• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Question about anatomy of muscles

SeanW36

Registered
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IML Gear Cream!
Myth #4 "You need high reps for definition and low reps for mass."



A muscle can only do one of three things. It can get bigger, it can get smaller, or it can stay the same size.

The way to make a muscle bigger is to subject it to a progressive intensity of overload. That is, the intensity of today's workout needs to be a little higher than your last workout for that muscle. If you want to keep a muscle the same size you can just perform the same workout every time. And making a muscle smaller is easy... just don't exercise it.

However, the idea that one type of exercise "defines" muscle and another type of exercise makes it bigger has no basis in reality. Muscle definition is a function of two characteristics in the body: muscle size and the absence of bodyfat. So if you want better definition you need to increase the size of your muscles through the aforementioned progressive intensity and you need to reduce your bodyfat.

So I can hear someone asking, "But don't high reps burn off bodyfat the way running or cycling would?" Well, yes, any long duration activity will burn more calories. But if you use light weights and high reps to burn calories how will you make your muscles bigger? You won't. It makes much more sense to burn calories and reduce bodyfat through jogging or cycling or some other repetitive activity and to simultaneously build more muscle mass through heavier, lower rep weight training. As a bonus, your new muscle mass will also burn more calories and contribute to fat loss. So next time you hear this myth, correct it by thinking: "Low, heavy reps for mass, lower bodyfat for definition."


This is part of an article I happened to come across online. Is there any truth to it? Especially the part where it is claimed that a muscle can only grow bigger or smaller. I always thought that you can make it tighter and get it more ripped up by doing higher reps, calisthenics or cardio. When I used to wrestle in High School my muscles seemed very hard. Not big but very defined and I had a lot of endurance to keep up a very physical activity for a long time. Now i'm bigger, I still have the same percentage of bodyfat however my muscles don't feel nearly as tight. This also goes against a lot of information I have been given by people who are very knowledgeable. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
SeanW36 said:
Myth #4 "You need high reps for definition and low reps for mass."



A muscle can only do one of three things. It can get bigger, it can get smaller, or it can stay the same size.

The way to make a muscle bigger is to subject it to a progressive intensity of overload. That is, the intensity of today's workout needs to be a little higher than your last workout for that muscle. If you want to keep a muscle the same size you can just perform the same workout every time. And making a muscle smaller is easy... just don't exercise it.

However, the idea that one type of exercise "defines" muscle and another type of exercise makes it bigger has no basis in reality. Muscle definition is a function of two characteristics in the body: muscle size and the absence of bodyfat. So if you want better definition you need to increase the size of your muscles through the aforementioned progressive intensity and you need to reduce your bodyfat.

So I can hear someone asking, "But don't high reps burn off bodyfat the way running or cycling would?" Well, yes, any long duration activity will burn more calories. But if you use light weights and high reps to burn calories how will you make your muscles bigger? You won't. It makes much more sense to burn calories and reduce bodyfat through jogging or cycling or some other repetitive activity and to simultaneously build more muscle mass through heavier, lower rep weight training. As a bonus, your new muscle mass will also burn more calories and contribute to fat loss. So next time you hear this myth, correct it by thinking: "Low, heavy reps for mass, lower bodyfat for definition."


This is part of an article I happened to come across online. Is there any truth to it? Especially the part where it is claimed that a muscle can only grow bigger or smaller. I always thought that you can make it tighter and get it more ripped up by doing higher reps, calisthenics or cardio. When I used to wrestle in High School my muscles seemed very hard. Not big but very defined and I had a lot of endurance to keep up a very physical activity for a long time. Now i'm bigger, I still have the same percentage of bodyfat however my muscles don't feel nearly as tight. This also goes against a lot of information I have been given by people who are very knowledgeable. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

i agree with the general concept of the article its is true that definition comes from having a low percentage of bodyfat and generally speaking lows reps at a high mass is good for building muscle. however i don't see anything wrong with using high reps at a low mass in helping to brun caloires and hence reduce bodyfat.
 
btw this should probably have been posted in the training forum
 
Yeah, I'm sorry I wasn't sure where to put it. But what about the muscle itself, can't things happen to it besides for just simply getting bigger or smaller. For example can't your muscles get in better shape without gaining size. For example a distance runner. Some people have very slender bodies such as theres but can not do what they do. There muscles will not hold up for a 26 mile run. The runners don't have large muscles but the muscles themselves seem to be more ripped up and functional for what they do.
 
Back
Top