Turn on thread page Beta

Bench Press - Which is better? watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Would much rather do 60 x 5, than 40 x 10.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    Is this correct?
    Loosely. There are exceptions, some bodyparts require higher rep ranges than others to develop size, others less.

    You can build size and strength across pretty much any rep range. Someone who goes from deadlifting 100lbs for 20 reps to deadlifting 300lbs for 20 reps is going to be bigger despite the fact that they were exercising outside of this magical 8-12 rep range.

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    I know exactly what i am talking about, not sure what you do, but i swim in a team 5 times a week, with gyming. I am vain and luckily thats how i know that i know what i am talking about as i have done research on this topic. And i know how the body reacts to certain exercises.

    So don't tell me that i am speaking **** because i know what i am talking about
    Who would you put your faith in when talking about rep ranges, muscle development, fat loss, etc - a swimmer or a bodybuilder?

    Toning (if we must use the infernal word) or 'definition' are different words for the same thing (ie; building muscle and/or losing fat).

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    With short muscle, walking around at rest may seem like you got some but not as defined... until you do a bit of exercise using that muscle... Longer muscle looks defined if you don't have too high body fat percentage regardless of whether it has just been worked on or not
    You're talking gibberish.

    When you exercise you get increased blood flow to your muscles, couple this with inflammation caused by resistance training and you get 'the pump'. Secondly if you have big muscles they're going to become more visible at higher bodyfat percentages and vice versa.

    None of this has anything to do with 'short' or 'long' muscles. Whatever you think they are I'm telling you from an anatomical and training perspective they don't exist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    For strength and mass, a higher weight with lower reps is better. I aim between 6-8 reps on my dumbbell bench press.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You've got it wrong there. If it is fewer reps per set, then more sets. So not 2x5, but rather 5x5 or 6x5. If it's purely for muscular strength then do 5x5 or 6x5 of the heavier weights.

    We don't know what you're aiming for - general appearance or just shear strength? If it's strength, follow the above advice. If it's appearance and tone, then I would opt for the higher number of reps with lower weights and fewer sets.

    EDIT: higher reps lighter weights essentially builds on muscular endurance with less emphasis on strength.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    haha yea guys ignore my research and experience.
    1) You haven't mentioned, quoted or referenced any research material (that is assuming it exists which in your case it doesn't)

    2) You have very little experience if we're being honest (and it shows)

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Just love how people don't ask why they should or shouldn't trust what people say. lol
    If you'd have spent any time in Fitness you would have a general idea of people's backgrounds and expertise - if you knew that you wouldn't question their advice.

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    From now on, whatever i post here is all false and me lying about the topic.

    Fair enough, not sure exactly what rep range is (though i figured it is probably repetition range)
    But knowing terms doesn't prove you are right...
    You may think you know what you're talking about but I'm telling you now you don't.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Loosely. There are exceptions, some bodyparts require higher rep ranges than others to develop size, others less.

    You can build size and strength across pretty much any rep range. Someone who goes from deadlifting 100lbs for 20 reps to deadlifting 300lbs for 20 reps is going to be bigger despite the fact that they were exercising outside of this magical 8-12 rep range.
    Alright, thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Loosely. There are exceptions, some bodyparts require higher rep ranges than others to develop size, others less.

    You can build size and strength across pretty much any rep range. Someone who goes from deadlifting 100lbs for 20 reps to deadlifting 300lbs for 20 reps is going to be bigger despite the fact that they were exercising outside of this magical 8-12 rep range.



    Who would you put your faith in when talking about rep ranges, muscle development, fat loss, etc - a swimmer or a bodybuilder?

    Toning (if we must use the infernal word) or 'definition' are different words for the same thing (ie; building muscle and/or losing fat).



    You're talking gibberish.

    When you exercise you get increased blood flow to your muscles, couple this with inflammation caused by resistance training and you get 'the pump'. Secondly if you have big muscles they're going to become more visible at higher bodyfat percentages and vice versa.

    None of this has anything to do with 'short' or 'long' muscles. Whatever you think they are I'm telling you from an anatomical and training perspective they don't exist.
    Ok a body builder knows how to build muscle and define it at times... but not sure how well you know swimmers, we tend to have much better bodies than a body builder... big muscles freak people out. bit of size is fine as i am bigger than other people... And i am mentioning this from many girls points of view... body builders freak them out, the size and strength is impressive and they do have a certain sense of definition but its different to a swimmer's body (obviously swimming still reduces fat considerably while building and defining muscle)<-- reason why i am saying defining here is cause you can get someone who has some muscle and almost has 0% body fat, and if they have shorter muscles they don't necessarily look as defined as longer muscles

    Long = endurance (tends to seem smaller)
    Short = Sprint (appears much larger and the fibers are clumped up together)
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok a body builder knows how to build muscle and define it at times... but not sure how well you know swimmers, we tend to have much better bodies than a body builder... big muscles freak people out. bit of size is fine as i am bigger than other people... And i am mentioning this from many girls points of view... body builders freak them out, the size and strength is impressive and they do have a certain sense of definition but its different to a swimmer's body (obviously swimming still reduces fat considerably while building and defining muscle)<-- reason why i am saying defining here is cause you can get someone who has some muscle and almost has 0% body fat, and if they have shorter muscles they don't necessarily look as defined as longer muscles

    Long = endurance (tends to seem smaller)
    Short = Sprint (appears much larger and the fibers are clumped up together)
    You are an idiot, after being called out on the idiocy of your statement, you have jumped onto the "oh but girls dont like big muscle" bandwagon, this is too easy. In doing so you have proven you're an ape who has no business commenting here due to your glaring lack of knowledge on a subject you talk about so candidly. Longer muscles tend to produce greater potential for developing size and strength than persons with relatively short muscles. Ones "endurance" or "sprint" ability is significantly affected by the amount of slow or fast twitch fibres one may have.

    EDIT: Your profile says you're 16, no wonder. You need to ensure you're paying attention in your Biology classes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok a body builder knows how to build muscle and define it at times... but not sure how well you know swimmers, we tend to have much better bodies than a body builder... big muscles freak people out. bit of size is fine as i am bigger than other people... And i am mentioning this from many girls points of view... body builders freak them out, the size and strength is impressive and they do have a certain sense of definition but its different to a swimmer's body (obviously swimming still reduces fat considerably while building and defining muscle)<-- reason why i am saying defining here is cause you can get someone who has some muscle and almost has 0% body fat, and if they have shorter muscles they don't necessarily look as defined as longer muscles

    Long = endurance (tends to seem smaller)
    Short = Sprint (appears much larger and the fibers are clumped up together)
    This is a bit like saying "girls like cats more than dogs and I have a cat, therefore I know more about animals than you do."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Bishamon, doesn't matter that you are like 340lb gym rat with experience and swole lifts, he swims bro, he swims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    You are an idiot, after being called out on the idiocy of your statement, you have jumped onto the "oh but girls dont like big muscle" bandwagon, this is too easy. In doing so you have proven you're an ape who has no business commenting here due to your glaring lack of knowledge on a subject you talk about so candidly. Longer muscles tend to produce greater potential for developing size and strength than persons with relatively short muscles. Ones "endurance" or "sprint" ability is significantly affected by the amount of slow or fast twitch fibres one may have.

    EDIT: Your profile says you're 16, no wonder. You need to ensure you're paying attention in your Biology classes.
    Listen age has nothing to do with this
    Don't do biology anymore, well not in school.
    I don't talk on subjects i don't know about, true never gone as deep as slow/fast twitch fibres, but the way the body works i do know.
    I am not saying no woman like big muscles, i am just saying that there is a difference... (but i am taking body building as more close to bigorexia type thing versus what a swimmer or model's body looks like.)
    Take a particular sport and compare the difference between a sprinter or a longer distance person... and take their body weight, and body fa percentages being equal as well as height, width race etc all the variables except the distance (ie what amount of exercise they do and in what stretch of time etc) you will find the sprinter looking like he has larger muscles, not as square at rest, and when pumped they get much larger and then more defined. You take the long distance person, muscle appears smaller, more square/defined at rest, and when they get pumped so does their muscle (still appearing smaller than the sprinter though)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Ok a body builder knows how to build muscle and define it at times... but not sure how well you know swimmers, we tend to have much better bodies than a body builder... big muscles freak people out. bit of size is fine as i am bigger than other people... And i am mentioning this from many girls points of view... body builders freak them out, the size and strength is impressive and they do have a certain sense of definition but its different to a swimmer's body (obviously swimming still reduces fat considerably while building and defining muscle)<-- reason why i am saying defining here is cause you can get someone who has some muscle and almost has 0% body fat, and if they have shorter muscles they don't necessarily look as defined as longer muscles

    Long = endurance (tends to seem smaller)
    Short = Sprint (appears much larger and the fibers are clumped up together)
    Hypertrophy is an increase in cell number and/or tissue size so in relation to muscle you end up with an increase in cross sectional area and the size of a muscle belly - this makes a muscle more prominent and more visible through superficial layers of fat.

    Runners are a good example. Sprinters typically have a high muscle mass compared to long distance runners and a similar (sometimes lower) bodyfat percentage. Who looks more muscular and 'defined'/'toned'? The sprinter - in exertion or at rest.

    Hypertrophy does not make muscles physically shorter. Think about it, if hypertrophy led to muscles physically becoming shorter you'd become horrifically dysformed and be unable to move properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Hypertrophy is an increase in cell number and/or tissue size so in relation to muscle you end up with an increase in cross sectional area and the size of a muscle belly - this makes a muscle more prominent and more visible through superficial layers of fat.

    Runners are a good example. Sprinters typically have a high muscle mass compared to long distance runners and a similar (sometimes lower) bodyfat percentage. Who looks more muscular and 'defined'/'toned'? The sprinter.

    Hypertrophy does not make muscles physically shorter. Think about it, if hypertrophy led to muscles physically becoming shorter you'd become horrifically dysformed and be unable to move properly.
    lol obviously when the muscle is 'shorter' it isn't physically shorter. I know i don't do bio anymore and am still 16, but still thats pure logic...

    and if you payed attention to what i said... i never said that the sprinter would seem smaller, the muscles would just me more rounded at rest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Listen age has nothing to do with this
    Don't do biology anymore, well not in school.
    I don't talk on subjects i don't know about, true never gone as deep as slow/fast twitch fibres, but the way the body works i do know.
    I am not saying no woman like big muscles, i am just saying that there is a difference... (but i am taking body building as more close to bigorexia type thing versus what a swimmer or model's body looks like.)
    Take a particular sport and compare the difference between a sprinter or a longer distance person... and take their body weight, and body fa percentages being equal as well as height, width race etc all the variables except the distance (ie what amount of exercise they do and in what stretch of time etc) you will find the sprinter looking like he has larger muscles, not as square at rest, and when pumped they get much larger and then more defined. You take the long distance person, muscle appears smaller, more square/defined at rest, and when they get pumped so does their muscle (still appearing smaller than the sprinter though)
    You have never gone as deep as slow and fast twitch muscle fibres? We covered that in year 9. Do you know how mind numbingly stupid you sound, you have entered this forum and simply embarrased yourself with your constant arguing that you're right when you clearly haven't even covered knowledge in regards to physical fitness and conditioning even at its most elementary level. You then deviated into aspects of aesthetic appeal and "bigorexia" which ha absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    Not only have you displayed an inability to access readily available information for the discussion but you have also been unable to even keep track of your arguments. Your second paragraph doesnt even make any sense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    Bishamon, doesn't matter that you are like 340lb gym rat with experience and swole lifts, he swims bro, he swims.
    I lolled way too hard at this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluxD)
    Bishamon, doesn't matter that you are like 340lb gym rat with experience and swole lifts, he swims bro, he swims.
    :cry:

    Jesus dude, it all makes sense!!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    lol obviously when the muscle is 'shorter' it isn't physically shorter. I know i don't do bio anymore and am still 16, but still thats pure logic...

    and if you payed attention to what i said... i never said that the sprinter would seem smaller, the muscles would just me more rounded at rest.
    So let me get this straight, when you're talking about 'short' muscles you're actually talking about big muscles and when you're talking about 'long' muscles you're actually talking about small muscles?

    No wonder you've got everyone running around in circles - you're using terms which are wrong and/or don't exist outside of your imagination.

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Take a particular sport and compare the difference between a sprinter or a longer distance person... and take their body weight, and body fa percentages being equal as well as height, width race etc all the variables except the distance (ie what amount of exercise they do and in what stretch of time etc) you will find the sprinter looking like he has larger muscles, not as square at rest, and when pumped they get much larger and then more defined. You take the long distance person, muscle appears smaller, more square/defined at rest, and when they get pumped so does their muscle (still appearing smaller than the sprinter though)
    :banghead:

    Do you actually know any proper sprinters and proper long distance runners? From the sounds of it you don't.

    A bigger more hypertrophied muscle is going to be more prominent at rest or under exertion than a smaller, less hypertrophied one.

    Dwaine Working:



    Paula Working:



    Dwaine Resting:



    Paula Resting:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    You have never gone as deep as slow and fast twitch muscle fibres? We covered that in year 9. Do you know how mind numbingly stupid you sound, you have entered this forum and simply embarrased yourself with your constant arguing that you're right when you clearly haven't even covered knowledge in regards to physical fitness and conditioning even at its most elementary level. You then deviated into aspects of aesthetic appeal and "bigorexia" which ha absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    Not only have you displayed an inability to access readily available information for the discussion but you have also been unable to even keep track of your arguments. Your second paragraph doesnt even make any sense.
    listen, i am not going to criticize you, its a waste of time. I have gone into fitness and conditioning, but maybe not as much as you. I am not saying that I am 100% right, and the argument that i suppose i have side tracked to is more whether long distance endurance type muscles have more definition than short sprint type muscles.

    My second paragraph, please quote from it so i know exactly what part of it you are meaning.

    And ok true, bigorexia and the aesthetic appeal don't have anything to do with the debate, but it should be a slight factor, cause obviously this guy is wanting to build muscle, but there is the difference between just building it, and building it and gaining definition. I have seen many guys smaller than i am, but stronger with more muscle and less fat, but looking less defined... so depending on what this guy wants he should consider the choices.

    Does he want to look disproportioned and huge? or nicely proportioned.

    I find it hilarious that you seem to feel i have no clue what i am talking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    So let me get this straight, when you're talking about 'short' muscles you're actually talking about big muscles and when you're talking about 'long' muscles you're actually talking about small muscles?

    No wonder you've got everyone running around in circles - you're using terms which are wrong and/or don't exist outside of your imagination.

    g[/IMG]
    actually i wasn't talking about short = big and long = small...

    and if you read my post you would have noticed that i mentioned that they must be of same height, same body weight, same everything except the distance of training they do. the people you have taken for the photos aren't true representations of the argument.

    If you take professionals, short distance runners will tend to also do longer distances as training too to keep a longer distance endurance at certain times of a race... whereas the marathon runners purely do long distance since they rarely need any sprinting power, except in the rare case of coming to the line first but tied so trying to sprint to be first...

    The other problem is if you were to weigh the first two runners, do you seriously think they would weigh the same? listen, if you are going to argue against my point, play by the same rules and actually pay attention to what i say
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    actually i wasn't talking about short = big and long = small...
    You're even more confused and muddled than I first thought then.

    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    and if you read my post you would have noticed that i mentioned that they must be of same height, same body weight, same everything except the distance of training they do. the people you have taken for the photos aren't true representations of the argument.

    If you take professionals, short distance runners will tend to also do longer distances as training too to keep a longer distance endurance at certain times of a race... whereas the marathon runners purely do long distance since they rarely need any sprinting power, except in the rare case of coming to the line first but tied so trying to sprint to be first...

    The other problem is if you were to weigh the first two runners, do you seriously think they would weigh the same? listen, if you are going to argue against my point, play by the same rules and actually pay attention to what i say
    The principles are still the same - someone with bigger muscles is going to have more prominent muscles at any bodyfat percentage than someone who has smaller muscles.

    Please do post evidence of your argument.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,232

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.