High Reps with Very Heavy weights, Intresting Comparison

[donizhere]

Guy A is strong and he does Regular Training

He does Dumbell curls for 40kg (88 LBS) he maxes at "3 reps" and can't do anymore

But Guy B comes along and does 80 reps with (40kg) (88LBS)

Both are lifting Very Heavy Weight for Curls,

What is the conditioning difference?

[donizhere]

I made this topic because people say High reps with Light Weights don't work on strength.

But what about High Reps with Heavy weights or medium Weights there isnt much info about this....

[RDJ]

You can't do high reps with high weights, because if you can the weight isn't really high :huh

[viru§™]

You can't do high reps with high weights, because if you can the weight isn't really high :huh

I don't think he's quite thought this through...

[BlackWater]

I don't think he's quite thought this through...

:rofl

I actually lol'd'

[RDJ]

Now let's say guy A boxes one single round. Guy B boxes 18 rounds. Not so funny anymore, huh? :think

[donizhere]

No Because 88lbs (40kg) is universally Very Heavy for dumbell curls....

you cannot say thats a light weight even if you do high reps with it..

[RDJ]

No because 88lbs (40kg) is universally Very Heavy for dumbell curls....

you cannot say thats a light weight even if you do high reps with it..

A high weight is something you cannot do high reps with :think

[donizhere]

A high weight is something you cannot do high reps with :think

What makes you say that? its quite possible with a lot of training

[BlackWater]

What makes you say that? its quite possible with a lot of training

Gold. :rofl

[RDJ]

Gold. :rofl

I'm speechless actually :lol:

[RDJ]

A new concept in sports. Sprintathons: 42 kilometer sprints.

[donizhere]

it wasn't meant to be funny...

[BlackWater]

it wasn't meant to be funny...

Could've sworn you had to be a troll of some kind :think

[cockneyhardman]

No Because 88lbs (40kg) is universally Very Heavy for dumbell curls....

you cannot say thats a light weight even if you do high reps with it..

if your talking about 80 reps then guy B must be 10 feet tall and weigh about 40 stone!!! (lean weight)

[BlackWater]

If you're serious about this though, your argument makes no sense. If you can do 80 reps with a weight, why are you still using that weight?

You don't walk at 1mph to train do you? So why would you use a weight that you can do so many reps with?

[younghypnotiq]

u r right that is ahigh ewight but wat they mean is a heavy weight for u. a heavy weight for ronnie coleman is differnt then a heavy weight for me. get it? if u can do more then like 8 reps of a weight its not considered a heavy weight for YOU anymore

[slantone]

donize or whateve ur name is-
seriously - quite while ur behind- change ur profile handle- refresh ur posts. and start again.

uve lost all credibility- u know fuck all.
u clearly can do fuck all reps with fuck all weight. otherwise ud know the answer to such a stupid question.

[boxbible]

Universally classic!!!

[Marvelous Marcum]

My day has been made, and I can thank you for it good sir.

[fitzroy boy_iron mike]

donize or whateve ur name is-
seriously - quite while ur behind- change ur profile handle- refresh ur posts. and start again.

uve lost all credibility- u know fuck all.
u clearly can do fuck all reps with fuck all weight. otherwise ud know the answer to such a stupid question.


lol

OP- the guys are right, a weight is considered as being 'heavy' when it is in the 3-6ish rep range, when you can do more reps at this weight, you up the weight and keep reps at same range to train heavy.. hope that helps :good

[Machine]

A new concept in sports. Sprintathons: 42 kilometer sprints.

:lol::lol::lol:

Donizhere's refreshing take on weight training is going to revolutionize the sport: get an incredibly heavy weight and then do shitloads of reps with it.

[Arka]

Hmmm..... :think

[boxingtactics07]

Guy A: 1X3 @ 88LBS/40Kg very heavy for him
Guy B: 1X80 @ 88LBS/40Kg very light for him

Guy A is lifting > 90% of what he can do in one set (maximal strength)
Guy B is lifting < 20% of what he can do in one set (endurance-based, almost recovery-based)

The only thing this shows is that guy B is significantly stronger than guy A at curling a dumbbell. It also shows that they are both wasting their time by doing bicep curls.

[Marvelous Marcum]

Guy A: 1X3 @ 88LBS/40Kg very heavy for him
Guy B: 1X80 @ 88LBS/40Kg very light for him

Guy A is lifting > 90% of what he can do in one set (maximal strength)
Guy B is lifting < 20% of what he can do in one set (endurance-based, almost recovery-based)

The only thing this shows is that guy B is significantly stronger than guy A at curling a dumbbell. It also shows that they are both wasting their time by doing bicep curls.


What exactly are bicep curls useless for?

[RDJ]

What exactly are bicep curls useless for?

For lots of things :smoke

[scurlaruntings]

What exactly are bicep curls useless for?If your a BB cables are better as the work the length and thickness of the muscle better aswell as your peak. Either way Curls are NOT useless. There good for for getting the arms warm if your working out light and getting loose. Heavy curls though can be a bit counter-productive as you loose form and then start using other muscle groups as stabilizers.

[dwilson]

Great thread.

[scurlaruntings]

I made this topic because people say High reps with Light Weights don't work on strength.

But what about High Reps with Heavy weights or medium Weights there isnt much info about this....Thats fairly obvious dude. More weight means more strength required to lift the said weight. That being said repping heavy till failure is good for building strength providing you have excellent form and not sloppy technique. Note the heavier you go the more stress on your joints. So you do have to know your limitations as well as having the correct kit on to ensure you don't harm yourself.

[boxingtactics07]

Marcum: I will use bicep curls vs chinups as an example:

Bicep curls will target the biceps and isolate them. The forearms/traps/shoulders will only become stabilizers through the pulling motion (they aren't indirectly hit enough for strength gain, and thus those muscles don't reap the benefits of the exercise).

Chinups on the other hand will literally hit EVERY part of the upper body and believe it or not the pushing muscles (chest/shoulder/triceps) will get a workout from it as well (although the benefits will be the general back/lats/traps/forearms/biceps pulling muscles as opposed to just the biceps with curls)


The same case could be made for leg extension v.s. squat:.

The squat will literally target the entire lower body with the abs/lower back getting indirectly hit ENOUGH to gain strength in those areas.

The leg extension will hit the quads and the only exercise to stabilize it is what? The shoulder.

That means with two exercise you can hit the entire lower body and backside. Throw in pushups and you have a complete full body workout with only 3 exercises and not 50 random bodybuilding ones. The case against bicep curls is that you can always be doing something better than them. You would have been better off doing 10X3 chinups at 80% your 1RM than 3X10 chinups at 70% your 1RM and 3X10 bicep curls at 70% your 1RM. I'm not even a big weightlifter, but when I do it, I'm going to do it right. I'm a big believer in cross training though, which is why I incorporate them in when I can.

[Rakim]

You can't do high reps with high weights, because if you can the weight isn't really high :huh




:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

This honestly reminds me of a tosspot down the gym called Mr.Excuses. I was struggling with 3 sets of 9 on bench press with 65kg and he strolled over, looked at me in disgust and said, 'If you wanna get anywhere with that 9 rep stuff, you need to be doing it with at least 85-90kg mate'.

[Marvelous Marcum]

If your a BB cables are better as the work the length and thickness of the muscle better aswell as your peak. Either way Curls are NOT useless. There good for for getting the arms warm if your working out light and getting loose. Heavy curls though can be a bit counter-productive as you loose form and then start using other muscle groups as stabilizers.


Lol I know this, I was looking for an argument as to why they are.

[Marvelous Marcum]

Marcum: I will use bicep curls vs chinups as an example:

Bicep curls will target the biceps and isolate them. The forearms/traps/shoulders will only become stabilizers through the pulling motion (they aren't indirectly hit enough for strength gain, and thus those muscles don't reap the benefits of the exercise).

Chinups on the other hand will literally hit EVERY part of the upper body and believe it or not the pushing muscles (chest/shoulder/triceps) will get a workout from it as well (although the benefits will be the general back/lats/traps/forearms/biceps pulling muscles as opposed to just the biceps with curls)


The same case could be made for leg extension v.s. squat:.

The squat will literally target the entire lower body with the abs/lower back getting indirectly hit ENOUGH to gain strength in those areas.

The leg extension will hit the quads and the only exercise to stabilize it is what? The shoulder.

That means with two exercise you can hit the entire lower body and backside. Throw in pushups and you have a complete full body workout with only 3 exercises and not 50 random bodybuilding ones. The case against bicep curls is that you can always be doing something better than them. You would have been better off doing 10X3 chinups at 80% your 1RM than 3X10 chinups at 70% your 1RM and 3X10 bicep curls at 70% your 1RM. I'm not even a big weightlifter, but when I do it, I'm going to do it right. I'm a big believer in cross training though, which is why I incorporate them in when I can.


That explained everything, never mind.