Which muscles does one work with chin-ups and pull-ups?
On the chinup bar, there's the chin-ups where the palms are facing towards you, and the pull-ups where the palms are facingn away from you. What parts do chinups work, and how many reps do you reccomend in a set?
both are compound exercises involving the biceps, forearms and several upper back muscles as the primary movers.
pull-ups with the palms facing away, and usually a wider than shoulder width grip, really hits the lats, and is said to help 'build width' in the back for that V-taper well muscled men have (meaty shoulders also help this).
chin ups with the palms facing you also hits the lats, but allows for more biceps involvement, and its a little different angle.
pullups are preferred as they work the lats harder, providing more benefit as a whole, at least in my opinion.
either would be treated like any other exercise in terms of reps: lower reps with more weight is gonna focus on strength, while slightly higher reps up to 12 is going to stimulate more growth/size in the muscle.
By "lower reps" do you mean like only five reps in a set?
And by "higher reps" do you mean like twenty reps in a set?
Sorry for my noobishness, but I'm still curious.
So, while lower reps focus on strength, will I still find growth in my muscle?
I've never seen a professional weight lifting program go above 15 reps/set.
So, would 15 reps in a set be considered "high reps"?
i do believe that 8-12 is hypertrophy. Beyond that, you're just burning up your muscles i think... i'm not too sure on this subject
Originally Posted by SuperFob
I looked up hypertrophy and it said "abnormal enlargement of a part or organ"... isn't that a bad thing?
I think you found a more medical definition of the word. When it comes to weight lifting hypertrophy is not a "bad thing" like you asked. It simply refers to the growth and size of the muscle. There are actually two different kinds: 1) where the muscles fibers increase in size, and 2) where there is an increase in the number of muscle fibers
But if you are new to lifting this stuff really isn't a big deal. Don't get bogged down or worried about stuff like this too much. Find a program and use it, read some old threads on this site, or just go to the gym and mess around a little bit.
Sorry for rambling, I just find a lot people get confused and and try too find too much information too early in their training. A lot of people get way too hung up on all this stuff. Just go have fun lifting.
Not as it applies to muscle growth as a result of lifting. It would apply to kidney or heart inflammation though.
No. From Alwyn Cosgrove:
Originally Posted by Azn_Drag0n
a) I don't believe in the "muscle loss" theory assuming your diet and other training isn't completely idiotic. I just don't see it.
b) look at Mahler's log for proof. He gained muscle.
c) Here's a study supporting my recommendation (from my soon to be released fat loss manual:
Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M,Yeater R.
Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr; 18(2):115-21.
This was a significant finding.
The authors split the subjects into two groups: an aerobic training group and a resistance training group. The aerobic group performed 4 hours per week of aerobic exercise. The resistance training group performed 2-4 sets of 8-15 reps. 10 exercises, three times per week (the resistance program was very basic, but began with 2 sets of each exercise and progressed to 4 sets of each exercise).
The findings showed that V02 max increased equally in both groups.
Both groups lost weight, however the resistance training group lost significantly more fat and did not lose ANY lean body mass, even at only 800 calories per day. This is significant as this type of extreme diet, one would assume, would result in a loss of lean tissue. Indeed, fat loss programming in general has been criticized for the possibility of lean muscle loss. This study shows that even on a paltry 800 calories muscle mass, (and therefore metabolism) can at the very least be maintained as long as a resistance training program is followed.
Additionally, the resistance training group actually increased resting metabolism compared to the aerobic group which decreased metabolism.
Will there really be a difference in physical appearance between these two?
1) where the muscles fibers increase in size, and 2) where there is an increase in the number of muscle fibers
i was tought that higher reps with less weight is more of an endurance with giving ure body a cut look, like a nice defined body. Less reps with more weight is to get u bulky. I know some people who started doing that then switched to light weight with more reps and seems to work for them quite nicely they look good.
"High reps" i consider about 10-12 maybe more but it depends on how u see it as far as just burnin muscle or how much is too much, "low reps" would be about 5-7....in my opinion
bigred: high reps, like 15-20 or more, does build endurance. but it does NOT give you a toned appearance. losing bodyfat to show off the muscle you already have...that is what toning is.
wrong terminology then, my bad. as far as 15-20 seems a little high. I never rep higher then 15, if u can go past 15 then the weight is too light. (that is, if we are talkin weights, im not talkin about things like pull ups, sit ups, chin ups, etc.)
Originally Posted by malkore
By DazeOfThunder in forum Weight Training
Last Post: Apr. 27/08, 02:29 AM
By Gustavo in forum Weight Loss
Last Post: Mar. 20/08, 10:04 PM
By retired_codectified in forum Body Building
Last Post: May. 12/06, 09:30 AM
By shadowkappa in forum Weight Training
Last Post: Jan. 07/05, 03:43 AM
By PaulX in forum Body Building
Last Post: Nov. 30/04, 10:21 AM
Top Poster: Karky