bulky

[JP44]

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Exactly. Visible muscle does not equal "bulk".

As has been noted numerous times upthread, different people have different "bulk" thresholds. People are entitled to their own preferences of what they like. What you call visible muscle, someone else may think is too bulky. One person can't decide for everyone, what bulky means.

Moreover, someone who doesn't like what she considers bulky doesn't dislike or disapprove of muscles! Look, a guy that's wiry looking can be very strong but he doesn't have protruding muscles. Have you ever seen female Chinese acrobats? They are unbelievably strong, but they don't have protruding delts or biceps.

Not everyone wants the same look, BUT that doesn't mean they don't like having muscle tone or being strong.

Another easy example: Not every woman wants 6 pack abs. Some women think it's awesome. Others think it's not attractive, but they do like flat abs. The second woman doesn't hate muscles, think they are useless, manly or undesirable. She just likes a different look.

Joan

[lfcjasp]

Originally Posted by CarlaVeg

This thread made me wonder.... do you gals think Cathe, Jillian Michaels, & Kelly Coffey Meyer are bulky?

I don't! They all (even Jillian whom I don't care for) look very good to me.

Originally Posted by frostyjan

I think the word "bulky" should be used to describe a piece of luggage, not a woman. It means something different to everyone and therefore not at all useful in describing someone's appearance.

JMHO

Excellent idea, Jan.

I do, however, may call my own appearance kind of bulky, but not because of muscles...I'm just carrying way too much fat.

Well, all this talk (thank you, Kickdancer, for your posts) has me thinking I'm on the right track with my preference for high rep/low weight workouts and barre...

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by JP44

As has been noted numerous times upthread, different people have different "bulk" thresholds. People are entitled to their own preferences of what they like. What you call visible muscle, someone else may think is too bulky. One person can't decide for everyone, what bulky means.

Moreover, someone who doesn't like what she considers bulky doesn't dislike or disapprove of muscles! Look, a guy that's wiry looking can be very strong but he doesn't have protruding muscles. Have you ever seen female Chinese acrobats? They are unbelievably strong, but they don't have protruding delts or biceps.

Not everyone wants the same look, BUT that doesn't mean they don't like having muscle tone or being strong.

Another easy example: Not every woman wants 6 pack abs. Some women think it's awesome. Others think it's not attractive, but they do like flat abs. The second woman doesn't hate muscles, think they are useless, manly or undesirable. She just likes a different look.

Yes, you're right of course. This is what I get for popping in and out of a thread.

[KickDancer]

Originally Posted by JP44

Tonique for sure. IIRC, in the first one, it's around 500 squats & 500 lunges.

Re: the others, I think they get to 100 (cumulatively) in a single workout. Some of it is w/ combo moves (eg. squat to lunge, squats + side kick, squat + side leg lift, squat + jump, etc.) In Tone it Up, I think I added up the lunges & there were about 120-130.

Barre--I would think yes for the advanced workouts. Again, it's not 100 plies in a row, but you do 25-40 (some large moves, some smaller), then a variation, then another variation. The largest muscles would still be hit over & over again. I generally don't count during barre as I'm too busy crying, but the 'bonus" on the P57 Express Vol 1 is about 40-50 curtsey lunges + 30-40 tip toe squats. (those are per leg, BTW) That bonus takes 4-5 min. so yeah, I think during the course of the workout, you definitely hit the 100 number.

Jari Love would come close too to 100 as well, especially when you add in her pulses. Doesn't she show the rep count in Slim & Lean Get Ripped?

I can't vouch for the UB work in any of them though, but it does explain the controlled overtraining concept in action. You're breaking down fast twitch fibers, and building slow twitch instead. (aka converting fast twitch to slow). Fast twitch muscle grows faster, breaks down faster, retains more water during growth.

Hmm, some of Cathe's would even fall in the 100 + category. But she doesn't go at cardio speed because she uses heavier weights. I wonder how that effects muscle.

Joan

I don't know what the necessary time frame is for accumulating all those reps, so it's not clear to me if these workouts necessarily produce the effects described above. Letting those muscles rest for even a short time might stop some of those processes from happening. Maybe someone who knows more about the biochemical processes and their timing can help elaborate here.

Of course, doing 100 kb swings all in a row would probably qualify.

Originally Posted by lfcjasp

Well, all this talk (thank you, Kickdancer, for your posts) has me thinking I'm on the right track with my preference for high rep/low weight workouts and barre...

I was actually using those posts to advocate for more strength training in the lower-rep, higher-weight range! (In addition to endurance training, though.) I often wonder if people who are unhappy with the amount of muscle size they've developed from heavier strength training might be happier if they *increased* their weights and decreased the rep range a bit further-- maybe to under 6 reps. For some exercises, increasing the weight loads to accommodate that range may be difficult to do safely at home, but in other cases, it may actually be doable.

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by KickDancer

I was actually using those posts to advocate for more strength training in the lower-rep, higher-weight range! (In addition to endurance training, though.) I often wonder if people who are unhappy with the amount of muscle size they've developed from heavier strength training might be happier if they *increased* their weights and decreased the rep range a bit further-- maybe to under 6 reps. For some exercises, increasing the weight loads to accommodate that range may be difficult to do safely at home, but in other cases, it may actually be doable.

That's what I do in my gym lifting - as heavy as I can within the rep and set range and never more than 6 reps (which is my "unloading" week).

My DVD workouts are more endurance-based with medium weights.

[KickDancer]

Originally Posted by RedPanda

That's what I do in my gym lifting - as heavy as I can within the rep and set range and never more than 6 reps (which is my "unloading" week).

My DVD workouts are more endurance-based with medium weights.

Interesting! What led you to a max of 6?

[RedPanda]

Originally Posted by KickDancer

Interesting! What led you to a max of 6?

Six reps feels "about right" to me. I've never done any more unless I'm trying to increase my upper body endurance for a specific reason, for example, back in my rock-climbing days. My current lifting program was suggested by a strength coach on another forum. There's some talk about it here.

http://forum.videofitness.com/showth...t=block&page=5

I've been training this way for 22 months, but recently I've been thinking I may go for more hypertrophy in my upper body by lowering the weights and increasing the reps.