Who had the better workout? - Exercise & Fitness Message Board

Sixbells99 · 11-27-2005, 09:31 AM

People talk a lot about Number of reps and sets etc for building muscle and there is always a lot of debate and different thinking on the issue.
So I have a scenario I've been thinking about and it would be interesting to read everyone’s thoughts. Here it is below :

Imagine if trainer A did 6 reps with 10 sets in 20 Minutes. Then Imagine Trainer B did 10 reps with 3 sets in 3 minutes (say the weight lifted by both being 10Kg barbell). From a total weight lifted Trainer A has lifted the most with 600Kg compared to just 300Kg for B. So would this mean Trainer A will grow more than Trainer B? Would they also grow twice as much as they lifted twice as much weight?

But is this the full story?

If you look closer at Trainer B, they trained to total failure on the 9th rep and did a forced rep on the 10th. Trainer B did not train to failure and stayed at 6 reps so that they were able to complete 10 sets. They also rested longer between sets than B.

If you take time into account and not just total weight, you now see that Trainer A had a power output of 30Kg per minute ( 600/20min). Where Trainer B had a power output 100Kg per minute (300Kg/3min). That’s a massive difference in stress and power output compared to A.

So who had the better workout? Trainer A or Trainer B? Who would induce the most muscle growth?

Axa · 11-27-2005, 10:31 AM

What is it u want to acheive? As I alwasy state DIET is absolutely crucial when it comes to muscle building.

To Build Muscle Size/Mass for Body shaping/building
Then Use moderate to heavy weight; complete three to six sets of eight to 12 repetitions; rest 60 to 90 seconds between sets; train four to six times a week, resting one to two days before you train the same body part.

For Muscule strength (The maximal force a muscle or muscle group can generate in one maximal effort)
Then I would use heavy weights; complete three to five sets or more of one to six repetitions or more; rest more than two minutes between sets; train four to six times a week, resting as above.

SlinkyRobinson · 11-27-2005, 09:34 PM

I agree with Axa, it depends on what you want to achieve.

For me - neither would work well as I'm an ectomorph looking for mass building and so perform 4 sets of 6-8 reps at the heaviest weight i can push to get the most muscle fibres used.

For strength training, the longer rest time would help Trainer A, while for mass gaining, the forced rep and lesser rest time used by trainer B would fatigue the muscles more and recruit more muscle fibre growth (all in my opinion of course!).

If you are mainly asking who would gain the most mass from this program, providing that Trainer A & B were identical genetically and on an identical diet, I would say Trainer B. :-)

Sixbells99 · 11-28-2005, 01:14 AM

Perhaps I didnt make it so clear what I would like to know is which trainer would gain the most muscle growth, for the aim of buidling muscle (assume A and B are equal in every other way). After all thats what most people in a gym want to achieve.

It's intresting what you say Slinky because Trainner A took 20 minutes yet B only 3 minutes, yet you think that B would have gained more muscle than A?

SlinkyRobinson · 11-28-2005, 03:04 AM

Well, I am only speaking from personal experience in which more reps has not helped me with muscle growth. In terms of strength training i've found that a longer rest period is better between the sets, while when I've been going for muscle growth I use only 30-60sec between sets.

From my research into various training regimes etc I would postulate that with Trainer A taking 20min for the sets, their muscles are not going to be fatigued as highly in each set and so they are more likely to recruit fewer type IIb muscle fibres (which cause the most muscle size growth) than Trainer B who is training to fatigue each set and with fewer time between sets.

What is your opinion behind all of this SixBells? Is this all hypothetical?