Benching 55 lbs:How strong am I?

Don't waste ur time w/ the bench press. Concentrate on the 45 degree
leg press. U ultimately deliver more weight to ur nervous system and
gain more. There just isn't enuff muscle/nerve tissue to stimulate as
compared to ur lower body (65% of the human body's muscle mass is below
the waist (glutes,quads, hams, gastroc/soleus). Muscle growth is NOT
localized is systemic.

If your personal trainer made you do your max weights on your first visit,
get a new one. The first visit to the gym should be with a bare bar (no
weights) concentrating on form not max weights. Without good form, you will
very soon injure yourself.

"Unruh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let me describe myself. I`m 35. I am 5`6 and weight about 140 lbs
I went to the gym today for the first time. My bench was the bar + 5 lb
weights on each side for 8 reps. My arms started shaking on the last
one. My dumbell curls were 10 lbs for 16 reps. I was straining on the
last one.
I think I did pretty well, but the personal trainer said I was below
what most people did on their first day. Is she right?

Don't take mine or some loser who does coward insults thru the
internet. Ask Pete Sisco, he' put more muscle on more people than
anyone on Google. EMG (eletrical muscle activity guage) bears out the
FACT that the overall anabolic effect of squats/leg presses is MUCH
higher ANY upper body exercise. IWO, u gain more overall strength by
NOT directly working ur "pecs" or "lats" than directly working them
thru inferior exercises. Univ of Southern Mississippi recently proved
this along w/ the indisputetable fact that for size/strength purposes
full range reps are unnecessary. Flame on!!! Or Bring it on??? I
gotta go do a few site injects....

"Unruh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Let me describe myself. I`m 35. I am 5`6 and weight about 140 lbs
I went to the gym today for the first time. My bench was the bar + 5 lb
weights on each side for 8 reps. My arms started shaking on the last
one. My dumbell curls were 10 lbs for 16 reps. I was straining on the
last one.
I think I did pretty well, but the personal trainer said I was below
what most people did on their first day. Is she right?

Don't be too concerned with the amount (lack) of weight you are lifting.
It's only day one, and it will take time for your muscles to get used to the
new workload. If you are struggling to do 8 reps then the weight is probably
too heavy. Concentrate on learning correct form to begin with using light
weights, and SLOWLY increase the weight as your muscles adapt. Your PT
doesn't sound like a very good motivator to me.

PROOF >
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/strengthtraining/a/partial_lifts.htm

MORE....proof > http://sportsmedicine.about.com/index.htm

Quoted post said:

Don't take mine or some loser who does coward insults thru the
internet. Ask Pete Sisco, he' put more muscle on more people than
anyone on Google. EMG (eletrical muscle activity guage)

Electromyograph, dumbass.

Quoted message said:

bears out the
FACT that the overall anabolic effect of squats/leg presses is MUCH
higher ANY upper body exercise. IWO, u gain more overall strength by
NOT directly working ur "pecs" or "lats" than directly working them
thru inferior exercises. Univ of Southern Mississippi recently proved
this along w/ the indisputetable fact that for size/strength purposes
full range reps are unnecessary. Flame on!!! Or Bring it on???

Bring on the citation of the published article, dumbass.

Quoted message said:

I gotta go do a few site injects....

Maybe you should try trepanation.

Yet more...>
http://exercise.about.com/od/exerciseworkouts/ss/bestbuttexercis.htm?terms=EMG%2C+squats

I love proving fools wrong....Monroe County huh?? What a laugh.

Brought ^

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=sportsmedicine&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3Dpubmed%26amp%3Bdopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D15903383%26amp%3Bquery_hl%3D10

http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=sportsmedicine&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3Dpubmed%26amp%3Bdopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D15320644%26amp%3Bquery_hl%3D7

Lemme guess, u called some "monroe county" community college freshman
biology dept and they've recently disproved the Univ. of Southern
Miss....right??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"These findings appear to suggest that partial range of motion training
can positively influence the development of maximal strength"

Kinda hard to dispute that boy!!!.

Quoted post said:

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=sportsmedicine&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3Dpubmed%26amp%3Bdopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D15903383%26amp%3Bquery_hl%3D10

Dumbass. Did you even read that abstract?

"[A] statistically significant difference was found between the full
range-of-motion group and the partial and mixed groups (p < 0.5). This
finding suggests that lifting through a full range of motion was
superior to the other training regimens used in this study." Massey
CD, Vincent J, Maneval M, Johnson JT. Influence of range of motion in
resistance training in women: early phase adaptations. J Strength Cond
Res. 2005 May;19(2):409-11.

Pete said:

<[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Didn't you just compliment me on being positive? Did you feel like
>>> you
>>> were being attacked by Pete? Because I didn't get a sense of that at
>>> all. Still, I know what it's like to see someone for the [censored] they
>>> are and not waivering from that opinion. In Pete's case, I think you
>>> may have formed the wrong opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> no, Pete didn't insult me personally. He made a prejudice judgement,
>> that the OP was a girl.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> At that height weighing 140 pounds, do you think that my assumption was
> a huge stretch of the imagenation?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah. But then that's roughly my height and weight too, so maybe i'm
biased.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seriously, 140 lbs is a normal weight for a healthy but untrained person
who's 5' 6", male or female, so you can't infer anything from that, and
that height may be in the bottom 10% for men (sigh), but it's still not
freakish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, i think the giveaway was that someone came to a weightlifting
newsgroup and expressed worry that they weren't strong enough. That's two
standout markers of maleness right there 🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tom

Quoted message said:

absolutely.
a guy can usually tell if he's talking to a guy.

Unless, ofcourse, you are short AND skinny.

Quoted message said:

But even if that sense
is missing, it's still wrong, for more-or-less the other reason you
mention.

If i were you i wouldnt make such a big deal outta everything, okay, Bro?

what immoral fool calls somebody "Bro" when responding to him, whilst
posting in the same public forum (so i'd probably read it) that that
somebody is a very angry midget.
Gladly, I'm not your "Bro", and i'm sure you're glad too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At least Pete might have understood you. I don't think I got through
to him.

Now, what makes you think thaaaat?????

Maybe you have to simplify it a little.

your sarcasm isn't clever. As you know, it's already simplified. You
understand the sentences.

I cannot and will not attempt to reason past "the hole" or "brick" in
your head. It will not work.

<[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

boring

Compared to you, asnything looks boring, no surprise here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There has to be a good logical
reason. I can't see any.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure you can, ypu just dont want to.
Why was it you didnt like high pitched voices?

Quoted message said:

stupid question

And why is that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Red hairs aren't any more threatening or
dangerous to me than other coloured hairs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they are a burden on society.
You CANNOT deny that...

Quoted message said:

dumb. very dumb.

Actually, it is nonsense, plain and simple.

Quoted message said:

why don't you go back to primary school and play the "can you prove
that yellow ants don't live on a planet 50 billion miles away?" game.

We do not play that game around here...

Quoted message said:

By the way, that question is actually less stupid than the one you
asked there

But that is because you are you so smart.
I feel so emberrassed talking to you.

Quoted message said:

Some of your humour was good initially.

Thank you.

Quoted message said:

You should've quit while you
were ahead.

Yeah... as in you are ahead right now, right.

Quoted message said:

<snip horrendously boring drivel>

You are still short, BTW.

----
Pete

[email hidden] wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

somebody is a very angry midget.

[...]

That'd be Will Brink.

Who's on first?

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

<[email hidden]> schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> Didn't you just compliment me on being positive? Did you feel like
> >>> you
> >>> were being attacked by Pete? Because I didn't get a sense of that
> >>> at
> >>> all. Still, I know what it's like to see someone for the [censored]
> >>> they
> >>> are and not waivering from that opinion. In Pete's case, I think
> >>> you
> >>> may have formed the wrong opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> no, Pete didn't insult me personally. He made a prejudice
> >> judgement,
> >> that the OP was a girl.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > At that height weighing 140 pounds, do you think that my assumption
> > was
> > a huge stretch of the imagenation?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Yeah. But then that's roughly my height and weight too, so maybe i'm
> biased.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Seriously, 140 lbs is a normal weight for a healthy but untrained
> person
> who's 5' 6", male or female, so you can't infer anything from that,
> and
> that height may be in the bottom 10% for men (sigh), but it's still
> not
> freakish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In fact, i think the giveaway was that someone came to a weightlifting
> newsgroup and expressed worry that they weren't strong enough. That's
> two
> standout markers of maleness right there 🙂.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

absolutely.
a guy can usually tell if he's talking to a guy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless, ofcourse, you are short AND skinny.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But even if that sense
is missing, it's still wrong, for more-or-less the other reason you
mention.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If i were you i wouldnt make such a big deal outta everything, okay, Bro?

Quoted message said:

what immoral fool calls somebody "Bro" when responding to him, whilst
posting in the same public forum (so i'd probably read it) that that

You missed it again...
What a surprise.

Quoted message said:

somebody is a very angry midget.
Gladly, I'm not your "Bro", and i'm sure you're glad too.

Okay.
But you are still a midget.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At least Pete might have understood you. I don't think I got through
to him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, what makes you think thaaaat?????

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe you have to simplify it a little.

Quoted message said:

your sarcasm isn't clever. As you know, it's already simplified.

That is because it was written by you.

Quoted message said:

You
understand the sentences.

No.
If you insist on testing my comprehension of the English language, go
ahead... Bro.

Quoted message said:

I cannot and will not attempt to reason past "the hole" or "brick" in
your head. It will not work.

At least my cerebral development is parallel to rest of my body.

But hey, that seems to be the case in your "situation" as well.

----
Pete

[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

what immoral fool calls somebody "Bro" when responding to him, whilst
posting in the same public forum (so i'd probably read it) that that
somebody is a very angry midget.

Weeeell, I'm sure I called my younger (by eight years) brother both
"Bro" and something at least equivalent to very angry midget (though
he's 6'2" and 210, the [censored]) when we roomed together that ONE
semester of college. He was just graduating from h.s. and I was just
discharged from the Navy.

We got into a pitched battle over cutting classes, the fight ending
with MY face being pressed into the floor by my "little Bro" as I
squeaked out the words, "Do you give up?"

....

Hmm, I mighta said "Bro, do you give up, you very angry midget?" Not
sure. That was long ago. Regardless, I believe the levity caught him
off guard just enough for him to loosen his grip thus allowing me to
escape with my life.

Quoted message said:

Gladly, I'm not your "Bro"

Oh, you WISH you had a brother like me!

The moral of this story can be found in a movie classic: "Lighten up,
Francis."

And, as long as you're posting here again, let's start those pushups
and crunches, okay? :o)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/