Turn on thread page Beta

Bench Press - Which is better? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    NO ONE HAS BACKED YOU UP, NOT A SINGLE GUY ON THIS THREAD HAS AGREED WITH YOU ON ANYTHING
    Not directly, but actually they have a few posts earlier one person said

    (Original post by Sam656)
    growth = 3x10, 2x5 = strength.
    where the 3x10 was the 40 Kg and the 2x5 was the 60 Kg which is pretty much what i have said before...

    You will see the 3x10, but the 2x5 will still give you more muscle and strength though NOT seen
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Well if you say that, have checked out other posts, many of them have backed up my initial post, which to me sounds like i might have been right.

    So prove me wrong if you can, you have just criticised what i have written but not my initial reply to this thread.
    What? Everyone in this thread is arguing AGAINST you, especially people who know what they're talking about, which to me sounds like you are definitely wrong.

    I was the one who criticised what you initially wrote in the first place.

    So both of those statements are completely untrue.

    Anyway, you don't even have a point. All this gibberish about long and short muscles looking more defined has nothing to with "high reps make you more defined," which is what you first said. The only thing your posts have had in common with each other is that they've all been wrong.

    You're actually talking complete ********.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Not directly, but actually they have a few posts earlier one person said



    where the 3x10 was the 40 Kg and the 2x5 was the 60 Kg which is pretty much what i have said before...

    You will see the 3x10, but the 2x5 will still give you more muscle and strength though NOT seen
    I think you have issues, I mean seriously, you may need to look into seeking psychological help. You're delusional, first of all please post these comments in which commenters agree with you, even indirectly. Lower reps ARE SAID to target strength and higher reps (8-10) can target size, your sentence does not imply this, in fact it doesnt imply anything. You seem to have real trouble communicating, are you dyslexic or is English not your first language?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    have you been reading anything? listen, i use the term short muscle (which btw a lot of people i know also use in the same context) for sprint type muscles... and long muscle for endurance type muscles.

    I realise he wants to build muscle, i have also stated that in a few of my posts, but logically i would assume that someone wouldn't want to build their muscle but be too big or look unnatural, and as an added bonus, why not be more defined too where i am saying doesn't only attract women but can still help get more noticed...

    And thats really rich calling me stupid, you really have no clue, this may not be my main expertise, but one of the posts before this one has backed me up on my first post... which is what this whole thing is about.

    This really has gone too far, i have side tracked majorly i must confess... but this is mainly about which is better for building muscle.

    40 Kg 3x10 or 60Kg 2x5... strength is still associated with bigger muscle right?? well that goes with the 60 kg 2x5... but the 40 Kg 3x10 builds muscle but makes it appear that there is better muscle (ie better defined)...
    That's the point, the low weight more reps wont make him more defined, losing fat will make him more defined, therefore if hes looking for size or strength he should focus on heavy weights low reps and do cardio for cutting.

    Definition rep range is a myth as everyone has been trying to tell you, thats partly why i called you stupid and the other reason is short or long muscles make no difference to competition except in certain movements in power lifting where having the cross sections of muscles makes certain movements easier other than that endurance vs power is all to do with muscle fibre and neural control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    What? Everyone in this thread is arguing AGAINST you, especially people who know what they're talking about, which to me sounds like you are definitely wrong.

    I was the one who criticised what you initially wrote in the first place.

    So both of those statements are completely untrue.

    Anyway, you don't even have a point. All this gibberish about long and short muscles looking more defined has nothing to with "high reps make you more defined," which is what you first said. The only thing your posts have had in common with each other is that they've all been wrong.

    You're actually talking complete ********.
    Except for the fact that this thread hasn't asked for how many reps are best.

    So bringing up reps is pointless
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    That's the point, the low weight more reps wont make him more defined, losing fat will make him more defined, therefore if hes looking for size or strength he should focus on heavy weights low reps and do cardio for cutting.

    Definition rep range is a myth as everyone has been trying to tell you, thats partly why i called you stupid and the other reason is short or long muscles make no difference to competition except in certain movements in power lifting where having the cross sections of muscles makes certain movements easier other than that endurance vs power is all to do with muscle fibre and neural control.
    I haven't brought up rep range, everyone else has been stating rep ranges etc
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Except for the fact that this thread hasn't asked for how many reps are best.

    So bringing up reps is pointless
    Are you on crack?

    OP:
    I was just wondering which would be better if you wanted to gain muscle on your chest (upper part of chest):

    Benching 40kg - 3x10, or benching 60kg 2x5

    What would be more effective in achieving a better body look?

    Thanks

    Your first post:
    Ok well the way it works is this...

    Large amount of weight tends to build muscle, the amount gives definition...

    so 40 kg - 3x10 would give a more defined look while building your muscle less than 60 kg - 2x5
    How is this thread about anything BUT reps?
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Not directly, but actually they have a few posts earlier one person said



    where the 3x10 was the 40 Kg and the 2x5 was the 60 Kg which is pretty much what i have said before...

    You will see the 3x10, but the 2x5 will still give you more muscle and strength though NOT seen
    I wasn't implying weight, i was implying reps which are to failure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishamon)
    I think you have issues, I mean seriously, you may need to look into seeking psychological help. You're delusional, first of all please post these comments in which commenters agree with you, even indirectly. Lower reps ARE SAID to target strength and higher reps (8-10) can target size, your sentence does not imply this, in fact it doesnt imply anything. You seem to have real trouble communicating, are you dyslexic or is English not your first language?
    haha i love your comments, you should really become a comedian!

    Oh and my english, is my first language, apart from images anyway and visualising.

    Just answer this... what is best for someone to have their muscles shown... a slightly lower weight done alot, or a slightly higher weight done very few times?? where the first, the lower amount, actually adds up to a higher total of weight than the second by a factor of two
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    Just answer this... what is best for someone to have their muscles shown... a slightly lower weight done alot, or a slightly higher weight done very few times?? where the first, the lower amount, actually adds up to a higher total of weight than the second by a factor of two
    :rofl:

    I have no idea what you're trying to say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam656)
    I wasn't implying weight, i was implying reps which are to failure.
    ok sorry for the quote then... but considering strength and bigger muscle is different, though very well related... and you made the connection between the 3x10 being the bigger muscle and the 2x5 being the strength...

    and the OP did mention the 3x10 being 40 Kg... like i would obviously say 3x10 at 60 Kg would be better than the 40... but the question still is whether the higher rep with lower weight is better than lower rep with higher weight...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    haha i love your comments, you should really become a comedian!

    Oh and my english, is my first language, apart from images anyway and visualising.
    Apparently English is not your first language, otherwise you would realise that that sentence makes no sense at all.

    Just answer this... what is best for someone to have their muscles shown... a slightly lower weight done alot, or a slightly higher weight done very few times?? where the first, the lower amount, actually adds up to a higher total of weight than the second by a factor of two
    Neither. This is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Rep range does not affect muscle definition, because "definition" is not a property of muscles.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    ok sorry for the quote then... but considering strength and bigger muscle is different, though very well related... and you made the connection between the 3x10 being the bigger muscle and the 2x5 being the strength...

    and the OP did mention the 3x10 being 40 Kg... like i would obviously say 3x10 at 60 Kg would be better than the 40... but the question still is whether the higher rep with lower weight is better than lower rep with higher weight...
    Well 3x10 is always going to bring more growth than 3x5, but not strength and you will still get growth doing a "power lifter routine". However if it's just bench then it's a different story, for a start a bodybuilder should use dbs and go for 10-12reps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam656)
    Don't be so rude, i grow 40kg, 40kg is big weight, i'm only 110kg, that's not far from half my body weight :cool:
    110kg is like 18 stone.

    I bench 100kg nd i weigh 130kg
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Neither. This is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Rep range does not affect muscle definition, because "definition" is not a property of muscles.
    ok, but you can build muscle strength while not getting the muscle to show as well as building the muscle itself and getting it to show.

    ie you can be strong with big muscles but not really showing
    ie you can still gain muscle and be able to get it to show.

    at the moment i am arguing lemons and everyone else is arguing apples, but the actual argument is cherries...

    The OP isn't only asking for what weight is best... or what rep is best... but it is asking whether a 40 kg weight at 3x10 is better or worse than 60 Kg 2x5.


    I have been arguing the type of exercise which still refers to rep, everyone has been also arguing rep but differently. no-one has really told the OP which is best... if you guys know what is going on then tell the OP whether;
    40 Kg 3x10 or
    60 Kg 2x5 is better.

    I am off, and am tired of arguing a pointless argument. But at least answer the rep with an answer which actually HAS got what he want... like a yes/no question, with no other option... where everyone has given an "other"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    I haven't brought up rep range, everyone else has been stating rep ranges etc
    you said to op, doing more reps of 40kg is better than doing less reps of 60kg because he will be more defined, this implies that more reps = definition which is what you have backed up by stating he should define his muscles by doing more.

    Eveyone bought up rep ranges because op asked about ******* REP RANGES!!!
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    110kg is like 18 stone.

    I bench 100kg nd i weigh 130kg
    You missed the sarcasm 130kg and u bench 100? damn whats your bodyfat %? 40? I'm 99kg atm and I can bench more then that and I probbly still can when I hit 90.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    haha i love your comments, you should really become a comedian!

    Oh and my english, is my first language, apart from images anyway and visualising.

    Just answer this... what is best for someone to have their muscles shown... a slightly lower weight done alot, or a slightly higher weight done very few times?? where the first, the lower amount, actually adds up to a higher total of weight than the second by a factor of two
    The first.

    It's not about work done overall because thats endurance which doesn't particularly help muscle growth/strength. Where as heavyweights lower reps improves power output per rep, which is what op wants, you could also argue that staying in the hypertrophy range for size is better done with sub 12 reps, if you don't know whay hypertrophy is wiki it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rick-Raith)
    ok, but you can build muscle strength while not getting the muscle to show as well as building the muscle itself and getting it to show.

    ie you can be strong with big muscles but not really showing
    ie you can still gain muscle and be able to get it to show.

    at the moment i am arguing lemons and everyone else is arguing apples, but the actual argument is cherries...

    The OP isn't only asking for what weight is best... or what rep is best... but it is asking whether a 40 kg weight at 3x10 is better or worse than 60 Kg 2x5.


    I have been arguing the type of exercise which still refers to rep, everyone has been also arguing rep but differently. no-one has really told the OP which is best... if you guys know what is going on then tell the OP whether;
    40 Kg 3x10 or
    60 Kg 2x5 is better.

    I am off, and am tired of arguing a pointless argument. But at least answer the rep with an answer which actually HAS got what he want... like a yes/no question, with no other option... where everyone has given an "other"

    Getting it to show is not about muscle size or strenght its about how much fat is covering it, weights only help boost your metabolism which and intense 5x5 routine would do better than high reps less work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sam656)
    You missed the sarcasm 130kg and u bench 100? damn whats your bodyfat %? 40? I'm 99kg atm and I can bench more then that and I probbly still can when I hit 90.
    lol sarcasm doesn't work well over the internet.

    To be fair i'm not a Gym rat it's just left over from when i used to box.

    Body fat is high so carrying a lot of dead weight around, don't know how much that would affect it though.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.