PDA

View Full Version : Building more muscle.....



momoftwins
05-13-2006, 01:44 AM
I was just curious, I know in order to build muscle (bulk) you need to eat above maintenance calories. However, in terms of the weight you are lifting does it need to be more weight than you were lifting when you were eating below maintenance? In other words, is bulking a function of diet, heavier weight lifting or both?

PowerManDL
05-13-2006, 01:49 AM
To sum up training for size:

Increase the amount of work done with weight above the minimum needed to grow.

To translate that into more specific training advice, it means you need to 1) increase the weights you can handle in any given session, and 2) work to increase the overall amount of work you do (sets*reps*weight) at a given % of that weight (typically 50-60% for newbs, as high as 85-90% for the advanced)

Basically, this means there's an optimal zone of weight to use, and you should strive to increase the max weights you can use (get stronger) and the overall amount of reps with n percentage of that max.

momoftwins
05-13-2006, 01:55 AM
As an example lets say right now I am eating below maintenance and I am benching 85 pounds for 5 reps at my best. Are you saying I need to get more reps when eating above maintenance to increase muscle mass?

PowerManDL
05-13-2006, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by momoftwins@May 12 2006, 09:55 PM
As an example lets say right now I am eating below maintenance and I am benching 85 pounds for 5 reps at my best. Are you saying I need to get more reps when eating above maintenance to increase muscle mass?
Basically, yes.

20-40 reps per part per session is a good starting point; 50-150 weekly.

The idea isn't just to go hit a heavy weight; the idea is to hit moderate weights for a good bit of total reps.

This doesn't necessarily mean high reps either; you can just do a lot of work with low reps as well.

Cumulative workload is a lot more important than any particular rep range.

momoftwins
05-13-2006, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by PowerManDL@May 12 2006, 08:57 PM
Basically, yes.

20-40 reps per part per session is a good starting point; 50-150 weekly.

The idea isn't just to go hit a heavy weight; the idea is to hit moderate weights for a good bit of total reps.

This doesn't necessarily mean high reps either; you can just do a lot of work with low reps as well.

Cumulative workload is a lot more important than any particular rep range.
I see what your saying, that makes sense, thanks for clearing it up.

gymgurl
05-13-2006, 10:34 PM
So then what happens if you are eating above maintanence and are keeping the weight or volume relatively the same? Would you just start putting on bodyfat?

PowerManDL
05-14-2006, 01:00 PM
The issues of practicality pretty much ensure that you won't be keeping volume and intensity stable, at least relative to your ability.

PowerManDL
05-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Oh, and don't be gay.