sprinter has a different regimen, as he/she must train running shorter distances at greater speeds, comparable to the shock effect.
My take is quite simply:
Toning = Greater repetion and less intensity
Mass Building = Less repition and greater intensity
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 11:08:00 AM
|
|
|
aquatherapysc
Posts: 34
Joined: June 14, 2005
Status: offline
|
I apologize for my various spelling errors - Repetition
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 23, 2005 11:33:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
Your take is simple, but it never means its right. The best diet for weight loss is one where you can hold on to the maximum muscle. Losing weight is easy, losing weight wghile holding onto the muscle mass is the name of the game.
Most of the exterem diets like Ultimate Diet, anabolic diet, Body opus(classified as Cyclical Ketogenic Diets)has all bulit in anabolic phases where you consume high calories coule withy heavy weight traianing. TKD ( Targeted Ketogenic Diet)involves taking gms of carbs around your workout to intensify your weight training workouts.
If wight training is not coupled with diet, the reccoemndation is usually to keep weights heavy. Or 2 sets heavy and 2 sets of high reps for depletion.Most of the info about high reps comes from chemically enhanced bodybuilders magazines. When you are on Test, anything works.
These are the typical mistakes most people make, even personal trainers. Like high reps for cutting and changing exercises for shocking the body. Anytime, when a trainer emphasis exercise to lose weight, I know he doesnt know what he is saying.
Nothing directed at you, aquatherapsyc. Just making some general coomments.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 24, 2005 2:28:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Aqua-
The concept that high weights and low repetitions will build mass and that low weights and high repetitions will tone is a very common fitness fallacy.
It is also very common in those (nothing personal to you) with what is commonly called "a muscle magazine education".
:)
The reverse is true. If hypertrophy (gaining bulk) is your goal, the total load and total time under tension needs to be greater. This translates into less weight and greater reps, multiple exercises per body part.
This is the key difference between body building and weight lifting.
Two TOTALLY different goals.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 24, 2005 3:29:00 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2438
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
LOL anoop... Here in MI, in the land of obesity, technically, the best diet for weight loss would be one where caloric intake is less than output. And with most of the two ton tillies, the output is pretty low, well, those folks really do need to get off their hinneys.
"Tone" is when a person does a double take of the opposite gender. From my experience... there is this one UPS guy (they are currently in shorts)... all I can say is when he steps up and in or down and out... tone. ;) Nice legs... I could ask him, but I'd guess he may have got his tone by lifting boxes and going up and down those stairs into his truck. You know, he comes between 11 and noon... maybe I should ask him?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 24, 2005 3:39:00 AM
|
|
|
Barrett
Posts: 967
Joined: July 28, 1999
From: Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
Status: offline
|
On the Supertraining listserv where a remarkable number of well educated and incredibly fit people seem to post they call tone "the t-word" and always laugh about its use. For them it is meaningless but well understood as a powerful marketing ploy.
_____________________________
Barrett L. Dorko P.T.
http://barrettdorko.com
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 24, 2005 4:04:00 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2438
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Exactly, Barrett... "tone" is sexy... sexy snags someone's attention. That's what some marketing strategies are all about.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 24, 2005 4:55:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
T-word, love that. A useful aphorism for a word so useless it isn't even worth writing it out. That speaks volumes to the issue right there.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 25, 2005 5:01:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]This is the key difference between body building and weight lifting.[/QUOTE]Jason, I think there is a difference but I think the differnce is no that much as we think.
Hypertrophy is my area of ineterest and speciliiazation.
I have repeated quite a few times that the best hypertrophy program will be the best strength program. The protocol used by bodybuilders like using high reps, taking short rest time, taking sets to failure are all based on the faulty premise that fatigue is the primary stimulkus for hypertrophy not load.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 28, 2005 6:34:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Anoop-
How do you explain the appearance differences between the strongest people (competetive weightlifters) and the largest, in terms of muscle mass, people (competetive bodybuilders)?
How do you explain the differences in their training regimens?
If hypertrophy equalled strength, then how do we explain this?
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 28, 2005 9:12:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]How do you explain the appearance differences between the strongest people (competetive weightlifters) and the largest, in terms of muscle mass, people (competetive bodybuilders)?How do you explain the differences in their training regimens?[/QUOTE]Good questions, Jason.Here is the link to one of the article I wrote.
http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/magmain.php?issueID=27&pageID=336
I have a few more points which I will post once you read it.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 28, 2005 11:52:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
I liked your article.
I have some issues for you, however:
1. Not all bodybuilders are "dipped in drugs", they do time-tested high volume lower load training, and experience significant hypertrophy.
2. The strongest athletes (powerlifters, weightlifters, 'world's strongest man' competitors) do not have the muscle hypertrophy even natural body builders have.
How can we explain this?
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 28, 2005 3:49:00 PM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
Glad to hear that you liked tha article. Thanks
This one of the replies I posted which further lcears the matter:
A few important points I missed were the specificity of repetition ranges and the influence of tendon attachments.
According to the specificity principle- even with equal muscle mass- a bodybuilder who trains with higher reps will definitely have a lower 1RM than a power lifter working with low reps. Though often overlooked, tendon attachment plays a big role in strength performances. Folks with equal muscle mass but with different tendon insertions points can have quite varying strength levels. And is one major reason why you see many people who are big and not strong or vice versa. Also, there always exist the case of body fat accumulation forming a positive a correlation with muscle mass. Changing exercises, especially single joint to multijoint or the other way round can also mess up strength levels in those exercises. In short, looks can be quite deceptive.
[QUOTE]Not all bodybuilders are "dipped in drugs", they do time-tested high volume lower load training, and experience significant hypertrophy.[/QUOTE]Professional? No doubt about it. Amateurs? Probably not as rampant use. But it’s pretty well known that even “naturals” are not natural as they claim. Also you will see quite a few naturals who are just retaining enough muscle from their past years of steroid use and just cherry picking natural competitions.
And significant hypertrophy is relative term. No way someone natural will be bigger than someone who is on test. In addition, once you hit your genetic limits whether you use high rep or low rep you are growing no more.For most high rep ranges are best, considering you need some real knowledge about intensity cycling and fatigue to effectively use low reps and avoid fatigue.As well, the main point(or the take home message) is that as long as you strength goes up rep ranges become a minor issue. (Even I do high reps)
AS I wrote in the article “Whether you hit a muscle group thrice a week or once a week, whether you perform 1 set or 6 sets, high rep or low rep, if strength is climbing, stick with it.
If people worried less about the subjective feelings like pump, burn , feel and so on in a bodybuilding routine and focused more on their strength gains, there would be fewre questions about supplements,drugs and different training regimens.
And I think you have got it the other way round. Its long been known that natural powerlifters are much bigger than natural bodybuilders. Powerlifters just look fat; never means they don’t have muscle.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 29, 2005 2:32:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
I think you bring up some interesting theoretical points. I do not really have a good reply, as I simply don't know the research in the area all that well, so I'm not up to giving you a great discussion. Have you tried weightlifting-related forums?
I do know that you are quite harsh on bodybuilders to assume that so much is wrought with drugs. While I'm sure it's a big problem, I wonder if it is to the degree you say it is, especially among amateurs.
I do agree that people should be less interested in the localized muscle sensations of pump/burn, etc and more concerend with other factors.
Powerlifters, while many do look fat, still do not seem to have the hypertrophy of bodybuilders. This is a rather anecdotal point of view, I realize, but knowing enough about the typical training regimen differences causes me to wonder if your well-reasoned theoretical argument really holds water in the real world of training. I don't think there's enough evidence to make a convincing argument either way...unless you know of something that I don't?
Thanks for the good education, I'm learning new things here...I found your paragraph on Growth Hormone really interesting, as I had taken that as gospel fact.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Free weights versus Nautilus - June 29, 2005 7:00:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE] think you bring up some interesting theoretical points. I do not really have a good reply, as I simply don't know the research in the area all that well, so I'm not up to giving you a great discussion. Have you tried weightlifting-related forums?[/QUOTE]I have been writing in weight lifitng forums for 3-4 years. I think most people at the top level prretty much knows that its all about weight progression.But they are a bit skeptical to totally believ that the ultimate hypertrophy routine is the ultimate strength rotuine. Dr. Sale after readingg the article even went so far to say that he would be surprsed to see any strength changes if you take a bodybuilders and a powewrlfiters muscle and test it somehow.
Peole often compare powerlfietrs and bodybuilding to state how strength has very litlle to do with mass. But whatthey totally fail to understand is that the weight class categories in powerlifting was taken from data relating to LBM and strength levels. everyone speaks about strength is highly neural and then when a pwoerlfiters hits a plateau then everyone unanimously state that he has hit his genetical limit of putting on muscle mass.
Thanks for your comments.Always great to have a discssion with oyu Jason
Anoop
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.094
|
Printable Version
