Lifting

Quoted message said:

If I were to do the flat dumbbell bench, 10 reps with the 40#
dumbbells, good form (2 sec up/2 sec down) and it's good set (it's
tough enough that I can't squeeze out one or two more, but I can still
do the last one with good form) or I do the exact same thing with 50#
dumbbells to the same 10 rep/good form/same timing/good set standard,
which is a better workout?

I would assume that the 2nd set would be, right? Because I'm lifting
more weight

Right.

Quoted message said:

to the same intensity?

Less important.

Quoted message said:

Bearing that in mind, suppose I am doing chest and back work today.
Normally I do 4 stations of chest then 4 stations of back. What if I
alternated, 1 chest then 1 back then chest then back, etc? During the
back station, my chest would have a chance to rest and recover, so when
I get to the 2nd chest station I can push more weight with more
intensity, right? So, according to the theory in paragraph 1, that
would be a better workout because I'm lifting more weight on each
station.

Sure.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

Quoted message said:

So would it be better to alternate chest and back or do all chest then
all back?

If you're right that supersetting lets you use more poundage, do it.

Quoted message said:

Any and all thoughts and opinions are welcome!

Poundage is key.

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

That depends, who are you agreeing with?

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

DZ said:

T said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break
down the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of
lifting weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

No.

If I'd like to agree with this "No", do I say "Yes" or "No"?

DZ
Bozo Bin #12

I've got you in #11. Didn't know there was a 12.
--
-Larry

Quoted message said:

If I were to do the flat dumbbell bench, 10 reps with the 40#
dumbbells, good form (2 sec up/2 sec down) and it's good set (it's
tough enough that I can't squeeze out one or two more, but I can still
do the last one with good form) or I do the exact same thing with 50#
dumbbells to the same 10 rep/good form/same timing/good set standard,
which is a better workout?

I would assume that the 2nd set would be, right? Because I'm lifting
more weight to the same intensity?

If you could do 10 with 50#, you could probably do 15-18 with 40#,
so 40# for 10 would be a warmup, not a workout.

Quoted message said:

Bearing that in mind, suppose I am doing chest and back work today.
Normally I do 4 stations of chest then 4 stations of back. What if I
alternated, 1 chest then 1 back then chest then back, etc? During the
back station, my chest would have a chance to rest and recover, so when
I get to the 2nd chest station I can push more weight with more
intensity, right? So, according to the theory in paragraph 1, that
would be a better workout because I'm lifting more weight on each
station.

That'd work. So would taking 2-4 minutes between sets.

But if your goal is to do a "cardio circuit" where you
keep your heart rate up while doing normal weightlifting,
then you definitely want to alternate pushes and pulls,
and cycle through back/chest/shoulder, to get the muscles
the recovery they need to lift big again.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, doing all the chest work in a row would break down
the muscles more, right? Which is basically the point of lifting
weights, so that should be a more effective workout.

Since when is breaking down a muscle the point of lifting?
Hypertrophy is a matter of inducing hormone release, not
scarring yourself. That said, never lifting to failure is
never giving your muscle a sense of what its purpose is.
But that doesn't mean you're breaking it down.

Quoted message said:

So would it be better to alternate chest and back or do all chest then
all back?

I alternate exercises, but do two sets of an exercise before
going to the next one. E.g., today's workout:

Pull, back: Lat pulldown
Push, front shoulder: Pronating dumbbell shoulder press ("Arnolds"😉
Pull, rear shoulder: Incline dumbbell rows
Push, chest/shoulder: Standing incline cable flies
Pull, traps: Shrugs
Push, chest/back: Dips
Pull, arms: Curls
Push, arms: Pressdowns

Quoted message said:

Any and all thoughts and opinions are welcome!

--Blair
"Glad to oblige."