Sometimes you hear someone like Roach say "Manny does 5000 sit ups a day" or something like that. That goes against everything I've read about doing that many reps won't do much, but will it work if you do that many and simply vary the particular ab excerise?
How do you guys go about it?

:boxing:

all i know is, if i do 100 one arm pushups(100 each arm) , for the whole week my triceps will look ****in huge, and i mean abnormal, as in some steroids abusin lookin ****

My trainer always tells us to do 200 abs every night before we leave. We do whatever we want, situps, crunches, on an incline, not on one, with weights, anything we want just do 200.

Then every other day we do a medicine ball drill where my trainer stands on top a bunch while we lay on our backs and he drops the medicin ball on out stomachs. We do 5 sets of 20 with that, and then he gets a heavier ball and we do 5 sets of 10.

All I know, is what we are doing works lol. I feel I have a nice six pack and body shots usually don't faze me none.

all i know is, if i do 100 one arm pushups(100 each arm) , for the whole week my triceps will look ****in huge, and i mean abnormal, as in some steroids abusin lookin ****

Video or it didn't happen. I'll give you 100,000 points if you shoot a video of you doing 100 1-armed pushups with each arm.

I can do 5 with my right and 4 with my left. And I'm fvcking strong.

Higher reps for muscle density. In layman's terms how hard the muscle feels.

Lower reps plus increased resistance for increased muscle size.

Boxers tend to do higher reps for abdominal exercises as it will more than likely harden the stomache muscles and help them absorb body blows later into a fight.

Remember Manny wont do 5000 situps straight, he will do a variation of upper abdominal crunches, leg raises and oblique training so as to exercise all areas of the abdomen.

Sometimes you hear someone like Roach say "Manny does 5000 sit ups a day" or something like that. That goes against everything I've read about doing that many reps won't do much, but will it work if you do that many and simply vary the particular ab excerise?
How do you guys go about it?

:boxing:

doing less is just what lazy people say, or MMA fans since they think they have the science down.

In reality, hard work produces results.

Why do you think tradespeople have powerful forearms? they use there forearms every day for hours.

Hard work produces results.

Video or it didn't happen. I'll give you 100,000 points if you shoot a video of you doing 100 1-armed pushups with each arm.

I can do 5 with my right and 4 with my left. And I'm fvcking strong.

I can do 25 with my left, about 20 with my right..i will make a video if need be. not soft ones either, legitimate ones nearly touching the ground.

Thanks for the replies guys. I hate being told after I've done 300 crunches (varied excercises) that it's a waste of time to do so many.

Yeah I do 200 daily (varied exercises) and am seeing good results. Got a good 4 pack coming in. I personally think it has a lot to do with what works for you. I personally think that for me, 300 a day would be ideal. Others, maybe 5000 a day. Some people, 500 every other day. Do what works for you.

I do think doing 5000 of the same thing in a row or all at once would be totally useless though. That would just break down your muscle, nothing else.

doing less is just what lazy people say, or MMA fans since they think they have the science down.


And I suppose you have the science down?

You're very misinformed. Doing too much leads to over training and thus a lack of progression and even regression. It's common knowledge that doing more doesn't mean more benefit or results.

Like people doing hundreds of push-ups, pull ups and sit-ups every day with no resting days to give your body to recover?

When you train or workout you aren't getting stronger or bigger, you're breaking your body down.

This has nothing to do with MMA, so stop discreetly trying to take **** on something that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Also Rep ranges are overrated.

Higher reps for muscle density. In layman's terms how hard the muscle feels.

Lower reps plus increased resistance for increased muscle size.

Boxers tend to do higher reps for abdominal exercises as it will more than likely harden the stomache muscles and help them absorb body blows later into a fight.



This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.

This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.


Hallelujah. Someone who knows what the **** they are talking about.

i dont think manny is overworking his abs whne doing 5000 a day... " philipino makes the best sports enchancing drug. lol

This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.

:lol1: :lol1:

Work out like me......

Hallelujah. Someone who knows what the **** they are talking about.

You would not believe the load of bull**** I've seen on this site over the years. And it never gets better. There are like six guys on here -- maybe four, now -- who understand training science and modern exercise theory.

There was one thread on here where a guy was asking for advice because he was getting a cramp in his side when running. Some assmonkey told him, and I quote:

"Digging your fingers into the muscle will pop the bubbles and make it go away."

Just FYI, I have an NSCA-CPT and I'm a former bodybuilder. I used to box, briefly coached, and then quit coaching because the head coach knew f-ck all about physiology. He wouldn't let the kids drink water during a 90-minute workout because "water makes you weak and fat," and didn't want them to stretch because, and I quote, "Stretching makes your muscles flabby. You need to stay tight and hard, so those punches bounce off." These kids were getting muscle spasms and headaches from dehydration and he was telling them to work through it, to toughen up.

I **** you not.

When I pulled him aside and asked him WTF, he started yelling at me, saying things like, "You think you know everything 'cuz you've been to college and studied all that stuff."

Well, *******, it sure helps.

So I quit coaching and now I'm back to boxing. Well, I was back to boxing. I joined the Army Reserve last year and I'm shipping out in a couple of weeks.

Boxers are, as a group, the most willfully ignorant, clueless bunch of morons I've ever witnessed when it comes to nutrition and physiology, and especially about modern training concepts. At my first gym guys were arguing over water vs. Gatorade, and whether or not protein worked. (You'll still see posts on this board about "Does Protein Work?" "Is Creatine Good?" "Are Pushups Good for Boxing?")

I know fencers who know more about training than most boxers.

I do believe that a young boxer who takes advantage of modern exercise science -- who throws off the shackles of steak and potatoes and jump rope -- will dominate this sport and bring it back from the edge of extinction. I really do. I wish I'd found this sport twenty years ago.

Since I'm leaving, I leave you with this thought: As long as boxers and trainers want to pretend they're still living in the glory days of the past, the sport is going to remain there: in the past.

You would not believe the load of bull**** I've seen on this site over the years. And it never gets better. There are like six guys on here -- maybe four, now -- who understand training science and modern exercise theory.

There was one thread on here where a guy was asking for advice because he was getting a cramp in his side when running. Some assmonkey told him, and I quote:

"Digging your fingers into the muscle will pop the bubbles and make it go away."

Just FYI, I have an NSCA-CPT and I'm a former bodybuilder. I used to box, briefly coached, and then quit coaching because the head coach knew f-ck all about physiology. He wouldn't let the kids drink water during a 90-minute workout because "water makes you weak and fat," and didn't want them to stretch because, and I quote, "Stretching makes your muscles flabby. You need to stay tight and hard, so those punches bounce off." These kids were getting muscle spasms and headaches from dehydration and he was telling them to work through it, to toughen up.

I **** you not.

When I pulled him aside and asked him WTF, he started yelling at me, saying things like, "You think you know everything 'cuz you've been to college and studied all that stuff."

Well, *******, it sure helps.

So I quit coaching and now I'm back to boxing. Well, I was back to boxing. I joined the Army Reserve last year and I'm shipping out in a couple of weeks.

Boxers are, as a group, the most willfully ignorant, clueless bunch of morons I've ever witnessed when it comes to nutrition and physiology, and especially about modern training concepts. At my first gym guys were arguing over water vs. Gatorade, and whether or not protein worked. (You'll still see posts on this board about "Does Protein Work?" "Is Creatine Good?" "Are Pushups Good for Boxing?")

I know fencers who know more about training than most boxers.

I do believe that a young boxer who takes advantage of modern exercise science -- who throws off the shackles of steak and potatoes and jump rope -- will dominate this sport and bring it back from the edge of extinction. I really do. I wish I'd found this sport twenty years ago.

Since I'm leaving, I leave you with this thought: As long as boxers and trainers want to pretend they're still living in the glory days of the past, the sport is going to remain there: in the past.

My trainer has a sports science degree and knows what he is talking about when it comes to that sort of stuff. But there are lots of trainers who just don't know much at all.

the higher rep ranges tend to create a different muscle slow twitch but by practicing it over and over and over you rival the speeds of fast twitch fibers marathon runners will go for 26 miles averaging 12.5 mph now thats not the top speed for sprinters but its pretty fast and i guarantee those muscles are slow twitch fibers for them to do it for 2 hours +.

also with increased reps you get increased negatives and that can cause actual tears in the muscle not just scaring it and sometimes satalite cells come out and repair the 2 half fibers as 2 fibers thus increasing the size of the muscle with out decreasing the density. (Hyperplasia)

5000 sit ups a day is pretty good but if i were his trainer i would also put some extremes on him like a weighted 1 rep max then proceed with like 1000 then another weighted 1 rep max. though depending on how it effects the whole routine i might only add it in 2 or 3 times a week.

the higher rep ranges tend to create a different muscle slow twitch but by practicing it over and over and over you rival the speeds of fast twitch fibers marathon runners will go for 26 miles averaging 12.5 mph now thats not the top speed for sprinters but its pretty fast and i guarantee those muscles are slow twitch fibers for them to do it for 2 hours +.

12.5 mph? That's twenty-six consecutive 4:48 miles. That's the world record, and only a handful of people in the world can run like that. An excellent time for a marathon is 4 hours or under. The average marathon time on record last year was 4:32, consecutive 10:30 miles, or just under 6 miles an hour.

If you'd ever run one -- or even a half-marathon, which I ran last year -- you'd know that.

12.5 mph? That's twenty-six consecutive 4:48 miles. That's the world record, and only a handful of people in the world can run like that. An excellent time for a marathon is 4 hours or under. The average marathon time on record last year was 4:32, consecutive 10:30 miles, or just under 6 miles an hour.

If you'd ever run one -- or even a half-marathon, which I ran last year -- you'd know that.

I have ran a marathon 5 hours 13 min.

http://results.active.com/pages/oneResult.jsp?pID=71179087&rsID=85805

think theres more then handful of people in the world that can do 5000 sit ups a day?

the point isn't that theres so few people that can do it, its that doing that and beyond so many times will allow slow twitch muscles to work at speeds of fast twitch.

You would not believe the load of bull**** I've seen on this site over the years. And it never gets better. There are like six guys on here -- maybe four, now -- who understand training science and modern exercise theory.

There was one thread on here where a guy was asking for advice because he was getting a cramp in his side when running. Some assmonkey told him, and I quote:

"Digging your fingers into the muscle will pop the bubbles and make it go away."

Just FYI, I have an NSCA-CPT and I'm a former bodybuilder. I used to box, briefly coached, and then quit coaching because the head coach knew f-ck all about physiology. He wouldn't let the kids drink water during a 90-minute workout because "water makes you weak and fat," and didn't want them to stretch because, and I quote, "Stretching makes your muscles flabby. You need to stay tight and hard, so those punches bounce off." These kids were getting muscle spasms and headaches from dehydration and he was telling them to work through it, to toughen up.

I **** you not.

When I pulled him aside and asked him WTF, he started yelling at me, saying things like, "You think you know everything 'cuz you've been to college and studied all that stuff."

Well, *******, it sure helps.

So I quit coaching and now I'm back to boxing. Well, I was back to boxing. I joined the Army Reserve last year and I'm shipping out in a couple of weeks.

Boxers are, as a group, the most willfully ignorant, clueless bunch of morons I've ever witnessed when it comes to nutrition and physiology, and especially about modern training concepts. At my first gym guys were arguing over water vs. Gatorade, and whether or not protein worked. (You'll still see posts on this board about "Does Protein Work?" "Is Creatine Good?" "Are Pushups Good for Boxing?")

I know fencers who know more about training than most boxers.

I do believe that a young boxer who takes advantage of modern exercise science -- who throws off the shackles of steak and potatoes and jump rope -- will dominate this sport and bring it back from the edge of extinction. I really do. I wish I'd found this sport twenty years ago.

Since I'm leaving, I leave you with this thought: As long as boxers and trainers want to pretend they're still living in the glory days of the past, the sport is going to remain there: in the past.

Agreed 100%. Green K your way.

What's even more annoying is that people refuse to accept and embrace these proven new training concepts, even when the evidence is clear as ****ing day.

I would like to say it doesn't bother me because I know it works and I'll take full advantage of it, but at the same time it pisses me off because people here spread around falsehoods like they are facts, and in the process end up ****ing with peoples well being and their own, which I don't like to see happen.

This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.

If I want to be cut up and lean muscles should I go on a stright protein and fiber diet? I don't want to get a buff and huge like a body builder. But, I would like to be cut up... And, somebody told me the best way to get like that is too like very little carbs and just a lot of protein and fiber. But, he is not expert... So I don't know if that is true... but it seems like you know what you are talking about... so maybe you can help me out...

If I want to be cut up and lean muscles should I go on a stright protein and fiber diet? I don't want to get a buff and huge like a body builder. But, I would like to be cut up... And, somebody told me the best way to get like that is too like very little carbs and just a lot of protein and fiber. But, he is not expert... So I don't know if that is true... but it seems like you know what you are talking about... so maybe you can help me out...

if you just want to be skinny diet, or diet and do light exercise.

if your actually trying to maintain some strength and work out routinely i would first take my lean mass lets say im 150 and im 10% bf so thats 135 lb thats not fat, on average each lb of non fat needs about 19 calories so 135 * 19 = about 2500 calories a day.

so about 1 gram of protein for every lb of bodyweight so 150 g of protein which is 600 calories. this leaves 1900 calories a day id say about 70-80% of this should be carbs and the rest fats.

as well i would recommend training 4-5 times a week for about an hour each time if not more.

or at least thats what i would do if tasty cakes, cookies, and ice cream didn't taste so damn good.

as well just because some one can claim that some one else is wrong dosnt mean that they know whats right.

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

i dont know its a good starting point its just almost all the people with them take what they learned and read as the word, if they would actually take some of the stuff they assume to be correct and research it, try it out, and compare it to other similar activities with different variables they would have a much greater understanding on the aspect, what variables can be changed, and what results those variables provide.

you know instead of assuming that no matter how you exercise a muscle you should always do it to failure and your always going to get the same results.....when rep size rep weight set number speed of exercise stretching and between set break time are all factors in the result of an exercise.

Agreed.

i dont know its a good starting point its just almost all the people with them take what they learned and read as the word, if they would actually take some of the stuff they assume to be correct and research it, try it out, and compare it to other similar activities with different variables they would have a much greater understanding on the aspect, what variables can be changed, and what results those variables provide.

you know instead of assuming that no matter how you exercise a muscle you should always do it to failure and your always going to get the same results.....when rep size rep weight set number speed of exercise stretching and between set break time are all factors in the result of an exercise.
----------------------------

I did no training except push ups and crunches doing about 2000 a day when i had an ankle injury.. and my abs definitely got a lot bigger..

In response to Fraidycat's earlier post:



I said:

'Higher reps for muscle density. In layman's terms how hard the muscle feels.

Lower reps plus increased resistance for increased muscle size.

Boxers tend to do higher reps for abdominal exercises as it will more than likely harden the stomach muscles and help them absorb body blows later into a fight.'


Fraidycat's response

'This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.


My answer:

Amusing comment, it raised a smile!!





Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.


My answer:

I am an experienced trainer not much younger than yourself with a pretty fair physique that reflects what I have found to work through two decades of training, not withstanding all the books, magazines and articles I have read! Training methods have everything to do with muscle gain. It forms the basis of difference between a sprinter's physique and a marathon runner's.



High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.


My answer:

You are correct here, but you have not expanded your point sufficiently. A person who does for example 50 abdominal reps with resistance to failure will over time develop a different shaped set of abdominals to one who reaches failure without resistance at 300 reps. Its why bodybuilders tend to benchpress higher weights with lower reps to failure rather than do for example 100 pressups to failure. Its because while both exercises cause 'microscopic tears in the muscle' no bodybuilder will achieve the greatly increased muscle size due to the higher repetitions of the press up. But thats not to say that the person who does the press ups wont have terrifically hard pectoral muscles, perhaps harder and denser than the bodybuilder's. Its Bruce Lee vs Arnie for want of a slightly daft example.


There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.


My answer:

Yes there is! Muscle mass and muscle density are two different things, as are fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibres. The muscles of differently trained athletes do very in density! for example Manny Pacqiou's muscles would feel harder than those of the participants for 'The Worlds Strongest Man' irrespective of body fat. You are correct about water and glycogen in the muscle, but it is the population of the muscle protein fibres themselves too that add to the density of the muscle.

I agree with what you say about about a boxer carb-loading for energy storage but 'Mass hence leverage'. Are you sure you know what mass and leverage are? The George Foreman that came back in the late 80s had greater muscle mass (the size of the muscle) but far less leverage in his punches due to that mass.

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.

Then I guess medical degrees aren't worth **** either... that field of study changes constantly.

My trainer always tells us to do 200 abs every night before we leave. We do whatever we want, situps, crunches, on an incline, not on one, with weights, anything we want just do 200.

Then every other day we do a medicine ball drill where my trainer stands on top a bunch while we lay on our backs and he drops the medicin ball on out stomachs. We do 5 sets of 20 with that, and then he gets a heavier ball and we do 5 sets of 10.

All I know, is what we are doing works lol. I feel I have a nice six pack and body shots usually don't faze me none.

ray taught me that when i was younger too. he knows his ****

And I'd agree with this sort of abdominal training Skilledb.

Any boxer knows that in absorbing body blows you do need to tense your muscles to help absorb the blow. Somebody that has not done any endurance type of abdominal exercise certainly will feel the effects of body blows later into a fight.

There is a reason why boxers are trained to do high reps of abdominal exercises. For many it is an aerobic cardio exercise. You are being trained to tense abdominal muscles for when you are in a boxing match and possibly tired and short of breath.

A low rep to failure, high resistance body builder type of training is not ideal abdominal training for a boxer.

This is absolute bull****. It's a common training myth and has absolutely no basis in reality. None.

None.

I swear to Christ, asking for physiology advice on this board is like going onto a quilting forum and asking how to win a knife fight.

Training methods have nothing to do with muscle gain. Train to failure -- either high reps low weight, or low reps high weight, doesn't matter -- and eat. Period.

High-intensity training causes microscopic tears in the muscle, it doesn't matter how it happens. When those tears heal, they heal thicker with proper nutrition. Eventually you gain muscle size. If you don't eat enough, you will lose muscle tissue through the catabolic process.

That's all there is to it.

There is no "thickening" or "hardening" of the muscles from one type of exercise versus another. The apparent density of a muscle (in a living person) is a product of water and glycogen present in the muscle tissue. It's why bodybuilders carb-load before a show and why creatine makes you look pumped. (And why any boxer whose head isn't up his ass should carb-load, as well; you want your muscles to have peak energy storage and mass -- hence leverage -- before a fight.) But I digress. Again.

can i have sex with u?? smart people turn me on

Nutrition degrees aren't worth ****. Science changes it's views on nutrition all the time.
Then I guess medical degrees aren't worth **** either... that field of study changes constantly.

That's different. Medicine advances, so called nutrition experts just flip flop between one theory and another. Some blame the current obesity epidemic on the nutritional science/teaching of the 80's & 90's.

yes i would consider medical degrees to be worth **** as well. all a medical degree means is that you got another 15 years before you become a doctor.

15 years of experience and learning.

That's different. Medicine advances, so called nutrition experts just flip flop between one theory and another. Some blame the current obesity epidemic on the nutritional science/teaching of the 80's & 90's.

You and I both know that obesity is a matter of laziness, not ignorant teaching.

That's different. Medicine advances, so called nutrition experts just flip flop between one theory and another. Some blame the current obesity epidemic on the nutritional science/teaching of the 80's & 90's.

Obesity is because of the proliferation of McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell, Burger King, and all the other garbage fast foods out there. That and because today's generations are complacent and lazy (this is coming from a 17 year old). Not because of nutritional science or teachings.

I dont know what to think for abs.

Personally i do 5 sets of 15 with weights on incline crunches. I figure abs are the same thing as any other muscle and if i wanted my arms to get stronger i wouldnt do 200 curls of 5 pounds, so why would i do that with abs. But i could be wrong its just my opinion with it and its somewhat worked so far

You would not believe the load of bull**** I've seen on this site over the years. And it never gets better. There are like six guys on here -- maybe four, now -- who understand training science and modern exercise theory.

There was one thread on here where a guy was asking for advice because he was getting a cramp in his side when running. Some assmonkey told him, and I quote:

"Digging your fingers into the muscle will pop the bubbles and make it go away."

Just FYI, I have an NSCA-CPT and I'm a former bodybuilder. I used to box, briefly coached, and then quit coaching because the head coach knew f-ck all about physiology. He wouldn't let the kids drink water during a 90-minute workout because "water makes you weak and fat," and didn't want them to stretch because, and I quote, "Stretching makes your muscles flabby. You need to stay tight and hard, so those punches bounce off." These kids were getting muscle spasms and headaches from dehydration and he was telling them to work through it, to toughen up.

I **** you not.

When I pulled him aside and asked him WTF, he started yelling at me, saying things like, "You think you know everything 'cuz you've been to college and studied all that stuff."

Well, *******, it sure helps.

So I quit coaching and now I'm back to boxing. Well, I was back to boxing. I joined the Army Reserve last year and I'm shipping out in a couple of weeks.

Boxers are, as a group, the most willfully ignorant, clueless bunch of morons I've ever witnessed when it comes to nutrition and physiology, and especially about modern training concepts. At my first gym guys were arguing over water vs. Gatorade, and whether or not protein worked. (You'll still see posts on this board about "Does Protein Work?" "Is Creatine Good?" "Are Pushups Good for Boxing?")

I know fencers who know more about training than most boxers.

I do believe that a young boxer who takes advantage of modern exercise science -- who throws off the shackles of steak and potatoes and jump rope -- will dominate this sport and bring it back from the edge of extinction. I really do. I wish I'd found this sport twenty years ago.

Since I'm leaving, I leave you with this thought: As long as boxers and trainers want to pretend they're still living in the glory days of the past, the sport is going to remain there: in the past.

Amen man, you have no idea how many people i have had to fight off just by suggesting supplements and that weight lifting helps in boxing. I dont understand the ignorance of some of the people

I dont know what to think for abs.

Personally i do 5 sets of 15 with weights on incline crunches. I figure abs are the same thing as any other muscle and if i wanted my arms to get stronger i wouldnt do 200 curls of 5 pounds, so why would i do that with abs. But i could be wrong its just my opinion with it and its somewhat worked so far

though if you did your 200 curls in like 5 sets of 40 at 20-40% your 1 rep max then finshed them up with like 3 1 rep max curls you would be building speed, endurance, strength, and explosive strength instead of just strength.

granted you wont gain strength as quickly but the increases in endurance and speed with out increases in size make up for it.

That many reps won't give any mass, just endurance

though if you did your 200 curls in like 5 sets of 40 at 20-40% your 1 rep max then finshed them up with like 3 1 rep max curls you would be building speed, endurance, strength, and explosive strength instead of just strength.

granted you wont gain strength as quickly but the increases in endurance and speed with out increases in size make up for it.

not really, 1 rep maxes dont do very much in building muscle or explosiveness.

not really, 1 rep maxes dont do very much in building muscle or explosiveness.

did you see the part about with out increases in size? i'm not one for building muscle at least not bulky muscle not quite sure why people would opt for size instead of density for increasing their abilities. as well 1 rep maxes do help with explosiveness even if your going at the pace of a snail though a pace where your giving it your all would be better.

if you want to do more for explosiveness maybe try a set of 5 reps at 70-80% 1rm after the 5 sets of 40 at 40% 1rm though the 3 sets of 1 rep max would do much more for building peak explosive strength. also the set of 5 reps will build more muscle and it tends to be the bulky kind when its all your doing though im not sure how the muscle would grow if you had done 200 reps right before hand.

but if your not doing the long reps with lighter weights your just going to be big strong slow and explosive for about 5 seconds every 30 seconds......now what kind of athlete does that sound like? (football player)